Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19880607 ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLARRING , ZONING JUNE 7. 1988 Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm. Answering roll call were Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Ramona Markalunas, and Welton Anderson. David White and Mari Peyton were excused. Jim Colombo was absent. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Jasmine: In the approval for the 1010 ute Avenue there was a lot of discussion about the trail easements. I can't remember what the final alignment was for the existing trail along the river but somebody is building a house on the trail. I thought that trail was supposed to stay in place. The plat does not show that trail. I remember that that was one of the alignments--the trail along the river aside the Gant and connected with ute Avenue along the ditch. Alan: I don't recall whether that was an either/or situation. Or if we wanted the trails up in the Meadow area which, if we did, they wouldn't provide the other trail down by the river. My recollection is that the trail down there was just to be left in tact--not to be developed as a trail. But it wasn't supposed to be obliterated and that was the trade off for actually developing the trail. We can check on that. Roger: What is the status of the zoning maps. Alan: Council adopted the maps on May 23rd. The new milarz are available in our office. They agreed with most of your recommendations. The one major exception where they did not agree either with you or us was Koch and Marolt. On both Koch and Marolt they had 2/2 votes. 2 members saying they wanted both of them to be park and 2 members saying that they wanted to provide opportunities for employee housing if the voters so deemed appropriate. Roger then asked that Tom Baker update members on the parking situation. Tom: Last night the Council heard a presentation from the consultants on the parking efforts at Bell Mountain and Rio Grande. The Bell Mountain effort is essentially on hold and really hinges on City Market. The Rio Grande effort is still being pursued and the Council has opted to pursue a 420 space structure which would mean parking under the library which the p&Z recommended. They are looking at about $1.00 flat rate. This is all preliminary and going after 1/4 penney sales tax. PZMG.7.88 Ramona then asked about the snowmelt operation. Tom: There is a concept on the table that is being considered in the snow dump area right now. You will be getting a complete update as part of conceptual SPA on the Rio Grande parcel from the Engineering office on just what their intentions and options are on Tuesday the 14th. Michael: I would assume that when the City didn't approve any of the decorative lights around that the lights in front of Al Philips the Cleaner are now illegal. They are allover the front of that building. Alan: The regulation that was finally approved in the new code says that if the lights are on a building and drawing attention to its commercial endeavors, then they are illegal. Lights on trees are fine. Michael: In the rev ised code, does the sign ordinance prohibit the signs that are now starting to pop up in the west end? For instance "This house protected by Westec Security Co." Alan: I doubt if it addresses that. Michael: Is that something that is appropr iate that we can recommend? Alan: We have dealt with temporary signs in a number of ways but that isn't one we dealt with. Michael: If we want to eliminate them it is something we could do by resolution. Alan: What we have told people generally is we are trying to live with the code for 6 months just to experience things that either weren't addressed or were incorrectly addressed. We have promised everyone that about December come up with corrections and I am already making a list. STAFF COMMENTS Alan: The only thing we have is the Ritz/Carlton update. At the work session we held last Wednesday, it was agreed that all of the action that the City Council had taken beginning in mid April and ending in mid May was something that you really knew nothing about. It is going to be dumped in your laps now that the Ritz application is now back on the table. I have provided you with a copy of the resolution which you will note that the Mayor has not yet signed. So the City has not given its formal signature to 2 PZM6.7.88 this resolution at this point. It apparently is coming up to Council at the June 13th meeting. The resolution is something that Paul and I wrote as a tandem. The key operative areas are from page 4 to page 6. They are the agreement that the applicant and the City came to. The most important things for you to know are that the applicant needs to finish all the development reviews by September 12, 1988. You won't even be starting your re-review until June 28th. And I would expect it would take you into the end of July to be finished which gives Council just August and a meeting in September to do their work. There are specific limits that the applicant agreed to. The 292 rooms--no more than 190,000 sqft which are very similar to the project you were seeing. You were seeing a project of approximately 200,000 sqft. It was 202. In phase I what has been eliminated is the residential units which are no longer a part of Phase I. They have all been moved onto Phase II side or at the top of Mill. A lot of the changes, you won't get a sense of until you get the application booklets which we will probably pass out to you next week. They will show you physically how the building changes. There was a major hunk taken out of the building along Mill Street. The Blue Spruce Site is now being used again for lodge development. The other really important change is the block which sits in front of the Grand Aspen which is now used as park ing. The re are a number of structures to the west of that which is to be dedicated to the public for open space. An ice r ink is be ing planned for that portion of the property. Michael: Are we going back to the issue of tandem parking? Alan: That issue is not in the application. They are basically able to provide enough parking on-site to take care of the needs of Phase 1. They believe that number is excessive for their actual needs. In terms of their applicable needs they can meet that requirement. They may come back at some point after construction is under way to say "Here is how we would really like to operate the thing". But at this point they are doing foundation drawings because they know it is going to take about September 12th to be out of the process. Ramona: Where do the 700 South Galena Street units fit in here? Alan: Those have received final approval and are to be processed this week. 3 PZMG.7.88 Ramona: So they will be built this summer? Alan: That's not so clear. They have the right to. On June 28 we have got a public hearing scheduled for you to rev iew the hotel project. The Rio Grande SPA will be continued onto that meeting so you won't be doing a full-on hearing on the 28th. All you are going to look at on the 28th is the actual Ritz Carlton hotel site. You will have a submission at that time for the Ice Rink or Phase 11. What the City Council agreed to last Wednesday was by the time final approval is given on September 12th, they want to know enough about both the Ice Rink and phase II that they feel comfortable with the whole works. So in the next 30 days we are expecting an application for those 2 portions of the site somewhere between a conceptual and a final level of detail. It will have building configurations, massing, architectural style, open space, unit numbers and FAR. Enough that you can quickly understand what is going on there but not final level plans. Phase II and the Ice Rink represent a lot of the things that Council obtained through this process. In terms of an update: We got sued this week. The City Council and Hadid have been sued by a citizens group for the process and results of Resolution 11, series of 1988. The allegation is that this entire process did not follow the Council rules of order and that the project was expired. My guess is that we will continue the process unless the Court tells us not to. All of us, the Planning Off ice, the P& Z, the Counc il and the citizens of the community have been awarded by the Colorado Chapter of the American Planning Association in recognition of our new Land Use Code. We are receiving 1 of 7 awards. There were over 20 different projects, communities and individuals that applied for the award. It is rather a nice distinction. There will be an award at Monday night's Council meeting on that. We should all be proud of this achievement. A lot of time and effort has been put into it and we should all be proud that our peer group has taken a look at it and they think it is really good. The users out there that we have been talking to so far think pretty highly of it too. MINUTES ~/22/88. 4/l2/88 , 5/17/88 Roger: I move to adopt the minutes of March 22, 1988 and April 4 PZM6.7.88 12, 1988. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. Ramona made a motion to approve minutes of May 17, 1988. Welton seconded the motion with all in favor. BACH/MCPHERSON CORDOMINIUMIZATION Cindy Houben: The applicants are requesting that they be allowed to condominiumize the existing unit that is in the East Meadows Subdivision. There are 2 units. One is owner occupied and the othe r unit has been rented out at a pr ice which is above the moderate rate for the employee guidelines. This has been submitted under the old code and therefore there is no requirement that the individual pay employee housing fee or deed restrict the unit. The concerns that were raised in the memo: Chuck Roth and I went out to the site today and some of those have been taken care of with regard to the parking. I think that all of the conditions should stay conditions of approval because they all relate to conditions that need to be in the subdivision exception as well as plat conditions some of which may be taken care of but they are tied in to the fact that they should be shown on the plat which hasn't been submitted in its entirety. Applicant: The only one I would be concerned about is #4. My only concern is that I don't know how we would show verification on a 20 year old subdivision plat that we have access off that private road. Cindy: I think that is acceptable. If the applicants are able to reach all of their parking spaces inside a subdivision road, the Engineering Department would go along with that. Welton asked for further discussion. There was none. MOTION Roger: I move to recommend approval of the Hack/McPherson Condominiumization on Lot 2 of East Meadows Subdivision with conditions 1 through 3 being the same as Planning Office memo dated June 7, 1988. (attached in records) Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. 5 PZM6.7.88 MEZZALURA OUTSIDE DINING Tom Baker: Anthony Mazza, owner of the Hunter plaza Building has requested outdoor dining in a portion of their required open space. They meet all the requirements of the code and we did a site inspect ion to see that the amended GMP approval has been completed and it has. The amended GMP approval called for installing 2 bike racks near the intersection of Cooper and Hunter. They put 3 benches in the right-of-way, 4 benches in the court yard and are installing a fountain. That is all done. The fountain appears to be installed but to my understanding not operable yet. Staff would recommend approval of the outdoor dining in the required open space with the condition that the fountain become operational within a month after this approval. Tony Mazza: tomorrow. I believe it is going to be operational by MOTION Roger: I move to approve the outdoor dining in the portion of required open space for Mezzaluna Restaurant with the condition that the fountain shown in exhibit 1 be operation within 1 month after this approval. Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor. Tom: The staff is uncomfortable with the size of the outdoor dining on this particular project. In the code we had limited the size of outdoor dining to 500 sqft or 50% of the open space whichever was greater. Perhaps if we have the opportunity to review that in the future or as part of the landuse element we can take a look at that. You will see in Exhibit 5, which is a representation from the owner, at the time the conditional use approval was made for Mezzaluna's Restaurant in the C-l zone, it was going to be a locally oriented facility. That is sort of a subjective question. How do you determine that? It was going to be open the year round. Whether the applicant is meeting those representations is a decision that might be answered differently by many people. But when we do the landuse element we might want to be aware of the difficulty of enforcing some of those conditional uses in the C-l zone so that they do indeed become locally oriented uses rather than tourist oriented uses. 6 PZMG.7.88 BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE REZONING CONCEPTUAL PUD/SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PUBLIC HEARING Tom introduced into the record a letter from Bill Carr owner of property at 700 E. Hyman who wanted to go on record as being concerned that the height of any development not exceed 28-30 feet. His wife, Judith Carr, is a member of the homeowners association and on behalf of the homeowners of the 6 duplexes at that same location, they wanted to reiterate that same concern. They will be following those comments up with letters in the very near future. (letter attached in records) Elaine Krout who is the owner of the 5 vacant lots on that block directly north and a little to the east of the Bell Mountain property expressed concern for any increases in height and FAR which may affect the value of her property. She will follow up with a letter. Cindy Houben: The applicant initially has requested a C-l rezoning. The existing zoning is L-3. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to C-l with a 1 to 1.5 FAR which is an increase with special review. The reason for that increase is they wanted to address the parking situation in the Bell Mountain area knowing that that was the site we had selected for parking. And this was the applicant's proposal as far as trying to look at a public benefit to have underground parking as well as create a commercial activity where they felt they could make it work with 1 to 1.5 FAR. The City Council had a chance to look at this briefly at a parking element discussion meeting with some of the consultants. Council gave the applicant an indication that they didn't want to trade back for parking that they didn't want the addition of bulk on the site. They were sensitive to that issue at this time and they didn't feel that the application provided enough incentive for the City to give additional bulk in turn for the land cost of the parking structure. The application is that the applicant would provide the land cost for the City with regard to the underground parking structure and that the applicant would build above ground activity but the City would have to provide the cost of constructing the underground 7 PZMG.7.88 park ing . Sunny Vann: Because of Council's position and because of the applicant's inability to structure a deal or proposal that would work with the parking garage without increasing FAR up to the allowable zone district to make the thing work financially, that particular proposal is no longer valid. The main reason for continuing this process is the considerable amount of effort and time expended on behalf of the applicant to get some ideal of what is appropriate up there in terms of zoning. The fact that any subsequent development proposal would be subject to growth management this fall and that given the variety of issues surrounding that site--to come blind with no indication as to zoning from the Planning Office and the Planning and zoning Commission point of view would be another extremely costly undertaking. So we are not proposing to continue with the garage as originally submitted. We would like to discuss what is appropr iate zoning up there so that we might tailor an application for growth management this fall. So unless you want to pursue the original proposal we can move on to the zoning question itself. We amended our original application to include 2 other zone districts that would encompass the variety of the uses which the applicant is contemplating for the site. There is no formal decision yet as to what we are proposing but they could be accomplished either under the C-l zone district or under L-O Office zoning which was the original zoning on the site. Cindy: The alternative before you are the C-l with a 1 to 1 FAR and the Office Zone District. parking is totally out of the picture at this point. The question here is that we have a piece of property that is zoned L-3 in the existing Lodge situation. The applicants are requesting to rezone it to something. what we have got to look at is what is the benefit for the community in that rezoning. Does the existing zoning benefit the community and what does the community get out of a rezoning application. The issues here are that the short term accommodations report did indicate that the balance of small lodging in the community was an important issue for the community and the small lodges were one of the attracting forces to Aspen. So we tr ied to preserve those through the Lodge Preservation zoning. Now the question is whether L-3 there doesn't work any longer and should L-3 remain there. We have to look at that area of town 8 PZM6.7.88 and to what feels right. We do see some changes happening over there. The gondola. We have seen that as a good parking location and hopefully we will see some community parking in that area even if this site can't be a part of that. The staff didn't go into any detail with what other zone district might work here because they weren't applied for. We only feel that we can respond to what the applicant's request is. What it comes down to right now is what does the Office provide us. And the whole issue in the background is that this property used to be zoned Office before it was L-3 in 1983 and if we did allow this parcel to revert back to the Office zone district what would be likely to be there on that corner. Because of today's economics and because of the way our zone district is set up there is a real likelihood that we would see condominiums on that corner. And is that what the community wants to see? We have noted that the neighborhood commercial on the other side often has a 1 to 1 FAR and that we are not opposed to a 1 to 1 FAR in that area. The Office zone district is .75 to 1 FAR in that area with a chance to go to a 1 to 1 with a special review. Roger: The City Council zoned the Buckhorn Lodge Commercial Lodge 1 to 1, right? Cindy. Yes, with the conditional. That is also an option here. Not to forget that if an applicant agrees to a conditional rezoning then that is something that can work out. Michael: It just seems to me that to change the zoning from something that works out to something other than that without having any more information is operating in a vacuum. It seems to me that with the information from what I have seen so far There is no reason other than to leave it the way it is. Tony: The reason we are at this junction without the more formal information was we spent some funds and we have come through a pre-application based on certain input from the Planning and other offices namely that a garage was to be there. We designed a building, tendered a rezoning application. Roger was at most of the hearings including the hearing when the City Council basically decided without even looking at the plans that we had drawn. We had elevations. Then approximately a month ago City Council said "No way". Then we had to immediately change in mid-stream and come back in with something else. 9 PZM6.7.88 That is why we are here without a full set of plans. I could show you a full set of 1 to 1 which we drew but which nobody was interested in looking at. That is why there is nothing specific. We were told to do something for the City and the City decided they didn't want to see it. Sunny: Prior to even preparing the first application which included a parking garage and necessitated some kind of below grade development to help pay the way, the fact that the lodge would cease to exist was only fate. It was being sold. It was no longer going to be a lodge operation unless someone came out of the woodwork and wanted to run a small lodge in that location. The economics are such that 28 units simply don't compete and the monies required to upgrade that to be competitive with other small caliber lodge are fairly substantial. The application which we tendered was based on the could get as to what was appropriate on the site. not so much the uses but bulk. And do the uses location. best input we The issue was work in that Then the City Council decided that they were not even interested in'discussing the issue. The momentum was heading toward the Rio Grande site and because financing was only available for one project at a time and that provided the opportunity for the most parking since the other property owners in the general area of the Bell Mountain Lodge were not participating at this time, we had no other choice but to amend our application. There was some question as to whether it would automatically revert back to 0 Office. I was part of the L-3 rezoning. There were discussions at the time that to re-assure and entice owners at that time that for some reason if they tried to upgrade the lodges and it didn't work that it could be rezoned to the category for which it was before. It was zoned to use during the duration of its existence. That doesn't mean it can't stay L-3. But the ability to go back to the 0 Zoning was certainly something that was contemplated and discussed as part of the L-3 rezoning. Not h i n g is bin din g her e . Wh a t you are g i vi n g us is a recommendation to City Council. The 2 zone district categories that would be acceptable which are C-l or 0 Office is discretionary if we can demonstrate compliance with the criteria and the applicant has reasonable expectation of being rezoned. The fact that it would be nice to keep a lodge and there is nobody to run a lodge that wants to run a lodge does not seem reason enough to require it to stay L-3. 10 > PZM6.7.88 At this point O-Office would work in this case. C-l provides some additional FAR. We may not do a 1 to 1 project. Both of them have a maximum of 1 to 1. And the Planning Office has said 1 to 1 in that location would be an appropriate FAR. So FAR doesn't seem to be the issue. The issue is the actual zone district category. Both O-Office and C-l permit residential commercial and both, from a planning point of view,the types of uses that would be appropriate in that location. What we need is some indication that one of those categories is acceptable and would be supported when we submit our growth management application. Tony: If I were submitting a GMP application right now, I would be coming in for residential. As you probably know according to the realtors and what they project in town there is up to GO town house or condominium units to be built over the next 2 years. Sunny: It is for sale for re-development. The expectation is that once it is sold someone will develop it under an appropriate zone district category. And what we need is that category. Tony: I think there was a representation when these 2 projects were zoned L-3 and L-P that they were zoned to use and should they be torn down they could, subject to request, go back to the pre-existing zoning which in this particular case was Office. I think that representation was made. Sunny: The lodges were saying if you take away our non- conforming status, then we can improve and we can make it. There was no other lodge development in the community. The community can support those types of lodges in some number and they certainly are a viable part of the lodge base which we offer here. However, you are going to have a substantial number of brand new facilities that provide a higher level of service. But given the cost of upgrading the Bell Mountain Lodge they are competing in the same room cost market as some of the new.er facilities. It could continue to operate as is--as a lower income type facility except then you couldn't advertise the cost of the sale of it based on the revenues from the rooms. So you have a real quandary here as to whether you can keep all the small lodges in the community and whether you can afford to upgrade them to the extent that they can compete. We have had no significant activity in the last year or 2 in the L-3 zone to further upgrade. In other words those who have 11 PZMG.7.88 limited expansion capability to go back and put a couple of rooms in to condominiumize to make the numbers work, have already done so. And there has been no further activity since. Cindy: Some of them did come in under the L-P and are able to make it work. Tony: To build a thousand square feet of commercial space in this town right now, you need a per square footage return of $43.00 just to break even. That is before anybody makes a penny. In reality, and it is the next thing that is going to happen here, all this has done is it makes all the other rents go up until a level where someone can afford to get these new rents to build new commercial spaces. In terms of an N-C on this property--hardware and liquor store--$43.00 to $45.00 before the landlord breaks even. It is impossible. You are not going to see another commercial building in this town, I predict until the rents just go through the roof once again. The only thing I think you will see is the replacement of existing buildings where they have the credit so they don't have to meet these requirements. Sunny: Or you will see a mixed-use project where the residential return can help offset the cost associated with the GO% employee housing requirement. N-C, when you look at the zone districts it is almost regressive. N-C has the highest parking requirement and one of the higher employee generation rates for the lowest potential square foot rental cost. As the potential rental rate goes up, the requirement goes down. C-C has the least restrictive requirements in terms of cost to the developer with the highest potential return. A case can be made as to the appropriateness of either C-l or 0- Office. The Planning Office's concern with the C-l is that the potential exists in C-l to get a tourist oriented use and there is a concern about the creeping of that tourist oriented use toward the fringe of the downtown area. Welton opened the public hearing and asked for public comment. Joe Edwards: I am representing the neighbors to the west at the Chateau Aspen Condominiums. I think the Chateau would in summary support the recommendations of the Planning Office which were essentially that there are very limited small lodge zoning available in the town of Aspen. There is quite a bit of zoning available for commercial and residential. The whole purpose of the L-3 zone was a number of these lodges were complaining that they were non-conforming because they were in residential zones 12 PZMG.7.88 primarily and couldn't expand or remodel and couldn't upgrade their facilities to be competitive. So a special zone was created for them so that they could do just that--so that they could be preserved. So we support the Planning Office recommendation that those limited amount of small lodge parcels not be dumped. Essentially what you have heard here is "We can make more money of you give us a zoning change". Zoning is supposed to be presumed valid as it sits and you are not supposed to just ad hoc change it because the owner wants to sell it to a developer for more money because the developer can then build high end townhouses and make more money and that is a justification for a zoning change. Zoning change is only to occur when there has been a change in circumstances or in the surrounding community that justifies it. In the surrounding blocks around this parcel there has been no change in the last 15 or 20 years except Mr. Mazza's Mezzaluna project where he tore down the Texaco which severely impacted the westerly side of the Chateau Aspen. They built right smack up to their lot line. We look out our patio door windows at a wall now. The only way we got them to change a concrete block wall to a br ick wall for some aesthetics was he needed an easement to come onto our property for his footers. We feel impacted by Mr. Mazza and we are not excited about the prospect of him building a height variance beyond what is allowed in the L-P zone and do a big project across the street. I wouldn't really characterize his initial application as graciously as the Planning Off ice did. I would character ize it as being an attempt to get the City to pay for the entire cost of his foundation and give him a bonus in bulk and density to boot. That is what was happening to provide essentially what would be parking for his own commercial structure. There is a heavy burden to justify re-zoning. They have to show a change in circumstances. The surrounding blocks have been the same for quite a while. We do have the new hotel at the base but that is about it. The condominium owners request that you leave the L-3 lodge zoning in place. That is presumed to be valid. Unless there is some change in justification shown for it, there is no justification for the change. Vincent Capelli, Bell Mountain Lodge: I couldn't even afford to buy a house here. I have to go down valley. It is not making money. First of all I couldn't upgrade it or even make a recreation room in the basement. I couldn't do nothing because you always said no. Well, now I would like to sell it because you can't hold it much longer. I can't afford to operate it no 13 PZMG.7.88 more. And the City this way takes my livelihood away even if I rent it or if I sell it. I figured it out. After taxes and everything I can't buy a house here in town and I think I should be accorded that after being here for 30 years. Why is everything around building, building, building and the Bell Mountain Lodge they say no. One City official said to a neighbor "We let you build something--never--including the Bell Mountain Lodge". Such a statement is illegal. Making money, yea. I have to go. That is the City's fault because I could not upgrade it. It is old and keep it this way, no way. Sunny: On that change in conditions issue: There was no demonstration of change in condition when the property is rezoned. In fact there was considerable discussion as to whether or not it was appropriate since it was inconsistent with the master plan that was in place at the time. It was done primarily to assist the lodge owners that were there with the thought of saving some of our lodges. At this point that lodge ceases to operate. The changed conditions is the activity that was there which necessitated the or iginal zoning no longer exists. In that case a reve rsion to its original zoning would not seem to be a greedy request on behalf of the developer. It is a request that it be returned to the use that was originally designated as appropriate in that location. It will abide by the constraints imposed on. it by that zone district which is .75 to 1 and a maximum height of 25 or 28 feet and that the original proposal which was requesting to vary the height on your PUD to C-l was necessary to accommodate the garage. Welton then introduced into the record a letter from George Vicenzi & Company requesting that the rezoning for the Bell Mountain lots be denied. (attached in records) Welton asked if there was any further public comment. There was none and he closed the public hearing. Welton: I don't remember the specifics of any discussion about how easily we intended the L-3 zone to come and go on a piece of property. I would feel uncomfortable without making any kind of action and at this point without having the Planning Office do some research to find out what we were all thinking back then. Jasmine: I can't say that I remember all that precisely either. But one of the things that does concern me is that I can't believe that our intent was that any time a lodge owner decided he wanted to retire that the property could then get developed to 14 PZMG.7.88 the max. I think that the L-3 zoning was certainly aimed at helping the individual lodge owner but the implication of reversion on a very easy basis I think is a really scary thing. And I really don't think that that was what we had in mind. And part of what disturbs me about the applicant's entire application is that it is all based on development economics. I don't think that should be the focus or that that should be the focu.s that the p&Z is concerned with. And I really hate us to get sidetracked into who is making how much money by doing this amount of square footage etc. I just don't think that is appropriate. You can prove anything you want with statistics if you are sophisticated enough mathematically. So we have always avoided that approach to any kind of a rezoning change. I think that we do have a right an opportunity to conceptually discuss what we think is appropriate zoning in terms of community benefit. And I think we have a right to go by previous decisions that we have made in terms of what our intents were for development in that general area. And I think we can give the applicant that kind of input. The problem of development economics really has to be the burden of the applicant, not the P&Z. Michael: I understand what Jasmine is saying and I agree with it except I think that the economics are one of the factors to be taken into consideration if you are thinking about rezoning the property. And I think it is apparent that it is not economically feasible to upgrade this particular piece of property any more as a lodge. Jasmine: We don't know that. Michael: I think it is realistic to assume that it isn't economically feasible to operate it as a lodge any more without putting in a substantial amount of money. The lodge is competing with projects that are certainly far better than it is. I would be comfortable with a rezoning to Office with the idea that if it was residential there that is probably a less intensive use than a lodge with 29 rooms. They are not going to put up 29 residential units. I wouldn't feel comfortable with more commercial space being there. But if there were 4 townhouses or 5 townhouses put there I don't think that is any kind of adverse effect on. the community. I think it is something that may be a benefit to everybody else rather than having a second rate lodge sitting on the property that is only going to deteriorate further and never be a benefit to Aspen. Roger: I don't think C-l is appropriate for that parcel at all. I would really like to see a lodge stay there but I don't know if 15 PZM6.7.88 that is possible. That L-3 zoning was basically an overlay zoning district. And many of the concerns of the underlying zone district were applied to the L-3 zone depending on its particular location. So I think inherent in that is some right to the reversion to the underlying zoning. As much as I would like not to do that I think there is that sort of implied right to revert to the underlying zoning. I keep looking at the commercial lodge 1 to 1 on that little parcel at the end that the City Council placed upon us and I look at the neighborhood commercial across the street and to me it looks like an ideal place for a neighborhood commercial lodge. I don't know really what to do here and I understand Jasmine's argument wanting to preserve the lodge. It would certainly be one of my goals. But I don't think that we have the ability to enforce the preservation of a lodge in an L-3 or lodge preservation district. Ramona: I think it is appropriate to take it back to the Office zone. I don't see that you have another alternative. I don't think you can force an owner into running a lodge if he can't afford to run the lodge. That L-3 district was primarily imposed in order to preserve those lodges but it wasn't mandatory preservation so I would go with taking it back to the Office zoning although it is going to wind up condominiums. Cindy: We went through everyone of our files that we have in our office on the L-3 and with the assumption that it could revert back to Office Zone District if the lodge didn't really work. We did not find that in any of the documents. We didn't find it in the ordinance or any of the documentation--even in the memos that were written to the staff and even in minutes of all the meetings. We didn't find where anyone said "Hey, this can revert back to Office if it doesn't work for somebody as an L-3 Zone District". But in all fairness, Alan's recollection is that if a current lodge owner couldn't make it on a site, that that owner had the option of coming in and requesting it be reverted back to the Office Zone District. In what I know about zoning and planning you base it on the land and not the ownership. Sunny: It would appear that it should be able to rezone to at least compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. And it is 0- Off ice. 16 PZMG.7.88 Cindy: I think you have to look in that case at the individual characteristics of each zone district. An N-C zone district--we don't have much on that. We have got Clark's and City Market. Where else but in the N-C area being encroached upon--where else are we going to have locally oriented businesses in town. We are going to end up putting them out in the County--ABC, whatever. When the community went to L-C or L-3 in 1983 the short term accommodations report was overwhelmingly in favor of maintaining the small lodges in this area. Therefore we did what is essentially spot zoning and had its own characteristics in order to accomplish that. It probably is what lead us to do something like that. It is not a typical planning approach. Is that value still held by the community? Do we still want to maintain this area for lodge owners? Jasmine: If we were existing as a pure planning entity and we saw this parcel before us, what would we really think was the appropriate zoning for it regardless of whether you make or lose money on it. I think under certain conditions anybody can make or lose money on a piece of property depending on whether you are talking to the IRS or expect a fire. My point was I want to look at this property in terms of what we felt was appropriate from a community standpoint rather than whether or not it worked economically for anybody in particular. My own personal feeling about it is it might be appropriate for a neighborhood commercial. On the other hand I think a small lodge in that area, if there is ever an L-P that you want to preserve, what a perfect location. It is just a block and a half from the gondola. It is right on the corner-; It is a perfect place if you want to have skiers come and not have to use cars. And as Sunny pointed out you can't change anything else back into L-3. You have to have L-3 already in order to improve or expand it and to me this is a much more suitable location for L-P than a lot of the other little lodges that are further away which require better transportation to the ski mountains. If economics were not involved I think it would be ideal for a small lodge there. I would really hate to see any kind of commercial space located there unless it was very clearly an adjunct to a City multi-type of operation hardware store. I still think that is the best use for that property. It is a terrific place for a small lodge. Joe: I just wanted to say that there is a logical fallacy in saying that this property can't support a small lodge. Yes, Mr. Mazza cannot pay 1.9 million dollars for it and turn around and rebuild a new small lodge and make money but he probably could for 1 million dollars or some figure in between. So it is just a function of dollars here. If you give them the rezoning the landowner sells it for a higher price and Mr. Mazza gets to rent 17 PZMG.7.88 his square footage for a higher price. If you leave it as L-3 somebody will buy it for less money and will rebuild a small lodge. It is something that should be preserved. That is the whole purpose of the zone. Vincent: There is no way you can do it--a small lodge--no way you can do it. Welton: I think it is a perfect location for a small lodge. I am not buying the arguments about small lodges not mak ing it because I just finished as the architect for a small lodge. I has 11 or 12 rooms that I just extensively remodeled on Hopkins a few blocks from here. And they had the best season they ever had after basically doubling or tripling their rates but still keeping them incredibly lower than the Sardy House or the Lenado. I think there will always be a market for this type of lodge. We are telling a large segment of the market that comes to Aspen that we don't you anymore. Unless you can afford $300 a day for a hotel room, you are not good enough to come here. And so we are not providing those facilities. We are losing those facilities rapidly. So I am glad that the Endeavor has a new life as the Mountain House and still provides rooms for under $100 per night. I am terribly against taking part in this frenzy that is going on in that part of town for upper end townhouses which are a permitted use in the O-Office zone. I think we are going to find ourselves in a position where we were a few years ago with commercial where there was too much of it. We are going to end up with a whole lot of million dollar units and a lot of brokers trying to peddle them to a market that has already been saturated. So as much as I would like to accommodate your desire to retire and make a decent profit on the property that has been your livelihood for 30 years, there are a lot of things that bother me such as not really having the evidence that the option of reverting back to underlying zoning or original old zoning when it was not conforming was considered to be something that was easily accomplished back when all this took place. We have 2 people that are for and 2 people of a different mind on this. Michael: I would be uncomfortable in voting in favor of rezoning it to Office if we were taking something that was in an area that was all zoned one way and we were changing the zoning so that its economics got better and that the use got more intense. I think this is just the opposite. I think we are going here from an area that is predominantly Office and making this part of what 18 PZM6.7.88 that area is. I think this is just the opposite situation. I think we are really downzoning the property to make it from the lodge unit that is going to have basically 29 and employees to make 6 or 7 residential units there. I also don't think that we should be in the position of saying because we think that a lodge would be perfect for that site that the owner should be forced then to do that. It is obvious that in this particular situation that the owner has put 30 years into Aspen and has given Aspen 30 years of his time and now wants to move on and there is no reason why he shouldn't be able to move on with the best deal he can make. I am not sure that I agree that you can operate a lodge anymore. That particular building would probably take 4 or $500,000 to upgrade which would mean a substantial amount of money in so far as what their room rates would be. I don't know if on that basis it could compete with the Sardy House or the Lenado so I don't have any problem with turning around and in effect basically downzoning this particular property to residential. Welton: Less intensive uses are not necessarily appropriate a block and a half from the gondola. More intensive tourist uses, to my mind, are more consistent with the master plan that has gone on for 20 years. Michael: Then we should rezone the whole area from 0 to Lodge. Welton: My concern and is that you do take it to a less intensive use and then it ends up being a vacation or second home a block and a half from the gondola for somebody from Palm Spr ings or wherever. They use it for 2 weeks in the winter and it stays vacant until they decide to come up here on weekends for concerts and it doesn't do anybody any good. There is also a land plan. Sunny: In this particular case when you have someone who agreed to be rezoned for the opportunities that might exist under that to improve his lodge--he is not asking to be changed to commercial here. He is saying "I want to enjoy the same property right that is appropriate for my neighbors which is O-Office". Those people can build office space if there is a market for office space or they may build residential subject to ability to pay an allocation under growth management. The same conditions would apply to this owner. The real issue here is not so much which is the appropriate land use, it is how do you keep this thing a lodge. Can you force him to stay lodge or whoever else buys the property would also be 19 PZM6.7.88 a lodge in this location because of the fact that it was rezoned at his request a lodge in the past. Roger: Where I am sympathetic with your and Jasmine's position, I go back to what the L-3 zoning was and that was an overlay over an existing zone. Welton: Not really. It is zoning pure and simple. It is not an overlay. Cindy: In was an overlay to begin with but then it really was pure and simple zoning. Roger: FAR requirements of the L-P zone are different than the FAR requirements of an L-P zone in the residential district. And because the L-3 zone adopted the sur rounding limitations that infers it is an overlay district. This really isn't a zone district. It is a little spot zone. We figured out a way of spot zoning. Would a court support the community in trying to force that higher usage on a person in an overlay type of district or spot zoning? I don't think it would be favorable to the City if we kept at L-3 zoning. I think there is an inferred right to revert to the underlying zoning district. As much as I would like to retain a lodge on this property I don't think we have legal foothold to do so. Jasmine: I want to make the point that originally we were talking about L-3. The fact that you have changed the zone district to lodge preservation to me implies certain intent that is similar to historical preservation although the mechanics are different. My concern in this particular location as well as other properties is that if we really believe that a lodging mix is desirable and that the lodge preservation district is meant to encourage the preservation of lodges, I think that speaks to the intent. I also question people who keep saying that a lodge can't work economically. I don't think it is true. I think you can find people who could make it work if they really wanted to. Tom: As to what is the benefit to the community in the rezoning: Clearly our potential for buildout in lodge districts--we are pretty effectively built out for lodge zoning. We have got about another million two square footage of commercial zoning that is available over and above what we have now with the existing zone distr icts. The L-P zone in small lodges that are disbursed around the community, they are an important aspect to the community and of the social fabric. And perhaps the L-P zone 20 PZM6.7.88 was created to allow the lodge owner to make it work so that it would be conforming so that they could expand. We have heard that it is uneconomic. The burden of proof is rightly put on the applicant to demonstrate to the p&Z in this particular case that the lodge is no longer a viable entity. We are going to be getting more and more of these and what are we going to do in the future? Wel ton: The North Star Lodge has become defacto employee housing. It is not deed restricted but it is used for employee housing for the Jerome, Woodstone and Aspen Club Properties. The Alpina Haus and the Cortina are gone. One by one these lodges are turning into employee housing. The thinking was 15 years ago that all the lodging belongs up here. Let's make them non- conforming all around town the ones that are not in the Lodge District and let them die a slow death. Well, they started to die a slow death. Then came the realization that small lodges scattered all around town was a benefit to the community and an asset. You didn't necessarily have only one choice with a lodge at the base of the mountain. If you had a limited budget, you could find something. Michael: I don't know if it is a function of zoning to create something that the property owner doesn't want. Welton: The owner of the property wanted it several years ago. Michael: He wanted the opportunity or he didn't object to the opportunity to have that spot zoning or overlay put on his piece of property in case he wanted to improve it. I don't know if it is a function of zoning to make him keep it that way. It just doesn't make sense to make it that way. I don't know if it should be a burden on them to make them come in tell us economic data. I think the issue here is the area that the property is in is Office and it is not inappropriate then for that piece of property to revert back to Office rather than to make it a function of zoning to make him keep it as a lodge because we think lodges are wonderful. Welton: L on the side. It is not really Office. It has got N-C on one side, C- other side, C-l on the other side and Office on the 4th Michael: Then I would think that until we turn around and change all of that to Lodge then he should be able to pick anyone of those that he wants. And then he is consistent with the area rather make him do something that just doesn't make any sense to the owner of the property. 21 PZMG.7.88 Roger: My question to Fred is: It has been stated to us that a lodge is not a viable activity now in this L-P spot or overlay zone. They would like to revert to the original zoning which was O-Office. Does the community have the right to say "No we like the lodge so much there that you have to maintain a lodge operation on this property by virtue of maintaining Lodge Preservation Zoning". Fred: You have a right. You have a pUblic hearing. And at the public hearing the community can show and make whatever comment they feel is appropr iate. But the community does not dictate unless it is by referendum. But the zoning there is or isn't for a particular area. I think that burden rests with you. You have to look at the criteria in the new code to see whether the applicant meets each of the criteria set forth and if they do then I think you take it from there. You are appointed to use your best judgement to analyze the facts and put it in conjunction with the code and come up with a fair and just ruling. And to the extent that the public has a right to comment, that is the opportunity for the public to take comment. The Board is not the public. At this point in time if you have one member coming forth to ask a change, you have got criteria A through H set forth in the code. The discussion should be focused on whether or not the applicant meets that criteria. At the point where there is pUblic comment, then you get that response. Sunny: Then if you have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the p&Z that you comply with the criteria, the P&Z or the City Council says "That's fine, but we would rather it be a lodge" are they required to rezone? Or do you have that level of discretion even though the criteria can be met? Cindy: I think G, H and I criteria give you that flexibility in there that says "Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter". Michael: I don't think it is sUbjected to the point that you turn around and hit your wish list of what you want to be on the spot. That is what we are talking about. We would like to see a lodge there but I don't think it is fair to make somebody have a lodge there. And I don't think that the criteria are such that we are allowed to impose that desire into our subjectivity. Joe: Roger asked what the courts look at. The courts look at H, Roger. What are the changed conditions affecting the subject 22 PZMG.7.88 parcel of the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. The courts look at is there a showing of changed conditions to justify a zoning change from what exists. Jasmine: To my mind it is a state of community purpose and goal, an objective to preserve small lodges and I think that is a public policy and goes beyond a mere subjective decision that you want to have a small lodge on that location. A small lodge is there. The Lodge Preservation Ordinance was zoned to preserve that. That is a public policy. Roger: Here right in G, H and I, the way I am looking at it right now, we have a conflict built in. They can argue that there have been changes that occurred affecting the subject parcel. That is that it is no longer economic to operate it as a lodge from their viewpoint. By the same token whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and that is where I think it would be in conflict with the public interest to change it from lodge. I cannot vote on this yet. The only way I can vote on this is to be satisfied without a doubt that it is impossible to operate as a lodge. Sunny: This is an unreasonable request, Roger. Economic viability is a condition of landuse decision. We are not arguing that. Roger: Well, that is the only argument you have in favor of changing the landuse is that it is not economically viable. Sunny: My basic argument is that if it is no longer a lodge and someone does not want to operate it as a lodge and it was zoned to lodge at the applicant's request for the purpose of running a lodge, what can it be? What it can be is consistent with the surrounding zoning which is what it was before. It also happens to be that the reason why it is changing at this point is because the current owner doesn't believe it to be nor does this client believe it to be economically viable. Changing conditions is subjective. Community character is subjective. The public interest can be as narrow as "Let's preserve the lodge" to the broader context of balance and other considerations as well. We are in a category here where you can come up with some rationales to keep it or any way you want to read it. Jasmine: I think Fred's advice is really the most pertinent in terms of responding specifically to the criteria of the code and 23 PZMG.7.88 I agree that these must be somewhat subjective. MOTION Jasmine: I would like to make a motion to table this so that we could approach it from the point of view of look ing at it specifically in response to each specific criteria and come up with a basis to make a decision on that basis. Roger seconded the motion. Michael: I think it is unfair to the developer to table this. We have to recognize that the L-P was put there to facilitate preserving lodges but not to force somebody to do it. It was not an obligation because you had an L-P you had to upgrade your lodge. It was just put there so that if you wanted to upgrade your lodge you then had to zoning for that option. We are now changing that to make it an obligation that because you are in the L-P you must have a lodge. The Commission members then took a 5 minute break. MOTION Michael then made a motion to approve the zoning change to "0". Ramona seconded the motion. Roger: I do have a problem because I am not convinced that a lodge is impossible on that site. What I would really prefer is a motion to table so we could look at more documentary evidence. This is the only way I could vote either way on this. I feel an overwhelming community need to retain small lodges. However, I am not convinced that you have proved to me sufficient changes in that parcel that would allow me to approve the change in zoning. Michael: I withdraw my motion. Ramona withdrew her second to the motion. MOTION Roge r: Jasmine Meeting I make a motion to table to the meeting of June 21, 1988. seconded the motion with all in favor. was adjourned. Time was 7:15. Jk#Hdn~fiY 24