HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone.A41-98MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Oblson, Deputy Directo
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Code Amendments — Lodge Preservation Program
2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1999
VI�G
Growth Management Quota System — Section 26.470
Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District — Section 26.710.320
Lodge Definition — Section 26.104.100
Short -Term Definition — Section 26.104.100
Parking Regulations — Section 26.515.030
DATE: October 12, 1999 S '
SUMMARY:
Staff has held several work sessions concerning revisions to the expired LP Program v �
with lodge owners and City officials. The process concentrated on the way in which
the Program could be continued and how the "preservation" of small lodges could be
accomplished through incentives.
It is important to the character of this town to maintain the small lodging
experience. Many repeat visitors advocate the uniqueness of these lodges
dispersed throughout our neighborhoods. In fact, many local residents also
advocate the character of these small lodges as differentiating Aspen from other
more ubiquitous resorts. Changes in the lodging market and the financial
attractiveness of converting small lodges to other uses (e.g. single - family homes)
have challenged this rich character and defining element of Aspen. This
Ordinance will create a series of incentives for these small lodges to stay in the
lodging business, expand, and adapt to the current market.
This Ordinance has broad support from lodge owners who have attended work
sessions and the public hearing process. The Planning and Zoning Commission
considered this Ordinance and unanimously recommended approval.
A series of questions were posed to staff during first reading. Responses to those
question are addressed under the heading "First Reading Questions." The heading
"Main Issues" contains a brief synopsis of the proposed Program and its elements.
Staff recommends City Council adopt Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1999.
FIRST READING QUESTIONS:
Housing Mitigation Credit:
A question about a developer's ability to purchase a lodge, convert it to affordable
housing, and apply the credit towards mitigating another or future development was
asked during first reading. There is nothing in the Land Use Code preventing this
activity. An affordable residence can be created (or converted) as an exemption from
b lGMQS and off -site housing can be accepted as mitigating the effects of additional
development. The two activities are exclusive and do not represent a double
exemption. In fact, it is common for a developer to mitigate the effects of a
commercial development off -site by "buying- down" a free - market residence and
placing a restriction on the deed acceptable to the Housing Authority. At the request
of City Council, staff will work with the Housing Authority to clarify or amend this
policy.
What is unclear is whether or not a developer can create affordable housing and then 1 ,1
O"bank" the growth mitigation towards a future, unspecified project. There are
individual examples of this request with differing outcomes, but no stated policy in
the Housing Guidelines. In fact, there may actually be a market for creating
affordable housing mitigation units and then selling them to subsequent developers. lJ
Again, at the request of City Council staff will work with the Housing Authority to
address this policy at the direction of Council.
LP Lodge Growth Rate:
The proposed LP Program creates a separate GMQS category, or "bucket," for LP
Lodges. This was a primary element of the original Program and identified as an
important element for the new Program by lodge owners during the work sessions.
This allows smaller, less- affluent lodges to seek development approvals without
having to compete against larger, more - affluent corporate projects.
The original three -year Program was initiated with an eleven unit per year growth
quota. As the units were not in high demand, the accumulation resulted in a 27 unit
quota at the conclusion of the three years. Staff is recommending the available
allotment, or base allotment, be re- initiated at this same number — 27 units.
In the 1990's, Aspen has experienced a loss of approximately 317 lodge units. A
additional 97 lodge units were lost within the metro area in the 1990's. Also, the 150
CR rooms at the Grand Aspen are no longer in the lodge pool and are slated for
t demolition. A loss of more than 400 lodge rooms with an additional 150 not being
%w-- used is an important consideration to Aspen's economy and long -term economics.
On the other hand, replacing these lodge units should be tempered to not overwhelm
the community with growth (and construction) impacts. A 20 -year recovery period
for these lost units would result in approximately 20 units per year. This "growth"
would bring the lodging uses in town back to the pre -1990 level. Initiating an annual
Mt allotment of 11 units is certainly within this range and is equal to the number of non-
LP Lodge units allowed each year. Staff is recommending this yearly allotment be re-
/' established as 11 unit per year, consistent with the previous Program.
2
"Lodge "Definition:
A concern about the proposed definition of "Lodge" was raised during first reading.
Staff has re- worked this definition to accommodate the original concerns of long -term
de -facto residential use and the "master lease" concerns of several lodge owners.
The purpose of the Lodge Preservation Program is to extend incentives and flexibility
for small lodges to remain in the lodging business. Allowances making it easier to
remodel or even completely replace a lodge are provided with this Ordinance. The
purpose of the program, however, is not to encourage the demolition and replacement
of lodges with de -facto free - market residences under the auspices of a "lodge." In
other words, the Fireside Townhomes are not lodge units and would not be part of the
lodging base if there existed a front desk and a no- vacancy sign.
Staff has concentrated on the primary characteristics of a lodge (as compared to a
residence) with emphasis on the manner in which many of these small lodges operate.
The most basic characteristic of a lodge is that it houses individuals on a short-term
basis. People stay in a lodge on a temporary basis; it is not their home. This may
sound like an entirely trivial point, but the current definition seems to allow year -
round occupancy. Staff has amended the "lodge" definition by removing the long-
term occupancy provision.
With the following two proposed definitions, staff hopes to satisfy the operational
concerns of the small lodge owners while preserving an important characteristic of
lodges — short-term occupancy:
Lodge. Same as hotel, except that lodges in the Lodge Preservation Zone District
must be available for overnight lodging by the general public on a short-term 1
basis for at least six months of each calendar year, and may have kitchens within
individual lodge rooms. z
Short -Term. The occupancy of a Hotel or Lodge unit for a rental time period not
exceeding one (1) month in duration.
For reference:
t
Hotel. A building containing three (3) or more individual rooms, withou
kitchens, used for overnight lodging by the general public on a short-term basis
for a fee, with or without meals, and which has common reservation and cleaning
services, combined utilities, and on -site management and reception services. O
Development Fees:
A lodge owner looking to expand his lodge through this Program has raised a
J question regarding impacts fees assessed through the development process. Attached
as Exhibit C is a letter from Michael Behrendt. Mr. Behrendt is suggesting a clause
be added to the Ordinance to allow City Council the ability to waive impacts fees
associated with Lodge Preservation as a means of further encouraging this type of
development. A summary of the impact fees associated with his re- development of
the St. Moritz Lodge is also included for your reference.
In order to further community goals, development fees associated with affordable
housing are automatically waived. This includes portions of a project if it is not
entirely affordable housing. This same financial encouragement could be extended to
LP Lodge development. If this is a desired policy of Council, staff recommends a
"whereas" clause be added to the Ordinance. This clause could be all inclusive — as
suggested — or could be specific to certain fees, such as Planning and/or Parks. A
follow -up written policy for use by staff would further clarify the wishes of Council.
MAIN ISSUES:
Structure of LP Program:
The three main aspects that make up the revised LP Program are: 1) the LP Overlay;
2) the revised PUD regulations; and, 3) the LP Program in GMQS. Staff has used
these three tools to construct the Program and appropriate the desires of the
Commission and Council into code sections.
LP Overlay: Each LP lodge has an underlying zoning consistent with its
neighborhood. For example, St. Moritz is zoned R -6. The LP Overlay legalizes the
lodge use, allows the property to apply for expansion through the LP GMQS section,
and allows the zoning dimensions to be established through the Minor PUD process.
PUD Regulations: The flexibility of the PUD provisions are extended to LP
properties through the LP Overlay and the recently adopted PUD regulations. PUD
allows a property owner to establish all dimensional requirements for their property
through adoption of an Ordinance by City Council. Height, setbacks, FAR, and
parking are examples of zoning dimensions a lodge owner could vary through this
process.
LP in GMQS: The LP Program amendments will create an exemption process for LP
Lodges wanting to add rooms, affordable housing units, or accessory commercial
space. Commercial square footage would then be deducted from the City -wide pool
for the respective growth year. To obtain additional lodge units, LP Lodges would
have a growth management "bucket' separate from non -LP development of tourist
accommodations. And, LP Lodges can maintain a credit through demolition —
allowing the mitigation of affordable housing and parking to be assessed only upon
additional impacts.
Both staff and the Commission are comfortable with the way these different sections
relate and operate together.
Approval Process:
Staff expects the majority of the LP Program applications will employ the flexibility
of the revised Planned Unit Development code. The PUD portion, which sets the
dimensions of the zoning, will proceed to the City Council after a recommendation by
the P &Z is forwarded.
1
The Growth Management portion of the Program will be handled entirely by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. LP expansion applications may be accepted at
any time during the year as long as allotments are available and the allotments will be
granted on a first come, first served basis. This process is consistent with the original
Program and is recommended by staff and the Commission.
CMQS Criteria for LP Program:
If adopted, the Commission will handle growth management applications for LP
Lodges. City Council should be comfortable with the criteria the Commission will
use in judging these applications. These criteria are contained in Section One of the
Ordinance. Staff and the Commission are comfortable with these standards.
Demolition Credit.
The standard practice of GMQS requires mitigation for an entire development when
demolition is involved. In other words, no "credit" is maintained and the
development must mitigate as if the parcel was vacant prior to demolition.
This new LP Program allows the maintenance of mitigation credit through demolition
with respect to growth management requirements for employee housing and parking.
In other words, an LP lodge would need to mitigate for only the net increase in
impacts, regardless of the extent of demolition taking place. This is different from all
other applications of Growth Management in town and important to note as a
significant incentive for lodge owners wanting to make substantial improvements to
their lodge.
Both staff and the Commission believe this is an appropriate incentive to provide for
this type of development.
Change In Use:
As requested by the Boards during work sessions and as proposed in this Ordinance,
the "demolition credit" only applies to replacement of lodge and affordable housing
uses. Change in use applications involving demolition for other land uses are
required to mitigate in full, with no benefit from the LP Program. Change in use
applications utilizing the same building (no demolition) are required to mitigate for
the net increase in impacts.
Condominimization:
This form of ownership was discussed during the work sessions as a form of
ownership potentially impacting the town's short term lodging base. Specifically, the
discussion contemplated units under individual ownership remaining empty for a
large portion of the year and used only as a vacation residence.
Staff considers condominiumization a type of ownership and not a land use. In fact,
identical land uses may be owned in various ways. (Consider the land use difference
between the Limelite Lodge and the Hotel Aspen — both operate as short-term lodging
facilities, even though only one is owned by several individuals in a condominium
association.)
P i
Staff believes that amending the lodge definition to not allow long -term occupancy
will prohibit lodges from being used as residences, adequately addressing the defacto
residential conversion concern. The Commission agreed that this style of ownership
should not be considered a use, and that defining the manner in which uses can and
cannot operate is a more effective way to apply zoning. The proposed code language
removes condominiumization as a use in the zone district.
Staff understands some lodge owners may feel that the removal of this term from the
zoning effectively removes their ability to condominiumize their lodge. This is not
the case. Staff has included a "whereas" clause in the Ordinance clarifying this point.
BACKGROUND:
The "Lodge Preservation Program" was initiated in 1996 as a three -year plan
allowing lodges zoned Lodge Preservation (LP) to expand, contract, or convert to the
uses allowed in their underlying zoning. This three -year program was conceptualized
as an adjustment period. Financially defunct lodges could convert to another land use
and borderline lodges would benefit with less competition and the flexibility to add
lodge rooms.
Six of the 22 LP properties were the subject of land use changes. Fireside, Brass Bed,
and Bell Mountain Lodge converted to free - market residences. Alpine Lodge was
rezoned and developed as Affordable Housing and is no longer zoned LP. The
Beaumont and the St. Moritz received additional lodge room allotments but neither
acted upon those allotments. The St. Moritz is seeking to act on their allotment,
pending changes to the PUD regulations. Exhibit A describes the LP properties and
the effect of the three -year Program.
Staff held several work sessions concerning revisions to the expired LP Program with
lodge owners and City officials. The process concentrated on the way in which the
Program could be continued and how the "preservation' ' of small lodges could be
accomplished through relaxing development regulations. Attached to this memo as
Exhibit B is a summary of the joint Council /Commission LP work session.
This Ordinance re- establishes the Lodge Preservation Program and encourages small
lodges to expand or redevelop to accommodate the changes in the lodging market.
APPLICANT:
Community Development Department.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
City Council considered these code amendments during work sessions with the
Commission. A summary of the April 19`h work session is attached. The
Commission recommended (6 -0) approval of this Ordinance. City Council adopted
this Ordinance, upon first reading, September 13, 1999.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Code Amendment. The Commission shall recommend approval, approval with
conditions, or denial to the City Council during a public hearing. The Council shall,
0
by Ordinance, approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application during a
public hearing.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to adopt Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1999, the Lodge Preservation Program."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- 3 Year Program Results
Exhibit B -- Work Session Summary
Exhibit C -- Report from Michael Behrendt
Exhibit D -- Staff Comments
Lodge Preservation Program:
The character of Aspen is embodied in the small lodge experience. Many repeat visitors
advocate the uniqueness of these lodges dispersed throughout Aspen's neighborhoods. In
fact, many local residents also advocate the character of these small lodges as
differentiating Aspen from other more ubiquitous resorts. Many of these small lodges
have provided visitor accommodations as long as Aspen's ski lifts have been operating
and allow visitors to celebrate the simplistic pleasures of old Aspen. Important too, is the
economic impact these lodge have on Aspen's economy. Aspen's small lodges attract a
true diversity of visitors complementary to range of activities, shopping, and dining
available in the area.
Changes in the lodging market and the financial attractiveness of converting small lodges
to other land uses challenge this rich character and defining element of Aspen. Aspen
has experienced a dramatic reduction in the small lodge bed base in the decade of the
1990's.
In an attempt to counteract this trend, the City of Aspen recently adopted a series of
incentives for these small lodges to stay in the lodging business, expand, and adapt to the
current marketplace. A series of work sessions with small lodge operators, reservation
specialists, and civic leaders helped to tailor these new regulations. This "Lodge
Preservation Program" provides a simpler process for lodges to acquire allotments
through the Growth Management System and more flexible zoning constraints for lodge
operators to design additions to their lodge. These incentives represent a philosophical
shift from the more stringent growth regulations associated with Aspen and Pitkin
County. It has been widely accepted, however, that growth in this sector is "good
growth" as it directly addresses the character of the town and of the uniqueness of Aspen.
(6W 1�4 6� hffok�
November 12, 1999
Re: Lodge Preservation Program
Dear Lodge Owner:
ASPEN • PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -
The Lodge Preservation Program has been adopted. Included are the two Ordinances
which guide this Program.
Lodges in the LP Zone District now have a growth management quota separate, from the
larger lodges, such as the Grand Aspen, and may be granted zoning flexibility through the
Planned Unit Development process. The St: Moritz lodge was recently approved under
this new system for an addition of 8 lodge rooms and 2 affordable housing units. From
the date of application, the St. Moritz addition was approved in nine weeks.
The current growth management allotment pool is 36 lodge units for LP Lodges. These
may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission on a first -come, first -served
basis and the pool will be raised by 11 units each year. Re- Development of existing
lodge units do not count towards this allotment, only additional units.
Staff can aid you with any questions you may have about developing, or re- developing
your lodge and the necessary steps outlined in these Ordinances. Pre - Application
conferences with staff members are free and may be held in confidence at your request.
I appreciate all your time and commitment through this process. I truly hope this new
Program will be effective. If I can provide any assistance, please contact me at 920.5072,
or come by my office on the 3`d floor of City Hall.
NWW
Chris Bendon, AICP
Senior Planner, City of Aspen
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 -1975 - PHONE 970.920.5090 FAx 970.920.5439
Printed on Reryded Paper -
ORDINANCE N0.39
(SERIES OF 1999)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, TO AMEND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM,
SECTION 26.470, AMEND THE LODGE PRESERVATION OVERLAY (LP)
ZONE DISTRICT, SECTION 26.710.320, AMEND THE DEFINITIONS OF
"LODGE" AND "SHORT- TERM," SECTION 26.104.100, AND AMEND THE
OFF - STREET PARKING REGULATIONS, SECTION 26.515.030 OF THE LAND
USE CODE.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Aspen directed the Planning Director of the Community Development
Department to propose amendments to the Lodge Preservation Program provisions of the
land use code pursuant to sections 26.208 and 26.212; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Section 26.470, 26.710.320,
26.104.100, and 26.515.030 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and
considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the form of land ownership known as "condominium" is an allowed
form of ownership in all Zone Districts of the City of Aspen, including the Lodge
Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District, even though the term is not proposed as a listed
use in the zone district; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended approval of amendments to
Sections 26.470, 26.710.320, 26.104.100, and 26.515.030 of the land use code of the
Aspen Municipal Code as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to
consider the existing and proposed Lodge Preservation Program on June 8, 1999, and
continued the hearing to July 20, 1999, and then to August 24, 1999, took and considered
public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by
a six to zero (6 -0) vote, City Council adopt the proposed Lodge Preservation Program
amendments to the land use code by amending the text of sections 26.470, 26.710.320,
26.104.100, and 26.515.030 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as
described herein.
WHEREAS, City Council reviewed and considered the recommendations of the
Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and members of
he public during a duly noticed public hearing; and,
Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1999.
Page 1
n1 w
WHEREAS, the City Council fmds that the text amendments to Sections 26.470,
26.710.320, 26.104.100, and 26.515.030 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal
Code, as described herein, and commonly referred to as the "Lodge Preservation
Program," meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval is consistent with
the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1:
Section 26.470.070(M), which section defines, authorizes, and regulates the process for
exempting certain types of development in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone
District from the competition and scoring procedures of the Growth Management Quota
System (GMQS), is hereby amended by replacing, in total, the language in said section
with the following text:
M. Lodge Preservation Program.
Development, or redevelopment after demolition, of properties zoned Lodge
Preservation (LP) Overlay to increase or decrease the number of lodge units, the
number of affordable housing units, or the amount of accessory commercial
square footage, or the change in use between said uses, shall be exempted from
the growth management competition and scoring procedures, provided that the
Planning and Zoning Commission determines, at a public hearing, that the
following criteria are met:
(1) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
(2) The proposed development is compatible with the character of existing
land uses in the surrounding area and with the purpose of the Lodge
Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District.
(3) Employee housing or cash -in -lieu will be provided to mitigate for
additional employees generated by the development or to mitigate for the
demolition of multi - family housing, as required by section 26.530. This
shall include an analysis and credit for existing employee generation and
the incremental impact between the existing development and the
proposed development. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard.
(4) Adequate parking spaces and public facilities exist, will be provided for
the development, or that adequate mitigation measures will be provided.
An existing deficit of required parking may be maintained through
redevelopment.
Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1999.
Page 2
(5) There exists sufficient GMQS allotments to accommodate the proposed
development and the allotments are deducted from the respective Annual
Development Allotment and Metro Area Development Ceilings
established pursuant to Section 26.470.050.
Section 2:
Section 26.470.080(B)(3), which section defines the review procedures for granting
development allocations exempt from the competition and scoring procedures of the
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), is hereby amended by including the
following language as subparagraph (c) and reallocating the letter designations of the
following subparagraphs accordingly:
3c. Planning and Zoning Commission Review.
Applications for lodge, affordable housing, or accessory commercial square
footage development within the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District
shall be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and
consideration at a public hearing after the Community Development Director has
determined that the application for exemption is complete and has made a
recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval. Notice
of the hearing shall be by publication, posting, and mailing (See Section
26.304.060(E)). The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution
approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application. In the event that
there are insufficient allotments available to accommodate all applications for
exempt development, a random drawing shall be held in accordance with the
standards of Section 26.470.080(B)(4)
Section 3:
Section 26.470.080(B)(5), which section defined, authorized, and regulated the review
procedures for granting development allocations to development within the Lodge
Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District, the previous LP Program being replaced by this
Ordinance, is hereby amended by striking, in its entirety, subparagraph (5).
Section 4:
Section 26.470.050(A)(1), which section defines the Base Allotment Pool corresponding
to the desired annual growth rate within the Aspen Metro Area according to land use
type, is hereby amended with the addition of the following language:
Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone Tourist Accommodations: 11 Units
Section 5•
Section 26.470.050(C)(1), which section defines the process for determining the Standard
Maximum Allotment Pool corresponding to the number of allotments available in any
given year considering any accumulated deficit/surplus from previous years, is hereby
amended with the establishment of the accumulated allotment surplus, denoted as factor
Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1999.
Page 3
"A" in the equation provided in said section, as 27 units for the growth management year
beginning June 1 of 1999.
Section 6:
Section 26.710.320, which section defines the purpose of, and regulates permitted uses,
conditional uses, and dimensional requirements for properties within the Lodge
Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District, is hereby amended by replacing, in total, the
language in said section with the following text:
Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District.
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay zone district 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.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the LP Overlay
zone district.
1. Lodge;
2. Boarding house;
3. Dormitory;
4. Affordable housing for employees of the lodge;
5. Accessory use facilities intended for guests of permitted lodge units,
boarding house or dormitory, which are commonly found in association
and are for guests only, including office, lounge, kitchen, dining room,
laundry, and recreational facilities;
6. Accessory buildings and uses.
7. The permitted uses of the underlying zone district.
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted in the LP Overlay zone
district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.60 of
this Code.
1. Affordable housing;
2. Restaurant;
3. Timesharing;
4. The uses allowed as conditional uses in the underlying zone district.
D. Dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirements for all uses in the
Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District shall be the dimensional requirements
established for those uses in the underlying zone district. Upon consideration of
neighborhood compatibility and the dimensional requirements regulations of surrounding
Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1999.
Page 4
zone districts, the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district may be varied
pursuant to section 26.445, Planned Unit Development.
Section 7•
Section 26.104.100, which section defines terms used in the Land Use Code, is hereby
amended to include the following terms to read as:
Lodge. Same as hotel, except that lodges in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay
Zone District must be available for overnight lodging by the general public on a
short-term basis for at least six months of each calendar year, and may have
kitchens within individual lodge rooms.
Short-Term. The occupancy of a Hotel or Lodge unit for a rental time period not
exceeding one (1) month in duration.
Section 8•
Section 26.515.030, which section defines and regulates the amount, characteristics of,
and process for varying, the number of required off - street parking spaces, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
The off - street parking spaces established below shall be provided for each use in
the zone district. Whenever the off -street parking is subject to establishment by
adoption of a Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan, that review
shall be pursuant to Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development. Whenever the
parking requirement is subject to special review or may be provided via a
payment in lieu, that review shall be pursuant to the procedures set forth at
Chapter 26.430 and the standards set forth at Section 26.515.040, below.
Section 9•
Section 26.515.030, which contains a chart defining the number of required off - street
parking spaces according to zone district designation, is hereby amended by replacing, in
total, the language in the chart under Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District with
the following text:
LP Overlay
0.7 spaces/bedroom
*, unless otherwise
4 spaces/ 1000 square feet
unless otherwise
established pursuant
of net leasable area,
established pursuant
to Section 26.445,
unless otherwise
to Section 26.445,
Planned Unit
established pursuant to
Planned Unit
Development.
Section 26.445, Planned
Development.
Unit Development.
Section 10:
That 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.
Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1999.
Page 5
Section 11:
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 12:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 13:
A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 12' day of October, 1999 at 5:00 in the
City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) 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 this 13'h day of September, 1999.
Attest: -`mil_ 4- �
1
Kathryn S. ch, 'ty Clerk chel E. Richards, May
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this JZ day of Otw/t-"1999.
Att st:
Kathryn S. Tfoch,City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City/Attorney
C:\home\CHRISB\CASES\LP—PROGR\LP—ORD.doc
Ordinance No. 39, Series of 1999.
Page 6
0)
01
01
r
(D
Q)
01
r
c
0
V
Co
N
O
I�
I-
L0
t0
CO
Uo
N
M,
O
w
M
tO
r-
W
(0
10
N
r
N
M
O
N
'0
C
OD
N
(D
N
O
C_
_
M
N
co
OD
�
O
O
N
N
O
N
Co
O,
M
'a
C
'N
r
r
L0
M-
O
M
r-
L
0
n
CO
N
r
a
.Q
V
m
O
'2
N
(0
N
0
O
d
42
'?
'j
C
C
O
c
-O
C
10
M
O
0
V
M
W
N
N
N
N
(0
N
C
d
>
ap
r
V
M
N
CO
N
O
N
C
C
N
L0
M
N
Cl
E
o
`m
E
o
dr
(a
E
L0
O
N
V'
Im
10
Q)
N
O
d
O
W
I�
M
d
(O
r
N
o°
CO
0
r
N
M
N
J
N
N
N
V
N
M
N
r
N
d
c
%00000
d
>
0`
>
>
d
0
d
d
Q
�
V
N�
W
LL
O
rn
O
N
N
OD
GD
CO
r
x
0
O
J
J
Q
M_
C
M
H
1�/
�
N
N
V
7
r
N
O
N
wd/
L
a
d
d
N
(6
W
d
70
(0
N
f0
to
@
-O
d
C
m
C
d
d
C
a
d
d
C
C
C
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
C
'dO
'o
cm
rnrn-
d
rnrn-
6
rnrnrnrnmmmm0)
N
(6
N
O
76
d
O
O
d
o
O
d
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
R'
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
c
0
O
Q
5
d
QQ
CO
Uo
IL
�
J
a
W
L
U
d
U
u,
d
C �
N C
O C
d 0
-0 2.
O w
C �
d 0.
L4 d
o
.� (0 w
d 2 N
O
U 00 d
V
L N 2
� � C
m m
m E
O N O
N L
d d d
0 > O
a x
E a
E
@ N O
N f0 QI
d C
E
d ° o
d
O O
x .0 n
N d
CL N 0
O 6
U y a
m 3
C Y 0
f0 (n (0
L C
m O O
m Z U
N
i +
0
V
G
Q
5
d
a
a'�
�
a
'0
C
O
C_
_
M
N
co
OD
�
O
O
N
N
O
N
Co
M
x
C
'N
r
r
L0
M-
O
M
r-
L
0
n
CO
N
r
a
.Q
V
m
O
'2
N
(0
N
0
O
d
42
'?
'j
C
C
O
L0
-O
-O
C
M
N
0
U
O
N
O
0
C
d
C
d
>
O
c
0
n
C
C
N
N
Cl
E
o
`m
E
o
dr
(a
E
L0
O
N
V'
O
Q)
N
O
d
O
W
I�
M
d
(O
r
N
o°
CO
0
r
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
V
N
M
N
r
N
d
c
%00000
d
>
0`
>
>
d
0
d
d
Q
m
V
O
W
LL
rn
O
0
O
J
J
M_
C
M
O
N
N
a
N
i
i
d
6
N
(6
76
w
7
15
-dO
-dO
Nav-o-
oav
N
Nvvvvvvo'vvv
�+
cvv
m
o
o
d
o
0
0
0
0
o
d
d
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
d
J
J
J
w
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
N
W
d
d
d
d
O
A
O
O
rn
o
d
=
O
o
O
H
d
o'
C
J
C
J
d
C
'OO
C
0
O
J
C O
d a
Oc
Y
O
C
N
x
C
d
.c0
..C,
d
E
�]
2
E
N
(0
a
L
Q
J
O
U=
p
N
CM
r
t
v
3
L
c
cm>
o
m
c
a
3
16
N>
0
J
Q
Q
m
m
0]
m
m
U
U
U
U
LL
x
x
x
s
2
2
(n
(n
(n
Z
U
d
U
u,
d
C �
N C
O C
d 0
-0 2.
O w
C �
d 0.
L4 d
o
.� (0 w
d 2 N
O
U 00 d
V
L N 2
� � C
m m
m E
O N O
N L
d d d
0 > O
a x
E a
E
@ N O
N f0 QI
d C
E
d ° o
d
O O
x .0 n
N d
CL N 0
O 6
U y a
m 3
C Y 0
f0 (n (0
L C
m O O
m Z U
N
i +
0
V
G
Q
5
d
a
a'�
�
a
'0
C
C_
_
D
.
E
E
�
d
v
d
�
DO
x
C
'N
m
O
O
L
as
v
d
d
l]
.Q
V
m
O
'2
N
(0
N
0
O
d
42
'?
'j
C
C
O
L0
-O
-O
C
M
N
0
U
O
N
O
0
C
d
C
d
>
O
c
0
n
C
C
N
N
Cl
E
o
`m
E
o
m
E
(a
E
N
N
C
d
0)
d
o°
o
0
r
0
0
-O
Q
d
d
r
r
d
c
%00000
d
>
d
>
>
d
0
d
d
Q
m
V
O
W
LL
rn
0
O
J
LODGE PRESERVATION 4.19.99 EX. B
Following is a summary of the April 19, 1999, joint work session between the City
Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Affordable Housing:
The Boards directed staff to not amend the affordable housing provisions of the LP Zone
District. The existing code allows affordable housing for employees of the lodge as a
permitted use and for the general public as a conditional use. Also, lodges wanting to
convert to affordable housing would still be required to seek a change -in -use approval.
Growth Management "Credit :"
The two Boards agreed there should be a mitigation "credit" be provided for lodge use
but not be extended to change -in -use applications. In other words, an LP lodge wanting
to redevelop as a lodge would be required to mitigate only the net increase in impacts.
(i.e. a 15 unit lodge replaced with a 20 unit lodge would be required to mitigate for only 5
units.)
This is different from all other applications of Growth Management in town and
represents an incentive for lodge owners wanting to make significant improvements to
their lodge. All other commercial and lodge development is town must mitigate for the
entire development (as if it didn't exist before) in order to replace after demolition.
The two Boards also said, however, that this "credit" should not be applied to change -in-
use applications when demolition is involved. Lodge owners wanting to demolish their
lodge a construct commercial, office, or residential uses will be required to provide
mitigation for that use with no credit given for the previous use.
Minor PUD:
The two Boards decided the Minor PUD provision should proceed. This provision will
allow specific zoning provisions to be established by City Council on LP properties. In
other words, an individual LP lodge owner could argue that a certain setback, parking
scenario, or additional FAR is more desirable than provided in the strict zoning. This is
important considering many of the older lodges were constructed before zoning (and are
non - conforming) and this flexibility is an incentive to maintain and improve an older
lodge.
Tax Incentives:
The City Finance Director and the City Attorney have instructed staff and City Council to
not seek a special taxing district for small lodges. This type of provision would be easily
considered biased and discriminatory. Also, City Council expressed no interest in
creating any sort of bed tax for lodge properties.
Inclusion of other Small Lodges:
The Boards agreed that invitations to join the LP Zone District should be extended to
other small lodges that do not already exist in a Lodge District. Lodges that were
mentioned include: Ullr Lodge, Deep Powder, Chalet List, Holland House, Mountain
Chalet, the Tyrolean, and the Snow Eagle.
"Lodge" Definition:
The current definition of a lodge reads as follows:
Lodge means a building within the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district or a building
presently zoned Commercial Lodge (CL) containing three (3) or more individual rooms for
the purpose or providing lodging facilities on a short or long -term basis, for compensation,
with or without meals, and which has common facilities for reservation and cleaning services
and on -site management and reception. A lodge may include kitchens within individual rental
units.
The two Boards considered the long -term lease provision of this definition and concluded
that type of occupancy resembled residential occupancy. The conclusion was to
eliminate "or long - term" from the definition and redefine short term as occupancy periods
of one month or less.
Condominiumization:
City Council expressed some concerns about his type of ownership and the affects it may
have on the short-term lodging base. Staff and the City Attorney suggested making this
type of ownership a conditional use to ensure some review of the affects the type of
ownership may have on the use.
Growth Management Allotment Pool.
Staff suggested and the two Boards agreed that small lodges should have a separate
growth management allotment pool than the general lodging pool available to all lodges
in town. This is similar to the original LP Program which was specifically crafted so that
smaller, less- affluent lodges could seek development approvals without having to
compete against larger, more - affluent corporate projects.
The two Boards agreed the annual allotment pool should be consistent from year to year
and not rely on the previous calculation by the Community Development Director.
Lottery:
The original LP Program granted allotments through a yearly lottery system. In this
lottery, applicants were drawn randomly for allotments prior to development approvals
were accepted or considered. During the three -year period there was never a competitive
lottery.
The two Boards decided to discontinue the lottery process and allow the growth
management exemptions to occur on a first come -first served
Trial Period:
The original Program was initiated for a three year period. The Boards recommended
staff proceed with a code amendment revising the Program as a permanent modification
to the land use code, proceeding indefinitely.
2
4~
MEMORANDUM � C.-
TO: Mayor and City Council /
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager IV11w,1✓/
John Worcester, City Attorney �f
Julie Ann Woods, Community DeJelopm nt Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Code Amendments — Lodge Preservation Program
1st Reading of Ordinance No..�J, Series of 1999
Growth Management Quota System — Section 26.470
Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District — Section 26.710.320
Lodge Definition — Section 26.104.100
Parking Regulations — Section 26.515.030
DATE: September 13, 1999
SUMMARY:
The "Lodge Preservation Program" was initiated in 1996 as a three -year plan
allowing lodges zoned Lodge Preservation (LP) to expand, contract, or convert to the
uses allowed in their underlying zoning. This three -year program was conceptualized
as an adjustment period. Financially defunct lodges could convert to another land use
and borderline lodges would benefit with less competition and the flexibility to add
lodge rooms.
Six of the 22 LP properties were the subject of land use changes. Fireside, Brass Bed,
and Bell Mountain Lodge converted to free - market residences. Alpine Lodge was
rezoned and developed as Affordable Housing and is no longer zoned LP. The
Beaumont and the St. Moritz received additional lodge room allotments but neither
acted upon those allotments. The St. Moritz is seeking to act on their allotment,
pending changes to the PUD regulations. Exhibit A describes the LP properties and
the effect of the three -year Program.
Staff held several work sessions concerning revisions to the expired LP Program with
lodge owners and City officials. The process concentrated on the way in which the
Program could be continued and how the "preservation" of small lodges could be
accomplished through relaxing development regulations. Attached to this memo as
Exhibit B is a summary of the joint Council /Commission LP work session.
This Ordinance re- establishes the Lodge Preservation Program and encourages small
lodges to expand or redevelop to accommodate the changes in the lodging market.
Staff has highlighted important aspects of the new program under the heading "Main
Issues."
Staff recommends City Council adopt Ordinance No �, Series of 1999, upon
first reading.
"I
MAIN ISSUES:
Structure of LP Program:
The three main aspects that make up the revised LP Program are: 1) the LP Overlay;
2) the revised PUD regulations; and, 3) the LP Program in GMQS. Staff has used
these three tools to construct the Program and appropriate the desires of the
Commission and Council into code sections.
LP Overlay: Each LP lodge has an underlying zoning consistent with its
neighborhood. For example, St. Moritz is zoned R -6. The LP Overlay legalizes the
lodge use, allows the property to apply for expansion through the LP GMQS section,
and allows the zoning dimensions to be established through the Minor PUD process.
PUD Regulations: The flexibility of the PUD provisions are extended to LP
properties through the LP Overlay and the PUD amendment itself (under a separate
public hearing). PUD allows a property owner to establish all dimensional
requirements for their property through adoption of an Ordinance by City Council.
Height, setbacks, FAR, and parking are examples of zoning dimensions a lodge
owner could vary through this process.
LP in GMQS: The LP Program amendments will create an exemption process for LP
Lodges wanting to add rooms, affordable housing units, or accessory commercial
space. To obtain additional lodge units, LP Lodges would have a growth
management "bucket" separate from non -LP development of tourist accommodations.
And, LP Lodges can maintain a credit through demolition — allowing the mitigation
of affordable housing and parking to be assessed only upon additional lodge units.
Both staff and the Commission are comfortable with the way these different sections
relate and operate together.
Process:
Staff expects the majority of the LP Program applications will employ the flexibility
of the revised Planned Unit Development code. The PUD portion, which sets the
dimensions of the zoning, will proceed to the City Council after a recommendation by
the P &Z is forwarded.
The Growth Management portion of the Program will be handled entirely by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. LP Lodge allotments will be granted on a first
come first served basis. This process is consistent with the original Program and is
recommended by staff and the Commission.
GMQS Criteria for LP Program:
If adopted, the Commission will handle growth management applications for LP
Lodges. City Council should be comfortable with the criteria the Commission will
use in judging these applications. These criteria are contained in section one of the
Ordinance. Staff and the Commission are comfortable with these standards.
2
Demolition Credit.
The standard practice of GMQS requires mitigation for an entire development when
demolition is involved. In other words, no "credit" is maintained and the
development must mitigate as if the parcel was vacant prior to demolition.
This new LP Program allows the maintenance of mitigation credit through demolition
with respect to growth management requirements for employee housing and parking.
In other words, an LP lodge would need to mitigate for only the net increase in units,
regardless of the extent of demolition taking place. This is different from all other
applications of Growth Management in town and important to note as a significant
incentive for lodge owners wanting to make substantial improvements to their lodge.
Both staff and the Commission believe this is an appropriate incentive to provide for
this type of development.
Change In Use:
As requested by the Boards during work sessions and as proposed in this Ordinance,
the "demolition credit" only applies to replacement of lodge and affordable housing
uses. Change in use applications involving demolition for other land uses are
required to mitigate in full, with no benefit from the LP Program. Change in use
applications utilizing the same building (no demolition) are required to mitigate for
the net increase in impacts.
Growth Management Allotments:
The proposed LP Program creates a separate GMQS category, or "bucket," for LP
Lodges. This was a primary element of the original Program and identified as an
important element for the new Program by lodge owners during the work sessions.
This allows smaller, less- affluent lodges to seek development approvals without
having to compete against larger, more - affluent corporate projects.
The original three -year Program was initiated with an eleven unit per year growth
quota. As the units were not in high demand, the accumulation resulted in a 27 unit
quota at the conclusion of the three years. Staff is recommending the available
allotment, or base allotment, be re- initiated at this same number — 27 units with the
annual allotment established at 11 units per year.
Work on the growth management system, in its entirety, will follow the adoption of
the AACP. This in -depth review may suggest altering these allotment numbers. In
the meantime though, staff believes this consistency with the original Program is
appropriate.
The Commission's discussion about the allotment pool considered the loss of lodge
rooms that Aspen has experienced over the past decade. In fact, there are only 140
units within the economy category remaining with only a portion of these within the
LP zoning. (Please see report provided by Michael Behrendt, Exhibit C.)
While the City's growth management system does not account for negative growth
and the available quota is not increased when a lodge ceases to exist, the Commission
considered this discussion more relevant to the larger GMQS amendments and agreed
to initiate the LP allotment pool at 11 units per year, with the 27 unit carryover from
the prior LP Program.
Lodge Definition:
An issue was raised during the LP work session concerning the long -term lease
provision of the Lodge definition. The request was to eliminate the long -term
provision and define short-term as one month or less.
Since the work session with council, several lodge owners have expressed concern
about their "master lease" style of operation. This is a process where lodge owners
rent to a user group for a longer period of time. For example, many small lodges rent
their rooms to the MAA for the entire summer season.
Considering this traditional operating style for small lodges, while maintaining a
concern about de -facto residential conversion, staff is proposing a definition which
allows for leases up to six months of any given year. In this manner, staff hopes to
satisfy the operational concerns of the small lodge owners while preserving an
important characteristic of lodges — short-term occupancy.
Condominimization:
This form of ownership was discussed during the work sessions as a form of
ownership potentially impacting the town's short term lodging base. Specifically, the
discussion contemplated units under individual ownership remaining empty for a
large portion of the year and used only as a vacation residence.
Staff considers condominiumization a type of ownership and not a land use. In fact,
identical land uses may be owned in various ways. (Consider the land use difference
between the Limelite Lodge and the Hotel Aspen — both operate as short-term lodging
facilities, even though only one is owned by several individuals in a condominium
association.)
Staff believes that amending the lodge definition to not allow long -term occupancy
will prohibit lodges from being used as residences, adequately addressing the defacto
residential conversion concern. The Commission agreed that this style of ownership
should not be considered a use, and that defining the manner in which uses can and
cannot operate is a more effective way to apply zoning. The proposed code language
removes condominiumization as a use in the zone district.
Staff understands some lodge owners may feel that the removal of this term from the
zoning effectively removes their ability to condominiumize their lodge. This is not
the case. Staff has included a "whereas" clause in the Ordinance clarifying this point.
APPLICANT:
Community Development Department.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
City Council considered these code amendments during work sessions with the
Commission. A summary of the April 19' work session is attached. The
Commission, recommended (6 -0) approval of this Ordinance.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Code Amendment. The Commission shall recommend approval, approval with
conditions, or denial to the City Council during a public hearing. The Council shall,
by Ordinance, approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application during a
public hearing.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to adopt Ordinance No. , Series of 1999, upon first reading."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A --
3 Year Program Results
Exhibit B --
Work Session Summary
Exhibit C --
Report from Michael Behrendt
Exhibit D --
Staff Comments
�c G
s
Lodging -- Little Economy Left / G
Attached are the St Morites list rates. They roughly equal the other
lodges' listed as "Economy." What the sheet can't show are the prices actually
achieved. All lodges negotiate rates to some extent, and always downward. In
the off and shoulder seasons our Economy private room rentals go as low as
$28 per night, if monthly. Dorm spaces go for as low as $15. In- season room
rates actually achieved surge for the 9 days of Christmas, then average about
$98 throughout the ski time, and $79 during summer. Travel agent and Central
Reservation commissions take 15 to 20% further.
The St Moritz will charge approximately $10 more for the new rooms
during off and low seasons, and $20 more during high periods. The newness,
quality, kitchenettes, and larger size warrant this. Higher rates than that won't
carry, because "luxury" clients will not call us — and in any event wouldn't enjoy
the ambiance mix that our current repeat clients experience and prefer.
So how have Aspen's Lodges fared since the 9/24/98 inventory?
Luxury:
IzAe Boomerang, 34 units
f'l T Beaumont, 29 units (applied to add 10 units & condominimize)
Hearthstone, 18 units (for sale)
Hotel Lenado, 23 units
Molly Gibson, 21 units (condos)
Sardy House, 22 units
Moderate,
Aspen B& B, 35 units (condos)
Hotel Aspen, 47 units (condos)
�aI Hotel Durant, 22 units
Innsbruck Inn, 31 units
L'auberge, 19 units
Mountain House, 16 units
Shadow Mountain Lodge, 11 units (condos)
Economy, Lost: Buckhom, 8 units — office & AH conversion
Grand Aspen, 150 units — tear down, luxury conversion
Heatherbed — AH conversion
Ullr, 22 units — AH conversion
Remain: Chalet Lisle, 8 units
Christiania, 22 units (attempting to convert)
Christmas Inn, 26 units (for sale)
110 Holland House, est20 units
Skier's Chalet, est 20 units
St Moritz, 25 units applying to add 10)
Snow Queen, 7 units
Tyrolean, 12 units
Exhibit D
Lodge Preservation
Program
STAFF COMMENTS: Text Amendment
Section 26.310.020, Standards Applicable to a Land Use Code Text Amendment
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title, the City Council and the Commission
shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of
this title.
Staff Finding:
The Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District allows for small lodges, which were
primarily built prior to zoning Ordinances in Aspen, to continue to exist as conforming uses in
their underling zone district. This overlay is used to prevent conflicts with other portions of this
Title. The LP Program is intended to provide incentives for the continuation of, and investment
in, these small lodges to address a community goal as stated by the City Council.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
The Lodge Preservation Program as proposed addresses a stated goal of the 1993 AACP to
encourage expansion of these small lodges. (Action Item 12 or Commercial Action Plan.) This
same goal has been stated, in a slightly different manner, in the un- adopted 1998 AACP,
(Economic Sustainability Action Item #10.) Staff believes this proposed amendment to the land
use code is supported by the Aspen Area Community Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding:
This standard roughly applies. The land which currently is designated with an LP Overlay on the
Official Zone District Map will be reviewed under this new Program only if development is
proposed. During that review, attention to neighborhood characteristics, and surrounding land
uses are required to be considered. Also, these properties are expected to use the Minor PUD
process for their land use review and greater attention to surrounding properties will be achieved.
Staff believes the LP Program encourages development in a manner consistent with the
surrounding characteristics of the parcel.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding:
The proposed LP Program will not, itself, alter traffic patterns, generations rates, or road safety.
The revised program does include criteria for evaluating the impacts a development may have on
the transportation infrastructure. In addition, the Minor PUD criteria do consider transportation
related impacts.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed
staff comments page I
amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited
to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
The LP Properties affected by this amendment are all within areas of sufficient service as far as
roads, water supply, sewer service, parks, schools, and emergency service. While this is a
general statement, the particular complexities of serving a specific property are typically
determined at the time of an actual development application. Nevertheless, these properties do
exist in well served areas of Aspen.
A particular development application would be reviewed, in part, on its impacts upon these
facilities and the City's ability to serve the development. In addition, the drainage impacts and
mitigation measures would be considered for any type of development on these parcels.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
These properties are primarily in the Original Townsite and do not pose the potential to cause
significant adverse affects on the natural environment. There are provisions within the proposed
GMQS exemption criteria and PUD criteria addressing the affects a proposed development may
have on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
The LP Program attempts to maintain and bolster the character of small lodges interspersed
throughout the community. While this Program serves as an encouragement to further
development these lodges, criteria have intentionally been included emphasizing compatibility
with surrounding land uses and development patterns. Furthermore, the PUD regulations
emphasize consistency with a development's surrounding context and with the overall character
of the town.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
There have been changes in the philosophical approach to small lodge development supporting
this amendment. A desire expressed by City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission
during work sessions with staff, a desire by the community at large through the public process of
the Community Plan (AACP), and a desire expressed by owners of these small lodges all support
this amendment. Staff believes there exists a significant interest of the community to be served
by this amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest,
and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
This proposed amendment does not pose any conflicts with the public interest. In fact, the
proposed LP Program section is intended to ensue the interests of the community are served to
the greatest extend possible, and that proposed development is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of the land use code.
staff comments page 2
ORDINANCE N0.
(SERIES OF 1999)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, TO AMEND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM,
SECTION 26.470 OF THE LAND USE CODE, AMEND THE LODGE
PRESERVATION OVERLAY (LP) ZONE DISTRICT, SECTION 26.710.320,
AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "LODGE," SECTION 26.104.100 OF THE LAND
USE CODE, AND AMEND THE OFF - STREET PARKING REGULATIONS,
SECTION 26.515.030 OF THE LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Aspen directed the Planning Director of the Community Development
Department to propose amendments to the Lodge Preservation Program provisions of the
land use code pursuant to sections 26.208 and 26.212; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Section 26.470, 26.710.320,
26.104.100, and 26.515.030 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and
considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the form of land ownership known as "condominium" is an allowed
form of ownership in all Zone Districts of the City of Aspen, including the Lodge
Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District, even though the term is not proposed as a listed
use in the zone district; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended approval of amendments to
Sections 26.470, 26.710.320, 26.104.100, and 26.515.030 of the land use code of the
Aspen Municipal Code as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to
consider the existing and proposed Lodge Preservation Program on June 8, 1999, and
continued the hearing to July 20, 1999, and then to August 24, 1999, took and considered
public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by
a six to zero (6 -0) vote, City Council adopt the proposed Lodge Preservation Program
amendments to the land use code by amending the text of sections 26.470, 26.710.320,
26.104.100, and 26.515.030 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as
described herein.
. WHEREAS, City Council reviewed and considered the recommendations of the
Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and members of
he public during a duly noticed public hearing; and,
Ordinance No. _, Series of 1999.
Page 1
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the text amendments to Sections 26.470,
26.710.320, 26.104.100, and 26.515.030 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal
Code, as described herein, and commonly referred to as the "Lodge Preservation
Program," meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval is consistent with
the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1•
Section 26.470.070(M), which section defines, authorizes, and regulates the process for
exempting certain types of development in the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone
District from the competition and scoring procedures of the Growth Management Quota
System (GMQS), is hereby amended by replacing, in total, the language in said section
with the following text:
M. Lodge Preservation Program.
Development, or redevelopment after demolition, of properties zoned Lodge
Preservation (LP) Overlay to increase or decrease the number of lodge units, the
number of affordable housing units, or the amount of accessory commercial
square footage, or the change in use between said uses, shall be exempted from
the growth management competition and scoring procedures, provided that the
Planning and Zoning Commission determines, at a public hearing, that the
following criteria are met:
(1) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
(2) The proposed development is compatible with the character of existing
land uses in the surrounding area and with the purpose of the Lodge
Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District.
(3) Employee housing or cash -in -lieu will be provided to mitigate for
additional employees generated by the development or to mitigate for the
demolition of multi - family housing, as required by section 26.530. This
shall include an analysis and credit for existing employee generation and
the incremental impact between the existing development and the
proposed development. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard.
(4) Adequate parking spaces and public facilities exist, will be provided for
the development, or that adequate mitigation measures will be provided.
An existing deficit of required parking may be maintained through
redevelopment.
Ordinance No. _, Series of 1999.
Page 2
(5) There exists sufficient GMQS allotments to accommodate the proposed
development and the allotments are deducted from the respective Annual
Development Allotment and Metro Area Development Ceilings
established pursuant to Section 26.470.050.
Section 2:
Section 26.470.080(B)(3), which section defines the review procedures for granting
development allocations exempt from the competition and scoring procedures of the
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), is hereby amended by including the
following language as subparagraph (c) and reallocating the letter designations of the
following subparagraphs accordingly:
3c. Planning and Zoning Commission Review.
Applications for lodge, affordable housing, or accessory commercial square
footage development within the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District
shall be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and
consideration at a public hearing after the Community Development Director has
determined that the application for exemption is complete and has made a
recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval. Notice
of the hearing shall be by publication, posting, and mailing (See Section
26.304.060(E)). The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution
approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application. In the event that
there are insufficient allotments available to accommodate all applications for
exempt development, a random drawing shall be held in accordance with the
standards of Section 26.470.080(B)(4)
Section 3•
Section 26.470.080(B)(5), which section defined, authorized, and regulated the review
procedures for granting development allocations to development within the Lodge
Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District, the previous LP Program being replaced by this
Ordinance, is hereby amended by striking, in its entirety, subparagraph (5).
Section 4:
Section 26.470.050(A)(1), which section defines the Base Allotment Pool corresponding
to the desired annual growth rate within the Aspen Metro Area according to land use
type, is hereby amended with the addition of the following language:
Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone Tourist Accommodations: 11 Units
Section 5:
Section 26.470.050(C)(1), which section defines the process for determining the Standard
Maximum Allotment Pool corresponding to the number of allotments available in any
given year considering any accumulated deficit/surplus from previous years, is hereby
amended with the establishment of the accumulated allotment surplus, denoted as factor
Ordinance No. _, Series of 1999.
Page 3
"A in the equation provided in said section, as 27 units for the growth management year
beginning June 1 of 1999.
Section 6:
Section 26.710.320, which section defines the purpose of, and regulates permitted uses,
conditional uses, and dimensional requirements for properties within the Lodge
Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District, is hereby amended by replacing, in total, the
language in said section with the following text:
26.28.320 Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District.
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay zone district 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.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the LP Overlay
zone district.
1. Lodge;
2. Boarding house;
3. Dormitory;
4. Affordable housing for employees of the lodge;
5. Accessory use facilities intended for guests of permitted lodge units,
boarding house or dormitory, which are commonly found in association
and are for guests only, including office, lounge, kitchen, dining room,
laundry, and recreational facilities;
6. Accessory buildings and uses.
7. The permitted uses of the underlying zone district.
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted in the LP Overlay zone
district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.60 of
this Code.
Affordable housing;
Restaurant;
Timesharing;
The uses allowed as conditional uses in the underlying zone district.
D. Dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirements for all uses in the
Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District shall be the dimensional requirements
established for those uses in the underlying zone district. Upon consideration of
neighborhood compatibility and the dimensional requirements regulations of surrounding
Ordinance No. _, Series of 1999.
Page 4
zone districts, the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district may be varied
pursuant to section 26.445, Planned Unit Development.
Section 7:
Section 26.104.100, which section defines terms used in the Land Use Code, is hereby
amended to read as:
Lodge. Same as hotel, except that lodge rooms in a lodge may have a kitchen in
the Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District, and may be leased on a long
term basis up to six months of any year.
Section 8:
Section 26.515.030, which section defines and regulates the amount, characteristics of,
and process for varying, the number of required off -street parking spaces, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
The off - street parking spaces established below shall be provided for each use in
the zone district. Whenever the off - street parking is subject to establishment by
adoption of a Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan, that review
shall be pursuant to Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development. Whenever the
parking requirement is subject to special review or may be provided via a
payment in lieu, that review shall be pursuant to the procedures set forth at
Chapter 26.430 and the standards set forth at Section 26.515.040, below.
Section 9:
Section 26.515.030, which contains a chart defining the number of required off -street
parking spaces according to zone district designation, is hereby amended by replacing, in
total, the language in the chart under Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District with
the following text:
LP Overlay
0.7 spaces/bedroom
*, unless otherwise
4 spaces /1000 square feet
unless otherwise
established pursuant
of net leasable area,
established pursuant
to Section 26.445,
unless otherwise
to Section 26.445,
Planned Unit
established pursuant to
Planned Unit
Development.
Section 26.445, Planned
Development.
Unit Development.
Section 10:
That 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 11:
Ordinance No. _, Series of 1999.
Page 5
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 12:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 13:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 12`h day of October, 1999 at 5:00 in
the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to
which hearing a public notice of the same shall be 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 this 13'h day of September, 1999.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Rachel E. Richards, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of '1999.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Rachel E. Richards, Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
C:\home\CHRISB\CASES\LP—PROGR\LP—ORD.doc
Ordinance No. _, Series of 1999.
Page 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
John Worcester, City Attorney
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Code Amendment - Planned Unit Development
First Reading of Ordinance No.-5A, Series of 1999
DATE: November 22, 1999
SUMMARY:
The City of Aspen recently revised the regulations for Planned Unit Development
(PUD) reviews. This is the most flexible land use tool the City has and the one used
for the majority of large projects. The regulations allow all properties of more than
27,000 square feet (one half block) to go through this process. In addition, any
property within a zone district which either requires or allows dimensions to be
established through a PUD may also go through this process. These zone districts are
Affordable Housing, Lodge Preservation, Public, and Park.
However, there may be parcels in town where there may actually be a significant
public benefit to be gained by allowing the project to be considered through the PUD
process and which do not fall into one of these PUD categories. In fact, one such
property has recently come to the attention of City officials: the Community Banks
parcel and the area directly east of the building. This vacant area could well be used
to promote the goals expressed in the AACP, but does not currently have the ability to
be reviewed as a PUD due to the property size. This is only one example of small,
infill opportunities that may exist throughout town.
This code amendment proposes that the flexibility of PUD be extended to these
smaller properties if, prior to the process being initiated, it is determined that the PUD
process would best serve the interests of the community. This caveat will ensure that
the Community Development Department is not inundated with PUD requests.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this code amendment and
recommended approval by a four to zero vote. Subsequent to the Commission's
review, staff has amended the recommendation so that the provision is extended to
multi - family residential (as opposed to all residential) that furthers the goals of the
AACP (as opposed to one or more goals of the AACP).
Staff recommends City Council adopt Ordinance No. !j� Series of 1999, upon
first reading and schedule the second reading and public hearing for December
6,1999.
APPLICANT:
Community Development Department, City of Aspen.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Text Amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the
application at a public hearing and recommend approval, approval with conditions, or
denial to City Council. City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny
the code amendment at a public hearing.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Under this system, a developer would first bring an idea to the Community
Development Department to gain staff input. The goals of the AACP could be
discussed and the project could be allowed to proceed under the PUD regulations if
there existed the opportunity to further the community goals stated in this document.
At that point, an application could be submitted under the PUD standards, subject to
the full review.
If the Community Development Director did not foresee a furthering of community
goals by virtue of the extended process, the property owner could either develop
according to current zoning or appeal the decision to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
It should be noted that the City Planning Department will be proposing code
amendments to create an Infrll Program encouraging greater densities and increased
development downtown as part of the 2000 Community Development Department
Work Program. Staff s preference for this Infill Program is to closely define the
parameters of acceptable development rather than allowing each project to be
reviewed under a PUD. Once an Infill Program is defined, projects may come
forward as either "by- right" projects or with lesser review requirements. In this
manner, the development parameters may be intimately reviewed once rather than
with each project — saving significant amounts of staff time and providing a more
predictable outcome for applicants. An Infill Program, however, will not be initiated
until the Spring of 2000 and may take 6 months to gain adoption. This PUD code
amendment would allow projects to go forward on an individual basis and may also
serve as good test cases for a broader program.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council adopt this Ordinance, upon first reading.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move adopt Ordinance No.5a, Series of 1999, upon first reading."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
C:\home\CHRISB\CASES\PUD-27k\cc—first.doc
M. B.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
VY.I
RE: Code Amendments — Public Hearing (continued from 6. 8. 99) \
Lodge Preservation Program:
Growth Management Quota System — Section 26.470
Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District — Section 26.710.320 p
Lodge Definition — Section 26.104.100 L a
Parking Regulations — Section 26.515.030
DATE: August 24, 1999
SUMMARY:
Staff has held several work sessions concerning revisions to the Lodge Preservation
Program. The process has concentrated on the way in which both lodge owners and City
officials wanted to continue the expired Lodge Preservation (LP) Program. Attached to
this memo as Exhibit A is a summary of the joint Council /Commission LP work session.
Please find attached proposed code language regarding the "Lodge" definition, the Lodge
Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District, and Growth Management reflecting the general
direction provided during the work session. Staff has highlighted important aspects of
the new program under the heading "Main Issues."
Staff recommends the Commission consider the proposed language, take and
consider public testimony, and pass forward a recommendation of approval to the
City Council.
MAIN ISSUES:
Substantive Changes to LP Program:
The three main aspects that make up the revised LP Program are: 1) the LP Overlay; 2)
the definition of a Lodge; and, 3) the LP Program in GMQS. Staff has used these three
tools to construct the Program and appropriate the desires of the Commission and
Council into code sections.
The Commission should be comfortable with the manner in which these different
sections relate and operate together.
Process:
Staff expects the majority of the LP Program applications will employ the flexibility of
the revised Planned Unit Development code. The PUD portion of the application will
1 11
"I
proceed to the City Council after a recommendation by the P &Z is made while the
growth management portion of their requests will be handled entirely by the Planning
and Zoning Commission. This process is consistent with the original program.
GMQS Criteria for LP Program:
As with the Planned Unit Development, staff is most interested in the Commission's
comfort with the criteria under which LP applications will be reviewed for growth I
management. Please refer to Exhibit B for the criteria. qlp� wa{- uty�olydy (,lww.
Demolition Credit.
One important aspect of this new LP Program is the maintenance of mitigation credit
through demolition with respect to growth management requirements for employee
housing and parking. This is different from all other applications of Growth
Management in town and important to note as a significant incentive for lodge owners
wanting to make substantial improvements to their lodge. Any other land use is
required to mitigate for the entire development when demolition is involved, as if it
were not there prior to demolition, with respect to affordable housing and parking.
As requested by the Boards, the credit only applies to replacement of lodge and
affordable housing demolition. Change in use applications involving demolition are
required to mitigate with no benefit from the LP Program. Change in use applications
utilizing the same structure are required to mitigate for the net increase in impacts.
Growth Management Allotments:
The proposed LP Program creates a separate category for LP Lodges in growth
management. This was a primary element of the original Program and identified as
an important element for the new Program by lodge owners during the work sessions.
This duplicates the original LP Program's approach and allows smaller, less- affluent
lodges to seek development approvals without having to compete against larger,
more - affluent corporate projects.
The original three -year Program was initiated with an eleven unit per year growth
quota. As the units were not in high demand, the accumulation resulted in a 27 unit
quota at the conclusion of the three years. Staff is recommending the available
allotment, or base allotment, be re- initiated at this same number — 27 units. The
annual allotment, however, should be considered with respect to the overall
adjustments for all land uses within the Quota System. This work will be
forthcoming after the adoption of the AACP.
At least for the interim, an annual allotment should be codified. Staff is
recommending this be established at eleven units per year — consistent with the
original Program.
Lodge Definition:
An issue was raised during the LP work session concerning the long -term lease provision
of the Lodge definition. The concept which immediately came forth was to eliminate the
long -term provision and define short-term as one month or less.
Since the work session with council, several lodge owners have expressed concern about
their "master lease" style of operation. This is a process where lodge owners rent a
portion or the entire lodge to a user group for a longer period of time. For example,
many small lodges rent their rooms to the MAA for the entire summer season.
Considering this traditional operating style for small lodges, while maintaining Council's
concern about de -facto residential conversion, staff is proposing a definition which
allows for master leases up to six months of any given year. In this manner, staff hopes
to satisfy the operational concerns of the small lodge owners while preserving an
important characteristic of lodges — short-term occupancy. Please refer to Exhibit C for
further detail.
Condominimization:
One important concern of Council's is the condominiumization form of ownership and
the impacts it may have on the town's short term lodging base. Specifically, the fear is
that units under individual ownership may remain empty for a large portion of the year
and be used only as a vacation residence.
Staff considers condominiumization a form of ownership and not a land use. In fact
identical land uses may be owned in various ways. (Consider the land use difference
between the Limelite Lodge and the Hotel Aspen — both operate as short-term lodging
facilities, even though only one is owned by several individuals in a condominium
association.)
Staff believes that amending the lodge definition to not allow long -term occupancy will
prohibit lodges from being used as residences, adequately addressing City Council's
concern. The proposed code language removes condominiumization as a use in the zone
district.
Staff understands some lodge owners may feel that the removal of this form of
ownership removes their ability to condominiumize their lodge. This is not the case.
Staff has included a clause in the resolution clarifying this point.
APPLICANT:
Community Development Department.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission considered these code amendments during work sessions with the
council and during this public hearing which was opened on June 8, 1999.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Code Amendment. The Commission shall recommend approval, approval with
conditions, or denial to the City Council during a public hearing.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to adopt Resolution 99- recommending City Council adopt the LP Program
Code Amendments as presented by staff in the Community Development Department
memo dated August 24, 1999."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Work Session Summary
Exhibit B -- Proposed GMQS
Exhibit C -- Proposed Definition
Exhibit D -- Proposed LP Overlay Zone District
Exhibit E -- Proposed Parking Requirement
M
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM, SECTION 26.470 OF THE LAND
USE CODE, APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE LODGE PRESERVATION
OVERLAY (LP) ZONE DISTRICT, SECTION 26.710.320, APPROVE AN
AMENDMENT TO THE DEFINITION OF "LODGE," SECTION 26.104.100 OF
THE LAND USE CODE, AND APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFF -
STREET PARKING REGULATIONS, SECTION 26.515.030 OF THE LAND USE
CODE.
Resolution #99 -
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
City of Aspen directed the Planning Director of the Community Development
Department to propose amendments to the Lodge Preservation Program provisions of the
land use code pursuant to sections 26.208 and 26.212; and,
WHEREAS, the amendments requested relate to Section 26.470, 26.710.320,
26.104.100, and 26.515.030 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title
26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval
with conditions, or denial by the Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and
considering these recommendations; and,
WHEREAS, the form of land ownership known as "condominium" is an allowed
form of ownership in all Zone Districts of the City of Aspen, including the Lodge
Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District, even though the term is not listed as a use in the
zone district; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director recommended approval of amendments to
Sections 26.470, 26.710.320, 26.104.100, and 26.515.030 of the land use code of the
Aspen Municipal Code as described herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened the public hearing to
consider the existing and proposed Lodge Preservation Program on June 8, 1999, and
continued the hearing to July 20, 1999, and then to August 24, 1999, took and considered
public testimony and the recommendation of the Planning Director and recommended, by
a to_ (_-_) vote, City Council adopt the proposed Lodge Preservation Program
amendments to the land use code by amending the text of sections 26.470, 26.710.320,
26.104.100, and 26.515.030 of the land use code of the Aspen Municipal Code as
described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the Aspen City Council should adopt the Lodge Preservation Program by amending
the Land Use Code of the Municipal Code, as follows:
P &Z Reso. 99 21,.page 1
Section 1•
Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby recommends City Council replace Section 26.470.050(M), in total
with the following language:
M. Lodge Preservation Program.
Development, or redevelopment after demolition, of properties zoned Lodge
Preservation (LP) Overlay to increase or decrease the number of lodge units, the
number of affordable housing units, or the amount of accessory commercial
square footage, or the change in use between said uses, shall be exempted from
the growth management competition and scoring procedures, provided. that the
Planning and Zoning Commission determines, at a public hearing, that the
following criteria are met:
(1) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
(2) The proposed development is compatible with the character of existing
land uses in the surrounding area and with the purpose of the Lodge
Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District.
(3) Employee housing or cash -in -lieu will be provided to mitigate for
additional employees generated by the development or to mitigate for the
demolition of multi - family housing, as required by section 26.530. This
shall include an analysis and credit for existing employee generation and
the incremental impact between the existing development and the
proposed development. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard.
(4) Adequate parking spaces and public facilities exist, will be provided for
the development, or that adequate mitigation measures will be provided.
(5) There exists sufficient GMQS allotments to accommodate the proposed
development and the allotments are deducted from the respective Annual
Development Allotment and Metro Area Development Ceilings
established pursuant to Section 26.470.050.
Section 2:
Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.470.080(B)(3) by
including the following language as subparagraph (c) and reallocating the letter
designations of the following subparagraphs accordingly:
3c. Planning and Zoning Commission Review.
Applications for lodge, affordable housing, or accessory commercial square
footage development within the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District
shall be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and
consideration at a public hearing after the Community Development Director has
determined that the application for exemption is complete and has made a
P &Z Reso. 99 2"Apage 2
recommendation for approval, approv�ith conditions, or disapproval. Notice
of the hearing shall be by publication (See Section 26.304.060(E)). The Planning
and Zoning Commission shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or
disapprove the application. In the event that there are insufficient allotments
available to accommodate all applications for exempt development, a random
drawing shall be held in accordance with the standards of Section
26.470.080(B)(4)
Section 3:
Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.470.080(B) by striking,
in its entirety, subparagraph (5).
Section 4•
Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.470.050(A)(1) Base
Allotment Pool with the addition of the following language:
Lodge Preservation Overlay Zone Tourist Accommodations: 11 Units
Section 5•
Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby recommends City Council establish the accumulated allotment
surplus, denoted as factor "A" in Section 26.470.050(C)(1), as 27 units for the growth
management year beginning June 1 of 1999.
Section 6•
Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby recommends City Council replace Section 26.710.320 Lodge
Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District, in total, with the following language:
26.28.320 Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District. yyy���„lCS O
OV% V
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Lodge Preservaf n (LP) Overlay zone district is to
provide for and protect small lodge uses in areas 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, and to encourage
development which is compatible with neighboring properties and respective of l�JJ1
the manner in which the property has historically operated. && ('q1 �C/Uj r.,. ���.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the LP Overlay
zone district.
1. Lodge;
2. Boarding house;
P &Z Reso. 992Z page 3
3. Dormitory;
4. Affordable housing for employees of the lodge;
5. Accessory use facilities intended for guests of permitted lodge units,
boarding house or dormitory, which are commonly found in association
and are for guests only, including office, lounge, kitchen, dining room,
laundry, and recreational facilities;
6. Accessory buildings and uses.
7. The permitted uses of the underlying zone district.
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted in the LP Overlay zone
district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.60 of
this Code.
1. Affordable housing;
2. Restaurant;
3. Timesharing;
4. The uses allowed as conditional uses in the underlying zone district.
D. Dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirements for all uses in the
Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District shall be the dimensional requirements
established for those uses in the underlying zone district. Upon consideration of
neighborhood compatibility and the dimensional requirements regulations of surrounding
zone districts, the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district may be varied
pursuant to section 26.445, Planned Unit Development.
Section 7:
Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby recommends City Council amend the definition of "Lodge," Section
26.104.100 by striking and adding, as denoted by &tribe and underline, language to the
definition of the term as follows:
Lodge. Same as hotel, except that lodge rooms in a lodge may have a kitchen in
certain zone districts, and may be master
leased up to six months of any year.
Section 8:
Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.515.030 Required
Number of Off Street Parking Spaces with the addition of the following underlined
language:
The off -street parking spaces established below shall be provided for each use in
the zone district. Whenever the off - street parking is subject to establishment by
adoption of a Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan, that review
shall be pursuant to Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development. Whenever the
parking requirement is subject to special review or may be provided via a
P &Z Reso. 991 4.page 4
payment in lieu, that review shall be pursuant to the procedures set forth at
Chapter 26.430 and the standards set forth at Section 26.515.040, below.
Section 9:
Pursuant to Section 26.310 of the Municipal Code, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby recommends City Council amend Section 26.515.030 Required
Number of Off Street Parking Spaces with the replacement of the following language in
the chart under said section:
LP Overlay
0.7 spacesibedroom
*, unless otherwise
4 spaces /1000 square feet
unless otherwise
established pursuant
of net leasable area,
established pursuant
to Section 26.445,
unless otherwise
to Section 26.445,
Planned Unit
established pursuant to
Planned Unit
Development.
Section 26.445, Planned
Development.
Unit Development.
APPROVED by the Commission during a public hearing on August 24, 1999.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
C:\home\CHRISB\CASES\LP—PROGR\LP—Reso.doc
P &Z Reso. 99 -page 5
Robert Blaich, Chair
LODGE PRESERVATION
4.19.99 Ex. A
Following is a summary of the April 19, 1999, joint work session between the City
Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Affordable Housing:
The Boards directed staff to not amend the affordable housing provisions of the LP Zone
District. The existing code allows affordable housing for employees of the lodge as a
permitted use and for the general public as a conditional use. Also, lodges wanting to
convert to affordable housing would still be required to seek a change -in -use approval.
Growth Management "Credit. "
The two Boards agreed there should be a mitigation "credit" be provided for lodge use
but not be extended to change -in -use applications. In other words, an LP lodge wanting
to redevelop as a lodge would be required to mitigate only the net increase in impacts.
(i.e. a 15 unit lodge replaced with a 20 unit lodge would be required to mitigate for only 5
units.)
This is different from all other applications of Growth Management in town and
represents an incentive for lodge owners wanting to make significant improvements to
their lodge. All other commercial and lodge development is town must mitigate for the
entire development (as if it didn't exist before) in order to replace after demolition.
The two Boards also said, however, that this "credit" should not be applied to change -in-
use applications when demolition is involved. Lodge owners wanting to demolish their
lodge a construct commercial, office, or residential uses will be required to provide
mitigation for that use with no credit given for the previous use.
Minor PUD:
The two Boards decided the Minor PUD provision should proceed. This provision will
allow specific zoning provisions to be established by City Council on LP properties. In
other words, an individual LP lodge owner could argue that a certain setback, parking
scenario, or additional FAR is more desirable than provided in the strict zoning. This is
important considering many of the older lodges were constructed before zoning (and are
non - conforming) and this flexibility is an incentive to maintain and improve an older
lodge.
Tax Incentives:
The City Finance Director and the City Attorney have instructed staff and City Council to
not seek a special taxing district for small lodges. This type of provision would be easily
considered biased and discriminatory. Also, City Council expressed no interest in
creating any sort of bed tax for lodge properties.
Inclusion of other Small Lodges:
The Boards agreed that invitations to join the LP Zone District should be extended to
other small lodges that do not already exist in a Lodge District. Lodges that were
mentioned include: Ullr Lodge, Deep Powder, Chalet Lisl, Holland House, Mountain
Chalet, the Tyrolean, and the Snow Eagle.
"Lodge" Definition:
The current definition of a lodge reads as follows:
Lodge means a building within the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district or a building
presently zoned Commercial Lodge (CL) containing three (3) or more individual rooms for
the purpose or providing lodging facilities on a short or long -term basis, for compensation,
with or without meals, and which has common facilities for reservation and cleaning services
and on -site management and reception. A lodge may include kitchens within individual rental
units.
The two Boards considered the long -term lease provision of this definition and concluded
that type of occupancy resembled residential occupancy. The conclusion was to
eliminate "or long - term" from the definition and redefine short term as occupancy periods
of one month or less.
Condominiumization:
City Council expressed some concerns about his type of ownership and the affects it may
have on the short-term lodging base. Staff and the City Attorney suggested making this
type of ownership a conditional use to ensure some review of the affects the type of
ownership may have on the use.
Growth Management Allotment Pool:
Staff suggested and the two Boards agreed that small lodges should have a separate
growth management allotment pool than the general lodging pool available to all lodges
in town. This is similar to the original LP Program which was specifically crafted so that
smaller, less - affluent lodges could seek development approvals without having to
compete against larger, more - affluent corporate projects.
The two Boards agreed the annual allotment pool should be consistent from year to year
and not rely on the previous calculation by the Community Development Director.
Lottery:
The original LP Program granted allotments through a yearly lottery system. In this
lottery, applicants were drawn randomly for allotments prior to development approvals
were accepted or considered. During the three -year period there was never a competitive
lottery.
The two Boards decided to discontinue the lottery process and allow the growth
management exemptions to occur on a first come -first served
Trial Period:
The original Program was initiated for a three year period. The Boards recommended
staff proceed with a code amendment revising the Program as a permanent modification
to the land use code, proceeding indefinitely.
Exhibit B
New GMQS Section 26.470.070(11
M. Lodge Preservation Program. (replace in total)
Development, or redevelopment after demolition, of properties zoned Lodge Preservation
(LP) Overlay to increase or decrease the number of lodge units, the number of affordable
housing units, or the amount of accessory commercial square footage, or the change in
use between said uses, shall be exempted from the growth management competition and
scoring procedures, provided that the Planning and Zoning Commission determines, at a
public hearing, that the following criteria are met:
(1) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
(2) The proposed development is compatible with the character of existing land uses
in the surrounding area and with the purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP)
Overlay Zone District.
(3) Employee housing or cash -in -lieu will be provided to mitigate for additional
employees generated by the development or to mitigate for the demolition of
multi - family housing, as required by section 26.530. This shall include an
analysis and credit for existing employee generation and the incremental impact
between the existing development and the proposed development. A
recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be
considered for this standard.
(4) Adequate parking spaces and public facilities exist, will be provided for the
development, or that adequate mitigation measures will be provided;
(5) There exists sufficient GMQS allotments to accommodate the proposed
development and the allotments are deducted from the respective Annual
Development Allotment and Metro Area Development Ceilings established
pursuant to Section 26.470.040
S
3e. Planning and Zoning Commission Review. (replace in total subparagraph 5, re-
number)
Applications for lodge, affordable housing, or accessory commercial square footage
development within the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District shall be
forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and consideration at a
public hearing after the Community Development Director has determined that the
application for exemption is complete and has made a recommendation for approval,
approval with conditions, or disapproval. Notice of the hearing shall be by publication
(See Section 26.304.060(E)). The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution
approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application. In the event that there
are insufficient allotments available to accommodate all applications for exempt
development, a random drawing shall be held in accordance with the standards of Section
26.470.080(B)(4)
Proposed LP GMQS Page 1
3 va�ll�cc
Exhibit C
Lodge Definition
Current definitions:
Lodge. Same as hotel, except that lodge rooms in a lodge may have a kitchen in certain
zone districts, and may be rented on a long term basis.
Hotel. A building containing three (3) or more individual rooms, without kitchens, used
for overnight lodging by the general public on a short-term basis for a fee, with or
without meals, and which has common reservation and cleaning services, combined
utilities, and on -site management and reception services.
Proposed Lodge definition:
Lodge. Same as hotel, except that lodge rooms in a lodge may have a kitchen in certain
zone districts, and may beiiler leased up to six months of any year.
Notes:
1. The definition of long term is 6 months. There is no current definition of short term.
2. The longer lease period allowance does not necessarily need to be 6 months. The
majority of lodge owners expressing concerns about their master leasing said their
master leases typically run two to four months.
Lodge definition 1
Exhibit D
Proposed LP Overlay Zone
26.28.320 Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District.
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay zone district is to
provide for and protect small lodge uses in areas 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, and to encourage
development which is compatible with neighboring properties and respective of
the manner in which the property has historically operated.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the LP Overlay
zone district.
1. Lodge;
2. Boarding house;
3. Dormitory;
4. Affordable housing for employees of the lodge;
5. Accessory use facilities intended for guests of permitted lodge units,
boarding house or dormitory, which are commonly found in association
and are for guests only, including office, lounge, kitchen, dining room,
laundry, and recreational facilities;
6. Accessory buildings and uses.
7. The permitted uses of the underlying zone district.
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted in the LP Overlay zone
district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.60 of
this Code.
1. Affordable housing;
2. Restaurant;
3. Timesharing;
4. The uses allowed as conditional uses in the underlying zone district.
D. Dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirements for all uses in the
Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District shall be the dimensional requirements
established for those uses in the underlying zone district. Upon consideration of
neighborhood compatibility and the dimensional requirements regulations of surrounding
zone districts, the dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district may be varied
pursuant to section 26.445, Planned Unit Development.
Proposed Zoning - page 1
w
Exhibit E
Proposed Parking Requirement
26.515.030 Off - Street Parking
Add the following language to paragraph 41:
Whenever the off - street parking is subject to establishment by adoption of a Planned Unit
Development Final Development Plan, that review shall be pursuant to Section 26.445,
Planned Unit Development
Replace language in chart, under LP Zone, with the following:
Lodge use: 0.7 spaces/bedroom unless otherwise established pursuant to
Section 26.445, Planned Unit Development.
2. Residential: *, unless otherwise established pursuant to Section 26.445,
Planned Unit Development.
All other uses: 4 spaces /1000 square feet of net leasable area, unless
otherwise established pursuant to Section 26.445, Planned Unit
Development.
* this refers the reader to the standard parking requirement for residential development.
1T W
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Code Amendments — Public caring
Lodge Preservation
DATE: June 8, 1999
Staff requests this item be tabled to July 20, 1999. Attached please find a summary of
the April 19, 1999, joint work session between the City Council and the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Staff is delaying this public hearing to conduct a study of employee generation rates
typically associated with small lodges and to determine base and yearly growth
management allotments for LP Lodges.
LODGE PRESERVATION 4.19.99
Following is a summary of the April 19, 1999, joint work session between the City
Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Affordable Housing:
The Boards directed staff to not amend the affordable housing provisions of the LP Zone
District. The existing code allows affordable housing for employees of the lodge as a
permitted use and for the general public as a conditional use. Also, lodges wanting to
convert to affordable housing would still be required to seek a change -in -use approval.
Growth Management "Credit:"
The two Boards agreed there should be a mitigation "credit" be provided for lodge use
but not be extended to change -in -use applications. In other words, an LP lodge wanting
to redevelop as a lodge would be required to mitigate only the net increase in impacts.
(i.e. a 15 unit lodge replaced with a 20 unit lodge would be required to mitigate for only 5
units.)
This is different from all other applications of Growth Management in town and
represents an incentive for lodge owners wanting to make significant improvements to
their lodge. All other commercial and lodge development is town must mitigate for the
entire development (as if it didn't exist before) in order to replace after demolition.
The two Boards also said, however, that this "credit" should not be applied to change -in-
use applications when demolition is involved. Lodge owners wanting to demolish their
lodge a construct commercial, office, or residential uses will be required to provide
mitigation for that use with no credit given for the previous use.
Minor PUD:
The two Boards decided the Minor PUD provision should proceed. This provision will
allow specific zoning provisions to be established by City Council on LP properties. In
other words, an individual LP lodge owner could argue that a certain setback, parking
scenario, or additional FAR is more desirable than provided in the strict zoning. This is
important considering many of the older lodges were constructed before zoning (and are
non - conforming) and this flexibility is an incentive to maintain and improve an older
lodge.
Tax Incentives:
The City Finance Director and the City Attorney have instructed staff and City Council to
not seek a special taxing district for small lodges. This type of provision would be easily
considered biased and discriminatory. Also, City Council expressed no interest in
creating any sort of bed tax for lodge properties.
Inclusion of other Small Lodges:
The Boards agreed that invitations to join the LP Zone District should be extended to
other small lodges that do not already exist in a Lodge District. Lodges that were
mentioned include: Ullr Lodge, Deep Powder, Chalet Lisl, Holland House, Mountain
Chalet, the Tyrolean, and the Snow Eagle.
"Lodge" Definition:
The current definition of a lodge reads as follows:
Lodge means a building within the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district or a building
presently zoned Commercial Lodge (CL) containing three (3) or more individual rooms for
the purpose or providing lodging facilities on a short or long -term basis, for compensation,
with or without meals, and which has common facilities for reservation and cleaning services
and on -site management and reception. A lodge may include kitchens within individual rental
units.
The two Boards considered the long -term lease provision of this definition and concluded
that type of occupancy resembled residential occupancy. The conclusion was to
eliminate "or long - term" from the definition and redefine short term as occupancy periods
of one month or less.
Condominiumization:
City Council expressed some concerns about his type of ownership and the affects it may
have on the short-term lodging base. Staff and the City Attorney suggested making this
type of ownership a conditional use to ensure some review of the affects the type of
ownership may have on the use.
Growth Management Allotment Pool:
Staff suggested and the two Boards agreed that small lodges should have a separate
growth management allotment pool than the general lodging pool available to all lodges
in town. This is similar to the original LP Program which was specifically crafted so that
smaller, less- affluent lodges could seek development approvals without having to
compete against larger, more - affluent corporate projects.
The two Boards agreed the annual allotment pool should be consistent from year to year
and not rely on the previous calculation by the Community Development Director.
Lottery:
The original LP Program granted allotments through a yearly lottery system. In this
lottery, applicants were drawn randomly for allotments prior to development approvals
were accepted or considered. During the three -year period there was never a competitive
lottery.
The two Boards decided to discontinue the lottery process and allow the growth
management exemptions to occur on a first come -first served
Trial Period:
The original Program was initiated for a three year period. The Boards recommended
staff proceed with a code amendment revising the Program as a permanent modification
to the land use code, proceeding indefinitely.
.A � //01 Y
Alpine Lodge
1240 E Cooper Ave
employee
11
eco
Barvanan Inn
811 W Bleaker
employee
15
eco
Buckhorn Lodge
730 E Cooper Ave
lodge
9
eco
Chalet Lis]
100 E Hyman Ave
owner /op
9
eco
Copper Horse
330 W Main Street
employee
14
eco
Cortina
220 E Main Street
employee
16
eco
Deep Powder Lodge
410 S Aspen St
owner /op
9
eco
Holland House
720 S Aspen St
owner /op
20
eco
Hotel Aspen
110 W Main St
condo lodge
45
eco
Little Red Ski Haus
118 E Cooper Ave
owner /op
20
eco
Maroon Creek Lodge
1489 Maroon Creek Rd
base area devel
11
eco
Snow Queen Lodge
124 E Cooper St
owner /cp
7jeco
St. Moritz Lcdce
334 W Hyman Ave 11cdge
29
eco
T -Lazy -Seven Ranch
3129 Maroon Creek Rd
guest ranch
19
eco
Tyrclean Lodge
200 W Main St
owner /op
16
eco
Aspen Club Lodge
709 E Durant Ave
Icdge
100
exp
Aspen Meadows
845 Meadows Rd
hotel
98
exp
Brand Hotel
205 S Galena
lodge
6
exp
Fireside Lodge
130 W Copper Ave
townhomes
20
exp
Hearthstone House
134 E Hyman
!cdge
17
exp
Hotel Jerome
330 E Main Street jhctel
93
exp
Hotel Lenado
200 S Aspen St
lodge
19
exp
Little Nell
675 E Durant Ave
hotel
92
exp
Northstar
914 Waters Ave
employee
23
exp
Red Roof Inn
39551 Highway 82
employee
50
exp
Sardy House
1128 E Main St
lodge
20
exp
SL Recis
315 E Dean St
hotel
257
exp
The Residence
305 S Galena
;cdge
7
exp
Aspen Country Inn
38996 Highway 82
employee
84
mod
Aspen Manor
411 S Monarch St
abandoned
21
mod
Aspen Mountain Lodge
311 W Main St
condo lodge
38
mod
Aspen Square
617 E Cooper
lodge
104
mod
Beaumont Inn
1301 E Cooper Ave
owner /op
30
mod
Bell Mountain Lodge
720 E Cooper Ave
vacant land
22
mod
Boomerang Lodge
1500 W Hopkins Ave
cwner /op
36
mod
Brass Bed Inn
920 E Durant Ave
townhomes
29
mod
Christiania Lodge
501 W Main St
lodge
22
mod
Christmas Inn
232 W Main St
dwnedcp
26
mod
Grand Aspen
515 S Galena
hotel
112
mod
Heatherbed Lodge
1679 Maroon Creek Rd
employee
40
mod
Independence Square
404 S Galena
condo lodge
28
mod
Inn At Aspen
38750 Highway 82
hotel
112
mod
Innsbruck Inn
233 W Main St
cwnedop
31
mod
Inverness Lodge
122 E Durant
cwnerlop
21
mod
L Auberge d Aspen
435 W Main St
owner /cp
16
mod
Lift One Condos
131 E Durant
condo lodge
30
mod
Limelite Lodge
1228 E Cooper
lodge
63
mod
Molly Gibson Lcdce
101 W Main St
ccndo lodge
50
mod
Mountain Chalet
333 E Durant St
owner /op
51
mod
1,"
t ..
House Lodge
905 E Hopkins
24
mod
tor
Mountain Lodge
301 E Hyman
232 W Hyman Ave
ge
23
10
mod
mod
WMountainHouse
halet
233 Gilbert
18
mod
e Inn
221 E Hyman Ave
Slodge
38
mod
n
516 E Dean St
12
mod
dge
530 S Galena
8
mod
e
520 W Main St
23
mod
Alpine House
935 E Durant Ave
py
40
Aspen Siverglo
940 Waters Ave
24
Avalanche Ranch
12863 Highway 133
BRB Campground
7202 Highway 133
Carriage House
320 W Main St
employee
10
Crystal Valley Manor
215 Redstone Blvd
Diamond J Ranch
12e604 Frying Pan Rd
Fasching Haus East
1747 S Galena
Filcha Meadows
14628 Highway 133
Frying Pan Ranch
32042 Frying Pan Rd
Limelite Lodge
228 E Cooper Ave
lodge
Maroon Creek Club
10 Club Cr
lodge
Redstone Castle
58 Redstone Blvd
Redstone Cliffs Lodge
433 Redstone Blvd
lodge
13
Redstone Inn
82 Redstone Blvd
35
Shelley Burke
2262 Snowmass Creek Rd
Snowmass Cottages
26801 Highway 82
The Pines Lodge
411 S. Aspen St lemployee
6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission r
J,
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Direct L�
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planne&1 V)
RE: Lodge Preservation Program — Joint Work Session — 4:00 p.m.
DATE: April 19, 1999
SUMMARY:
The Lodge Preservation Program allowed properties in the Lodge Preservation (LP)
Zone District greater flexibility through the City's growth management regulations.
This program allowed lodges to expand, contract, or to change their use to a use
allowed in the underlying zoning and was envisioned as an "adjustment" period
where the less - viable lodges would be removed from the market, strengthening the
more - viable lodges. This three -year program concluded in the Spring of 1998. The
chart contained in attachment A describes the results.
The purpose of this work session is to identify the way in which the LP Program
should continue. Once a philosophical structure for the Program is determined, staff
can delineate the necessary text amendments and schedule public hearings.
CURRENT REGULATIONS:
The LP Program expired in the Spring of 1998. Without the LP Program in effect,
the land use regulations have reverted to the more general Growth Management
Quota System (GMQS) applicable to all properties in town. Under this system,
development of additional lodge rooms must apply for a growth management
allocation, be scored by staff and the Growth Management Commission, and compete
against any other lodge project in town if there are more allocations requested than
are available for the year.
Converting between land uses may be approved by the Growth Management
Commission for structures not being demolished. In this case, the developer is
required to mitigate for the net increase in impacts associated with the new use.
When structures are demolished, the allotments are maintained but the applicant is
required to provide affordable housing and parking mitigation as if the property were
vacant prior to development. In other words, no "mitigation credit" is maintained if
the structure is demolished. Although the developer must mitigate for the impacts of
the replaced structure, the scoring and competition procedures of growth management
only apply if there are additional units proposed.
Lodges are a permitted use in the current LP zoning along with affordable housing for
employees of the lodge. General affordable housing (not specific to employees of the
lodge) is a conditional use. Conditional uses may be approved by the Planning and
Zoning Commission. The current lodge definition allows for both short-term and
long -term lease periods.
DISCUSSION:
At the last work session staff presented the two Boards with a set of four questions
that, at a minimum, need to be resolved before a Program can be written by staff.
These four questions help define the core philosophy of the Program. In addition,
staff presented topics for discussion that substantially contribute to the philosophy of
the Program and will help direct the code amendments. Summarized below are the
topics for discussion with a short explanation of their consequence. The work session
will concentrate on these topics in determining a direction for the Program.
1. Affordable Housing vs. Lodging. There exist two community goals — affordable
housing and the preservation of small lodges — which need to be addressed with this
program. The accommodation of one goal, however, may come at the price of
another. For example: if a large number of lodge units are converted to affordable
housing, the loss of the lodging bed base could be substantial.
Staff believes the preservation of the lodging base of town is of such importance that
every incentive for preserving lodge operations should be provided. The land use
code already favors affordable housing with process incentives and an incentive zone
district. The designation of affordable housing as it exists in the current zoning may
be sufficient as an incentive. This allows the provision of lodge employee housing as
a permitted use and general affordable housing as a conditional use. This provision
also allows for on -site housing mitigation for those properties seeking to expand their
lodge units or to convert a few units to employee housing.
2. Incentives. What types of incentives should be provided to retain the lodging base
and/or allow conversions to the underlying zoning or affordable housing? Topics
discussed at the previous meeting included land use process, zoning flexibility, and
mitigation credits for tear downs. Staff has detailed three topics below. Additional
incentives should be identified and discussed during the meeting.
2a. Mitigation. One of the primary concerns raised about the previous LP
Program was the ability of a lodge to convert to the underlying zoning and the
ability to preserve the mitigation "credits" through total demolition. This ability
to preserve mitigation credits differentiated the program from all other
applications of growth management in Aspen.
The current GMQS treatment for all properties (including LP properties without
an effective Program) is to provide mitigation "credits" for existing buildings to
the extent they are being maintained (not demolished). Replacement after
demolition does not have to compete for allotments but does have to mitigate as if
it were new (full mitigation). New construction must acquire allotments and must
mitigate for those allotments.
The small lodges were developed prior to the City's current affordable housing
requirements and generally have little affordable housing on -site for employees.
The demolition "credit" may serve as an incentive to redevelop these properties as
new lodges. However, these credits may also encourage demolition and
conversion to a non -lodge use. This was an element of the previous Program
which caused much frustration.
Staff suggests that the mitigation "credit" be provided for lodge use but not be
extended to change -in -use applications. In other words, an LP lodge wanting to
redevelop as a lodge would be required to mitigate only the net increase in
impacts. (i.e. a 15 unit lodge replaced with a 20 unit lodge would be required to
mitigate for only 5 units.) Redevelopment projects including a change to a non-
lodge use would be required to mitigate in full. (i.e. the same requirements that
apply city- wide.)
/ 2b. Minor PUD. At the last work session the two Boards decided the Minor
PUD provision should proceed. This provision would be a new process allowing
specific zoning provisions to be established by City Council on LP properties. In
other words, an individual LP lodge owner could argue that a certain setback,
parking scenario, or additional FAR is more desirable than provided in the strict
zoning. This is important considering many of the older lodges were constructed
before zoning (and are non - conforming) and this flexibility is an incentive to
maintain and improve an older lodge. This code amendment has been initiated
and will be presented to the Commission on May 18`h.
2c. Tax Incentives. The City Finance Director is investigating the possibility of
providing tax incentives for small lodges. Her initial conclusion is that a special
taxing district or a tax rebate for specific lodges may be construed as biased and
V' �a discriminatory. A more viable option would be to initiate an occupancy tax and
provide the monies to a non - profit distributor. This, however, would be a new tax
requiring a city vote.
This idea needs much more investigation. If this is an idea which the Boards warK.
more information about, staff should be instructed to provide further analysis.
3. Inclusion of other Small Lodges. At the previous work session the idea of
"inviting" other small lodges to join the LP Program was considered to be of
significant value. This invitation would not require these lodges to join, maintaining
their personal decision. Lodges that were mentioned include: Ullr Lodge, Deep
Powder, Chalet Lisl, the Limelite, and Aspen Manor. Other small lodges that exhibit
similar qualities as the LP Lodges should be identified and included on the invitation
list. The two Boards and members of the lodging community should aid staff in
identifying these non -LP properties during the work session. Other small lodges
could be later identified and invited if not acknowledged during the meeting.
�.
j,
4. "Lodge" Definition. The current definition of a lodge allows for short and long-
term occupancy and requires an unspecified amount of common facilities. The
definition reads as follows:
Lodge means a building within the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district or a
building presently zoned Commercial Lodge (CL) containing three (3) or more 1 VAa4 ,.
individual rooms for the purpose or providing lodging facilities on a sho or�
tes" basis, for compensation, with or without meals, and which has common
facilities for reservation and cleaning services and on -site management and
reception. A lodge may include kitchens within individual rental units.
Staff still prefers distinct definitions between residential and lodge uses if for no other
reason than to track the City's lodging and residential bed base and conversions. Staff
is also concerned that the long -term rental component serves neither community goal
of lodging or affordable housing and may represent a "back door" to free - market
housing. This element should be discussed.
A suggestion of preventing condominiumizations or conditioning the units to certain
rental requirements has been discussed. The idea here is to require residential
conversions to rent to local working residents or for a minimum lease period as a
mechanism for prevent defacto free - market conversion.
According to the City Attorney, the application of conditions such as these are
possible through a change in use process while the process of condominiumization is
a "by right" type of action. In this case, staff suggests eliminating the long term lease
option from the lodge definition and require residential conversions to proceed
through a change in use process where conditions could be attached. Subsequent
condominiumizations would then be subject to any change in use conditions.
5. Allotment Pool and Lottery. The original Program set forth an annual allotment
pool separate from the GMQS lodge pool available for all lodge properties in town.
This was specifically crafted so that smaller, less affluent lodges could seek
development approvals without having to compete against larger, more affluent .
corporate projects.
The smaller lodges in town provide a distinct lodging experience within the fabric of
Aspen's residential districts. This type of lodging is distinctly different from the
larger lodges located closer to the Commercial Core and the base of Aspen Mountain.
Staff supports maintaining a separate allotment pool for these small lodge properties.
The Original Program did not have a provision for affordable housing. Conversion to
free - market housing could be approved by the Commission while conversion to or
expansion of affordable housing needed to be reviewed by the Growth Management
Commission and then by City Council. Staff believes that the development of
affordable housing should be easier than free - market conversion, or should at least be
on equal ground. Also, there may be value in creating a pool for affordable housing
in the LP Zone. This could meter the conversions to an acceptable level if there is a
concern about wide- spread conversions.
The Original Program incorporated a variable allotment pool calculated each year
depending upon many growth indicators from the previous year. The result never
varied by more than a few units but a land owner could not depend upon allotments
until the calculation was accomplished. A standardized allotment for small lodges
should be available each year similar to the GMQS pools for other land uses.
The Original Program granted allotments through a yearly lottery system. In this
lottery, applicants were drawn randomly for allotments prior to development
approvals were accepted or considered. During the three -year period there was never
a competitive lottery. Staff suggests a process similar to all other exemption requests
— first come, first served.
6. Trial Period The original Program was initiated for a three year period. A revised
Program could be for another three years, another suitable time frame, or could
proceed indefinitely. Staff recommends a revised Program be permanently included
in the land use code and proceed indefinitely. This should be discussed but does not
have to be finalized at this meeting.
7. LP Overlay. The Original LP Program provided properties with a zone district
compatible with its surroundings and "lifted" the LP designation to an overlay.
Unfortunately, the LP Overlay was never amended to function correctly as an overlay
district and, as a result, there exist dimensional conflicts between the LP Overlay and
the underlying zoning. This is not a critical issue for determining the philosophical
direction of the Program. Amending the overlay to function correctly is a rather
simple task, but one that should be done regardless of the outcome of other, more
philosophical discussions.
CONCLUSION:
If the two Boards generally concur with the direction of the LP Program at the
conclusion of the work session, the public hearing process should be initiated. The
desired elements of the Program should be expressed while the details of the program
will evolve through the process.
ATTACHMENTS:
A — Summary of LP Properties
B — Existing LP Overlay Zoning
C — Proposed LP Overlay Zoning
D — Existing LP Growth Management Provisions
E — proposed LP Growth Management Provisions
d
v
�.1
N
d
a �
d
� a
y O
� C
a
m
a T
d
O �p
a v
N N
�a
v
K
0
U o
r 3
�- o
T C
� N
m�
y C
N
O m
L C
O 0
0 L
O
E d
E T
N O
N p,
N E
a y
m N
� m
N N
N EO
N �
y Ul
O y
2 L_
y� T
p, n
0 p
O
U
C 0
� 3
m �
A �
QI C
« z°
19�b v5. Iq�
L? COaPs .
¢
0
0
N
�
N
C
_O
C
O
O
N
O
0 �
C
�
C
N
u
a
C
N
p
N
C
A
G
p
c
E
N
E
c
c
S
1°
a
O
¢�
0
0
E
0
0
0
-
�v
-°
a
0
�a
a
r
m
a
r
a
r
r
aai
1
c
c
c
U
U
0
K
O
m
'a
C
a
J
C
M
[O
N
N
x
�
N
m
c
G
m
m
_
O
N
p
O
O
O
O
O
0
S
S
ydj
U
0
N
O
N
3
U
d
�
N
N
T
O
N
0
0 T
0 T
0
N
N
N
T O
m
m
m
n
m
m
m
m
m
m
n
n
m
m
m
m
Lo
m
m
m
m
m
a
m
0
0
E
o
0
0
0
E
E
o
0
0
o
°J
o
o
aJ o
0
o
E
J
J
W
J
W
W
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
W
M
GI
CC)
F
C
m
m
W
m
0
N
rn
0
p
Q
N
a
N
N
0
J
O
N
m
p
J
m
J
O
d
a
C
N
0
O
C
O
J
C
N
C
N
O
p
J
J
C
J
N
I
C
N
a
N—
C
N=
O
N
dJ�
m
p
N
Nom_
3�
N
m
C
N
R
E
m
y
N
N
2
N
r
d
T
C
-OO
3
L
0
4
y
g
p
y
L
L
O
E
O
N
0
0
c
0
0
C
N
O
C
J¢¢
co
d
fOmmmUUUUiLL
222
Cam
U)U3
v
�.1
N
d
a �
d
� a
y O
� C
a
m
a T
d
O �p
a v
N N
�a
v
K
0
U o
r 3
�- o
T C
� N
m�
y C
N
O m
L C
O 0
0 L
O
E d
E T
N O
N p,
N E
a y
m N
� m
N N
N EO
N �
y Ul
O y
2 L_
y� T
p, n
0 p
O
U
C 0
� 3
m �
A �
QI C
« z°
19�b v5. Iq�
L? COaPs .
a
R
s
N
R
a °m
R
Ti a
N O
d C
a
a c
R R
R T
a �
o �
c
.. R
� o
a d
N_ N
OI m
R ..
� N
O
� O
« p
a c
w
O1 a
c c
N> R
o m
L C
R N
TJ
O
O L
O W
E W
N o
N d
R E
R N
N
3 R
R R
R OR
N N
O R
S L
R n
n
O �O
0
U
a �
10 3
C
R �
R �
M C
« Z
W
O
a
C
M
Oj
N
N
N
O
V
N
M
N
O
N
r
7
d
m
O
J
i%O
C
N
MOO
N
W
n
x
a
r
N
a
c_
a
a
J
N
r
J
J
ma
L
_
_
a
C
a
C
pCp
U
N
C
R
N
C
U
U
N
ydj
T
T
T
C
a
pa
a
-
N
O
R O l
O
n
6
0
OOOOOOOO
N
R
N
O
pW
A
S
a
a
R
R
O
O
0
0
a
0
0
a
0
M
�
Q
J
W
K
J
J
J
J
W
W
K
W
N
G
Rl
~
m
C
n
ry
R
m
a
Q
p
N
N
O
O
J
R
J
N
O
Q
O
O
N
O
N
a
C
R
a
O
C
J
c
R
OI=
O
c
C
O
J
>
C
O
C
R
tap
C
y
S
O
C
N
J
N
=O
M
O
m
N
R=
R
N
N
R?
'fp
0
3
Q
0
Q
J
E
3
C
D
G
n
y
M
0
o
L
L
O
O
d
O
O
C
_T
O
O
R
L
C
O
JQQ
m
MMM
QODUUUiz
SSS
���U)Cn
cozo
a
R
s
N
R
a °m
R
Ti a
N O
d C
a
a c
R R
R T
a �
o �
c
.. R
� o
a d
N_ N
OI m
R ..
� N
O
� O
« p
a c
w
O1 a
c c
N> R
o m
L C
R N
TJ
O
O L
O W
E W
N o
N d
R E
R N
N
3 R
R R
R OR
N N
O R
S L
R n
n
O �O
0
U
a �
10 3
C
R �
R �
M C
« Z
Exhibit
Existing Zoning Overlay
26.28.320 Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) zone district.
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay zone district is to
provide for and protect small lodge uses in areas historically used for lodge
accommodations, to permit expansion of these lodges when such expansions are
compatible with neighboring properties, and provide an incentive for upgrading
existing lodges on -site or onto adjacent properties.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the LP Overlay
zone district.
1. Lodge units;
2. Boarding house;
3. Dormitory;
4. Accessory use facilities intended for guests of permitted lodge units,
boarding house or dormitory, which are commonly found in association and are
for guests only, including office, lounge, kitchen, dining room, laundry and
recreational facilities;
5. Affordable housing for employees of the lodge;
6. Accessory buildings and uses.
7. Condominiumization, with the requirement that the lodge must maintain
management facilities and make the unit available for short-term rentals through
ACRA for fifty (50) percent of a calendar year.
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted in the LP Overlay zone
district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.60 of
this Code.
1. Restaurant included within a lodge operation serving guests and others;
2. Timesharing;
3. Affordable housing.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply
to all permitted and conditional uses in the LP Overlay Zone District.
1. Minimum lot size (square feet): No requirement
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement
3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement
4. Minimum front yard (feet): 10
5. Minimum side yard (feet): 5
6. Minimum rear yard (feet): 10
7. Maximum height (feet): 25
8. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (feet): 10
9. Percent open space required for building site: 35 (Can be varied by special
review pursuant to Chapter 26.64 of this Code.)
10. External floor area ratio: Established by special review pursuant to
Chapter 26.64, not to exceed 1:1.
11. Internal floor area ratio:
Lodge rental space: Maximum of .75:1, which can be increased to 1:1 internal
FAR of lodge rental space provided that 33.3% of the additional floor area is
approved for residential use restricted to affordable housing for employees of the
lodge.
E. Off - street parking requirement. The following off - street parking spaces shall be
provided for each use in the LP overlay zone district, subject to the provisions of
Chapter 26.32 of this Code.
1. Lodge use: 0.7 spaces/bedroom, of which 0.2 spaces per bedroom can be
provided via payment in lieu pursuant to Chapter 26.64 of this Code.
2. All other uses: 4 spaces /1000 square feet of net leasable area. (Ord. No.
29 -1996, § 4)
Exhibit
Cl-
Proposed LP Zone
26.28.320 Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District.
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay zone district is to
provide for and protect small lodge uses in areas 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, and to encourage
development which is compatible with neighboring properties and respective of
the manner in which the property has historically operated.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the LP Overlay
zone district.
1. Lodge;
2. Boarding house;
3. Dormitory;
4. Accessory use facilities intended for guests of permitted lodge units,
boarding house or dormitory, which are commonly found in association and are
for guests only, including office, lounge, kitchen, dining room, laundry, and
recreational facilities;
5. Affordable housing;
6. Accessory buildings and uses.
7. The permitted uses of the underlying zone district.
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted in the LP Overlay zone
district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.60 of
this Code.
1. Restaurant included within a lodge operation serving guests and others;
2. Timesharing;
3. The uses allowed as conditional uses in the underlying zone district.
D. Dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirements for all uses in the
Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District shall be the dimensional
requirements established for those uses in the underlying zone district. Upon
consideration of neighborhood compatibility and the dimensional requirements
regulations of surrounding zone districts, the following dimensional requirements
may be established pursuant to section , Minor Planned Unit Development
Review:
1. Minimum lot size (square feet):
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet):
3. Minimum lot width (feet):
4. Minimum front yard (feet):
Proposed Zoning - page 1
5. Minimum side yard (feet):
6. Minimum rear yard (feet):
7. Maximum height (feet):
8. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (feet):
9. Percent open space required for building site:
10. External floor area ratio:
11. Off - Street Parking:
E. Off - street parking requirement. The following off - street parking spaces shall be
provided for each use in the LP overlay zone district, unless otherwise established
pursuant to section _, Minor Planned Unit Development Review:
1. Lodge use: 0.7 spaces/bedroom.
2. All other uses: 4 spaces/ 1000 square feet of net leasable area.
Proposed Zoning - page 2
Exhibit T)
Expired GMQS
a. Timing of exemption request. No development shall be considered for an exemption by
the Community Development Director until a complete application has been submitted
pursuant to section 26.52.070 of this Code.
2. Planning and Zoning Commission exemptions that are deducted from the annual
allotment pool or from the metro area development ceilings. The following exemptions
shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotment established pursuant
to section 26.100.040 or from the metro area development ceilings established pursuant
to section 26.100.030.
a. Change in use /lodge expansion. A change in use of any existing structure previously
zoned LP to either commercial /office or residential use, or the expansion of an existing
lodge previously zoned LP shall be exempt from growth management competition and
scoring procedures, provided that the following conditions are met:
(1) The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that
employee housing or cash -in -lieu will be provided to mitigate for additional
employees generated by the change in use or expansion. This shall include an
analysis and credit for existing employee housing and the incremental impact
between the existing use and the proposed conversion;
(2) The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that
sufficient parking spaces will be provided for the change in use or expansion or
cash -in -lieu will be used;
(3) The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that the
change in use or expansion is compatible with the character of the existing
neighborhood;
(4) The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that
adequate public facilities exist or will be provided for the change in use of the
existing neighborhood;
(5) No zone change is required.
(6) The proposal is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
(7) The proposed conversion or expansion will be deducted from the appropriate
GMQS Lodge Conversion or Expansion Pool, pursuant to section 26.100.040.
Process for allocations.
An annual lottery held during a regularly scheduled Commission meeting shall be
established for lodges requesting conversion or expansion. Each lodge can apply for
inclusion in the lottery. Each lodge selected in the pool shall be allowed to go through the
change in use process. Separate lotteries shall be held for free market conversion,
expansion or commercial /office use. The total number of lodges allowed to be selected in
the lottery shall be based on the potential buildout available for the selected lodge.
For example, each lodge has a potential buildout based on underlying zoning that
determines the number of free market homes possible on each property, as well as the
allowed square footage of commercial or office space. As the lottery progresses, a
running total of potential buildout units or commercial /office square footage as
Expired LP GMQS page 1
determined by underlying zoning, shall be kept. Once the total allowable GMQS
allocations for lodge expansion or conversion is reached or exceeded by the last selected
lodge, one additional lodge applying for change in use shall be selected and the lottery
shall end.
If the total number of free market units or non - residential square footage allowable under
underlying zoning are not awarded through the annual change in use process, the last
selected lodge can apply for the change in use process for these remaining allocations.
Multi -year allocations can be awarded if the Commission approves a change in use
application for the units that exceed the annual quota, and the following years allocations
shall be adjusted accordingly. Any allocations left following all change in use
applications shall be returned to the pool for future allocation.
Potential lodge expansion units for 1996 shall be eleven (11) lodge units. Subsequent
years lodge allocations shall be determined by the conversion formula and the number of
free market conversion units approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission during
the previous year, as described in Section 26.100.040. This shall be determined by the
Community Development Director.
In order to prevent speculation or residential quota banking, a lodge awarded residential
allocations would be required to apply for a land use application for a change in use
within nine (9) months of the lottery date, followed by the securing of an active building
permit and an abandonment of the lodge use within eighteen (18) months of the lottery
date. If no land use application is submitted within nine (9) months from the date of the
lottery, no quota received will revert to the next lottery winner. If no building permit is
issued within eighteen (18) months, the units awarded would be added to the next GMQS
pool, and the lodge can not compete in the lottery for five (5) years, or some other period
of time suitable to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The deadline established above for building permits and land use submittals are not
required for commercial allocations until all necessary quotas for a project are secured,
whereupon a lodge awarded the full allocation necessary for its project would be required
to submit a land use application for a change in use within nine (9) months of the lottery
date on which all necessary quotas were obtained, followed by the securing of an active
building permit, and an abandonment of the lodge use within eighteen (18) months of the
lottery date on which all necessary quotas were obtained. If no land use application is
submitted within nine (9) months, or no building permit is issued within eighteen (18)
months of the lottery date on which all necessary quotas were obtained, the units awarded
will be added to the next GMQS pool, and the lodge could not compete in the lottery for
five (5) years, or some other period of time suitable to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
An extension of the nine (9) month or eighteen (18) month deadline can only be granted
by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on a good faith effort on the part of the
applicant to file an application or obtain a building permit.
A mixed use residential and commercial development, where permitted by underlying
zoning, would require the residential component of the project to be developed within the
time limits imposed on residential development, as outlined above, even if it requires the
phasing of the development project.
Expired LP GMQS page 2
The schedule for application for the change in use or lodge expansion lottery for 1996 are
as follows:
November 15, 1996 -- Conversion of previously zoned LP properties to free
market units
November 15, 1996 -- Conversion of previously zoned LP properties to non-
residential uses
November 15, 1996 -- Expansion of lodges previously zoned LP.
For 1997 and 1998, the schedule for application for change -in -use shall be established by
the Community Development Director. (Ord. No. 54 -1994; Ord. No. 49 -1995, § 2; Ord.
No. 29 -1996 § 7: Code § 8 -105)
Expired LP GMQS page 3
Exhibit _
ciz-
New GMQS
a. Timing of exemption request. No development shall be considered for an exemption by
the Community Development Director until a complete application has been submitted
pursuant to section 26.52.070 of this Code.
The expansion, replacement after demolition, or conversion of Lodge or Affordable
Housing units in the Lodge Preservation Zone shall be deducted from the respective
annual development allotment established pursuant to section 26.100.040 or from the
metro area development ceilings established pursuant to section 26.100.030. The
number of units per year needs to be determined and 100.040 needs to be amended.
a. Lodge Preservation Program. Redevelopment of properties zoned Lodge Preservation
(LP) to increase or decrease the number of lodge units or affordable housing units; to
increase the amount of accessory commercial square footage; and the change in use
between lodge and affordable housing shall be exempt from growth management
competition and scoring procedures, provided that the Planning and Zoning Commission
determines, at a public hearing, that the following criteria are met:
(1) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
(2) The proposed development is compatible with the character of existing land uses
in the surrounding area and with the purpose of the Lodge Preservation Zone
District.
(3) Employee housing or cash -in -lieu will be provided to mitigate for additional
employees generated by the development. This shall include an analysis and
credit for existing employee housing and the incremental impact between the
existing use and the proposed development. A recommendation from the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard.
(4) Sufficient parking spaces will be provided for the development or that adequate
mitigation measures will be provided;
(5) Adequate public facilities exist or will be provided for the proposed
development.
(6) No zone change is required or requested.
(7) There exists sufficient GMQS allotments to accommodate the proposed
development and the allotments are deducted from the appropriate Lodge
Preservation Pool, pursuant to section 26.100.040.
Process.
Applications for an exemption from GMQS shall be reviewed pursuant to Section
26.100.060, Exempt Development. After the Community Development Director has
determined that the application for exemption is complete, pursuant to Section 26.52.050,
the application shall be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review
and consideration at a hearing, for which notice has been given pursuant to Section
26.52.060(E)(3)(a). After considering the request, the Planning and Zoning Commission
shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the application for exemption, based on
the application's compliance with all applicable standards.
Proposed LP GMQS Page 1
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margervm. City Manager
FROM: Julie Amr Woods. Acting Community Development Director_
DATE: September 28. 11998
RE: Sunserting of LP Small Lodge Lottery Program
SUMMARY: City Council is considering text amendments to the LP Small
Lodge Lottery program tonight :elated to required ":mitigation" for the conversion of
lodge units to free - market residential units. The Lottery for the change in use.to
residential has been delayed pending the approval of this text amendment. The lottery for
conversion to residential is scheduled to occur November 17. 1998 before the Planning
and Zoning Commission. This is the last lottery scheduled for change in use conversions.
The final LP expansion lottery was held last May, and only 6 Lodge expansion emits were
requested and allocated (St. Moritz). When Council approved ordinance 29, series of
1996, it was intended to expire at the end of the third lottery year, hence the lodge
expansion program has sunset. It should be noted to City Council that as part of the text
amendments pending, the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend that the
program be extended for another two years.
LODGE ROOM LOSS AND POTENTL4,L DEVELOPMENT: Attached to this
memo is an analysis of the lodge units lost through the LP program and the available
allotments for Tourist Accommodations through GMQS competition. Approximately
(17 %) or other conversions. Due to the last LP Lodge expansion lottery having been
held, the only way to receive additional Tourist Accommodation units is to compete
through Growth Management. There are at least 142 GMQS Tourist Accommodation
units remaining (pending approval of the AMPUD project).
In addition, a number of hotel rooms have been added over the last ten years, including
the St. Regis (257 + the potential for 22 more); the Little Nell (92); and L'Auberge (3)
resulting in 352 new tourist accommodations which may or may not have had an impact
on the small lodge operations. Also, a number of small lodges exist that were never
zoned LP, and have converted to long term residential uses (like the Tipple Lodge on
tonight's agenda), taking these lodge units off the rental market. There is no development
review process associated with these conversions, so we have no way of tracking how
many of these conversions have occurred. There may be some value in surveying all
lodges (zoned LP and otherwise) in order to create a benchmark and determine the
ultimate loss (or gain) of tourist accommodations within the city.
RE -USE and REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING LODGES: Staff has been
approached by a number of small lodges about the potential to redevelop their properties
with either additional lodge rooms in conjunction with free- market rental units or to
affordable housing units. Because the last lottery has already taken place, there is no
ability for existing lodges to expand without going through GMQS competition. though
they will still have one last chance to apply for free- market residential or
office /commercial change in use.
COUNCIL DIRECTION ON PROGRAM: Staff is seeking direction from City
Council as to whether the LP Small Lodge program should terminate following
November's lottery, or whether there is merit in allowing some extension of the program,
with modifications, in order to allow more lodges to expand or possibly convert to
affordable residential units. Staff is not prepared to forward a resolution to Council at
this time as we would like to adequately evaluate such a revision. If Council believes
there is merit in extending the lodge expansion portion of the small lodge lottery
program, staff will then proceed with developing. program changes accordingly.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
C
AN ANALYSIS OF SMALL LODGE LOSS AND POTENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF ASPEN
+f 9/24/98
The following is the Community Development Dept.'s preliminary analysis of the City's
small lodges lost through the LP Small Lodge Lottery program and the development
potential for Tourist Accommodations through competition in the GMQS.
Small Lodge Lottery Program (GMQS Exempt)
I. A rough and preliminary look at Lodge Units lost:
A. Units lost through the LP program:
• Brass Bed Inn: had 29 rooms and 70 pillows - -- converted to residential
• Fireside Inn: had 20 rooms and 53 pillows - -- converted to residential
Bell Mountain Lodge: had 22 rooms and 51 pillows - -- approved for
conversion to residential
Total Loss through LP: 71 rooms, 174 pillows
B. Other Conversions *:
• Alpine Lodge (LP): I I rooms, 32 pillows - -- rezoned to AH
-�i Aspen Manor: 2' ) rooms - -- gutted and currently vacant
—�• Little Red Ski Haus: (11?) rooms -- converted to residential
• Bavarian Inn (LP): 21 units -- converted to residential
• Copper Horse (LP): 13 units -- converted to residential
• Cortina (LP): 16 units — converted to residential
Northstar (LP): 72 units -- converted to residential yy ( '� A�hh,�_�
♦ V4LL� r. VJJ uYI VY�'Il V4LLY� -VLL IY1 JlVLL. (I MOM& va& LP
*Note that several of the above were converted to residential prior to the LP Lottery
program.
C. Other Lodges remaining in the LP zone district:
• Aspen B & B: 35 units, 114 pillows — condominiumized rentals
• Boomerang Lodge: 34 units, 101 pillows
• Christiania Lodge: 22 units, 51 pillows -- recently sold and considering
conversion to residential
• Christmas Inn: 26 units, 51 pillows
• Crestahaus Lodge (Beaumont): 29 units, 77 pillows — has allocations for
10 additional lodge rooms (expansion)
• Hearthstone House: 18 units, 32 pillows
• Hotel Aspen: 47 units, 118 pillows — condominiumized rentals
• Hotel Lenado: 23 units, 38 pillows
• Innsbruck Inn: 31 units, 75 pillows
• Molly Gibson Lodge: 2_1 units, 118 pillows
• Mountain House Lodge: 16 units, 56 pillows
• St. Moritz Lodge: 20 units. 106 pillows— has allocations for 6 additional
lodge rooms (expansion)
• Shadow Mountain Lodge: 11 units, 32 pillows - -- condominiumized
rentals
• Snow Queen: " units. 20 pillows
Total Remaining Zoned LP (existing): 340 rooms. 989 pillows
GMQS Program (Competition) — Tourist Accommodations
I. Currently Available Lodge Unit Allotments through GMQS Competition:
• Unused Allotments From Past Years 33
1998 -99 Allotments 11
• TOTAL AVAILABLE for 1998 GMQS 44
Lodge Unit Allotments through the GMQS program (not the LP Small Lodge
program) have a set total cap of'_53 units at full buildout (2015). Eleven (11) of these
were used as part of the Hines Aspen Highlands development, leaving 242 remaining.
The Land Use Code has a provision for Multi-Year Allotments for "Exceptional
Projects." The developer of the Aspen Mountain PUD ( AMPUD), currently has
credits for up to 50 lodge rooms and 47 residential units through their previous
GMQS approvals/reconstruction credits which do not get deducted from the "bucket".
This leaves a total of 242 lodge unit allotments available through GMQS competition
through 2015.
If the AMPUD hotel proposal were to move forward, they would be requesting the 44
1998 GMQS allotments available plus an additional 56 through multi-year allotments.
This would result in a remaining amount of 142 Tourist Accommodation allotments
[242 -100 =142] available through 2015.
Summary: As of this date, a total of 188 lodge units have been removed from the bed
base as a result of the LP Lodge program and other conversions. With 140 lodge units
remaining, this represents 36% ([340 + 188 =5281; 528/188 = .36)of the LP zoned lodge
units lost in total. If looking strictly at the impacts of the LP program, there has been a
13% [71/528 = 13 0/61 lodge unit loss through the change in use with the potential of
gaining 16 more lodge units (pending lodge expansion approvals through the change in
use process before the P &Z).
For non -LP zoned properties seeking development of Tourist Accommodations, at least
142 units would be available (presuming 100 are allocated to the AMPUD project)
through GMQS Competition.
Alpine Lodge Aspen Bed & Breakfast Bavarian Inn
C10 James & Christina Martin C/O Aspen Group 801 West Bleeker
1240 East Cooper Ave 415 East Main St. Ste. 210 Aspen, CO 31611
Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen. CO 81611
Bell Mountain Ltd Liability Co
Boomerang Ltd
Brass Bed Inn
720 East Cooper Ave
500 West Hopkins Ave
Silverstream LLP
Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen. CQ 81611
307 South Mill St
Aspen, CO 31611
Christiana of Aspen
Christmas Inn
Copper Horse
501 West Main St
232 West Main St
RISCOR Inc.
Aspen. CO 31611
Aspen. CO 81611
200 Crescent Ct = 13 85
Dallas, TX "5201
Cortina
Crestahaus
Fireside Lodge
The Hotel Jerome Ltd
J &B Hotels LLC
Mocklin. Peter & Menga. Monica
330 East Main St
1301 East Cooper Ave
130 West Cooper Ave
Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen. CO 81611
Aspen, CO 31611
Hearthstone House
Hotel .-Aspen Ltd
Hotel Lenado
c/o John & Carrie Morgridge
Aspen Hotel Partners Ltd
Peters & Delano
P.O. Box 3279
250 Martin St Ste. 100
200 South Aspen St
Aspen, CO 81612
Birmingham. MI 48009
Aspen, CO 81611
Innsbruck Inn
Northstar Lodge
Coordes Heinz & Karen
Aspens Molly Gibson Lodge LLC
C/O Hotel Jerome Ltd Parm.
233 West Main St
101 West Main St
330 East Main Street
4snen. (7) 41611
Aspen. CO 81611
Asoen. CO 81611
St. Moritz Lodge Shadow Mountain Lodge Snow Queen Lodge
Michael Behrendt 232 West Hyman Ave Snow Queen Lodge Partnership
334 West Hyman Ave Aspen, CO 81611 P.O. Box 4901
Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81612
Mountain House Lodge
c/o Werning John Robert
905 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner 6 9
RE: Lodge Preservation Program — Joint Work Session — 4:15 p.m.
DATE: March 23, 1999
SUMMARY:
The purpose of this work session is to apprise Council and the Commission on the
progress of the Lodge Preservation Program. City Council has not met on this topic
since October of last year while the Commission has held two work sessions. The
current program retains the elements entertained by the Boards but does still require
some philosophical discussion. At the conclusion of this work session, the two
Boards should instruct staff to proceed with the public hearing process or schedule a
subsequent work session.
PROGRESS:
During the October joint meeting, the two Boards considered the philosophical basis
for the program. Following is a summary of that discussion:
Should lodges be restricted in their development scenarios or should there be a range
of options?
Should lodges be able to easily convert to%xpand affordable housing?
Should there be zoning flexibility such as additional FAR available in the LP
Program?
• The LP Program should provide flexibility for lodges remaining lodges. The ability
to expand, contract, and provide services in demand by the market is important.
• The GMQS incentives should not be extended to free - market conversions. Those
redevelopment scenarios should be treated under growth management as any other
property.
M .y ,' ''' •, .DeveloPiheTA kfterdemolition Should require full mitigation.
• The conversion of lodges to ROltousing should be considered. The provision of any
additional housing should be Category restricted.
• The process should be simple, flexible, and involve public hearings.
• There was general agreement that zoning flexibility should be provided. A Minor
PUD process could achieve the desired flexibility, incorporate public hearings, and
retain final authority with the Council. This flexibility would entail all dimensional
aspects of the zoning, including increases in FAR.
Ew
11
Should lodges in the LP Program have to compete against larger hotel projects?
• There was a general agreement that while growth should count, there should be a
separate development pool for the LP Program. This was a primary element of the
original program.
Should the long -term rental component of the "Lodge" definition be eliminated?
• There was no consensus or majority direction on this topic in October. The
Commission, during their last work session, has expressed a desire to not change the
definition and leave the length of lease provision up to the individual operators.
In February, staff provided the Commission with a draft LP Program during a work
session. This program involved the following:
• Amending the Lodge definition to separate actual lodge use from residential use.
• Rezoning all LP properties back to LP (taking away the underlying conversion
zoning). This would require conversions to rezone.
• Providing a Minor PUD process for zoning flexibility on smaller lots.
• Re- establishing a P &Z exemption for LP lodge units with no annual lottery
process. (GMQS.)
• Including AH units as a P &Z exemption. (GMQS.)
The Commission requested simplifying the Program by not changing the "Lodge"
definition and not rezoning properties. The revised Program now involves:
• Amending the LP Overlay to function correctly as a zoning overlay.
• Providing a Minor PUD process for zoning flexibility.
• Re- establishing a P &Z exemption for lodge units.
• including AH units as a P &Z exemption. (GMQS.)
DISCUSSION:
Affordable Housing vs. Lodging. There exist two community goals — affordable
housing and the preservation of small lodges — which need to be addressed with this
program. Both of these goals can be accommodated by allowing the two uses to be
treated with equal ease through the land use process. The accommodation of one
goal, however, may come at the price of another. For example: if a large number of
lodge units are converted to affordable housing, the loss of the lodging bed base could
be substantial. The Program's balance of the two goals should be discussed.
LP Overlay. The original LP Program provided properties with a zone district
compatible with its surroundings and "lifted" the LP designation to an overlay.
Unfortunately, the LP Overlay was never amended to function correctly as an overlay
district and there exist dimensional conflicts. Amending the overlay to function
correctly is a rather simple task, but one that should be done regardless of the
outcome of other, more philosophical discussions.
Pa
Minor PUD. The PUD process allows for specific zoning provisions to be
established by City Council. Currently, only properties of more than 27,000 square
feet in size are allowed this flexibility. This would be a new process added to the
Land Use code to allow smaller properties the ability to amend their zoning
provisions. In other words, an individual LP lodge owner could argue that a certain
setback, parking scenario, or additional FAR is more desirable than provided in the
strict zoning. This is important considering many of he older lodges were constructed
before zoning (and are non - conforming) and this flexibility is an incentive to maintain
and improve a older lodge. Staff would provide particular attention to neighborhood
compatibility in the criteria.
Allotment Pool and Lottery. The original Program set forth an annual allotment pool
separate from the lodge pool available for all properties in town. This was
specifically crafted so smaller, less affluent lodges could seek development approvals
without having to compete against larger, more affluent corporate projects. The
smaller lodges in town provide a distinct lodging experience within the fabric of
Aspen's residential districts. This type of lodging is special and different from the
more general lodging category of growth. Staff supports maintaining a separate
allotment pool for these properties.
The original Program did not have a provision for affordable housing. In other words,
conversion to free - market could be approved by the Commission while conversion to
or expansion of affordable housing needed to be reviewed by the Growth
Management Commission and then by City Council. The development of affordable
housing should be as easy as lodge expansion and easier than free- market conversion.
The original Program incorporated a variable allotment pool calculated each year
depending upon many growth indicators from the previous year. The result never
varied by more than a few units but a land owner could not depend upon allotments
until the calculation was accomplished. This should be done away with — there
should be a standardized allotment available each year similar to the GMQS pools for
other land uses.
The original Program granted allotments through a yearly lottery system. In this
lottery, applicants were drawn randomly for allotments prior to development
approvals were accepted or considered. There was never a competitive lottery. Staff
suggests a process similar to all other exemption requests — first come, first serve.
Trial Period. The original Program was initiated for a three year period. A revised
Program could be for another three years, another suitable time frame, or could
proceed indefinitely. Staff recommends a revised Program proceed indefinitely. This
should be discussed but does not have to be finalized at this meeting.
Mitigation. The Original Program allowed for use conversions to transfer credit for
existing buildings even through total demolition. This was different from all other
applications of GMQS and one element the Council expressed much frustration with.
The current treatment for all properties is to grant credit for existing buildings to the
i'
i
extent they are being maintained (not demolished). Replacement after demolition
does not have to compete for allotments but does have to mitigate as if it were new
(full mitigation). New construction must acquire allotments and must mitigate for
those allotments.
The demolition credit for allotments and mitigation may serve as an incentive to
redevelop these properties as new lodges. This is an element of the program which
needs further discussion.
"Lodge " Definition. The current definition of a lodge allows for short and long -term
occupancy and requires an unspecified amount of common facilities. The definition
reads as follows:
Lodge means a building within the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district or a
building presently zoned Commercial Lodge (CL) containing three (3) or more
individual rooms for the purpose or providing lodging facilities on a short or long-
term basis, for compensation, with or without meals, and which has common
facilities for reservation and cleaning services and on -site management and
reception. A lodge may include kitchens within individual rental units.
In October, there was no general consensus on whether or not a lodge needed to be
distinctly different from a residence. Staff opined that a long -term occupancy
sounded more like a residential use than a lodge use and the conversion to residential
should proceed through a change in use. The Commission feels this operational
decision should be at the discretion of the lodge owner and the definition should not
be amended.
Staff still prefers distinct definitions between the two uses if for no other reason than
to track the City's lodging and residential bed base and conversions. The policy
direction from the Boards may be to treat each use identically in the LP Program but
to identify the uses separately. This element should be discussed.
A suggestion of preventing condominiumizations came up during the February work
session. This could be a mechanism for prevent defacto free - market conversion. This
provision, however, may have some associated legal complications. This element of
the Program needs more discussion and direction from the City Attorney.
CONCLUSION:
If the two Boards generally concur with the direction of the LP Program at the
conclusion of the work session, the public hearing process should be initiated. The
desired elements of the Program should be expressed while the details of the program
will evolve through the process.
4
R�
✓1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Mitch Haas, Interim Deputy Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: LP -PUD, Minor PUD -- Work Session
DATE: February 16, 1999
SUMMARY:
The Community Development Department is initiating amendments to the Lodge
Preservation (LP) Program. The original LP Program provided specific incentives to
lodges in the LP zone district through GMQS. These incentives allowed lodges to
expand or contract their number of lodge rooms or convert to free - market residential
or commercial land uses, all of which included a growth management "credit" for the
previous structure if the building was demolished in the re- development process.
This program was a three -year program which concluded in 1998. There is no LP
Program in existence presently, although the provisions remain in the land use code.
City Council has expressed interest in re- newing this program with modifications.
Specifically, Council was disappointed in the "credit" provision for free - market
conversions.
Staff is recommending a program which would provide GMQS incentives for the
preservation of lodges and the creation of, or conversion to, affordable housing.
These incentives would likewise grant a "credit" for existing impacts in re-
developments which involved complete tear - downs. These incentives would also
allow zoning flexibility for properties remaining in the lodge or affordable housing
land uses. An existing and proposed GMQS section for the LP Program has been
attached.
The current zoning does have technical problems that need to be remedied regardless
of the LP Program's future. The current zoning provides each property with an
underlying zoning most congruent with its surroundings and an LP Overlay.
However, The LP Zone was never amended to function properly as an overlay and
both the underlying zone district and the Overlay have dimensional requirements,
which often conflict. This underlying zoning was intended to direct appropriate
dimensional requirements for use conversions and should have concluded with the
original program. Staff is recommending all bona -fide lodges and affordable housing
be rezoned back to LP with a PUD Overlay to allow dimensional flexibility and all
non - lodges (conversions) have the LP Overlay removed. City Council did express an
interest in providing the lodges which have already converted the future opportunity
to convert back to a lodge. In this instance, staff recommends the Lodge (L) Overlay
be used. Attached is an existing and proposed LP Zoning code.
The PUD Overlay would allow properties in the LP Zone which intend to be used as a
lodge, affordable housing, or a combination thereof, to determine the appropriate
dimensional requirements depending upon their specific location, the character of the
neighborhood in which they exist, and upon the community's willingness to accept
greater density, height, etc. to aid these two uses. Staff is suggesting a Minor PUD
process for these properties which would be similar to the combined Conceptual/Final
PUD process, with lesser submittal requirements and review criteria designed for
smaller, infill sites. The attachments detail these suggestions.
The current definition of Lodge does overlap with what could be perceived as a
residential use.
Lodge means a building within the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district or a
building presently zoned Commercial Lodge (CL) containing three (3) or more
individual rooms for the purpose or providing lodging facilities on a short or
long -term basis, for compensation, with or without meals, and which has
common facilities for reservation and cleaning services and on -site management
and reception. A lodge may include kitchens within individual rental units.
There is nothing terribly wrong with this definition other than it is difficult to
determine the difference between a lodge unit and an apartment. If Council is
concerned about the free - market conversion element of the former program, they
should be equally concerned about a definition of a lodge unit which allows
residential use.
Staff is recommending a more discrete separation of the two definitions. This
separation could be in the length of occupancy, reasoning that residing in a space for
more than 6 months renders the space a home and not a lodge unit. Or, this
separation could be dependent upon addition of a kitchen, reasoning the ability to
prepare meals renders the space a residence and no longer a lodge room. Or, the
definition could continue to differentiate the two uses by the presence of common
facilities for reservation, cleaning service, etc. However, staff believes the percentage
of space devoted to supporting uses of a lodge should be a private business decision
and not a government regulation. This could also eliminate a potential "loophole"
(i.e. looks like a lodge, acts like a residence.)
The program may or may not treat the two uses equally in the final analysis.
However, a more accurate determination of the number of lodge rooms, residential
units, etc. could be tallied and the community could place restrictions on the number
of conversion between the two uses allowed each year.
One other issue with regards to this zone district is the concept of resident rental
housing which has been raised by a property owner. This concept would allow a
lodge to be redeveloped, either preserving the existing structure or merely
remodeling, as rental housing intended for a local market but without lease rate
restrictions.
In staff's estimation, this sounds like free - market housing with no long term
assurance of affordability. However, as the owner has said, there may be a certain
niche for such housing. Staff has approached this issue as a type of affordable
housing for the Housing Authority to consider in their overall review of housing
needs for the community. In other words, staff's preference is to prescribe
"affordable housing" as a use in the zone district and allow the Housing Authority to
determine the types of housing that are most needed and the specific policies that
should be associated with those units. If there is a desire to include this resident
rental housing in the guidelines, the use could apply to parcels in any zone district in
which affordable housing is an allowed use.
Staff s goal for this work session is to review the philosophical merits of a special
program for the LP properties with the Commission. If there seems to be a common
direction, a revised proposal will be the subject of a combined Commission/Council
work session.
Attachments:
A -- Existing GMQS
B -- Proposed GMQS
C -- Existing Zoning
D -- Proposed Zoning
E -- Existing PUD Section
F -- Proposed Minor PUD
Exhibit A
Existing GMQS
a. Timing of exemption request. No development shall be considered for an exemption by
the Community Development Director until a complete application has been submitted
pursuant to section 26.52.070 of this Code.
2. Planning and Zoning Commission exemptions that are deducted from the annual
allotment pool or from the metro area development ceilings. The following exemptions
shall be deducted from the respective annual development allotment established pursuant
to section 26.100.040 or from the metro area development ceilings established pursuant
to section 26.100.030.
a. Change in use/lodge expansion. A change in use of any existing structure previously
zoned LP to either commercial /office or residential use, or the expansion of an existing
lodge previously zoned LP shall be exempt from growth management competition and
scoring procedures, provided that the following conditions are met:
(1) The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that
employee housing or cash -in -lieu will be provided to mitigate for additional
employees generated by the change in use or expansion. This shall include an
analysis and credit for existing employee housing and the incremental impact
between the existing use and the proposed conversion;
(2) The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that
sufficient parking spaces will be provided for the change in use or expansion or
cash -in -lieu will be used;
(3) The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that the
change in use or expansion is compatible with the character of the existing
neighborhood;
(4) The Planning and Zoning Commission determines in a public hearing that
adequate public facilities exist or will be provided for the change in use of the
existing neighborhood;
(5) No zone change is required.
(6) The proposal is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
(7) The proposed conversion or expansion will be deducted from the appropriate
GMQS Lodge Conversion or Expansion Pool, pursuant to section 26.100.040.
Process for allocations.
An annual lottery held during a regularly scheduled Commission meeting shall be
established for lodges requesting conversion or expansion. Each lodge can apply for
inclusion in the lottery. Each lodge selected in the pool shall be allowed to go through
the change in use process. Separate lotteries shall be held for free market conversion,
expansion or commercial /office use. The total number of lodges allowed to be selected
in the lottery shall be based on the potential buildout available for the selected lodge.
For example, each lodge has a potential buildout based on underlying zoning that
determines the number of free market homes possible on each property, as well as the
allowed square footage of commercial or office space. As the lottery progresses, a
running total of potential buildout units or commercial /office square footage as
Existing LP GMQS page 1
F' -\.
determined by underlying zoning, shall be kept. Once the total allowable GMQS
allocations for lodge expansion or conversion is reached or exceeded by the last selected
lodge, one additional lodge applying for change in use shall be selected and the lottery
shall end.
If the total number of free market units or non - residential square footage allowable under
underlying zoning are not awarded through the annual change in use process, the last
selected lodge can apply for the change in use process for these remaining allocations.
Multi -year allocations can be awarded if the Commission approves a change in use
application for the units that exceed the annual quota, and the following years allocations
shall be adjusted accordingly. Any allocations left following all change in use
applications shall be returned to the pool for future allocation.
Potential lodge expansion units for 1996 shall be eleven (11) lodge units. Subsequent
years lodge allocations shall be determined by the conversion formula and the number of
free market conversion units approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission during
the previous year, as described in Section 26.100.040. This shall be determined by the
Community Development Director.
In order to prevent speculation or residential quota banking, a lodge awarded residential
allocations would be required to apply for a land use application for a change in use
within nine (9) months of the lottery date, followed by the securing of an active building
permit and an abandonment of the lodge use within eighteen (18) months of the lottery
date. If no land use application is submitted within nine (9) months from the date of the
lottery, no quota received will revert to the next lottery winner. If no building permit is
issued within eighteen (18) months, the units awarded would be added to the next
GMQS pool, and the lodge can not compete in the lottery for five (5) years, or some
other period of time suitable to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The deadline established above for building permits and land use submittals are not
required for commercial allocations until all necessary quotas for a project are secured,
whereupon a lodge awarded the full allocation necessary for its project would be
required to submit a land use application for a change in use within nine (9) months of
the lottery date on which all necessary quotas were obtained, followed by the securing of
an active building permit, and an abandonment of the lodge use within eighteen (18)
months of the lottery date on which all necessary quotas were obtained. If no land use
application is submitted within nine (9) months, or no building permit is issued within
eighteen (18) months of the lottery date on which all necessary quotas were obtained, the
units awarded will be added to the next GMQS pool, and the lodge could not compete in
the lottery for five (5) years, or some other period of time suitable to the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
An extension of the nine (9) month or eighteen (18) month deadline can only be granted
by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on a good faith effort on the part of the
applicant to file an application or obtain a building permit.
A mixed use residential and commercial development, where permitted by underlying
zoning, would require the residential component of the project to be developed within
the time limits imposed on residential development, as outlined above, even if it requires
the phasing of the development project.
Existing LP GMQS page 2
The schedule for application for the change in use or lodge expansion lottery for 1996
are as follows:
November 15, 1996 -- Conversion of previously zoned LP properties to free market units
November 15, 1996 -- Conversion of previously zoned LP properties to non - residential
uses
November 15, 1996 -- Expansion of lodges previously zoned LP.
For 1997 and 1998, the schedule for application for change -in -use shall be established by
the Community Development Director. (Ord. No. 54 -1994; Ord. No. 49 -1995, § 2; Ord.
No. 29 -1996 § 7: Code § 8 -105)
Existing LP GMQS page 3
Exhibit
New GMQS
a. Timing of exemption request. No development shall be considered for an exemption by
the Community Development Director until a complete application has been submitted
pursuant to section 26.52.070 of this Code.
2. The expansion, replacement after demolition, or conversion of Lodge or Affordable
Housing units in the Lodge Preservation Zone shall be deducted from the respective
annual development allotment established pursuant to section 26.100.040 or from the
metro area development ceilings established pursuant to section 26.100.030. The
number of units per year needs to be determined and 100.040 needs to be amended.
a. Lodge Preservation Program. Redevelopment of properties zoned Lodge Preservation
(LP) to increase or decrease the number of lodge units or affordable housing units; to
increase the amount of accessory commercial square footage; and the change in use
between lodge and affordable housing shall be exempt from growth management
competition and scoring procedures, provided that the Planning and Zoning Commission
determines, at a public hearing, that the following criteria are met:
(1) The proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
(2) The proposed development is compatible with the character of existing land uses
in the surrounding area and with the purpose of the Lodge Preservation Zone
District.
(3) Employee housing or cash -in -lieu will be provided to mitigate for additional
employees generated by the development. This shall include an analysis and
credit for existing employee housing and the incremental impact between the
existing use and the proposed development. A recommendation from the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard.
(4) Sufficient parking spaces will be provided for the development or that adequate
mitigation measures will be provided;
(5) Adequate public facilities exist or will be provided for the proposed
development.
(6) No zone change is required or requested.
(7) There exists sufficient GMQS allotments to accommodate the proposed
development and the allotments are deducted from the appropriate Lodge
Preservation Pool, pursuant to section 26.100.040.
Process.
Applications for an exemption from GMQS shall be reviewed pursuant to Section
26.100.060, Exempt Development. After the Community Development Director has
determined that the application for exemption is complete, pursuant to Section
26.52.050, the application shall be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission
for review and consideration at a hearing, for which notice has been given pursuant to
Section 26.52.060(E)(3)(a). After considering the request, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the application for
exemption, based on the application's compliance with all applicable standards.
Proposed LP GMQS Page 1
Exhibit co
Existing Zoning Overlay
Note: This is an Overlay on an underlying zone district which varies depending upon the
location of the property.
26.28.320 Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) zone district.
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP) Overlay zone district is to provide
for and protect small lodge uses in areas historically used for lodge accommodations, to
permit expansion of these lodges when such expansions are compatible with neighboring
properties, and provide an incentive for upgrading existing lodges on -site or onto
adjacent properties.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the LP Overlay zone
district.
1. Lodge units;
12. Boarding house;
3. Dormitory;
4. Accessory use facilities intended for guests of permitted lodge units, boarding
house or dormitory, which are commonly found in association and are for guests only,
including office, lounge, kitchen, dining room, laundry and recreational facilities;
5. Affordable housing for employees of the lodge;
6. Accessory buildings and uses.
—7. Condominium ization, with the requirement that the lodge must maintain
management facilities and make the unit available for short-term rentals through ACRA
for fifty (50) percent of a calendar year.
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted in the LP Overlay zone district,
subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.60 of this Code.
1. Restaurant included within a lodge operation serving guests and others;
? . 2. Timesharing;
3. Affordable housing.
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the LP Overlay Zone District.
1. Minimum lot size (square feet): No requirement
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement
3. Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement
4. Minimum front yard (feet): 10
5. Minimum side yard (feet): 5
6. Minimum rear yard (feet): 10
7. Maximum height (feet): 25
8. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (feet): 10
9. Percent open space required for building site: 35 (Can be varied by special
review pursuant to Chapter 26.64 of this Code.)
1 11
10. External floor area ratio: Established by special review pursuant to Chapter
26.64, not to exceed 1:1.
11. Internal floor area ratio:
Lodge rental space: Maximum of .75:1, which can be increased to 1:1 internal
FAR of lodge rental space provided that 33.3% of the additional floor area is approved
for residential use restricted to affordable housing for employees of the lodge.
E. Off-street parking requirement. The following off - street parking spaces shall be
provided for each use in the LP overlay zone district, subject to the provisions of Chapter
26.32 of this Code.
1. Lodge use: 0.7 spaces /bedroom, of which 0.2 spaces per bedroom can be
provided via payment in lieu pursuant to Chapter 26.64 of this Code.
2. All other uses: 4 spaces /1000 square feet of net leasable area. (Ord. No. 29-
1996, § 4)
Exhibit
Proposed L ?one
26.28.320 Lodge Preservation (LP) zone district.
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP) zone district is to provide for and
protect small lodge uses in areas 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, and to encourage development which is compatible with neighborhoring
properties and respective of the manner in which the property has historically operated.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the LP Overlay zone
district.
1. Lodge;
2. Boarding house; ? ? ??
3. Dormitory;
4. Accessory use facilities intended for guests of permitted lodge units, boarding
house or dormitory, which are commonly found in association and are for guests only,
including office, lounge, kitchen, dining room, laundry, and recreational facilities;
5. Affordable housing;
6. Accessory buildings and uses.
7. Condominium ization, with the requirement that the lodge must maintain
management facilities and make the unit available for short -term rentals through ACRA
for fifty (50) percent of a calendar year. ? ? ??
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted in the LP Overlay zone district,
subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.60 of this Code.
1. Restaurant included within a lodge operation serving guests and others;
2. Timesharing; ? ? ? ??
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the LP Zone District and shall be established pursuant
to section _, Minor Planned Unit Development review, upon consideration of
neighborhood compatibility and surrounding zone district regulations:
1. Minimum lot size (square feet):
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet):
3. Minimum lot width (feet):
4. Minimum front yard (feet):
5. Minimum side yard (feet):
6. Minimum rear yard (feet):
7. Maximum height (feet):
8. Minimum distance between principal and accessory buildings (feet):
9. Percent open space required for building site:
10. External floor area ratio:
11. Off - Street Parking:
Proposed Zoning - page 1
('alee /llw�-
Jl/44/Aw p 3
e
dw O� J,--- eK�1'
lazw
Java �oss •
Tel�- Yea,( +Z�-b (oLA)
A" CT
uPF"r �P
� I (�. Lx
5 � '�Oa,wa
L+ M.
0
M
6�t-
cr04 d W C/ '
?�),�.
5m li
3��+�.
/,-� �4)
YUIQc� snc — ��tiotili�� . �
CDW"AY
124 Gprya
3 Cfil�77�a T� GvCOtcv � ��lr.•�G
�J-
A2
7�G C(bk add ra�nns.
MO .% - �Ie iw rub
S`lveamUVUJ cpvW-,r.5 wi �l r.✓� Ge afiP lc
LIP �Q 4)1;-1(luvj t{-ott-ae
wd oreA, }CIS -,6 0 op L-ri2— .
I
&�z
G - O
�Ues a�..�e w�o✓e �-t4�u:�.�.�
�;�� T>e .
S
j96�� , -
�P� R
a4ilY
�Nw .
s eV
4
WC UA`f — C.�
o
�t4 q-, v-
�r �? kcs 4- "dae a ilwf
20
LODGE PRESERVATION 4.19.99 EX. B
Following is a summary of the April 19, 1999, joint work session between the City
Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Affordable Housing:
The Boards directed staff to not amend the affordable housing provisions of the LP Zone
District. The existing code allows affordable housing for employees of the lodge as a
permitted use and for the general public as a conditional use. Also, lodges wanting to
convert to affordable housing would still be required to seek a change -in -use approval.
Growth Management "Credit. "
The two Boards agreed there should be a mitigation "credit" be provided for lodge use
but not be extended to change -in -use applications. In other words, an LP lodge wanting
to redevelop as a lodge would be required to mitigate only the net increase in impacts.
(i.e. a 15 unit lodge replaced with a 20 unit lodge would be required to mitigate for only
units.)
This is different from all other applications of Growth Management in town and
represents an incentive for lodge owners wanting to make significant improvements to
their lodge. All other commercial and lodge development is town must mitigate for the
entire development (as if it didn't exist before) in order to replace after demolition.
The two Boards also said, however, that this "credit" should not be applied to change -in-
use applications when demolition is involved. Lodge owners wanting to demolish their
lodge a construct commercial, office, or residential uses will be required to provide
mitigation for that use with no credit given for the previous use.
Minor PUD:
The two Boards decided the Minor PUD provision should proceed. This provision will
allow specific zoning provisions to be established by City Council on LP properties. In
other words, an individual LP lodge owner could argue that a certain setback, parking
scenario, or additional FAR is more desirable than provided in the strict zoning. This is
important considering many of the older lodges were constructed before zoning (and are
non - conforming) and this flexibility is an incentive to maintain and improve an older
lodge.
Tax Incentives:
The City Finance Director and the City Attorney have instructed staff and City Council to
not seek a special taxing district for small lodges. This type of provision would be easily
considered biased and discriminatory. Also, City Council expressed no interest in
creating any sort of bed tax for lodge properties.
Inclusion of other Small Lodges:
The Boards agreed that invitations to join the LP Zone District should be extended to
other small lodges that do not already exist in a Lodge District. Lodges that were
mentioned include: Ullr Lodge, Deep Powder, Chalet Lisl, Holland House, Mountain
Chalet, the Tyrolean, and the Snow Eagle.
"L odge " Defin ition:
The current definition of a lodge reads as follows:
Lodge means a building within the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district or a building
presently zoned Commercial Lodge (CL) containing three (3) or more individual rooms for
the purpose or providing lodging facilities on a short or long -term basis, for compensation,
with or without meals, and which has common facilities for reservation and cleaning services
and on -site management and reception. A lodge may include kitchens within individual rental
units.
The two Boards considered the long -term lease provision of this definition and concluded
that type of occupancy resembled residential occupancy. The conclusion was to
eliminate "or long - term" from the definition and redefine short term as occupancy periods
of one month or less.
Condominiumization:
City Council expressed some concerns about his type of ownership and the affects it may
have on the short-term lodging base. Staff and the City Attorney suggested making this
type of ownership a conditional use to ensure some review of the affects the type of
ownership may have on the use.
Growth Management Allotment Pool:
Staff suggested and the two Boards agreed that small lodges should have a separate
growth management allotment pool than the general lodging pool available to all lodges
in town. This is similar to the original LP Program which was specifically crafted so that
smaller, less- affluent lodges could seek development approvals without having to
compete against larger, more - affluent corporate projects.
The two Boards agreed the annual allotment pool should be consistent from year to year
and not rely on the previous calculation by the Community Development Director.
Lottery:
The original LP Program granted allotments through a yearly lottery system. In this
lottery, applicants were drawn randomly for allotments prior to development approvals
were accepted or considered. During the three -year period there was never a competitive
lottery.
The two Boards decided to discontinue the lottery process and allow the growth
management exemptions to occur on a first come -first served
Trial Period:
The original Program was initiated for a three year period. The Boards recommended
staff proceed with a code amendment revising the Program as a permanent modification
to the land use code, proceeding indefinitely.
2
A w.?�CdClk
\4UVi o� nn (0!()C)
'A\
. 1
Uj �, W. 0 It
Evil
L/ w
NxA
Covi AWWI ( U i ,
r-ed,,, , vw[oe � -As,
_az2.
C - WV.X� �& VAWW ►',cam Lek �e .
--16 A61
-�ZC.
R
L 14 vwm�c6uvx, (R�.
�"rvt .
�tb � C-
iawl br w!l�_ "itw r�
�I
Ww, ,
'��n» H. — Tai
(�/ 4L? IIIC45
A
Co) F� ktu�vT�
c6vvj��1wd
r� I 1.
34w 1
vlt
2 weeks .
4ow C�nv�� w T� U'^6 � L
to 1
Loo-op- 6
G, W�, � `SOD .
��1 Y►I�t�v
�o, q (p t.
19������je
AAA cam.
(eC6� i cck ( e- �✓ll �1G �IYflPNSlcnt 1,
�PMI
Peu+wM d;�, y
- - -
__ w �_
JA low �w cat
ice„ t, 4 .
tkk oc) 16v & f �2 I CG
q e:a. lqm- &
t � ,
CC-
r r\4D -, .
... ___.......... .
vv-.
0 �b4 �,
-U
1{ 160Z
I IJP Lp G`l` ?4 itfp
C bet& ��8o
f Caw,
P
�,✓�ES Gv �iv�G:s
et roue 4 W- A& (f i�� �
ua � � �L�
S kWtC,k j-,F �a
LIM IW&h�
L if
5 .5. 4Pr,� .
Kr��-, ( cav,.s,dox�4
t--P 1 LAS tl�-
w
vo �/P g�
All-
`' �L>
el )2&46,
In
2pniK�
eu,,1L�
Cam! ✓��LI,
� I
Q� S Cadre �cjzi�tsrGhg � �� GP ��,eP
141/ mn 6�41 547
It W4 k iA4�,
vt sh4d � Zrnj(ols jam t/ eW �� (� )
v�� 4// ahw,*« k vv/ a�Aa
4- g(,F�
AN ANALYSIS OF SMALL LODGE LOSS AND POTENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF ASPEN
9/24/98
The following is the Community Development Dept.'s preammarl analysis of the Cites
small lodges lost through the LP Small Lodge Lottery program and the development
potential for Tourist Accommodations through competition in the GVIQS.
Small Lodge Lottery Program (GMQS Exempt)
I. A rough and preliminary look at Lodge Units lost:
A. Units lost through the LP program:
• Brass Bed Inn: had 29 rooms and'; 0 pillows - -- converted to residential
• Fireside Inn: had 20 rooms and 53 pillows -- converted to residential
Bell Mountain Lodge: had 22 rooms and 51 pillows - -- approved for
conversion to residential
Total Loss through LPi 71 rooms, i74 pillows
B. Other Conversions *:
• Alpine Lodge (LP): 11 rooms. 32 pillows - -- rezoned to Ali
��. Aspen Manor: 23 rooms - -- gutted and currently vacant
------- • Little Red Ski Haus: (11 °) rooms — convened to residential
• Bavarian Inn (LP): 21 units - -- converted to residential
• Copper Horse ("LP): 13 units -- converted to residential
r • Cortina (LP): 16 units — convened to residential
s ' • Northstar (LP): 22 units — converted to residential
��, �`\�C' yV�4•r.V.,.,•V1 J4�L Vt1�Y•rVLL���JlV4. ll}tg9 {Jl.i Y�� �P
*Note that several of the above were converted to residential prior to the LP Lottery
program.
C. Other Lodges remaining in the LP zone district:
• Aspen B & B: 35 units, 114 pillows — condominiumized rentals .
• Boomerang Lodge: 34 units, 101 pillows
• Christiania Lodge: 22 units, 51 pillows -- recently sold and considering
conversion to residential
• Christmas Inn: 26 units, 51 pillows
• Crestahaus Lodge (Beaumont): 29 units, 77 pillows — has allocations for
10 additional lodge rooms (expansion)
• Hearthstone House: 18 units, 32 pillows
• Hotel Aspen: 47 units, 118 pillows -- condominiumized rentals
• Hotel Lenado: 23 units, 38 pillows
• Innsbruck Inn: 31 units, 75 pillows
• Molly Gibson Lodge: 21 units. 118 pillows
• Mountain House Lodge: 16 units. 56 pillows
• St. Moritz Lodge: 20 units. 106 pillows -- has allocations for 6 additional
lodge rooms (expansion)
• Shadow Mountain Lodge: I 1 units. ',7 piilows - -- condominiumized
rentals
• Snow Queen: - units. =0 piilows
Total Remaining Zoned LP (existing): 340 rooms. 989 pillows
GMQS Program (Competition)— Tourist Accommodations
1. Currently Available Lodge Unit allotments through GMQS Competition:
• Unused Allotments From Past Years =3
• 1998 -99 Allotments 11
• TOTAL AV -kBLE _'or :998 GMQS 14
Lodge Unit Allotments through the GMQS program (not the LP Small Lodge
program) have a set total cap of 253 units at full buildout (2015). Eleven (11) of these
were used as part of the Hines aspen Highlands development. leaving 242 remaining.
The Land Use Code has a provision for Multi-Year Allotments for "Exceptional
Projects." The developer of the aspen Mountain PUD (AIVIPUD), currently has
credits for up to 50 lodge rooms and 47 residential units through their previous
GMQS approvals /reconstruction credits which do not get deducted from the "bucket".
This leaves a total of 2-42 lodge unit allotments available through GMQS competition
through 2015.
If the AMPUD hotel proposal were to move forward, they would be requesting the 44
1998 GMQS allotments available plus an additional 56 through multi-year allotments.
This would result in a remaining amount of 142 Tourist Accommodation allotments
[242 -100 = 1421 available through 2015.
Summary: As of this daze, a total of 188 lodge units have been removed from the bed
base as a result of the LP Lodge program and other conversions. With 340 lodge units
remaining, this represents 36% ([340 188= 5281; 528/188 = .36)of the LP zoned lodge
units lost in total. If looking strictly at the impacts of the LP program, there has been a
13% [71/528 = 13 0/61 lodge unit loss through the change in use with the potential of
gaining 16 more lodge units (pending lodge expansion approvals through the change in
use process before the P&Z).
June 21, 1999
Re: Small Lodge Employment Survey
ASPEN • PITKIN -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Dear lodge owner /manager:
The City Planning Department is conducting this survey to more accurately define the
number of employees small lodges in Aspen typically employ. This is being done.so that
the City can determine the affordable housing requirement for small lodges if and when
they wish to add lodge rooms. The most accurate figures used by the City currently
consider larger lodges, such as the Little Nell and the Saint Regis, which may generate
more employees per room that lodges like yours.
In requesting this information, I understand you may have some hesitancy in honestly
representing you employment figures. I want to make it expressly understood that this
information will only be presented as an average for small lodges. Information about any
specific lodge will not be available to the public, will not be presented to public officials,
and will not remain part of the file.
Please complete the enclosed survey and return it to the City Planning Department. This
survey may be completed anonymously. Feel free to call me if you have any questions
regarding this study or would like to report your employment figures verbally.
Thanks for your time,
k
Chris Bendon, AICP
Planner, City of Aspen
<��eA 4-r.
-A- _W A
v
canA� �.JP:ttti
yv�art
�h1tib�-
AA
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 -1975 PHONE 970.920.5090 FAx 970.920.5439
Printed MR ,W Paper
Small Lodge Survey
1. Number of lodge units:
This is the total individual units in your lodge, regardless of rooms or beds per unit.
2. Number of pillows:
This is the maximum capacity of your lodge.
3. Approximate average size of lodge units (in square feet):
If the unit sizes vary, note the number of units per size.
4. Additional services provided:
Please indicate any additional services your lodge provides.
❑ Concierge
❑ Town/Airport Shuttles
❑ Room Service
❑ Limited food service
❑ Complete food service
❑ Daily maid
J Non -daily maid (less than every day)
❑ Conference facilities
❑ Other:
5. Estimated Full- Time - Equivalent number of employees (FTE's):
Please estimate the average for an entire year considering Winter, Summer, and shoulder
seasons. Attribute part-time employees based on the portion of a 40 hour week they work
(i.e. an employee working 10 hours per week = .25 FTE).
6. Approximate housing situation for lodge employees:
Please estimate the number of employees living in the following categories:
On -site or in lodge -owned housing.
Off -site within Aspen (including AABC)
Off -site outside of Aspen (Snowmass Village, Woody Creek, Downvalley)
t. JRoritz Lodq�.
9/1199
Aspen City Council
Dear Council Members:
SEP 2 1999
x441li�Vl ry vlEIOpUENT
l ;%
In the process of preparing my application to come before you under the
new Minor PUD, LP ordinance I became aware of some information that I know
will be of immediate interest to you.
In the interval since the 9/24/98 inventory of small lodges was taken
numerous changes have occurred. The details of these are spelled out in
another communication I have made to Mr. Bendon in the Planning Office. But I
do think you should know the summary, at least, before you begin your final
deliberations.
In September of 1998 the Aspen Area had 340 lodge rooms one could
consider Economy in nature. Since then, in one year, 200 rooms have been
removed from that group. The Ullr, Heatherbed, and Buckhorn have converted
to AH. The Grand Aspen is announced to be rebuilt.
This leaves 140 rooms approximately in the "affordable" category; 8 small
lodges. Overwhelmingly valuable underlying land jeopardizes the future of 2 of
these at the base of Aspen Mountain. One more on Main Street is for sale. One
other is applying for what is probably a good change in use.
Having thought this through carefully, both from the community's
standpoint and the owners' standpoints, I conclude that the processes we are
witnessing are near inevitable. However, they can be resisted. The Minor PUD,
LP Process ordinance is a late but very strong beginning. I encourage you to
amend it by adding the wording, "Council, at its sole discretion, in order to
%
encourage and abet "Economy" lodging, has the ability to waive any or all impact /
fees or exactments associated with LP program development."
It's about survival. And it should induce several more applications in the
near future.
-�
H. Michael Behrendt
334 West Hyman Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (970) 925 -3220
On Purposes, Exemptions and Mitigations
Bucking all trends, the applicant desires to expand and sustain a small,
economy lodge property through the new Minor PUD, LP Expansion process.
This assumes exemption from GMQS Scoring and Competition, including the AH
request, assumes flexibility in setbacks, FAR and parking, and needs relief from
some of the mitigation exactments. Estimates of these exactments are:
Planning Application Fees
1,430,00
no relief requested
1,430.00
ACSD Impact Fees
11,965.25
no relief requested
11,965.25
City Water Impact Fees
new rooms
20,542.00
no relief requested
20.542.00
2 AH units
6,525.00
exemption
City tree penalty
29,000.00
replacement
4,000.00
Parks & Rec Impact Fees
new rooms
12,160.00
1/2 relief requested
6.080.00
2 AH units
4,245.00
exemption
�. Building Permit Fee
2,596.15
no relief requested
2,596.15
+� 44annihg Check Fee
1,687.50
no relief requested
1,687.50
GIS Fee
50.00
no relief requested
50.00
Energy Check Fee
259.62
no relief requested
259.62
Zoning Check Fee
420.00
no relief requested
420.00
Totals
$90,880.52
$49,030.52
Under the new Minor PUD,• LP Expansion process the application would
comply with all requirements of the City Code. Further it upgrades the fire,
health, safety, and ADA aspects and standards of the existing lodge, and
strengthens it economically to last and compete in today's market in its almost
unique Economy bracket.
The application's consistency and compliance with the Aspen Area
Community Plan is obvious. The 1 /3rd employee housing aspect has the
broadest of community support — and can be seen as in -fill. For the 2 /3rds new
rooms, it seems complete consensus exists for allowing maximum flexibility to
enable retention and improvement of the small lodges — the only affordable
lodging left. 20
f
d.✓
Exhibit D
Lodge Preservation
Program
STAFF COMMENTS: Text Amendment
Section 26.310.020, Standards Applicable to a Land Use Code Text Amendment
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title, the City Council and the Commission
shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of
this title.
Staff Finding:
The Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District allows for small lodges, which were
primarily built prior to zoning Ordinances in Aspen, to continue to exist as conforming uses in
their underling zone district. This overlay is used to prevent conflicts with other portions of this
Title. The LP Program is intended to provide incentives for the continuation of, and investment
in, these small lodges to address a community goal as stated by the City Council.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding:
The Lodge Preservation Program as proposed addresses a stated goal of the 1993 AACP to
encourage expansion of these small lodges. (Action Item 12 or Commercial Action Plan.) This
same goal has been stated, in a slightly different manner, in the un- adopted 1998 AACP,
(Economic Sustainability Action Item #10.) Staff believes this proposed amendment to the land
use code is supported by the Aspen Area Community Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding:
This standard roughly applies. The land which currently is designated with an LP Overlay on the
Official Zone District Map will be reviewed under this new Program only if development is
proposed. During that review, attention to neighborhood characteristics, and surrounding land
uses are required to be considered. Also, these properties are expected to use the Minor PUD
process for their land use review and greater. attention to surrounding properties will be achieved.
Staff believes the LP Program encourages development in a manner consistent with the
surrounding characteristics of the parcel.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety.
Staff Finding:
The proposed LP Program will not, itself, alter traffic patterns, generations rates, or road safety.
The revised program does include criteria for evaluating the impacts a development may have on
the transportation infrastructure. In addition, the Minor PUD criteria do consider transportation
related impacts.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed
staff comments page 1
amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not limited
to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage,
schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding:
The LP Properties affected by this amendment are all within areas of sufficient service as far as
roads, water supply, sewer service, parks, schools, and emergency service. While this is a
general statement, the particular complexities of serving a specific property are typically
determined at the time of an actual development application. Nevertheless, these properties do
exist in well served areas of Aspen.
A particular development application would be reviewed, in part, on its impacts upon these
facilities and the City's ability to serve the development. In addition, the drainage impacts and
mitigation measures would be considered for any type of development on these parcels.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding:
These properties are primarily in the Original Townsite and do not pose the potential to cause
significant adverse affects on the natural environment. There are provisions within the proposed
GMQS exemption criteria and PUD criteria addressing the affects a proposed development may
have on the natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding:
The LP Program attempts to maintain and bolster the character of small lodges interspersed
throughout the community. While this Program serves as an encouragement to further
development these lodges, criteria have intentionally been included emphasizing compatibility
with surrounding land uses and development patterns. Furthermore, the PUD regulations
emphasize consistency with a development's surrounding context and with the overall character
of the town.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding:
There have been changes in the philosophical approach to small lodge development supporting
this amendment. A desire expressed by City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission
during work sessions with staff, a desire by the community at large through the public process of
the Community Plan (AACP), and a desire expressed by owners of these small lodges all support
this amendment. Staff believes there exists a significant interest of the community to be served
by this amendment.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest,
and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding:
This proposed amendment does not pose any conflicts with the public interest. In fact, the
proposed LP Program section is intended to ensue the interests of the community are served to
the greatest extend possible, and that proposed development is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of the land use code.
staff comments page 2
August 30, 1999 TO
To: Aspen City Council
From: Katherine L. Updike
Managing Partner
Building Solutions LLC
RE: Proposed Modifications to PUD....
As a consulting developer who works with municipalities and non - profit organizations to implement
developments which meet community objectives, I have been asked to provide an opinion of the
desirability of including density as a possible variance in the PUD modifications being considered.
In analyzing the proposed legislation, I am taking into consideration that the community plan has set
objectives to house more of its workforce and to reduce dependence upon the car (at least in town). Using
these objectives as a guidepost, as well as my experience in other communities, I recommend that
density should be an allowable variance in the PUD application,
for the following reasons:
➢ Allowing FAR to be increased without permitting unit count to increase favors commercial
development and larger home sizes (ie., less affordable or attainable units)
➢ Smaller units allow residents to consider housing which is not shared — "a home of one's own ". A
studio or efficiency may be far preferable to some residents than the ubiquitous two bedroom with
roommates.
➢ The legislation is [primarily] targeted at small PUD requests. These requests typically cannot diversify
the housing within the plan in order to generate smaller units. It is unrealistic to expect a small PUD to
self - generate diversity.
➢ The small PUD is most likely to be applied to infill projects in the core of Aspen which is the most
logical place to increase employee housing which can rely on transit infrastructure. Housing
affordability should always include transportation as a component of the cost structure.
While the opinion expressed above is generic in nature, it is useful to consider the impact of legislation on
specific projects. We are working with the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority in order to develop a
model for employer sponsored housing. The Ullr Lodge is being evaluated as a conversion opportunity. If
we convert the Ullr Lodge to permanent housing, we will decrease the need for employment at the Ullr.
We can also increase the available units by converting an office that will no longer be needed and by
splitting a very large unit into 2 -3 units. The FAR will remain the same and yet the opportunity to house
resident/employees closer to work in smaller units increases. Additionally, the smaller units provide viable
economical opportunities to have units which are not shared. Perhaps of greatest interest is that the project
will largely be subsidized by the private sector (employers) not the tax payers. Public policy support of
such private sector initiative should be loud and strong.
It will take the whole community to meet Aspen community plan objectives. Please help support the
ability of PUD applicants to increase density in a thoughtful and well - planned manner.
SFr
July 12, 1999
Charles and Fonda Paterson
The Boomerang Lodge . . 6
500 West Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN P1naN
' COSMCNITV DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Re: Lodge Preservation (LP) Program
Dear Charles and Fonda:
In response to your letter and our conversation today, I am providing these written
answers to your questions regarding the proposed LP Program changes.
The proposed LP Program would allow LP lodges to add additional lodge units.
There are currently no restrictions on the size of lodge units or the maximum allowed
for a property. The eight units referenced during the original LP discussion does not
limit or predetermine your actual development potential. This number was used
merely to gain a basic understanding of the potential units that may be developed in
the LP Zone. -The actual number of additional lodge unit that you may develop on
your property depends on your ability to design the site appropriately.
2. The proposed LP Program language would create a system of first come- first served
for additional lodge units. This system would allow small lodges to obtain additional
units in the growth management system without competition from larger hotel
developments.
3. The ability to condominiumize lodge units has been a point of discussion during LP
work sessions. The primary concern is the de -facto- loss of lodge units through the
condominiumization process. Staff is proposing that this form of ownership become
a conditional use. With this additional oversight, the community could be assured the
lodge use would remain under the new ownership. In the alternative, this form of
ownership could be reviewed by City Council or remain at a staff level with certain
criteria to ensure the lodging use was preserved.
4. The ability to develop on adjacent lands would be possible if those lands are zoned
LP. If the land is not zoned LP, as in the case you described today, a rezoning
application would need to be submitted and approved by City Council. This rezoning
process could be considered individually or in combination with a Minor PUD
application.
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 61611 -1975 PHONE 970.920.3090 - FAx 970.9205439
N im"d - a.,, ded ra'uT
a
5. The proposed Minor PUD provisions would allow an LP lodge owner the right to
define all of the dimensional requirements for the property. These include height,
setbacks, parking, and FAR. The Minor PUD process would include a public
hearings with both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council.
Included with this letter is a copy of the proposed PUD section.
I appreciate your continues interest in this program and your help in directing my efforts
in surveying small lodge owners. Please contact me if you have any questions about the
review, etc. 920.5072.
Sincerely,
Chris Bendon, AICP
Planner, City of Aspen
j THE O
BOOMERANG
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
June 21, 1999.
m
In order for the Boomerang to proceed with long range
planning -we would like to clarify what our rights are
-(or will be) under the LP Zoning Designation.
We understand the following:
1] The right to add eight additional rental units of
unsepecified size.
23 The right to build the eight units on a first come
first served basis.
31 The right to Condominiumize in any of its various
forms.
4] The right to build on adjacent lands separated by a
street or an alley.(Precedent- Limelite, Aspen
'Square,Aspen Alps, St. Regis.)
51 The right to apply for setback, height, parking and
square foot considerations.
Many thanks for your reply_ to these points.
Charles and Fonda Paterson
500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
970- 925 -3416 • 800- 992 -8852
FACSIMILE 9]0- 925 -3314
THE
BOOMERANG
a
The Honorable Mayor John Bennett,
Members of City Council,
Planning & Zoning Commission
r�11��3 ?4?5�g7
RECEIVED tiw
��SZ3
April 10, 1999.
Re: Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District
We regret we are unable to attend the April 19th
meeting in person. We appreciate the opportunity to be
part of the discussion to revise the LP zoning.
There are several key issues, relating to the fact
that small lodge owners need encouragement and
flexibility to maintain their unique contribution to
the economic well being of our community:
The three year program was a success insomuch, as
three of the lodges sold and remained operational, and
an obsolete lodge was redeveloped. One project has
become affordable housing. However, with only a three
year window, owners felt obligated to act quickly,
which works against such a program for long range
planning. If council wants to encourage longevity in
the lodging business, an-open-ended option needs to be
available.
Obviously, the imposition of time limits creates a
condensed response, forcing owners into action.
We would like to recommend your consideration for the
LP zone:
1) The ability to continue as a lodge, the right to
add more units as proposed in the original ordinance
and replace obsolete units that have been lost.
2) The continuation of the right to condominiumize.
3) The right to revert to underlying zoning.
4) Consideration of neighbors and neighborhood
character for any rezoning requests near or adjoining
existing lodges, so that the quality of the small
lodge experience is not negatively impacted by radical
changes in surrounding properties.
Best of luck with the meeting.
Sincerely,
Charles & Fonda Paterson
i
t lyy9
CQ�f `Jl Ulvlll LfLVLw�'i.. u'!
500 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
970- 925 -3416 • 800- 992 -8852
FACSIMILE 970- 925 -3314
April 6, 1999
ASPEN • PITKIN
COMMUNm DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Re: Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District Work Session
Dear Lodge Owner:
The Aspen City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission will be conducting a
work session to consider extending the Lodge Preservation (LP) Program. Staff is
seeking the way in which the LP program should be extended prior to initiating public
hearings.
This work session will be held on Monday April 19" in the basement of City Hall
starting at 4:00 p.m:
A copy of the work session memorandum will be mailed to you prior to the meeting.
Please feel free to contact me about these changes to the LP Zone District. I can be
reached at 920.5072, or come by my office on the 3`d floor of City Hall.
Thanks for your time,
N *#dj
Chris Bendon, AICP
Planner, City of Aspen
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 -1975 PHONE 970.920.5090 FAx 970.920.5439
Printed on Recycled Paper
June 4, 1999
Re: Lodge Preservation Program
ASPEN • PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVEI OPMENT DEPARTMENT
Dear Lodge Owner:
Attached please find a copy of the staff memorandum and proposed code amendments to
the Planned Unit Development provisions of the land use code. In summary, these
amendment proposed a shorter, simpler process for parcels zoned LP to expand or
redevelop with more flexible zoning requirements. I am fairly certain the Commission
will not take final action on June 8`h due to the extent of changes proposed. If they do
make a decision, the amendment will proceed to the City Council.
This public hearing will be Tuesday June 8" at 4:30 p.m. in the basement of City
Hall.
Associated'changes to the growth management sections of the land use code are proposed
to be tabled and not considered on June 8`h. I will be conducting a survey of typical
employment generation and considering appropriate base and yearly-growth management
allotments to be proposed. I may need your input through this process and may be calling
you to discuss your lodge operation.
Feel free to contact me. I can be reached at 920.5072, or come by my office on the 3`1
floor of City Hall.
Thanks for your time,
Chris Bendon, AICP
Planner, City of Aspen
130 SOUTH GAI FNA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5090 FAA 970.920.5439
Printed in Recycled Paper
August 12, 1999
Re: Lodge Preservation Program
Dear Lodge Owner:
ASPEN .• PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
The revisions to the Lodge Preservation (LP) Program were split into two amendments:
Planned Unit Development and Lodge Preservation. During the week of August 23rd both
amendments will be considered.
Planned Unit Development and Minor PUD:
The amendments to the Planned Unit Development provisions of the land use code were
recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and are proceding to
City Council. A copy of the proposed PUD requirements may be picked -up at the City
Planning Department, on the 3`d floor of City Hall. In summary, the amendments propose
a shorter, simpler process for parcels zoned LP to expand or redevelop with more flexible
zoning requirements.
The revisions will be considered by the City Council on Monday August 23, 1999, at a
meeting starting at 5:00 p.m. in the basement of City Hall. This will be the first reading
of an Ordinance revising the PUD section. The second reading and public hearing will be
on September 13, 1999.
Lodge Preservation Program Amendments:
The remainder of the Lodge Preservation issues will be heard by the Planning and Zoning
Commission on Tuesday August 24, 1999. These amendments affect growth
management, the definition of a "lodge," and the LP Overlay itself. A -copy of the staff
memorandum may be picked -up at the City Planning Department.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. I can be reached at 920.5072, or come
by my office on the 3m floor of City Hall.
Thanks for your time,
Chris Bendon, AICP
Planner, City of Aspen
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 -1975 PHONE 970.920.5090 PA %970.920.5439
Printed on Reayded Paper
September 1, 1999
Re: Lodge Preservation Program
Dear Lodge Owner:
ASPEN • PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
The revisions to the Lodge Preservation (LP) Program were split into two amendments:
Planned Unit Development and Lodge Preservation. On September 13,1999, City
Council will consider both of these amendments and take public comment. The
meeting starts at 5 p.m. in the basement of City Hall.
Planned Unit Development (PUD):
The amendments to the Planned Unit Development regulations of the land use code
provide a shorter, simpler process for parcels zoned LP to vary the dimensional
requirements of their zoning. LP Lodge owners wanting to expand or redevelop will
most likely use these new PUD regulations to establish the height, setbacks, FAR, and
parking requirements for their property.
Lodge Preservation Program Amendments:
These amendments affect Growth Management, the definition of a "lodge," and the
LP Overlay itself. If passed, these amendments would allow LP Lodges an
exemption from growth management for expansion. Also, redevelopment of LP
Lodges would not be required to mitigate for affordable housing and parking unless
additional lodge rooms were proposed.
If you own or operate an LP Lodge and want to make your concerns
about small lodges known to City Council, this is your opportunity.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. I can be reached at 920.5072, or come
by my office on the Yd floor of City Hall.
s for your time,
1
Chris Bendon, AICP
Planner, City of Aspen
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5090 FAX 970.920.5439
Printed on Reryded Paper
October 5, 1999
Re: Lodge Preservation Program
Dear Lodge Owner:
ASPEN - PITKIN
COMMUNITY' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
The final public meeting concerning the Lodge Preservation Program will be held on
October 12 before the Aspen City Council. If adopted, this Ordinance will create a series
of incentives for small lodge owners to expand, redevelop, and add affordable housing to
their lodge facility. Please find attached a copy of the Council memorandum and the
proposed Ordinance.
The public hearing is scheduled for October 12, 5 p.m., in the basement of City Hall:
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. I can be reached at 920.5072, or come
by my office on the 3rd floor of City Hall.
Thanks for ,
W Chris Ben,
Senior Planner, City of Aspen
130 SOUTH GAI,FNA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 -1975 PEONS 970.920.5090 - FAx 970.920.5439
Printed on Rxydd Paper
� M
County of Pitkin
ss.
State of Colorado
Attachment S
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
SECTION 26.52.060(E)
I OPM being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first -class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated
on the attached list, on the&' day of , 199_' (which is a days prior to the public
hearing date ofSUQfct7 �q )•
osting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject prope ould be seen from
the nearest public way) an said sign w and visible continuously from the _ day
of 11991 e _ day of , 199_. (Must be posted for at least
days before the hearing date). A photograph of the pos is attached hereto.
(Attach pho dph liefe)
Signed before me this2151—day of
199. by
WITNESS MY
My
Notary
OF
OFFICIAL SEAL
May 21, 1999
Re: Lodge Preservation Program
ASPEN • PITKIN
COMMGNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Dear Lodge Owner:
I will be presenting amendments to the land use code pertaining to lodges in the Lodge
Preservation (LP) Overlay Zone District to the Planning and Zoning Commission on June
8, 1999. The proposed amendments are consistent with the general direction of the April
19' work session. (Please refer to the attached summary of the meeting.)
The Planning and Zoning Commission is a formal review Board which makes.
recommendations to the Aspen City Council. A copy of the staff memorandum will be
mailed to you prior to the meeting.
This public hearing will be Tuesday June 8' at 4:30
p.m. in the basement of City Hall.
Prior to this public hearing, I would like to update lodge owners on these amendments.
This meeting will be an informal way to learn more about the proposal, the review
process, and to address concerns prior to public hearing.
This informational meeting will be held on Thursday May 271h from 4
to 5 p.m. in the basement of City Hall.
If you cannot attend this meeting but would like to contribute your comments, I can be
reached at 920.5072, or come by my office on the 3`d floor of City Hall.
UYP
Chris Bendon, AICP
Planner, City of Aspen
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 - PHONE 970.920.5090 PA %970.920.5439
Printed on R.e y ded Ibper
LODGE PRESERVATION
4.19.99
Following is a summary of the April 19, 1999, joint work session between the City
Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Affordable Housing:
The Boards directed staff to not amend the affordable housing provisions of the LP Zone
District. The existing code allows affordable housing for employees of the lodge as a
permitted use and for the general public as a conditional use. Also, lodges wanting to
convert to affordable housing would still be required to seek a change -in -use approval.
Growth Management "Credit. "
The two Boards agreed there should be a mitigation "credit" be provided for lodge use
but not be extended to change -in -use applications. In other words, an LP lodge wanting
to redevelop as a lodge would be required to mitigate only the net increase in impacts.
(i.e. a 15 unit lodge replaced with a 20 unit lodge would be required to mitigate for only 5
units.)
This is different from all other applications of Growth Management in town and
represents an incentive for lodge owners wanting to make significant improvements to
their lodge. All other commercial and lodge development is town must mitigate for the
entire development (as if it didn't exist before) in order to replace after demolition.
The two Boards also said, however, that this "credit" should not be applied to change -in-
use applications when demolition is involved. Lodge owners wanting to demolish their
lodge a construct commercial, office, or residential uses will be required to provide
mitigation for that use with no credit given for the previous use.
Minor PUD:
The two Boards decided the Minor PUD provision should proceed. This provision will
allow specific zoning provisions to be established by City Council on LP properties. In
other words, an individual LP lodge owner could argue that a certain setback, parking
scenario, or additional FAR is more desirable than provided in the strict zoning. This is
important considering many of the older lodges were constructed before zoning (and are
non - conforming) and this flexibility is an incentive to maintain and improve an older
lodge.
Tax Incentives:
The City Finance Director and the City Attorney have instructed staff and City Council to
not seek a special taxing district for small lodges. This type of provision would be easily
considered biased and discriminatory. Also, City Council expressed no interest in
creating any sort of bed tax for lodge properties.
Inclusion of other Small Lodges:
The Boards agreed that invitations to join the LP Zone District should be extended to
other small lodges that do not already exist in a Lodge District. Lodges that were
mentioned include: Ullr Lodge, Deep Powder, Chalet Lisl, Holland House, Mountain
Chalet, the Tyrolean, and the Snow Eagle.
"Lodge" Definition:
The current definition of a lodge reads as follows:
Lodge means a building within the Lodge Preservation Overlay zone district or a building
presently zoned Commercial Lodge (CL) containing three (3) or more individual rooms for
the purpose or providing lodging facilities on a short or long -term basis, for compensation,
with or without meals, and which has common facilities for reservation and cleaning services
and on -site management and reception. A lodge may include kitchens within individual rental
units.
The two Boards considered the long -term lease provision of this definition and concluded
that type of occupancy resembled residential occupancy. The conclusion was to
eliminate "or long - term" from the definition and redefine short term as occupancy periods
of one month or less.
Condominiumization:
City Council expressed some concerns about his type of ownership and the affects it may
have on the short-term lodging base. Staff and the City Attorney suggested making this
type of ownership a conditional use to ensure some review of the affects the type of
ownership may have on the use.
Growth Management Allotment Pool.
Staff suggested and the two Boards agreed that small lodges should have a separate
growth management allotment pool than the general lodging pool available to all lodges
in town. This is similar to the original LP Program which was specifically crafted so that
smaller, less- affluent lodges could seek development approvals without having to
compete against larger, more - affluent corporate projects.
The two Boards agreed the annual allotment pool should be consistent from year to year
and not rely on the previous calculation by the Community Development Director.
Lottery:
The original LP Program granted allotments through a yearly lottery system. In this
lottery, applicants were drawn randomly for allotments prior to development approvals
were accepted or considered. During the three -year period there was never a competitive
lottery.
The two Boards decided to discontinue the lottery process and allow the growth
management exemptions to occur on a first come -first served
Trial Period:
The original Program was initiated for a three year period. The Boards recommended
staff proceed with a code amendment revising the Program as a permanent modification
to the land use code, proceeding indefinitely.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT: MINOR PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 18, 1999, at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 So. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the
City of Aspen Community Development Department requesting adoption of a Minor Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Review process. The proposed code amendment would affect Section 26.84 —
Planned Unit Development (PUD) - of the Municipal Code, which relates to Section 26.445 of the
re- organized land use code currently under formal review. The proposed code amendment would
allow for a simpler and shorter land use review for properties in the Lodge Preservation Program,
designated with a Lodge Preservation (LP) Zoning Overlay. For further information, contact Chris
Bendon at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO,
(970) 920 -5072, chrisb @ci.aspen.co.us.
sBob Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May 1, 1999
City of Aspen Account
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: LODGE
PRESERVATION PROGRAM.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 18, 1999, at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 So. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the
City of Aspen Community Development Department requesting adoption of a revised Lodge
Preservation Program for properties designated with a Lodge Preservation (LP) Zoning Overlay.
The proposed code amendments would affect the following Sections of the :Municipal Code:
26.04. 100 — Definitions;
26.28.320 — Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP) Zone District;
26.32 — Off - Street Parking; and,
26.100 — Growth Management Quota System.
These Sections relate to Sections 26.104, 26.710.320, 26.515, and 26.470, respectively, of the re-
organized land use code currently under formal review. The proposed code amendments would
create a growth management exemption process for lodges in this zone district to expand or
redevelop, allow all dimensional requirements of the property, including parking, to be established
pursuant the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process, and re -define the "lodge" definition to
occupancy periods of one month or less. For further information, contact Chris Bendon at the
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-
5072, chrisb @ci.aspen.co.us.
sBob Blaich, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May 1, 1999
City of Aspen Account
�r
Bavarian Inn
C/O John Sarpa
Grand Aspen Hotel
515 So. Galena Street
Aspen CO 81611
Christmas Inn
C/O Lynn Durfee
PO Box 67
Carbondale, CO 81623
Cortina Lodge
C/O Kurt Sanders
Krabacker and Associates
201 North Mill Street #201
Aspen, CO 81611
Shadow Mountain Lodge
C/O Hal Morrow
232 West Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Mountain House Lodge
C/O John Weming
905 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Hotel Lenado
C/O Kim Stachowski
200 South Aspen Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Bell Mountain LLC
C/O Jim Valerio
720 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Bill Tomcics
Aspen Central Reservations
425 Rio Grande Pl.
Aspen, CO 81611
Christiania Lodge
C/O Greg Hills
Roaring Fork Partners
408 Airport Business Center #202
Aspen, CO 81611
Boomeran g Lodge
Charles and Fonda Paterson
500 West Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Molly Gibson Lodge
C/O Dave Tash
101 West Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Hearthstone House
C/O John and Carrie Morgridge
134 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Northstar Lodge
C/O Greg Hills
Roaring Fork Partners
408 Airport Business Center #202
Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen Bed and Breakfast
C/O Bill Schoenecker
311 West Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Kim Raymond Design
412 North Mill Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Allison Campbell
Aspen Central Reservations
425 Rio Grande Pl.
Aspen, CO 81611
Copper Horse
PO Box 10396
Aspen, CO 81612
Innsbrook Inn
C/O Tracy Haisfield
233 West Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Saint Moritz Lodge
C/O Michael Behrendt
334 Wset Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Snow Queen Lodge
C/O Norma Doll/Larry Leddingham
124 East Cooper Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Beaumont Inn
C/O Jeff Stafford
1301 East Cooper Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Hotel Aspen
C/O Tom Edgar
110 West Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Kitty Boone
Aspen Skiing Company
PO Box 1248
Aspen, CO 81612
Carrie Bryant
Coates, Reid, & Waldron
720 East Hyman
Aspen, Co 81611
Adam Rothberg Gary Chep Jayne Poss
PO Box 9232 Christiania Lodge 849 Mt Laurel Dr.
Aspen, CO 81612 501 West Main Street Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen, CO 81611
Rich Wager Herb Klein Jenine Sharkey
Wager Associates Re: Christiania Alan Sharkey
601 East Hyman Ave. # 104 201 North Mill Street #203 601 E. Hopkins Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611
920.3131 925.8700
St 4•c� `°i5q E =$ °c n.;3 v -S _o of 6 ov _ov
;u 'n"uoan ;On L�cnY --' f ~fin e'•E
^: 215 NO -'� °.. E� =no Y 09 >c rt � "u::m �v
av�ci� m <ar wu f-o° 0 8�m n.. u..c
_r�..o� a" =rl u „W�eS o°.Eo - °�°•^ -`Y
dD »'-� ..h aEE &-..� qE ;oc wcyoo cE ZVE- icy °•fie
aE
Ym cEEa E%s �a`.v ^E: °e5 E -_ o
Ey°.cvu"ory aui `o =3 ma'n _pYC 0q
2g3c ds 5>�Ed�- ° °nT°�aNc>VC 3u cgof °r�avrvo =q u�`c °wL uo -c o
iv P.�3L ° =v ' +z_L'ap:vamo �u_9 WS �igmc `o SEc�mc ^m_ a��. �c�x g °CumD.�V�
�Ea�
"O°.°, Eov9� ✓ioL g`ov dy .nn L_ .Aw pEp E3-= d,-E•5$QQ oS cryV ��m8 ;„c
;LYv O 5�ai<= yV°ICNi U9YN =viii JIE �U �'E Ey QL-z 65�N • +O °1� C
3u ° °dMN Sow oel o_`oL �``iy '° o vmn$o ^ A.2 - ^S
..aE VE sOt91a 9Q tiIYO O °O �6�- CCy yC
9 C d O y LL 6 c 6- V J --' p L y E O
>: o vEy mcv y_`o WCxu ^�+5 v° dmw c -g`ory gZaIttYOO �3 QyJe u. EY
YY -J a- "9E Y„N E �yr.o c € �o u Fnu °r_z uC,o9
O f� C IS ttpp li V^ S V yyyy 9.c w Y Y > y e f
!� Vrr6V9O <J•��i IY OmO 9 % V1vw WN� m� l 6�
C C J D
a E
Y YYY T °U
J aOr ECO-E m
L _. ..as at
;cB tDI cc 2F .
�°:g myCU Vy
V °V 'JmOC j0.
d
wig 0 6w
"ru
VgY t cca� s€c ¢ A °
�y �•
LGGr °99a•°•
'.,N zzC UgUOLO
S `l ..�q e•; E99xtq L09
C?^ EV V -5 <Vn sYq
EyP.n �. ,mutt 3dn
dE v$59$ cY�oaE -`OE
°?p
rE.H
fa9Om=
G n
ESy Oqq m
cco _
w
g o� on
gy�mr
Z`E� %Yld ��aWm�N99mU NITi
m6F AL =O09 • w p v w =ELAJ V. L cLS p = --m
°E9$L6vnL yr of •ra+ ° °' a!$
m =9. avc°a y.9yU °oomE w^
YY"'v 2e2, mBV- °3Y5._:'@ m2 � _Ee�i is
E2 c= _Vwe ow$ °° a yzy o
Dap + YS93y,S9 �wL Lm CSxCe �L^Csyy
ma'$m n5!'p Y °E &dcwwm <:s-< 3°Y °di 12 0
9E_ 3:-v _ -c x °Evo &me
Yi c°-mq E .2Yf EE 6 ont.=2'S� On:b'�p
T_O Y_ �T ppC
Ey$acEyQE�v; o+ yy eu2RY Ccux -S�=gg rE
nLEEE09Q”- e9z4�',^.�v'iB:y �qmG }[Y�3 -l�c 380
�3 �i�a0 °� =.. V.L.OU 1'Lm °229E Eti Zr'P-am
pz�z YP VE VYOCjNmCY nym Ey
Ylf LJN 9m 69L�Y =Yn +SN yUU
ma L oda5 a I3 - g 7>-O c
°r •ag3�- moo5m :yav 9
Ego Y 22 11
0 odEmy 8 vE Mc
La�uESE,N�EES
Y O• YE V O.B8 TJ -Jpp qp$
Eyy`L yOy�� YmY�CG�OyC9.y]yL =�C `NTL =yO•
4Z�y'jEHNC qY G^5VY `Lm yypYp` CS
ONlsil�a 00 Te mF C S� a J'V��U Orm y`.
uFac_ E y
E °E_E`�.Y"EL
S� e
c,`o°c
9 ¢
L q
U
`On
9 a
5LLY
C 1"
CC
59
6 Ye
LL
4 6
Sp c J _$_d
4 Y L_E O� 4j' ;22 + A o
6 y p O a T �_ q c+ Im
LL E 2 6 r
O 2 z g -�: a5�a� EE�EP�
u U p aim 8 y5y E5r
9 = Y c
o pz Wo �wE pSgc.r °-58_� c F
Z Z I Q - p Y Z 4J C Y°f! a V V4 y O YY y O O O yC
jip7 O� °�L �p cy0�'pjZY Lw_ L a
tt O J 60V ¢ U
w�tL,,.
(-�� �o���_.:goi�.ym,.o u'o� ->m".R 8gu8q fE
]ZE.=Z�Zy°y"�V =9V rVEr CG�9� C+L ;Y]
OVCSdra�❑ Pz MSY- ' €a °E.s�L�~L'a°.6 YL$
°UUOZ?VA0H -ia8f. n <oEtJ a�°.a °w5ouai3Sm Va=
yyyy�F{�ppC p {y..� yCT
JV =uq- ELY•`` ^O Cu Q• j6y1N `w LOD!VUS % °E`VaotLE uEEm
1_ C ryL' Vl V_G _ 86
U=>Z ` OUYGCi +Cm 6VL +-° RENO
- °�9�8E °c .°•:Y= c'o Lu z w °ia = °roc >e1- LLLnyEjLL ii qwv^
uiQm= a 6V 'JLE mV O jO1Vi]UOp ryYwxm Vr9' C °❑ L-'J q.
O'•�L °6w` =O ^Y =Y ^4 YnV '3.O�WL NmUO6= y0C0jr>�T � YC
c` oyS�Eo m o�vBE ocu�
EWE: c2 °g oC °cd ='Ecy Zu °z� cm gos0 =E> ?N. y E °s 9'ta
oD6c r °'jW wo c.°YnEE'- ''YUm-cs� >. LEA 'O-yC
:JynnmmLL OG�VG�e• UE uZ,YmQ6Y m`p+L °EV°iw Op> rV_Vm O�y`¢
- Ertcc¢'3 O-0 &. _ i,a LtVJUru m Ymi3ma °azv:
LE - °dg Ego:o9m -c z�ua�u = upcq rEcpEP
c£�Efo
p�uWic &r'_ °mEoEB'!E -d ECa5�m
0 JUq E a zu3rmu ug ��c q° o n-m Y•y Ems- J E
Vi E +E. oE- i= r8 EuiEE ova i ` =L:'S
.._ e.
c`> Yo o.L Joo
..ona$n cEn o00
mu iu `o�ru am¢ nmL m¢m u 3Z wunn xmGU= S¢- Qmu_Ln�
occ
cc
IIL �ZC
xa EF
LL 6uG
a
n -o_y ch
mV+
rtO�d
1o2 i
V =vi EcFoYYyO2� O y'ZL
c 4eyo or_e4L UC�r E
i i 7q so aEi i �S rxum3� qo °.L
+UO <L OOW��FmZV�V11Ws Cm¢
�i.V rau LV �Z pVp mr YV.- UVO?ETD•
c� Ux9WFi ay�00VLZ- OZOYY:
r- 6 OtC' mJ Z L C
gEF v -o mLZa�W�4L zp -n`uc
i> ° 2E.-U.
8Ld°e$mh LL °Y�YZr�sY� rtE
.a_ WZ�ZZ�Z -mums LOa
L °y�j ^NL Nu4 <W OU <r ym�_.Y
v u
!n u yr giBffi u °=:-n WTE50og >cfr
. zo.aNEa uy�fa -z c VmP c
L vo� O E ..m�
'T y TV C9 LE
W Yo °L E
EE
o E^ U$m E FQO C t = c VYq D 9 v£g ooB+
cE :� r Y =S
° ^r izZ�v
=E� 7445
E. 0cyit `0 8E ri=y ''ryryAA 'KO EB Cq 8qy e;
-VY Lm u% 9m ;C CCq m VLrm
$>osES�ivA� E Oy>c �."SS
c-
LE yut✓'rm aE = -`Y Ora =y3 vaE
L A Y y "2 O m C Y .. - .1 R O R -m C `p A A = 5 0
O9s pyy yyQyy
ym aC cyG UML -EOC �99 -E ^V
O Jq pa fe y ;
NmL•� a m u °ui35ma }J <n3'p 3n
6�OUe! W p °j °b
oV?3 EorA vU�yL�i c -m °:E mac_ Z u ° °_me¢ =YS u99U ^T 6
VW.V.CnV OL C6
1L0= V�oo you" ou e�Em „�iip3 >+ ^yVECLO °u mUn
u'o tye ep� _ Erma eT °os re.c >-e -4.2
-Y+DL E D °W u00 L<CmLr -y+ L r E c m °Oi1 y�5aw i0 - ^i✓'u r +o:9a
JO Wr
E. Z eyc5� i0 p of m i n>iecr< n� O oL5 `u
wE "La �50ZZOm �TO °Ym $'u r mUn $mQc$L8�°.� g• r m"w° u
A E rr ErOS
F E4W a"yjr.�i
E= �OFLL< °cm�o -yy%_
m0� °n =LLO <9 YAddou °Y m_omr °CyCn- Y �ccm
imp`oc_2YIL a °Y� 'O2�a=�cc 2,
_ X e
s WE;moUZ� � c =y a�' d9 SY Ew r Qqo.
c <OR9.6O Z_ &yL °< C O°" L °O Y•O] L rp 0$�IC
Wr8mL5_ -�°F o�se i �u�= BE °my ±L y?°m •O Yyl ..; w66E»=e
oM�mfSxWmcu =mow$ n u]aEEd�° rcy$e� U7 <Ey,E
�.-LO 6ae N p E 8w c T a Fm Em a
o`�� -+Z VE =a.Ed a pm Eoa -L' 3_Y p p >cegaJ
�U Uenv nQOOO> 6U nLWa 6 Z >GW °w WHO&C -LYV d ZLOU ¢
.uuy 22 -23, 1999
Y.
,otothe
in they
)e skiing
-laving the next sport. But, we did
within a time frame that made
,se according to the seasons.
`4ow, by the time April rolls
-and, many people have already
en up skiing to start riding their
ountain bikes back and forth to
ark. That roll-up- and -wear suit
at fits into their rucksack looks
iiif e a sack of cats on the way to
he river by the time they get to
work and put it on. (If this is your
preferred cross - training method,
loa't plan on asking a lady to
lunch after you have pedaled to
work in the predawn darkness
while sweating for nine miles and
42 minutes with every turn of the
pedals.)
These days, almost every
macho man or women that I know
has his or her get-in- shape -for-
their- weekend - sports program at
!east two or three months out of
1ysts say people
lit go skiing in the
ng because it can
.old, windy and
rcast. Instead, they
A for the beach,
ere it is always cold,
idy and overcast.
sync with the real seasons. In fact,
our entire society seems to be out
of sync — perhaps because it's
controlled by the business world
and advertising. Isn't that why we
NOTICE is HLHLbY I'll c,1 wa, a Po,.,,. ......s
will be held on Wednesday June o. 1999 at a
meeting to begin at 51)0 pin, before the Aspen
Historic Preservation Compulsion City Council
Chambers City Hall. 130 S Galena SL, Aspen. to
consider an ' application submitted by Small led
Large Fries LLC ns,.Ishimi -Pproval of a p o-
posed Subdivision Exemption for an Historic
Landmark Lot Split, Conceptual HPC review,
Partial Demolition, and Variances. es. The request-
ed variances are for the new easterly parcel
which will contain the historic house and a s: a
2.3 west sideyard setback vara I comb -ned
sideyard setback variance of 03 an east side-
yard setback variance of 2 for Ilghtwells, a com-
bined sideyard setback variance of 33' for light -
wells, and a 500 square foot ROnr area bonus.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE- CONCEPTUAL
REVIEW, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON -SITE RELO-
CATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Wednesday, June 9.1999 at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission, Council
Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena SL, Aspen, to
consider an application submitted by John
Davis, requesting conceptual and partial dinru i-
tion approval to remodel the Busting historic
building, and on -site relocation of the existing
shed. For further information, contact Amy
Guthrie at the Aspen/ Pitkin Community
Development Department, 130 S. Galena SL,
Aspen, CO (970) 920.5096, amyloij aspen. co. us.
s /Suzannah Reid, Chair
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May 22. 1999.
YUbLII: NU I"a
NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN TO THE GENERAL
PUBLIC:
on April 14,1999 the Board of County
Commissioners o1 Pitkin County, Colorado,
adopted Resolution 99-73 approving the St.
Benedict's Monastery Special Review, 1041
Hazard Review and GMQS Exemption. The sub-
ject property is located in part of Sections 15,
Township 9 South, Range 85 West. Sections 16,
17, 18. 19, 20. 21. 28 and 29, Township 9 South,
Range 86 West and Sections 13 and 24, Township
9 South, Range 87 West of the Sixth Principal
Meridian. This approval of a site specific devel-
opment plan includes a vested property right
pursuant to Title 24, Article 68. CRS.
Jeanette Jones,
Deputy County Clerk
Published in The Aspen Times on May 22. 1999.
-WITH SECTION 15.04.510 OF
CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN.
ON OF BICYCLES AND OTHER
S PROPERTY WILL BE HELD
LAY 22. 1999, AT THE LIBRARY
COLORADO. ITEMS WILL BE
INSPECTION AT 8:30 A.M., AND
VILL BEGIN PROMPTLY AT 9:00
^ `NO DCF. CHECK WRITERS "' TI
. C 1 N,,, , TU PRt VIDE: IDLNEICA-
cS ST\ ED AB( E N HE TIME 0F P4Y-
YOLR CHECK \4IL NOT BE VCC PTED
HE IT M(5) Wll SF RE AL'CTIONFD.
ea in The A pet T nes Mov S 1 _.
RE: CC] SPECIAL REVIEW IC 41 HAZARD CON -
CEPTLAL SUBMISSION & LODE AMENDMENT
SOTICL IS HEREBY Gn E.N that a public lic Baring
will be held on Wednesday. Juce 21 1999 at a
regular meetnc, to beg
in at 3'.00 PM before the
Board of Count Conm -oners_ Plaza 0111
Conference Bonn. 530E NITnx A'oettocon
seder an application bm tt 1 by Caste Creek
Investors, requestmu app o al for a Rural
Remote Land Use Code Lnendment to aggre-
gate transferable development rights, Special
Review and 1041 Hazard Review The property is
located at Enough Claim. Until \nnie Basin and
is described as the Enough Lode Mlning Claim,
U.S. Survey Lot No, 4683. In Section 1, Township
If South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. For fur-
ther information contact Lance Clarke at the
Aspen /Pitkin Commmuty Development
Department (970) 920.5451 Copies of the pro-
posed ordinance are available for public inspec-
tion in the Community Development
Department, City Hall, 130 S. Galena SL, Aspen
Co 81611,
Jeanette Jones,
Deputy County Clerk
Board of County Commissioners
Published in The Aspen Times on May 22, 1999.
TERMS OF SALE
1. All items sold as is.
2. All sales final.
3. Sales mx of 8.2% will be assessed on all pur-
chases.
4. All items must be paid for at the time of the
auction.
5. All items must be removed immediately after
the sale.
6. Payment terms:
Cash, money order, cashier's check, travelers'
checks, and local checks will be accepted with
proper identification (must present two forms of
ID: one photo ID such as Driver's License, and a
major credit card).
IN OF ASPEN [AND USE CODE TEXT
)MENTS: LODGE PRESERVATION PRO-
:E IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
held on Tuesday, June 8, 1999, at a meet -
begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen
og and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities
a Room, City Hall, 130 So. Galena SL,
26.104 - Definitions;
26.710.320 - Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP)
Zone District;
26515.Off- Street Parking; and.
26.470 - Growth Management Quota System.
The proposed code amendments would create
a growth management exemption process for
._ —, -,..,e n;•,net in ..nand or rede-
contact Chris Bendon at the
Community Development
I. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970)
let and shorter land use body,
in the Lodge Preservation Pro
d with a Lodge Preservation
'lay. For further information, e
Ion at the Aspen/ Pitkin
.moment Department. 130 S.
fljk y 23 -23, 1999
�o to the
en they
)e skiing
Tlaying the next sport. But, we did
',t within a time frame that made
tense according to the seasons.
Now, by the time April rolls
,,,round, many people have already
,iven up skiing to start riding their
mountain bikes back and forth to
work. That roll -up- and -wear suit
that fits into their rucksack looks
!;ke a sack of cats on the way to
the river by the time they get to
work and put it on. (If this is your
preferred cross - training method,
don't plan on asking a lady to
lunch after you have pedaled to
work in the predawn darkness
while sweating for nine miles and
42 minutes with every turn of the
pedals.)
These days, almost every
macho man or women that I know
has his or her get-in- shape -for-
tbeir- weekend - sports program at
least two or three months out of
liysts say people
it go skiing in the
ing because it can
fold, windy and
ircast. Instead, they
id for the beach,
-Ire it is always cold,
dy and overcast.
sync with the real seasons. In fact,
our entire society seems to be out
of sync — perhaps because it's
controlled by the business world
and advertising. Isn't that why we
,n all
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Nat a p laht hearing
will Ix Led e, Aldnesdil fore i 1_99 at o
meeting to h it 5 00 p na. befOTe the Aspen
Historic P e er ncin Commission, City t m"ll
Chambers Cdv I'll 1300 Galen St %seer to
consider au application submitted Sv Small and
Large fees LL r gar,ung -Prurr,al of pro-
posed Subdn,si n Exempt on (n an f d-11C
Landmark Lot Split, Conceptual HPC review,
Partial Damoliumm and var once . rh a request
ed suniam s ve for the new 1,i1t11IN parcel
which will contain the best.,,, hot. e and are a
west side and setback arm a combined
s&vard setba k aria.,, of 0 3 an eat side -
yard setback, anance of 2' for Ifghtwells. a Com-
bined sueyard setback variance of 33 ' for light
wells, and a 500 square toot floor area bonus.
The property Is located at 121 N- Fifth Street,
and is described Lots G. H. and 1, Block 24, City
and Townsite of Aspen. For further information.
contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen /Pitkin
Community Development Department, 130 S.
Galena SL, .Aspen, CO (970) 920 -5096.
amygg'ci.aspern.co.us.
,Suzannah Reid, Chair
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on Ma, 22. 1999.
(41045)
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 302 E. HOPKINS AVENUE- CONCEPTUAL
REVIEW, PARTIAL DEMOLITION, ON -SITE RELO-
CATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Wednesday, June 9,1999 at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission, Council
Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena SL, Aspen, to
consider an application submitted by John
Davis, requesting conceptual and partial demoli-
tion approval to remodel the existing historic
building, and on -site relocation of the existing
shed. For further information, contact Amy
Guthrie at the Aspen/ Pitkin Community
Development Department, 130 S. Galena St.,
Aspen, CO (970) 920 -5096, amyg®cLaspemco.us.
s /Suzannah Reid, Chair
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May 22, 1999.
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THE GENERAL
PUBLIC:
On April 14,1999 the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado,
adopted Resolution 99-73 approving the St.
Benedict's Monastery Special Review. 1041
Hazard Review and GMQS Exemption. The sub-
ject property is located in part of Sections 15,
Township 9 South, Range 85 West, Sections 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28 antl 29. Township 9 South,
Range 86 West and Sections 13 and 24. Township
9 South, Range 87 West of the Sixth Principal
Meridian. This approval of a site specific devel-
opment plan includes a vested property right
pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, CRS.
Jeanette Jones,
Deputy County Clerk
Published in The Aspen Times on May 22, 1999.
PUBLIC NOTICE
CITY OF ASPEN
PUBLIC AUCTION
IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 15.04510 OF
THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
A PUBLIC AUCTION OF SICYCIFS AND OTHER
MISCELLANEOUS PROPERTY WILL BE HELD
ON SATURDAY, MAY 22. 1999, AT THE LIBRARY
PLAZA, ASPEN, COLORADO. ITEMS WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AT 8:30 A.M., AND
THE AUCTION WILL BEGIN PROMPTLY AT 9:00
A.M.
TERMS OF SALE
1. All Items sold as is.
2. All sales final.
3. Sales tax of 8.2% will be assessed on all pur-
chases.
4. All items must be paid for at the time of the
auction.
5. All items must be removed immediately after
the sale.
6. Payment terms:
Cash, money order, cashier's check, travelers'
checks, and local checks will be accepted with
proper identification (must present two forms of
ID: one photo ID such as Driver's License, and a
major credit card).
• ^ NOTICE CHECK WRITERS ^'
IF YOL ARE DNWl,:' TO PRt1% DE, IDEYHFICA-
TION AS NTAIED ABOVh AT II' T VIE )F' A1'-
AIEJ 101 R CHErr R 1 L N,) I BE 1l!. ED
AND THE ITEM S, RILI BE R l AEC- )NED
P,b I u The A ,Ilu 1,1111 bh 3 1 _.
1999 4(086
P6bLil 1'
RE, CCI SPECIAL RE%IF1l 10i', HAZAXC uN-
CEPTL:IL SUBMISSION Ne CODE AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GR EN that a puhh, hearing
will be held on %A,,tnesday. June 23. 1999 a, a
"ma neeting to begin at S CO PAI bef Cie
Roa J f C m t, >m ers PC z a One
Conference Room. 5,10 E. %h 2..ioen tl on-
sid r an appllcan(t submitted b, C,,r1c Crock
Investors, requesting ap,,rovnl for a Rural
Remote Land Use Code Amemmem to aggre-
gate transferable development rights. Special
Review and 1041 Hazard Review l'he property Is
located at Enough Claim. Little some Basin and
I, described as the Enough Lode Mining Claim.
U.S. Survey Lot No. 1683, in Section 1, Township
I I South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. For ior-
ther information contact Lance Clarke at the
Aspen /Pitkin Community Development
Department (970) 9205452. Copies of the Pro-
posed ordinance are available for public hapec-
tion in the Community Development
Department. City Hall, 130 S, Galena SL, Aspen
CO 81611.
leanene Jones.
Deputy County Clerk
Board of County Commissioners
Published in The Aspen Times on May 22. 1999.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE TEXT
AMENDMENTS: LODGE PRESERVATION PRO-
GRAM.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Tuesday, June 8. 1999, at a meet-
ing to begin at 430 p.m. before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities
Meeting Room. City Hall, 130 So. Galena St.,
Aspen, to consider an application submitted by
the City of Aspen Community Development
Department requesting adoption of a revised
, _ — P—o. unn Prnaram for eaooerties des-
Code:
26.104 - Definitions:
26.710.320 - Lodge Preservation Overlay (LP)
Zone District;
26.515 - Off-Street Parking; and.
26.470 - Growth Management Quota System.
The proposed code amendments would create
a growth management exemption process for
lodges in this zone district to expand or rede-
velop, allow all dimensional requirements of the
nrnnertv. Including nations. to be established
manor, contact Chris Bedded at the
Him Community Development
rut. 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (9T0)
chrisb ®cUaspen.co.us. _
nated with a Lodge Preservation
Overlay. For further information, c
Bendon at the Aspen/ Pitkin
Development Department. 130 S.
Aspen. c0, (970)
chrisb ®ciaspemen.es.
I.
Lodge Preservation Work Session
April 19,1999
Please Sign -In
Name Business/Lodge Address
Phone
s
-
-- IC4' V�
r - ��� /� � • � (2�B � z 3 �7 �7
2
pilli �jao 712,6
�2¢ 122-
�+
r��
Mel. 'AP(rJ S� �� o� 773-2- qzs - /7 <7gaJ 3
�r1e�lren�f- �f- yfor >t.��
�Fc 70�
7-24)- L(453 eA to
P* Ao!ol lz.(,Oqw
Nww�
a-Zr5 222
I AJO h(w�- qx w oevo
CO3 Pkd �i5OFa9 �wkJ2�7.