Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.101 W Main St-Molly Gibson Lodge.1979\O�AIN - 1�O -� - C) \ Molly Gibson Lodge Lots O,P&Q, Block 59 Aspen Townsite 7 JNO .A� : � : • `Yl84> /-`\LLLY rour;p rzee�At2 W/ ALUM //roes) '5 75'09' 1/" E `10.0Z L,-,r , —. , L..OT 'O" L-D7 'P LoT "R,' I m I m N - � NO, FL FL OYERtiHNC� i WO 5TORY WOOD 12AME DUILDINCy// , N 5l0.2 � wroD DF-Clc. Z D 3' .. PLANTE2� PLa1.iTEIL n (R 4-Z' — c SWIMMING POOL R 5' i 'RON FEf KE �1 �-PAILR0-.D 7iE GRIIII,O �N6 Nor?K�I-, -- ALPINE SURVEYS P.O. BOX 1730 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303 ° 925.2688 X I 5URVEYED , �, 13 77 C5. D(-HAFTED 7 - 2 M PQ r�vl5lcl�� 5AI615 OF 6EAR1NC-lam: FWND IONUMEHT5 AS 'SH WN- MAP PizFPARF.P 6Y ALPINE SURVEYS PGA eox 1730 ASPEN COLORAPO 9�5 ZCv56 5Ul?WEYW'5 CMTIFICATS I, JHMES F RE:EIZ, HERMY CERTIFY TI" 7 T1t15 MAP ACC.L1RPtTELY DEVICT,i A 5L)IZVI;Y MADE UNDR2 MY 5UPF-R- VI510N GN )UNE 15, Ig7cl , OF LDT5 " Q.. DLOCK -c9l , CfTY OF ASff-f4, COL(5IZA O. THE- TWO �v Ch2( WCCV PRAMS 50ILDIW-� WAS FOUND TO SE LOCATTED ENTIRE- LY WITHIN'' THE E)OUNPARY LINES Cr -RiF- A50VE rT-5CP-J5ED STY 1} LOCATION MCI DIMENSIONS GP ALL PUILDINOS, NPROVEMFl-ATS EA�IENT5 RiGHT5-OF-WAY IN EVI DENCE OR KNOWN TO ME AND Ef4- CKOA HMENT5 51( 01;;� 0H THBII�£ F REM1` ARE ArLL*ATELY 5l-IOWN. �' Ef) F KE:)E32 L.S 'I104 ALPINE SURVEYS ULY 197q TITLE IMi'KUYC.Mt.IVI �UKV1=Y LCfT'5 O, P, Q MOCK 59 CITY OF ASPEN, COLORAPO wu t-".: 1-r I i ::> CLIENT : JONE5 FOUND gk=EA1Z W/ALvM. rAP 1I ", 7- rn m k-47' L W,' F'L^ �Ctf' _• °�IR4� ScA.,.vuc ? Esc 'f- o--o4 a y -7F:--nor I10 F anni Pe&NZ "/ ALUM c"J' / r / Z5711 ) V Y. 0-1 "j\10 I � I I I NUJ. FL. OVE2rWNCTi/ ROOF UVEIC}1/JYCy __.-_ - -_� w000 DECK. PLANTEK FL^t TEiL �,.-AwTEF KON E ��-K----"lam F%'.ILRC1et� rrE c2r?-DrN� � � �� n r/ v-r r r w ry yr r�0rlK ALPINE SURVEYS P.O. BOX 1730 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303 ° 925.2688 J 3 11) DRAFTED: ' 7 rJ� O 5' 10' 20, 30' SCALE 1 ° - b' 5AZI15 GF POUND HONUMENT5 MAP YREPAKPP 6Y' ALPINE SURVEYS Pa OOX 1730 ASPEN GOLORAPO 9Z5 2Co 8P+ 5UWEYOWZ p CERTIFICATE I, J/1ME5 F REt)F—rZ, HERE6Y t--Zr IFY 7f1A7 THH5 KAPACWF:f1TELY PWICTS A 5LJIZVEY MAM UNDID MY SUPOR VI510N GN JUNF- 13 , Ic17-1, OF Lf7T5 "O" "7" E G7. 6LOCK- 91 CFTY OP ASPEN, COL012A1o, TttE TWO J C.'IZY WOOF FRAME 6U1 L D I fl� WAS FOUND TO SE LCX.A-TED P-471RE.- LY WITHIN THE 60UNDARY LINES Cr TI.1E A50VE PF-tCP-15EP a ROPCF-TY l-e LOCATION ANIP C�IMENSICkIS CF ALL. 13UILVIN65, !MPR0VE'ErAT51 E,Alj�-,VMENT5, P.SGHT5-0E-WAY IN EVI- DE.NCE OR KHOMATO ME AND Era- cRO�HMENTS 2W Or" CAI TH85£. �'t2EMt�E 5 Arv- ACLL*ATELY 51-IOWP1. rL) F C� L.S. �I184 ALPINE SUtZvEYS :ULY 197�1 -rr-r' c. Iin^CY,„"r r`.fG'LIT-)ItKw;�Y LOJT'5 O, 'P, Q MOCK 59 CITY OF ASPEN, COLORAPO ,J)C3 NO. : 7"? ?5 CLIENT : JONE5 � CITY OF ASPEN MEMO FROM RICHARD GRICE � LZU-� S9v� l QSPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE • 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES County 00100 — 63711 09009 — 00000 Subdivision/PUD 63712 Special Review 63713 P&Z Review Only 63714 Detailed Review 63715 Final Plat 63716 Special Approval 637117 Specially Assigned City 00100 — 63721 09009 — 00000 Conceptual Application 63722 Preliminary Application 63723 Final Application 63724 Subdivision Exemption 63725 Rezoning 63726 Conditional Use PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00100 — 63061 09009 — 00000 County Land Use Sales 63062 GMP Sales 63063 Almanac Sales Copy Fees Other Name: The Moll" "Ji Son 10 Project: 120 West Hopkins Address: "•7pen, CO 81611 Phone:�'r Check No. 71r�r," Receipt No. P Date: ,e 0 9 MEMORANDUM TO: t-Ron Stock, City Attorney Dave Ellis, City Engineer FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: Molly Gibson Lodge Subdivision Exemption DATE: August 8, 1979 Attached please find application for subdivision exemption filed by the Molly Gibson Lodge. This item is scheduled to come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, September 18, 1979. Therefore, may I have your written comments no later than Monday, September 10, 1979. Thank you. APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Request is hereby made on behalf of David F. Jones (hereinafter referred to as "APPLICANT"), under Section 20-19(b) of the Subdivision Regulations, for the City of Aspen, State of Colorado, for an exemption from the definition of the term "Subdivision" with respect forthe following real property: Lots O, P & Q, Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. It is submitted,that the request to the exemption is appropriate. This application involves the condominiumization of an existing lodge facility known as the Molly Gibson Lodge. If an exemption is granted, the owners of the property will have a common interest in the land, recreational facilities, swimming pool, parking area, utility rooms, laundry rooms, office and lounge area and there will be a condominium declaration and maintenance agreement auplicable to the property which will not in any way increase the land use impact of the property. No loss of tourist short term lodging facilities will result by reason of the exemption. A restriction will be provided in the declaration and covenants creating the condominium which will prohibit any residential or long term occupancy of any unit by the owner of said unit and will prohibit any activities which are inconsistent with the use of the lodae for tourist accommodations. No new kitchen facilities will be installed in any unit and a unified management organization for the lodge will be required. An exemption in this case will not conflict with the intent and purpose of. the Subdivision Regulations which are directed to assist the orderly, efficient, and integrated development of the City of Aspen, to insure the proper distribution of population, to coordinate the need for public services, and to encourage well planned subdivision. A strict ri 0 i interpretation and compliance with the Subdivision Regulations in this case would deprive the Applicant of the reasonable use of his land. The granting of this application will not under- mine the intent of the Subdivision Regulations as it is clearly within the area intended for exemption under Section 20-19. The building is already in existence, and there will be no change in density. The building contains 22 individual lodge rooms including a manager's unit which is utilized as full time housing for the on -site lodge manager. This use exists as a legal nonconforming use in the R-6 zone district. Many like uses exist in the R-6 zone and the degree of incompatibility with the neighborhood is minimal or nonexistent. The condominiumization of this use will not create a new nonconforming use nor increase the degree of nonconformity. No structural changes are contemplated and no change in use is contemplated nor will be permitted under the condominium declarations. The use will not change from its present use classification "accommo- dations". There are no existing residential tenants or leases applicable to the lodge unit and thereYore provision for low or moderate income housing as described in the Municipal Code for the City of Aspen is not applicable to this application. The Applicant would appreciate your consideration of this application at your next regular meeting. Dated: July 26, 1979 SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE By C Herbert S. Klein Attorneys for. David F. Jones 601 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)925-6813 - 2 - MEMORANDUM TO: Ron Stock, City Attorney Dave Ellis, City Engineer FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: Molly Gibson Lodge Subdivision Exemption DATE: August 8, 1979 Attached please find application for subdivision exemption filed by the Molly Gibson Lodge. This item is scheduled to come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, September 18, 1979. Therefore, may I have your written comments no later than Monday, September 10, 1979. Thank you. • l CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena �treet aspen, colorad-181611 October 23, 1979 Jeffrey H. Sachs, Esq. Sachs, Klein & Seigle 601 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Molly Gibson Lodge Dear Jeff: I am in receipt of your letter dated this date to the Mayor and members of the City Council of the City of Aspen. You seem to make the assumption that the City Council made its determination to deny the condominiumization of the Molly Gibson Lodge upon the mere fact that it was a non -conforming use. You are partially correct. The Council's decision was based in minor part upon my interpretation of Section 20-9 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. However, the motion as made included a specific finding by the Council that in their judgment -this division of property was within the intents and purposes of Chapter 20-referring directly to Section 20-2 wherein it is stated that one of the intents and purposes of the subdivision regulations is to "promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of and the visitors to the City of Aspen". I have been aware of one or two cases wherein a non -conforming use has been subdivided. So too has the Planning Office had such knowledge. However, we did not indicate in any way, shape or form to the Council that non-confomring uses had not been condomin- iumized in the past. we stated only that it was my legal opinion that Section 20-9 precluded such condominiumization. The legal opinions of previous City Attorneys are not binding upon me or this office. Those opinions are considered by me and are influen- tial in determining the effect of a particular section of the code, but if they have been incorrect, I am not bound to continue to misinform or to misapply the law because of their previous error, if such error has been made. I take objection to the accusations that I or the Planning Office have provided incomplete legal information to the City Council. The fact that another non -conforming use has been condominiumized }, Ate.�. iR.". I. -t �, -., ,,.T,_ ..ma's - �o -�{ . 1. .�s�.�".. 'i _ �. ��..1"' ..F r,.. _ �. .. �� • '. "''"< _� 0 0 • Jeffrey H. Sachs, Esq. October 24, 1979 Page 2 is not a legal fact nor can I agree with you that it is "critical information" or that it "would have definitely affected the judg- ment of some of the Council members". I do not consider such information relevant much less critical. Your application is for the condominiumization of a lodge. No previous lodge has been condominiumized which has been either a non -conforming use or a non -conforming structure. Further, I am unaware of any noncon- forming structure which has been condominiumized since I have made my interpretation of Section 20-9. In other words, when you argue about fairness, it would be unfair to approve your condominium- ization when we have steadfastly maintained that others could not so condominiumize. Since the question of whether or not a non -conforming use may be subdivided was only one element of the Council's decision, and a minor element at that, their action has sufficient justification to be upheld even if we would assume for the sake of argument that I am incorrect in my interpretation of Section 20-9. However, because it is my duty and function, I will advise my client that if one of the three members voting on the prevailing side believes that this additional information would have affected him in any way thus creating the possibility that he would have voted in a different manner he has the right to move to reconsider the deci- sion at the next regular Council meeting. Yours very tru y, " Pnal_dW. Stock City Attorney RWS:mc cc: City Council Karen Smith I r 3 • CJ PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING September 18, 1979 Verbatim of Mollie Gibson Lodge Request for Condominiumization Olaf Hedstrom - Mollie Gibson Lodge Subdivision Exemption Karen Smith - I am interested in having Ron partcipate because the recommendation to you on this subdivision exemption of the Mollie Gibson Lodge for the purpose of condominiumizing determines on a legal interpretation and is different from your deliberation on the Tipple Lodge in that this one involves a non -conforming use, in other words it is in an R-6 zone district and is not a permitted use in that district. The Code in Section 20-9(c) reads that "no subdivision shall be approved which includes elements not in conformance with the provisions of any applicable zoning ordinance or other ordinances of the City of Aspen or law or regulation with the State of Colorado." The interpre- tation here is that the use is not in conformance with the Zoning Code of the City of Aspen; and Ron recommends that that prohibits the conversion from the circumstance. We would -- Richard's. -memo also notes for your information that Ron is working on an amend- ment that would exempt from the GMP the conversion property from the non -conforming use that may have some impact here at which time we might reconsider a.n application of a conversion of that kind take up the elements of your review that consider for the Tipple Lodge. Herb Klein - My name is Herb Klein, I am an attorney for David Jones who is here on behalf of the Mollie Gibson. We request that the commission consider the merits of the application not- withstanding the City Attorney's recommendation concerning non- conforming use. I have, what I believe, would be very good legal arguments which indicate that, his opinion is incorrect and since he is not here to refute them, I do not know that it would be fair to go into them except there is one point that I think that even lay people, without legal expertise can deal with, and that is that the prohibition that he cites is that "no subdivision can take place with your elements not in conformance with the zoning for the City Ordinances, best position statements on non -conforming uses have legal rights to exist and to operate and change their use based upon the non -conforming use section of the Code. There- fore, they exist lawfully, and in the Court, with the zoning ordinances in the City, to be quite frank with you last Wednesday I got a call from Richard Grice who said that we were going to be bumped from the agenda tonite until October 23 because Ron Stock was too busy and didn't have an opportunity to give a review for this proposal. I told him that I thought we had been in the process for several months and that that would be grossly unfair to delay us by another month and to please explain this to Ron and ask him to come up with some memorandum, and even if it was a bad one -- and I guess I got what I asked for. The point is that, as you know, if there is some purely technical legal obstacle which I don't believe there is; but let's say that there is. But you feel that the merits of the application are good enough to proceed with them, then we can work that out and we are prepared to make what we think are persuasive arguments, provide you with some new information that you didn't have before you considered the Tipple Inn and we would like you to consider it on the merits so Mr. Chairman, if you would consider that, I would like Mr. Jones to proceed and help reveal some of the real problems that are bascially community which we think our proposal for condominiumizing lodges could alleve you. commission Olaf Hedstrom - I think the / would like to hear your client's comments. David Jones - First of all I would like to identify myself because when I first came to Aspen I just wanted to retire from the hassle and bustle of the big city which was Detroit. I was an industrial contractor at that time for 15 years and I was really getting weary of all that big city contracting operations so I came to Aspen and bought a little humble lodge with 20 units pretty plain I really didn't have any kind of image and I said "boy I want to keep a low key" and I just don't want too much "razzle-dazzle" and unfortunately I kept on a very low profile and very few people know me. Charlie knows me from one point of view, Roger knows me from calling him with emergencies, you're coming up pretty soon, Roger. Roger Hunt - Gee thanks David Jones - and the rest of you really don't know me. I own the Mollie Gibson Lodge 100%, we have 20 units, I like to think that it is the very essence of a Lodge, of an Inn, I am not a motel, I am not a hotel, I run a fine place, I have fins guests, I'm proud to have them at my place, they usually go away feeling very good, very comfortable, having had an unusual experience. On my letterhead, I say something to the effect - come join us for your Aspen experience, it's real it's not kicks, it's not public relations stuff. I mean it, that's why I came here was to enjoy. Well, we have some ( ? ) knowlege on the Mollie Gibson Lodge, but I own a place that you may have seen in some ads in the newspaper that simply say Aspen Ski Lodge and showing aspen grove trees with a nice border and that's about all it says. It happens to be in the old Smuggler I don't know if any of you have ever stayed there or had friends stay there at the old Smuggler Lodge, it's just a delightful place. I know what it's like, I think it's a (Flavella spanish term?) in South America, we call them Ghettos, it was a tragic place, one down at the hills uncared for through a process of years of abuse and neglect, both on the guests part and on the ownership; well my partners and I have elected to create a brand new entity of the ( ? ) and call it the Aspen Ski Lodge. We put the word Aspen on it because we think it is going to be repre- sentative of the quality that should be and can be Aspen. I am picking my words very carefully. I can assure you that it will be the finest Lodge Aspen has seen, and probably will ever see because economically, I don't think it can be done again. We took a terrible place and are creating a fine place. However, in order to do that, it costs money. I am going to discuss with you economics and nobody likes to hear economics, but I have some hard facts for you to consider. It costs money to live, you have to buy groceries, you have to put gasoline in your car and it doesn't cost $.39 a gallon anymore. You have to buy clothes, levies don't cost $9.95 anymore and the same way with business. Business costs are becoming fabulous. I just wrote a statement that will ( ? ) cost 13% inflation. I don't know if you people are upset about that, but I am concerned. I am starting to read the Wall Street Journal again. I am trying to get a pulse on what's happening. That's who I am with respect to my vested interest. I am a lodge owner and I am a lodge manager, I am building, I am a long time guest of Aspen, I have selected Aspen for my home. I was talking with Charles Isreal whom most of you know and we both were talking about where would we live if we didn't live in Aspen and the answer is there is no other place for us to live. So I am here for a long time. I am not a real estate developer I'm just a businessman who happens to own two lodges and who has selected Aspen because I am fond of the climate, I am fond of the people, I am fond of the total environment. I have also participated in this town. I have given up my time when I couldn't give of it, I took it away from my family to give to the town, I am a former past president of the Aspen Lodging Association, also a member of the condominium manager's association executive board by their invitation, also an executive member of the executive board of the Chamber of Commerce; and several ad hoc committees with respect to the community. I have participated, I have given. I tend to be a little outspoken, I will tell you what to do. That's what I am doing tonite. I think the problem we are dealing with right -3- now doesn't have anything to do with condominiumization of the Mollie Gibson Lodge, the condominiumization of the Tipple Inn, it has to do with the viability of Aspen as a communicty. Aspen's community is slipping. You may have read about it in the newspaper, let's not let Sun Valley happen here. Let's not happen vailification and if you pardon the expression Californication, you're working on it. We have problems. The viability, the economic viability of a small lodge doesn't happen anymore. I can't make it, I run the business, I think I run the best place in town. I can't make enough money to do it. I have 8 rooms that I would dearly love to do. I would like to take my lodge, which is lovely, but needs upgrading, I would like to upgrade that. I can't do it. The parking area, I would really like to do something of that. I am not proud of the shortcomings of my lodge and I am speaking for lodge owners in general and I have spoken with them and tell them what I am doing and why I am doing it. I cannot economically make enough progress to do what has to be done, that is to make our lodges (i.e. my lodge or any other lodge you want to mention) to bring it up to first class. We have declining lodges, they are terrible in tragic shape and who is doing something about it. I did something to mine for $200,000.00 of the Mollie Gibson and you know what? I have 8 rooms yet to go. I spent one million two hundred thousand dollars on the Aspen Ski Lodge, I haven't opened it. $85.00 per night; $150.00 to $125.00 a night; $150.00 per night because don't like the ( ? ) . The finest lodge in town, however, if we didn't have certain situations that existed with respect to zoning, I am not pushing the epicacy of the building pros, I agree with them wholehartedly. But when I tell you it cost me $200,000 to $250,000.00 of more money just to build the Aspen Ski Lodge, Aspen's finest, I'm telling you we are spending more money than we have to. Who pays for it. I either pay for it by loosing money or the guest pays more money $200,001 extra on the building; because of the building, because it is so important. David Jones - Are you familiar with the Zoning Code with respect to the Aspen Ski Lodge? David Jones - No, what building requirements David Jones - I'm not really sure we should even get into that because that is a whole argument into itself and I think Karen would agree with me Karen -- absolutely true David Jones I mean we have just been through it, Karen and Ron Stock Roger Hunt - Well let's get back to the Aspen Ski Lodge and get to the main point here then David Jones - Well, do you know the point I'm discussing? Roger Hunt - well, I'm trying to, but you allude to one thing - it cost you $200,000.00 extra, yet you are not willing to discuss it at this point. David Jones - Roger, we are talking economic liability Roger Hunt - O.K., but we asked you a question --what was the $200,000.00 you are talking about Olaf Hedstrom - Let's get back to the Mollie Gibson and the justifications that you have for -- I said you could give us your information that would convince us the merits of your request. While we have all this background, let's get down to the substance. 0 - 4 - 0 David Jones - How many agree that the lodges in town are in poor repair. O.K. we have at least one concurrence there. That's what we are dealing with, they are either in poor repair or in need of upgrading in some Olaf Hedstrom - we have that, let's get to the Mollie Gibson case. David Jones - Would you agree that the economic viability of the small lodges is no longer any kind of strong point they cannot make it as a lodge? Do you agree? Olaf Hedstrom - whether we agree with that, we will accept that. David Jones - O.K., that's fine Olaf Hedstrom - on the premises for what say David Jones - If I am to be granted condominiumization of the Mollie Gibson Lodge, I intend to have every room upgraded to the best quality that I already have that's well regarded in town as the best, my entire lodge will be upgraded and all I will have done is change ownership, I will not have changed use one. Consider what I am saying. The only change I am asking you is to allow me to change my style of ownership. I am not changing a thing. I am not changing coffee cake, I'm not changing my ice machine, I'm not changing my landscaping, I'm changing nothing but ownership. We are talking condominiumization as a form of ownership. We are not talking about building kitchens, kitchens my friends are a pain. Besides, our guests don't come into Aspen to cook. Many of my guests are interested in buying a condominium at the Mollie Gibson Lodge which consists of a ( ? ) with a queen bed, a refrigerator, and a fine view, and our continental breakfast, and whatever nice things we do. That is what condominiumization of the Mollie Gibson means a change of ownership. Herb Klein - I would like to make a point, that condominiumization can be a very effective financing tool. Right now the only way a lodge like the Mollie Gibson can raise capital to make these kinds of improvements is to raise the raise ( ?) to the tourist. The problem that the town has is that when tourists are paying higher rates than they have to pay elsewhere and they are getting poorer accommodations for their dollars, eventually, the community itself is going to suffer. If condominiumization is allowed, David can go to the bank and collateralize his mortgage to make those improvements and only result in a very incremental increase in rates to cover that amortized mortgage. The way it is right now, they look to David at his personal resources and he is pretty well over -extended at this point, so the improvements can't be make. It's the same for every other small lodge in town. Any- one who has bought a lodge in the last 5 to 7 years has a very high basis in that property and there is no way -- they paid probably 80% of the purchase price just for the land with a very poor physical plan and there is absolutely no way that they can raise additional money under conventional finance and these people are already extended, so what do they do, they pass it on to the tourist and eventually the town suffers. Our community has a 10 million dollar budget coming up this year. We have got to pay the piper, we have to make sure that the tourist dollars are there to support the sales tax revenues, we have to make sure that the property taxes ( ? ), there has been very strong con- sideration given to real estate transfer tax, the condominiumization of lodges to result in additional revenues to the town on that score. Olaf Hedstrom - O.K., any questions for either Mr. Jones or Mr. Klein? Roger Hunt - I certainly have some. O.K., there are a couple of concerns I have, you alluded to one of them here. The rooms are going to have a refrigerator, how are you going to prevent hot plates in those rooms converting into dwelling units and how do you prevent an owner who ownes a unit in that whole complex from • • 5 - doing what he wants to do with that unit? Herb Klein - There were some documents submitted on the record from the Tipple Application from local examples from the Stone - bridge, Crestwood, I'm not sure if there was one or not from the Pokolodie. But it added probably 160 units that were represented by those documents there were 2 units that were held off the market by the owners; and I know if Richard Grice was here, he would say if it was 1, it was 1 too many. But the town is loosing more by not allowing these lodges to upgrade than they could ever possibly use from some "fat cat" owner who decides he wants his little nest in Aspen and he doesn't want anyone else to use it. If that happens 1% of the time, the statistics indicate that it is less than 1% of the time, it seems that on balance it is an acceptable loss compared to what the town is basing otherwise. Our position is we really don't have a viable alternative. We are stuck between the proverbial rock in a hard place. Roger, there is no way that you could nail somebody down to promise forever not to do or to do something. You throw them in jail if he does it, but that's too late, he has already done it. That is the only way the system can work. There is no such thing as prohibitions that occur before the violation. All prohibitions occur after a violation and the damage is usually done, so we have to look at it from a position of what alternatives are there. Roger Hunt - O.K., we come down though to -- you indicated that unified management organization for lodge would be required. I would like to see it on paper and how you are going to do it, because the Tipple Lodge couldn't come up with a gosh darn piece of paper that would with writing on the paper that would satisfy me that that lodge would be operated as an entity, it would have the amenities of the lodge and that all the units in the lodge would be rented by one organization. Herb Klein - There is a distinction between the Tipple and the Mollie Gibson on that. The Tipple, I understand was converted from the residential duplex. It didn't have the lodge amenities to begin with. The Mollie Gibson is built as a lodge and can only be operated as a lodge. We would have no problem with restrictive covenants in the condominium declarations that require unified room management. If that was breached, every other owner and the rental management entity, as well as the city if we made it part and parcel of an agreement on condominiumization. All those individuals and entities could enforce it. Roger Hunt - O.K., well, if that's the case, I don't have that much of a problem with it. But I haven't seen the writing on paper yet that can accomplish it and the lawyer for the Tipple Lodge said, "to accomplish such a thing means that we have to go through an additional $50,000.00 for S.E.C. approval" or some crazy thing like that. That was their rationale. Is that the case, or is that not the case? Herb Klein - I think that if there are other governmental regulations that we have to deal with, that is our problem and I don't propose to make that your problem. I think you have to deal with Roger Hunt - I don't have a problem with how many owners, I have a problem with how it is operated. Herb Klein - Right, well we can deal with that. Whatever it takes we can. David Jones - It can only be operated as a lodge Roger Hunt - Those are nice words, I agree with that, that's great. - 6 - Olaf Hedstrom - That isn't so. I must take issue of that. I mean if the owners decide not to operate it as a lodge, you don't have to. I mean it's built for a lodge and functions and ideally it is a lodge, but that doesn't mean that they can't decide to accept the loss of operating as a lodge and just cease operating as a lodge. They can do that if they want to. Herb Klein - I have advised David that under the current zoning he could go and tear it down and build a beautiful luxury duplex and sell the thing for 1/2 a million to one million dollars more than he could sell the Mollie Gibson Lodge right now. Olaf Hedstrom - Lee, do you have some questions? Lee Pardee - No, I think the Mollie Gibson is what David Jones is and if he were not there, and if it were condominiumized, it becomes very similar to a Tipple situation where there is not the incentive to have the services that the lodges provide. They have the incentive now because he ownes it out right and he wants to make a profit out of it. Owner's, I think, have less of an ability particularly absentee owners to control such services and I don't think they end up with the kind of service that the lodges have, witness the condominiums, you don't find it. Olaf Hedstrom - No law or written agreements and statements and restrictions can take the place of the interest of the individual owner when it comes to what you accomplished. I think you are right, Lee, and it is a good thing ( ? ? ) again the owner. David Jones - I also want to mention that I must know 20 people who don't rent units and it is happening more and more as units become more attractive and better for people who can afford the $200,000 to $300,000 units aren't concerned about the modest incomes they get at the risk of ruining their furnishing. I think that as Aspen becomes more affluent, we become much more -- the loss of rental units, short term units become a much bigger problem and by more condominiums not being rented there is short term pressures loss of short term units. We are about to loose the Mollie Gibson for short term units. I cannot afford to do it any longer in its current configuration and not financially -- you know this is interesting because the arguments incurred have mostly said that since the conditional use would not allow to improve and that is the reason the lodges are not improved. Roger Hunt - you mean non -conforming David Jones - non -conforming, they are not able to improve and maintain the properties. Now that we are making unavailable, it is becoming much more of a question of well, even if we can legally improve our properties, we can't financially make it. That argument is all of a sudden new that we are allowing the alternative Herb Klein - economic run a way (?) if that's the problem David Jones - Tell me why we have no lodges being built in the other ski areas? They are building condominiums. It is not a viable entity any longer. They ask for help, are you going to give the help now? It's too late Olaf Hedstrom - Excuse me, Welton, do you have some comments or questions? Welton Anderson - Very sympathetic to your financial position. I really haven't changed any since the Tipple Lodge as far as my attitude about condominiumization and what the effect of subdividing a small subdivided parcel of whatever in this town so everyone can own a piece in Aspen. What that effect will ultimately have? • • 7 - David Jones - Can I answer that, you hit on a very sensative point that has not been brought up. We are discussing here and what you said about the Tipple Lodge is that condominiumization would be detrimental to the tourist housing supply in that it opens a possibility for reducing that supply. I would like to say that positively speaking, condominiuization of the Mollie Gibson Lodge brings in 20 owners who will now, when you are racked into Aspen as guests, they then treat a momentum a snowball going down getting momentum, spinning off referrals of friends, relatives, acquiantances. ? - We are full David Jones - We aren't full, we aren't full, I was 88% marked, I was 88% in February and check the statistics in town and if you are pleased with that, then I am shocked. We aren't full, we are not. Olaf Hedstrom - That is beside the point, continue Welton Anderson - I can see the benefits as far as upgrading and the problem that we are facing is that here is one application where it would really be very good probably you, for the town, and everybody, if you were allowed to do it. But the people that were at all the Tipple Lodge meetings that were there as representa- tives of people that own other lodges to see what the feeling of the board was. It's like a dam about ready to break. It can happen to every lodge in town, everybody has their own ,set of circumstances. I think though what we are concerned with what we are concerned with over there and here too, is the breaking down or the lack of any coherent to break something in 20 different owners. This unit is only occupied 2 weeks a year because most keep it off the market -- this unit is this way, this unit is that way, there is no management, there is no coffee cake in the morning, bus service or shuttle service from the lodge to the airport go back and forth. Thought occurred to me that I would be a little less adament against condominiumization if perhaps we could talk about condominiumizing 1/4 of the units and you would be the owner of the other 3/4. That would give you some real income from selling any of those units to do the upgrading. But 3/4 of the units still stay under 1 management and those amenities that have always been there by virtue of doing it that way will probably stay. Roger Hunt - That's reasonable ? - That's a good Idea (I think you said that Herb) David Jones - That' s very reasonable or you might carry it a little bit more logically that we could have a programmed release of condominium units over a period of 4 or 5 years. That may be the way it would have to be done anyway. Olaf Hedstrom - Joan, I haven't heard from you Joan Klar - And you will -- I had a question in if David, if you were to redesign the percentage with the funds under the non- conforming use section, I believe it is 10% I believe it can be used to up -grade a non -conforming use facility-- if that were to be changed somehow, if that part of the requirement of the Code, would that help your particular situation out. David Jones - It would have helped me four or three years ago, but now the economic situation is substantially changed that is no longer econically plausable to do that. In order to do the improvements, if you allow me to do any improvements I want, more than 10% I'm doing 130% improvements now, at the Smuggler, I didn't intend to, but I sure got sucked into that baby and we keep putting more money into it. Olaf Hedstrom - Excuse me, Roger, just for a moment, should we hear him now, I'm sorry to interrupt,we have another meeting David Jones - Well no I can say ( ? ) meeting ? - Our codes are set up in such a way that we created a down- ward spiral. We made it impossible for you to up -grade your lodging as a result of those codes we also ? Someone whispering in the background (those were my arguments two years ago.) ? continued - set up the system so you that you couldn't make money. As you can't improve the lodging, you can't compete. That's what we did to you. NOw we are and over this winter, we will find a method to allow for those lodges which exist, which is the Mollie Gibson to be reconstructed without limitation as the 10%; just as the Smuggler was the first one certainly was a varied of standard set of policy. But toward the end of that approach, before the Board of Adjustment, you had me convinced and I have thought with the numbers here by the Zoning Commission that we have a majority of them convinced. There will be proposals through this winter. I don't know, I can't tell you if it will happen in two or four weeks, but I know that before construction season comes next summer, we are likely to have adopted so ( ? ? ?) into the lodges and hopefully it will also cover Mollie Gibson which is not facing Main Street so that you will be able to upgrade it. One of our main problems that we had when we did a review of how Aspen was seen by Travel Agents throughout the country when the Chamber of Commerce went out and did their review under the central reservations systems they have, they found that we wanted to consider to be first of all high priced, second of all we were snobish and did not treat the tourist well and thirdly that we had a reputation of being high priced because the quality was so well in the housing industry. They have brand new lodges in Vail. We weren't considered as (?) we were considered as being second class because they have never been upgraded and we have to change that and we have to change the image of Aspen and we have to make it possible to lodges for the Town. Turned tape Olaf Hedstrom - that introduces entirely new element that we have never heard before, that even if they can do all the improvements that these new regulations, revisions contemplate, they still can't afford to do it because there is no way to make it pay off. Herb Klein - There is another point, it says it is very difficult to finance ---- David Jones - The upgrading, and what you say, I must admit I am pleasantly surprised Ron that you have got such a handle on it, you have nailed it right down to the problem we have and were are I would love to work (?) spiral and in your absence try to describe the falling decline of Aspen. Not too many people Olaf Hedstrom - Let's gel to the meat of this thing here. I mean it's all very interesting, the background and but I would like to ask Ron now to refer to your opinion Ron Stock - I think legally until I review my position, but my position has always been that there is a provision of our Code that says that we cannot condominiumize if they are a non -conforming use basically it is more than that. That, at least, is one of the elements I had advise here that I couldn't review before this particular meeting and so I would retain the opinion that I always had that ( ? ) in Aspen. The question that he has is can we logically have such a provision in the subdivision and I said we don't any opinions on whether it is legal for us to have that position in that I have not done all the research necessary. But the theory of our Code says that if new property subdivides a piece of property that is net non -conforming use. I point out again to the Planning and Zoning Commission that we have created 21, 22 whatever the old book was in that the GMP tells him that he cannot convert to residential construction to residential units, despite the fact • 9 - that that is what the zoning code requires you to do, or is pressing (?) to do by putting restrictions on reconstruction. We have the situation where if you must construct in order to modify from a nonconforming use to a conforming use you must go through the GMP and get approval. That position means that the zoning code tells him to switch over from a lodge (?) to housing and GMP says that you can't switch over from a lodge to long-term housing. We must seriously consider adopting an amendment to the GMP that exempts modification from a nonconforming use to a con- forming use to allow us to have both codes say the same thing. Roger Hunt - the only problem with that, Ron, is that you still loose towards beds that way. There is no pressure to do resi- dential. What that does is give you one out (cars going by) ? simply not appropriate from conversion to long term housing so what that means is you destroy what you have you rebuild the number of units you have into a different form of structure to be long term during the process of construction. (someone coughing) units and they go for a high price because you have to cover not only the cost of construction, the cost of value of the land, but you also have got to cover the cost of demolition and what you still invested in the property so that means that any units you build will wind up being long term but nontheless sold to secondary owners (talking to soft) Herb Klein - I would like the opportunity to respond to City Attorney's opinion Olaf Hedstrom - I'm sorry that this commission will have to rely on the advice of the City Attorney and there is no use to responding because that is his advice. If you have some need for discussion and intend to if you wish to ask the attorney to revise his opinion that he has given us, we consider it or change it that is fine, not at this time at this meeting. That is a matter for you to take up with Ron Stock. I will entertain a motion to recommend denial of the subdivision exemption for condominiumization of the Mollie Gibson Lodge based upon Section 3-9(c) of the Municipal Code which states "no subdivision shall be approved which in (?) and conformance to its revisions of any (it sounds like he is speaking with a mouth full of mashed potatoes)zoning ordinace or other ordinances to the City of Aspen." Joan Klar - I have a question for Ron. Ron, what's at the basis for this new plan. Have you started gathering data for this or are you working with various elements of the community. I share a lot of David's concern in the decline of our tourist facilities throughout the City and I think it is a fairly immediate problem and I know we have a lot of immediate large problems on our agendas but I was just curious as to this planning effort that you were referring to and when it was coming on line. Ron Stock - You received the first memorandum dated September 18, probably this evening from Richard Grice and Karen Smith on Report on Lodge (someone is turning their page in front of the microphone) (?) I think the approach �� may be a logical approach. We are going to I to you something on this within the next few weeks. I would like to recommend some modification of the language that they have but I like the approach that they are taking and one of two approaches you can take -- you can modify the nonconforming use section in your code or you create a zone district or modify your existing zone district so that lodges exist out there and they continue to exist. One of the problems, the reason you may want to go with rezoning in that area is that the argument that I hear from a lot of these owners is that the-ewners-will in order for me to be able to go out and redevelop my property, I have got to have a few more units than what I have now. Well that is different than saying we want to build a brand new lodge of 40 units on Main Street. It is someone who comes along and says I only have 12 and I can't economically have the staff to run that office for 24 hours a day that is necessary the service that is being demanded from me with the number of units I have and (?) rental rates in Aspen what I can expect to get off those units. I happen to have 24 or 30 or whatever the number is and we have,tq,lgok at first;of all whether they are of economical siz6` �''` Swiss Chalet has only 9 units and we have to look at some of those other lodges that • - 10 - and determine -- do you want to allow them to expand or remain the same number of units. If you want them to remain the same number of units, you restrict your existence so only those that are economical after they are reconstructed and then this is the best way to go. The problem with the other approach and the problem neither planning or I have been able to solve is how do I turn around and tell Mollie Gibson you can have another 10 units which is what this series brings you up to the point which are economical. Even though you have to go through the Growth Management Plan to get approval from the Growth Management Plan so that we still stay consistent, I would like to tell him that he can do that, but I tell Lee that he can't go build a new Lodge on Main Street. Olaf Hedstrom - yes, those problems are going to be very per- tinent when we get around to that -- thank's very much, Ron. Is there a second? ? - Second Olaf Hedstrom - Any discussion? All in favor? I was to call your attention and remind you that Ron Stock and the Planning Office is working on an amendment exempting from the GMP conversion the property from non -conforming to a conforming use and as that proceeds to and whatever satisfies the council, that will completely by- pass the basis on which we ddm$+Ad this request and it would be appropriate for submittal/ of that time. And we appreciate very much here the merits of which were very S@fbj�ncing and would be pertinent to be on record, if it comes/ us again after this amendment -- yes, Roger Roger Hunt -- I'm worried that condominiumization seems to be at this point the only way out for these places. I know that it is not up to the City to try to figure out financial problems like that, but it is a problem that we are going to have to address and readdress and is there any other type of entity that can divide ownership without having to give someone a let's say a fee simple room out of the whole group. In other words, either incorporating or making a cooperative out of a lodge as opposed to condominiumization so you can keep it a one entity operation. This is one of the major problems with condominiumizing a lodge is that it becomes becomes disintegrated, how do you prevent one unit owner using heaven knows who else to rent that unit out of a whole group. Do you see the problem? This is the problem we have with the Tipple. Herb Klein - I represent a couple condo associations and some of them have gone to in-house short term rental management, this is for residential condominiums and we have been able to designate give exclusive authority from one rental management entity Roger Hunt - In otherwords a condominium association will hire one and only one Joan Klar - yes Roger Hunt - management and rental activity for their units Herb Klein - that's right and they sell the standards, if they want coffee to be taken in the morning, that's in their (?) for contract Joan Klar - yes David Jones - rental pool would require an SCC registration. The one's that I have worked on, if it's voluntary by the property -- Herb Klein - if they are voluntary, so that you don't have to short term, this is different than the lodge situation, but if you don't have to short term than you don't run across the SCC. In other words, if people say -- O.K. number 1 I'm going to make the decision to short term, now what do I do? and then they are required to use a designated rental agent, that's o.k., that's no problem for the SCC because they have the ability to make the election whether or not to short term. Now the lodge you would want to require them to short term azd there are two ways you can do it one or the other or a combination of both. One is that you would require that there be exclusive in-house management and you just say you must Roger Hunt - yes. Herb Klein - make them available through this management entity. That runs into problems with the SCC, but again that is not your problem. The other is to place an owner use restriction on it. Now if you only place an owner use restriction on it, that means that the market forces will make that owner, if he can only use it himself for a short time during the year for a couple of weeks, that doesn't run into problems with the SCC and the market forces will require him to short term rent it the rest of the time. The only thing that doesn't nail down is the owner who doesn't want to rent it at all. Roger Hunt - yes. Herb Klein - and I submit that that there are very few in that category. ? - maybe not -- condominium would definately Herb Klein - in a condominium -- but in a large room ? - be possible to avoid SCC restrictions to require that the furnishings be standard -- I would be interested in exploring Weltons Herb Klein - yes, I thought that was interesting ? - 25% or something like that, period so that David Jones can be there serving hot rolls in the morning and he cares about it because the if it were a condominium association wouldn't care. David Jones - you're pressing both your points and Roger, specifically what I failed to mention was that there are problems that are (?) a David Jones Management Corporation which would, indeed, be headed by a fellow by the name of David Jones who cares to stay here and live here and probably still live at the Mollie Gibson because my guests are my friends. Roger Hunt - Well, if we can keep that on the Land Use basis, fantastic ? - everyone laughs David Jones - explain to you a very serious problem and the only viable answer that we have been able to come up with today and with respect to the 25%, that's a good idea, I'm not sure quantitativel, that is enough and I'm not being greedy, I'm being academically correct. I don't know what it would be, it would take some determination, but at least it's a start in the right direction and acknowleges our problem Olaf Hedstrom - yes, I'm glad you realize that we do appreciate your problem and was instructed to learn for the first time from you and perhaps, with some help SACHS KLEIN & SEIGLE JEFFREY H. SACHS ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERBERT S. KLEIN 601 EAST MAIN STREET JON DAVID SEIGLE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (303) 925.6813 October 23, 1979 Mayor and Members of Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Molly Gibson Lodge Dear Mayor Edel and Council Members: DENVER OFFICE: 1880 LINCOLN STREET -SUITE 1518 DENVER,COLORADO 80264 303 ) 837.8800 At the City Council hearing_ on October 22, 1979, the Council. voted 3 to 2 to deny the request for exemption from subdivision rules to approve the proposed condominiumization of the Molly Gibson Lodge. The Planning and Zoning Commission had previously recommended denial of the condominiumization of the Lodge because it is a non -conforming use located in the R-6 zoning district. At the City Council meeting, this legal question was debated fully and the City Attorney gave his opinion that the condominiumization of a non -conforming use is not permitted under Section 20-9(c) of the Subdivision Ordinances. Unfortunately, at the time of the City Council meeting, it was unknown to the City Attorney, Planning Staff, Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council and attorney for the applicant that in .fact a prior condominiumization of a non -conforming use had been accom- plished. This is a very unfortunate matter, and it is obvious that knowledge to all agencies and persons concerned that a non -conforming use had previously been condominiumized would have been critical infor- mation affecting the judgment of the City Council and City Attorney. I am enclosing a copy of the memorandum to the City Council dated June 8, 1976, concerning recommendations as to the proposed condominiumization of the Scott office building. The memorandum clearly indicates that the building is a non -conforming use (offices) within the R-6 zone. This subdivision application was processed in due course and was approved by the City Council in June of 1977. The condominium documents were recorded in the Pitkin County real property records on July 7, 1977. Review of the applicable file at the Planning Office will indicate that the non -conforming status of the building was known to all persons throughout the subdivision process. I sincerely regret that this fact was unknown to the Council members and other persons involved in the discussion of the proposed condominiumization of the Molly Gibson Lodge. However, the problem Mayor and Members of Aspen City Council October 23, 1979 Page two remains as to what action can now be taken to correct this matter in light of the previous actions of the City in approving the condominiumization of the Scott office building. It is respectfully requested that the City Council schedule a re -hearing of the Molly Gibson Lodge application based upon the discovery of new and extremely pertinent information applicable to the legal question involved. I sincerely believe that this information, if available at the prior hearing, would have definitely affected the judgement of some of the Council members who were inclined to vote against the Molly Gibson application based upon the incomplete legal information furnished by the Planning Staff and the City Attorney. The purpose of this letter is not to access any blame to the City Attorney or the Planning Staff for the unfortunate omission of this pertinent information. We all know that the mass of informa- tion processed through Planning Staff and the City Attorney's office is overwhelming and it is understandable that information of this nature cannot readily be retrieved from the files without specific recollection of some of the individuals who were involved at the time. The main problem that needs to be addressed in fairness to the applicant for the Molly Gibson Lodge condominiumization is what to do about the absence of this important information in the consider- ations of the City Council. I sincerely hope you agree to schedule a re -hearing of such application to correct this inadvertent injustice to the applicant. Very truly yours, SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE B1 JHS/jeb Enclosure cc: Ronald Stock, Esq. City Attorney MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Scott Building Condominiums - Conceptual Subdivision Approval DATE: June 8, 1976 This is a request for conceptual subdivision approval for the condominiumization of the Scott Building on Lots K through S (9 lots) in Block 38. The zoning for the property is R-6 and as such the building is a non -conforming use. The building con- tains the following uses: 1. A medical office - 1450 square feet. 2. Seven (7) apartment units consisting of two (2) studios; one (1) one bedroom apartment; two (2) two bedroom apart- ments; and t"ret (2) three bedroom apartments. Two The building is 11,866 square feet in size. The Planning Commission originally considered this application on October 6, 1975, and tabled the request pending additional information concerning parking requirements and the lot area to be assigned to the building. On June 2, 1976, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted approval to the request. building is a non -conforming use and as such the R-6 density or parking requirements do not apply. The Planning Office has administratively determined that it would be appropriate to evaluate these criteria according to the requirements of the R/MF zone. Accordingly, the following figures renardinq minimun land area and parking spaces have been calculated: R/MF ZONE DENSITY REOUIREMENTS 2 studios = 1000 x 2 = 2,000 1 one bedroom = 1250 x 1 = 1,250 2 two bedroom = 2100 x 2 = 4,200 2 three bedroom = 3630 x 2 - 7,260 Office = 1:1 F.A.R. 1450 - 1450 -= 1,450 TOTAL AREA REQUIREMENT 16,160 square feet R/MF PARKING REQUIREMENTS R/MF requires one/bedroom for residential uses. Other uses are by review. 2 studios = 1 x 2 = 2 spaces 1 one bedroom = 1 x 1 = 1 space 2 two bedroom = 2 x 2 = 4 spaces 2 three bedroom = 3 x 2 = 6 spaces Office = 3/1000 x 1450 = 4 spaces TOTAL PARKING SPACES REQUIRED = 17 spaces The Planning Office recommends that conceptual subdivision approval be granted subject to the requirement that six (6) lots be allocated to the Scott Building leaving separate lots K, L & M for development \under the R-6 zone. Also, that 17 parking spaces be provided to serve the Scott Building Condominiums. • 0 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Aspen City Council Richard Grice, Planning Office Molly Gibson Lodge - Subdivision Exemption October 2, 1979 The attached application requests subdivision exemption for the condominiumiza- tion of the Molly Gibson Lodge which is located in the R-6 zone district. The building contains 22 individual lodge rooms including a manager's unit which is utilized as full-time housing for the on -site lodge manager. The use is a legal non -conforming use. The application indicates that no new kitchen facilities will be installed in any unit and a unified management organization forthe lodge will be required. This particular application is similar to the application you reviewed for the Tipple Lodge in that no additional kitchens are proposed. The application is dissimilar in that the Molly Gibson Lodge is located in the residential zone where short-term accommodations are a non -conforming use. The Planning Office's position is that condominiumization of lodges, be they conforming or non -conforming, constitutes a change in use and therefore violation of Growth Management. This application addresses this problem in that they offer to place a restriction in the declarations and covenants creating the condominium "which will prohibit any residential or long-term occupancy of any unit by the owner of said unit and will prohibit any activities which are inconsistent with the use of the lodge for tourist accommodations". The City Engineering Department has recommended approval of the exemption subject to a number of conditions which are enumerated in their memo to the Planning Office of September 11, 1979. The application was referred to Ron Stock who has recommended denial based on Section 20-9(c) of the Aspen Municipal Code. That section reads as follows: "No subdivision shall be approved which includes elements not in conformance with the provisions of any applicable zoning ordinance or other ordinance of the City of Aspen or law or regulation of the State of Colorado." Based upon Ron's recommendation, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the subdivision exemption for the Molly Gibson Lodge at their regular meeting on September 18, 1979. The applicant's attorney, Herb Klein, feels that Section 20-9(c) has been inappropriately applied to the exemption request of the Molly Gibson. There is a letter in your packet to Ron Stock from Herb Klein in which Herb gives his legal opinion. The Condominium Managers Association is currently meeting to study a number of issues facing the lodging community including the condominiumization of lodges. Until the Association completes the study, the Planning Office will not have any additional policy recommendations. �� • APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS !71, AUG 08 1979 cj�t ASPEN / PITKIN CO. PLANNING OFFICE Request is hereby made on behalf of David F. Jones (hereinafter referred to as "APPLICANT"), under Section 20-19(b) of the Subdivision Regulations, for the City of Aspen, State of Colorado, for an exemption from the definition of the term "Subdivision" with respect for the following real property: Lots O, P & Q, Block 59, City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. It is submitted that the request to the exemption is appropriate. This application involves the condominiumization of an existing lodge facility known as the Molly Gibson Lodge. If an exemption is granted, the owners of the property will have a common interest in the land, recreational facilities, swimming pool, parking area, utility rooms, laundry rooms, office and lounge area and there will be a condominium declaration and maintenance agreement applicable to the property which will not in any way increase the land use impact of the property. No loss of tourist short term lodging facilities will result by reason of the exemption. A restriction will be provided in the declaration and covenants creating the condominium which will prohibit any residential or long term occupancy of any unit by the owner of said unit and will prohibit any activities which are inconsistent with the use of the lodae for tourist accommodations. No new kitchen facilities will be installed in any unit and a unified management organization for the lodge will be required. An exemption in this case will not conflict with the intent and purpose of the Subdivision Regulations which are directed to assist the orderly, efficient, and integrated development of the City of Aspen, to insure the proper distribution of population, to coordinate the need for public services, and to encourage well planned subdivision. A strict • • interpretation and compliance with the Subdivision Regulations in this case would deprive the Applicant of the reasonable use of his land. The granting of this application will not under- mine the intent of the Subdivision Regulations as it is clearly within the area intended for exemption under Section 20-19. The building is already in existence, and there will be no change in density. The building contains 22 individual lodge rooms including a manager's unit which is utilized as full time housing for the on -site lodge manager. This use exists as a legal nonconforming use in the R-6 zone district. Many like uses exist in the R-6 zone and the degree of incompatibility with the neighborhood is minimal or nonexistent. The condominiumization of this use will not create a new nonconforming use nor increase the degree of nonconformity. No structural changes are contemplated and no change in use is contemplated nor will be permitted under the condominium declarations. The use will not change from its present use classification "accommo- dations". There are no existing residential tenants or leases applicable to the lodge unit and therefore provision for low or moderate income housing as described in the Municipal Code for the City of Aspen is not applicable to this application. The Applicant would appreciate your consideration of this application at your next regular meeting. Dated: July 26, 1979 SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE By Herbert . Klein Attorneys for David F. Jones 601 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)925-6813 - 2 - • 0 SACHS KLEIN & SEIGLE ,EFFREY H. SACHS ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERBERT S. KLEIN 801 EAST MAIN STREET JON DAVID SEIGLE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (303) 928-6813 September 25, 1979 Ron Stock, Esq. City Attorney 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611- Dear Ron: DENVER OFFICE: 1860 LINCOLN STREET -SUITE 1818 DENVER,COLORADO 80204 ( 303 ) 837.8800 RE: Condominiumization of Molly Gibson Lodge At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on September 18, 1979, I received a copy of your memorandum recommending deniai of the condominiumization of the Molly Gibson Lodge based upon your opinion that as non-confcrming use it was barred from condominiumization by the requirements of Section 20-9 (c) of the Aspen Municipal Code. I attempted to respond to your opinion so that cur views could be clarified and hopefully resolved so that the commission cculd act on the merits of the application, however, I was ctt-off by Mr. Hedstrom, the chairman of the commission whc refused me the opportunity to so respond. As I did not have an opportunity to meet with you before the meeting to discuss the legal posturing of the: application and was not afforded an opportunity to do so at the commission hearing, please consider this letter my response to your opinion. I request your reasoned and considered advice so that I may advise my client how best to proceed. The Section referred to in your meriorandum, 20-9 (c) states: "No subdivision shall be approved which includes elements not in conformance with the provisions of any applicable zoning A s� odivisi°.c1 ordinance or other ordinance of the City of Aspen or law or regulation of the State of Colorado. " The Molly Gibson Lodge is a non -conforming use existing in the R-6 residential zone. As a non -conforming use it is afforded certain legal rights and benefits under the provisions of the zoning code of the City of Aspen found at Article XII; Section 24-12 et seg . At Section 24-12.9 the code states that the ordinance is not an abatement ordinance. and that: Page 2 continued "It is the intention of this article that non- conforming structures and uses be permitted to continue to exist unless abandoned or destroyed, but not extended, enlarged, or expanded.." Therefore, the non -conforming use status of the Molly Gibson Lodge is afforded very specific rights and privileges for lawful existence under the provisions of Section 24-12 et seq. The conclusion therefore is drawn that the condomin- iumization of the Molly Gibson Lodge is in conformance with the provisions of the applicable zcning ordinance, i.e. Section 24-12 et seq. No change of use is involved in the change of ownership that results from condominiumization and no extension, enlargement, or expansion is anticipated. The mere fact that it is a non -conforming use does not mean that it is violative of "applicable zoning ordinance" as used in Section 20-9 (c). Section 24-12.4 has prefatory language which sets forth certain of the rights incident to lawful nonconforming uses. Language such as: "The lawful use may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions..." indicates very specific rights to enjoy the other "lawful" incidents of property ownership granted under other sections of the code. The wording "otherwise lawful" implies re- ferencing rights granted under other sections of the zoning code such as subdivision or exemption procedures which are to be read in conjunction with and .in harmony with Section 24-12 et seq. At sub -paragraph (e) of Section 24-12 the prohibition is clearly stated against enlargement, extension, construction, re -construction, movement or structural alteration of the structure containing a non -conforming use. Section 24-12.4 (b) sets forth a specific affirmative right that provides for the extension of the non -conforming use throughout a existing structure such as the Molly Gibson Lodge. Section 24-12.4•(c) states as folloxas: "If no structural alterat-ions are made any non- conforming use of the structure, or structure and premises, may be changed to another use of the same or higher classification, but such use shall not be changed to use of a lower or lesser restrictive classification." Under this provision of the code it would appear that non- conforming uses -are allowed to change to other uses of the same or higher classifications without violating the zoning. This specific right is granted by the zoning code. The Page 3 continued proposal for condominiumization of the Molly Gibson Lodge involves a change of ownership only but under current Planning Office theories, change of ownership seems to mean the same thing as a change of use. Therefore the application may be postured as a change of use from single ownership lodge to multiple ownership lodge both being within the use class- ification "accommodations". Nothing in these provisions of the zoning ordinance prohibit change of ownership. There is additional language in Section 24-12 et seq which supports this position. At Section 24-12.7 there is lan- guage which prohibits the subdivision of property which would create a "new" non -conforming use. This specific provision tends to imply that subdivision would be permitted if it resulted in the change of ownership of an "old" non -conforming use. In summary, I would greatly appreciate your review of the pertinent sections of the code in light of the discussion contained above. I sincerely believe that non -conforming uses have rights granted under the zoning code including the bene-fits of subdivision and exemption procedures and are not prohibited from changes in ownership interests such as condominiumization by the general language of Section 20-9 (c). Nothing violative of the goals and policies of the zoning would occur in the event this subdivision exemption were approved. I will be out of town until approximately October 15, and Jeff Sachs dill contact you in my absence. Thank you for your consideration in this matter of great importance to my client. Very truly yours, SACHS KLEIN & SEIGLE By: Herbert S. Klein HSK:ea PA MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office FROM: Daniel A. McArthur, Assistant City Engineer RE: Molly Gibson Lodge Subdivision Exemption DATE: September 11, 1979 After having reviewed the improvement survey for the above subdivision exemption and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department feels the following items should be corrected. I. The owner shall revise and resubmit a new improvement survey with the following items: a. Under the surveyor's certificate and title, City of Aspen should read Original Aspen Townsite, City of Aspen. b. Show adjoining Lots N and P, in Block 59. C. Show location of existing trash container. d. Show locations of all parking spaces. e. Show existing curb and gutter and sidewalk. 2. Owner shall provide a 10 foot x 10 foot electric transformer easement in the NW corner of existing Lot "0" The Engineering Department recommends approval for the above subdivision exemption subject to the applicant correcting the above conditions. 0 • • CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street • aspen, colorado 81611 coallcil==A, 19genda Octo 12:00 EXECUTIVE SESSION: (1) Selection of Underwriter, (2) City Manager Appointment," ( 3 ) Water 4:00 JOINT MEETING WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1. Clean Air Advisory Board, Resolution #19, Series of 1979 2. Water Agency Management Agreement - Karen Smith 3. Colorado Highway Request List 5:00 COUNCIL MEETING I. MINUTES - September 24, 25, October 3, 4, 1979 II.! CITIZEN PARTICIPATION III. COUNCI1,MEMBER COMMENTS 5:30 IV. LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS any 1. Great Western Spirit Co pany - Package Liquors 2. Tom's Market - 3.2 bee 3. Little Annie's - 3-way 4. Grog Shop - Package Liq V. APPLICATION FOR 3-WAY LIQUOR LICENSE - Buster and the Fox 6:00 VI. CENTENNIAL PROJECTS (Tabled froin October 9) VIi. COORDES EMPLOYEE HOUSING AND SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION 6:30 VIII. ORDINANCE #74, SERIES OF 1979 - Prohibiting Subdivision of -Hotels and Lodges 7:00 IX. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Molly Gibson X. FINAL PLAT .APPROVALS 1. Anderson 2. Hyman Street (Baker) 7:30 XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS & SECOND READINGS Ordinance #50, Series of 1979, Conflicts of Interest Ordinance #58, Series of 1979, Zoning of Smuggler Enclaves 8:00 XII. CITY MANAGER Water Plant Housing - Project Management Contract Selection of Underwriter housing Report 8:30 XIII. CITY ATTORNEY Ord- Hance #72, Series of 1979, L--1 Code Amendment Water Attorney Representing Snowmass Village Ordinance #75, Series of 1979, Mountain Bell Telephone Tax Free Market Extension Next Regular Meeting November 12, 1979 f 0 Regular t•1t•eting Aspen City Council October 9, 1979 to contact the firm and recluc �;t a study. Mr. Martin :;aid they fool the tares will. be iwell ::pent for an evaluation of the government. This i:, a study be professionals, and �i ont.e:i.dr help is needed. 2. Olof. Hodstrom, Chairman of P & Z, told Council the Commision felt their reasons for denyi.nq application of. the Tipple Lodge for subdivision cy.omption were clear and compel -ling. The city has acirced upon zoning to concentrate touri:;t lodging Bear the commercial core and ski area. Hedstrom stated it seemed undesirable to create any pressure towards li shifting tourist accommodations out of these areas by pecan:; of a reduction in lodge units availabe for short term tourist u:;e. Hedstrom said the 1? & Z felt condominiumi•Lat.ion of lodges would do that. Hedstrom said it seemed the responsibility of the P & Z to try, in ' their best judgement, to protect the community against the possibility of adverse land use. Hedstrom noted there is some evidence that existing condom i.ni.ums in separate ownership of �i units does withdraw the units from short term market. At the Gant 16 per cent of the units are never offered for short term rental; at the Alps 1G per cent; Top of the Village, 25 it per cent; Clarendon, 53 per cent-, Old One.11undred 20 per cent. II h ' Hedstrom stated the P & Z judged separate ownership would tend to weaken and destroy the special duality of a lodge created and maintained by onwer-operator. The quality of i� lodges is a big concern at this time. Hedstrom said they felt it was not desirable to j, alleviate one problem by an action that might create other, new and different problems. The financial problems of modernizing lodges should be attacked by other means. i 3. Joe Porter told Council he was very concerned about the city buses being used by i i school children. Porter stated he was in favor of consolidating the bus systems. However, there is a serious problem with child safety. Also a lot of people are driving "their ikids to school, which is counter to the transportation objectives. Porter said he would like to see Council throw this back on the Board of Education temporarily until this !I can be thought out better. This may be saving money but it is jeopardizing the safety pf the children. Porter asked Council to make a commitment to do something. Mayor Edel pointed out the system is not something the city wanted to pick up; the Board of Education ' dropped. the bus system. Mayor Edel said he is also concerned about it; however, he did not want to see kids standing around freezing with no way to school. Mayor Edel suggested the parents take this up with the Board of Education. Stalf said he had met with the i school staff and there is a long range effort for total combination of the buse efforts. The city or county should contract with the school to rurr school buses. Mayor Edel told ' Porter to meet with Stalf on t'iis issue. �I COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS Councilman Isaac pointed out Council had asked for an ordinance to affect condomin-l=i- ~ ----- zation and it is not on the agenda. City Attorney Stock tol��ouncil he was going to recommend to r & Z to recommend a moratorium so that the city can address the issue. Mayor Edel said that clause was in the motion and it should be done. i! 2. Councilman Isaac asked where Arthur's liquor application was. Staff told Council that the liquor inspector could not be present, and the applicant is re -writing the contracts. d 3. Councilman Parry announced the official opening of the Ice Garden Saturday, October II 13, and asked that Council be there. �I 4. Councilman Behrendt noted the -city is pushing for antique lights and asked if they are part of the engineering desigrl for North Mill street. Councilman Behrendt said he would like to see these lights on Mill street. Dan McArthur, city engineer, told Council there are high level lights there now and antique lights do not. have enough candle power. Mayor Edel asked the staff to investigate to see if the city could use the antique lights I and still have enough power. i 5. Councilman Behrendt asked when the two reports on the Wheeler Opera House would be ready. Jeff Sachs said the Rcaring Fork Valley Foundation on the Performing Arts study would be ready Friday. Joe Wells said the Harry Weiss study i:: about two weeks away from finalization. Mayor Edel asked that this be pushed for the nest Council meeting. • I 6. Mayor Edel said the lunch meeting at the water plant was excellent, and he was impressed by the needs coming up. Mayor Edel recommended anyone who did not attend make an appoint- ment with Jim Markalunas. I! 7. Mayor Edel told Council tLat C.A.S.T. has been invited by the Colorado Ski County to speak to them. The ski communities will have a voice in forest: service relationships, ski area operator relationships, etc.' �) 8. Mayor Edel said the Counc:I will be interviewing for city rianager to week of October 15 and will have an executive meeting at noon October 22nd to riake a•decision. it LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS - Paddy Bugatti's; Sub Sl;roppe Tom Dunlop and Bob Jacobs had no problems with either. Councilman Isaac moved to approve 'I the renewals for Paddy Bugatt:�'s and Sub Shoppe; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Edel left the meeting; Mayor Pro Tom Behrendt took over. APPLICATION FOR 3-WAY LIQUOR LICENSE - Buster and the Fox :} Mayor Pro Tom Behrendt opened the public hearing. Councilman Collins moved to cont-int the public hearing until the next meeting upon applicant's request; seconded by Counci man Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. SPRCIAL EVENT PERMITS - Aspen Center for Visual Arts !, Councilman Parry moved to approve the special. event permits for November 4; November 24; and December 14; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. 0 0 2 l e It(,(.Iular Mooti rig Anpvn City Council October 9, 1979 CENTKNNTAI, PROOrCTS Ramona Mar.kalunas told Council she would jest as soon wait to do the pr.escntation to the entire Council. Councilman Collins moved to table this item until October 22; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. PROPOSAL TO ALLEVIATE MULTIPI,E_STOP _b3:I,IV1:I1Y TRUCK SERVICE Buzz Howe, owner of Roaring Fork Delivery Company, told Council there are many restaurant,, liquor stores and food shops dealing with approximately 40 distributors bringing supplies on private vehicles. This produces approximately 8500 tons per year.. This produces a large amount of congestion and inefficiency and pollution. Howe suggested finding a way to consolidate the distributor's freight into single tracks for a single area. Howe said that 4 or 5 different trucks are trying to get into the alleys; one truck could deliver instead to a single area. The multiple trucks add to the visual impact. Howe said for this to work they would have to have a warehouse facility where the supplies could be brought in in bulk. *Bowe said he felt this would save the distributors money. This plan is built on volume. City Attorney Stock told Council they could limit trucks and the use of the streets, but they cannot prohibit. Councilman Isaac said when Rio Grande was delivering a lot of supplies, the costs went up because someone else was handling the merchandise. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt said before the Council could really address this, Howe should contact all the distributors to get support. City Manager Stalf said if the merchants supported it also, it could be considered. Without support, the city would be perceived as placing regulations on how they do business. Stalf said if the merchants and distributors want to do this, there will be no fight. Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt suggested Howe go out and solicit support; if there is strong favor, the Council will listen to this. City Attorney Stock told Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt even though he is abstaining, he is counted in the quorum and the remaining three Councilmembers have the right to make the decision. The applicant has the right to request tabling. Stock advised Council that. a motion requires an affirmative vote of_all members present. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Klingman Richard Grice, planning office, told Council this application was made in August of 1976 and went to P & Z and received approval for condominiumization of an existing duplex. At that time', there was a change in the planning office•staf-f and there is no reference of this ever getting to Council. Grice recommended Council approve the subdivision exemption as it could have been the staff's fault. Councilman Parry moved to approve the subdivision exemption; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Molly Gibson Jeff Sachs requested this item be placed on the October 22nd agenda. REVIEW OF DESIGN HLTERNATIVES - North Mill Street Dan McArthur-, city engineer, submitted a traffic study and letter from the di -sign consul- tant. McArthur recommended the Council approve design alternate #1 which includes on street parking on Mill street. The benefits of this plan are increase parking by 50 spaces, could be used as bus loading and unloading along Mill street. With this plan, special bus turn out lanes would not be needed. Councilman Isaac stated he felt strongly against #1 as in the winter with the snow plowing and the amount of traffic, it would narrow the street. McArthur suggested on -street parking only in the summer, and in thle winter the snow could be.piled there. The problem with #2 is that the Council has to pick definite turn out lanes for buses. McArthur told Council this plan has nothing to do with the Mill street.bridg.!_�; they will only repave the portion from Puppy Smith street to the bridge. Stock told Council the city has completed the acquisition for the' realignment of the bridge, and the city has to convince the County to use road and bridge money to build the bridge. McArthur told Council for reasons of safety there has to ke a small section of grass betwe;:r the. side- walk and street. Joe Wells, planning office, said there is a concern about tYe parking element of the proposal and the north side of the river continues to be an area that may be logical fcr employee housing. The planning office also has reservations about the lack of accommodation of pedestrial and bike movement. "Stalf pointed out with four lanes the sidewalk can be placed right next to the street and the parked cars will be a buffer from the street in the summer and the piled snow will be a buffer in the winter. Councilman Collins asked for the cost comparisons. McArthur answered the consultant feel #1 will be more expensive, but something less.than $100,000. Councilman Collins asked if the consultants could develop both schemes and get bids on both. McArthur stated the city has a contract for one design. Councilman Isaac moved to approve #1 with A parking. Motion DIES for lack of second. Councilman Parry moved to approve..#1; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Isaac. Mot.io;i carried. McArthur told Council the additional cost tc bring road hase up from Glenwood Springs would be $120 per 15 tons load. The city uses about 360 tons a year. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 24, 1979 I� Councilman Iscaac moved that t.hc' Council is interested in the idea but doe:; not hove any money to Blend on trolleys; if the private sector want:: to come forward with a proposal, j the Council would be, wi l l.i ng to listen; seconded by Councilman Van Ness.. Mayor I'Ool. said he would have to have more input: h-fore he could mhke any decision. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Edel. Motion carried. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Tipple Lodge Richard Grice, planning department, told Council this is the first. application for condo- miniumization of a lodge. 'Phis is in the lodge district and is the only zone where short term accommodations are allowed. At the Tipple Lodge; there are 10 lodge units and 2 studios; all have been used for short term in the past. The engineering department has no problems with the design. The planning office made referrals to various groups in the community; both the Condominium Managers and the Ski Corp stated they were in favor of maintaining short term accommodations -at the base of the hill. One realtor was of the opinion condominiumization would allow upgrading of the lodges. Grice said the planning office is convinced at that some price, these lodge units are bought by people that do not have to rent the units. The P & Z reviewed this extensively and recommended denial as condominiumization repre- sented a potential change in use, which would be a violation of growth management and would erode the short term market. The P & Z voted in favor of upgrading the lodges in town and formed a committee to look into this. Mary Faulkner, owner of the Tipple Lodge, requested subdivision exemption to condominium- ize a hotel; 10 hr.tel rooms without kitchens. Ms. Faulkner told Council a small lodge does not make much money, and there is not much money to make improvements. Ms. Faulkner said this shot,ld not affect the community in the least. The L-2 district does not forbid conversions; they are not asking for a change.in the zoning or use. Ms. Faulkner said P & Z's reasons for denial are su_Fculation. (short term rentals to tourists are the way to go in this location, there is more money to be made. J. D. Muller told Council that a condominiumization was not within the intents and purposes of subdivision; nothing would be gained by having this go through full subdivision review. The low income housing is inapplicable because this has always been short term housing. The L-2 zone permits this use; the parking has been satisfied; this; is not under growth management }plan. Muller pointec out in the P & Z resolution stated possibilities of violation. When making a decision, it is inpermissable to assume that the person will violate the law. Muller outlined a Wheat Ridge case saying, once an aroplicant applies under the ordinance only those factors which apply generally to all applicants may be considered. Mullo r said it is unlawful. tc apply a law to this case which does not exist. Muller said this: application does not violi.te anything in the present su:d__vision chapter. City Attorney Stock told Council they are being.asked to make a decision that division of the 12 units :.s not a subdivision. The ordinance defines subdivision as being condomini- umization as yell as other divisions of prope:-ty. The argument being made tha= an exemption shor:ld be granted is that the majority of the subdivision code is bated with the division of land rather than structures. Stock told Council they had a le3al right to deny the e:emption if they wish. There is a provision which addresses the :ondominium- ization of st:uctures but does not speak to the condominiumization of lodges. Council will have to determine if there is sufficient change by the condominiumization of this property such that t:ouncil would want to put controls on it. Council could denand that the property };e available for short term use, or that the owners could only oc:upy for short period of times. Council could state t.A s is a subdivision and require that it go through the e::ception process. Stock told Council he believed there are legally justifi- able reasons they could deny condominiumization. 4 Grice said bo':h he and P & Z recommended denial from the start. Their interpretation of the growth management ordinance is that it would not specify a control in specific differ- ent types of i1rowth if conversion from one type to another was not also a violation. Grice stated :pie and the P & Z felt that becua=e of this GMP ordinance, this wcald be a change in use Councilwoman Michael asked for a response for Muller's argument that the P & Z's seven statements that sort of predict the future as opposed to code viDlations as to why this s;:ould not be exempted. Stock said Muller's argument for 2 or 3 of the points in the resolution is very justified; the fact -that someone may or may not break the law at some future point should not be part of the consideration for granting theexemption. Stock told Co-rncil they are being asked to make a determination that the division of the property from one piece into 12 is not a subdivision. Stock said a determination of exemption is a statement that in fact it is not a division of property, i.e. a. subdivision as defined in the Code. Councilman Collins said he thought the exemption was exemption from the subdivision regu- lations and not from the subdividing land. Councilman Parry said the Council is to deter- mine whether _his change will be detrimental to the city. Mayor Edel asked wt.:it the intent of the P & Z was in this resolution. Muller said the P & Z had to think about the effects of th..s on everyone, and that is what their decision was based upon. 'councilman Van Ness poin':ed out the Council has to find this application is not within the intents and purposes cf the subdivision chapter. Mayor Edel said he had a problem with reversing the decision f P & Z after they worked on this for months, and would like to bear from the P & Z. Councilman Isaac said there is net way to control this. Councilman Isaac ag-reed with P & Z and stated he did not want,elo see any condominiumization of lodges in town. However.,'there is no law to do this. Councilman Isaac said he would like this controlled through a contract. Stock told Council they had the power to say no to this, put a moratorium on, and go ahead arid legislate. Councilman Van Ness said that most of the reasons th.it P & Z-denied this for are pure speculation. Regular Meeting Aspen City_Council September 24, 1979 Councilman Collins said the aur. o:.n here is to _._�»� M1 ! p preserve the integr.it•y of the tourist zone. The tourist. Zone: has been watered clown in the last few years; it has been amended to permit residences. Councilman Collins said if this lodge is conrlominiumized, the city will lose the type of activity associated with the tourist. The end result will weaken the accommo- dations the city wants to sce at the bottom of the hi11.. Muller T-%ointed out that putting in kitchens would be a violation of GMP, and this will keep the Tipple short term. i Councilman Isaac moved to approve the subivision exemption for the Tipple with the follow- ing condition.; (1) enter into a contract stating the 10 units will be short term and be registered with a central rc-servati.ons agency, (2) there will be on -site management, (3) no building permits be issued for kitchen additions, and (4) next meeting look at writing up an orc3illance t&�_rontr-ol lodgez.tseconded by Councilman Parry. Ms. Fau ;ner poi that the lodge is too small to have on -site management. Councilman Isaac said one of the units could be for on -site management. Councilman Isaac changed condition (2) to be local management, not on -site. Councilman Isaac said not all units had to be under one manager. Councilmembers Parry, Isaac, and Michael in favor; Councilmembers Van Ness, Collins and Mayor Edel opposed. Motion NOT carried. Councilman Van Ness moved to approve the exemption from the definition of subdivision with no restrictions; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. Councilmembers Parry, Van Ness, and Michael in favor; Councilmembers Isaac, Collins and Mayor Edel opposed. Motion NOT carried. Councilman Van Ness moved to approve the exemption from the definition of subdivision with the conditions that they register with Aspen Reservations or any other duly accredited reservations bureau located in Pitkin County; Colorado; seconded by Councilman Parry. Councilmembers Van Ness, Parry, and Michael in' favor; Mayor Edel, Councilmembers Isaac and Collins opposed. Motion NOT carried. Councilman Collins moved to table. Motion DIES for lack of a second. 1 Councilman Isaac moved to approve the subdivision exemption with the conditions in the original motion; seconded bl Councilman Van Ness. Councilmembers Van Ness, Isaac, Michael, Parry in favor; Councilman Collins, Mayor Edel opposed. Motion carried. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Beriro Richard Grice told Council this request is to divide three lots on Hopkins street; these are improved with a brick Victorian and some shacks. The HPC has given permission to remove the shacks. Grice said this application does not affect the GMP'because single family residences are not a: -lowed in the CC zone; commercial space is not allowed without a development allotment. This approval will not result in development without additional review. The engineering department has recommended approval subject to the condition there be an agreement that the applicant either construct an 8 foot sidewalk or agree to do so within 12 months. City Attorney recommends approval without condition. After much discussion, P & Z decided there should only be a sidewalk over the middle lot as it is already developed, and the other two right be developed sepa:atoly. The planning office feels sidewalks are a standard part of subdivision regulations e;nd do feel it is appropriate. Grice recommended a sidewal?: bc. developed on all three lots dither immediately or within 12 months in the event they anticipate development. Peter Van Domelin, represenr_inc the applicant, told Council -.:he applicant• wishes to sell the lots perhaps separately or together and wants to keep his options open. Van Domelin told Council he did not feel the planning office should be given a carte blanche in setting conditions on subdivision e:cemptions. Van Domelin pointed out I;eriro is only requesting to be able to sell the lots; not to develop. The paving of a sidewalk has no relationship with the request to sell the lets individually. There is no sidewalk on either side of the developed lot. Stock :suggested they be asked to add a covenant to the property that if the city creates a sidewalk improvement district, they would enter into that district. Van Domelin said he felt that was fair. ,I Councilman Van Ness moved to approve the subdivision exemption with the only condition that in the event a sidewal': district is formed that this property would agree they would join in a binding covenant; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried - SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Hibberd II Grice told Council this is a request for a subdivision exemption for a duplex at North Sevent and North streets. The property is zoned R-6 with 9,000 square feet. The engin- eering department requests an easement for drainage and that both units have water meters installed. City Attorney Stock reviewed this application, and F &'Z reviewed thi's and recommended approval subject tc engineering's conditions and that the property be deed restricted to six month minimum leases, and that the north unit be deed restricted by covenant limiting price and occupancy for a period of five years. Councilman Behrendt suggested that a street, sidewalk and curb improvetent agreement be added. (I Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the subdivision exemption based upon the restrictions outlined by Grice, and the applicant would agree to join any improvement districts for street, sidewalk, gutter and curb; seconded by Councilman Parry. All .in favor, motion carried. Councilman Collins -asked that the building departmctvt check out the duplex for an extra third unit. Councilman Collins said this unit was advertised this summer, and he would like a report from the building inspector. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Horizons III I Grice told Council this property is located at the intersection of Snowbunny and Cemetery Lane. Engineering department recommends approval having only one curb cut;- there are presently two. Also separate electric and water meters be required for each unit, and that they enter. into a curb, gutter and sidewalk improvement agreement, This have never Moll Z;Q;Ir� SC4 z� amf -4 �� C."LL Coda, t44U4;,� fJ6A;e4 r. M, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ffmw 10 c. f. iiorr..Kn 6. S. ! L. CO. ORDINANCI? 140. _ (Series of 1979) AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE SUBDIVSION OF LODGE AI4D HOTEL UNITS AND THE APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS FOR TIIE PURPOSE OF COND01',IINIUMIZATION, TIME-SHARING OR SPLITTING THE FEE OF SUCH UNITS WHEREAS, by definition hotels' and lodges are intended for the temporary occupancy of guests as opposed to dwelling units which are designed and intended as private residences; and WHEREAS, the purpose of subdivision regulations is to assist in the orderly, efficient and integrat--d development of the City; to insure that a proper balance is achieved beween tourist and residential housing; to support and assist zoning regulations; and, to preserve the City's viability as a tourist area; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the City Council have investigated the experience of other ski resorts in the subdivision of hotels and lodges; and WHEREAS, the experience of other ski resorts has been that the subdivision of hotels and lodges ty either condominiumization or the appproval of time-sharing results in the removal of a sig- nificant numbCr of units from the tourist accommodation pool; and WHEREAS, it is the specific finding of the City Council that the removal of' even a few units from the tourist accommodation pool would result in an improper balance between tourist and resi- dential housing and adversely affect the City's viability as a tourist area; and WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that under a properly redrafted subdivision code it may be possible to approve some form of subdivision without the detrimental effect exper- ienced in other ski resorts; and a,4} RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves r Ow4 w C. P. NOI-CRR 0. P. a L. CO. WHEREAS, the subdivision regulations (ordinance), as cur- rently proposed to be revised, would introduce significant change in both the limitations and restrictions upon property; and WHEREAS, the community is dependent upon it.,-; viability as a tourist area; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: The City of Aspen hereby exercises those powers and rights granted to the City by the Constitution of the State of Colorado as a home rule charter city to promote the safety, health and gen- eral welfare of the City by imposing a temporary moratorium on the subdivision or the approval of subdivision exemptions of hotel and lodge units within the corporate limits of the City of Aspen for the purpose of condominiumization, time-sharing or splitting t;ae fee of such units. Said moratorium's�iall be for a period not to exceed beyond provided, however, that on or i before that date, the City Council may extend the moratorium for a I period not to exceed eight (8) weeks if it is unable to complete the required public hearings for the enactment of a specific ordi- nance. Such eight (8) week extension shall be within the discre- tion of the City Council as it may be deem appropriate. Section 2 This temporary moratorium shall affect all hotel and lodge units within the corporate limits of the City of Aspen with respect to requests from property owners for the platting or sub- division of such property for the purpose of condominiumization, time-sharing or splitting the fee of such units or for an exeMp- I ition of such property from the provisions of the subdivision regulations (ordinance); provided, however, the moratorium shall not affect those requests which, at the time of the enactment of -2- V RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C. F. 11OFCKFI R. R. 4 L. CO. this ordinance on first reading, had been submitted to the City, and with respect to which no final decision had been made by the City. ` If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or por- tion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconsti- tutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining por- tions thereof. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the _ __ day of 1979, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen., Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ A14D ORDERED published as provided by lav by the City ColITICil of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting held at the City of Aspen on I -lie 1979. ATTEST: I:athryn S. Koc City Clerk IIei-man Ede! Mayor ZTJ 3 -- REG011D OF P110GEEDINGS 100 Leaves i r, n. n. n — ------ I'INALLY adopted, passed and approved on the day of 1979. Herman Edel Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch City Clerk -4- 0 46 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: Mollie Gibson Lodge - Subdivision Exemption DATE: September 14, 1979 The attached letter of application requests subdivision exemption for the condominiumization of the Mollie Gibson Lodge which is located in the R-6 zone district. The building contains 22 individual lodge rooms including a manager's unit which is utilized as full time housing for the on -site lodge manager. The use is a legal non -conforming use. The application indicates that no new kitchen facilities will be installed in any unit and a unified management organization for the lodge will be required. This particular application is similar to the application you reviewed for the Tipple Lodge in that no additional kitchens are proposed. This application is dissimilar in that the Mollie Gibson Lodge is located in the residential zone where short term accommodations are a non- conforming use. The Planning Office's position is that condominiumization of lodges, be they conforming or non -conforming, constitutes a change in use and therefore a violation of Growth Management. This opinion is based on the belief that no restrictions or covenants can be written which are self -enforcing and guarantee against a change in use. The application was referred to Ron Stock who has recommended denial based upon Section 20-9(c) of the Aspen Municipal Code. That Section reads as follows: "No subdivision shall be approved which includes elements not in conformance the provisions of any applicable zoning ordinance or other ordinance of the City of Aspen or law or regulation of the State of Colorado." We understand that Ron Stock is currently working on an amendment to Section 24-10.2 exempting from the GMP the conversion of property from a non -conforming use to a conforming use. In the event Council adopts such an amendment, it would then be appropriate for the applicant to resubmit his request. The Engineering Department's comments are attached in their entirety.