The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ex.101 W Main St-Molly Gibson Lodge.1979 t CITY OF ASPlN .. MEMO FROM RICHARD GRICE ' Vt 2- /(V'~~ ~iliJ " - ~1CTr\-3~~~ - IJ~ 1 >>>>-~ -- 1JfJ-I~/Sf,/ f- -- ~Nj (l /~~ c'~~~"-.~ 10c~-~~~ ()L- ~~ '0\ ~ i ~J!~. . ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 LANO USE APPLICATION FEES County 00100 - 63711 09009 - 00000 63712 63713 63714 63715 63716 63717 City 00100 - 63721 63722 63723 63724 63725 63726 Subdivision/PUD Special Review P&Z Review Only Detailed Review Final Plat Special Approval Specially Assigned 09009 - 00000 Conceptual Application Preliminary Application Final Application _,ubdi V \''; i on Exemption Rezoning Conditional Use PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00100 - 63061 09009 - 00000 63062 63063 Name: TilO ,~ " ..<......' I~nl'.'-.:; ;". ')'"1 ',';:~s-t: !kmk n~; Address: ., ,) Phone: ,}, " ,J- Check No. County Land Use Sales G MP Sales Almanac Sales Copy Fees Other i "'.")0 Project: Mn 11 Date: Receipt No. P :;;500':;'.1 , ~ :.':3:: q i _" ,.j, .~, MEMORANDU~l r I ~ I ! i I I ! I I I . TO: t<<On Stock, City Attorney Dave Ellis, City Engineer FROM: RE: Richard Grice, Planning Office 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. ~ ~- . / '- -'\ )0"'/ ,) , r"" '-' /', -- 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 fOllowin" real prooerty: Lots 0, P & Q, Block 59, City ~nd Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. It is submitted,th~t the request to the exemption is appropriate. This application involves the condominiumization of an existing lodge facility known itS the Molly Gibson LodCle. If an exemption is granted, the owners of the property will have a common interest in the LUld, rccre~tion~l facilities, swimmino pool, parking are~, utility roo~s, laundry roo~s, office and lounge area and there will be ~ condominium decl~ration and maintenance agreement aoplicable to the property which will not in any way increase the land use impact of the property. No loss of tourist short term lodqinn 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 residf':,ti~l or lonq ter~ occupancy of any unit by the owner of said unit and will prohibit any activities which are inconsistent with the use of the lodqe 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 c~se will not conflict with the intent and purpose of the Subdivision Regulations which arc directed to assist the orderly, efficient, and integrated development of the City of Aspen, to insure the proper distribution of popul~tion, to coordinate the need for nublic services, and to f'ncourage well nlanned subdivision. A strict . . " - .-, - interpretation and compliance with the Subdivision Regulations in this case would dcprive the Applicant of thc 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 excmption 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 lodae 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 incomnatibility with the neighborhood is minimal or nonexistent. The condominiumization of this use will not create a new nonconforminy 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 decl~rations. The use will not change from its present use cl~ssification "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 appreci~te your consideration of this application at your next regular meeting. Dated: .July 26, 1979 , SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE By / /, ) / ~y . / /,--/ I . /) ,-../) L/''-......... "HerbertS. Klein Attorneys fn, David F. ,Tones 601 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (3D]) 92S-6813 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. . ,'-, . , , /A , CITY OF"ASPEN 130 south galena )treet asp en, .c 0 lor a d ~/J'81611 ....,.~-,.... '-4"-'-"'~'''''' 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 th~t in their judgment ~his 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 wnerein 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 condom in- 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 inf1uen- .tia1 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 becaus,e 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 . ~" ~' ""~-~r~'!:'-----.l I II I ; I -<{r-r--~T t ~__. ! I. "-J .-~t.... . I, 'I"; i' .4,._... . '0"'T--l~:~~ r-; ~~:" . p~ -~T:'~..-.~.. .h ''''''''~-, " f:"'\I'~. ~',r.' , . ~ . . \ ... " . . f>:P;" :;.;"~.~.~~'<l~\>~'::"-(' ,'",,"' ll. . .-i,;- '.' \"':"":' " ;; :r~ ' (. ~ J .~,... . "'...- ~ . t___ . . ,,-.....:.... ~.,. ),.; _.- ~.~ - -- 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 hav~ 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 non-con- 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. ~urs very trul.Y..\ (~ --cc- . '. "-' Lu.~:7t nald W. Stoc~ City Attorney RWS: mc cc: City Council Karen Smith . . .-. ''"''''T- . ."'ll'fi'---....,.,.,....- , , . r~''''-- ..."....,.... j: " 'j'" ~; . -4-'-....__ .. 'r~' ~",. r.-~-'~.-- .~:-:-c..--~"t,...... <- --M'"~~........... . . ' " .,. ~ .:.? ; . .' , I, , i , . ~ r-- " ""'q,J .l I---'#r'T . , .~.,.~] I .. , . . .____~~....z {:<>~~;i~ '~ .~_..,~~~ti:~l:i~.:'~~...~':.~~ ~-,~1''''' )... '<:'-" '-':'." :., '.i<"', . f\ ,"--=-'. J .....,,'t(. "(:,; ".... oi ....40 ,~_. ,'..'._-.....-~. A, ",.- _ . .... 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 ~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. " ....-" - 2 - ,. .... '...,,.,. 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 fine guests, I'm proud to have them at my place, they usually go away feeling very good, very comfortable, haying 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 eyer 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 haye 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 d0esn'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. ,,~ , , - 4 - ,~ 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 millionto 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 ownss 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 other ski areas? They are building condominiums. viable entity any longer. They ask for help, are give the help now? It's too late built in the It is not a you going to 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 ',Iould 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 ~aven'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 ,#',., - 8 - ..... ? - 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 ~ommission 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 tile 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 payoff. 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 get 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 ne~ 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 VoDuld 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~ 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 ~he-ewfteps-wiii 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 ~s and.we,~fY.e:',tq}qok at firs,~)of all whether they are of econom~cal s~ze ~ Sw~ss Chaleti.bas -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 0 f 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 ~~d this request and it would be appropriate for submittal/ at that time. And we appreciate very much here the merits of which were very ~~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 eity 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 see registration. The one's that I have worked on, if it's voluntary by the property __ , . !"''',....., - 11 - 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 sec. 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 see 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 termffid 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 see, 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 see 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 see 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 quantitatively 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 ',./ '(i~. "". SACHS KLEIN & SEIGLE JEP"'REY H. SACHS HERBERT S. KLEIN JON DAVID SEIGLE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 601 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81811 (303) 92S.e813 DENVER OFFICE: 18eo LINCOLN STREET-SUITE ISIB DENVER, COLORADO 80284 1303) 837.8800 October 23, 1979 Mayor and Members of Aspen City council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Molly Gibson Lod~e Dear Mayor Edel and Council Members: 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 Lodqe because it is a non-conformina use located in the R-6 zonin9 distri~t. 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 c 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 By JHSjjeb Enclosure cc: Ronald Stock, Esq. City Attorney - . , . - ,--, . MEMORANDUI1 TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Scott Building Condominiums - Conceptual Subdivision Ap~roval 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~ (20 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. , T~lding is a non-conforming use and as such the R-6 density ~~~p~;king 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 re~ardinq minimum land area and parking spaces have been calculated: R/11F ZONE DENSITY REQU IRmErnS = 2,000 = 1,250 = 4,200 = 7,260 -- 1,450 2 studios = 1000 x 2 lone bedroom = 1250 x 1 2 two bedroom = 2100 x 2 2 three bedroom = 3630 x 2 Office = 1:1 F.A.R. 1450 1450 + TOTAL AREA REQUIRwEtn 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 lone 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 REQUIRE~ = 17 spaces T~e Planning Office recommends that conceptual subdivision approval lle granted subject to the requirement that six (6) lots be allocate~_ ,!o the Scott Building leaving separate lots K, L & M for developmeQJ llnder the R-6 zone. Also. that 17 parking spaces be provided to serve the Scott Building Condominiums. """ ,..."", '-' MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: RE: DATE: 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 lod!le 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." "-1- 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 addi ti ona 1 pol i cy recommendati ons. (\ l L " '..~ ~'\ ':\~\~~ ~' o)JE!Cl~ ~ '~ h.. AUG 0 8 1979 ASPEN I PITKIN CO, PLANNING OFFICE ''''"'' APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS .-#> Request is hereby made on behalf of David F. Jones (hereinafter referred to as "APPLICANT"), under Section 20-l9(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 0, 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 lodge 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 f' ...... -, 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 J?///) ? ,df/' / ~/ Herbert KleJ.n By Attorneys for David F. Jones 601 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)925-6813 c ;""""''', .......,., SACHS KLEIN & SEIGLE JEFFREY H. SACHS HERBERT S. KLEIN JON DAVID SEIGLE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 601 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 8t611 (303) 9215-6813 DENVER OFFICE: 1115150 LINCOLN STREET- SUITE 11518 DENVER, COLORACO 80284 (303) 837.8800 September 25, 1979 Ron Stock, Esq. City Attorney 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611. RE: Condorniniumization of Molly Gibson Lodge Dear Ron: At the Pl~nning 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 Gur views could be clarified and hopefully resolved so that the commission CGuld act on the merits of the application, however, I was Get-off by Mr. Hedstrom, the chai:rrnan of the commission whc- refused me the opportunity to so respond. As I cid not have an opportunity to meet with you before the meeting to discuss tche legal posturing of the, application and was not affor'ded an opportunity to do so at the cOIl'lnission hearing, please consider th}s 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 memorandum, 20-9 (c) st~tes: "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. " ,1.h'7.G..' rlf'1//";,":",,tJ7" 71]~r li}a7'h~ I~ A)lr A .s.., 6 d/ul-s I c,J The Moll~' 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 XIIl Section 24-12 et seq. At Section 24-12.9 the code states that the ordinance is not an abatement 'ordinance,and that: o /, '''''/ 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 ~o 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 othe= 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 fo~ the extension of the non-conforming use throughout a existin'J structure such as the Molly Gibson Lodge. Section 24-12.4' (c) states as follol"s: "If no structural altera1:ions are made any non- conforming use of the structure, or structure and premises, may be changed to another us~ 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 otner uses of the same or higher classifications without violating the zoning. This specific right is granted by the zoning code. The ....,....'~_..._~~ r- '- /""\ '..,! . 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 wnich 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 benefits 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 OClt of town until approximately October 15, and Jeff Sachs will 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: / /' Herber S. Klein HSK:ea I"" - '" ""., MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Richard Grice, Planning Office Daniel A. McArthur, Assistant City Engineer Molly Gibson Lodge Subdivision Exemption 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. 1. 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 Nand R 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. 12:00 4:00 5:00 5:30 6:00 6:30 7:00 7:30 8:00 8:30 CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street . aspen, colorado 81611 C.Uh~lL2/!lehd(/. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (1) Selection of Underwriter, (2) City Manager Appointment,' (3) Water JOINT MEETING WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1. Clean Air Advisory Board, Resolution #19, Series of 1979 2. Water Agency Management Agreement - Ke.ren Smith 3. Colorado Highway Request List COUNCIL MEETING I. MINUTES - September 24, 25, October 3, 4, 1979 11.1 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION III. COUNCIIJllEMBER COMMENTS IV. LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS 1. Great Western Spirit COiany 2. Tor'l's Market - 3.2 bee 3. Little Annie's - 3-way 4. Grog Shop - Package Liq ors - Package Liquors V. APPLICATION FOR 3-WAY LIQUOR LICENSE - Buster and the Fox VI. CENTENNIAL PROJECTS (Tabled from October 9) VII. COJRDES EMPLOYEE HOUSING AND SUBTJIVISION EXEMPTION VIII. ORDINfu~CE #74, SERIES OF 1979 - Prohibiting Subdivision of. Hotels and Lodges IX. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Molly Gibson X. FINAL PLAT APPROVALS 1. Anderson 2. Hyman Street (Baker) XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS & SECOND READINGS Ordinance #50, Series of 1979, Conflicts of Interest Ordinance #58, Series of 1979, Zoning of Smuggler Enclaves XII. CITY MANAGER Water Plant Housing - Project Management Contract Selection of Underwriter Housing Report XIII. CITY ATTORNEY Ordinance #72, Series of 1979, L-l 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 i \, , --, '. . , ....., '. --' Pr'fllll ,~n ;'~'. ('1:i nf[ l\~;r'('ll City Council Oc1.e,LJr'r ~I, )'J79 to cdnt:;',cL t!Jr; firm iltHl r('qu('.'~t i1 .',~ttldy. n'~. !>1,u-t-in ~;()id t!l("/ f('(') 111(' t.'IX0.'l \vilJ be \>'f" 1 J ~;;.'I 'lit [or on ('\1.:1] u<ltion u1: Llle (JoVt~nll:l(;nt. 'l'hi:; j:; .'1 :-;{: udy l.lL' profc~;~;iollill:-..;, .:llld rn~l~;.i(l,' help i.'; n(~(~llo.;cl. 2. o.lor l1;-=-.df;lrom, Cl1.'linn:lo of P {. 7., told Counci 1 Up-, \'()li'mi: :jion fell their rC,l~;on~; for (l(~n,!_i.ll(J ;:,pp,1ic.ltion of t1F' 'J'i)![>.l<. J.odqc r(Jr f;uJJdivj:;jOlI C}"('I:I!_J('io!1 "','('l"C clp,ll~ nncl cOlllpel- l:inq. 'rll'_~ ci ty hil :-) i1q reed UpUrI ;;-,oninq Lo cOllccrlt: rd t C~ to'..lr i~; L lCJclq i llC] h0ar the COliHucrc Lll con.! and ski an"'~. J.iLc1.'itrolll ,.;tilLed it ~;(>(,I~I('c1 llndC'sirztlJ](~ to create (lilY prc:ssurl.~ towanls sh_-jftin(J b)uri:O;l rlCC(1I:l;noc!ilt.ion:; Ollt: of thC':-;(' :In_',13 by )Ii{an~; of <:l reduction in IOll_\fe units availaue for [;h,nt term touri[;t tl.';C. I!l'(]~_~tr(lm ~;iLid tlH! P & Z felt condorniniumization of loclq(~:..~ \'.'oulcl do Ul.'lt. HedGtro:n suid it scciTI(:d the rct.-Ton:~ih:i lily of the P & 7. t.o tJY, in their l)c~;t juclqclllent, to protect the community i:lcjainst the po,::sibili ty of adverse land use. Hedstrom nol(~cl t.llc're is some evidence thc:.t existing condominiums in ~,C'purate o.......ncJ:f...hip or units docs wjthclrm-J the unib.: fnJln short term marJ:2t. l,t the Gant 16 per cent of U18 units arc ncvC'r offered for short term rental; at tho Alps 16 per centi Top of the Villaqe, 25 per cent; Clarendo;l, 53 per cent, Old Ono.lIundrcd 20 1->cr cent. . I! :i :1 ;1 i i! , Hedstrom stated the P & Z judged scparat.e ovmership would tend to weaken and de~,troy the spccio.l (j\.li11ity of a lodge created and mainU-li'ned by onVlcr-Oper..ltor. 'fhe quality of lodg(~s is a. big conCi.'rn at this time. Hedstrom said they felt it was not desirable to alleviate one problem by an action that might create other, new and different problems. 'l'he financial problems of modernizing lodges should be attacked by other means. 3. Joe Porter told Council he was very concerned ilbout the city buses being used by school children. P;:)rter stated he y.:as in favor of consolidating the bus systems. However, there is a serious problem with child safety. Also a lot of people arc driving their kIds t.o school, which is counter to t:he transportation objectives. Porter said he would like to see Council thrm.J this back on the Board of Educat.ion temporarily until this can be thought out better. This may be saving mOl)cy but it is jeopardizing the safety Qf the children. Porter asked Council to nwke a commitment to do something. Nayor Edel pointec1 out the system is not something the city wanted to pick up; the Board of Education dropped- t.he bus system. Mv.yor Edel said he is also concerned about it; hO\...ever, he did not w~nt to see kids standing around freezing with no way to school. Hayor Edel suggested the parents take this up .......ith the BOurd of Education. Stalf said he had met with the school staff and there is a long range effort for total combina~:ion of the buse efforts. '1'he city or county should contr-act with the school to rurr school buses. Mayor Ed8l told Porter to meet with Stalf on t',is issue.' II ~~~~~iima~.~~-pointed out Council had asked for an ordinance to affect condominJLumi~ zation und it is not on the ag<3nda. City Attorney Stock tolacouncil -he-w--;;-s----gorJig-Co- ~-) -recomrricnd to r & z to recommen:l a moratorium so that the city can addrcs~the issue. :; clause was in the motion and it should be done. it " 2. Councilman Isaac asked where Arthur1s liquor application was. Staff told Council that the liquor inspector could not be present, and the applicant is rc-wI'iting the contracts. l I :i :/ " :1 3. Councilman Parry announcec the offiqial opening of the Ice Garden Saturday, October 13, and asked that Council be there. 4. Councilman Behrendt noted th~.city is pushing for antique lights and asked if they are part of the engineering desig~ for North ~1ill street.. Cou~cilman Behrendt said he would like to see these lights on Nill street. Dan McArthur, city engineer, told Council there are high level lights tr:ere no....... 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: and still have enough po.......er. :1 !, , 5. Councilman Behrendt asked when the t.......o reports on the Wheeler Opera House would be ready. Jeff Sachs said the Rearing Fork Valley Foundation on the Performing AI;ts study \'..'Ould be ready Friday. Joe \VE lIs said the H.1rry Weiss study i!; about two weeks away from finalization. Mayor Edel askEd that this' be pushed for the ne}~t Council meeting. ~ ~ Ii ,I ~ Ii 7. Mayor Edel told Council tl.at C.A.S.T. has been invited by t_he Colorado Ski County to speak to them. The ski commu~ities will have a voice in fores1: service relationships, ski -area operator relation shivs , etc ~ , I was impressed an appoint- I 'I !! 6. Mayor Edel said the lunch meeting at the water plant was excellent, and he by the needs coming up. Hayor Edel recommended anyone who did not attend make ment with Jim Markalunas. Tom Dunlop and Bob Jacobs had the rcnc\\'als for Paddy Bugutt:; favor, motion carried. Mayor Ii 8. Mayor Edel said the Counc: 1 will be interviewing for city rlanaqer th'e week of October '! 15 and ""ill have an executive meeting at noon October 22nd to flake a'decision. .i "I' LIQUOR LICENSE RENElvi\LS - Paddy Bugatti I s; Sub Stloppc bl . I . th C . . d 'I no pro ems ""J_t \ 121. er. ounC~.1man Isaac move to approve 's and Sub Shoppc; seconded by C.cl\ll1cilrnan Parry. All in Edcl left the meeting: Nayor Pro '('em 13eprendt took over. APpr~C^TION FOR 3-HAY r.IQUO~:.ICENSE - BUster and the Fox ,tI 1-layor Pro Tt;:'m .Behrendt opened the public heal~ing. Coun'cilman Culli.ns moved to contiriw the public hCilring until the J\(~xt meeting Uj'on applicant's reg\lvst; seconded by Counc: man Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. SP~~Il\~_ EVEN'll l)F.H.NI'1'S - Aspen Center for Vi~ll"l Arts Councilman Parry moved to approve the special event permits for November 4; November 24, and Dc'cC'mber 14; f;pcond(~d by Councilm.J:11 IS,l;lC. All in fuvor, motion c.:lrricd. " r'\ -' .' ,,-,. .J' / ~J. 1-..111 ... .-.. 1~("j\1 LI1: /,>1(,r'l j Ilq ^~q'('il City Coullcil Oct oJ)('r 9, 1979 CFNTJ,;rinli\L )']:(),J!-:C'l'[; Hitl\lOniJ n"rk<,]Ulla,~ told CounciJ ~;he would :jn:-;t <1.S ..soon \vait to do the prcscntuL.ion to Lho CIlU )'(! Council. COllllciJman Co] lj nfi moved to tahle t.ill:; j tCilI until October 22; f3C'condcd by Councill11dn Ifi<lnc. All in favor, motion ~iJrr.i('d. pnorO~';AL ']'0 l\LLEVJ A'l'E HUL'n PJ,l,;~~;fl'OP '!Wj,l vr:1t\' 'l'IUlCI< SEHVICE ~' flf;'~I~ C,~6YO i , , I I , I I I i I I City Attorney Stock told Council they could limit trucks and the use of the streets, but I they cannot prohibit. Councilman ISiJac said when Rio Grande was delivering a lot of 'I' supplies, the costs went up because someone e'lse "'as handling the merchandise. Mayor Pro Tern Behrendt said before the council could really address this, Howe should CO:1tact all I the distributors to get support. City t,1anager Stalf said if the merchants supported it ! also, i~ could be considered.. . ~'lithout support~ t~e city would be perce~ved. as placing . I rcgulatlons on how they do bUslness. Stalf sald lf tlle merchants and dlstrlbutors want I to do this, there will be no. fight. Hayer Pro. Tern Behrendt suggested HO-'de go out and ! ,solicit support; if there is strong favor, the Council will listen to this. {J'itY Attorney Stock told Mayor Pro Tern Behrendt even though he is abstaining, ne is : co.unted in the quo.rum and the remaining three Councilmembers have the right to. make the I: decisian. 'Ihc applicant has the right to. request tabling. Stock advised Coun::il that, i a motion re<juires an affirmative vote of. all members present. . I SUBDIVISION E;{EMPTION - Klingman nuzz JJo\"JC, owner of HOLJrillq For.k DclivcTY CO:l\pany, told Council there nre ffiilny rcsto.ur<1nt liC]uor storc,~ and food ~~hop,; dVi:lling \'lith appl"oxim.3.tcly 40 distr:iuuton; br.inging [;llPpliC:j on privo.tc vehicles. 1'his proc1ucC's apprOXil:1dt.cly 8500 tons por year. This produces a large al\lOllnt of conq('stion ,md inefficiency and pollution. Howe suggested finc1ino a WClY to canso} idate the distributor's frc}ght into single trucks for a sin~l] C urcu. Howe said tllat 4 or 5 different trucks urG tryi.ng to ge~ into the alleys; one truck could deliver instead to a single area. The mllltiplc trucks add to the visual impact. Howe said for this to work they woul_d have to have a warehouse facility wllerc the supplies could be brought in in bulk. 'Howe said he felt this would save the distributors "money. 'fhis plan is built on volume. r ,\. I. i 'V 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 exisLing dupl~x. At that time, there was a change in the planning office, staff and there is no reference of this ever getting to Council. Grice recolamended Council approve the subdi vision exemption a~; it could have been the staff I s .fault. Councilman Parry moved to approve the subdivision exemption; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Melly Gibson "-~~~~~,'equested this item be placed on th9 October 22nd a~en~~ REVIEN OF DESIGN i\LTERNA1'IVES - North Mill Street Dan McArthu::', city engineer, submitted a traffic study artd letter from the dnsign consul- tant. lt1cArUlllr recommended the Council appr:Jv~ design alternate #1 which includes on street parkin') on Hill street. The benefits of this plan are increase parking by 50 spaces, cou~.d be used as bus loading'" and unloading along Mill street. With '.:his plan, special bus turn out lanes would not be nced~d. 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 the 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.:n they will only repave the portion from Puppy Smith street to the bridge. Stock told Cot:ncil the city has CO:ilpleted the acquisition for the' realignment of the bridge, and the city has to convince the County to use road and brid~C' money to build the bridge. Mc]."rthur told Council for reasons of safety there has to tc a small section of grass betwe2~ the side- walk and street. Joe Wells, planning office, said there is 4 concern abeut tre parking element of the proposal and the north side of the river continues to be an area that may be lo.gical fer employee housing. The planning office also has reservations about the lack of accorrrr:.odation of pcdcstrial and bikE' movement. '''Stalf pointed out witt", four lanes the sidewalk can be placed right next to th€.' street and the parked cars will be a buffer from the str.eet in the summer and the piled ~;nO\v will be a buffer in the winteJ:. "''\ Councilman Collins asked for the cost comparisons. II will be more c:{pensive, but something lcss.than i.f the consultants could develop both schemes and city has a co.ntract for on~ design. 'Councilman Isaac moved to approve #1 with ~) parking. Motion DIES for lack of sf-condo McArthur answered the cOrlEultant fee] $100,000. Councilman Collins asked get bids on both. McArthur stated the i.,. Councilman Pal.ry moved to approve,. #1; sec0nc1C'd by Councilman Collins. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Isaac. ltloLio;l carried. McArthur told Cbuncil the addiLion~ll cost t.c bring road base up from Glenwood Springs would be $120 per 15 tons load. The city uses about 360 tons a year. Ii 'I Ii I' Ii r"< II \: Ii ....J Ii ~ II r 'I ~ I ~ ~ ('"'. ....... -""'II, ..."../ RccJulnr tlr0Ljn~J ^sp(~n City CUllllCil Sc>ptuf.LC"'l" :'4, ) 9'/9 COllllCiJllIill1 Ir;<lclC mover] th.,t: the' COlll\ci 1 :i~; :int:(~rcf',t('d in tht~ icl0ll hut (1(y~~; not h~lVl' any money to ,;pcnd Oil trnJ)cy~;; if tile pr-ivo.lc !,('C'Lor l,,:.:lllh; to come f('lW,ll:c1 ,-..it.!) d J)l:"o:)(ls,d., the Council would br,.\\,jJljrllJ to Ji,;tcn; :;CCOllcJr.'d by Councilmdn V<111 Nl'S~;. :-l."1YOl ]:~1c) :'"tld he '''ould helve to 1l,~IV(' mnrf' input Iy.for(' h(~ could !n;lke any decision. All in favor, ....Ij Lh the execption of l'1<l'J'or l:c1cl. HoliuIl cilrr.l<'d. SlJmn~.I..:;JO!~'~~~'i~'l'IC2t:! - 'l'ippl c Louge Ricllirc1 Grice, plallning dcpartm0nt. told COUI1Cil this is the first: application for condo- miniund7.i\l1on of a lodge. "J'IJi!.; is in the> lodqe district. illld is thc only zon~ ...dlC'n~ short !; . term accolmnod'ltions 0.):0 allo\<'/c'u. At the 'ripple 1,0<190, there are 10 lodge unit~; and 2 11;,1 studio;-;; all have been w:;cd for ~;hort term in the pust. '1'hc enginccrinq dep<trtmcnt has no problems with the de~;iqn. The planning office made referrals to vcJ.rim.l;i groups ill the :!. conununity; both the Condo!~inium :<!ani1fjcrs and the Ski Corp stated t.hcy were in favor of II maintaininy short term accommodations at the base of the hill. One real lor was of the I, opinion condominiumization would allow upgrading of the lodges. Grice said the planning III office is convinced at that :.5orne price, these lodge units arc bought by people that do II not have to rent the units. " II II :1 , i I The P & Z reviewed this extensively and recomrrended denial as condominiumization repre- sented a potential change in use, which would be a violation of gr.owth management and would erode U-:e short term market. The P & z voted in favor of upgrading tile 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; JO lll: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. N~.. Faulkner said this shoL.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 reasor s for denial are slJE,culation. Short term rent<lls to tourists arc the Vlay to go in this location, Lhere is more money tel be made. J. D. Muller told Cour,cil that a condominiumjzation was not within the intents and purposes of subdivision; nothinry would be gained by having this go through ful) subdivisio';1 review. The low income housing is inappl icabl e because this has always been !.hort term housing. The L-2 zone permits this use; the parking has been satisfied; thi[~ is not under gro.....:th management l'lan. Muller pointec out in the P & Z resolution stated possibiliti2s of violation. When making a decision, it is inpermissable to assume that the per50~ ...:ill violate the law. Nuller outlined a WhE at Ridge case sa.ying, once an aI'~)licant applies under the ordinance only those factors which apply generally to all applicants may be considered. Mullt":r said it is unlawful tc. apply a law to this case which does not exist. Muller said thi!; applicatior does not viol~;te anything in the present suL::"Lvision 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 ordin;mce defines subdivision as being condomini- umization as Fell as other divisions of prope:-ty. The argument being made tha-: an exemption shm.ld be granted is that the major:_ty of the subdivision code is ba:;ed ",i.th the division of land rather than structures. Stock told Council they had a le1al right to deny the e;:emption if they wish. There is 3 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 c:hange by thc condominiumization of this property such that touncil would want to put controls on it. Council could denand that the property 1.,e available for short term use, or that the owners could only oc ;upy for short period l)f times. Council could state t.lis is a subdivision and require that it go through the e::ception process. Stock told COllflCil he b2:1ieved there are legally justi.fi- able reasons 1:hey could deny condominiumizati')fl. Grice said bo'.~h he and P & Z recommended denial from the start. Their interpr 2tation of the growth mallagement ordinance is that it wO;J.ld not specify a control in specific differ- ent types of 'frowth if conversion from one ty~c to another was not also a viol~tion. Grice stated .'.:.: and the P & Z felt that becua3"c of this GMP ordinance, this we.lld be a change in use Councilwoman Michael asked for a response for Muller's argument that the p & Z'~ seven statements that sort of predict the future as opposed to code vi_)lations as to why this s]~ould pot be exempted. Stock said Muller's argument for 2 or 3 of the points in the resolu-_ion is very justified; the fact that someone mayor may not break the law _ at some futur.; point should not be part of the consideration for granting the 2xemption. Stock told Co.:..cil they are being asked to make a determination that the divi~ ion of the property from one piec~ into 12 is not a subdivision. Stock said a determination of exemption is do statement that in fact it is not a division of property, i.e. e. subdivision as defined in the Code. Councilman COl.lins said he thought the exemption was exeRlption from the subdi,'ision regu- lations and n,~t from the subdividing land. C:::u_ncilman Parry said thc Council is t.O deter- mine whether .~.his chunge will be detrimental t.o the city. Mayor Edel asked wr,.:-lt the intent of the P & Z 'vas in this resolution. i'-lullcr said the P & Z had to thinK about the effects of th_s on everyone, and that is what their decision was based upon.''::ouncilman .Van Ness poin":ed out the Council has to find this application is not within th~ intents and 'purposes ()f the subdivision chapter. r.1ayor Edel said he had a problem wiLl reversing the decision ,.~f P & Z after they worked on th is for months, a.nd would like to ~lear from the P & Z. C'~)uncillllan Isaac said there is net way to control this. Councilma.ll ISilac ag-reed with P & Z Clnd stated he did not want;"jo see any condominiumization of lodges in town. Hm.;cvcr,' there is no law to do this.. Councilman Isaac said he would Ii kc this controlled through a contract. Stock told COllncil they had the power to say no to this, put a moratorium on, and go ahead and legislate. Councilman Van Ness said that most of the reasons thlt P & Z-denicd this for are pure spccula~ion. " " ('" .1 . '-"",0' ,.~ HC':I\I) C. t' ~l()cU n{J ...?,-:;!.'f'n ~'it)'_,S:oul:(~_.i.) Sc:ptc'lll!Jer _2_~,,_..}~}_9_ I ;\ ! COl,j}ciJllI'-1n Cull.ln~:; ~;<L_id tho purpo~;(~ ht're i~~ to pn"'s(~rvc t-lw intc~qr.ity of the tourist zone. '1'11<: lOllr,i)il ZC!)l() 1l<1~. IJl:'('n \",d!crcd do\"'n in tilt' 1,1);t fc'\v Y<';U'S; it hLl!; })c'('n amended to permit rc'sid('nc(>~;. Counci lnklrl ColI jn~; :;tJid if thi~; Jnd'lC i:-; con:'!omjllilll1Ij zL'cl, th(~ city will lose tht' type of activ.it:--, ~1~;~;ncii1l0d I,olilh tile hitJrj:;t. 'J'he l~rvl rt'sulL w:ill weaken the accommo- d<-d:ion:.> th(~ city wiint~; to ~;ce at the bottom 0::' the hilJ. ~!lJllcr pointeu out that putting in kitchens would. be a violation of Gnp, and thi.s will keep Ul~ '1'l_pplo short term. l J Councilman I.sauC moved to approve the sul-;jvi~;ion c:-:cl11p1:ion fur the Tipple with t~he follow- ing cor.dition~;; (1) enter into a contract !;t_i1til~q the 10 wIlts v..1ill be short term and be reg'; ~;tcn::,d \-lith a central rt':::;crvntions WWncy, (2) thC'xe v..'il1 b() en-site management, (3) no buildillg pL~rmits be issued for kitchen additions, au(l (4) next me(>ting look at \~'riting ul-J __,!.n--yx.!;.liD.uDc_C:__l.Q__contro-l--lodgc.s.i_..sccondcd by Councilmun Pai-i:'y.~-' Ns. I"aul}~ncr pOlnr:-c-rr--ou-t: t.hat the lodge is too small to havc'on-sitc manaqcmcnt. Councilman Isaac said one of the units could be for on-site management. Councilmt1n Isaac changed condition (2) to be local management, not on-sitG. Councilman Isaac said not all units had to be under one manager. CouncilmembGrs Parry, Isaac, and Michael in favor; Council members Van Ness, Collins and ";'-',.1 Mayor Edel opposed. Motion NOT carried. Councilman Van Ness moved to approve the exemption from the definition of subdivision with no restrictions; seconded bv Councilwoman Michael. COllncilmembers Parry, Van Ness, and lHch.3.cl in favor; Councilmc;,bcrs Isaac, Collins and Mayor Edel opposed. Notion NOT carried. Councilman Van Ness moved to approve the exemption from the definition of subdivision with the conditions that they reqister with Aspen Reservations or any otl:er duly accredited reservations bureau located in Pitkin County; Colorado; seconded by Councilman Parry. Councilmernbcrs Van Ness, Pal'ry, and t-1ichael in' favor; Mayor Edel, Councilrnembers Isaac and Collins opP9sed. Motion NOT carried. Councilman Collins moved to table. Motion DIES for lack of a second. Councilman Isaac moved to aI'prove the subdivision exemption with the conditions in ori.ginal motion; seconded b~ Councilman Van Ness. Councilmembers Van Ness, Isaac, Parry in favor; Councilman Collins, Mayor Edel opposed. Motion carried. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Beriro the l1ichael, Ii 'I Richard Grice told Council thi~ request is to divide three lots on Hopkins street; these arc improved with a brick V:ictorian and some shacks. The HPC has given permission to remove the shacks. Grice SHid this application does not affect the GMP.because single family residences are not a:.lowed in the CC zone; commercial space is not allm"ed without a development allotment. This approval will noL result in development without additional re\~iew. The engineering depart.ment haS recommended approval subject to the condition there be an agreement Lhat 1;he applicant either consLruct an 8 foot sidewalk or agree to do so \"i thin 12 months. Cii_y l'.ttorney recommends approval wi thout ccndi tion. After much discussion, P & Z decided therE should only be a sidewalk ov(!r the middle lot as it is already developed, and the othEr two 1.liqht be developed sepa :at(!ly. The planning office feels sidewalks are a standdrd part of subdivision regulations c~nd do feel it is appropriate. Grice recorruncnded a sidewall: bE.. developed on all three lots (dther immediately or within 12 months in the event they anticipate development. :'"11 : Ii , 'I : 'I i.~{; Peter Van Domelin, represen1:in~ 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 fee: tte ?lanning office should be given a carte blanche in setting conditions on subdivision c;:cmpt.ions. Van Domclin p~inted out I'.eriro is only requesting to be able to sell the lots; net 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 :~llggested they be asked to add a COVE'nant to the property that if the city creates a sidewalk improvement district, they would enter into that district. Van Domelin said he felt that v..-as fair. Councilman Van Ness moved to a[prove the subdivision ex~mption ",~ith the only condition that in the event a sidewal_1(. district is formed that this propel.ty would agree they would join in a binding covenant; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried- SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Hibberd Grice told Council this is ~ request for a subdivision exemptioL for a duplex at North $event 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 reJiewed this and recommended approval subject tc engineering's conditions and that the property be deed restricted to ~ix month minimum leases, and that the north u~it be deed restricted by covenant limiting price and occupancy for a peri.od of five years, Councilman Behrendt suggested that a street, sidewalk and curb improvement agreclrrent be added. II Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the subdivision exemption based upon the restrictions outlined by Grice, and the .'lpplicant would agree to join any improvement districts for street, sidewalk, gl,.ltter and curb: seconded 9Y Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Councilm.J.n Collins ;rJskcd that the buildinq departm,-~ check out the duplex for an extra third unit. Councilmiln Collins said this unit was .::Jdvertised this sununcr, and he would like a report from the building inspectol'. II SUBliIVlr.roN EXEHPTION - Horizons III I Grice told Council this property is located at the intersection of Snowbunny and cemetery! Lane. Engineering department recommends approval h.J.ving only one curb cut;' there are presently two. Also S0parute electric and wat.er meters be rcguired for each unit, and that they eHLer, into a curb, gutter .:lncI sidcwaU~ improvement agreement, This have never ']1 ; : , I i j I ~v~ s~ --:p 4- 2....,. lY\olly '1 ~e.~ - So. ~ . ~"...pt -~~ IJ IfYl~~ _." .,..- .,.....". ,~'..".^..." >,..~. '" "~"" . .' ~'~::2. ~ ~ em';) ~ ~ ...,.." , , I ;r.;; ~.;t;., ~~~ .~J-~ ~~ \ '*- ~. 7.4r'~ e...u. "'N~.c~J. ~e04I"'~ [).ct>- s~ 2O..Q (c) t..tJk ~ ~ ...... l"" .. , Dt1ifi ~~""";'1 ~ ~C!~161.J ~ . ...IW~ . , ~ 1~' ~ . ~ - ~Z,t~ .~w)~~ Ct/fIh~, ~ ~~~~i. ~~:*s~~~ ~ h'8 ~ w/SE:L . .~~ ~'" -/ - ~~ ,",'''''- --......". ............._~ '''''', "I1T~'--- ,..~, " . ",.; ~:P AI,. ~ ~ ....L chJ..1,' ~ O'f ' HJ ,I: \..Alt... '(~y~' ~ ~ O"""I"\~ ~<rw'\ (CJ'4' G~~1rm' -I, A ~L .AU ,.J6t,-- :~.' ! I erA II I 'i 'I . . "wi!!.._.wA....."",... _ !! ,ii 1'1 , , I: I i:i Iii '., I 'i : ! , I I' I, ! ! , i -'-',,- ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Fom<', c, r. IH'rC~rl II. ~. a t, (:~. - - OlWHIANCE NO. (Series of 1979) AN Ol\DINM1CE H1POSING A 'I'E~lPORARY ~10RATOInUH ON THB SUBDIVSION OF LODGB AND HOTEL UNITS AnD TIlE APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISIOlJ EXBHPTIOUS FOR TIlE PURPOSE OF CONDmlIlHUHIZA'rION, TIHB-SlIARIllG OR SPLITTIllG THE FBB OF SUCH mlITS 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 integrated 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 number 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 re~;ult in an improper balarce between tourist and no.si- dential housing and adversely affect the City's viability as a tourist area; and WHERBAS, it is the opinion of the City Council that under a properly redrafted subdivision code it may be possible to apprc>ve some form of subdivision without the detrimental effect exper- ienced in other ski resorts; and 'l* ~ .'---'.... /"">., , RECORD OF PROG[EDII~GS 100 Leaves f"Nr~ ',~ c... ..nl".~11. n. I'. ~ t. C'l. WHEH.EAS, the subdivision regulations (ordinance), as cur- rently proposed to be revised, would iiltroduce significant change in both the limitations and res~rictions upon property; and WHEREAS, the community is dependent upon its v iabil i ty as a tourist area; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TilE CI'fY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: . Section 1 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 il temporary moratorium on the subdivision or the approval of subdivLsion exemptions of hotel and lodge units within the corporate limits of the City of Aspen for the purpose of condominiumization, time-sh~ring or splitting t~e fee of such units. Said moratorium'shall be for a period not to ~:C n,l'i-tlI ""'-t.e~, \ en.. ?,.~\.' exceed beyond Octoaer 1, 1980, provided, however, that on or I! before that date, the City Council ma)/ extend the moratorium for a period not tc exc?ed 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 sha.ll 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 Idthin the corporate limits of the City of Aspen with respect to requests from property owners for the platting or sub- division of E.uch property for the purpose of condominiumizatic'n, time-sharing or splitting the fee of such units or for an exerr,p- tion of such property from the provisions of the subdivision regulat ions (ord inance ); prov ided, hO\~ever, the mora tor i urn shall . .f.i not affect those requests which, at the time of the enactment of -2- \. '..;a . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F"nr,l '.' c. r. ,,~rCKn ~. n. 1\ L C~ ~_.-_._- - ---- --_.,-~------------- ------------- ------- 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. Section 3 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. Section 4 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 AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting held at the City of Aspen on the , 1979. Herman Edel Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch City Clerk ... ~3- ~ . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fOP" 'Q f.. r. Iir,rCKtL B. O. /I I. ~,) FINALLY adopted, passed and approved on the day of , 1979. Herro1an Edel t1ayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch City Clerk ... -4- ~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Richard Grice, Planning Office Mollie Gibson Lodge - Subdivision Exemption 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- conformi ng 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.