The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ca.Lodge Preservation.1980lc�%o - cfl - oa Lodge Preservation Ulu C 0 'M. •1 G. I.."Ifl.f1 ... . 1. " ORDINANCE NO. +� ( Series of 198t, 1 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING SECTION 24-12.10 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN WHICH PRESERVES LODGE AND RESIDENTIAL USES WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to adopt regulations sufficient to maintain the current mix of lodge accommodations within the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recortunended the adoption of a new Section 24-12.10 to the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen for the benefit of the City of Aspen, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That Chapter 24 of_ the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen shall be amended by the adoption of a new Section 24-12.10 which shall read as follows: Sec. 24-12.10. Lodge/Residential Preservation. All single-family, duplex, multi -family, lodge and hotel uses that were lawfully established and continually so used there- after but located within a zoning district where such use is currently not either a permitted or conditional use are by definition non -conforming uses, but, pursuant to the provi- sions of this section, are to be considered allowed uses and are not subject to the provisions of Section 24-12.2, 24-12.4 and 24-12.5; provided: (1) All new construction, reconstruction or modification of a structure shall meet the area and bulk requirements of the underlying district. if renovation of a structure is to be performed it shall not increase the non- conformity of the structure. For the purpose of this section, the investment of less than 50% of the value of the structure is considered renovation and the invest- ment of 50% or more of the value of the structtre is considered reconstruction. (2) No increase in the number of units or square footage shall be allowed, and (3) Any change in use shall not be to a use of a lower or less restrictive classification, but rather to a use of the same or higher classification, and a 96-VV..ate V . ..—a.- __— —.. _ ..__ (4) If •y such use of land cease or any reason for a period of more than one (1) year, any subsequent use of land shall conform to the regulations specified by the code for the district in which such land is located. The act of obtaining a building periait within the one- year period shall be considered to have tolled the one- year time period and the lodge and residential use may be re-established at the completion of construction, however, failure to re-establish such use within thirty (30) days after the issuance of a certificate of occu- pancy shall deprive the property owner of the continued use of his property as a residential or lodge use. Section 2 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional 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 portions thereof. Section 3 A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of 1980, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15 days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting held on the day of ally_2_. , 1980. H etman Edel Mayor ATTEST: athryn S Koch City Cler RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 7uu Lcaves y . • i.►. Mari ..... L. CO. FINALLY - opted, passed and approvelpon the �. Lk day of 1980. Herman Edel Mayor ATTEST: 'j>eQoTy City Clerk J El MEMORArDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Director RE: Study Session on Lodge Preservation DATE: May 12, 1980 At the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the Commission requested a study session regarding lodge preservation. As you will recall, many questions surfaced during the discussion of the lodge preservation ordi- nance, which is proceeding to Council on second reading May 12. There was a sense at P & Z that the lodge preservation ordinance offered imme- diate relief and encouragement for the upgrading of lodges, but that the Commission was uncertain whether more in the way of ordinance amend- ment is needed. The Lodge Overlay Zone has long been discussed as a pos- sible alternative. The Planning Office will be reviewing the growth management plan gener- ally throughout the summer; among the specific reviews will be the status of lodge development and its relationship to the growth manage- ment controls proposed therein. We have long felt that before a lodge overlay ordinance is recommended, this review must take place. There is also the related question of permitting expansion of lodges through a. lodge preservation or overlay technique. An understanding and review of previous Planning & Zoning activity regarding land uses in Aspen, and particularly short-term uses would be an appropriate matter for the Planning and*Zoning Commission to familiarize itself with. Therefore, we suggest that the study session be scheduled as a review of previous planning activity and adopted documents rather than a discussion of the appropriateness of any new ordinance or plan amendment. The study session will be preliminary to a substantial amount of -staff research this summer and could suggest appropriate matters for.inclusion in that research. While we are inviting members of the public and representatives of groups that have had interest in various proposals recently before the Planning & Zoning Commission, we suggest that the session be viewed as an educa- tional one rather than a forum for the discussion of competing views on specific proposals. The study session will be scheduled for Wednesday, June 4, at noon in a location to be announced later. cc: Aspen Times KSPN KSNO Gideon Kaufman Ashley Anderson Heinz Coordes MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen City Council rice, P1,� using Office FROhi: Richard G RE: Lodge Condominiumization/Lodge Preservation DATE: April 4, 1980 As a result of several zoning actions in the last decade, all lodges located outside of the Lodge zones have become non -conforming uses. As such, they are subjected to restrictions imposed by their non -conforming status. The non- conforming use provisions are very restrictive regarding improvement, upgrading, and modification. Without actually calling for abatement of non -conforming uses, the provisions of this Section, by their restrictiveness, encourage the uses being slowly phased out and converted to conforming uses. This disincentive has been dubbed "slow death". Recent public discussions of the so-called "downward spiral" of the Aspen lodging industry have raised questions about the impact of this provision in particular and its relationship to physical deterioration of lodge structures. It is generally acknowledged, however, that the unique variety of existing Aspen lodges as to scale, character, size, type, location, quality, services, amenities, ambience and price is an integral part of the charm and appeal of Aspen as opposed to other resorts. The potential conflict of public policy was raised when the previous Si;;uggler Lodge applied this last summer for a variance from the Code limitation that any repair and modification to a non -conforming use be limited to ordinary repairs and to no more than 10% of the replacement value of the structure on an annual basis. That limitation clearly prohibited renovation intended to upgrade the lodge's facilities and in some cases to simply modify structural elements to make it a more viable operation. Both the Planning Director and City Attorney who sat in on the Board of Adjustment deliberations heard testimony that raised questions whether such restrictive provisions on improvement worked against public interests and whether in fact the result of those provisions had unforeseen adverse impacts on the quality of this community. A variance was granted to the Smuggler Lodge in part on the basis that Planning and Attorney staff agreed it was appropriate to forward an amendment to the non -conforming use provisions to the City Council for their consideration. In an unrelated application, the.issue of condominiumization was raised. While the objective of that lodge applicant seeking to condominiumize was not solely to upgrade, other lodge owners began to grasp the potential implication of condominiumization for improvement and for continued viability in general. What resulted from this convergence of public and private interest was the organization of the Lodge Association to address these issues. Through a series of meetings conducted by the Lodge Association and attended by public staff, the specifics of the two cited applications were expanded into a full review of the history of lodging and related zoning and land use actions. The Lodge Association for the first time defined the problem from their perspective. As part of the process, staff has reviewed with the Lodge Association several legislative techniques for dealing with the problem of deterioration. Statement of the Problem From the months of discussions, it appears that the problem simply stated is the continuing economic viability of Aspen's lodging industry. More specifically stated, it is the relationship of non -conforming use status to the continued viability of Aspen's non -conforming lodges. From the discussions there appear to be three important issues arising out of the relationship of public policy and this industry's future. They are: 1. Limitations on reconstruction and/or renovation imposed by non -conforming status. Memo to Aspen P and . City Council Re: Lodges April 4, 1980 Page Two 2. Refinancing difficulties arising from non -conforming status. 3. lhat economies of scale are not achievable because of limitations on expansion. Review of Alternative Solutions A. Limitations on Reconstruction and/or Renovation. The staff has looked at two means of addressing this particular problem: 1. A'method of addressing this problem is to amend the non -conforming use section of the Code so as to remove restrictions on renovation, reconstruction or modification of non -conforming lodges and begin to thereby encourage their full utilization. This mechanism was suggested as a means of allowing the upgrading of non -conforming residential uses, without allowing their expansion or proliferation. It was first suggested when the Board of Adjustment considered the Smuggler Lodge application. It was offered as a means of directly attacking a Code limitation which has had effects that may have been unforeseen. In other words it is questionable whether previous zoning actions were intended to foster the slow death of uses primarily residential in nature. It is important for conservation reasons as well as for life, health and safety reasons to encourage the maintenance to Code standards of all residential type structures. Restrictions on renovations of buildings designed for human occupancy has the adverse impact of fostering deterioration instead of encouraging continued upgrading to Code. For these reasons, a recommendation was made that multi -family residential and lodge uses be distinguished from the existing non- conforming use provisions of the Code and subject to a "preservation clause instead". The effect of this proposed amendment would be to repeal the existing non -conforming use restrictions on renovation, etc., and substitute the following provisions: That renovation, reconstruction and modification of non -conforming residential uses would be permitted provided that they meet the area and bulk require- ments of the underlying zone district, that there be no increase in the number of units or total square footage, that any change in use be toward conformity, and that if any such use of land cease or any reason or a period of more than one year, any subsequent use of the land be consistent With the requiremen s ot the underlying zone district. This clause is similar to that which the County implemented in its non -conforming use section several years ago. The purpose of that clause was to recognize the appropriateness of favorable treatment of residential uses by allowing their continued viability instead of discouraging it through abatement or restrictive anti -improvement clauses. Such an amendment need not change underlying public policy which states that there are more appropriate locations for certain uses. Specifically, the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan calls for future tourist accommodations being limited to Lodge zones at the base of Aspen Mountain and in close proximity to transportation as well as the Commercial Core. It does allow the continuance of what may previously have been thought to be a tolerable mix of lodge and other uses, but which is now thought to be in fact a desirable mix. It is an alternative to deterioration, without fostering proliferation or expansion contrary to adopted land use plans and zoning patterns. The proposal has the advantage of simple administration in that an application may be made without City Commission review and simply by providing plans for building permit issuance that meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Memo to Aspen P and Z_ • City Council Rc: Lodges April 4, 1980 Page Three 2. A second solution is a "Lodge Overlay Z_gne". It was suggested by the Planning Office after discussions of the Lodge Association led beyond the original scope of the discussion. The model that was suggested was used in Phoenix to accommodate pre-existing non -conforming uses in otherwise residential neighborhoods by'ameliorating the adverse effects of incompatible mixtures of uses" through a neighborhood planning process and the adoption of a neighborhood overlay plan. If applied to the City of Aspen,the Lodge Overlay could be a technique for accommodating lodges as uses interspersed with residential and other types of uses in non -tourist zone districts. In short, it is a legal technique for legitimizing the existence of non -conforming uses in a zone district that does not otherwise provide for them and is a process for determining the circumstances under which those uses may be made more compatible. To the Lodge Association this technique appeared to offer more flexibility and provides a mechanism for allowing expansion. Al Blomquist offered a first draft of such a district and delineated examples of how expansion could enhance the situation of individual lodges. After evaluating the draft and preparing one of our own, the Planning Office has concluded that we cannot recommend the Lodge Overlay technique at this time for the following reasons: -A lodge overlay zone which allows expansion offers an opportunity which is in contradiction to the Growth Management Plan. The Growth Management Plan allocates a quota of only 18 new lodge units per year which was calculated by allocating 80% of the ultimate buildout achievable under the Lodge zone density over a 15 year period. The Growth Management Plan was designed to achieve balance in several areas, among them the area of bed to ski and recreational capacity. In that analysis, Aspen is overbuilt in lodge capacity, while Snowmass is underbuilt. The Growth Management Plan recommends that Snowmass be allowed to build lodge capacity to meet its skiing terrain. The Growth Management Plan states that "the City of Aspen could make a very positive contribution to the overall transportation and fiscal balance of the community by undertaking a program to substantially reduce the potential for tourist accommodations expansion and reserving future growth for permanent single and multi -family development at a low rate." To open up the opportunity to non -conforming lodges now to participate in this limited lodge expansion seems to offer at best a false hope. The argument has been raised that we are losing short term accommodations in the City of Aspen and expansion should be allowed make up the difference. We cannot at this time confirm or deny that but have programed for later this year a work element that will review provisions of the Growth Management Plan. For this to be complete it does require the kind of inventory that Al Plomquist has been suggesting which in turn requires a great deal of time and effort on the part of the Finance Department and computer personnel as well as funding to set up a program for monitoring inventory of lodges and residential uses. The Planning Office recommends that it would be,inappropriate to adopt an ordinance which could be in conflict with the Growth Management Plan until the need for change in it is well documented. The second reason is that the Lodge Overlay proposes a substantial planning process because it is only through that process that a suitable floor area ratio and other bulk.parartieters for lodge expansion can be devised. Through the mechanism of the Lodge Overlay,bulk and other impacts such as parking or density, are reviewed through a neighborhood planning process. At a minimum this would require a liaison role by staff members in order that a report and recommendation may be made to Planning and Zoning Commission and Council who would ultimately adopt such a plan. •. Momo to Aspen P and Z City Council Re: Lodges April 4, 1980 Page Four It is a novel and potentially healthy process. It is not an easy one, is not budgeted, and is not the simplest way to address the "downward spiral" of lodges. B. Refinancing Difficulties. Refinancing difficulties arising from non -conforming status could be substantially reduced by the adoption of the "Lodge/Residential Preservation Clause" in conjunction with authorization of condominiumization of non -conforming lodges. The Planning Office has consulted with a number of local lending institutions which have personal experience in the financing of lodges. Howie Mallory of the First National Bank and Jim Patterson of the Bank of Aspen have indicated to us that these two modifications would improve the prospects for financing of lodges. They did comment that lodges experience refinancing difficulties with or without non -conforming status, and investors' decisions are based on a case by case review. Although lodges are viewed as high risk invest- ments, the bankers felt that condominiumization combined with the elimination of restrictions on renovation could provide lodges with significant financial flexibility. The Lodge Condominiumization Ordinance which is also included in your packet is written to be consistent with the recommendations of the Lodge Association, the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as the Planning Office. C. Economies of Scale. Staff cannot adequately comment on the relationship of small operations and economies of scale. We have been advised that the industry standard for a viable lodge operation is 250 or more rooms. If this is true it appears that there is little that we can do to assist toward economies of scale without totally undermining previous land use and growth policies. Expansion at any rate raises inconsistencies with the intent and characteristics of underlying zone districts in which non -conforming lodge uses are found. For example, the Office zone is one which contains a number of non -conforming lodges especially along Main Street. The Office designation in this area was adopted to provide for the establishment of low intensity office and commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and Victorian character of formerly residential areas. Lodges were to be tolerated only as subordinate and in their existing scale. Residential zones where other lodges are found were created to provide for long term residential uses. Increase in short term tourist use has the potential for adding activities which conflict with the residential nature of the neighborhood. Increase in the number of cars may add to the congestion while trip generation time periods are different for long and short term residential uses, and may constitute a source of annoyance. The Lodge zones were however created to provide for the recreational and accommodation needs of the visitor in an area which is especially suited for the type of trip generation and people movement that visitors will incur. Conclusion The Planning Office recommends as the result of many meetings and discussions with the Lodge Association and other staff that the attached Condominiumization and Lodge Preservation Amendments appear to accomplish the thrust of the Aspen Lodging Association's objectives while maintaining the integrity of adopted land use and growth policies. They remove legislative obstacles to lodge renovation, promote better financing opportunities, and open up a mechanism for the direct financing of improvement through condominiurization. In short, the amendment should go a long way to halting the "downward spiral" and deterioration of physical conditions of lodges. In addition, the amendments accomplish these objectives without undermining adopted land use and growth policies. New lodges and expansions of lodges are encouraged in the Lodge zones and at a limited rate. Finally, the mechanisms offer inurnediate relief. A simple building {permit application opens the way for complete lodge renovation. r • Memo to Aspen f' and z City Council Re: Lodges April 4, 1980 Page Five This process has been an educational one. A better understanding of the lodge industry and public policy impacts on it has resulted. We will continue to keep the lodging situation in mind when the Growth Management flan is reviewed with a view toward monitoring both the increase in lodge inventory and tho condition of lodges. Maintenance of the characteristic mix of lodges of differing scalds and locations within the City of Aspen is a much more apparent goal tod(ry than it was several years ago. Should it become necessary, other more sophisticated techniques such as the "Lodge Overlay" will be reviewed as supplementary mechanisms. hAll-) LC)/ A o. 1 73" tak �,U/ i,� 7 W; • 0 I. /�4 To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission From: Allan Blonquist, Chalet Lisl Re: Lodge Preservation Versus Lodge Overlay Approaches Date: March 29, 1980 t SQL Lam' �r iC aj/uo I will be out of the country for your April 8th meeting when you will consider the Lodge Preservation Clause, which I object to as an incom- plete solution. The preferred solution is a Lodge Overl.av Zone, which, in my opinion, the planning staff rejected with poor facts and poor logic in the Richard Crice Liemorandum of February 28, 1980, The ALA will reluctantly endorse the Lodge Preservation Clause "as better than nothing." They wanted full .leggliza- i.on, but have decided to accept the Lodge Preservation Clause for now and then try later for the better solution. I asked Karen about this, acid she indicated the staff would have other prior itie She also said she preferred the o ge preservTberi n as easier" and "simpler."" I would rather the solution httT an T"easy," and am unhappy with both the Planning Offic and tie" ALA positions. I met with Karen and ��4ekuesvcraky,��zach/�fi tO determzre the ,real issue -- and then said it is T`exnansion,which I note is now 'den-1 by the GMP. For zoning, the issue is bulk and size, i.e. Glen- i Given the March 26th entrenchment of the PO thinking on this matter, I therefore feel cer,pelled to answer the Grice memo, both to discredit it technically and to argue my concerns as a planner, a member of the lodg:i.ng industry, and as a citizen and taxpayer. A. CRITIQUE OF GRICE MEMO For this critique I have labeled certain quoted statements from the Grice Memo as FICTION and my retort as FACT, though I admit to also inserting some of my own opinions since he was so free with his. 1. FICTION *'Many of aspen's non -conforming lodges are no longer viable economic operations." FACT. All lodges are viable economic operations until bankruptcy or cessastion of lodging use. Some are less economic than others, economic viability being relative to owner expectation, not an absolute, except at the point of bankruptcy, or pap,_�r loss, which even then -the owner may absorb for reasons of write-off, capital gain or desire to live in Aspen. The above "fiction" by Grice attempted to state the "problem" the memo is next intended to help solve. However, it is the WRONG problem. fil -Gpb Aom p �fi di,&=L kao iW 6�xo A- C�Wd Ib k" 2A &4 �. The Coucil and P&Z originally described the "problem" as the downwar s ira in the guality of Aspen bodging relative to upward trend in lodging quantity and quality at Snowmass, Vail, etc.. The Aspen lodging industry has agreed that the downward spiral. is."real, and has been underway since the down zoning. One has only.to see the new construction at Snowmass and Vail to be aware of ''newness' as an Aspen competitor. Yet, one of Aspen's great assets is a ess " - and historic preser- vation, tasteful remodeling and tasteful additions have worked well for most Aspen businesses -- but have not been noticeable over the last few years in Aspen's nonconforming lodging. Why they have not been noticeable in non -conforming lodging while being so noticable in other areas is also why the downward spiral is underway. The Grice memo does not explain why, submits no facts to -describe the extent of the downward spiral, or its ultimate impacts, does not analyze `-i \/,,the how of the spiral, and does not offer a solution to the problem. dVInstead, it mistakenly sees "economic viability" as the problem. With the Planning Office having this misconception of the problem, it is "X easy to understand why the WRONG solution (lodge preservation only) was Volinvented. 2. FICTION "In order to legally justify the new zone category (Lodge Overlay Zone) and the elimination of non -conforming status without allowing adjacent properties to build new lodges, we would also need to adopt a lodge preservation l plan ... we do not feel that expansion should be allowed ... �J the 1980 Planning Office budget did not include the staff time ...'� ,�,, �. K• AL(� nde �Gcore ca�nyd parenthesis/agdyd�ed), �ew� FACT. When the ALA rejected tt�J NLooCdge/•�P'reservaltion ause app)roach� in favor of FULL LEGALIZATION, Karen suggested a Pheonix Ordinance as a model, and I prepared the draft of a Lodging Neighborhood Overlay a w Zone which Karen then said the PO would edit and improve. Instead, the 'A A rejected this choice, apparently for reason of the facts and logic in the 1 Grice Memo, which constituted a "staff decision not to present the Overlav Zone alternat-we to P&Z for its consideration. t The staff cost budgetary argument is a disgrace and certainly not a City Council or P&Z reason to continue the "downward spiral" in lodging d- quality. The fact is the staff is merely using that argument because ;+ t�1ANTS to keep lodges non -conforming so as to avoid facing the yet unmentioned issue of the lodge DOWNZON INE being CONTRARY to the 1973 Land Use Plan, and that the GMP treatment of lodges is VERY POOR, for for attrition in guest pillows. / not compensating I S 3, FICTTUN "Perhaps the mGSt significant problem Aspen's non -conforming lodges are facing has to do with the limited scale of J!_� the operations. According to the Snowmass Company, �y 250 rooms is the minimum number of rooms necessary for a lodge to be a viable economic operation. It appears 2 4, • 0� (, that expansion of Aspen's non -conforming lodges should not be allowed..." (underscore added). this observation NONE of Aspen's existing lodges are econom- ically viable and should all cash in their chips to make way for high- rise VAILIFICATION. WORSE, it implies that a11.273 units of the GMP quota for the next 15 years should go to only ONE HOTEL since Ttanything smaller would not be economically viable. Fiction number three could be excused as a minor semantic or judgmental error, except that it repeats fiction number one, apparently for emphasis, and then repeats it again in fiction number six. The Snowmass Company statement probably applied to new hotels at Interstate location, or in big cities, whereas in Aspen additions to existing small lodges (under 250 rooms?) would appear to be a more economic way to add rooms, and is actually recommended as such in the 1973 Land Use Plan. 4. FICTION "...expansion of Aspen's non -conforming lodges should not be allowed... (because) ... if we legalize these lodges, they remain inconsistent with the intentions and charac- teristics of the underlying zone districts... Lodges are typically more highly impactive, intensive uses, and are not consistant with the residential scale of either the Office or Residential zones." (parenthesis added) FACT. Neither the Aspen Ski Lodge nor the Innsbruck are "more highly impactive, intensive" than the new Floradora Office and Restaurant building across the street in the same Office Zone. Neither the Hearthstone House nor the Chalet Lisl are "more highly impactive, intensive" than the new apartment complex across the street on the /�. t old Mouse House Site in the same RMF zone. All four lodges are at a residential scale less than for the newly -built, allowed buildings across'the street in the same 0 and RMF zones. To be "highly intensive, impactive" is more a question of scale than of use, when the use is lodge versus office -restaurant or multi -family. FAR, not use, should be the controlling factor, in this case. S. FICTION "...expansion of Aspen's non -conforming lodges should not be allowed... (because) ... the existing lodge capacity in Aspen exceeds the ability to supply our recreation opportunities. We currently transport in the vicinity of 4,000 skiers per day to Snowmass ... To allow lodge expansion in excess of that recomended by the Growth Management Policy Plan would accentuate the existing transportation problem..." FACT. Aspen capacity for restaurant, bar, retail and service function exceeds lodge capacity, with the differential now filled by apre-ski visitors from Snowmass and the export of specialized services to Snowmass. With Snowmass incorporated and trending rapidly to self-sufficiency, down town Aspen's square footage will soon be over -built, closings and bankruptcy will increase, rents and prices will decline, etc. Because 3 0 • annual attrition in the pillow count exceeds the annual addition of pil.lows per the GMP, the Aspen visitor accomodations capacity is in a state of annual decline. (This does not hurt existing lodges -- it helps them and only hurts other business dependent on the Aspen visitor.) The problem is that the trend is continuing and being accelerated by CITY POLICY-- with no knowledge or attempt at forcasting its ultimate impacts on downtown businesses. Aspen lodging is full in winter, .diontingC' U capacity in winter, Aspen only has excessive lodging capacity in the other eight months, because summer activity capacity is substantially less than winter skier capacity. The same problem is at the root of G� / the transportation problem. Winter business pays the full cost of winter transportation - the transportation subsidies arefor transpo tation losses in the other eight months - and those losses are current 4 covered from winter income. r Aspen winter advertising features the maximum customer choice allowed by four ski mountains, which automatically makes ground transportation to the four mountains integral to the ski experience, which is why both ski companies incorporated free bus service BEFORE either the City or the County systems had even begun. Since the average skier only spends 6 hours and twenty dollars to ski, and 18 hours and eighty dollars per day on bed, services and apre-ski, it is more economic and more energy efficient to cluster the domestic functions around the pedestrian mode in town and use buses to get the customer to his short stint at the scattered skiing location, especially sim e the ski ticket price includes the cost of that daytime bus transportation, and since God chose to scatter the skiable mountains. Most ski parties ski more than one mountain, and many split up with beginners to Buttermilk, experts to Ajax, etc. Many wait for the morning snow report before deciding which mountain to ski. Clearly transportation is integral to the skiing vacation, and the key reason why Aspen can offer choices. The niain transportation goal in the valley is to lessen auto dependence, not to lessen skier freedom and choice, and the two best ways to lessen auto dependence are to promote the pedestrian and bus modes as a preferable alternative. The achilles heel of the bus system is not the four months of winter, which work better each year, and which more than pay their way, but the other eight months which currently provide lesser service and currently require a subsidy from winter. The location of lodging as described by Grice is almost irrelevant to bus system success, in this context. But even in the context he chose, the Main Street lodges are closer to all four Aspen ski mountains than are those in the official lodge zones. They are also closer to summer activities like the AIHS, -the tent, golf, Maroon Bells, etc. Based on a 12 month season, the lodge zone is not only more energy intensive from the transportation standpoint, 4 0 it is also more energy intensive for its location in the mountain shadow. 6. FICTION "expansion of Aspents non -conforming lodges should not be allowed... (because) ... the lodge zones were created to provide for the recreational and accomodations needs of the visitor in an area which is especially suited for this purpose because of their proximity to transportation (Ruby Park), the ski area and the commercial core. The total build out remaining in the lodge zone is in excess of 300 units. The Growth Management Policy Plan recommends that 80% of this build out, or 273 units, be constructed over the next 15 years. This.remains a valid goal for future growth. Even if we determine at some point in the future that the economy of Aspen needs additional short-term lodge units in excess of that recommended by the Growth Management Plan, they wou d Yee more appropriately located in the existing lodge zones." (underscore added) FACT. This tourist ghetto concept flies in the face of such customer satisfaction with non -ghetto locations as to cause loyal and enthusiastic return visits to. the Gant; Cresfiahaus, St. Moritz, Ullr, Boomerang and all the other non -conforming lodges that were traditionally and are at present some of Aspen's BEST lodging. Wouldn't it be better to have at least some of any new lodging provided in small additions to such lodges and under the hand of expert and proven good management and reputation for small lodge ambience? Or, is a 250 room Hilton the better choice? Ruby Park is not an asset. It is the most smelly, noisy and crowded Coney Island type blight in Aspen. The need is to disperse part of the Ruby Park load to an additional three or four new bus stations located closer to lodging. This would shorten the visitor's walk to buses by taking advantage of bus flexibility, not to assume that because the inflexible train required only one station that the bus system should blindly follow suit. It is NOT good planning to force the Lodge Zone to ape Vail. It would be better planning to disperse both the lodging loads and the transport- ation loads to three neighborhoods, i.e. the Aspen Mountain, Glory Hole Park, and Shadow Mountain lodging neighborhoods, all three of which exist already, and all three of which border the Commercial Core and the bus loop system. 7; FICTION "There appears to be no reason to create a new zone category along with the accompanying new review procedures jnless we are szoin- to allow expansion of these non -conform- ing uses. The Planning Officers conclusion is that expansion of non -conforming lodges wot d be inappropriate. We therefore recommend the following amendments (Lodge Preservation Clause) to the Aspen City Code be adopted • L7 so as to allow non -conforming lodges the maximum amount of flexibility, short of allowing expansion, - order _to improve their economic viabilitv.71 (parenthesis and underscore added) FACT. The way to improve non -conforming lodges to the extent that they will actually and honestly provide greater y3sitor satisfaction is to improve both the physical facility and the operation. In doing that, as the Pend," or objective requires "profitability," as the "means." The profitability has to be both current and future. The City can do little about operations, but it can do a lot to enable improvements to the physical facility, and the first thing is to make each non -conforming lodge FULLY LEGAL, like most other Aspen businesses. The second thing is to help the owners and their bankers to have personal ENTHUSIASM about the Aspen future of their lodges. Current status as non -conforming, and the continuation of non -conforming status, as proposed by Grice, eliminates neither obstacle to genuine and significant improvement. Expansion is often, but not always, critical to major physical improvement in that it can sometimes affect profitability, but more normally because it allows a new environmental feature, a new amenity or a solution to some problem, including the problem of scale. tT It is well recognized as a builder of ocdner enthusiasm, and it is a right of most Aspen businesses, except those that are illegal or non -conforming. If made fully legal, several of the currently non -conforming lodges would be well advised to acquire adjacent property for such reasons as creating a solar easement,opening a view, providing a garden or off street parking, a swimming pool or tennis court, an addition, employee housing, etc. But for any such improvement sure to gain visitor satisfactions, it is necessary that there be an improvement in revenues and a prospect for reasonable profit, which a few additional units can sometimes assure. The downward spiral is not just a matter of room refurbishment, but also basic structural and utility needs, as well as one of providing amenity factors (and the land required) equal to those provided by the Snowmass and Vail competition. And for each lodge, the mix of needs and alternatives is different -- making full legalization necessary if more than a few are to upgrade. The non -conforming lodges were fully legal, popular and successful before downzoning. Their continuation and expansion was endoresed in the 1973 Land Use Plan. The downzoning violated the . intent of the 1973 Land Use Plan. Under a lodge Overlay Zone, which impliments the 1973 plan, they can be controled as to density, size and off -site impacts. Their expansion and rate of growth can be controlled by the GMP. The existing lodges can be "treated as a class" just as historic buildings are "treated as a class" in the Historic Overlay.Zone. C nclusion to Cri.tigue of Grice Memo. Lodging is an important basic industry, and is the only Aspen business class where approximately 5050 of the individual businesses are non -conforming and NOT FULLY LEGAL. This was done, in haste, by a previous City Council in its downzoning -- contrary to the 1973 Land Use Plan. The result (impact) has been a Q 0 E downward spiral in lodging quality aiid quantity relative to new and improved lodging at Snowmass, Vail, etc. BUT EVEN MORE SERIOUS is the fact that even though lodge values have risen astronomically while this has been going on, the law of supply and demand having allowed lodge owners to sell out at a nice capital gain, the other businesses in Aspen will ultimately suffer seriously as the resulting slow but steady erosion of the Aspen "pillow country continues and Snowmass absorbs the pillow loss and continues to gain in self-sufficiency in retail, services, and apre-ski, causing down town Aspen to lose customers now considered "capture." Thus, one conclusion is simply that the Lodge Overlay Zone and a GMP amendment are needed to prevent aziv further decline in the Aspen pillow count. The GMP showed the Aspen City Limits to contain 10,275 tourist beds (p20) and have 91,7211 tourists . (p16) in 197 S. Can the Planning Office prove up that many today (in 1980), within the City Limits? The second conclusion is that by favoring lodge expansion only in the lodge zone, and by giving a density bonus to lodge zone owners who destroy non -conforming lodges and transfer the density to the lodge zone, the City has not only provided a very major incentive for the VAILIFICATION of.Aspeny but has backed it with powerful_ disincentives to the continuation of the smaller non -conforming lodges. Unfortunately, many of those non -conforming lodges are among Aspens BEST, per the Rand McNally survey for ACR± The third conclusion is related to the first, namely that there may he more tourist beds in 1980 than in 1975, despite the suspected decrease in beds upon which the sales tax is paid and collected. This is a suspicion based on hearsay, the disparity in numbers, and a defenitional problem in the zoning ordinance wherein lodge room is defined as a hotel room without kitchen, and "lodging" in the Lodge Zones -is all about such lodge and hotel rooms, and NOT ABOUT SHORT TERM RENTALS, the "business'' of renting pillows to visitors. Thus, hearsay has it that individuals "rent short term" and often do not collect sales tax, and are not contro7_led by zoning, because the zoning ordinance does not define short term rental as lodging and all lodging as a business collecting sales tax and required to be in the lodging zone. Thus, the apartments, condos, houses, rooms in houses, etc, so rented short term are NOT non- conforming and per the Grice analysis NOT a part of the non -conforming use problem, being legal by zoning and often illegal by the sales tax statute and ordinances. The problem L complex - and the current trends project a future of possibly VERY serious problems to the overall Aspen economy and Aspen life style. The solutions will not be "easy" or "simple." The Planning Office can and should adjust its work program and budget to face reality. We face a negative impact .from the downzoning -- the task we face is to now mitigate that negative impact. Both zoning and the GMP will be better and stronger for the effort. 7 0 • B. CREATIVE POSITIVE RESPONSE Despite the above critique, I continue to favor "slow".growth and want desperately to help preserve and enhance Aspen both as a place to visit and in which to live. Thus I share most of the slow growth goals of the Planning Office. In the above I disagreed mostly as to the means. Let me therefore suggest in creative and positive terms what the preferred and better means might be: 1. Define lodging as short term rental, a business, which must collect sales tax, have a City business license, and be properly zoned. Do a study of how much employee housing would be generated by this "definition" as zoning made short term rentals a business not allowed in most of the residential zones! 2. The City and the ALA jointly edit and create a Dodging_ Neighborhood Overlay pone that allows expansion subject to GMP approvals and treats existing lodges as a class and acknowledges the mixed use character of the neighborhood per. the 1973 general plan amendment. 3. Jointly edit and create an amendment to the GMP which eliminates the lodge zone bias, adds attrition to the annual quota and gives points to modest additions to small lodges, not primarily to improve economic viability, but primarily for reasons of personalized service to the guest and improvement to the lodge's relationship to its neighborhood. 4. Institute a program of positive city services to the lodging industry, such as a statistical service, assistance to ACR, a major program for achievement of the surmier destination resort goal, acknowledgement and help to all three lodging neighborhoods, a bus station and visitor information center for each, etc. $. Start a major collation and re -write of any now inconsistent Aspen ordinances affecting development into an integrated Land .Use Code, being sure to edit for consistency between parts and in definitions, taking care to edit for clarity and lay comprehension, and to shorten and simplify for purposes of reducing fear, uncertainty and red tape. 6. Do a major re -write of the Aspen Area General Plan and the GMP to include other plan elements now in separate documents, like the County transportation and trails plans and the OEDP which overlay the City jurisdiction, into one, codified, City master plan document, easy to quote and easy to up -date, and which reduces current conflicts between the parts of the current collection of plan documents. Include in such a true "comprehensive" plan a full treatment of public facilities needs, summer destination resort needs, capital program, and other elements now missing in the current collection of plan elements. Use the 1980 census as a data basing point and establish an on -going statistical measurement program by which trends can be monitored and early warning signals received promptly in the future. Call it a plan effectiveness monitoring system to also ask how well each of the plans, ordinances, projects and programs is working as compared to the promises made when they were proposed ( a zero -based approach and sunset for things that don't work) . Aspen lodging has always been admired and loved for the CHOICES it offers. And this has always included choice as to lodging neighborhood and as to size and type of faci.liLy. The Planning Office promised to give the Lodge Neighborhood Overlay Zone full and fair consideration, and did not do so, as is clearly shown by the content, bias and total lack of support data in the Grice memo. No 'proof" was given that lodging "hurts" the Shadow Mountain and Glory Hole Park lodging neighborhoods. The 1973 Master Plan refers to them as 'mixed -use" neighborhoods. It is the Grice memo and the Downzoni.ng, not the 1973 Master Plan, that are being challenged, as hurting the lodging industry.and destroying visitor choice as to lodging type and neighborhood. The 1973 Land Use Plan map shows two brown areas as "Mixed Residential" and an orange area as "Recreation/ Accomodations". The text then says: (Orange)-- ' lationsj To allow for the recreation and accomodation needs of the visitor to Aspen in an area that is especially suited to this because of its unity with, and identity to, the proposed transportation system, the ski area and the central area." (Brown)-- "Residential/Mixed. To allow for a mix of residen- tial uses in areas where these conditions presently exist. Only existing* lodges should be considered for expansion in order to provide additional guest rooms..." (emphasis added.) The two brown areas (Residential/Mixed) comprise the approximate areas of the TWO LODGING NEIGHBORIIOODS, Glory Hole Park and Shadow Mountain, as identified in the December 18, 1979 memo to P&Z from Allan Blomquist entitled Proposed New Locbze Overlav Zone -- Plus. Aspen Mountain, the third neighborhood (orange on the 1973 plan), was not proposed for Overlay Zone status since it is already zoned L-1 and L-2 and lodges in it are therefore conforming, whereas most lodges in the brown areas on the 1973 LAND USE PLAN are non -conforming by virtue of subsequent DOWNZONINGS. It is clear from the 1973 Land Use Plan that expansion of existing lodges in the two brown areas was to be considered. The subsegaent downzoning contradicted the plan in this regard. Thus it violated both the intent of the official plan itself and the intent of the Colorado Statutes which enable planning and zoning, and which require that zoning be based on a carefiil.ly drawn, comprehensive General Plan for the community. C. CONCLUSION The "Problem" is the downward spiral of Aspen lodging. The CAUSE of the "Problem" is the DOWNZONING and the Grice and Planning Office attitude-, ... not the 1973 Land Use Plan! The downzoning made roughly half of Aspen lodging non -conforming, a polite term meaning No Loneer Needed and Not Wanted and Encouraged to Run Down Amortize and GO AWAY!" 9 The policy WORKED ... the Smuggler and other lodges are now GONE ... and a few others have been alloi%7ed to run down to get ready for the GOING AWAY that current official CITY POLICY and Ordinances and Administrative Practices (like poor bus service outside the lodge ��zones) now ENCOURAGE. The "solution" is ase the stigma of non-conforma il. , makes the reamining lodges FULLY getheisurviv r�-L,. and their improvement, :Lneluding expansion, if and when appropriate., The above critique of the Grice memo was a critique of an arbir decision by a "staff meeting" consensus to FORCE ALL EXPANSION INTO T LODGE ZONE as the only fit place for additional tourist accomodations. The "problem" is still a question of "QUALITY." A survey of lodging Quality `oas done recently by motel experts from Rand McNalley under contract to Aspen Central Reservations (ACR). The ACR refused my request for the data as necessary to the ALA case against non -conforming lodge status. The results got to me by indirect, unapproved,means, and I use them now, incomplete as they are, because they clearly show that the non -conforming lodges provide a significant percentage of Aspens "excellent" pillows. ACR did not rate the Cantrup and other properties. I had not addresses for rated properties handled by the management companies. Therefore, the "sample" on the next page ig incomplete, but a perusal of the list of 20 conforming and 23 non -conforming properties in the sample show it to cover a fairly valid sampling of tax-payinIT Aspen lodging in each of the three neighborhoods, with the Aspen Mountain Neighborhood probably understated due to the absences of the Cantrup properties, which were not rated, at the owners request. 10 U PARTIAL RESULTS FROM RAND MCNALLLY RATING SURVEY Done for ACR in the Fall of 1979 Rating Conforming Non -Conforming Total (pillows) (pillows) (pillows) Aspen Mt Lodging Ne[ h. Excellent 357 0 357 Very Good 627 0 627 . Good or less 135 0 135 total 1,119 0 1,119 Shadow Mt. LcdR,ine Nea.gll. Excellent 457 588 1,045 Very Good 0 280 280 Good or less 0 134 134 total 457 1,002 12459 Gerry Hole Park Lodz n Neigh. Excellent 0 656 656 Very Good 872 281 1,1.53 Good or less 0 42 42 total 87 2 979 1,851 Total of the Above Excellent 814 1,244 2,058 Very Good 1,499 561 2,060 Good or less 135 176 311 total 2,448 1,981 4,429 Source: Allan Blomquist, from indirect sources, and without permission or assistance of ACR 11 • • Lod,;n� for which I had the Pillow Count, the RatinTT and the Zoning Classification. Conforming Lodgi.n Non -Conforming Lodging name pillows neigh. name pillows neigh 1. Astee 20 A 2. Durant 102 A 3. Fasching Haus 167 A 4. Fifth Ave 88 A 5. Holland house 40 A 6. Lift One 143 A 7. Mt. Chalet 143 A 8. Mt. Queen 24 A 9. N. of Nell 21.7 A 10. Shadow Mt. 124 =A 11. Tiple Inn 24 12. Tipple Lodge 27 A 13. Aspen Manor 58 S 14. Deep Powder 32 S 15. Inverness 44 S 16. Limelight 184 S 17. Prospector 41 S 18. Snowflake 98 S 1.9. Aspen Alps 540 G 20. Chateaux Aspen 332 G 20 total 2,448 pillows Pillow Count per ACR A = Aspen Mt. S = Shadow Mt. G = lilory Hole Park 1. Applejack 105 S 2. Aspen Ski Lodge 65 S 3. Bavarian Inn 34 S 4. Boomerang 106 S S.' Chalet Lisl 20 S 6. Christiana 70 S 7. Coachlight 36 S 8. Copper Horse 51 S 9. Fireside 50 S 10. Hearthstone 35 S 11. Innsbruck 85 S 12. Little Red 60 S 13. Molly Gibson 54 S 14. St. Moritz 87 S 15. Snow Queen 18 S 16. Tyrolean 60 S 17. Ullr 66 S 18. Sivlerglow 164 G 19. Chateau Blanc 68 G 20. Crestahau6 49 G 21. Endeavor 42 G 22. Gant 564 G 23. North Star 92 G 23 total 1,981 pillows 12 ! 0 What the above numbers show is that the Lodge Zone has more 7ExpensiveT1 pillows than the other zones, BUT, also, that the other zones and NON- CONFORMING _Lodes have m��r�e ''Lxcc1_lent" pillows than the Lodge zone. Overall, it shows that the rated Non -Conforming lodges are better., quality -wise, as a whole, than are the rated Conforming Lodges. But the numbers are incomplete, so a conservative view might be that the t4Excellence"is split only IIALr and HALF. Even then the point is still valid, namely that it is both poor business and poor zoning to make half of Aspen's lodging NGN-CONFORMING. But, knowing what has happened since the downzoning in the way of attrition in pillows, beds, units and lodges, to NOW continue the stigma of non-conformance as recommended by Grice, would be a serious mistake. Surely the least P&Z can do is request that the Planning Office work with the ALA to more clearly define the problem, get some agreed upon facts, do some further analysis and present the P&Z with a full hearing on both the Lodge Preservation Clause and the Lodge Overlay Zone, with the pros and cons for each, so that P&Z might choose, before sending something on to the City Council. 13 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office RE: Repeal of Sections 20-22 (c) and (d) DATE: April 3, 1980 Proposal for Repeal Pursuant to arguments explained in the attached November 29, 1979 memorandum from the Housing Director, the Aspen City Council now has before it an ordinance that would repeal Section 20-22 (c) and (d). These are the provisions that require review and addressing of displacement impacts of condominiumization. Since the proposed are amendments to the subdivision regulations, P and Z review is not required. However, the Planning Office asked Council to table in order to get your comments. We felt that you had recommended adoption of this section and ought to make a recommendation prior to any action repealing same. We also believe the work you have done in the Housing Task Force will offer some input to the impact of this proposal on the housing problem. The argument for repeal is based primarily on an equity question. In other words, the owners of rental units who have been fair in renting units at reasonable rates are the ones on whom deed restrictions are placed while new and old units rented at high rates are not restricted at all. This encourages people to raise rents in anticipation of condominiumization. We agree that the effect of the ordinance as now drafted is unfair and encouraging to actions outside the intent. However, we do not agree that the ordinance should be repealed either because deed restrictions are hard to enforce or because the ordinance has been ineffective in slowing the loss of low and moderate income housing supply. First, enforcement, as has been repeated many times before, can and should be addressed not just for this, but for other reasons. Secondly, data compiled during the Housing Task Force work indicates that since adoption of Ordinance #39 (enacting Section 20-22), deed restrictions have preserved some units within the low and moderate income supply. Review of Condominiumization Data The attached chart, entitled "Condominiumization 1973 - 1979", shows that in 1979, the only full year in which ordinance 39 was in effect, there were 58 condominiumizations and 12 units price restricted. The ratio of price restricted units is approximately 20% of the total, therefore. The ratio increases, however, to 30% if you consider only existing units condominiumized assuming that all new units do not contribute to the supply of low and moderate income housing. Roughly one third of the units condominiumized have, therefore, been maintained within the supply of low and moderate income units. We can assume that some of the other two thirds have either never been part of that supply or rents were raised in anticipation of condominiumization. It is important to look at the figures another way: what would happen if the ordinance was repealed? First, twelve units would have been lost to the supply, if not immediately, then with the first sale. The Housing Task Force has recommended that we need to produce 250 new units to solve a deficit and 67 new units to meet new employee generation. The annual rate of production would have to be increased to 79 units in order to counteract this loss. Secondly, a review of past year's condominiumization applications shows that the rate of application was far greater in years prior to enactment of Ordinance 39. In 1978, 75 existing units applied for condominiumization as opposed to 39 in 1979. In 1976 and 1977, the figures were 66 and 51 respectively. This suggests that repeal of this Section may encourage more applications because of the lack of restrictions, and that, therefore, the loss may be even greater. Yet another Code amendment being considered by the City might raise the application rate. This is the amendment that would allow condominiumization of non -conforming uses. Solving the housing problem by producing 250 units • • Memo to Aspen P and Z Re: Repeal of 20-22 April 3, 1980 Page Two plus 67 units/year already more than doubles growth rates specified in the Growth Management Plan. To counteract any new loss through condominiumization would exacerbate the situation. The stated objectives of the Housing Task Force include maintaining the existing housing stock and finding means to reduce the number of condominium conversions which have the effect of displacing low and moderate income households. Proposal for Amendment of Section 20-22 The Planning Office, in view of the above analysis, recommends that Section 20-22 be amended to address inequities but to minimize impact on existing stock. Any new amendment, therefore, should: 1. Not encourage rent increases in anticipation of condominiumization approval. 2. Distribute the burden of loss of supply more evenly. 3. Minimize, if not eliminate, reduction in supply. Other jurisdictions have employed various techniques to minimize loss of rental supply through condominiumization. Related techniques include: 1. Prohibiting conversions when the vacancy rate drops below 4-5% (Aspen's is zero in the winter, though we do not have an accurate mechanism for counting vacancies). 2. Requiring that a % of tenants agree to the condominiumization (i.e., assuming they could and would purchase a unit). Forty percent is the cut-off used in San Francisco. This might work in multi -family condominiumizations, but would be difficult for duplexes. 3. Requiring evidence that tenants have found suitable sites for relocation, or having the owner pay relocation assistance payments or the tenant's rent for a period of time. While this technique might discourage condominium conversions in this community, the ultimate result is likely to still be displacement as the relocated tenant will probably displace another employee. 4. A new ordinance in Walnut Creek, California prohibits condominiumization in excess of 5% of the city's rental stock in any year. It appears that affecting the rate of conversions is probably the only way to distribute the burden more evenly while minimizing its impact. There are two ways of controlling rate and discouraging impact. We recommend that a substitute ordinance be drafted which would: Repeal Sections 20-22 (c) and (d). 2. Discourage displacement by requiring the owner to assume some of the burden of tenant relocation in the form of rental assistance payments for six months. This would apply to all conversions of existing units only where tenants have rented long term over a period of three years. This approach is based on the theory that if any long term tenant, regardless of income is displaced, he will replace someone else for a net loss of housing supply. 3. Limit the number of conversions of existing units which can take place in any year to one per cent of the total rental stock. That would be an annual limit of 17 units in the City. If we assume that in one third of these units, direct displacement would occur, then 6 units would be lost annually, but the effects mitigated somewhat by #2 above. A quota system can be accomplished by lottery semi- annually. • • Memo to Aspen P and Z Re: Repeal of 20-22 April 3, 1980 Page Three 4. All new construction could condominiumize without restriction. 5. Require that we review the results along with our housing goals annually for possible adjustment. Monitor displacement impacts of conversions. 6. Streamline the review process since compliance is straightforward. J0 M EMORA:� DUM DATE: 14ovember 29, 1979 TO: Aspen City Council Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jim Reents Housing Director RE: Condominiumization Policy For a number of years the City of Aspen has been controlling con- dominiumization of existing dwelling units through the process of subdivision exemption. Over that time, because of the concern on the impact of the pool of rental housing within the community, the previous Council passed Ordinance #39. This ordinance, incorpor- ated in to Section 20-22 of the Aspen Municipal Code, tries to address the impact of condominiumization on low, moderate and middle income households. The intent of Council was to prevent the loss of housing within this pool through the process of condo- miniumization. T:ze code requires an applicant for condominiumiza- tion to submit a rental history on the property to prove either that the subject property has been in the past within or without the low, moderate and middle income housing pool. If an applica- tion was determined to impact the low, moderate and middle income housing pool, it could be grounds for either denial or approval with a conditional period of time in which rental restrictions would be applied to the subject property. Aspen as a community is small enough, and the number of available units is small enough, that there really can be no differentiation between low, moderate and middle income rental housing and rental housing in general as long as it is long term. If an individual cannot find housing which falls into the low, moderate and middle income pool by definition in compliance with adopted guidelines from Council, an individual's alternative is to seek other avail- able housing regardless of price. Traditionally, within this com- munity, this has led to individuals doubling up on housing to re- duce an individual price per month. On the one hand, one could consider all existing rental housing within the community essentially lost to any affordable low, moderate or middle income market. As each unit turns over in the market place the new financing requirements and debt service dic- tate the rental income required from the property if it is kept in the rental market. At the present time the City has no control over that rental rate. increase or for that matter any amount that is charged, nor should they. At the same time the City also has no control over whether a unit is rented or not. In the past rental restrictions as a condition of condominiumiza- tion have been applied for periods of three to five years along with an approval. How effective this is is hard to guage. At the present time there is no enforcement or even spot checking of these deed restrictions and especially short-term rental restric- tions. At the same time, there is no policy of screening or qualifying rental applicants so that the housing is in fact pro- vided to individuals within the community who fall into a defini- tion of low, moderate or middle income. • • Memo November 29, 1979 Page 2 Under the current code, if an individual in the past has rented long term at moderate rates to individuals within this community, it is deemed prima facie evidence that it does constitute low, moderate or middle income housing. On the other hand, if the rental history presented is above the current guidelines of Coun- cil it is considered never to have been within that same pool of housing. It seems on the one hand that there is entirely no incentive to provide moderate income housing if through a condo- miniumization procedure you are faced with additional restrictions because of it. Presently the code seems to award those who have charged whatever the market will bear and .at the same time punish those who have in the past kept their rental prices more in line with the affordability of the local employee. It is this dissimi- lar treatment under the current code which is my primary concern and the reason I am suggesting a change in policy. There are actually two ways in which I feel this problem could be addressed: 1. All condominiumizations should proceed through a code that offers no grounds for denial,, but rather a subdivi- sion review process as a consumer protection provision to assure the community that all documentation on a particu- lar condominiumization is in order. This would be pri- marily compliance with the plat regulations and with engineering design considerations. 2. The Cite could require a uniform policy of rental re- strictions for a period of time with any condominiumiza- tion approval. As a condition of approval of a condomin- iumization the City could set a period of time, perhaps three to five years, in which all units under the condo- miniumization application would l)e subject to rental re- strictions under the City's guidelines. The disadvantage of this approach seems to be that there is no enforcement staff or provision under the current code and adminis- tration of the City. It would seem that this approach would re- quire additional staff on the part of the City. On the one hand, as housing director, my concern is for the loss of affordable hoLtsing within this community. However, I feel placing restrictions on property through condominiumization is at best a hit or miss proposition. As stated before, we have no con- trol over property that can already be bought and sold within the marketplace nor can we control or dictate rental rates or even if a unit is rented under the current system, Condominiumization, is, in fact, only a change in the form of ownership and as such should be restricted no differently than other private property within the marketplace. In the past, rental restrictions were applied for a period of time, with the hope that it would buy time for the City to find other solutions. At the present time we have no policy which would replace a unit lost through condominiumiza- tion or sale either today, or five years from today at the end of a conditional rental restriction. As the City of Aspen housing director, I would recommend to both the City Council and in an advisory capacity to the Planning and Zoning Commission that they consider a change in Section 20-22 of the Aspen Municipal Code to process condominiumizations without a denial process.and as a consumer protection device. I feel that • Memo November 29, 1979 Page 3 the community in terms of low, moderate and middle, income housing is something the community and the City will have to address in some other manner. It is apparent through the past control of condominiumization that we have fostered abuses before and after the fact to get around the code as adopted and that it has been ineffective either in preserving or slowing the loss of affordable rental housing within this coimaun-4 ty. JR:mc Ch. IV § 428 PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE Ch. IV § 428 Sec. 428 SPECIAL CONSERVATION (SC) DISTRICT A. Purpose The Special Conservation District is intended as a means for property owners to initiate and to implement programs for the conservation or revitalization of neighborhoods. The district takes effect through the adopting of a precise plan and set of regulations, call the Neighborhood Conservation Plan, specifi- cally intended, in each case, to facilitate maintenance and upgrading of the neighborhood, to encourage development of vacant, or underused lots, to ameliorate the adverse effects of incompatible mixtures of uses, and to encourage neighbor- hood residents and owners to take positive steps for the improvement of the neighborhood. B. Neighborhood Conservation Plan In any Special Conservation District the regulations governing the uses of land and structures, the height of buildings and requirements for lot area, width, and yards, shall be as set forth in the underlying zoning district except as may be expressly modified by the Neighborhood Conservation Plan for that district. There will be a separate and specific Neigh- borhood Conservation Plan for each Special Conservation Dis- trict. 1. Initiation of a Special Conservation District A petition requesting establishment of the district, bearing the signatures of the owners of not less than thirty (30%) percent of the property within the area pro- posed to be included in the Special Conservation Dis- trict, may be submitted to the Planning Commission. The petition shall set forth the preliminary boundaries of the area proposed to be included and shall be on a form provided by the Planning Department. Such preliminary boundaries shall be natural or rectangular in configura- tion, subject to Planning Commission approval. 2. Upon initiation of proceedings as set forth in Sub- section B,l, of this section, the Planning Commission shall call a public hearing at a location in or conve- nient to the area proposed to be included in the dis- trict, for the purpose of explaining the purposes and • • • • • Ch. IV 5 427 PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE Ch. IV § 427 • 5. At such time that the Commission shall determine that the current owner of any portion of the planned com- munity district is not in compliance with a provision of the planned community program or the public dedication or improvement schedules as contained in the legal agree- ment, no further vesting of zoning or approval of final site plan or subdivision plats shall occur for that por- tion. Such determination of noncompliance shall be at a public hearing. The applicant and current owner(s) shall receive written notice of hearing. (G-1608, G-1790) • • -197- Ch. IV § 428 PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE Ch. IV § 428 • operation of a Special Conservation District and to determine the degree of interest in the establishment of such district, as well as to receive any suggestions regarding the content of the Neighborhood Conservation Plan or the boundaries of the Special Conservation Dis- trict. 3. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commis- sion may recommend to City Council that the Planning Department proceed with the preparation of a neighborhood conservation plan as set forth herein, and the Planning Commission shall recommend to the City Council the bound- aries of the proposed district, or it may recommend ter- mination of the proceedings if it determines that the plan will not serve the purposes for which the Special Conservation District is intended. 4. The City Council may, without further hearing, con- cur in the recommendations of the Planning Commission or make such recommendations that they desire and so instruct the Planning Department. C. Preparation of the Neighborhood Conservation Plan • When so instructed by the City Council, the Planning Depart- ment shall prepare a Neighborhood Conservation Plan which shall consist of a detailed plan of land uses and related regulations in substantial conformity with the Phoenix Compre- hensive Plan and any other prevailing, adopted plans. A Neighborhood Conservation Plan shall: 1. Indicate proposed changes, if any, to permitted land uses within the Special Conservation District. 2. Contain a schedule of proposed changes, if any, to density, coverage, height, and other requirements appli- cable to buildings or structures. 3. Contain specific regulations for the remodeling of existing buildings and structures, application of perfor- mance standards and application of site plan review pro- cedures. 4. Contain proposal for social services to be furnished in the area and plans for capital improvements by all public agencies and utilities in the area. 0 -199- Ch. IV § 428 PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE Ch. IV § 428 • D. Establishment of the Special Conservation District 1. Upon completion of the Neighborhood Conservation Plan, the Planning Department shall notify the Planning Commission which shall: a. Reproduce and distribute the plan in the pro- posed district. b. Set a date for a public hearing on the plan and establishment of the district and post notice of such hearing. 2. Upon completion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council the adoption or modification and adoption of the Neighborhood Conser- vation Plan and recommend establishment of the Special Conservation District, provided it shall find: a. That the Neighborhood Conservation Plan is in substantial conformity with the Phoenix Comprehen- sive Plan and any other prevailing, adopted plans; and b. That there exists within the boundaries of the • proposed Special Conservation District substantial support for the provisions of the Neighborhood Con- servation Plan and the establishment of the Special Conservation District. Should the Planning Commission be unable to make these two findings, it shall reject the Neighborhood Conservation Plan and the proceedings shall there- upon be terminated. 3. Upon receipt of a recommendation from the Planning Commission for the establishment of the Special Conser- vation District, and upon finding that the proposed Neighborhood Conservation Plan is in substantial confor- mity with the Phoenix Comprehensive Plan and any other prevailing, adopted plans, and, that there exists sub- stantial community support for the Special Conservation District: The City Council may initiate an application to amend the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with Section 108. (G-1831) -200- • Ch. IV § 429 PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE Ch. IV § 429 • Sec. 429 RH RESORT DISTRICT The resort district provides for resorts occupying extensive grounds and providing within the establishment related guest service facilities such as restaurants, bars, gift shops, and riding stables. Resort districts may be close to residential neighborhoods and will, therefore, provide regulations and site plan controls to protect the residential quality of the resort district itself and surrounding residential districts. A. Permitted Uses 1. Resorts 2. The following accessory uses and buildings which are intended primarily to serve the guests of the resort are permitted: a. Attached or detached dwelling units b. Golf courses C. Shuffleboard courts • d. Swimming pools e. Tennis courts and handball courts f. Conference and banquet rooms, provided that no sign, display, or other exterior indications of said use shall be visible from a public thoroughfare or adjacent property. g. Bars and restaurants - subject to the following conditions: (1) The entrance to said accessory uses shall be from within the exterior walls of the prin- cipal buildings, their arcades, or patios. (2) No sign, display or other exterior indica- tions of the accessory use shall be visible from a public thoroughfare or adjacent property. (3) Live music, entertainment and dancing shall be permitted as an accessory use, subject to a use permit. • -201- Ch. IV § 429 PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE Ch. IV § 429 • h. Retail and service establishments other than bars and restaurants - subject to the following con- ditions: (1) No individual establishment shall contain more than two thousand (2,000) square feet, excluding conference rooms or banquet rooms. (2) The sum of the floor areas of all such establishments shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the total floor area of the resort. (3) The entrance to said accessory use shall be from within the exterior walls of the prin- cipal building, its arcade or patio. (4) No sign, display or other exterior indica- tions of the accessory use shall be visible from a public thoroughfare or adjacent property. i. Riding stables and corrals - subject to the following conditions: (1) There shall be a minimum area of ten (10) • acres gross for a resort having stables; (2) A stable or corral shall be located at a distance of not less than two hundred fifty (250) feet from a residential district. j. Minor game courts not herein enumerated, com- monly associated with resorts. B. Yard, Height, Area and Density Requirements 1. The following minimum requirements shall apply: a. There shall be a minimum of seven and one-half (7 1/2) acres gross area. b. The site shall have a frontage of at least three hundred (300) feet on streets designated as major streets on the minimum right-of-way standards map. -202- 0 Ch. IV § 429 PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE Ch. IV § 429 • C. There shall be at least 50 guest rooms. d. Any dwelling units shall be in excess of the minimum 50 guest rooms. 2. The maximum density shall not exceed ten (10) guest rooms or dwelling units for each one-half (1/2) acre. 3. Setback requirements for all buildings: a. All buildings shall be set back a distance of not less than 25 feet from all property lines. b. All buildings shall be set back a distance of not less than 40 feet from property lines which abut residential districts. This depth may be reduced to 25 feet if the 25 feet is entirely landscaped. C. There shall be a front yard having a depth of at least 40 feet. d. No vehicle shall be parked in the required front yard. • 4. The main building and all accessory buildings shall not occupy more than twenty percent (20%) of the total lot area. 5. Building height shall be as follows: a. Buildings within one hundred (100) feet of any residential district or perimeter street shall not exceed twenty (20) feet. b. Starting at one hundred (100) feet from any abutting residential district or perimeter street, or twenty-five (25) feet from property lines which abut nonresidential districts, the height of struc- tures may be increased one (1) foot for each five (5) or horizontal distance. In no event shall any such building exceed a height of four (4) stories not to exceed forty-eight (48) feet. • -203- Ch. IV § 429 PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE Ch. IV § 429 C. Site and lighting requirements • 1. When a resort district abuts a single-family resi- dential district, a landscape screen shall be established and maintained on the abutting property line, as required in section 503 of the Zoning Ordinance, and landscape screen, a minimum of ten (10) feet wide, shall be estab- lished and maintained on the abutting lot line. 2. Exterior lighting shall meet the following height requirements: a. A maximum height of six (6) feet is permitted within fifty (50) feet of a residential district. b. A maximum height of twelve (12) feet is permit- ted within one hundred (100) feet of a residential district. C. All other lighting shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height. D. Site Plan Approval 1. A site plan approved in accordance with Section 511 • of this ordinance is required for all uses. E. Parking Requirements Parking shall be as required in Section 601 of this ordinance. (G-1887) -204- • The Lodge Overlay is an excellent technique for accommodating lodges as mixed uses interspersed with residential and other types of zones. In other words, it is good technique for allowing existing lodges to continue and to improve without permitting new lodges in zone districts which are not suitable for massive lodge development. The Planning Office, however, has recommended to you the Lodge Preservation Ordinance as an ordinance which accomplishes what has been presented to us as the main purpose of the lodge association and that is allowing lodges to improve, upgrade, and in other words to halt the 'downwards spiral". Al Bloomquist's argument is that the lodge overlay is the better technique because it will allow expansion of lodges. While we do not disagree that some expansion could be a good thing for individual lodges and mightin fact improve the ambiance of certain neighborhoods, we cannot recommend the lodge overlay at this time for basically two reasons. The first is that expansion is totally contrary to the Growth Management Plan. Until such time as we have had an opportunity to review the Growth Management Plan we cannot recommend that expansion should be promoted by this overlay technique. The Planning Office in fact has scheduled a work program item for later this year for a review of the provisions of the Growth Management Plan but Council should not be mislead that this is an easy undertaking, in fact, it does require the kind of inventory that Al Bloomquist has been suggesting which in turn requires the dedication of a great deal of time on the part of the Finance Office and computer personnel and the devotion of some amount of money to setting up a program for monitoring and counting lodge room inventory. The second reason is that the lodge overlay proposes a fairly substantial planning process because it is only through that process that a suitable floor area ratio and bulk parameters for lodge expansion can be devised. In other words, lodge overlay would allow expansion of lodges in residential zones where there exists no floor area ratio control. You have already witnessed the unfortunate impact of a number of residential uses which are building out to maximum setback and height potential.Without the floor area ratio control there is of course, the potential that lodges will have that same or perhaps a greater bulk impact on surrounding land uses and neighborhoods. The mechanism of the lodge overlay is to set bulk controls through a planning process. Again, that is a fairly major undertaking. It involves numerous neighborhood meetings. It will, at a minimum, require the planning staff to sit in on those neighborhood meetings in order to be able to make a recommendation to Council. That is something that we did not budget in the 1980 work program and a decision on your part to incorporate that will mean we have to sit down and review the elimination of some other tasks we had projected to do for you. LCJGe CONSERvgTIW3 (Lc),IJSTPJC7- / 1 1 r I I� 1 • r r I � � � /' / % i • •WA.A�,.'0AWN J Vo.. I 0, i &4.L c O • -OF -._., a WIZAA 4,A-4� Csz4 A..;?- �OM�%QicQoQ %lla�. YRer 9 • 'ls- OCC) 2J OO 3 �,50100 �C)Vj PROPOSED ORDINANCE A. Requirements. Any applicant seeking condominiumiza- tion of a lodge (for the purpose of this section, a lodge is defined as a building containing three (3) or more units intended for temporary occupancy of guests in addition to other require- ments set forth in Chapter 20 of the Aspen City Code (the Aspen, Colorado, subdivision regulations), shall comply with the following requirements: 1. The condominium units created shall remain in the short-term rental market to be used as temporary accommoda- tions available to the general public. It shall constitute prima facie evidence that the applicant has complied with this paragraph if a condominium declaration for the condominium sought to be created shall be filed in the records of the clerk and recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, which shall provide, interalia: a. An owner's personal use of his unit shall be restricted to fourteen (14) days or less during the seasonal period of December 18 through March 20. This seasonal period is hereinafter referred to as "high season." "Owner's personal use" shall be defined as owner occupancy of a unit or nonpaying guest of the owner or taking the unit off the rental market during the seasonal periods referred to herein for any reason other than necessary repairs which cannot be postponed or which make the unit unrentable. Occupancy of a unit by a lodge manager or staff employed by the lodge, however, shall not be restricted by this section. W, • b. A violation of the owner's personal use restriction by a unit owner shall subject the owner to a daily assessment of three (3) times the daily rental rate for the unit, at the time of the violation, which assessment, when paid, shall be deposited in the general funds of the condominium association for use in upgrading and repairing the common elements of the condominium if the condominium association was the body enforcing this restriction. If the City enforces this restriction, the City shall receive the funds collected as a result of the assessment for the violation. In the event liti- gation results from the enforcement of this restriction as part of its reward to the prevailing party the court shall award such party its court costs together with reasonable attorney's fees incurred. C. All sums assessed against an owner for violation of the owner's personal use restriction and unpaid shall constitute a lien for the benefit of the condominium association on that owner's unit, which lien shall be evidenced by written notice placed of record in the office of the clerk and recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, and may be enforced by foreclosure on an owner's condominium unit by the association in like manner as a mortgage or deed of trust on real property. d. The City shall have the right to require from the condominium association an annual report of owner's personal use during high season for all the condominium units. e. A violation of the owner's personal use restriction shall be enforceable against a violating owner by either the City of Aspen or a majority of the members of the condominium association. -2- 2. A lodge that is condominiumized shall provide a minimum of two (2) pillows of employee housing or that amount of employee housing that has been provided for the three (3) years ) v 0 /Z i s previous to the time of condominiumization. As used herein, "pillow" means sleeping accommodations for one (1) person. 3. The new condominium units shall provide on -site management and maintenance and other tourist accommodation services during high season consistent in quality and quantity to those provided during the high seasons for the three (3) years previous to the time of application when the property was ' operated as a lodge. 1-f-the7--Iodge--prin r� -se - te be ee - x� provided rm-si:te management, the new condominium shall provide or contract for on -site management from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. seven (7) days a week, on -call services twenty-four (24) hours a day, maintenance of the grounds, common elements and emergency unit repairs and a continuation of the lodging amenities and host -guest relationship consistent with that previously provided by the lodge. At the time of application, applicant shall provide a sworn and notarized affidavit stating i what services were provided for the three (3) years previous to f the time of application. This affidavit shall address: the guests, a. whether breakfast has been provided, b. whether there has been front desk serving C. what kind of and to what extent transporta-I tion has been provided to guests, procedures, guests, and d. what have been the check -in hours and e. what amenities have been available to f. any other relevant information regarding on -site management, maintenance and other tourist accommodation services previously provided by the lodge. -3- • 4. The condominium units shall remain available to the general tourist market. This condition may be met by inclusion of the units of the condominium, at comparable rates, in a local reservation system for the rental of lodge units in the City of Aspen. 5. The common areas of the lodge shall remain common -areas and be maintained in a manner consistent with its 1previous.lodge character.. Any changes, alterations or renova- Itions made to common areas.shall not diminish the size or quality ]of the common areas. 6. The lodge shall be physically upgraded as a result of the condominiumization either by applicant's fulfilling the requirements set forth in subparagraph) a er- , infra, or in the alternative by applicant's compliance with subparagraph 6. infra, as follows: a. An amount equal' tki rld percen C.roXn I ti+ %uIm �1cY �GCc�Rdi G of the assessed value of the propert�is applied to" -the upgrad- ing of the lodge facility pursuant to plans submitted to and approved by the CiA.within nine (9) months of condominiumization approval -and the upgrading is completed within -twelve (12) months after the building permit for such upgrading is issued. ©M t T b.,An average of (..dollars ($ ) pe odging unit is spent o upgrading of each rental unit pursuant--tQ plar s st mitted to and approved 1by the City within nine months condominiumization approval i an�e_buildinag the u ng is completed within tw e (12) months after permit for such upgrading is issu + 6. The applicant demonstrates in the sole judgment and discretion of the City Council that funds previously expended by the applicant have upgraded the lodge to a high -4- enough quality so as to make further upgrading unnecessary as a condition to condominiumization and that the upgrading done previous to the condominiumization will allow the condominiumized lodge to continue to accommodate its clientele in a manner consistent with or better in quality than the accommodation provided previous to condominiumization; or the applicant presents to the City Council a plan for upgrading the lodge in phases and the plan is approved by the City Council and imple- mented in accordance with their approval. City Council's approval to such plan may be granted or withheld in accordance with its sole judgment and discretion. Due consideration shall be given by City Council to the fact that the lodges of Aspen attract clientele from diverse economic sectors, certain lodges catering to certain sectors, and the intent herein is not to create a uniformity in lodge character and roles but instead to upgrade the physical appearance and facilities that each lodge provides. B. Applicability. All conditions set forth within this ordinance shall be made binding on the applicant, the applicant's successors, heirs, personal representatives and assigns and shall govern the property which is the subject of the application for the life of the survivor of the present City Council of Aspen plus twenty-one (21) years. A condominiumization of a lodge pursuant to this section shall be modified only by the written agreement of the City Council and the owner or owners of the condominiumized lodge property. The documents creating and governing the condominium shall be modified by the condo- minium owners only with the prior written approval of the City Council. -5- i C. Procedure. Condominiumization of an existing lodge shall be accomplished pursuant to the exception or exemption process rather than through full subdivision review. The applicant shall provide the following documentation to the City at the time of application for condominiumization of a lodge: 1. Proof of ownership. 2. Improvement survey for the property. 3. Site inventory for the property indicating in detail the actual configuration of the lodge facility, the common areas and the location of any amenities serving the lodge. 4. Draft of proposed condominium documents including condominium declaration, articles of the condominium association and bylaws. 5. Affidavit of services provided as is called for in paragraph A. 3. supra. 6. Designation and description of employee units. 7. Plan of improvements to be made to the property along with estimated costs therefor. am OF ASPEN AS CITY MEMO FROM RICHARD GRICE I •a �►►1�ws e3 2 �- 6 - IL — L.VA)I Jb j 'FA I u-5 u c 9: � t, /-,j fa, t F.,I c I- (t liJ /�tCCe,JCc�r�C �,1 /7C(-- T . - --- - -:1 2- - - - 5 - -- b _. ... - _ 7 -- •;._ _. ._-- - ----- - - -I---------. ._ _.k.1C�_�7- _ _.. �?P�I�Jr'GOIU �a�.lti� f�•IUC�"' �;----------- - TWO 1� I GRrt r C l�Iro��i,lrrrias. _! s6Ilk- '" 57 l I! q":t-- - ----- r�'v0_-__-!_._;_ ' � I . ---- I -I-�---'1--1-i., .!�' �....�--'_.J --I--+•_�...r.}. ?� / �. !�I L' ...1fv�i nt7Y _y rr 3 3 I _ t- �r -- -' L �O i I i I I I I j i I I ! j I I I ''• !� I' I, l I I I i II'; '��' ill „ I I I I� i i � r ! , i I I I I: � I j �9Y p lug ,�✓� S t� I I 1 .._! r r r .►/z � IL I •-- ,; )�� .•r .t , .,6 _ � � I ! �� i I ' � I J. I ! • � �r . ^.� r�%.� D.' � -Ty i• '1 � �.�._ I I I i I ! ! I I ! I ! I i I -.- I •• ! I j 1 !—_1_!- 3 S�� _';i.! I :j_.��! � II I I_` I_, 1_ ' . • ! i i I 1 � I , � II , �• f/ . i T I 1( I I I I I I! 1 'I ' I 1 l ._�!/�1��l�zJ' .I1-�%�-�_..K.}__11.6Z---.:.-,----�-�----� I-I--�-�---,--�--; ,- -' I ,. !yr•�'---*-� � � '--r._.--� '_ I i 1. �c~rti3 _ I ^'- _ L j _j^ �1�1—'' f � I �--'—•1j_i_' ' � ! I _ ' •I �, i� I I^ I r� ! I I i I I I ' I �! I ! " I I i{ 'j 43 I I f I I ....... IT '' . SI�r9Gor�� t. f/,l�cif Gc - 1 -- -i 1 � �+•--. �- �. �� i ---- f -- - I ' ' --- - ! i -�'— - ---L-' - - I I � -�•� -� � I � � ! - �nN_ - - - - - - ---- --- -- - - -- - -T- — L`d / G b G ; .� ��1,�xiil'!G ..'cv ,� - _._.� ..I... --J--��T---- - - - -I .. - _'_ ! - _,_— I -I +-%---y-t-.:_L_�-�-•-1_—^ �_. _ I I ��yi•Til 1 - , -L 9^'•'. - • V . Y. / J_. , I L� I I I : ' � � I I ! t I I i� l �� I I I � I I I 1 1 I• FIF r�.}_ I_�.._r }�- 1 1 1 : < i I �I I I. .II ' Zr 3 e I I I 1 - l�Ltil C J 1 i I I i I- I - Ir - (I �--I-1- ,t -•, -�- -I--i-r.. _.I .)r.� .1.: i_ f:.!. �. T.1-1 ,c o�►1f� h'v T�'l... _ 73 l.:C—�, j --; I I ...I . ' I j J _ _; .- . I ' i I I I � I I ,.. 1.•.11 l•l'• 1 . 1.. 11'•: ,.� . I •• . 'YI : I H .Y.1..•y u.. ill ' - -jq7 ��MRI-1 Z,0196i6'S PIZI —7- —+i- t-� i -- l i ,- — T Ti Roe 7 10JO 47 j LI TYi?c) 6N lo4ON Zl;rrt,5 RFP sh';P"fills-i �i4 ..Aspv� FIP,,5s l,),c 41,11 -4 P90spic role zod-�%6 3 4� j E -cotgrff z 4'Si l '' } j l l I: i i '' ' (If- .5. r)q.fllfqs. Fil t' f // - S7,�- Tfll 31) -7TIPPZr: ZOPM Fmorr 614 T! + 4-1 pcu)vrflfl� CH&JArr T :IF J-4 pae -T7 70 7/9,!� QV, j 1A j crlw-1 c rOA e- 4.1 if t -t-7 t t LI IT 1 Ll J -1- 1 VC'Uw Memo to Aspen CC • • Re: Lodges February 12, 1980 Page Two way of vast expansions, others would receive token relief, the results would not be equitable and the courts would not uphold the provision's legality.) Secondly, the existing capacity of the lodge zones exceeds our ability to supply recreational opportunities. We presently transport in the vicinity of 4,000 skiers per day to Snowmass. The Growth Management Policy Plan seeks to rectify this situation by allowing phased growth in each of three areas: Permar-nt Residential, Tourist Residential, and Commercial Building. Toallow lodge expansion in excess of that recommended by the Growth Management Policy Plan would excentuate the existing transportation problem. "The City of Aspen could make a very positive contribution to the overall transportation and fiscal balance of the community by undertaking a program to substantially reduce the potential for tourist accommodations expansion and reserving future growth for permanent single- and multi -family development at a low rate." Finally, the Lodge zones were created to provide for the recreational and accommodation needs of the visitor in an area which is especially suited for this purpose because of their proximity to transportation (Rubey Park), the ski area and the Commercial Core. The total buildout remaining in the Lodge zones is in excess of 300 units. The Growth Management Policy Plan recommends that 80% of this buildout or 273 units be constructed over the next 15 years. This remains a valid goal for future accommodation growth. The Planning Office recommendations are as follows: 1. Amend the non -conforming use section of the Code to allow the renovation and reconstruction of lodges provided that the number of units and the overall square footage is not increased. 2. Allow condominiumization of lodges on whatever basis the Lodge Association may choose. U vl I ND _A7_ ( _ jQ 4, J-t, U; . 0,4 • 1 L-.Gvc, U fh-A-1 qQ e_ 2.�oor►�ne�a�,� 3 . )e. ZAC- 0) OR'li S .,,, ►.�s bQ u Chr�;S�;aNik '1. iJoR�I� SAwz $. L I )I- 4- DA�Sk tro) �3. dolly G;1�a� 14- . Coo Ort R 4wut ►� . 1� I ; @Q y �� ►�. Co4chl►y►�+ 18. Crtes�hau.s VA . Cl V Ck fZ ► CG N 2'2, ,z 23. U�9 abo-,jd 2.W, Chk16 Ll�sI 2s. Shaw Quot ti zc, , 1NtAl1 e-� 2-7. sw')Ls Ckcilei 2 g . ATjj6j CC kA N c_ 2q. NP P , �au-s 30. 0 6 Rf p 0 err) l- "E � 1 Lo-r s►zer 4-3S, �wi 27)000 1 t,,soo q, 060 I S, OOo 91060 13,soo I S,noo Oo 0 I Soo 1 U,Sbu (, boc� S 0u 1 S, Ooo 1 j�7S0 L�-, you q, eoo 4s ocs 21,p6G 27, o oU co oar 912 RS i 0 14- gS4- I2,f s 1 t3,4-I S S 211� 13 IV,12� 13, 2 to T� r 30�+19 31810 1S 32 ) ►+, 2 o to 33�1 Sg�# 3(0 3s 3s 34 32 2(. 2S 20 12 Ibb 3'1 �0 k-�>DRtss ) >a f\K ►*4s 33 w, No�'r► 233W.CAac� 9 b 0 W 4'i t�tS �v t 2 o LJ, Coot R V, 23 2 OJ- ►r1r1 u ► N 32� W. ai)j 130 w . Coopt o. 12 J Li- Hof fiws 23 2 w• 4o fhWs ) 3 0) E, t4t-� g2 13 4- em o,,j y 861 fk-O►e 201 C, CoOPQrZ l oS E . Aopk;,�,-Js 92 % f . IL4 p mot 160 E . 14 y/Maw 12 C. coopi,2 1�o W. MCI ; 4-03 uj , M 41, a 2 3o w . YI)C, ►.j ni 3 S �.1)u R u ►..►t' 5< z l��aA9� �oB12 QoT�ySUAA�, rz �' �e ia�� r �uv�2tirol 00 �c,L v/ Sq wow+ ZJol i Aue L�GCa��P44.., �:Or� CITE OF ASPEN 130 sout.. Z31 street aspen, coidradoti '81611 4 MEMORANDUM DATE: July 30, 1979 TO: Members of Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ron Stock RE: Condominiumization of Lodges Recently Karen and I have had to deal with the question of the condominiumization of lodges. It has been our interpretation reading all of the various provisions that the conversion of lodge units would require growth management approval. However, this opinion was based on the fact that each proposal which was presen- ted to us included both construction (i.e. kitchens) and change in use (i.e. lodge to residential). Our interpretation is based on the philosophy that the growth man- agement plan specifically limits each type of construction. An evasion of the code would be allowed if a property owner could ap- ply for the construction of office space and then after construc- tion modify the structure and change its use to residential accom- modations. We have recommended to the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion the modification of the specific provisions of the Growth Management Plan in order to clarify this situation. Currently Section 24-10.1 of the Code requires growth management approval prior to the "construction" of residential dwelling units, lodge units, and certain commercial and office space. Since our inter- pretation is not based on construction but an actual change in use, we recommended the replacement of the term "constructed" with language which would include both construction and alteration in use. You should be aware of an adverse impact ?n the adoption of this proposal. The City has a number of small lodges located through- out its residential and office districts. These lodges are cur- rent non -conforming uses. We have always. encouraged the recon- struction of there lodges in order to allow their conversion to long-term housing and thus eliminating their non -conforming sta- tus. Allowing condominiumization and -conversion of these units will encourage this transformation. Adopting the proposal that Karen and I made would discourage such conversion. I 0 Memo to Planning and Zoning Commission 1 v July 30, 1979 Page 2 To offset this negative impact and to provide for consistency (not having one provision of the Code -- zoning -- require eventual conversion while a second provision -- GMP -- prevent the conver- sion), I would recommend amendment to Section 24-10.2 exempting frcin the GMP the conversio of property from a non -conforming use to a conforming use. The specific application of the Tipple Lodge is unique. The ap- plicant does not request nor does he intend to modify the struc- ture in any way. Further, he does not intend to alter the use of the structure. (As evidence of his intent, the applicant will add language to the condominium declaration requiring continued use of the property as lodge units.) Under either the current language of Section 24-10.1 or the alternative language proposed by Karen and I this application would not be subject to Growth Management approval. I, therefore, recommend your approval of the applica- tion for subdivision exemption conditioned upon the continued use of the property as a lodge. RWS:mc r� L c CXi,- ", I i ol(�i �.J L o � o, w:L lut PP,1 Vi-'C5- r mA olij Ker- C',.� j `i i l/A;s^r vvcc MAA 1•!tt1 • CQYtt oYa�li � t,,�,� 1�e'�'t G,�iG�tS (0�0 I VLF14-4T/1 �� U t `:6t11/1 -,A �aaAdD- A' e P,Pe.al V-76 Ja F `ee, e-ia Vl� plies 4s t�o�M', n � vx�. � �.-�-i o v� — I � ��,'►+.� o�(' t-w sort ICY 1 -9 eyf �r • • 1) R A F T • December 18, 19119 T0: Planning Office, City Attorney and City Manager Ashen P F, Z Aspen City Council ALA Executive Co-mimittee ACR Board and Betty FROM: Al Blomquist, ALA Task Force on Non-conformance SUBJECT: Propnsed New Lodge Overlay Zone --- Plus. This report deals with the problem of ?SON-CONFORIMING LODGING,. Karen Smith r�Y obtained and suggested that the ALA consider the lsIconi,rc "Special Conservation District" ordinance for a model. The attached draft of a LODGE OVERLAY Z0`;E utilizes the .Pheonix approach. The'Piieonix ordinance included a nei,phborhood self-plannin^ feature. vur :tsoon the ne::, zoning provision is called an ".0verlav'7*-.one bec 1— ;* leaves the underlying districts and regulations applicable to all uses except "existing lod;ing", to :Which the Overlay applies. It creates lodgin- a; a special "class" of business use and makes existin; lodping within the overlay zone fully legal and enabled and encouraged to up -grade. Additional research done by the ALA suggests that more than just a Lodge -- — Overlav Zone is needed, .cif the folio:sing objectives are to be achieved: 1. Legalize,'wi.thout reservation, lodging in two mixed use neighborhoods ::here such lod!7ine is now non -conforming. 2. Allow limited expansion an unlimited upgrading of existing lodges without automatically enabling othrr pruperties to be used for totally new. ',.�,.,,• i no. • • 3. Preserve the mixed -use character and ncip.hbor- hood ambience of both tihe Shadow !Mountain and Glory Hole Park resiuential-lo(igin, nei.-hbor- hoods. 4. iistablish lcdpin^ as the business of providin< short teii:: rental rccomoc_..i,)ns to ti:e Aspen visitor. S. Provide ` -or licensing to the end that both the lod<<ng inventory a,h4 sal es tax fu: t ons are comm,'_ete, aceurate, and current. 6. Pro,.-ide an opportunity for the Sl:a'chr MoG:ar.in and Glory Kole Parl: rei hbc:l:ooGs to plan for t:cir individual improvement both as res? dentya1 Pstablish A: E as a q::asi-governmertal tag; sup- portcc? entity free from accusaticns cf private monopoly, price o: col:usic^ '(ie. mcl:c it per manent anal a free service to all Aspen visitors, %, i Lh all Asper: lo(!l*ir., represented) . To nchieve the above objectives, t1:e following pro rams should be impli- mented: PROGRW ONE -- LODGE OVERLAY ZONE (a) Amend Purpose, Section to include a new purpose: (i) To protect ar.d enccurahe the im..,nrovcnent OIL lodging as an Anren business that offers the visitor variety as to size, type, loc- ation, quality, servicos, amenities, wabience and price. (b) Amend Definitions, Section 24-3.1, to distin',:isli between "Lodging" as the business of provi&,:,,, short terra rental accomodations for the Aspen Visi- tor (upon which sales tax is collected) and "Homsirr" as long terry rental and owner -occupancy not for short teri:1 rental visitor use. Eliminate the ues- t rction between lo0ge, hotel, multi -family :1::d/or condlo. '_mend any other ordincnces :with dc' init:o::s inconsistent therewith so t:ie (Iestinction ,)czwecn short -terra versus long-term is consistnnt throughout the City Code. Enact the LODGE OVERLAY ZONE approximately as provided in the attached draft. PROGRAM TWO --- BUSINESS LICENSE Amend the Business License Ordinance, Section to require all Lodging (short terrn rentals) to have a separate Lodging business license for each property (as identified by the Assessor's Parcel \umber-1,1 digit code). Said License shall not include a restaur.int or other business - only the funct i un . Cthvr on t hu sx.ic: parcel. si:-t l l •% } Amend the Sales "fax Ordinance, Section to require all Sales Tax .account Numbers to correspond to the above Business License Number and Assessor's Parcel Number as defined above so that the monthly sales tax re- cei,)ts per account shall reflect accurately the short term rental activity on the properties so identified. i': C ;P,: •1 FC:;^ P1;'•1ITTANCE Cr SALES TA,X Amend t'.c Sales Tax Ordinance, Section to eliminate all Tilinp and. payment opticns except for monthly filir,' and paym.-nt. Nc uciate the State and C-out:t;: to M: _J e tj:e C'_- ;. the a-ent to collect their sales taxes from Cltv busll:csseS, nrd to .1n cn ,737 . .lie '., ,,cn :.coi.•Jlll,v is hi:!,Iy season-61 and -rS momthly• .,rogress needs to be measured accurately anal in a timely way. Tlie floc: of loc:-inP receipts as r.,cast:red by sales tax collect- ed is the �.:ost accurate and reflective in:lcx available for use throu.,zhout the year. Hol•:cver, vhile some properties report monthly, m2::y report quarterly, and for some of them tl;eir Jan!:nry recei is can shot•: up in the strtist'_cs as late as April or a-•. Thus, the sales tax recei;:ts, as not,; re- ports+, do not accurately reflect the extreme scaser:ality .of the local economy. PI10GPAM FI\.7F. --- C:O.`•'.PUT1:P REMITS The Finance Office should l�repare monthly comimter printo•..ts on the :-hort term rental activity in the City for tise of the Y.-„ar►..• �..t-�..m 7t.-fir- -+•racygc. --. ..--... � - �._ .._ .. _.-y._..s ,. . Bonin„ Enforce:acnt OFficci', t;lc planners anal the to c;ln; industry (ACR, ALA, etc.) . The monthly listing* could indentify all ;parcels (Assessor's ld digit, parcel identification nu-iber). Tice toning, the business license number, the sales tali account number, the SIC, the sales tax collected for the previous month, and any propo_ties licensed L.:t not pay ink; this month. The monthly analytical stI-::-ary :could report total receipts, nu—mber of :)articip^.ants ane number of de:in uencies by nC4gh- borhood. and SAC rFor the cu ....t r„o;, li, and ne changes from tine same month a year ago, and last month. A scmi-nnn-.ial six r:onth rc,:ort on lodging industry er`o_ - m--nce each winter avid each summer wouia oe preparea, witn special analysis com.-paring the Assessor's inventory of iodring :pith the City Finance Office inventory and the NCR inventory. Each report could also compare si:.-mier (May thru Q^.tOb^r) and minter (f:ovc ber th.0 April) performances, measure the off-season legs, identify long term trends, otc. Each r.,ould include a specific report on the GMP lodge unit claj_-a and its relationship to market conditions and the tiro.,,th control objectives. PROGRAM SIX __-_ A QUASI_ PUBLIC CORPORATE: ACR ACR is the third or fourth or more in a series of up -again and down -,rain reservations services purporting to represent :ill ur Cuyi ludt ink av:ail;a�ilit� -- c;ic'.� intt:ndud as a cun- %'�{. .�..,,,,�,J ..-: �.ry 'C'r4irw':.•�,�y;,f+w.r.i,+-'+r w s..'.... .. „�f,..,.. ,. ce. •�t� -5�.,:.4' .- •a.-.-i,..-� �, .i - .Y. 0 vcaien,:e to the Aspen Visitor. It is ti410 to settle U11 0110 l)'1'T any tl i t lit) ty, one 11at lonal l y a: vent iced tel C!)11Ullc num.'oer ail: ii;al��' tllC f lililncin^, J1Ti,ctly proportion:11 to the 11rosS 1'C:JSl)i_`i JT caz:i 1.)..?iil" P-Ji)Crtj'. 1U assLirl t!le 1)crmancnce ail j eff cctivencss of ACIZ It should nova be createc! as a quasi public entity financed by a fixed Percentage of City sales tax receipts from lod-ing (short ten:, rentals) and be required to represent all licensed ;)roncrties in the City limits, and those ou:si(:c tae City 1 imlits on Io:itract for a fee. Its c�ia-.- er s:lollid i--m.i _t to the ('all; nvcnt., of lodn-, ava.ty, a-nat.i071In y a':i`✓ertlscd teIephonC9 .. 7:ibe: S07��, lot:. le I�' ^+its r�s:rvat'_onists, etc., ezc to cac.; 1o;, _n- en . , ...:� nO '`acka-.es, etc., etc, its _..: i; t:;C C= t•iana;er Or ti:C City Finance Of. -Cer, C IcI U nC' Gr ^n_?Cr eiectCd ::Cm eac'1 O� t.:e t..rCC 1C: 1^ry. :)resi(lent of the ALA a:, th:, i)reSi..Cnt OF CO':;:LIiS 1Q:: llle n!)ove ;ix pro,,rams in t-orclate to stren' .ile:1 .:1C Asp -In lo:!.;�inc, industry by giving it nc•a star+.is in la.% and some imnrovc;! c^ntral and data services. They eliminate several Current l;indrances to lodging effectiveness nil({ they ';ive to each Owner considerable freedom to improve Operations and unvrade facilities. As ,ttch they comprise incentives to ,:��` itl.!•t�Tt'�' to ill'.1 'ove sel-vice~ to r',C iw:, >\.V.' .�%�•�• as :o..r'' .. .1: :fir. ,. - -+`<"a. '�^ I.1 OUTLINE FOR A HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN FOR ASPEN, COLORADO I. Introduction A brief discussion of the scope of the historic preser- vation plan; and the plan's intent within the total, overall. community planning effort. II. History of Aspen A review of the City's origins and historical highlights up to the present. Indigenous building materials, unique construction methods, the town's original layout and later growth patterns, and any significant or germane events that relate to the heritage of the community should be covered. III. Architectural Iier_itage of Aspen Inventory and documentation of structures and sites which have been officially recognized as historically sig- nificant followed by a recognition of other structures and sites which have some degree of importance though not officially protected by law. IV. Historic Preservation Plan - A method for recognizing and protecting by law individual historical structures, sites and districts; • -2- 0 - Establishment of a historic district for promotion of the town's character and flavor reminiscent of the past; - Development of design criteria to promote compatibility of restoration efforts and new construction with neighboring historic structures and environments; - Recommendations for implementing the historic preser- vation plan through construction application, review analysis and appeal procedures. V. Additional Preservation Opportunities Inducements to seek official recognition and protection of historic structures and sites, guidelines and procedures for establishment of new districts or alterations to existing districts. n LJ • I. CRITERIA FOR DESIGN ANALYSIS Spatial Compatibility 1. Setback of Buildings from Street 2. Relationship to Adjacent Open Space 3. Relationship of Landscaping II. Architectural Compatibility 1. Materials, colors, and textures 2. Solids and voids (light and shadow) 3. Proportions 4. Details 5. Scale • Q �\ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: Condominiumization of Lodges DATE: October 16, 1979 The Aspen Lodging Association is currently doing a study of the lodging concerns in Aspen. A draft copy of this document has been provided to the Planning Office which we have reviewed. As the document is a draft only, they have requested that it not be quoted until it is in final form. All I can tell you at this point is that the document does not identify any adverse impacts involved in the condominiumization of a lodge. Condominiumization is described as only an alternative financing device. To date the Planning Office has indicated its concern over the condominiumi- zation of only those lodges located in the Lodge zones. Our concern with these lodges is that they will cease to be used for short term accommodations and therefore increase pressure for additional short term accommodations elsewhere in the City. For this reason, the Planning Office recommended denial of the initial application for the condominiumization of a lodge in the Lodge zone. At that time, City Council indicated that enforcement of the short term only rule was an enforcement problem as well as a responsibility of this. City and went ahead and approved the condominiumization of the Tipple Lodge. The last portion of that motion directed the staff to come up with a Code Amendment "addressing" the problem. Since Council did not take either the Planning Office or the City Attorney's recommendation on the first condominiumization of a lodge, we honestly do not know that Council desires wuch an amendment to say. Furthermore, at this point in time, we are not sure what such amendment should say. For these reasons the Planning Office does not have any additional recommendations regarding the condominiumization of lodges and furthermore, do not expect to have any recommendations until one o- two things occur. We need to see the finished report on the condition of lodging in Aspen prepared by the Lodge Association and/or a clear directive from Council as to preferred policy. e., MEMORAI DUM f TO: Aspen City council Ron Stock, City Attorney FROM: Richard Grice and Karen Smith, Planning Office RE: Report Lodge Preservation Clause DATE: September 18, 1979 ii Early this summer, the new owners of the Smuggler Lodge on Main Stre6t- petitioned the Board of Adjustment for a_variance from Section 24-12.5, Repairs and Maintenance, for the purpose of permitting renovation of that structure. The lodge is a non -conforming use and as such, is not permitted more than "ordinary repairs not to exceed 10% of the replacement value of the structure in any one year" . The variance was granted on the basis that it was in the public interest and in light of to'stimony from the Planning Office and City Attorney regarding intent of the Main Street zoning. Prior to the Main Street Office zoning in 1975, the Planning Office supported making lodges an allowed use in that zone district. We felt that the existing use mix (office, lodge, residential) was one that should be preserved in order to maintain the residential scale and character of Blain Street. Limited commercial uses were allowed only to preserve historic structures within the existing residential scale and character. City Council at the time felt that there was no way to prevent expansion of the existing lodges without making all of the lodges non -conforming uses. The Board of Adjustment, P and Z and Council have all expressed interest in a code amendment to allow up -grading. We propose the following as a way to allow the up -grading of those lodges without allowing the construction of new lodges or the expansion of ,yld lodges. This could be accomplished by adding a new Section 24-12.10 entitled "Lodge Preservation Clause". Suggestej language would be a3 fol:lows,: , f � � � Ali ( �,i, � !• � ( � � �� . A "All lodg,? uses that were lawfully established and continually so used thereafter shall be entitled to continue and be deemed�(l� allowed ases; provided, however, that they may not change, 47 replace, alter or repair, extend, restore, .or resume after i1��+�� ' ��i disconti:ivance without having obtained approval thereof pursuant to the conditional use provisions of Section 24-3.3. Notwith- standing the provisions of this Section, there shall be no . increase in numbers of units. IJ Lodges are an important facet of Aspen as we have a tourist based economy. While the Planning Office recommends the retaining of the present rate of growth in lodge units, we support the up -grading of those lodge facilities. Recently, there has been support from a broad spectrum of the community for the up -grading of cur lodges. The Chamber of Commerce has participated in nationwide surveys which indicate that Aspen's image is deteriorating because of lodge conditions. Features of this proposal needing additional input include: 1. This review as a conditional use involves only the P and Z, not Council, thus shortening the process, but Council must be sure they wish to delegate that authority. 2. The provision could also be extended to non -conforming residential uses. We would reconinend it for the same reasons --to allow up -grading O ncluding expansion of square footage), provided the units are limited to six-month.rentals, i.e., long term. 3. As proposed this applies to all non -conforming lodges--not.just those on Main Street. This cay be somewhat contrary to the land use policy of encouraging lodges in the lodge district and discouraging them elsewhere. Realistically, however, existing non -conforming lodges are unlikely to relocate, so again our remaining concern should be to prevent proliferation of lodges outside lodge districts and to discourage conversion of lodges in lodge districts. Memo to Council Re: Locicje F'rescrvation September 18, 1979 Page Two The last point relates somewhat to the issues of lodge condominiumization and allo�ring residential uses in the Lodge 1 zone. Those issues are now before the P and Z and will be reported to you separately. cc: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission i �'� '0 -WV' -� 4, �. ;IV4(Z� S �0' MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office i IT , , r RE: Report on LodgeF ,4( �--WJ,4,L--- DATE: September 17, 1979 V, vt,t, c-+ .! '1 ' }rlMain Street was -initially zoned Office:in97rithe Planning Office supported making lodges.an allowed use in that zone dis ct. We felt that the existing use mix,was one that should be preserved in order to maintain the residential scale and character of Main Street. commercial uses were allowed only to preserve historic structures within the existing residential scale and character. City Council at the time felt that there was no way to prevent expansion of the cisting lodges without making al 9f the lodges no -.conform r<gj iaml � W &�� di g 'of those 1odusesway to al 1 ow the' up-gra i h g s wi thoial1owti ng the corfst► uctof new lodges or the expansion of old lodges. This up q/t+rfi� could be accomplished by adding a new Section 24-12.10 entitled "Lodge Preservation" J Clause". Suggested language would be as follows: "All lodge uses that were lawfully established and continually so used thereafter shall be entitled to continue and be deemed allowed uses; provided, however, that they may not change, replace, alter or repair, extend, restore, or resume after discontinuance without having obtainey approval thereof pursuant to the sp` cia1 review_ of the Aspen Planrring, and Zoning Commission and. the Aspen Ci ty Coulnci 1. S Lod eas are an iTportant facet�of Aspen as we have a tourist based economy.'- ef�''f— While ' i y i�ax�f -ate ex � see -gin -the rate of growth in lodge units, -w -m nagemerzt::,. we do not want a deterioration either, he�-a-ft up -grading of those lodge facilities. Recently, there has been 4r-y support from a broad spectrum of the community for the up -grading of our lodges. ` The Chamber of Commerce has participated in nationwide surveys which indicate qU. that Aspen's image i s �eeewA* because of -oflodge A - it conditions. In recent weeks you have seen application for condominiumization of lodges f both in the Lodge zone and outside the Lodge zone. In the case of the Tipple1 Lodge located in the Lodge zone, we took the position that condominiumization,, . of the lodge would constitute a change in use by virtue of the fact that it could not be guaranteed to remain as a short term facility. In the case of the �• Mollie Gibson Lodge which is located in a residential zone and was non -conforming, .� we also felt it would constitute a change in use to allow the condominiumization. In addition, we were extremely concerned over the possibility of seeing a deteriora- tion of the availability of short term facilities in the only zone where short term facilities are permitted. We also felt that the condominiumization of the Tipple Lodge in the R-6 zone would potentially constitute a change in use and therefore we had to recommend denial of that application to avoid a violation of the Growth �(v Management Plan. Ron Stock is currently working on an amendment to Section 24-10.2 (GMP) which would allow an exemption from GMP for the conversion of property from a non -conforming use to a conforming use. This exemption from GMP combined with the lodge preserva- tion clause would accomplish our objective of allowing the up -grading and renovation of existing lodges without allowing expansion or the construction of new lodge units. Additional thought needs to be given to whether this would be an appropriate procedure for dealing with the lodges located in the residential zones. (Karen, I am sorry this is such a shoddy attempt at a memo, when I return week after next I will give it some additional attention.) Memo to Aspen P & Z Re: Lodges February 28, 1980 Page Two on reconstruction and/or renovation. Many of the difficul- ties surrounding refinancing, particularly for the smaller operations, could be solved by allowing condominiumization. The Planning Office is of the opinion that condominiumiza- tion should be allowed, providing there is no change in use, and subject to any other restrictions which the Lodge Asso- ciation may feel are appropriate. Condominiumization combined with the elimination of restrictions on renovations and/or reconstructions will provide the lodges with significant financial flexibility. (3) Perhaps the most significant problem Aspen's nonconforming lodges are facing has to do with the limited scale•of the operations. According to the Snowmass Company, 250 rooms is the minimum number of rooms necessary for a lodge to be a viable economic operation. It appears that expansion of Aspen's nonconforming lodges should not be allowed for at least three very good reasons. First, even if we legalize these lodges, they remain inconsistent with the intentions and characteristics of the underlying zone districts. The Office zone was created to provide for the establishment of low -intensity office and commercial uses in such a way as to preserve the visual scale and Victorian character of formally residential areas that are now adjacent to commer- cial and business areas and along Main Street and other high volume thoroughfares. The Residential zones were created to provide for long-term residential purposes. Lodges are typically more highly impactive, intensive uses, and are not consistent with the residential scale of either the Office or Residential zones. Secondly, the existing lodge capacity in Aspen exceeds the ability to supply our recreational opportunities. We presently transport in the vicinity of 4,000 skiers per day to Snowmass. The Growth Management Policy Plan seeks to rectify this situation by allowing phased growth in each of three areas: permanent residential, tourist residential and commercial building. To allow lodge expansion in excess of that recommended by the Growth Management Policy Plan would accentuate the existing transportation problem and exasperate the existing housing problem. "The City of Aspen could make a very positive contribution to the overall transportation and fis- cal balance of the community by undertaking a program to substantially reduce the potential for tourist accommodations expansion and reserving future growth for permanent single - and multi -family development at a low rate." Finally, the lodge zones were created to provide for the recreational and accommodations needs of the visitor in an area which is espe- cially suited for this purpose because of their proximity to transportation (Rubey Park), the ski area and the commer- cial core. The total buildout remaining in the lodge zone is in excess of 300 units. The Growth Management Policy Plan recommends that 80 percent of this buildout, or 273 units, be constructed over the next 15 years. This remains a valid goal for future growth. Even if we determine at some point in the future that the economy of Aspen needs additional short-term lodge units in excess of that recommended by the Growth Management Plan, they would be more appropri- ately located in the existing lodge zones. There appears to be no reason to create a new zone category along with the accompanying new review procedure unless we are going to allow expan- sion of these nonconforming uses. The Planning Office's conclusion is that expansion of nonconforming lodges would be inappropriate. We therefore recommend the following amendments to Aspen City Code be adopted so as to allow nonconforming lodges the maximum amount of flexibility, short of allow- ing expansion, in order to improve their economic viability. The Planning Office recommendations are as follows: • • z4u 4wpa-- --6 h_ - - -�'.iC- /?too�o -4400�e - . e,-7-2-,j /t (-I-r �u L 14 UZ If CITY OF ASPEN MEMO FROM CARLA SCHUCK