HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19960116
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1996,4:30 PM
SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 616 W. Main Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and
Landmark Designation, Amy Amidon
B. 820 E. Cooper Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, Amy
Amidon (to be tabled to 2/26)
C. Small Lodge Text Amendments, Amy Amidon, Dave Michaelson (continued from
12119)
D. "Victorians at Bleeker" Affordable Housing Work Session, Dave Michaelson
N. ADJOURN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Rhonda Harris, Administrative Assistant
RE: Upcoming Agendas
DATE: January 16, 1996
February 6 - Regular Meeting
Buckhorn Lodge Show Cause (DM)
Hernandez Conditional Use Review for ADU (DM)
Work Session - Public Hearing Procedure (Attorney's Office)
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Directo
FROM: Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Conditional Use Review - Public Hearing
Historic Landmark- Public hearing, continue to Feb. 20
DATE: January 16, 1996
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to convert an existing historic
barn into a voluntary one bedroom accessory dwelling unit. The
unit will include a basement, ground level, and loft, for a total
of no more than 700 sq.ft. of net livable space. Staff recommends
approval of the conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit.
Due to a change in the applicant's program, namely the decision to
elevate the barn, the HPC one-step review which was to take place
on January 10 required a public hearing and had to be delayed until
February 14. At that time the applicant will request a
ratification of the existing setback encroachments, and a height
increase (through the Cottage Infill program) to allow a height of
161. The HPC will also review the landmark request on February 14,
therefore P&Z's review of that issue is continued to February 20th.
Staff does not believe that the HPC review of the proposal after
P&Z's review of the ADU will result in any changes that affect the
character or quality of the unit.
APPLICANT: Jeffrey Aaronson, represented by Jake Vickery.
LOCATION: 616 W. Main Street, Lot N, Block 24, City and
Townsite of Aspen.
ZONING: "O," office.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To voluntarily provide an approximately 700
square foot detached one bedroom accessory dwelling unit.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Staff was unable to receive comments from Cindy
Christensen of the Housing Office prior to the memo deadline.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Conditional Use Review - Pursuant to Section 24-7-304 the criteria
for a conditional use review are as follows:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
r objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located;
RESPONSE: The proposed accessory dwelling unit is a detached,
above grade unit. The size is approximately 700 square feet of
net liveable space, which will be verified by the Housing Office
at the time of building permit application. The unit must comply
with the Housing Guidelines for kitchen facilities and shall be
deed restricted as a resident occupied unit for working residents
of Pitkin County.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed
for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the
mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate
vicinity of the parcel proposed for development;
RESPONSE: Construction of ADUs, off of the alley, is encouraged
by Ordinance 1 and Ordinance 60 (which established the ability to
construct detached ADUs in historic outbuildings). Many ADUs have
been provided in the West End and some are being used as caretaker
units.
This lot also contains a 900 sq.ft.. historic house, which has one
bedroom. There are currently no plans to expand or alter the
house. The unit may be accessed off of the alley. Changes will be
made to the exterior of the barn to accommodate a residential use,
and the applicant proposes to elevate the barn approximately 3 feet
to provide head height for the loft. This particular issue will
be discussed at HPC, and it is possible that the building may be
restricted to 2-216" raised foundation for reasons of integrity.
If this is the case, the first floor level may be lowered slightly,
but this will not affect the quality or character of the unit. In
addition, the exterior stairwell to the basement may not be
approved by HPC, but adequate entrance and egress is otherwise
provided.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties;
RESPONSE: The proposed accessory dwelling unit is in an existing
building, which may be higher, but no larger than it is currently.
According to the application, the applicant has not requested a
floor area bonus that is available for property owners that develop
an ADU 100% above grade.
The site has no parking developed for the current one bedroom
residential use. The proposal does not include provision of a
2
parking space for the ADU, nor is one required by Code, due to the
small size of the lot and the desire for some open space. The
parcel is on the Main Street bus routes and is a 6-8 block walk to
downtown.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve
the conditional use including but not limited to roads,
potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire
protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical
services, drainage systems, and schools;
RESPONSE: No new services are required for the ADU.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet
the incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use; and
RESPONSE: The applicant is proposing this unit voluntarily.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The conditional use is an attempt use cottage infill to
preserve neighborhood character as well as provide affordable
housing. Staff has identified no issues in terms of compliance
with Ordinance #30.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ADU with the
following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall:
a. verify the net liveable square footage of the ADU;
b. upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Office,
record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office with proof of recordation to the Planning
Department. The deed restriction shall state that the accessory
unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the
definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and if rented, shall be
rented for periods of six months or longer;
c. kitchen plans shall be verified by the Housing Office to ensure
compliance with specifications for kitchens in ADUs;
2. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
3
3. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
4. The ADU shall be clearly identified as a separate dwelling unit
on building permit plans and shall comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35
sound attenuation requirements.
5. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy the
Planning Department shall inspect the unit to determine compliance
with the conditions of approval.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the conditional use for
the Aaronson ADU located at 616 W. Main Street, with the conditions
as outlined in the Planning Office memo dated January 16, 1996."
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Application/plans
4
12UM APVTXCA=CN FORK
I 1) Proj (act •.
2) 1 XOj ect Location (indicate street adder, lot & block number, legal. description ubere
. appz�pr...,atej - •
3) present Zoning _ � Z O O G 4) Lot Size
SQ
5) ,?applicant s name, Address & Phwe � _ � ���`Q,�- -A F—c�l sa
I� 6) Peprpsentati.ve's Name, Address & Phcm =
J,4
i� 1
7) -lyp. of Application (please dxck all that apply)
Conditional Use Cwce2t in I SPA Co Hi.s+.oz�.c Dev_
SPA. F rol H.istola c Dev_
spec -.sat Review Final-
8040 GrE�� Ctriceptol POD Minor Historic Dev_
Steam Margin Firal PUD Historic Lemolitic n
i�
Mctmtain Vier Plate sub ivisic n ' Historic Designation
CQndcminium? ticbeat Q'C6 All tne—nt
! Io t Splat Line - Q-25 F_xx= i Cn. _.
Adj us-tsnent
8) Desc ipti.cn of Existix-q Uses -(number and type of en- s -i
apprcaa.mate sq- ft_ ; rx=bes of any porev DLm approvals granted to the
9) Description of Develcpment Apalica.ticn
I.0) Flave yc oa attached the followirq?
Pjasponse to A 2, Minimum ��ion Contents
_ Resor to Attar 3, Specific Submission Ocntents.
to Atta�t 4, Review for Your Application v
TO: AMY AMIDON, HPC OFFICER
FROM: JAKE VICKERY
RE: APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
616 WEST MAIN
DATE: JANUARY 10, 1996
Items referenced below pertain to enumerated requirements of the
preprinted application materials supplied by the city.
(Attachment #, Item #)
(2-1) see attached Owner's Authorization Letter
(2-2) see attached Legal Description
(2-3) see attached Disclosure of Ownership
(2-4) see attached Vicinity Map
(2-5) Compliance with relevant Review Standards:
RCHITECT
I L
li)0 SOUTH SPRING ST. x?
POST OFFICE BOX 12 360
ASPE\.COLORADO816I2
l_L 1_ FCSI"ni.F
92;-3tbhll
This proposal is to convert an existing detached historical carriage barn into
a detached 1 bedroom ADU as indicated on the attached plans. The
proposed modifications include a new basement and loft and elevating the
existing structure approximately 3 feet.
This is a voluntary ADU and is a classic "Cottage Infill" situation for which
this legislation was created.
The proposed ADU will have a maximum of 700 net livable square feet and
will accommodate one or more employees or an employee family.
Currently, there is one bedroom in the existing front house and no on -site
parking spaces. This proposal increases the number of bedrooms on site to
two. No on -site parking spaces are provided for this development.
Pursuant to Section 5-510-A-1, no additional parking spaces are required
for development of a studio or 1 bedroom ADU. This is a small, 3,000
square foot pre-existing non -conforming lot. Due to the single story nature
of the existing historical house an on -site parking space would significantly
reduce the amentiy to the rear yard and leave little useable open space.
This property is located within easy walking distance of town and is on the
town's major bus route. The applicant feels that requiring any additional
parking spaces would be a hardship and a disincentive to this application.
The proposed ADU would be one of the best in town and offers an
excellent housing opportunity to locals. It also provides a viable adaptive
reuse of an existing historical structure.
This application is submitted with the expressed understanding that the
deed restriction placed on the property as a result of the ADU approval will
be the one in place at the time of submittal of this application.
Please see Items 4A through 4F below for a more detailed explanation of
conformance to specific standards.
The proposed work is under review by the Historical Preservation Commission. This
application is submitted conditional upon HPC approval of the modifications to the
structure necessary to accommodate the proposed development.
(4-A) The Aspen Land Use Code permits an ADU as a conditional use in the
R6 Zone.
Non -conforming., Lot:
The minimum lot size in the R6 zone is 6,000 square feet. The lot in this
application is 3,000 square feet. It is a pre-existing, non -conforming lot of
record and the proposed development is permitted under Section 9-106
"Non conforming Lots of Record" paragraph "C. Historic Landmark". This
paragraph exempts lots containing historical landmarks from being
required to meet the minimum lot area requirement of its zone district for
permitted and conditional uses.
(4-B) This ADU provides an accessory residential use in the R6 Zone and a mix
in a variety of housing types in the neighborhood. It is compatible with
other residential uses in immediate vicinity.
(4-C) The proposed location below grade maintains open space and minimizes
the mass above grade. Light, air, and egress to the lower sleeping level
are provided by generous light wells.
(4-D) Services will be an extension of the services already in place and are
adequate.
(4-E) This proposal will not generate any new employees and provides on -site
housing for one or two resident employees.
(4-F) This proposal conforms to the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and other
requirements of the Code.
r
�• rartt
' U
• {'O Se
� ••y� arlho duo
°7.
r ti AtounbM Wow Dr Z �yj Re 9a A� a
3'rot► :, a ° 9O o� h 9b Rd C�Cek
zo
Fit
To t } rimGif °e
Aspen - '�'Sd L c� �� •.
Hu Mir
Ter*.°bye a
82 $ 3
�. y Gtllrabst tllallam, o Not every street or road is
�rh .
�"Corsa P�srf ct Lake z named on maps or listed in I
street guides. Construction of
streets and roads may be in
Q progress in certain areas.
IL
Maroon Creek Rd
Asper
0 C�
._�'� -."-"• yam... .t .f• {- 4 Si� ri
F
n Maple Ln......Crd �P1; 82
e o m U Manoft P1 H-2.3 i
Z e 3 hi y vc Maroon GY Rd G•H•1.2
t- �0 9y Mason Cf. Dr......__..K1t L.: �4►
G Pe 1� Matchless Dr...._.__G-H•6
TO P r q, Mayflower CL.._._.._.....H-l-7:ij
ivtart)otl Lake 1f r Oa �""m'e 15 McSkimming Rd___..H•(•7 : j- •�.: .r •`� i, .
Meadow De....—G-H-2 = `•
1° y� Doolittle Meadows Rd..-_-F•G-1
05J L vb Draw Dr E-4-5 Midland Av......_ _»_. H 6 T'?; v. 3 • Q! s ,. `tom
_ __ __ {............._ CI a r
Aerie Cf. Pk� _ H 6 Durant Av. H 1 6 Mill SL_...._..._._ -..G
Fsxwood Rd....... ...._ _(•7 Monarch SL.. G ft-S Vl Y p Ajatt t " --- -G 6 Fe
.Monarch _..................E1 Mounwn Yew Dc.
Ahs Visa Dr ._...F-2.3 Francis St_ _1..... ........... 0.3.6 Mtn Laurel Cf. Dr._--.
Ardmore Cf. Dr____H-7 FredLa__.__.'_...................1-6-7 Mtn OW PI.....__.._.._........._..H-2 ..:•.:r',: Ft;. i1 i'' 4 _ Grpy..
Aspen Alps Pl.. ._1.5-6 Galena St_»._._.1.__...... ............ H.5 Neale AV .... ...__....... _.... .. ....H 6 ` yF( .: tr r• � .;. .i. ..
Asper Grove Rd Ji-t•7 Gxmuch St. -..I .................G•H-4.5 Nitntnawk Dr...._._.........__...».E•5Aws ' •{ ,. 1 'i
B StG G H�-S-S Gibson Av.. _:_..__.........G-H•S 6 Nt,M SL........ ..._�_...._.._StY.,,:
-- Gilbert SL.._J............ .............. H•5 Oak Ln......»...__.._......_____G 6 River Dr..._. ; _ _ . �S3
Barnard Park Cl G•3 Gillespie St_..._................_.......F t Rivesre Av..:. __ _..._.._.1 PI .:: ' ^ A.
- -' Original SL..........__.........._... H-1.6 LM d t�FDr
Bennett Bench CL PL Rd._ 9-1-5 Grove St ..... .... ................. _.......H.- Overtook Dr ..... ___.................. E•3 Riverside Dc.1.._...__.1
Black Bitch Dr .2•17-2-3 Hallam St_. . ........................... G-3.5 Put Av. Cir........... _.... .............. H-6 Roaring Frxk tk..—_..
Bleeper SL G•3-5
Heather[sl ............................ G•H : Pearl SL.............._........_............F-.t Rasnng fork Ad .... '�4 5 Rd
E. Bleekcr SL _ �G H•5.6 +-H
Holden Dd.........._......................G-) Pitktn Mesa Dc..__.........__..D•E-2 Sabin Dr....._.._._..........._..D-Ed" --. $Ootb Attat.�._"'- ' _.......G•6 �•� �i�
{ Bluebonact Tr _---H•2 HomesuU Dr .............. _............ E•2 P.tkin Reserve .... _........... _._..E-F••t Sage
G Wray 1 ^ .__E•2J 'A Nopktnvv._........_............G•H•3.6 PlacerLn................ _........ ......... F-S SalvationCtr_.;._..____»__......E•2 St •, -t....G-6 O
Castle Gnck Dr .F•3 Hunter. St. ................................... H-5 power Plant Rd ................. _.... -G•3 Sawmill CL :.._.. _._. _ ..0 3 Summit _ H•5
Curie Creek Rd ..G•1.1-3 Hutver Creek Rd.....................E•F•6 Pnms ac Nth- .... _............. _.. H-2 Sesame St......:.__ _ ..__ .G•H-7 Toby U—
Centennial Cu _-1-6•7 Hyman AV ................ _........ G•II f bRrppy Smith SL................_....G•5 Shrlowood Trus"d PL._Chadield B•F-I-
a
RA _E-2 eluan St....................................H•a•5 Pvnmtd Rd..._........... ..F-1 Shady ls....._.. _.» F C-S Twin Ridge Dr__.. Z
Circuit Ar.__.._Y.1.7 King St........................».............H•6 Silver King Dr. _._..._ B-2 Ute AV. Pt _� t•S 6 t�ucen �L_...........__............_»..H-6
Ckvelaad Sr u 6 tl. Av........................_....»..F•G•4 Race St ......... ...... _..... _..... _...G1t Skimming Ln...__ _ _ _ .. H-7 vine SL. _.__ 6
• Coeper Ar...__ �i-+-5 L.ut.pur I ........................................ ................... Rea Mountain Rd ........... ... D-G-S•6 Smuggler Grove Rd...__._._l{-6.7 Waters Ar 1.6 4
Cottonwood Lot. G•6 Lone Pine Rd ........................ G-5-6 Reo's Rd .............. SmugglerMouawa Rd...._£•H-6-8 West End St_._.. u•t•6
Cry" take Rd /�-1 7 Luptne Dr.................................1.1.8 Rcgcrtt St .............. ._........ ..H-6.7 Snerk St ........... �_.»..__. __..H-S Westvtew Dr.. __._1-7.8Date TO Twin Lakes.
St_. _Jd•6 Maemfico Rd .............................E1 Sneak Ln.......: _............_.Y-G-3 Willow Ind ender I
R uge PI, Rd- ........._.._...E•5 y Willoughby Wy.__ _ _ EF•3 S
Dw S _ i{•S Matn St ..................» _. G• 5 Rio t,rande Pt...... G•H•5-o Snow Bunny Ct.- _...._.._._.....E-3 WngM R� .._-F 5 ,r
To Ashcroft ALPHA MAI ;
61G w MAIN�
r.
A L L EY • B L O CK 24
— r— + --- 5 75.011 11'
K1
0
I
I I L4 1 I
I
I I
Oi
V
I I G x� i2.1
0 ( O
I
I
w I CNE STORY
r i WCOD FRAME
II NOtlSE / Al
I � IV
DECK
0. 27' CALCULATED
IET�C�3ACI-!MF? !i
I I k
v
T
y 75.09' 11'N 90 O' (f=l ELPI 89 a$'
eA515 CF eEAIZING 2.5
fcUNP'f:EDsR,,CAPN iI^N 30.0,
OUEGIDLE)
M A IN STREET
me
s�
co
H
U
W
91
C-4,
cr) -
>
o
I
;Pd
En
96-01 ` '
NIVw
r
�'_
� � � ` -�
��,
U
�,
`'J
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Planner
DATE: January 16,1995
RE: Proposed Code Language for LP Zone District
SUMMARY: Based on a review of the minutes from the November 21, 1995 and December
19, 1995 discussions regarding revisions to the LP zone district, staff has prepared proposed code
changes in redline form. The changes (attached as Exhibit A) have the following impact:
1) The definition of lodge in the LP zone district has been changed to allow for both
kitchens and long-term/short-term rentals;
2) Accessory Uses can occupy up to 30 percent of gross floor area as a use of right;
3) Conversion of up to 20 percent of gross floor area to a use of right in the most
contiguous adjacent zone district is a use of right, exempt from growth management competition,
will not require mitigation, but will be deducted from the pool and require an exemption from
City Council;
4) Conversion of between 21 and 100 percent of gross floor are of a use of right in the
most contiguous zone district is a conditional use, but will require mitigation. The conversion
will require an exemption from City Council, and will be deducted from the pool;
5) Conversion of use to a conditional use in the most contiguous adjacent zone district is a
conditional use, but cannot exceed 20' percent of gross floor area without mitigation. No
competition is required, but an exemption from Council is necessary and the use will be deducted
from the pool. Total conversion will require full mitigation, less the 20 percent exemption.
Staff also attached the minutes from the last two work sessions as Exhibit B.
Outstanding Issues
GMQS Implications: Staff is still concerned about the implications of creating long-term free
market dwelling units without the requirement of competing through GMQS, or the requirement
of deduction from the pool. Deed -restricted units would avoid this dilemma due the size of the
pool and existing exemptions. Staff would suggest that this issue be presented to City Council.
Cindy Houben's opinion is that free market rentals, without deed restrictions, would be
considered a free market unit for the purposes of GMQS. There are currently 4 free market units
available in the metro area annually.
Total Conversion: The AACP clearly supported the retention of small lodges in the City of
Aspen. As written, the suggested code languages provide no mechanism to ensure that this goal
is obtained. Staff would suggest that this issue be addressed by the City Council.
Small Lodge Proposal: A January 9th, 1996 letter from Gideon Kaufman is attached as Exhibit
C. Staff notes that two primary desires of the small lodge owners are addressed in the proposed
revisions (long-term rentals and kitchen facilities). The total conversion proposal in paragraph
two of Mr. Kaufman's letter has not been discussed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The majority of issues have been addressed in the proposed
revisions, with the exception of the GMQS implications of free-market rentals. The Attorney's
Office is in agreement that CCIOA does not preclude the conditioning of condominiumization on
short-term rentals. Staff would suggest that the Commission make a motion to allow staff to
prepare a resolution forwarding the proposed changes to Council and scheduling a work session
with Council to discuss outstanding issues such as the potential for total conversion and GMQS
implications.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: " I move to direct staff to prepare a resolution adopting the
changes in the LP zone district for signature by the chair, and schedule a work session with
City Council."
Exhibits:
Exhibit A - Draft Code changes
Exhibit B - Minutes from Planning and Zoning Work Sessions
Exhibit C - Letter dated January 9, 1996 from Gideon Kaufman
Exhibits:
Exhibit A - Application, site plan and elevations
Exhibit B - Ordinance 55, Series of 1995.
2
Exhibit A
5.216 Lodge Preservation (LP).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Lodge Preservation (LP) zone district is to preserve existing
lodges in their existing locations and to permit limited expansion of these lodges when such
expansions are compatible with the neighboring properties,- provide an incentive for
upgrading of the existing lodge on -site or onto adjacent properties, and to allow for additional
uses consistent with adjacent zoning districts and compatible with the surrounding_ area. For the
purposes of only the LP zone district, the following definition shall apply -
Lodge means a building or site containing three (3)_or more individual rooms for the purpose of
providing lodging facilities on a short-term or long-term basis, for compensation, with or
without meals, and which has common facilities for reservation and cleaning services, combined
utilities and on -site management and reception. A lodge may include kitchenettes within its
rental rooms.
B. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Lodge Preservation (LP)
zone district.
1. Lodge Units;
2. hedge
Units
having riitnhens,•
2-3. Boardinghouse;
34. Dormitory;
45. Accessory Use facilities intended for guests of permitted lodge units, boarding
house or dormitory, hiw„�, afe eeff,r,.,, my f,,,,n with it asseeiati„i itt„ t
vv rrr
aeeefaedatiens and are f-ef
guest enly, including office, lounge, kitchen, dining
room, laundry and recreational facilities. Accessory uses cannot exceed 30
percent of the gross floor area of the existing lodge;
56. Affordable housing for employees of the lodge; and
6-7. Accessory buildings and uses.
7. Conversion of use - a lodge can convert up to 20 percent of gross floor area to a
non-residential use of right in a contiguous zone district, exempt from Growth
Management competition, but will be required to comply with the requirements of
Section 8-204(c) of the Aspen Area Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) -
Exemptions by City Council and will be deducted from the pool If a specific property
is adjacent to two (2) zone districts, non-residential uses of right in the zone district with
the greatest contiguity will apply, and
8. Condominiumization.
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Lodge
Preservation (LP) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Article 7,
Division 3.
1. Restaurant included with a lodge operation serving guests and others;
2. Timesharing;-ftnd Satellite dish antennae.-; and
4. Conversion of use - a lodge can convert between 21 and 100 percent of gross
floor area to a use of right in a contiguous zone district, but will be required to mitigate
on the total square footage converted, less the 20 percent exemption allowed under
Section 5.216 B.8. The additional square footage is exempt from Growth Management
competition, but will be required to comply with the requirements of Section 8-204(c) of
the Aspen Area Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) - Exemptions by City
Council and will be deducted from the pool; and
5. Conversion of use - a lodge can convert to a conditional use in a contiguous
zone district, with no mitigation required if the conversion is 20 percent or less of total
square footage of the existing lodge. Conversions greater than 20 percent will require
mitigation, less the 20 percent exemption allowed under Section 5 216B8 The additional
square footage is exempt from Growth Management competition, but will be required to
comply with the requirements of Section 8-204(c) of the Aspen Area Growth
Management Quota System (GMQS) - Exemptions by City Council and deducted from
the pool;
D. Dimensional Requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Lodge Preservation (LP) 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 of Open Space required for building site: 35
10. External floor area ratio: Established by special review pursuant to Article 7,
Division 4; not to exceed 1:1
11. Internal floor area ratio:
Lodge rental space: Maximum of 0.5:1, which can be increased to 0.75:1
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. Lodge non -unit space: Minimum of 0.25:1
E. Off-street parking requirement. The following off-street parking spaces shall be
provided for each use in the Lodge Preservation (LP) zone district, subject to the
provisions of Article 5, Division 3.
1. Lodge use: 0.7 space/bedroom of which 0.2 space/bedroom may be provided via
a payment in lieu pursuant to Article 7, Division 4 of this chapter.
2. Residential use: N/A
3. All other uses: 4 spaces/1,000 square feet of net leasable area.
Exhibit B
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995
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. Mooney 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.
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.
3
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995
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
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.
4
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995
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.
Mooney 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. Mooney thought the lodge owners wanted to be
able to upgrade, not downgrade. Mooney 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 Mooney 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 Mooney; 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.
5
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995
Kaufman stated there was a difference between Mooney'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
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 Michaelson, 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. Michaelson 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. Michaelson responded in a preliminary
opinion of the city attorney's office, the provision does not
0
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995
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 staf f 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.
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 (Mooney).
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.
7
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995
Clauson stated staf f 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.
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.
Michael, (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. Michael 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. Michael 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.
8
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995
Hunt responded Michael 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.
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. Michaelson
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
0
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995
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.
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 (LP 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. Mitigation 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
10
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995
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
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.
Mooney 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. Mooney 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. Mooney
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 Mooney 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.
9. 1996 5: 5 3 PM NAUMAN & PHERSON Ro. 5904 P„ ? /,9
8xhibit C
'1,AW'0FFICFS OF
DROM A. PETER50N
GIDEDN 0. RAUFMI101 11 XLA� UP RIAN & PETERSON, P.C. TELEPHONE
EWIN L RRRMMDR'0 -r�pa) q�8168
915 FAST HYMAN AVENUE rvA=MILE
ASPEN, G0LORADO SKSX1 (,LviJJ vs,-L),080
HAL S. r1ISHLER
AU0011AP-M IN RONDA JanoaLv�y 9r 1996
ftUDAUMITTEDIra TEXAL5
ur. Stan Clausen
Aspen/Pitkin Planning office UIA FACSIMILE T-JR-MISMISSION
130 South Calv�tna Street
Aspen,. Colorado 31611
R:� s 8TfiJ1Q1_J WAIdgeS
Dear Stan,;
The Small Lodge G, oup met Monday January 8 p 1996., and
wauited to convey to you t� Ar desires 1 for - , �1_b _e Code Wekldnents
for the LP Zone. After Yffiaeay w -geetinc fs, the;r group he,�_)s determine-1,
Unat only a few of the propo8ed Code amend -ants will actually
help the"m achieve -their goals, They would like to see the
following ebanges implemented,
IlNin 1rid-ges a year would be able -to to convert Moir A
.lottery for this purpose would be established. I. lottery
winner would have one year to submit an application for chanffyaF
to the Inige use° if an application was not submitted within
one yeax,-, the follc�ffinq year ts quota would be inn reasod, and
that particular lodge would not be eligible to re-enter the
lottery for two years. The change to the lodge would need to
comply with the underlying zoning of the adjacent prop e--t-ties.
The development of that property would be exempt from 50t of the
Growth Kanageynent exactions. The ordinance would snnsot after
five years. The group would also like to see long or short term
use of the lodge be at the discretion of the individual lodge
owner. We would also 111ke to see a lodge have the right to
install kitchens.
The Small Lodge Group feels strongly that tliese 17rhree items
are necessary for them to achieve zMeir goals. If the P&Z is
not comfortable with this approach, then we would like the
Ifppoxic-unity to have the matter moved on to he C-Ity Council. we
thank You for all your help in this watter. Tf you have any
qLAP-stions, please feel free to contact ine.
Very 'truly yours,
LAW OFFXCES OF X-AUFRIAM rf'r PJET_rE_RS0_R\T, PX
a Prof al Corpora
By
GideoV Kaufman
4:4X/btf
C&U ° B-Niall Lodge Group
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 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
Management 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
tears the building down, does one have to go through the GMQS for
the next 3, 5, or how many years it is?
12
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995
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 Main
Street O 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
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.
13
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995
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 Management 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.
Al 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 GMQS is a
viable option and if some of the lodges could take advantage of the
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 Commission 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
14
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995
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 10 or 12 units out of that quota and setting aside
just for lodges in the LP 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 0 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 0
Office Zone because they cannot get out. Kaufman stated perhaps
there was a balancing act that would say in the 0 Of f ice 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.
Michael (public) stated for consideration, rather than having one,
two or three lodges, there is no such thing as a lodge; they are
all different. Michael 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
15
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995
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 O
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
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 O 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 O 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
16
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995
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 O 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 Main 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 GMQS
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 GMQS 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
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
17
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995
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.
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.
18
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 21, 1995
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
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.
I,�tygh-I-SYM
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 Michaelson represented staffEam-dd presented Proof of Notice
Affidavit to the clerk. Michaelson 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. Michaelson presented a location map showing the
site.
Michaelson stated the Rio Grande Master 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
W
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995
for the Community Development Director to sign off on and it was
realized by staf f that the Director could no longer sign of f on it;
that is why it was before the Commission. Wolff stated the request
complied with the criteria listed in the code, the project was a
part-time operation, 3 hours a day, in the winter only.
Garton asked if vending carts needed a separate license. Wolff
responded the applicant would have to get approval through the
Environmental Health Department for operation of the cart, but she
did not know what license would be required. Garton asked if the
applicant agreed with the conditions of approval. Wolff responded
the applicant was not present but had seen the conditions and had
not commented otherwise.
MOTION
Blaich moved to approve the GMQS Exemption to allow 30 square feet
of new net leaseable area for an espresso cart in the Ute City
Banque Building, subject to the four conditions listed in the
Planning Office memorandum date December 19, 1995; Hunt seconded.
Unanimous in favor, motion carried.
610 W. HALLAM RESCIND LANDMARK DESIGNATION
Garton opened the public hearing.
MOTION
Hunt moved to table 610 W. Hallam Rescind Landmark Designation and
continue the public hearing to 2 January, 1996 as requested by
staff; Tygre seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried.
SMALL LODGE TEXT AMENDMENTS
Amy Amidon represented staff and apologized to the Commission fox -
not having the code amendments and stated what was before th
Commission was a summary of what direction the Commission wanted
to go after the last meeting. Amidon said the summary was brought
forth for further discussion.
The issue of low interest loans would not be forwarded to Counc -i_I
at this time.
.Amidon said kitchens was the number one issue and staff was
determining how to allow kitchens in the lodge units. Amidon
stated in the definition section, the definition of lodge is the
same as hotel and hotel says no kitchens; staff decided to
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995
redefine lodge and allow kitchenettes, but there are different zone
districts, commercial lodge, LTR,that allow lodge use. Staff is
doing to take the lodge use out of those zones and only allow
hotel, so the only zone district- t 1latiALi 1 1 have a 1 Qdge .� c i Q L e
re -�and that definition will say kitchens are allowed.
midon stated she did not know if anyone on the Commission had
discomfort with the fact that the commercial lodge zone district
does not allow lodges, but will allow hotels.
Michaelson stated staff was trying to determine what the actual
code implications would be on any changes and felt staff nor the
Commission was in a position to have any level of comfort at this
time.
Mooney asked if all the definitions could be tied to the
restructuring of interpreting. Mooney said one of the things about
the kitchens he always stressed was where was the line going to be
drawn, and when is it a single-family residence and when is it a
lodge, and what are the impacts?
Garton suggested no longer calling it commercial lodge, but
commercial hotel. Mooney stated commercial hotel zone; lodge
definition only applied to structures in the LP Zone as of a
certain date. Tygre suggested a specific application to those
lodges that applied for LP as a preservation measure would put
those lodges in slightly different standing from other lodges,
regardless of where they are located within the metropolitan area.
Hunt suggested in the definition of the lodge, have it the same as
the hotel, but in that definition, lodges in the LP Zone are
allowed kitchens, because he felt it would confuse people to pull
the word lodge out of the present zoning.
Amidon suggested to allow kitchens and short-term or long-term
rental. Garton stated that was still getting an interpretation of
long-term based on condominiumization. Mooney stated there was a
break -down at the tax point who one pays rent on a 6 month basis
versus on a weekly basis, so it still would have to be operated as
a lodge and the revenues taxable on a short-term basis, even if
tenants stay. Michaelson stated the issue could be dealt with in
two ways; through condominiumization or through zoning regulations.
Amidon brought forward the _issue of dwelling unit and its
definition includes a provision for a kitchen. Amidon stated each
one of the lodge units with a kitchen could be called a dwelling
unit which staff did not want to have happen, so staff suggested
adding a clarification that adding a kitchen to a lodge unit does
not consitute a development right for the purposes of density.
12
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995
Amidon stated the next issue was whether or not a lodge is a free
market unit. Initially it was proposed only a certain percentage
of the lodge units could be rented long-term, but the Commission
did not want things in the code that could not be monitored, did
not want it restricted, and whatever was wanted to be rented long-
term was alright. Amidon said without any restriction it would be
turned into a long-term, free market apartment building. Staff
discussed the idea of requiring an RO restriction on the units so
at least a tenant would have to be a resident of the county who
would rent the apartments. Mooney stated the RO restriction helped
him by keeping it out of the general free market pool of dwelling
units and he did not feel there was any back -door protection on
when it is converted into something substantially different. Mooney
said if it did have some kind of RO on it, it helped him to know
there was someone making a commitment to the community.
Garton commented it was written in the memorandum the Commission
had voted to allow by right exemption from change in use on long-
term rentals. Garton stated it was her understanding the
Commission was waiting to hear from Council. Amidon responded that
in the following section of the memorandum staff was waiting on
final legal opinion.
Michaelson stated GMQS said converting something that created one
residential unit but did not talk about short-term, long-term,
f kitchens, dwelling units, or free market; just one unit triggers
GMQS and suddenly one has to compete for that, and it comes out of
the pool. Michaelson said that issue became much bigger than just
the intent of dealing with the economic viability of the small
lodge, it triggers the whole growth management issue and staff is
trying to figure out what is the best way to work it without
compromising other long-term goals that are in the best interest
of the City. Garton asked if long-term rental could be tied into
it. Michaelson replied one would still be creating units,
independent of GMQS, and the issue becomes, is the 20 percent
number not going to push everyone over the edge in terms of growth
management. Garton stated to support Kaufman, who represented the
small lodge owners, staff had to allow the small lodge owners
something. Michaelson said the issue staff was quandering with
was, did it come out of the pool, and could one make a good reason
why it shouldn't come out of the pool.
Hunt stated regarding long-term there were certain lodges who
wanted to long-term 100 percent of the lodge for a portion of the
year. Hunt used as example the Mountain Chalet; in the summer it
long -termed for the music students and that is what some of the
smaller lodges could do and it was beneficial for the community.
Hunt did not want to prevent the lodges from being able to long-
term for a portion of the year, and they would probably short-term
during the high seasons. Hunt stated if the long-term exceeded 20
13
PLAN'N'ING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995
percent and also exceeded a period of time, then perhaps the
Commission should think of the RO approach or something on that
order. Hunt suggested staff set up criteria under which the lodges
could operate and not be subject to RO consideration.
Bob Tobias, public, stated at the last meeting the Commission
discussed the accessory use of a partial conversion proposal. He
was not sure if it was heard by the Commission that that particular
avenue of relief was not as meaningful as most of the other issues
proposed. Tobias said the difficulty was, from a pragmatic sense,
that a mixed use in a building, as a lodge use combined with an
office use, would not be very workable. Most of the small lodges
were not interested in pursuing that option and in the absence of
Kaufman, perhaps the time might be better spent discussing some of
the other issues.
Garton responded the issue was of importance to the Commission
because of the number of units counted in the growth management
plan. . Tobias stated if the issue was passed in any form there
would not be too many lodges that would take advantage of that
particular avenue. Hunt stated he did not think the Commission was
thinking of the long-term as an accessory use. Tobias stated in
regard to long-term, that issue was one most small lodges were
interested in and at the last meeting the main issue was total
conversion of use.
Michaelson stated staff was looking for guidance from the
Commission but realized it hdd much work internally do to get
through the GMQS issue. Michaelson stated staff would feel
comfortable on January 16, 1996 coming to the Commission with an
overall package.
Garton stated she liked what was discussed and had suggested at the
last meeting approval for the issue of total conversion.
Mooney asked if the Commission allowed someone to convert to hotel
would there be anything to cause trouble with telling Hines it
wouldn't go the other way. Michaelson said he did not have an
answer to Mooney's question, but it was a concern of staff.
Hunt stated he hoped the Commission was clear on long-term but
there was still a question when did long-term become a conversion?
Hunt stated the Commission had to define or produce some action
necessary to identify that conversion; the lodges draw back down
to'the lodge activity or go through the conversion process.
Garton stated the Commission should suggest to the Housing
Authority if total conversion happened, the Housing Authority
needed to have some input. Hunt stated what was needed from the
lodging community was what would the maximum number of weeks in the
14
IPLA 41NG & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995
year they would think of long -terming 100 percent of a facility and
did it matter if the lodges long-term 20 percent of the units or
less more than a year. Amidon stated it was important to consider
how staff would address monitoring. Mooney stated concern of a
lodge being filled with just long-term people and becoming a slum;
the impacts and cleaning up the situation.
Tobias stated Mooney had put a finger on the crux of the issue and
the point was when some of the lodges were able to get out of the
lodging business, the remaining lodges would be healthier and would
not have to take that intermediary step of a long-term rental.
Tobias stated the long-term rental was being looked at by a number
of the lodge owners simply as a means to slow the harmful process.
The lodge owners would like to be doing short-term rental because
it is more lucrative, but unfortunately they cannot fill the rooms.
Garton stated the Commission had to look for loopholes in the long-
term rentals; how it was going to be handled and tracked, and the
impacts considered.
Tygre stated her concern was the various neighborhoods were so
different and on her mixed street, what used to be the North Star
Lodge is now being used for employee housing for the Jerome Hotel.
Tygre stated there were cars with stacked parking in front of the
building and there was no problem and it did not impact the rest
of the neighborhood. Tygre stated in her neighborhood it worked
fine but it might not work on the west side of Aspen, and as far
as the community was concerned she did not feel one could separate
a particular lodge situation from the neighborhood it is in. She
felt strongly regarding certain kinds of blanket approvals not
being appropriate and the necessity of neighborhood input.
Mooney stated his consideration was he was not going to be dealing
with this generation of lodge owners after giving relief for them
to get out; if he was, and it was the present generation
personalities and commitment to the community, their involvement
in the community he was trying to perpetuate, it would be a
different thing. Mooney felt the Commission was giving the lodge
owners something more to sell and would be dealing with the next
generation of owners who would look at it as what they could
develop. Mooney stated the language had to be futuristic and still
be of assistance today.
Garton stated the Commission would continue the public hearing to
January 16, 1995.
15
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Cy---
THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director � j
FROM: Dave Michaelson, Planner
DATE: January 16, 1995
RE: Victorians at Bleeker Affordable Housing Project - Work Session
SUMMARY: The Victorians at Bleeker is a proposed affordable housing project located at the
southeast corner of Bleeker and Garmisch Streets. The applicant proposes to demolish an
existing fourplex and replace it with a single structure with two free market units, two resident
occupied (RO) units and three category 4 studio affordable housing (AH) units. A project
summary, vicinity map, existing improvement survey, adjacent land use map, and proposed site
plan and elevations are attached as Exhibit A. Ordinance 55, Series of 1995 establishing the
requirements and review criteria for the AH1/PUD zone district are attached as Exhibit B.
APPLICANT: Larry Saliterman, represented by Tim Semrau, Semrau Building and Design
LOCATION/ZONING: Lots A and B, Block 66, City and Townsite of Aspen (101 E. Bleeker
Street). The parcel is approximately 6600 square feet, including a portion of a vacated alley.
The property is currently zoned R-6. Staff notes that the vacated alley cannot be used for lot area
or FAR calculations.
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD: The proposed lot is surrounded by commercial uses
including the U.S. West facility to the east, and Design Workshop and the Medical Building to
the south and east. The Hotel Aspen is located on the west side of Garmisch, the Yellow Brick
School on the northwest corner of Bleeker and Garmisch, and residential uses are located
opposite the project on the north side of Bleeker. An adjacent land use map is attached in
Exhibit A.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a work session with the Commission to present a
proposed AH project, using the AH1/PUD amendments recently adopted by Council (see
AH1/PUD zone text as Exhibit B). A summary sheet of development information (unit/bedroom
mix, setbacks and proposed square footage) are included in Exhibit A.
Staff Comments: From a conceptual perspective, the project is clearly consistent with the
AACP goals of revitalizing the community by encouraging the development of AH units within
the central core. The existing unit was constructed in the mid-1960s, and is near the end of its
useful life. The existing rental units are free market without deed restrictions.
Parking is currently provided by "head -in" parking within the City right-of-way along Garmisch,
which would be eliminated by the proposal. The applicant is proposing a Victorian design in
order to ensure compatibility with the two landmarked structures on the north side of Bleeker.
As proposed, the project is consistent with the external FAR requirements (1.1:1) in the
AH1/PUD zone district, after eliminating the vacated alley from lot area calculations. The
applicant has not submitted south elevations to allow for a review of compatibility issues with
the historic landmarks on the opposite side of Bleeker, which will be the primary design issue
associated with the project.
There does appear to be a discrepancy between the bedroom mix requirements (30% / 70%) and
the proposal (30.7% / 69.3%). Staff notes that the minutes from the AH1/PUD hearing imply
that the Commission was willing to have some form of "wiggle room" built into the process for
exceptional projects.
PROCESS: The project will be processed through the PUD process, with a four -step
application including conceptual and final PUD review by both the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the City Council. All setbacks, height, percent of open space and parking will
be determined during special review at final PUD. The project will also be required to comply
with the provision of Ordinance 30. The code does allow an applicant to request that the
Community Development Director approve a two-step process.
The applicant met with the Housing Board on January 11, 1995 and should have their comments
available during the work session.
Exhibits:
Exhibit A - Application, site plan and elevations
Exhibit B - Ordinance 55, Series of 1995.
74
SEMRAU 3031/2 East Main
Aspen, Colorado 81611
BUILDING AND DESIGN Phone: (970) 925-6447
-16)Three-dimensional Computer Imaging Fax: (970) 925-6437
12/18/95 Exhibit A
To; Community Development
From; Semrau building and design
RE; Preliminary proposal for 101 Bleeker street rezone to AH.
Lot size- 6000 square feet plus 600 square feet of vacated alley or 6600 sf.
Existing Use- Currently a 4 plex of 2400 square feet exists on the lot. These units
are near the end of their useful life and are in extremely dilapidated condition.
There is currently no off street parking for these 4 units and the residents
utilize the head in city parking off of Garmisch street.
Proposed Use -A rezoning from R-6 to AH and the building of 7 units as follows;
2 Free market 2 BR units of 1300 sf plus basement.
2 Resident Occupied 3 Br units of 1150 sf. plus basement.
3 Category 4 studio AH units of 540 sf.
Total FAR to be 6500 square feet.
Proposed Unit/Bedroom Mix-
2 units Free market/5 affordable housing = 28% FM/72% Affordable
4 BR Free market/9 BR affordable = 3 0.7%FM/69.3 % Affordable
Proposed Parking-4 Garages and two parking spaces are on -site and accessed
from the alley on the south of the lot. This greatly improves the current
situation of 100% off -site parking.
Proposed Setbacks- 11' front setback to porch towards Bleeker.
11" rear setback from garages to alley in back
(4' of cantilevered second level deck overhangs within the ll' )
6' sideyard setback
Surrounding Neighborhood- This R-6 lot is surrounded by commercial use. To
the east is the U.S. West facility, to the south is the Medical Center and Design
Workshop, across the street to the west is Hotel Aspen, on the opposite corner is the
yellow brick building. The only adjoining residential use is across Bleeker street.
This lot is located walking distance to town making it an ideal location for
affordable housing. The Victorian design with several covered porches will
complement the existing Victorian neighborhood around the yellow brick building.
q
Amak
.1 vm
IS-13
IS YN31Y
ay
PS-
HDONOM S
")V
y
4
1 -7-
I/A
�Lz
T3
lo
0 ch
cm Ca
Ic
I NOGIN 1700 0 0
�WIAYX�k
FS,
cu
m cc
cli
co
cc c cu o > C)
a- L) C7
w C-D co
cu cx
C)
00 m —4—
w ru
w C) co X
CD m cu co
— E
0 w CU.w cn L o E
CD
--------
BLEEKER
AN EY,15TING
('6, CITY
� MANHOLE
BLEEKER
ST
5-Topm 5E.WER
CURB
J
eA515 OF
I
-15,
3. 1 cr, 0'
t4 cyq I - w 101.06)
PNO CITE/ N"3"-
N.W. COR. IBLK GG
r. 0
I G C
—cc.
OH
N
0,
GCE:.
PECK
J I
+
C. E
rf
LOT a LOT B
r(--)TAL nPEA . fj
(("P00 t c6a r- T
B G C
Co, i 5,:) 1-1,
/0 C 1�76 7A;E.M6
BLOCK 6�0
51,CCIPIED IN
FROM GUI3D%V'G1ON E
,14ro r4C:TWr-EN 'T"C Ck-ry
dOCI.CInor OJTV pyoA�GD
I"= 400
L 5G J
ALLAP� T
cr
qtfffufll
L:3�
MAIN
Existing 4-plex Site Plan
Victorians at Bleelker
z
0
r
m
r-
m
M
rn
r-
rn
0
z
13A "It Til''..'!,,
33
n
Ul.
rt-I
14 0
UI
X.
0
0
cy-
C)C) C=)
2-
Cy-
CO
-M
cl
ro
ro
DO
C.
m 1
0 5
GARMISCH CT
r"
GARMI SCH S T GA
.......... .... T-
r-
Semrau building and design
3031/2 E. Main, Aspen
925-6447
No�'TN
ISr
�j2uNT LoT �-/NL
lir
I
S'
Covered Perrh
POI
z
r-
!U
;� 7
2 �
1-
y
�t1
W
O
Parkins
0
I
f
� 0' VR«i rrn
REAR
[xisfing Alley to Design Workshop
7' I
Proposed Side Plan Victorians at Bleeker
g Space
l�
Drawing
S ITe PL,A N
Scale Job
1/g'.'= f' VB
Date Revised
17 20
m
r
O
Z
eo
1
a
L
semrau building and design
303 1 /2 east main, aspen, eolorado 81 6 11
phone (970) 925-8447/fax (970) 925-8437
ORDINANCE NO. 55
(SERIES OF 1995)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, AMENDING
CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND USE REGULATIONS, BY AMENDING
SECTION 24-5-206.2 TO PROVIDE MORE DESIGN FLEXIBILITY WITH A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY, AMEND THE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREAS
AND AMEND THE BEDROOM MIX BETWEEN AFFORDABLE AND FREE MARKET UNITS
IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1103 Of the Municipal Code provides that
amendments to Chapter 24 of the Code, to wit, "Land Use
Regulations". shall be reviewed and recommended for approval by the
Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at public hearing, and th(-n approved, approved with_
conditions, or disapproved by the City Council u-. ;public hearing..;
and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan recommends the adoption
of an Affordable Housing zone district in Pitkin County, andr�e
Plan also recommends refinement of the existing Affordable Housing
zone district in the City with addition,-, l revisions: to the Res J c • -ln
Occupied category housing; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan also created a metro
area development allocation pool that requires any changes to the
development review process for the metro area to be reviewers. by
both the City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions as
Growth Management Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Community Developmen', staff proposed to both �r
joint'Planning and Zoning
Commissions
and
the Council
and Board of
County Commissioners the
adoption of
the
Affordable
Housing zone
1
district in Pitkin County and additional revisions to the City's
Affordable Housing zone district; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners and the City
Council did conduct several worksessions with regard to the
proposed amendments and the overall coordinated goals and
objectives of the Affordable Housing amendments as they relate to
the AACP; and
WHEREAS, the joint, City and County Planning and Zoning
Commissions held several worksessions and did conduct public
hearings to review the proposals on August 1, 1995 and again on
September 26, 1995; and
WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the text amendment,
agency and public comment thereon, and those applicable standards
as contained in Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, to wit, Division
11 of Article 7 (Text Amendments), the Planning and Zoning
Commission has recommended approval of the text amendments
recommended by the Community Development staff pursuant to
procedure as authorized by Section 24-6-205 (A) (5) of the
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered
the text amendments under the applicable provisions of the
Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered
those recommendations and approvals as granted by the Planning and
Zoning Commissions, and has taken and considered public comment at
public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City council finds that the text amendments meet
2
or exceeds all applicable development standards and is consistent
with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City council finds that the proposed text
amendment will allow and promote better site design, encourage
small, family -oriented affordable housing, promote housing
proposals that reflect surrounding neighborhood characteristics and
will be consistent with the public welfare and the purposes and
intent of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN COLORADO:
Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code,
the City Council finds as follows in regard to the text amendment:
1. The proposed text amendments as set forth are not in conflict
with the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Municipal code or the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
2. The proposed text amendments will not adversely impact traffic
generation or road safety when taken into consideration with
the other aspects of the Municipal Code.
3. The proposed text amendments will promote the public interest
and character of the City of Aspen.
4. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the
recommendations of the Aspen Area community Plan.
Section 2: Section 5-206.2 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended, which new text
shall read as follows:
Sec. 5-206.2. Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH
1/PUD)
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Affordable Housing (AH) zone
district is to provide for the use of land for the production
of Category 1, 2, 3, and 4 affordable housing and resident
occupied lots and units. The zone district also permits a
limited component of free market lots/units to off -set the
3
cost of developing affordable housing. It is contemplated
that land may also be subdivided in connection with a
development plan.
The Affordable Housing 1/PUD (AH) zone district is intended
for residential use primarily by permanent residents of the
community. Recreational and institutional uses customarily
found in proximity to residential uses are included as
conditional uses. Lands in the Affordable Housing (AH .1../PUD)
zone district should be scattered throughout the city to
ensure a mix of housing types, including those which are
affordable by its working residents; at the same time the
Affordable Housing (AH 1/PUD) zone district can protect the
city's neighborhoods from rezoning pressures that other non -
community oriented zone districts may produce. Further, lands
in the Affordable Housing (AH 1/PUD) zone district should be
located within walking distance of the center of the city, or
on transit routes. The City AH 1/PUD zone district only
applies within the Aspen Municipal boundaries.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as ( ) '. sight
in the Affordable Housing (AH 1/PUD) zone district.
1. Residential uses restricted to Category 1, 2, 6 :-.Lnd 4
affordable housing guidelines and resident occupied units
(as defined by the Housing Authority Guidelines of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority) must comprise at
least seventy (70) percent of the unit mix, of the
development. Of this 70%, 40% of the units must. be deed
restricted to Category 1, 2, 3, or 4 pursuant- -to the
Affordable Housing Guidelines, and Resident Occupied
units may comprise up to 30% of the unit mix. Free
market development may comprise up to thirty ( 3 0; percent
of the units mix. For projects that comprise only 3
residential units, of this 33% of the units must be deed
restricted to Category 1, 21 3, or 4 pursuant to the
Affordable Housing Guidelines, and Resident Occupied units
may comprise 33%, and free market developai-cnt may
comprise up to 33% of the units mix.
Only 30% percent of a project's bedrooms may bE located
within free market units. Category housing and Resident
Occupied units must comprise 170% of the bedrej(,ri mix.
Despite these requirements, projects may be coma�ri ;Ted of
all Category deed restricted or Resident occupie(; inits.
In the event that no free market development is .)rr)posed
as part of the project, the limitation on 1-?(,sident
Occupied units and bedroom mix shall not apply.
Residential uses may be comprised of single-=:,.amily,
duplex and multi -family dwelling units.
In order to be eligible for a reduction in the
4
requirement to the level of 60% Affordable Housing and
4 0 % Free Market Housing the project shall be required to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that
all of the following criteria have been met.
a. The quality of the proposed development
substantially exceeds that established in the
minimum threshold for the scoring established in
Sec. 4-60.65-B.V.
b. The proposal maximizes affordability, consistent
with housing needs established as priority through
the current AH Guidelines;
c. The proposal integrates a mixture of economic levels
and housing for a variety of lifestyles (e.g.,
singles, seniors and families);
d. The proposal minimizes impacts on infrastructure by
incorporating innovative, energy -saving site design,
structural design characteristics or other
techniques that minimize the use of water, heating
and sewage disposal;
e. The proposal incorporates or integrates with an
existing local based economy (i.e., sustainable
local businesses);
f . The proposal accomplishes a level of design and site
plan ingenuity that advances the community goals
expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan; and
g. The proposed project represents an exceptional
commitment to"advancing the visions, goals and
specific action items of the Aspen Area Community
Plan, particularly those described in the scoring
criteria of Secs. 8 - t0�3
h. No RO units are included in the project; only
category units are included in the project.
2. Home occupations; and
3. Accessory buildings and uses.
C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as
conditional uses in the Affordable Housing (AH) zone district,
subject to the standards and procedures established in Article
7, Division 3.
1. Open use recreation site;
5
2. Day care center;
3. Satellite dish antennae; and
4. Dormitory.
5. Transit facilities
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional
requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses
in the Affordable Housing (AH 1/PUD) zone district.
1. Minimum lot size (square feet):
a. for subdivided lots from a parcel of 27,000 square
feet or larger: 3,000 square feet
b. for subdivided lots from a parcel less than 27,000
square feet: 1,500 square feet
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet):
a. For subdivided lots from a parcel of 27,000 square
feet or larger:
Detached residential dwelling: 1,500 square feet
Duplex: 1,500 square feet
b. For subdivided lots from a parcel less than 27,000
square feet:
Detached: 3,000 square feet
Duplex: 1,500 square feet
For multi -family dwellings on a lot that was
subdivided from a parcel of 27,000 square feet or
less or for lots that were subdivided from a parcel
of 43,560 square feet or less when approved by
special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4,
the following square feet requirements apply:
Studio: 300
1 bedroom: 400
2 bedroom: 800
3 bedroom: 1,200
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1)
bedroom per 400 square feet of lot area.
For multi -family dwellings on a lot that was
subdivided from a parcel of more than 27,000 square
6
feet (except when varied by special review) the
following square feet requirements apply:
Studio: 1,000
1 bedroom: 1,250
2 bedroom: 2,100
3 bedroom: 3,630
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: One (1)
bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area.
3. Minimum lot width (feet): To be determined during PUD
review, 'cased upon the criteria in Section 7-903
including but not limited to,neighborhood compatibility
and adjacent zone district regulations.
4. Minimum front yard (feet) : To be determined during
_.%fL
review, based upon the criteria in Section
including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility
and adjacent zone district regulations.
5. Minimum side yard (feet) : To be determined during PUS?
review, based upon the criteria in Section 7-903
including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility
and adjacent zone district regulations.
The minimum side yard for multi -family dwellings: To be
determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria ;Ez
Section 7-903 including but not limited to neighborhood
compatibility and adjacent zone district regulation_',
6. Minimum rear yard (feet): To be determined during PUD
review, based upon the criteria in Section 7-903
including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility
and adjacent zone district regulations.
7. Maximum height (feet): To be determined during
review, based upon the criteria in Section 7-90—;
including but not limited to neighborhood compatibility
and adjacent zone district regulations.
8. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot. To <<.
determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria ir
Section 7-903 including but not limited to neighboncc..�cl
compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations
9. Percent of open space required for building site: To be
determined during PUD review, based upon the criteria in
Section 7-903 including but not limited to neighborhood
7
compatibility and adjacent zone district regulations
10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and
nonconforming lots of record).
The allowable floor area permitted in this
zone is -determined by the following table and
shall be applied to the proposed fathering
parcel. Floor area allocations on newly
proposed subdivided lots shall be determined
as part of the Planned Unit Development
review, but in no case shall they cumulatively
exceed the provisions of this section. Sites
may be developed up to 850 of the allowed
floor area. Up to 100% of the floor area may
be permitted by special review, pursuant to
Article 7, Division 4.
Lot Size
(Square Feet)
Allowable
Square Feet
0--15,000 square feet 1.1:1
15,001 square feet--25,000 square feet 1:1
25,001--43,560 square feet .8:1
>1 acre--3 acres .6:1
>3 acres -- 6 acres .36:1
>6 acres .3:1
11. Internal floor area ratio: No requirement.
E. Off-street parking requirement. The following off-street
parking spaces shall be provided for each use in the
Affordable Housing (AH) zone district.
1. Residential uses: Established by special review pursuant
to Article 7, Division 4. The maximum number of parking
spaces required shall not exceed 2 space/dwelling unit
for Free Market Units. Parking spaces shall not exceed
1 space/bedroom or 2 spaces/dwelling unit, whichever is
less for the Affordable Units.
2. All other: N/A.
Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect 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 conduJ_-ted and
concluded under such prior ordinances.
L-91
Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase,
or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
E
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 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1995 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 the day of
1995.
John Bennett, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
1995.
John Bennett, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
9
NORTH ELEVATION
r---i 07
CC
0
� EdH Pa O
o
Cd
Cd
. Qo
cdEd
�o
o
Victorians af Blecker