Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19951121 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Present were: Sara Garton, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, Robert Blaich, and Steve Buettow. Excused were Jasmine Tygre and Marta Chaikovska. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Buettow stated he had followed up on the Wyckoff Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit approved at the last meeting and asked if the the Proof of Notification had been received. The clerk responded the affidavit had not been received by the City Clerk's Office. Garton asked the clerk to inquire with Hary Lackner, the presenting planner, the following day as to whether the Proof of Notification had been received by Community Development. Buettow stated the applicant presented the ADU unit as 300 square feet and he looked at the unit and he sized the unit at 250 square feet and with the bathroom downstairs from the unit he sized it at 290 square feet. Garton asked staff to follow through with square footage measurements and perhaps hold the building permit until the issue was resolved. The Commission discussed and motioned to rescind the previous approval and withhold the building permit if the affidavit was not received. The clerk did inquire with Lackner on November 22, 1995 as to whether the Proof of Notification had been received. Lackner stated the affidavit had been received. Garton stated on the December 5, 1995 agenda there was a Growth Management Commission meeting regarding the Isis Theatre; following there was a special review of the Isis Theatre. She asked why the agenda was in that order. Dave Hichaelson, planner responded the reason for the Growth Management was an allocation for two proposed ADU units. In the special review following, the City Planning & Zoning would do a GHQS Exemption for the free market unit and a special review for waiving of the space requirements and parking standards. Garton commented on the East Hopkins construction site near the bridge where there are three major construction projects going on at one time and expressed concern for the neighborhood. Chuck Roth of Engineering responded he had gone to the site and there are PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 actually four projects. He said the City had cleared all the parked vehicles off the streets to provide more room for walking and equipment, will provide traffic control to guide pedestrians and vehicles and monitor the construction activity, and will flush the street to keep the dust down. Garton asked if there was any procedure within the Building Department to try to stagger the scheduling of such major projects. Roth replied there were no procedures that he knew of but some of the construction is sewer work that is to be completed November 22, 1995 and would take the impact out of the area. Roth stated he saw no other way other than having someone responsible for coordinating pedestrians and construction activities and felt that was the best thing to do. Stan Clauson, Director of Community Development stated he shared Garton's concern and Community Development had received two complaints regarding concern for children who need to walk through the corridor. Clauson said he checked with the Building Department who had already become concerned and felt that UBC required a temporary pedestrian walkway when sidewalks or various walks are disrupted. Clauson stated it was determined the walkway would add to the confusion even more if installed and having a traffic control officer at all times during the construction was the best solution. Clauson said his department did not have staggering provisions for construction on small sites, but said if Garton wished, later on in the week, the provisions could be put in. Garton stated the neighborhood might prefer to have all the construction done all at once instead of staggered over four years. Garton informed the Commission she had received a call from a City Council member stating the Commission needed another member. The City is advertising again and requested suggestions for applicants. STAFF COMMENTS Amy Amidon followed up on Terry Paulson's presentation to the Commission on November 7, 1995 regarding Independence Pass. Amidon presented a resolution to the Commission for review and signature. MOTION Hunt moved to adopt the resolution of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission requesting City participation in proposed improvements to Independence Pass. Buettow seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. 2 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 PUBLIC COP~v/ENTS A1 Bloomquist commented a parcel along the Rio Grande Trail was marked with flags between the trail and the river implying that a driveway would be cut and a house built on the river. Bloomquist said the right of way in that area is the Rio Grande right of way. Bloomquist stated if it was a precedent for a house, he was bringing attention to it and someone should look at it. Garton requested Clauson look into the situation and inform the Commission of his findings at the next meeting. Hooney stated the flags may represent a normal survey and he had heard of no intentions to build another house on the property. MINUTES MOTION Mooney moved to approve the minutes of November 7, 1995; Hunt seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. SMALL LODGE TEXT AMENDMENTS Garton continued the public hearing regarding small lodge text amendments. Stan Clauson, Director of Community Development, represented staff. Gideon Kaufman represented the small lodge owners. Clauson stated staff had summarized some of the ideas on previous discussions and the intention was to go through the memorandum and determine which of the items the Commission wanted staff to convert into actual text amendments. Garton stated it was agreed that condominiumization was a use by right, leaving six issues to be discussed. It was agreed by the Commission to take the six remaining issues one by one. The first issue was low interest loans. The City should make low interest loans for small non-condominiumized lodge upgrades. A loan of $250,000 or less would require that the property continue to operate as a lodge for at least five years. A loan of more than $250,000 would require that the property continue to operate as a lodge for at least ten years. 3 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 Clauson commented low interest loans was not something that involved the zoning references so it would not involve the Planning & Zoning Commission, except the Commission might want to make a recommendation to City Council that staff prefers to establish the loan program and the City participate in the program in some meaningful way to assist in guaranteeing the loans. Kaufman stated after previous discussions and realization of how much it would actually cost to repair the lodges, small lodge owners preferred to concentrate on the other issues and did not feel low interest loans was an option. Garton stated she agreed with the Small Lodge Owners' Association on the issue of low interest loans and the Commission decided it did not want to see the option go forward to Council as a solution. The second issue was allowing use by right for kitchens. Kitchens should be allowed by right in small lodges. Clauson stated staff did not feel allowing kitchens as a use by right was any problem. Clauson stated the lodge owners felt very strongly about having the option of kitchens, and staff felt the issue should go forward in a manner that continues to provide safeguards that lodging units do not become confused with residential units. Garton commented Commissioner Tygre could not attend the meeting but had written comments enclosed in the packets. Tygre wrote, "the presence or absense kitchens is not as relevant to the small lodge expanse as congeniality of a common meeting area with breakfast or after-ski service. Perhaps the provision of such an area should be included in the definition of small lodge. With the addition of kitchens, lodge rooms become more like apartments and are more economical for families as they can save by not eating out, but I imagine the comments from the restaurant businesses in town we will hear that the City government is considering subsidizing the installation of kitchens in small lodges" Kaufman said he did not understand how the City was subsidizing the kitchens when there is no part in the proposal on who will pay for the kitchens. Hunt stated he wanted the units with kitchens to be kept in the lodge enventory as opposed to the residential units. Hunt said he 4 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 did not want to see a transition to residential without knowing about it and having some say because it is a change of use. Hunt stated he could philosophically handle some long-term rental, and that infers some residential type use, but he felt the size and character of the rooms are not supposed to be residential units, they are supposed to be lodge units. Garton stated she would like to see kitchens as a use by right because it would enhance the small lodge experience and give flexibility for long-term rentals for music students which could be used for employees. Buettow asked if the Commission was going to limit the use of kitchens in the existing lodges already in the LP Zone or to all new lodges that are going to be in the LP Zone. Kaufman replied it only affected the lodges in the LP Zone. Clauson stated the prohibition against kitchens is specifically in the definition, so in order to permit kitchens, the first step is to remove that prohibition in the definition of lodge. Clauson said the next step would be to add to various zones such restrictions as the Commission may want to see with respect to kitchens; none, or some specific restrictions from zone to zone. Garton asked why the memorandum did not mention changing the definition of lodge as it suggested kitchens be allowed by right. Clauson responded, if the Commission was to change the definition of lodge to permit kitchens or to not exclude kitchens, then it would become use by right. Clauson said the Commission might want to go back into that definition and include other criteria. There are several places where the one can regulate, and one of the places where one can regulate in the ordinance, and one of the least flexible, is in the definitions themselves. Clauson stated the work before staff and the Commission was for the Commission to tell staff which of the provisions were acceptable considerable in terms of code changes. Staff would then come back to the Commission with the specific recommended code changes for implementation. Kaufman stated a simple way to look at the issue was there are two lodge districts; the LTR and the LP. Kaufman suggested saying kitchens are not permitted in the LTR zone district and kitchens are permitted in the LP district without having to change everything. 5 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 Hooney stated he did not think it made sense to have a use by right for kitchens to house music students or have some kind of affordable housing. Hooney thought the lodge owners wanted to be able to upgrade, not downgrade. Hooney said the way the lodge owners were going with the marketability of the property was to compete with high end rooms in the bigger hotels to have some suite capacity. It seemed to Hooney it was available as a conditional use to the lodge in the neighborhood to convert its use compatibly with the surrounding zone district and if it needed kitchens to do that, then that lodge should say, it is our desire to upgrade our lodge and a kitchen is one of our needs. Buettow stated he agreed with Hooney; as a conditional use it is more flexible and gets directly at what the Commission intends to do, add a more competitive amenity to the existing lodges. Garton stated there was a risk with people putting a mini- refrigerator, a hot plate, or a microwave in a lodge room as it was not regulated and was not in the code. Garton stated she would like to see kitchens installed that are under the code. Kaufman stated there was a difference between Hooney's philosophy and the lodge owners' philosophy; Mooney was talking about the integrity of the zone district. Kaufman stated as far as the lodge owners were concerned that zone district has no integrity; it was an artificial zone district placed upon the lodges in an attempt to help them, but in reality it hurt them. Kaufman said when the Association said a use by right for kitchens, one was not going to see every small lodge request kitchens as many of the lodges economically are not going to be able to put kitchens in because of major changes to the plumbing system. Kaufman stated what the Association was trying to find was flexibility for the small lodges and when one gets into conditional use one gets into expense, one has to draft code requirements, one has to have criteria; the Commission would then be setting up a situation which would be costly. Kaufman urged the Commission to make the issue of kitchens a use by right. Garton reminded the Commission one reason the small lodge owners formed an association was to represent all their needs and the upgrades they wanted. Garton stated some things needed to be conditional uses but other things should be use by right and to come one by one for an individual review was killing the lodges. Hunt stated he did not have a problem with kitchens in the LP zone as a use by right but he did question how the Commission would get PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 there and insure it would stay in the lodging enventory as opposed to the residential enventory. Hunt stated a kitchen could be in a unit that is condominiumized and then would become a residential type unit. Hunt said he did not mind condominiumizing, but preferred to keep it a lodge unit. Garton stated according to the staff memorandum on page 6, the city attorney's office is currently in the process of reinstating regulations for lodge condominiumization which were removed from the code. Garton asked if the attorney's office was going to regulate lodge condominiumization. Dave Hichaelson, planner, stated the County and City went through minor revisions of regulations on condominiumization and took out a section that required if a lodge is condominiumized there was a standard that they have some kind of short-term rental or restriction. Hichaelson stated he had drafted a memorandum and preliminary language replacing that portion of the code that was taken out by mistake and the memorandum is being reviewed by the city attorney's office. Prior condominiumization requirements for lodges required that a lodge be in a short term rental pool and it could not be long-term, a yearly lease, for example; at the most it was a 6-month lease. Garton said the State prohibited such a provision. Hichaelson responded in a preliminary opinion of the city attorney's office, the provision does not violate the requirements of power. David Hoefer, assistant city attorney, stated he had not done enough work on the provision to give a definitive answer, but preliminarily it was the city attorney's office opinion the provision would stand. Clauson stated staff was now at the point of reviewing some changes to the code which would put back some restrictions that flow with condominiumization. Those restrictions were inadvertently deleted when it became clear that staff could not restrict the actual condominiumization. Clauson said it would all come back before the Commission as soon as the legal analysis was done. Bloomquist commented condominiumization cuts the property tax to one-third by action of the State condominium law. The assessor applies the commercial rate of 30 percent to a lodge with single ownership and when it is condominiumized, the residential rate of 12 percent applies. Bloomquist stated that applied to the Snowmass Club which is condominiumized, as soon as they sell more than 50 percent of the units. Bloomquist said all the condominiums that are rented in the lodging pool compete on the basis of property tax that is roughly one-third of what the rest of us pay. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 Hunt stated he understood if one condominiumized an office building, if over 50 percent of it is condominiumized, it then gets taxed at the residential rate. Bloomquist stated he did not think it worked that way, he thought it was on residential property. Bloomquist stated that is why the lodge definition is so important. Hunt said there seemed to be a problem in the tax definition that he had a problem with and if one wanted to maintain a hotel, he did not care how many people own a piece of that hotel, it is still operated as a hotel, so why should it get taxed at a lower tax rate? Garton requested a straw poll regarding the kitchens as a use by right in small lodges in the LP Zone as proposed by the Small Lodge Owners' Association and supported by staff. Vote was 4 in favor, one opposed (Hooney). Clauson stated what staff would do, based on Commission requests, is prepare pro changes which would be presented to the Commission in a resolution. Garton brought forward the issue of Long-term Rentals. Small lodges should have the option to rent their units long-term, as well as short-term, to ensure a level of fixed income. The ability to go from short-term to long-term rental would be exempt from change in use reviews. Clauson stated staff is in support of allowing a certain percentage of units in each lodge to be rented long-term as it is needed in the community. Clauson said if the Commission wanted to assist staff by suggesting a percentage of a given lodge, it might be allowed by right to have some long-term rentals, or other restrictions, and staff will go forward with the changes. Hunt thought the Commission should look at how long long-term might be. Hunt stated how long long-term might be may change the character from a lodge to residential. Blaich asked what would stop someone from staying the maximum time at a lodge and then go to another lodge and stay the maximum time. Blaich said it seemed to him to be making something very complicated to administer by establishing how long long-term might be. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 Bloomquist stated he felt it very important that the law be consistent with the City's sales tax laws and State laws. Hunt stated he did not have a problem with the difference between short-term and long-term; his problem was when does it go from long-term to permanent residential. Hunt said that question comes back to condominiumization and when someone is permanently in a lodge room with a kitchen there is a change from lodge to residential and Hunt stated he had a problem with that. Garton asked how the Commission responded to the idea that staff recommended that lodges be rented according to Housing Authority guidelines, as if the units were deed restricted. Clauson clarified that staff had presented a suggestion that if some lodges were rented on a longer basis, for example two or three months, they needed to be rented under Housing Authority guidelines. Hichael, (small lodge owner), stated most lodge owners have people who come for medial periods of time and pay a premium because they do not want to deal with the housing problems in Aspen and don't want a six month lease. Hichael stated the people are paying more per month than one would pay for a one or two-bedroom apartment and the problem Hunt worried about was not something one can regulate; having percentages wouldn't make any difference because the only time units would go from short-term to long-term, and stay long- term, is when the lodge became a complete dump. In such a case the only thing left is the long-term which is traditional of all cities where old motels become very cheap living units and then are torn down. Hichael stated the reason this was happening was because the small lodge owners were "boxed in" by all the rules and the Commission could make it viable so the lodges wouldn't have to go into that degenerative spiral. Hunt responded Hichael had a problem with his term of long-term and Hunt again stated he had no problem with the renting of long-term, the question was where is the point that long-term becomes more a residential characteristic than lodge characteristic. If the unit happens to become condominiumized and the owner is permanent there is a change of use; that is what I want to focus on Hunt said. Garton asked Clauson to clarify the definition of short-term and asked what was stated by the lodge preservation district. Clauson said he did not have what the lodge preservation district stated and felt the district had not addressed that issue. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 Kaufman stated when the lanugage was originally drafted it spoke concerning owner occupied for more than 14 days in prime season under the old condominiumization that was deleted. There were then discussions in terms of the description of long-term which was six- month leases allowing people to short-term twice to sometimes rent through Christmas. There were a lot of different short-term versus long-term definitions in the code. Kaufman stated it seemed to him the issue Hunt was identifying was an ownership issue, not a long- term or short-term issue. Kaufman asked for clarification from staff as to whether or not they could put back short-term requirements into condominiumization for small lodges. Hichaelson responded staff did not have the legal opinion required. Garton asked that it be passed on to City Council the Commission is waiting on a legal opinion. Fonda Paterson, Boomerang Lodge co-owner, felt the short-term requirements for condominiumization was a non-issue just from the law. Paterson stated the biggest competitors of the small lodges were individual houses that rented day by day and if the Commission was going to restrict the lodge owners it merited attention on the other end of the spectrum; was residential truly being used as residential? Hunt stated Paterson's comment was a fair question. Paterson said when one played with the percentages perhaps one loses more than gains because there is a certain economic factor in what it costs to support, for instance a 24 hour front desk service. She stated if the Commission required a lodge to keep 30 percent short-term it would be totally economically unfeasible. Hunt said he agreed with Paterson about conversion of the lodges for a period of time in a year to totally long-term. Garton stated she did not support the percentages; she felt the lodges should have the ability to go from short-term to long-term rental, would be exempt from change in use, and the percentage issue was not enforceable. Garton did not want to put into the code anything that could not be supervised or regulated; the simplier the better, and each lodge should go with the way it works. Garton said the comment from staff regarding concerns of the appropriateness of mixing long-term and short-term units would be worked out by the lodge owner. Garton asked for a straw vote to pass onto City Council and asked who on the Commission was in favor of allowing small lodges in the LP Zone District the ability to go from short-term to long-term rental and be exempt from change in use review. Vote was unanimous, all in favor. 10 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEHBER 21, 1995 Garton brought forth the fourth issue of Accessory uses/Partial conversion of use. This involves allowing up to 50 percent of the lodge to convert to a use which is clearly accessory to a lodge or one which is allowed in the underlying zone district (L? would be an overlay zone>. Clauson stated in this issue staff tried to address the percentage that might be appropriate and also indicated that along with the percentage would be an exemption from mitigation requirements. Clauson said it was not only the permission to do something which may be lacking, but also mitigation requirements that are imposed on the lodge owners if they are permitted to do something. In this case staff discussed the concept of exempting 30 percent of the portion of a lodge converted to a new use from mitigation requirements and the restrictions on that kind of conversion would be that within the 30 percent figure that something would have to be accessory to a lodge and consistent with the underlying zoning of the district. Hunt asked if a restaurant or cafe would be appropriate as accessory conversions. Clauson replied they would be appropriate as accessory uses. Kaufman stated when one starts to look at the number of LP lodges half of them are in the residential zone district, which means that half the lodges cannot even utilize the issue. When one looks at the lodges in the O Office, which is commercial use, where maybe a lodge could utilize, unless there is a separate building it is really not practical because the buildings are older. Kaufman said to try to put a commercial use into an existing older lodge really was not practical and sounded good from a practical point of view, but was not something that most people would be able to utilize. Garton stated Tygre supported the issue and commented in writing a response to the City's suggestion of certain percentages. Tygre felt accessory uses/partial conversion of use should definitely be a conditional use because the underlying zoning would determine the criteria and conditions for approval, and neighbors should certainly have input into this. Hitigation would depend on the type of use specified in an individual application and it should be remembered that many, if not all these lodges, pre-date mitigation requirements established under growth management. It has been policy to require mitigation as part of any redevelopment proposal. Tygre wrote this is a good opportunity to evaluate the need for mitigation on a case by case basis, and again, I think site specific evaluation is a better tool than percentages. Garton 11 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 stated she agreed with Tygre and felt the conversion should be a conditional use; when the application came in staff would review it, neighbors would have input, and the Commission would help decide on how much would be converted. Clauson stated staff felt there should be some pre-specified limit, but it was the pleasure of the Commission. He said the other aspect was it would be guided by the surrounding zoning, so if something was a permitted use it could happen automatically without mitigation up to the pre-set limit. The approach the chair has proposed is there not be a pre-set limit and that it always be a conditional use. Clauson said if that is the way the Commission wanted to go, staff would concur. Hooney stated the issue was something, by the admission of Kaufman, the small lodge owners of today would not take advantage of; it was not there economically. Hooney said the lodge owners would take advantage of it if they could sell their property to someone and that would give that next person who would tear that small lodge down, totally or partially, the option to put in a different type of commercialization that would drive the growth engine. Hooney stated he felt the solution should be a conditional use and the Commission needed to look exactly at what the speculator was really trying to do. Garton clarified that Hooney would like it site by site, a case by case percentage. Hunt asked if there was a percentage that could be allowed that did not have to be a conditional use. Hunt stated for example, if a lodge decided to take on the use of a masseuse and convert one of their units to office, he did not have a problem with that use if allowed by right, but he did not know what percentage of the whole that would be. Hunt felt it should be a conditional use and wondered if there was a way to obtain the "best of both worlds" Clauson replied no one was sure what exact number obtained what goals; it was a process of trying to imagine what felt comfortable. Clauson suggested perhaps 20 percent as a permitted use when the underlying zone district supplemented and over 20 percent as a conditional use. Anything that would be a conditional use anyway in the underlying zone district, irrespective with percentages, all of those things would be conditional uses. Hunt stated he would prefer what Clauson suggested rather than a conditional use for everything. 12 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 Amy Amidon, staff, commented there was also the issue of how much of the development should be exempt from mitigation. Garton replied 20 percent exemption, and if someone comes in with conditional, it is then conditional review. Garton asked if mitigation could be discussed on a case by case basis and asked for a straw vote to pass onto City Council; vote was unanimous in favor. Kaufman stated realistically in the case of a masseuse; there is one room and one gets $100.00 a night for 30 nights versus $100.00 a month. Kaufman stated he did not feel it was really a viable thing at the present time but it was not worth arguing over and he appreciated the effort. The fifth issue was Total Conversion of Use that would allow two small lodges a year to convert 100 percent of the lodge to a use allowed in the underlying or adjacent zone district. Growth Hanagement provisions for change in use would apply. Staff response was there are 20 lodges in operation which are zoned LP. The ability for these lodges to convert to another use will be greatly constrained by the available growth management allocations, which would mitigate concerns that eventually all small lodges might be eliminated. In addition, one would expect that at a certain point the supply and demand would reach a point at which the remaining lodges would not wish to convert. The option currently exists for any of the lodges to request rezoning, however, the absence of a policy supporting such a conversion may make it difficult as a practical matter for the lodges to obtain a rezoning. Kaufman stated this issue of total conversion of use was the heart and soul of what the lodge owners were talking about and gave some background on the issue. Kaufman said it used to be that one had quotas that gave the ability to do projects; the reality today is there are two units per year. It may take 10 years for one lodge to go through this particular process and Kaufman said he was not sure if he understood it. If one had a newer building it might be very easy to take that newer building and convert it from a lodge use to a residential use, but when one has the older lodges that are 40 years old with a useful life past, it is not very practical to take an older building and convert it. Kaufman asked when one tears a building down and rebuilds it, is that a change in use and, therefore, does one meet the change in use provisions? If one 13 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 tears the building down, does one have to go through the GHQS for the next 3, 5, or how many years it is? Kaufman stated the basic thing the Association was saying to the Commission was that it needed some help on the issue and it was a little like affirmative action. For 25 years there have been restrictions placed on the Association, and to now come back and say, now we are going to let you compete on an even playing field, it doesn't help the situation because the even playing field doesn't work anymore. Kaufman said for all the years the lodges have been kept down the lodges need help in terms of credits, mitigation or change in use provisions so some of the lodges can do something else and the rest of the lodges stay viable. Garton said there were members of City Council that were very concerned about this issue because the Aspen Area Community Plan addresses preservation and enhancement of the small lodges, and if there is a total conversion of use at the rate of two lodges per year, in ten years there would not be any lodges. Also, the addition of residential and commercial square footage would not have been accounted for in the community plan. Hunt suggested looking at the issue piece by piece. There are two basic zones the lodges are in, the residential zone and the Hain Street 0 Office Zone; there may be some isolated cases, but those are the primary zones. Hunt said take the lodge in the residential zone; there are three to six lots in this case and there are four lots and one has potentially two free standing residential houses as a conversion. Hunt said one is dropping the number of units considerably and theoretically the impact of that property; if that is the way the conversion had to go, an LP lodge to residential, he did not see much of a problem. Garton stated the conversion to office was a concern. Hunt responded that was a different concern, he was trying to rid of the residential aspect out of it. Hunt said he did not like the idea of losing a lodge, but aside from that, from a community point of view as support for that type of conversion, was that conversion really detrimental to the community? Clauson replied, he did not see the conversion as detrimental to the community and there was another aspect to the situation; not only is conversion to free market residential an issue, but the housing board has consistently resisted the idea of purchasing lodges for affordable housing because it felt a purchase would violate the philosophical spirit of the Aspen Area Community Plan with respect to the preservation 14 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 of lodges. Clauson stated in terms of residential conversion it was cut in two ways; one is the issue of conversion to free market housing, the other is the conversion to affordable housing for purchase that might involve the Housing Office. In respect to the later aspect, Clauson felt it might be good to send a message to the Housing Office that some purchase and conversion in today's market might be appropriate. Garton asked if the conversion was to affordable housing purchased by the Housing Authority, would that be the only conversion that would be exempt from the Growth Hanagement provision. Kaufman responded it is supply and demand; if the Housing Authority knows they are the only game in town, they are not going to offer a whole lot. The other reason the Housing Office has not offered to buy a lot of the lodges is the amount of money that is required to put into some of the structures to bring them up to the standards of afforable housing. Kaufman did not feel it was a viable alternative and the goal of the Association was to point out it was going to take some attrition. A1 Bloomquist, public, stated the Commission should abolish the LP Zone and give the lodges the total option of their adjacent zone. Garton stated the community plan asks the Commission to enhance and preserve the small lodges and the zone exists right now and for the Commission to just abolish the zone would be a serious thing. Garton said by keeping the term lodge preservation zone it was keeping something that is very important to the community and did not feel the Commission was there to completely eliminate a zone, it was there to enhance that zone. Bob Tobias, owner of the Brass Bed, stated as soon as potential buyers see the occupancy rate of the small lodges they get discouraged. Tobias stated parts of the tourist industry making money in Aspen are the Ritz, the Jerome, Little Nell, Larnedo, and the Sardy House; new facilities that generate profits. The Brass Bed is not that far from being operational and in four or five months it will be a new lodge. Tobias said he did not want to be in the lodging business and bring a prospect in and when the prospect sees the occupancy rates that the small lodges suffer, the prospective buyer will go away. If the Commission does not provide an opportunity for some of the small lodges to get out all the small lodges are going to continue to suffer and continue to decay; something has to be done to allow some of the lodges to escape. Tobias stated the total conversion with exemption from GHQS is a viable option and if some of the lodges could take advantage of the 15 PLANNING & ZONING CO~4~ISSION NOVE~4BER 21, 1995 conversion, the ones that remain will be places that will attract tourists. Garton stated she felt conversion had to be allowed and said the problem for her was the accounting of it; if exempted from GMQS the accounting of that needs to be looked at hard. Clauson stated one way it could be done, if the Con~ission wanted that exemption, would be to subtract any free market units created from the overall pool, irrespective of the two per year allocation, and add into a newly created small lodge pool the units that are actually removed. It would be effectively allowing two lodges to convert and take from the pool without the process and the normal annual restrictions that apply. Garton asked if there would be a concern from the development sector. Clauson stated there might be some concern and said the other way might be to restrict to one lodge per year and then go through growth management in which two units would be available and units could be borrowed from a future year. Garton stated one creates a small lodge pool, how does one define small lodge? Garton asked if small lodge was defined in the code. Clauson responded it needed to be done and thought it could be done. There once was a pool for small lodges but Clauson was not sure how it was separated and defined. Kaufman stated it was separated by taking the quota that existed for the old Miller Lodge, taking 1© or 12 units out of that quota and setting aside just for lodges in the L? Zone District. Hunt said he had the least problem philosophically with the conversion of lodges in a residential district of the underlying zone. Hunt stated he favored the conversion of lodges to affordable housing and would like to talk more about the conversion of the lodges to the © Zone uses and what would happen in those circumstances. Garton stated on the real estate laws she did not know whether something zoned office zone would sell for a lot more, therefore the small lodge owner would get more money. Kaufman stated there were a few things to keep in mind. What dictated the market was the mitigation and being on Main Street is not as desirable as it used to be from a residential perspective. Kaufman said the one thing to be careful of is not to set up a situation where the only small lodges that remain are the ones on Main Street in the Office Zone because they cannot get out. Kaufman stated perhaps 16 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 there was a balancing act that would say in the 0 Office Zone there are some mitigations that are appropriate but not the full board. Garton stated she felt the Commission was willing to see conversion happen and realized it was the whole heart of the movement, but the issue was possible conversion for all lodges. Staff suggested two per year and with those conversions staff feels the conversions need to go through growth management, and does it need to be mitigated; those are the big issues. Hichael (public) stated for consideration, rather than having one, two or three lodges, there is no such thing as a lodge; they are all different. Hichael stated the Commission may want to look at the number of units; for instance, two small lodges might average 50 units and what would someone do if they had a 42 unit lodge. There are also lodges in Aspen that are five units and eight units, so the Commission would want to define it by some number of units that could go out in one year and give more flexibilities. Garton stated she would like to keep the conversion simple and based on the size of the parcel and the underlying zone. Clauson thought to convert a lodge into a certain number of development rights would be a different situation with respect to where those development rights might be expanded. Clauson said one way to affect the transfer of development rights is to establish a small lodge pool which could be drawn upon by a lodge that wants to expand. Garton stated she liked Clauson's idea of the conversion of properties; a small lodge pool being created and if they convert two it is deducted. Garton said affordable housing in that case would be counted but would be exempt because it would fall in line with the way growth management is handled. Hunt said he wanted to look at it again in stages. Hunt stated lodges in residential will convert to residential; there is a 20 unit lodge, for example, that wants to convert to residential, 15,000 square feet, with two residential units on the property. Take the two numbers out of the existing lodge leaving a net of 18 units that could go into a pool for use for the small lodges. Hunt said he would not want to see the lose of a small lodge and did not see community impact as a problem in the residential area. Hunt said the problem is using the same kind of rationale in the 0 Office Zone; let's say we lose a lodge in the Office Zone, one that is 6,000 square feet and has 15 units. Hunt questioned how to 17 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 equate the two as there is a clear change of use from the residential to business aspect. Hunt stated there was an increase in the commercial floor area and that was usually mitigaged. Garton stated perhaps parking already was on track with the lodge and the Commission should look at that case by case. Hunt asked if there was a way to work the mitigation in the 0 Office Zone that would be directly equivalent to the rationale he used for the residential area that would not be burdensome. Clauson stated he understood Hunt thought there could be conversion into affordable housing on the two per year basis and the minimal level of review. Clauson stated if Hunt wanted to convert to other than affordable housing he might look back to was just permitted from the standpoint of partial conversion. If Hunt wanted to go up to 20 percent of the structure it could be utilized for the underlying zone district; over and above that Hunt would want to look very carefully at the mitigation. In the 0 Office Zone there might be the replacement and existing structure. Being converted out of lodging, out of which 20 percent can go to Office without mitigation; over and above that if one wants to go to Office it would be looked at as a conditional use and as far as the conversion for affordable housing, it would be allowed as a conversion permitted by right. Garton stated in regard to growth management it would be exempt from review, would be deducted from what is alloted every year, and the rooms that are left would go into the small lodge pool. Hunt said he was not worried about the threshold number of 20 percent in the 0 Office Zone and it made sense; below which the Commission was not going to look at closely and above which was a conditional type of change. Kaufman stated if he had a lodge on Hain Street that was not in the LP Zone District and he wanted to convert that lodge to an office, once it had been a use for over two years, he could go through the change in use component of the code to change the use. He would not have to compete in growth management. Kaufman asked at what point does one go from a change in use application to a GHQS application? Clauson responded he did not have a specific answer to Kaufman's question, but said his understanding was that the conversion in residential areas could occur without GHQS review, either on the basis of conversion to affordable housing or on the basis of conversion to what would be permitted by the underlying zoning. In 18 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 office areas there is a conversion to affordable housing that would also be exempt; conversion to an office use in the use permitted in the Office Zone would also be permitted up to 20 percent without specific review for mitigation. Over and above that, if a large conversion would be sought, that would require a mitigation review, on a conditional use. Clauson stated the way he articulated it was that 20 percent was a threshold and once one received the 20 percent then the entire project would be reviewed for appropriate mitigation, and it was not a 20 percent exemption which would always be available. Garton asked if this was a code amendment for all small lodges and not just the Office Zone District as she saw it being tossed alternately in the memorandum. She asked Kaufman what he was representing. Kaufman responded the group that was present was the LP Zone. Clauson said his understanding was that staff was adjusting the LP Zone and all may learn things from the activity and may subsequently want to apply to other districts, but for present time it was the LP Zone. Buettow asked if the discussion would be passed onto City Council or was staff going to review it again. Clauson responded staff would produce code amendments, and bring them back to the Commission, then Planning & Zoning would pass a resolution. Garton stated there was an outstanding issue whether the Commission was interested in the 20 percent theshold for office. Kaufman stated it was a very important issue and because of the late hour perhaps the Commission should wait for discussion after the staff drafting; Garton agreed. Fonda Paterson stated since the Commission was making it a special exemption or special review category for the 0 underlying zoning, she was curious how many properties were affected. Paterson asked if the Commission was going through this exercise when talking about 3 or 4 properties in Aspen, because if one looks at the other O's, they are condominiumized into individual rooms and it changes. With the individual condominium owners acting as a pool and changing ownership in mass, Paterson felt it to be almost non- existant. Garton responded the Association should find out how many lodges are condominiumized for the Commission. Kaufman and Paterson replied they could tell the Commission how many lodges were condominiumized at the present time and went through the LP Lodge Inventory List in the packets with the Commission. 19 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 Erma (public) stated her concern regarding allocations to the Office Zone. Garton responded the Commission had allocations every year on what is happening with space and the Commission was concerned about how much goes into Office and was keeping track of the information. Garton stated in the interest of the entire memorandum menu, the condominiumization issue had been dealt with and the Commission was waiting for a legal opinion. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) was the final item for discussion. Two small lodges could propose one lodge use, with the second lodge able to change its use, exempt from the change in use mitigation requirements. Clauson stated this change in use provision was drafted by Leslie Lamont and under this scenario, two lodges might "team up"; one lodge would be preserved in the lodge use and one would be able to totally convert to another use. The two property owners could then share profits. This option would guarantee that at least 10 small lodges would remain in the future. Clauson stated there was not a transfer of rights but simply a guarantee that one lodge would remain in business paired up with the ability of another lodge to convert to another use and it would be another way of addressing some of the issues dealt with in the conversion. Clauson suggested that the Commission consider this issue as a fall-back position if staff could not move forward with issue number 5, Total conversion of use. Garton felt this was a good way to proceed and stated she felt this was something City Council was going to toss around if it would not allow the conversion idea. Garton asked if staff and the Association had worked out the TDR issue and if the TDR was also a fall-back position for the Assocation. Kaufman responded if a point could be reached in which there were some breaks in the conversion issue then the TDR issue would not be necessary. Hunt added in the previous discussion about conversion there was the the possibility of the holding potential development units as a result of the conversion and perhaps that aspect could be an inducement for minimizing necessary mitigation. Fonda Paterson asked where the TDR's would be transferred to; who could afford to go higher or denser, all would be non-conforming and what hotel would have empty land? Paterson asked what the qualifying density level would be. Kaufman responded the concept was that if Paterson kept her lodge as a lodge, another person is then allowed to take their lodge, build it to an underlying zone 20 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEHBER 21, 1995 without having to mitigate. Kaufman asked for the opportunity to meet with staff to discuss the issue more. Garton requested to continue the public hearing to the December 19, 1995 since the Commission was still dealing with the amendments. MOTION Blaich moved to continue the public hearing to December 19, 1995; Hunt seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. SNOWMELTER RELOCATION FINAL SPA REVIEW Garton opened the public hearing. Hunt expressed his concern of possible conflict of interest regarding the project, but Garton stated the city attorney had advised unless Hunt had a commercial gain on such a project it would be appropriate for him to remain and not step down. Hunt stated he had no commercial gain and remained on the Commission for the hearing. Commissioner Blaich excused himself from the meeting. Dave Hichaelson represented staff and f and presented Proof of Notice Affidavit to the clerk. Hichaelson stated the applicant was requesting final SPA approval to relocate the snowmelter to the area known as Recycle Circle, approximately 100 feet south of its existing location. Hichaelson presented a location map showing the site. Hichaelson stated the Rio Grande Haster Plan was adopted by City Council in 1993. That plan divided the site into two areas; Site A, the area between the river and bikepath adjacent to the existing snowmelter location, and Site B which is the area of the recycling center and the parks across from the transportation center. Michaelson said the reason for the SPA Final approval was the plan clearly represented that the snowmelter should be relocated from its existing location. The plan also stated the place that was most appropriate was next to the recycling center, however, the plan did not specify a specific location or specific operational characteristics, so staff felt it appropriate to go first before the Planning and Zoning Commission and then to City Council. 21 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 Hichaelson said staff had summarized the SPA Review Standards. One standard dealt with the issue of compatiability. When the masterplan was adopted it had specific language in it which Hichaelson read for the record. "The group has concluded that the snowmelt activity is inappropriate in the long-term view of the park. The snow dump should be relocated immediately and the snowmelter relocated from Site A as soon as possible. An alternative location may be considered on the recycling site integrated with the expanded recycle facility, trolley barn, and or transportation or essential community service land use." Hichaelson said the snow dump had been relocated to land adjacent to the County Shop and it will remain there. The proposed snowmelter is adjacent to the existing recycling facility and Hichaelson referred to the site map. Hichaelson stated the Planning Department had issued a stop work order on the project; excavation was consistent with the code, but pouring concrete was not consistent with the code. Until there is approval from City Council there will not be any more work done on the site. Hichaelson said there were three critical issues staff had identified; landscape screening, access and trail modifications. In terms of landscape screening, the berm between the recycling center effectively becomes the visual edge the defines the eastern border to the Rio Grande site and staff has had several conversations with the Parks Department staff, Jack Reid of the Streets Department and Bill Efting, Assistant City Manager in terms of dealing with that in the process. The Parks Department has a contractural arrangement with Mt. Daly Enterprises to do a landscape plan for the whole area of the park and it is conceptual at this point. Staff has significant concerns on how that work would interphase with relocating and re-contouring the berm. Hichaelson said the excavation is near completion for the site. Hichaelson stated the another issue was access and mentioned there is an existing sidewalk along the North side of Rio Grande Place that breaks the dirt through the existing driveway cut. Engineering and Planning staff concur there should be a driveway pad and pedestrian crosswalks to enhance pedestrian access fronting the site. Hichaelson said there is an existing 30 foot access road which descends from Rio Grande Drive and provides access to the theatre facility and there is a 15 foot taper to that which is towards the existing trail. Staff suggested that the narrowing not be shifted toward the trail, but shifted back into the berm. The Parks Department, Community Development and the Rio Grande Group looked at a conceptual location on the basketball facility and 22 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 staff wants to make sure the road is narrowed in such a way not to preclude any of the uses in the area. Hichaelson stated the Rio Grande Haster Plan also identified potential trolley facilities within the area of the old snowmelter location. The Parks Department staff have indicated that sufficient room still exists if the trolley is ever implemented. Hichaelson said the trolley site is conceptually identified and one of his concerns was the transition zone and what could potentially go there and its purpose. Michaelson read from the Rio Grande Plan stating the zone can be encroached on and it serves as a boundary between Sites A and B. Hichaelson stated he had come up with three plans; the biggest encroachment was getting the trolley barn into the zone that was about 10 feet and into the berm, but he did not feel that was a fatal flaw. Hichaelson stated on trail modifications as one goes upstream on the "Kayak Course" there is much slurring and problems with bank stability. The Parks Department intends to relocate that trail and Michaelson showed on maps the proposed location. The Parks Department staff has indicated that conceptual plans have been developed to relocate this portion of the trail onto the berm adjacent to the proposed snowmelter site. Staff has tried to determine a practical date for the revegetation, and the Parks Department felt it could be done in December. Staff recommended approval of the project with 9 conditions. Garton commented there is much parking congestion on both sides of the street at the access to the snowmelter and inquired if it might be appropriate for signage as she was very concerned about traffic. Chuck Roth of the Engineering Department responded that he should work with Jack Ried of the Streets Department and stated they would look at the situation. Efting stated the whole street was an area the City had to look at as there is double parking at peak hours and one idea he had was to take one side of the street away if necessary. Buettow questioned the location of the snowmelter and stated it was a people oriented area with youth oriented activities; basketball, baseball, football, and asked why the snowmelter could not be located somewhere else. Efting responded the City had gone through four and one half years of "someplace else" and stated the City had not found "someplace else". Efting felt it needed to be acknowledged what the City has 23 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 done in that location; the City has taken away the snowdump, is putting in basketball courts, is taking an area that has been unused for years and allowed the theatre tent to be placed in that location, and is working with the Youth Center. Erring stated there are a few basic problems, because of land costs and location, and an industrial area is needed. Erring said Aspen needs recycling and a snowmelter and stated he would like to find another place for the snowmelter, but through the Master Plan, City Council has also said that is the area the snowmelter will be located for now. Garton asked about the operation of the project being channeled into the river. Efting replied the two ponds at the bottom of the site were another benefit of relocating the site. Efting explained City Engineering was trying to lower the level of the ponds, make them safe for children and commended the Parks Department on previous landscaping projects and stated the Parks Department takes a lot of pride in what they do. Hunt stated he supported the project but there was potential interference with the trolley barn on the site. Efting responded if the trolley did happen, it has always been the intent of the City that the trolley would be a priority over the snowmelter, but at present the snowmelter is needed. Efting stated if all goes well, the trolley would be in place in 3-5 years minimum, and by that time there may be some different answers and possibly a different useage in that location. Hunt asked if the snowmelter and the trolley barn could be compatible in the whole mix. Efting reponded he thought the snowmelter and the trolley were compatible. A1 Bloomquist, public, stated he much preferred requiring the Rio Grande Trail be widened slightly so the access road could be removed entirely. Efting responded there was a study on what Bloomquist proposed but and there was a concern of fire safety. Michaelson recommended that Bloomquist stay in close contact with the Master Plan and perhaps eliminating the road might work. Bloomquist stated he also had a concern on the landscaping and felt with a public project such as proposed it should be landscaped and felt it was a good opportunity to clean up the park. Garton recommended eliminating the access road. Hunt stated the road could be removed but it did not have to be done on the project at this point. 24 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 Debra Hoore, resident of Oklahoma Flats, asked why there was a need for the snowmelter and objected to the noise levels. She asked why the snowmelt could not be located at the County snowdump and felt the residential area had not been considered. Jack Reid, Director of the Streets Department, answered an average snowfall can generate 150 to 240 truckloads of snow on a given night. When the City does not get it all hauled there is a safety problem with the streets in Aspen. Reid stated the City can haul six truckloads to the melter in the time it takes to haul 1.2 loads to the County snowdump. Pauline Mayer, owner of property in Oklahoma Flats, stated since 1987 or 1988 she has been told the snowmelt site was a temporary site so she has put up with it, but was now angry about the situation and the site being proposed as permanent. Garton responded there are certain community enhancements that are important for the entire community. The Planning & Zoning Commission has charge for the welfare of the community; sometimes some people suffer for the welfare of the greater whole of the community. Hayer stated it was time someone else suffered for the good of the community. Garton replied she suffered from the noise of buses and sceeching brakes everyday and the owners of property near the snowmelter site purchased their property next to a park that has mixed uses in a Haster Plan that was established three years ago. Gary Moore, Oklahoma Flats property owner, asked why there was a public meeting being held if the foundation had already been poured. Garton replied the pouring of the foundation had been red- tagged by the City immediately. Hunt stated he did not know how many years the snowdump goes, but there has been snow removal activity in that area for many years, long before 1987. Hunt said it was the wishlist of the Commission to never see the snowmelter proposal again, but the snowmelter was a reality that all had to live with. Hunt stated the City had to maintain a community operation and the whole area has been improved many times and the multimillion dollar houses in Oklahoma Flats have been getting the benefit of those improvements. Hunt stated the houses knew full well from records that there was snow removal activity in that area; he did not feel compassion for the homes as they knew what was going on in that area so he did not feel it was a very good argument. Hunt said he felt the City was doing a good job of operating the community and did not have a problem with the 25 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 snowmelter moving approximately 100 feet up the hill. Hunt felt the snowmelter would be more shaded from the residential area across the river than it was before. Garton closed the public hearing. MOTION Mooney moved to approve the Snowmelter Relocation-Final SPA Development Plan for the Rio Grande Property with the 9 conditions listed in the memorandum dated November 21, 1995 and recommended the City look further into widening of the trail and the eventual elimination of the road to access the area; Hunt seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. Discussion of Motion Garton asked if the applicant agreed with the conditions listed. Efting replied the applicant agreed with the conditions listed. Hooney recommended the Rio Grande Trail be widened to accommodate the traffic that is going to be eliminated from the adjacent access road to provide emergency access. Hunt recommended to add the language that the City look further into widening of the trail and the eventual elimination of the road to access the area. BUCKHORN LODGE - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE MOTION Hunt moved to set December 5, 1995 as a public hearing for an Order to Show Cause review for the closure of the Buckhorn Lodge rezoning land use application; Buettow seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. Garton adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 26 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995 27