HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Lodge Preservation.1980
r"
.~
.';:" ~ .'.;"
MEMORANDUM
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 needeo. 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 specifi crevi ews wi 11 be the
status of loage development and its relationship to the growth manage-
ment controls proposed therein.. We have long felt that before a lodge
overlay ordinance is recommended, thi~ review must take place. There is
also the related question of permitting expansion of lodges through ai
lodge preservation or overlay technique. An understanding and review of
previ ous Pl anni ng & Zoni ng acti vity regardi ngland uses in Aspen, and
particularly short-term uses would be an appropriate matter for the
Planning and'loning 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 ne~1 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
Gi deon Kaufman
Ashley Anderson
Heinz Coordes
~
// ,
1
I
I
1
I
,
!
,
e.', MO((Il't II. ~. IlIr ~, t".
,
~
ORDINANCE NO. l~
~. 'R
(Series of 198("
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING SECTION 24-12.10 TO TaE MUNICIpAL CODE OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN walCH 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 recofi~ended
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 strucutre 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 classif ication, 'and
_.~ ~.~-,...,~ ---.....'._....._v-.......__
I
nc.yvnu. 'our rnv'-'.....'.r;.;.uu:...'.......""
(4)
"...., --..
If .. ,y such use 01: land ceaser 10r any reason 1:or a
period of more than one (I) year, any subsequent use of
land shall conform to the regulations specified by the
code 1:or the district in which such land is located.
The act of obtaining a building permit within the one-
year period shall be cons idered 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 a1:ter 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.
I
i
!
Section 2
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is 1:or any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional by any court 01: competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shall not a1:fect the validity of the
-.
remaining portions thereof.
.t
.
Sectiofl 3
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the /.;Z~
day of ~ ' 1980, at 5:00 P.M. in the
City Council Cfiambers, 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 . a~J./ , 1980.
,
HZ.~ .
Mayor
ATTEST:
'"
(..
athryn S."
City Cler
-~-_.__...." .....,.,.,...",..,.........,.,
..,..,...~',..',"..,....,..-...::.c..."""'~"";-"",.=,;.
':'..,...,~~-_. ~
.,,~-.,.'~."......-:r:.:~i'<...>'('!,...~..:"!',
'-1'" ....
. . ,','-". .
/' ".-......
.-
~j
-'>ePI,):;
"
\,q
..,.:'f
'..
. I
RECpRD OF PROCEEt:HNGS
lUU Leav""
FINALLY aoopted,
YJ/O r
passed and approve~ on the
~ day of
, 1980.
Hefrz:-7~
Mayor
ATTEST:
~~ ~ ~ <t,-t~ --'
H....'.'. H. ".. 'tT" "'....0.".0,)
City Clerk
.'
" .
,~
.......... '
MEMORANDur~
FROM:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Aspen City Council
Richard Grice, Pl~ning Office
Lodge Condominiumization/Lodge Preservation
TO:
RE:
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 modi fi cati on. Wi thout actua lly calli ng for abatement of non-conformi ng 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 deteriol'ation 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 l'lhen the
previous Smuggler Lodge applied this last summer for a variance from the Code
limitation that any repair and inodification to a non-corrforming 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
stl"uctural elements to make it a more viable operation.
.Both the Planning Director and City Attorney who satin on the Board of
Adjustment deliberations heard testimony that raised questions Ivhether 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 the'ir
consideration. In an unrelated application, the.issue of condominiumization Vias
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 genera 1.
Hhat 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 tl'lO 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-conformi ng s ta tus,
t"'"'
.~
Memo to Aspen I' and L
City Council
Re; lodges
April 4, 19HO
Page Two
2. Refinancing difficulties arising from non-confonning status.
3. lhateconomies of s,cale 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 fi rs t suggested ~Jhen the Boa I"d of Adjustment cons i dered the
Smuggler lodge application. It \~as 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 recommendati on 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 resident--:r1iTUses
~ould be permitted provided that they meet the area and bulk re2uire-
ments of the underlyinq zone district, that there be no inaease 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 for any
reason for a period of more than one year, any subsequent use of the
land be consIstent WIth the requIrements of 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 ne.ed not change underlying publ ic pol icy
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.
;:'
;,"\
v': '
\~'ii\0v '
t!:(i~fj
ff<') /~ Vi., ,
/>)~ nUl>- -
~~r
v\b~~
r'I
Nemo to A~;pen P ancl Z
City Council
Re; lodges
Arll'i 1 4. 1980
Page Three
^
2. A second solution is a "Lodge Overlay Zane". It was suggested by
the Planning Office after discussions of the Lodge Association led
beyond the origina.l scope of the discussion.. The model that was .
suggested was used in Phoenix to accommodate pre~existing non-confonning
uses in otherwise residential neighborhoods by'hmeliorating 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 \~ith 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 othen~ise provide fOl' them and is a
process for determining the circumstances under \~hich those uses may
be made more compatible.
To the Lodge Associ ati on thi s techni que appea red to offer more f1 ex i bil ity
and provides a mechanism for allm'ling 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 i'1anagement Plan. The Growth
j'lanagement 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 r'lanagement 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, ~Ihile Snowmass
is underbuilt. The Growth tljanagement Plan recommends that Snowmass
be allowed to build lodge capacity to meet its skiing terra'in. The
Growth ~1anagement Plan states that "the City of Aspen coul d make a
very positive contributioh to the. o'verall transportation and fiscal
balance of the community by undertaking a program to substantially
reduce the potential for tourist accommodations expansfon and reserving
future grm,th 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 cOloplete it does require the kind of inventory that Al Blomquist
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 we 11 documen ted,
-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 ,parameters 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 Loning
Commission and Council who ~Iould ultimately adopt such a plan.
I
I
,
t"'"
.,,-,
~lel1lo to Aspen P and Z
City Council
Re: Lodges
April 4, 19$0
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. Jim.lie
/1allory of the First National Bank and Jim Patterson of the Bank of Aspen have
indicated to us that these t\~O modifications would improve the prospects for
financi ng of lodges. They di d comment tha t lodges experience refl nanci ng
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 condominlumlzation combined with the elimination
of restrictions on renovation could provide lodges with significant financial
flexibility. The Lodge Condomlniumization Ordinance which is also included in
your packet is written to be cons i stent I/ith the recommendati ons 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 re 1 at i onshi p of small operati ons
and economies of scale. I~e 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 Ilere 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 Ilere 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.
Conc 1 us I QIl
The Planning Office recommends as the result of many meetings and discussions
w.ith the Lodge Association and other staff that the attached Condominiumlzation
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 condominiumlzation. In short, the amendment
should go a long \'Jay 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 Immediate relief. A Simple building permit
application opens the way for complete lodge renovation.
.
,-...
^
Memo to Aspen P and 2
, City COllncil
Re: lodqcs
Apl'i 1 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 cOlltinue
to keep the 10dC)ing situation in mind Ivhen the Gl'o\vth ~1anagcl11cnt Plan is y'evicwed
with a view towal'd monitor-ing both the incl'ease in lodge invcntory and the condition
of lodges, Maintenance of the chal'ilctel'istic mix of lodges of diffel'ing scales
and ., oca ti ons ~Ii thi n the City of Aspen is a much mOl'e appal'ent goal today than
it was sevel'al yeal'S ago. Should it become necessary, other more sophisticated
teChniques such as the "lodge Dved ay" wi 11 be revi ewed as supp lemen ta ry mechani SolS,
,D(~ l(;J 0- 2- rv~, e! trtle4t k
a~w~~IJ/
, ~ rLMfJl~ 'h 1'vPuZ..~ ~. ~ ~<J'
~/Vn; M~,hYh ' '
ivdtJ 0J / ~ (1)I/c~ f c ^
I) (It(JyJ(
1n! :"J6l:'m 6f S~o/
, " ~ i t~/VUJShT)4 , (
[-- I tj {JltS 1<61uj- vJ / A !d- UAe P kCA - 73
f07~1- ji' ~uVLIJfl/~ ((,wk ?V( L/t:. .
f12 /;U/{t N;j;uJ oltu4 (~I/M '7/~, Lf
,....,
.--
To: Aspen Planning and ZonL,g Commission
~.)Jr ~ I sO- Clr4fiq
:;ifw.hu'TI - JJc,( :::0 wi Uo '
From: Allan Blanquist. Chalet Lisl
Re: Lod"e Preservation Vers.us LodQ:e Overlay Approaches
Date: March 29, 1980
I will be out of the country for your April 8th meeting when you will
oonsider the Lodqe Preservat:lon_ Clause, which I obj eot to as an inoom-
plete solution. The preferred solution is a Lodze Overlav .Zone, which,
in my opinion, Oche planning staff rej ected with poor faots and poor
logio in the Richard Grioe Nemorandum of February 28, 1980.
The ALA will reluctantly endorse the Lodge Preseryation Clause "as
better than nothing." They wanted full leggtliziltion, but have deoided
to aocept the Lodge Preservation Clause for now and then try later for
the better soJ~tion. I asked Karen about this, and she indicated the
staff would have other prioritie She also said she preferred the
o ge prese va ~on as easier It and "simpler." I l,vould rather
the solution be 'right" an "easy," and aIll unhappy with both the
Planning Offio an1- ALl>/;;:,70J/:. /} ;lfs I((;A,#~~ iP~ wlht
r.~ I met with Karen and Richard on Wed~, Maroh ~~o determine the J/ f"j,.cfy/. . .,tU
~df)i3 ;'eal issue -- and then said it is "expansion." which I note is now 1<;; ~'~6
~~ontrolled by the GHP. For zoning, the issue is bulk and size, i.e.
densi".:v. . .
G.iven the Maroh 26th entrenohment of the PO thinking on this ma.tter,
I tl1el'efore feel compelled to answer the Grioe memo, both to discredit
it teohnioally and .to arglle my ooncerns as a planner. a member of the.
lodging industry, and as a citizen and taxpayer.
A. CRITI~UE OF GRICE MEMO
For this oritique I have labeled certain quoted statements from the
G~ice 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
. t' "
eoonom~o opera ~ons.
FACT. All lodges are viable economio operations until bankruptcy or
oessastion of J.odging use. Some are less economio than othel's, economio
viab:L1ity being relative to owner expeotation. not an absolute, exoept'
at the point of bankruptcy. or paper 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. Howevep, it is the WRONG problem.
~
,-"
~CJUli!o k~
The Coucil and P&Z originally described the "problem" as the dof!f:;a1f. /D Iu.;<:;,.
spiral in the quality of Aspen Lodging relative to he upward trend in
lodging quantity and quality at Snowmass, Vail, , c. The Aspen lodging
r?'" . industry has agreed that thedowllward spiral is/real, and has been
. ';1\ underway since the down zoning. One has only /0 see the new constr.u ction
~. I' at Snowmass and Vail to be aware of "newness r as an Aspen competitor.
Yet, one of Aspen's great assets is ~ ness" -- 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. Whv they have not been
noticeable in non-conformdng lodging while being so noticable in other
areas is also ~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
_~. \0. the how of the spiral, and does not offer a solution to the problem.
~'.)\ Instead, it mistakenly sees "economic viability" as the problem. With
. 'v' the Planning Office having this misconception of the problem, it is
Q.~~JJ \. easy to understand why the WRONG solution (lodge preservation only) was
~ \I- . invented.
~ 2. FICTION. . .
" !VVi~
.~~S/\/
"In oJ:'deJ:' 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
plan ... ~ do not feel that expansion should be allowed ...
the 1980 Planning Office budget did not inelude the staff
time ...rt
AtII~ Iii Jt1di:lco~elndll~~~/~Jl~~d~ >J; ,jJ~
FACT. When the ALA rejected theJLodge PJ:'eserv~i~n~se approacb I'V.
in favor of FULL LEGALIZATION, Karen suggested a Pheonix Ordinance as ~
a model, and I prepared the dJ:'aft of a Lodging Neigp~orhood Overlay ~ '!-rk
Zone which Karen then said the PO would edit and improve. Instead, the~ a@~
rejected this choice, apparently for reason of the facts and logic in the ,. .
~ '. / Grice Memo, whic h constituted a "staff decision ". not to present the
W' Overlay ZonealteJ:'*,~~ve to P&Z for its consideration.
;f/" ~11'vti(/YJ '.
~ ~ The staff cost budgetal'y aJ:'gument is a disgrace and certainly not a
:fiy ~ City Councilor P&Z reason to continue the r~ownward spiJ:'al" in lodging
Op-, quality. The fact is the staff is merely using that argument because
;r~vANTS to keep lodges no~-conforming so as to avoid facing the yet
~ unmentioned issue of the l6'd.ge DOWNZONIN:i heing CONTRARy to the 1973 .
~-, Land Use Plan, and that the GMP treatment of lodges is VERY POOR, for Ill)).t tfJl
. 'f . not compensating for attrition in guest pillows. . 1MJ./9;tlJJ1
. Ar~
.. 3. FICTION. . . "Perhaps the most silrnificant. problem Aspen's non-conforming ...
lodges are facing has to do wi.th the limited scale of ~ J_ _ .
the operations. According to the Snowmass Company, 6Jfff,h771
2.50 roollls is the minimum number of rooms .necessary for JIh
a lodge to be a viable economic operation. It appears
2
~~~~~.;-,
J .
~ that expansion of Aspen's non-conforming lodges should
Ji.,~iS rf('l' not be allowed..." (underscore added).
; · . ACT. By thi, ob,=v",ion NONE of A,p,"', ""Mi", lodge, =" "eono~
ically viable and should all cash in their chips to make way for high-
rise VAILIFICATION. WORSE. it implies that all 273 units of the GMP
quota for the next 15 years should go to only ONE HOTEL since "anything
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
~nder 250 rooms?) would appear to be a more economic way to add rooms,
and is actually recorrnnended as such in the 1973 l1and Use Plan.
4. FICTION. . . "...expansion of Aspen's non-conforming lodges should
not be allowed... (because) .. .if we legalize these lodges,
they remain inconsistant 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. rr (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,
, ~r. intensive" than the new apartment complex across the street on the
IJ; l./'f 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.
5. FICTION. . . ".. . expansion of Aspen's non-conforming lodges should not
be allowed... (because) ..; the existing lodge capacity in
Aspen exceeds the abili-ty 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 restauran:t. 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 squa:r'e footage will soon l:)e over-built, closings and
.bankruptcy will increase. rents and prices will decline, etc. Because
3
I""'-
...-...
annual attrition in the pillow count exceeds the aI1Illlal addition of
pillows per the GMP, the Aspen visitor accomodations capacity is in
a state of annual decline. CI'his does not hurt existing lodges -- it
heJ~s 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 J ~
impacts on downtown businesses. ~
. Aspen lodging is full in winter, inni~8ring t~Q~~ i~ nn~ QYnQ~~iV~~ t\
capacity in winter, Aspen only has"Cexcessive lodging capacity in the mt; ,
other eight months, because summer activity capacity is sUbstantially[C~;qG
less than winter skier capacity . The same problem is at the root of &L ~jl
the transportation problem. Winter business pays the full cost of ~ .
winter transportation - the transportation subsidies are for transpo ..
tation losses in the other eight months - and those losses are current . ~,
covered from winter income. . ~ ~y
Aspen winter advertising features the maximum customer choice allowed
by four ski mountains. which automatically makes ground transportation to
the four mountains intezral 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, Ii
. 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
sine e the ski ticket price includes the cos.t 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 ~ain 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 arc closer
to all four Aspen ski mountains than are those in the official lodge
zones. They are also closer to sUJi1mer activities like the AIHS, .the
tent, golf, Maroon Bells, etc. Based on a 12 month season, the lodge
zone is not only mor'e energy intensive from the transportation standpoint.
4
..
......,
i""'"',
it is also more energy intensive for its location in the mountain
shadow.
6 ~ FICTION
f~xpansion of Aspen's 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 avea 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, ~ would
llg 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 tQ the Gant; Crestahaus, 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
blintlly fol1ow suit.
It is NOT good plalli,ing to force the Lodge Zone to ape Vail. It would
be better planning to disperse bo.th 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
. .. .
'~here appeal's to be no reason to create a new zone
category along with ~he accompanying new review procedures
unless jig. are going to allow expansion of these non-conform-
ing uses. The Planning Office's conclusion is that
expansion of non-conforming lodges would be inappropriate.
We therefore recomnend the following amendments (Lodge
Presel'vation Claus'e) to the Aspen City Code be adopted
5
1"""'.
1""',
so as to allow non-conforming lodges the maximum amount
of fleXibility, short of allowing expansion, in order
to im12rove their economic viabilitv." (parenthesis and
underscore added)
FACT. The way to improve non-conforming lodges to the extent that they
will actually and honestly provide greater 2lsitor satisfaction is to
. improve both the physical facility and the operation. In doing that, as
the ,"end," 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 con-tinuat;lQn of non- conforridng 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. It is well
recognized as a .builder of owner enthusiasm, and it is a '~ight" 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 easemen~ 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.
Tl~ 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 he controlled by the GMP. The existing
lodges can be '~reated as a class" just as historic. buildings are
"treated as a class" in. the Historic Overlay. Zone.
Conclusion to Critique of Grice Memo. Lodging is an important basic
industry, and is the only Aspen business class where approxbnately 50%
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
6
,1"""\
~
downward spiral in lodging quality and quantity relative to new and
improved lodging at Snowmass, Vail, etc.
BUT EVEN BORE 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 sellout 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 count"
. 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 GBP
amendment are needed to prevent any further decline in the Aspen pillow
count. The GBP showed the Aspen City Limits to contain 10,275 tourist
beds (P20) and have 9,721} tourists (P16) in 1975. Can the f'1anning
Office prove up that many today (in 1980), within the City Limits?
The second conclusion is that by favoring lodge expansion onlv 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.Aspen; but has backed it with powerful disincentives
to the continuation of the smaller non-conforming lodges. Unfortunately.
many of .those non- confo:rming lodges are among Aspen r s BEST, per the
Rand BcNally survey for ACR!
The third conclusion is related to the first, namely that there E@U be
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 TElli1 RENTALS, the ''business!l
of renting pillows to visitors. Thus, hearsay has it that individuals
"rent short term" and often do not collect sales tax, and are not
controlled ~ zoning, because the zoning ordinance does not define
sh,?rf 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-confo:rming
use problem, being legal by zoning and often illegal by the sales tax
statute and ordinances.
The problem is complex - and the current trends project a future of
possibly VERY serious problems to the overall Aspen economy and Aspen
life style. The solutions ~"ill not be "easy" or "simple." The PlalIDing
Office can and should adjust its worl< program and budget to face reali.ty.
We.facea r.egative impact from the doviIlzoning -- the task we face is to
now mitigate that negat:i.ve impact. Both zoning and the GMP will be
better and stronger for the effort.
7
1""\ ,-.,
B. CREATIVE POSITIVE RESPONSE
Despite the above critique, I continue to favor f~low" 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 Pl~nning 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 Lodging Neio-hborhood
Overlay Zone 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 anmial,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 summer destination resort goal, acknowledgement
and help to all three lodging neighborhoods, a bus station and
visitor information center for each, etc.
5. 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 sep.arate documents, like the
County transportation and trails plans and the OEDP which overlay
the City jurisdiction, into one, codified, City master plan docwnent,
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
tre11ds can be monitored ai,d 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) . .
8
f"""'-,
,.-., .
Aspen lodging has always been admired and loved for the CHOICES it
o~fers. And this has always included choice as to lodging neighborhood
and as to size and type of facility. 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 '~ixed-use" neighborhoods. It is the Grice memo and the Downzoning,
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:
(OrangeJ-- "Recreation! Accomodations_ 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."
(BrownJ-- ''Residential/Mixed. To allow for a mix of residen-
tial uses in areas where the.se 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/MixedJ comprise the approximate areas
of the TWO LODGING NEIGHBORHOODS, Glory Hole Park and Shadow Mountain,
as identified in the December 18, 1979 memo to P&Z from Allan Blomquist
entitled Proposed New Lodge Overlay Zone -- Plus. Aspen Mountain, the
third neighborhood (orange on the 1973 planJ, was not proposed for
Overlay Zone status since it is already zoned L-l 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
DOIIJNZONINGS. It is clear from the 1973 Land Use Plan that expansion of
existing lodges in the two brown areas was to be consiCtered. The
s\lbseq~ent 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 carefully dra~~, comprehensive General Plan
for the community .
c. CONCLUS ION
The "problem "is the downward spiral of Aspen lodging. The CAUSE of the
'problem"is the DO\NNZONING 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 '~o Longer Needed
and Not \vanted and Encouraged to Run Down. Amortize <3111 l~O AWAY!"
9
,-.,
,,,,,,,,
The policy WORKED ... the Smuggler and other lodges are now GONE ...
and a few others have been allo~ed to run down to get ready for the
GOING AlvAY that current off:Lcial CITY POL,ICY and Ordinances and
Administrative Practices (like poor bus service outside the lodge
zones) now ENCOURAGE;. .. . . ... . ' /lJ t6eo
. ~~~L
The "solution" is t a,,5' :tl1~__st:f:gn:a of non- conforma e, make--t;;?S ~ "1'6
the rea'llining lodges FULLY '. , :So- age .their surviva1". ^ ,,}
..9lli1 their :improvement, includinl! expansion, if an d when appropr:Late.~ ~.( (htf;.
The above cr:Ltique of the Grice memo was a critique of an arb~r y _
decis:Lon by a 'staff meeting" consensus to FORCE ALL EXPANSION INTO T ~;.:
LODGE ZONE as the only f:Lt place for additional tour:Lst accomodations. I'.
The "problem" is still a question of "QUALITY." A survey of lodging
. Quality was 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-confonning lodge status. The results got to me by
:Lnd:Lrect, 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 Aspenfs'~xcellent" 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 is incomplete, but a perusal
of the list of 20 conforming and 23 non-conforming properties :Ln the
sample show :Lt to cover a fairly valid sampling of tax-paying Aspen
lodg:Lng :Ln each of the tlwee ne:Lgbborhoods, w:Lth the Aspen Mountain
Neighborhood probably understated due to the absences of the Cantrup
properties, wh:Lch were not rated, at the owners request.
10
r-,.
~
PARTIAL RESULTS FROM RAND MCNALLEY RATING SURVEY
Done for ACR in the Fall of 1979
Source: Allan Blomquist, from indirect sources, and without permission
or assistance of ACR
11
I"""-.
.,-"
Lod~inz for which I had tl~ Pillow Count. the Ratinz and the Zoninz
Classification.
Conformin" Lodzing: Non-Conforminz Lodzing
name pillows neigh. name pillows neigh
l. Astec 20 A l. App1ej ack 105 S
2. Durant 102 A 2. Aspen Ski Lodge 65 S
3. Fasching Haus 167 A 3. Bavarian Inn 34 S
4. Fifth Ave 88 A 4. Boomerang 106 S
5. Holland House 40 A 5. Chalet Lis1 20 S
6. Lift One 143 A 6. Christiana 70 S
7. Mt. Chalet 143 A 7. Coachlight 36 S
8. Mt. Queen 24 A 8. Copper Horse 51 S
9. N.of Nell 217 A 9. Fireside 50 S
10. Shadow Mt. 124 ,:A 10. Hearthstone 35 S
11. Tiple Inn 24 A 11. Innsbruck 85 S
12. Tipple Lodge 27 A 12. Little Red 60 S
13. Aspen Manor 58 S 13. Molly Gibson 54 S
14. Deep Powder 32 S 14. St. Moritz 87 S
15. Inverness 44 S 15. Snow Queen 18 S
16. Limelight 184 S 16. Tyrolean 60 S
17. Prospector 41 S 17. Ullr 66 S
18. Snowflake 98 S 18. Siv1erglow 164 G
19. Aspen Alps 540 G 19. Chateau Blanc 68 G
20. Chateaux Aspen 332 G 20. CrestahaUI> 49 G
21. Endeavor 42 G
20 total 2.448 pillows 22. Gant 564 G
23. North Star ~ G
23 total 1. 981 pillows
Pillow Count per ACR
A = Aspen Mt.
S = Shadow Mt.
G = 'Glory Hole Park
12
.1'-\
,__
What. the above numbers show is that the Lodge Zone has more "Expensive!l
pillows than the other zones, BUT, also, that the other zones and NON-
CONFORMING Lodges have more !lExcellent.:' pillows than the Lodge zone.
Overall, it showothat 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 "Excellence !lis spli.t only HALF 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 NON-CONFORMING. But, knowing what has
happened since the downzoning in the way pf a.ttrition in pillows,
beds, units and lodges, to NOW continue the stigma of non-conformance
as recommended by Grice, would be a seriolls 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:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Karen Smith, Planning Office
Repeal of Sections 20-22 (c) and (d)
Ap ri 1 3, 1980
Proposal for Repeal
Pursuant toe:rguments 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 mlnlmlze 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
way to distribute the burden more evenly while minimizing
are two ways of controll ing rate and discouraging impact.
that a substitute ordinance be drafted which would:
1, Repeal Sections 20-22 (c) and (d),
probably the only
its impact. There
We recommend
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.
.
,~
,-,
!
'"
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 29, 1979
TO: Aspen City Council
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
.
FROM: Jim Reents
Housing Director
RE: Condominiumization Policy
For a nunlber 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 90uncil was to prevent
the loss of housing within this pool through the process of condo-
miniumization. TJ:le code requires an appl'icant for. condominiumiza-
tion to submit a ~ental history on the property to prove either
that the subject2roperty has been in the past within or without
the low, moderate; and middle income housing pool. If an applica-
tion was determin~d to impact the low, m~1erate and middle income
housing pool, it 90uld be grounds for either denial or approval
with a conditionat 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, modera.te 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 deJinition in compliance w;th 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 ~o individuals doubling up on ~ousing 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 pol icy 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.
"', "I " ~..."'
,
I""";
I""";
Merna
November 29, 1979
Page 2
Under the current cQde, if an individual in the past has rented
lang term at maderate rates to individuals within this community,
it is deemed prima facie evidence that it daes constitute low,
maderate or middle income housing. On the other hand, if the
rental histQry presented is abQve the current guidelines Qf CQun-
cil it is considered never to have been within that same PQol of
hausing. It seems on the Qne hand that there is entirely no
incentive to. provide mQderate incame hQusing if through a cQnda-
miniumization pracedure you are faced with additional restrictions
because af it. Presently the code seems ~Q award thQse who have
Charged whatever the market will bear andxat the same time punish
those who. have in the past kept their ren~al prices more in line
with the affardability of the lacal employ;ee. It is this dissimi-
lar treatment under the current cade whic4, is my primary concern
and the reasan I ~m suggesting a change i~policy.
There are actually two ways in which I fee~ this problem
addressed:
cauld be
]..;
~.
1. All concominiumizatians should proceed thrpugh a code
that aff.~rs .ho graunds far denial" but rather a. subdivi-
sian rev.iew process as a consumer, protectian pravisiQn to
assure the cQmmunity that all doc'"\,ImentatiQn on a particu-
lar condominiumizatiQn is in orde~. This would be pri-
marily compliance with the plat regulations and with
engineering design considerations.
2. The City: CQuld require a unifQrm.policy Qf rental re-
strictiqns fer a peried of time w.ith any condaminiumiza-
tian approval. As a condition efapproval ef a condomin-
iumizatien the City could set a period. .ef . time, perhaps
three td five years, in which al~:units under the cendo-
miniumizatien applicatien would be subject to rental re-
strictions under the City's guide;lines.
The disadvantage pf this approach seems to. be that there is no
enforcement staff er provision under the current code and adminis-
tratien Qf the City. It would seem that this approach would re-
quire additional staff on the part of the City.
On the Qne hand, ..as hQusing directer, my qoncern is far the less
af affordable heusing within this cQmmunity. However, I feel
placing restricti,pns on preperty threugh s?ndominiumizatien is at
best a hit or miss proposition. As stated.. before, we have no cen-
trol over property that can already be beught and sold within the
marketplace ner Cfin we centrol er dictate,.rental rates ereven if
a unit is rented under the current system.. Condeminiumization,
is, in fact, only. a change in the form ofpwnership and as such
sheuld bEl restric;}.ed no differently than other private property
within the market~lace. In the past, rental restrictiens were
applied far a period of time, with the hope that it weuld buy time
fer the City to find other selutions. At ,.the present time we have
no. pel icy which wpuldreplace a unit lQst .threugh cendominiumiza-
tion or s~le eitqer today, or five years frem today at the end of
a cenditianal rental restrictian.
As ,the City af Aspen hausing directar, I wQuld re.cammend to. beth
the City Council and in an advisory capacity to the Planning and
. Zoning Commission that they consider a change in Sectian 20-22 of
the Aspen Municipal Code to. process condominiumizations without a
denial pracess, and asa consumer protection device. I feel that
~..."~' ':r"'~'"''
~-"l:~.f- ,,'":.-';""\'1!7,?'.... .::7':',;;.r;r.-<;:"
.......,'.~.,.'''1', '
,__' 'w',
:"~'i~r::!';
"'::+:~''"7~''
, "'~_"','V
< .
.~
7~ .
(,
!
.::
t
'"\'/'
.' ,
1'""\ .
r\
Memo
November 29., 1979
Page 3
the community in terms of low, moderate and middle. income housing
is something the, community and the Cityw.ill have to address in
some other manner. It is apparent through the past control of
condomini,umization that we have fostered abuses before and after"
the fact to get around the code as adopted and" that it hasbeen'~
ineffective either in preserving or slowing the loss of affordabl~
rental housing ~ithin this comnunity. ~
.':;
JR:mc
"
~1 '
.:..t!
.oF, .
i:~'
.
'0~.t;. :::)n r':~
t:);~ ;.n
:;;.i; 'JL ,:,:, r :
.
.i..1.....'Ij_J
.:~, {:~. :
.~
i.,
......,.:'-.~~
, ~',~~"-'
,'ct.;{1. d '/t :~.'~ ',;.. ,_,
c
."~ T, .~~,,~:j l :~;: " lumt :~:
".t,
-''lJ'
i\l.ii
-"CC":",
'.""
;,,~
J.
$
;~
:)
:2
.,}:
,:,..."'.
'f- ,.
"",',
$.
;
,;;;;.;'c:,':-'
r\
,.-"
Ch. IV S 428
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE
Ch. IV S 428
~
Sec. 428 SPECIAL CONSERV~TION (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 Neighborh~od 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
-198-
~
"
~
Ch. IV S 427
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE
Ch. IV S 427
~.
5. AtrSUCh tim~ that the~mmisSi~ shall ~ermine
that the curren~~wner of!a portid,n\?f the/p~nned com-
munity ~istrict /is\not i~ co pliance With a Ero~ision of
the plarlned comr/lunf'ty prd1gram\ or thj pUplic ~edi"ation or
improvem nt SChJ'dUl~ as Icont'ined ,n t~e legal~ree-
ment, no urthe ves\ing ,of zo ing .r ap~rov~l of , final
site plan r su divis~on Iplats hall occ~ fbr that por-
tion. Sue det rmina~io of non om,lianc s all b~at a
public hearl g. The a~~icant an~ ~urren~tner(S)~hall
receive writt notice M hearing.V (G-1608, G-1790)
.~
.--"
-197-
,r\
,~
Ch. IV S 428
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE
Ch. IV S 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-
tric t.
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.
,-...
-199-
~
Ch. IV S 428
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE
Ch. IV S 428
--..
D. Establishment of the Special Conservation District
l. 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-183l)
-200-
/""
,"""
,.....,
.. >~~
...- '"
,....,
Ch. IV S 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 pool s
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 agcessory 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.
I""'"'
-201-
.-'
./~,
~,
Ch. IV S 429
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE
Ch. IV S 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:
(I) There shall be a minimum area of ten (10)
acres gross for a resort having stables 1
~,
(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
l. 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-
,-
~
~
~~;~-.,._..,,_. ,.
Ch. IV S 429
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE
Ch. IV S 429
~' f"'.
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 ~andscaped.
c. There shall be a front yard having a depth of
at least 40 feet.
t"'.
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 S 429
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE
Ch. IV S .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 ~ownwards
spiral". Al Bloomquist's argument is that the lodge overlay is the better
techni que because it will a 11 ow expans ion of lodges. While we do not di sagree
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.
,-...
.~
..,
,-...,
~
.>>. ~'~~I~~ ~&r
Dh\ ~ ~dL,e. .~ ~
. ..tI');;;,:;;J ~ ~ .C.'
't-t. ~J:i..&. . ~ AiJ,.
~ ~ ~ fo,~~ 0"-'
~ ~ ~ .hrJ....c ~ ~
~. ~~ .A~
\I_~~_I^.. ...L.I "~'~.'
':';~"'; ~ ~ ~ ~.~~
~~..~.'.. ~:t. :f1. ~~~.
b~ .. e..c.. ~ ~
GJv . ~ ;d-t L- 2 )D'M.. ~ .
I
f,~~
Q~ ..
;~-
~'
~
~
~
. · ". ' rv~ f(1\.,
~clr
t1Z
..J ~~
~k' u'
~~ ~t~~J
~, I ~)
~I. ),
~ ~j;tJ~~~.
u w.Ul ~~~
.t.Alll1 '. ~ ~
~ ~~~,~'4-
:tr 1-l~1 ar- ·
:Xk '1~IQ~3 ~ ^~~~
;~. ....~~
\.)~~ ~~~.~ .
.~ ~~.. 1
~ ',' I ww~~) I
..~.~..". ~.~..... '.'
,.~....~ ~-L. .. ....;.. ~
((\~~'.. .~~
~.~. .~ ....~....~...~
..~.~.. ... . ~-~
'.'t ~~..~. ~... ... ,--:r~;
.;;.,~-,,;.,~ . ...;:....~~~./~:f!Jr
~~~.~~''- ~'. .," ,.~~
/ ~_. ...&.._~ ~"
'" ,~' 0A..tJ. . ':d.-< ~ .
~...... I ~ /) I;' tJ/'JJ.-.- - .. ~
'14~T~~ ~
'f ~. ~~ 1 0.0. 'l
, . . .
.m
,-...
~
n~)~~/:J).~~, .
~ ~'!~ /4k"f J. ,...d. Ci'-
~w~ ~~JlI
( S.e.-t. p~~ ~ t>'\ "94.~
rf)~~ a-. ~s
\ ~~w~.c.
. ~'.__L~
d- r?- .
4fP
J- ~J
\, fQ(
~~~
,J. ;".. ~
2 '. . j....a-tl
r4.11~
r -
.Ii ~
~~.~
.M. ~
~
c,...y.(.. ~~.
~ "'-~
~;te~
~ ~ 1>r;)
~/~ ,:t:.
~pt.(~
,~ ..
~_ ~ .. ~ J~
_$):t; L~
-- ...~ .~... C/rroA
~
-,
'"
'" " ...
,~,
\'15' oae)
., 25"000
\ S-O,~ - \~
q~G''''~S""
ANN~
::Dow~ ~\R..s
~b j' elm-J k3
---
-'0
~
-,
J~
24
---.
- ,::{-tbf
... ."
,-... ~,
ff\o... . .... .~.~ nCmc1~
, " DJ)jJrtVJ.....J ~
G) ...Q.in~ ~ a-~~"
. ~
w~ )- 1-~-Oy'\J)'('~ ~,AU ;; Ov,<- .
/N>t D..-u~ f'" ~. 0j~ .
l~ O~.' ".. CtAL Dr>>-~ /)~~~'-
,- '. '. .' r~ .i~.l~' .
l\. ~ ' A-~, '. ~O\ft~/Y':1 ~~~
. C~ ~ ~Dv\.0:ULJ.~,. ~/O'L_
/\_Q/\Nrl.)~ Ct4 ~'.U-." '
L.)~~ . ..~ 4
~~ .'- .,', ~m-
~OMi {L~ C>4 ~
(\ ...~ .
~.~ ~~A 1A:tAe~~4
~~~:t ~JL
b.-) ("1 ~ .' ~~
(alee{) ~r'f' ',.
)",-
/
....
~\"J
\'"
\J'v"'f ~~
~
,-...,
l1ci({)IU f
~
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
A. Requirements. Any applicant seeking condominiumiza-
tionof 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 ,fClllrteen (14) days or less dur~!l~ the seClsonal..
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 ..
duringcthe 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.
.
...-/../~
(/ "
I ,,,<,\ ", ~y'v
, c..\. \ \ fJ i
\ \ \).'
\ '-C-~\ ~"
\ }!i; ,~~
\ ",0
\..xv /
'-.
.
.
,-...,
,-...,
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 i,n, 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-
gati-on,resul.ts from therenforcementof 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-
~
\JtY\
f\:J ,'."\, /J\
\.)
,}i
\<~\.)
'\ \J
'\
/
~(fI />/
<J\ "
.. oJ
(,;\ r\
"~
\j ';'"
, '
'-')
\ j
r-"
~
2. A lodge that is condominiumized shall provide a
minimum of two (2) pillows. of employee hO!.l.s.i.n.g..o.J:"_tha.:!:_2,1!lQ.llnt of
employee .housing that has been provided for the three (3) yea s IN
--_._____. ....__._..___..._____.....____,...._.._.:___.__.__.___..._._...__....., , &v
previous to the time. of condominiumization. As used '. h~~~i~':' '--Ie.
"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 quan.!!i::X
to those provided during the high seasons for the three (3)
_'_"~~___"""''"''''.'A_'_,___"__._~_~_,__..._~"____,_~^~:-.--.__---u>
years previous to the time of application when the property was
--- -~'
operated as a lodge. I:..f LL__ l.....J~-c:;-. h-.L~~~YLj s8\i!kt ta he:. aanae-
mR4.'lltLi7e.a I...QdI:-'.....V'v~d....d .........1 ~:L(!: h"",-li8.!emeRt, the new.cond.orn:inillD!.
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
what services were provided for the three (3) years previous to
the time of application. . This affidavit shall address:
a. whether breakfast has been provided,
b. whether there has been front desk serving
the guests, ,
c. what kind of and to what extent transporta-
tion has been provided to guests,
d. what have been the check-in hours and
procedures,
e. what amenities have been available to
guests, and
f. any other relevant information regarding
on-site management, maintenance and other tourist accommodation
services previously provided by the lodge.
-3-
/{
),10
{ffi
"~I0\J\
~
"
J
,5;' ,,f
~ Wf\i
(j~i j
\]1/,\\
~,j
lJ~:<,
\;'
-~~~
"
'"
~\
\~
III C\
r/
',' V,
\! \ ~'
>s \~"\, ,~~.
,I \/ ,,\\r
{\.'"J\'\
N' \
OMIT
;,ti
('tt>;.'/;o; )1\
,,~,'<.{/ ,,>
!:.}"j ",
,,-..,
~'
"
4. The condominium units shall remain available to
the general tourist market. This condit.ion 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
previous .lodge character...,. Any'changes, alterations or renova-
tions 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 subparagraphl a~, infra, or in
the alternative by applicant's compliance with subparagraph b,
ot tuwr" '
An amount equal i;dt!\ir"ij pe,rcent }30%)
CD1-.JC\.o/Y't)if...l\\.lrm;~dJ lo.e~"RAi;--"\-\C $'
of the assessed value.af.the propert~s applied toPthe upgrad-~ ~f
.~ o~.j
o ~t-
d ~~
infra, as follows: '
a.
ing of the lodge facility pursuant to plans submitted to and
:B \&':I.c J:NS fRdoR , ' .
approved by the City1within nine (9) months of condominiumization
approval,-,and. the upgrading ..is completed wi tlliJl:twel ve (12) u
\
months after the building permit for such upgrading is issued.
An average of- '
dollars . ($ ,
months after
is spent-o
upgrading .,
to and approved
)
of'each.rental. unit
condominiumization approval
and the u
ng is completed within
permit for such upgrading is
b. 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
.~
.'tp'1
'},'"
-4-
~~/
'\
vY
1
~
.
1""'.
,~
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 (2lt years. A condominiumization of a
lodge..pursuant.-to this..section.-shalL.be mOdifi.ed..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-
.
"
,"',
,-,
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.
(~t\lQ;{(~!~>'\ \~ 1
i,,'
,."
(2... 0-'"-..t~
'! !, \" ! ~,,<
J-h4 L t ' J'0
-6-
"!",
:; <:1
.'n
Ii
.j
! "
.~ ~ I
!L
~
. I
^.!,
~.' ': -
',.,
. ,j
""
.~
~, ,
'",;'C"-'~"
r-,
,
.\
\ '
"
,
,', I
'..i'
..,
.~
l},
.r
.'.J.,
..f .
.
'1
I
~: '
. -.~"
i'
-" ~~_ ,,) :'~ '"'~;',~' II ...~:' ~,.~,~'" . :-."""', :'t:~!'~:'~
,.
;,;;:;;',Lii.G. .... . .:.U.~.:
',,'c.;;""';';";;;""
:..:.<;":::">0.;;;'~
,,:'\.,.....~.^^ ,.. ....~.----....,"---",~.,_..._-,,_.,.
1
I
\ ' ,,('\' ~ '7 ^'
r\ 1 OQ/,>~v''>3K/-->V
CITY OF ASPEN (~
MEMO FROM RICHARD GRICE
C:oNkJVN\'1 N,
9' \ hvlS
2~S-G,
N Q N - tJ>v~e.R/"I i f
~ III ()w S
;2 83 2-
2f130
'?8 ?L
56 S 7
e: dt)J):1~'~
D1i~
{fVv.cJ: rt\J
(I; VJ..I.ih\
I ")
i:> i II (f7Jl~
I .
,
-'.i
....~.~
i~
~'
,
~
l
ij
"
1
I
I
I
,
i
~ .
.
;~.
.., . .
~." ,J" '.
. .j
. ~,' -;,
!
I, ,'I
. i
~''''."",\,:,,,...~;' ^...- .
~,,' ',,", ',. -,- ,-, ."., "^' ~
, ,
.
. i-'r"
.'. ..... '..--_... ,~;,\~",~,~"i'
.... . '. ~.. ',,"':',y\,.:'
.. ....".<.,;/ ,r . ", " '?f
IABLF IL- ZDNIPJb z>T;4T(J~
t~~~_.toR~(~4_.AY~c:~t~fitL.~~t.~stl:.~1. .,~,~~rll~_;:(l 0.
. _ a<.l J1JC(Lj{.Ll~k. l?vi. 117 q 11l(otcCOtu..,.'t~ ._..u._'_ u....
I 7). . I'D.... .2' ...)" .,.. ...-...----.---.- '.---',-"-' ...'u .".
.--..-.. c.' f(:lr-C 0..._......._. ...._~..--,-,... "..-.,.._:,~ ..u','.. ...__
.-.- --.....-.-- .. .. - 1 .,/- ..,.; 2 ',_ ...~ J ",~",,~_.."~'_,',,'::.~~'1 ':;_~~,'c,~",:.~~";~~~~5~~'_'_-=-",~~',;~,~'~""'-=olJ:~....-:-.,::.~.,.':-'.-~'.~7:::,.'"'-"~
;,_u ... . ,-........ "';:-;:;':';:;-' ....IJ' fJ:"-~ D t=-6J2.t1-1 AJJc.c;
.;, ...--"" __ULv..?::. ... - r' -.ep...--~ ,...---.-.-."----- _n". _______.u..
;,.,. . n. ...._~. 'n_l1.Z~ .".. ..,;.-'2bVlIJb.. -n.1Lle.-.~--~~{f."....fcft:tf;,{f1!i1t/-!.?Mi:nii-- ...._.___
~ . ~~:~f~,~:~~?:Je~iE.IJ,~r' p f'+Lr~!, ~ r;Twrl!~ !~.p-!J~~:r~1:'F-tFT:
""""" CDf/T'I'fPrfrtJt. ,.,./YI-J ! I ~I.U__.,__+~ i--->-J t--'-"'-r--....L_-L _...~.l ~ +.1 ~ ---- -~-I-~-. '--r _,~_II-",!-..--t---
""PJ;f; :'If 17 p=~I.'; 6'rN~~ ~t~6'~--l~-:~L : j--_:- 1'-1-'-:: -. ~Ill ~HTri-~-t+l.f-H' -H-:'I+~~-';~+~ j 1+~ - -
:,.IJ 'L-c...-(>R.~i~<i.."--'I-=-r;~2D--'-'~T ,\ , - '-'\"r ~ ~.; :n----~+i':-:i"--~-w-l : ;lIJ'iT-+-;:-:.Jr,- :-;--~'i-;:- !l:t!.--
') fJSPFI'I .;>{{VfJRE.... -. .;..-,". "'~ . bL - .i ..,-_!. ---"I' 1-;---'-':-- ';,-' r'-;'-I'~,- ~- j-.-ter"" --j-'-I-'
{,.. Hot.lf);1"f .7-Ni'L -. i 3/r] ""\ ~- ~~i:J-~-t' ~1! -.:- L~.L....L~I.~L .: '~J.,.l'r~~ 1 ..-L..i..!..i--i-).L; --
n r 62" I' "4: 1 1 ' I ' " , , j I " ' ': ,I" I I ' !
' ;:,LJfJ- 707'fJL - _.I'll ~8 .: ~._-.........;.. -'- ,--.;-!...-t'-'-'--. j';+-I-:" +.-1 '~r---;---i-l Tt'-r--
---- I ~ 1 I 'I ill ' :; I I, ' I I I' I I I' "
~. " 'I "I' ~ i '4 ,i I I I I I I i I I ! ~ : 'I 'I " I,! I' I i I j I
... " , tit L.L....l.....I.- ..t--;--; . ...L-;,.++__~ ,---...... -1..."'1'""'t"i""'";------
-.-/!. r -O'--;'--T-:, r<,f'-5:'\-t-'-'l'~-;--" jT"'U' '( .-"tT~i : . ~T "-I i IT-~ i , : j !-I'~-:-tTl 1 ' [ ;:1 :, r+11 i Ii: I
. ~~ Jlllv, f,Of)(/''::,,1.. j. 1..-.. --.-.------ '-;"'-'-H"",-", " . --'-.-i---r-....p-~T-.. '''''--T'~ ,..,..j.-,,-\,-,
-. -'riY- ,.. ~4 -~ I ~C;>,..,__~ 1 I! I I i It I ii' I I . i'l I :u I'! '1 ' I: I' II!:;
-' I.) ;;N-(-!Hli'f.1,tl C?'-*~-----""'~+--:('~7------t~t1._j~--::-, -,. t'~i":--' ~-"j, '-~'--,-i 'I~-l--I-""" IT1~-; r--'-r, ~--r'-:-r--
" f)/lJu~,p-r; 71.I"t" t I I L ' ". "
~ .~: '~~~P~:-":~':':'I'I~"- +--:-!" . '-'i:.I^"h.:.~T~' , "L---:- -', -:-""'r::":-'~i01 r~-~---r--n--;-.,l-;-;T-~:
". '1~/.1;:~',f;~!:'{-~,;~ ... ~.... ~~1)"-=--F-v'l ,- ,-i~:.-~n1'T--t':-I-~"I':Tt-~;: -'-r--f-"i+[ -',-n'T]Ti-
,~ _~.~$ ~~~N.~~~;~~ ~------+--- .~~~-j-~I ~i:!--;-~rTt.t--Tl-~';'l~!I-"l-"~T~ ~~---'-1-+- 1-:l-T-i-!-I~!'-~~I--
! .,.-I'vlf..; .." 9,,> .. '.: -, ~. ,"'?'''';-'---;-c' C-7-,--+..l...-;-R--:- -t-.tt'---i-l'~m'-'- -T: ~- . '~-'-r+-j'-:~-:'-
"1 liot>rH DPNfU.[;NI)OS I :?t!7 ~.-J.L~_L___ _..-1 L__ _.!.! i.;.___.lT_' ~_ .-..:_ LL:__ i._~_L:-......l__-i't.-t-.+-l.+--
.";' ~.' ~ . . '-':-h/',"'-' 'GL-1-n' I 'I" ,i ii, I':' :' [ il,; : ",: 1 ! : L I: i :
',~ '-L.8~ff.'{..:tIlf---:- -...~-;-~-.t,,/.,:, -. T:-t~ "'Rl~--~r !'-;--;-'t'i--;--rtm-1i-\ I" j i'f:~I:T1"[i-"~'--::" i -.!.l...ImIT'
'j !/1FtITt: _r,)tJ"'r-__._.. ';"+"-'~'~''''''---'l-' -~-r-"'-i-,..L+--!---'-'-I ~-r-'m-'-'l-'-I"""";-"I-:-'-P'-'~ --'''l-t: 1'-;-
- .' I "f) , I" ~ ' ,j, I I I' ,': " ' ! '. 'l
(" ft::) JJ. I' /1 . ~..- I II '] '....4.1' '-L ' , , 1 I I " t' I II 1 I ,I , '! 1
.~ _,,/,;Culb: 'OO-'<:~urt--j,~tf---'~Tqf~"Ti-f.(...J:-' I'-rt, '0- TJ;--~ , I r~-:--:-i' :+' I i--'-I--!Ii~tt'
': -I 5."", Ai:-,/.:;''''}C.----cj--:-;11S'-, n ':.. :1-;- .l~'J5irr.j--~~"j'''' 1 ( 1 i ,: iTTt'~r:-::-tlll i-~l-';T~i 'it,
I 5 ""~ LId? If~N,..'S___.....__ . _ S -----1-'-':-:1. '-...: -- '-~';-l--~-ri-r- I ,..)...~ ~-;..-':'-t.-:--~ --I' -:--r-+'I'.J. -WI ,-;--
. . ~ I I " J I I' I: I ,I I ~ 1 I 1 I 1 I" I . i, ,I I I I: ! t
. , ,.. I :2t.. .... ~ ., '''_1 '-"'...J-..i-;.-+--<--;--_.J1--, '_L, - _L....L.i- '--r,.J1-;..1.1-r,..._-I1-,-.t-l..;-!-1
"1 . ~,. - - ;- '"rf1~' ~ I, '1":) m_j_ t-{~\' ,I!!: 1 : : : , r Ii, II! I ; 'It ': I 1 ,I :lJ I! :: I
i j,d)O,v T,?//'L _I"/""!:_! .__.._l.:.-.., _'1"'_ ---~--W - ~"-'--T;..J...i-,4---+'T " f-t-L---R :-lT7--"'+i~r""""""~-'I+-'~-j-:--L
[) L'~ I ,11'<3' : ~\: : ,I " "i:, :' 1 , ,,: I : ' I: 1 " ,I ';
.' r:,7.otle__ --.-... ,,:,;',-'-+1'" ....-'_.-7-.-...1-:m'..+"";"':--:-tT;!"'--:-:--- ,-,1: I: '-r-:T~H1T'-1 T71--
:; fJ$PFrt 5/!.vp/fUo ' ''I' . ' . ~_. 't.....:=1T~-'-'---.-'- _..l._L~_ _....,_..L__ f---.+h-t-I i+:-
, ~ ~ 7"'-'"'' -L-':~lI' """",..., -[""""11' ",,: "t 'r : "I,;: ,;:,1,', 'I I':!
, .~l/", 011._-.. - VLJ- ~---'-'J-' -I,~~-;H'h'I1"'-"--' L-" -.-'..- "~--;-rl-;--;-;--'il~-l-"r.-:t;-:T~-
:1...._.. . -- ----; -. --r;)~."':-l ,.T..:---....;T'.~.:.---..Jj_LJ-I-L-'..!.--t--(-++.-P 'tl'_C rt--'-h--- ,'~'+:-h- "'r-;+'-,_:-
.: 5l:.1,qU. ~ {i~('E;,::4-7+-'':''1'1.~~i-+-h::ti~~-- I+~h'-I--;- '~T-Tin-'.- "';+~r--.t;-~-:-t---IJI+j~-tr-
.~!(IIO"W }./it:..!!!t.l;.vt:. . -j--ll" ,,~-':-.!--~~r-.\-;-t----~i-:-r-;-~''''':'' '-'-.I-~-t--"i-rt--'!'-;-I;-:i----:--;-'! I : -n 1--
." ~f~t!LI1:~~S .fr;rLc--'- 1"-' il-~~--,,,.tT'\1=i ~-;---'- .--.1-:----:-.-.:.+1: T-,-.---.t~'I~-~r-" r; '~F-':--',-'1 :.t-j ;-r-: -
vCON/:t:,1t//r,f,otJC'i-."_",,.1 "'0"--1':" .10_.._..._". ,_C:._ -- .-r--'-'---.I-I-ir------...-I,,--+-:--"- t"-;"I-'--'
.c fl~fL~ ~t7Cj~ .---- __,;-\_,,;.!IDS, "'-j..S::ct--:--f';"1' r'~:'--"-: "-~--'~-rt~--:-r--i - .,;i.~.~ (-+"'; .~,.~~.ti~-
{)(){?r1fj 1 tor.t)cS._ ---I--,-~}.M"-1-LL. _" J__ .-t--I"-- - -j-_.-r......,---,. .-. "'-""--'1'- -'1-'-'+-'" -rc.1"....1-
-. _ - e' \ I 411, I: I' .! i !: , I, I I._ I I I I 1'1 I.
~~ . f,5f'.r.i f/f: T!'.:;.r~~ -- ...; -. II~~ ... 'i-'Ll1'l' f-:--';'~" ~-~T;-+"';-r" -1- i" :-. i -I.-:tt-f''-''- --~'i'T "",- ...t':"!'j-:t-
.< Sf/O(.</rLtl!f/i. .J.op,,"/::._ '-'1 !---:")-" 0 '--I-'L:--- ?j~'+-:'- -;-t.] 'i-'-r-'- ",_'_11 .,.,........, -r:-r; 'r-r-;--r-' "I'~I';-'I-~~:-- ~l '-'I -M:-r;-
1 o~ "1= Sf" r'- J. ,. .. . I at ' I I I I ' i I iI' ] I l , , , I, I I I
~)I.."'- I\l/"c;. Op,.t:.!...__I:I' ....1- ._-- -t.,..l......,.---+'.l'~j- "'j.e-t'_--- --'j"--j' -1'''''r--1"'I' 'T---
't ;,... ~ t': "r I' a Lrrr i I I 11 ,! I , " : I: ' : I I' l ii' I . I :' [I ! ! I ! ;
." 1 $""1 "UW"""-. ,,,,,,,<I. I' " ,0.. - rTiT1~h-1 .-.... .;: '",-''' 7 ';-n'!-r" il-,. ;.;....-... .- 1'-:'11 ,l'~-- ...i-'--rl.j-t.Jt'....
,,! r/f-- /)"e, '- ,. i' 1"003 'I 'i...l. ' I I , ., I L 'I '11, I I !. I I :,! " !, i I
~ ~... 11,/, ."",./'II:~~:;:;'lil[..~,,7 ",-,.:,."li.lr\.L l,h-f, ',; ... 1: ';['"1" -:-!":-n-:' j ,..t i-: ii-n[:+~r;'r: i--l! ITTn,T )'"
,,~ -:;.. J.C'R'72,1..(;,;J-'~l:.~." Itj- ~;:"';'.'~:;i"'~;'r -F~ 'It:-:-~_.:: ;-lr;-:~--:i-l-rr1-I-l.-;: '.l"';r~,!-"t"'T-"11''iT.II.Tr-r-
': t./~{Sf3~l./ct(iOJ.~.!: '1'[1'7.3"; ;il'\~:ri::\ ':I""IT!T'-i'l-+t-I",:,!,,:,r~'l:;r !:'nTiTir
, .."" JO~~i'l6 !ft>1f;1... ~tnr ',: l.tIL; !~~!:h : 1 ;, I ' ; , ,. i :! TtIT: I TIiII.FCrrfJ[;-t[
..,-n'A\'\"l .\.:"".,.":1""'11,;1"". ,;v.."..\o-..,....u. .____~~~~___. ._, ..~"".""'__""""" __..._ ~ ...._~._,_.,__,"" ,_..--_ ..~'__. .___,__
;Ice
LDJ1~ .,. j J\,t,-sc(o (,{ ~:t(1
..!;>Jt:.,
.r\
,.
..' .~- - .-- - --- -.-- .( /?{1~' '-Z:-"6/ ~.~ ):' ~-'.:~::-:::- -~:~;~:~.------.~~'.-_'~~;-'~":::~-:'_-
. :';:~~::-~~~_"=:'~'~~'~~_::~_ .1. '~:"jF:= 2 :.~:.=r::-~. ;"~;.:.'ii~:;~ 4~=~f~-;-= ~:':~;y~-;,~;: ~;'-~=:-~:~~~~:t
,.. .n_ ------.. .- .. I '17i.....,,---..--;:------it--.---.--+-..........-----t--...---'-i---'-'''';'-'
~ ~;:~~, fl~~~~~L. I ~C.l~:~.~~l~~T~~..:~"I,:i~r!~:t:f~r~-~~I~:.::fl,::n:i~CI~-F:~'1::rTrr~..-
:~tf/8IJ5;Lfler -;:";1 - --, -'~P7....-;~H.cl~+\t-iiJ+L -tl-";I-1', , ~ -If-11+fi j I-r i; t'-L'-f-[-1-I-1-~titi.-~
t{otrtt 57fT/? O.l'6~_.:.J~_~.Jl ..-lLj_.L...l'\Il!...l --- ,- - .. ' I--!'- ..I!- -h-- .j-~-I'- t'- '- -tIT'-" -~r'--
, -" 1 , ' I }}, " "~' I I' I iI4- U Ii I [I' I, I' 'I '[ ., I' I 'I '1-' I ;, ,
,Llut< Le>/J(,J';.._...._._u_,_ t>l>:......1_~~..J.. ---'-"''''*-m'' .L II :, 'C',-" .:.;. -~~I' +- +4-:7- " ;-i : ':-
, !JSfJfrl S-/(I JORM.....J..:._.16,f_.J_I-l: v..J_.!I.. : . I I 1......:!RL~lij-L~- ~~. ~ 'I' U-rl.L~-1: P ': _L
') r IJ "I I J ~ 11' I It]{'f\n \: I RIf' 'R=41 I' 1 f t I I, t I I. L \ 1 I I
- 1../1 r,61/(/ fjtIlN<-__.H...:.."J04___L,J''\L..-i-.,:...=.;,'t7i-!-----..'-- _.L..-<......_.L '-'- -'+-;-; :'-1 ',-/,... ..Lr' _.l...
. I ,I 1 iN ' I, AI: i I III 11 I I L, I 'I \ I! 'I
: 7Y!?Dl.pllt-l ;,otJ6E_....:..'....l bOo -l-il'y...;...~--~1.-'- ,I _.j~ .....:i~ : '~-fr:~ li.W-L~-L.I.-;-' .
-:; LI7ftF- Rf,~ Slri JlJ1UL.+_ !_b/)T...lll \\'ffirJ.~~~.. :' I~J+! L J J...l14 'I U I i I I I: ..;, f+!-':"-
.5 fJ .. i i ~' I' ITf..-nJ I Iii In L, lIT: i-r--,~, I i f' I I +FR' ,I: I i 'I tl I ,
.. SPftl A1/JIfD" ---_++-_ ,. '" r_..,..~.i_J,.,L~._,~_,._ ~r-"-'..!" ..,LI t~ - -- ~-I-"- '1-t-'T-..,- +-, "
7 X I: I 1 G' I i,. III I "I I', ,\ I, I , ) I ,)
> OUIS ltl-fl!S ,/""..____1..__.1 _S.6 '''-1' --m'- o...L;....._ '''r -.-l.j-...~ -~ '-r- '''''j' -. .- -++ L~'~--H" ~_+_\.-!.--C.---, " '" ,-_I ..:...,_.11_____
,.. B I r , '.-, '. I,., i I ii' I:!' " : '-1 " " "I,' I .. i: , '
o .Il./olty c;/ $:>.1{ rot7c"r- _I_...:....,'f~' =...w_._ __---q-'- ~~.__~__,___ -!.-H-- _~_:__"'_I..1_....+_
- "I I ~II I rl I I I'" I 'I ", ,I I I II" Ill" '
, ~"p'nc/J MOO<:C I ~I l I I' i ' I I ~ I. I ": j '. I L
:.- '-fJvL ,,~~~ ;:(3<K~'--' ----.-i-;--1.~,;:......;.t' ~ I -,- i- "l;-- :'~'-i "'-J -1-'1--:---1 ii ;:-rT~"-;-'1 .-'jl~--:-:--"I ;-:-1 ' ; ! --
r .rr/I / /' -- -----t-~--:n ~.- -.-rl-7l~--~1--~,.-I->-~-h~-I-!-..;.-t+-JIII ~ltTi-~~-I--L--:-----:-l :-.-- :. 1---
~ 1J,/t?f;S!fJ;= L~C~~_---;"_-L_lfJ:~~'---~-t.-J'WJE-H~--i--:'~-"~-:~: ;' :c"i'~:L~,-ttI:-~-".t-I':' ,t+--t~ .
, '''''Sf;-- 116 '- ' (/ '1 - L \ \ ' I .' J I! I' I I , I I I I fl' I
" ~'" J'" -<-- ---"..+--- '~/=--~'-J'i-;i...-1 T'" -;-;"1"-"1'-; :1"1"-" I' --;-i";"-:, ,:---;--;-,-,\,,,, 1 --'.
:' .IJ1v'#-f~$__....._ ...-~; -Z4=.:....~.;f\.l), :~:_Lt":"~tN-:--. ': 'I I I;' ,-'...Lj--+::' ~.~L1L~+ -++--
, .MtJRooH. CRffK.I.{Jr:6C..f.- '~. ........'HJIll-lrF-l.!.--:"tL'- 'l...i..-t-f":'" ,I" " " " ,. .,-- L:- ttt. -.
'~. .P{ioSPfW'..R_.bOC,4__' I : J..~L ' '-I-SH~...:.....~lli:"':..L ~ I__~ : : I :: I '~.: i :: : ~ ! I ,~ I!t+' +i '_
3.._iiotc,fJt.!I)..H()e..$~ 'lId .4fl,.:..J" I-~.:-~L~.,..~ i I I !' TI1:n- i L : ,+ Ii I :' I..-+-Lf-' ,;L
4 C^""HLi"," t, :,','1 '. " 13,~,:' ",', i,' _I:.j,. ' ,: il::I,!, i I Tl iii, t! I ',: I .1.1. i, i 'I I '
t___" _f:::'n~- "ViL : . . I-I-~-_+-: 1- - : W._--;- -- .-:+.-,-..,.-.., -~ , t-.--r-t-r ....-r . ,I tilt -l:'
'f C"C.ST"u"C/S "H-';13S' ii ~. 4',"', ii ! 'i' ,,' 1 " " II, !, Ii "I " :, 'I
i'~.. nJI/I' I'.. " . .j)' 'i. ,I , ,< I -'. 1.1..-, ',' ,
:JJ;fi~~~s~'r.' !~Wlf1m::~tl' ' :: ,: GJ :'-~: ~: ~_l' 11 :_
~ -! " '~I mt'l ,1K'l' rTJR I I' 1 ' ' , T I 'I ' "I ,1+1 I I
I ._TIPPLF- LoN!.:.. ----..+~- .'";...7_... '..lJ+.::.:.... --..-k~i"~"-' ..,...:. i:, ,- -f' j+.-:-ti....:.. ++- ;,+-1, ~-_..-
; EN f;F!)(/t>I?.Lc>V(;~_...Li. -,;(6'-----1-h~YJJf-...:..1 '.. ;~__'__+-.l ' '; 1.4.....:'...1, I 'W-- '-.";" -1+1_
.I J~~61i 0. J ... 1 J I :(<": ;; I i \f"N ell j ), I ill I i I r I I 1!' "I I : I I , I I ! I I
, . VII' ,t::OHo. /.()tJi/i?_...l .J~=m' .!.!.LL l...,..L...i-_-/ i !+---,-t--+-;-;. .+-H-"""-rrt --.,..-' 'd-~-
:: .IipPt~.?tll'/.. -'-r1~1 '~ f,4--~-..L~I~F~~:J.I! i i"'-:"f~+~~f-~,; :.t~~~r4' ~~~,;- :: '+U-,I' 'I -
.:, ~.JIV'f"T.'''.t {"l')t::~' -"' f I + i..c.. ' " fTf1 I I' I ' I \' I " . I I
,~ .. Cr(/~; :rl"L/" '"----r; - ~.; --- -:-' "'- 'v c'~- - -riCt--: G-,-:-,"--:-- ;'f, ~~ iT TfT-
.~ '71/~pr. v '--"-H' ~<>'-- i1R.nfF-.W.-L~.!...;-;,~~ljT:.-tr.;:T'.iT-m--.' ~-i'-j-TT-ril
~.' SNO(.,y ()tJ~PN .----H-~-.-,o--...~ I-~-c"--"r;;/; ,,~----J,T.-.-;-.L_L. : -+:"-;-;--. , l'-~'U; f+-
,;. PtlR K ;If filllJOil/$ __.~'...L.. jl, _.:_ -~_.\-It:r.l'::2.c." '--f-+-. .:..__1 ' __ ...:.:..;._ L :. ;_~.:_, .\._" ...: ,,':'...!...._' L1.. ..,.:p~ 1__
d? ...I9'14'F-C . "':,,,pt>S i. . C:tt."~_ ',. ":'_.1 '-1'~-:-~..L .H-~_..::... ' ,..tr' 'l-~. ~~..~.:.l..J_I~.l" :J~' .ll..-f-;---
'~ ...' " I I , I I I j I 'I,' . I I I I
~ ; . r..: \. . ' . j ,I I ' I I I: I 1 I I 'I' ,I I
., Sf 8 7D -Ill. oY.:Il'. \l ..",",""7 l' "I i' 'I I, "I I ' ~ ! ' i "11 1 'i ' I
: ~ --- I 7 ~~~I"7~,- i"" !~.~~tf ; I tf--:-~t i~' &~CZ f"i~~~,,--\-~'~+ i S't;~ 'j-;~ IITt-
~7..:--.--;...:r..-...---n.-r..- .:,...-:- ri -rn ;i'Tl"itr-t-H'i-';rr--' ;;11;:--' :'-r-~t-c1>->; ;u:':-rr-
...- .:LtLtllL.___ ~ ,-,. -- .n._...._. 1-.- ..I-,...---..-r- . .-H--f. .-nt'..-.--. . '-1-''1'' '. . ,1vNJ
'(.' ." 'II! ;, j' i I Ii [I ,'I : Iii I I' II : i':: i' I ' III :01
~~ 11.-.--....-- -'---'---"---il' : (..; r ,\...t t i' '1-1 '1'- 11 'jl'lrj-i i-t -tjl11ktl'f:1 !d jfi~\,~~1N..!:ul!111l1
l--------'--'--.-~it :-jJ-r~- ~fl- li.-i----l:--,-t-"t-i~. _J1-__._ ,;t'--(- t{ ~;rUi~ !];ij"1 -liQ-;lf
,0_;1-'.--- ----.~-.-::..-:~-...Ii -Ii I-:!j :: i III = HI. f 1'1~: Hl: lit 1,-[1:-:1 .[JUt I; !-:'r~ J-J I [ltUt
,_..L~..o.,_~",.:=~rr",' .....~'.......h.._. ._......_ ",._. .._ _ _. _ ._..n"_ .... .._._ ......__. .___....._. ..." . ...... .
,,/0.1\;.0, 1\1"' .1.111(" <.\hl.l l~. ",,(-";.\ ",,,..1\; tl('\,lNU
-_.. _...,-------
-.-
^-"--
-
!"""
,-..."
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 l~hold fl 1\
t~.v.l.sioR's-legality.) Secondly, tlie existing capacity of lc; .'yP'
tne lodge zones exceeds our ability to supply recreational ~
opportunities. We presently transport in the vicinity of 4,000 I
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. 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 -fami ly development at a low rate." Fi na 11y, 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.
_ aM il!! ~'/~ \j s.
_ ,-:D Q c\'~c.,^) ",\Dir"
,. I I, -"l....v,
":; ?,.....t:~J( !-'-'"-
.-
, ::J>~tr.
C41rj'2-A-~-'
,~
, : 1\ b 1 ,c&JJ-. ()<A~ &- ~ plJl
yf\0 -U{lcb:h-,' , ~.~ ~ {\JIJN!J~ IY\
./lfty/.~~f' "I,D" . 'l2-0rfJ
- 9 ~r"\~
1 1
C VI' '
~ 0~~;C1
CA7\~~~~'"
~>> \<$
rt1'JvJ.
f~~~
- A -J;.M:.~v..
(v/V
-
.~ . '... ;r;!..../ 7" . .
0)'\.0\ ,;))h"""'~""-':;"'" I "" / j,,,,-.A', ..41. I./'~'i.
:~~-~.l- ~h.j;;..~1"'c. {.
^..~ \ o~o ~ ,-J.~ ~ S>~1 flJ'/o /'..L,:",/,~-:;t;;;...d /JI
\.)om 1 (\ f\ \/~ ~ ,', !"'..,:"':....."fl.
0'\ )U'_" 'I'! D':V &-,JI t~ """ t ...,/ .., h.
~ C ,c.<!. ! !:.j! !/.....f:,!,"- ~ f
';!:r ~>-~ ~ /~>. Cp-[
2.6 '1CC.1 f'O'hc!.//~O
~ CC~. >,.,p"
~,
.J:..
~
L..~O().t
1."7) lAllY\"QH~
2.'"'B~<l/l'rIt tu. N}-
~. ~"l~ ~~tK
~', ~.\:,."fi'1.'" ,.0<<,',-+, 1-
S'. :t;~NSb~vek
(p . ' t.'h A. is-t i CI,~ i~
. '1.t)Q~\~S~R
g, ulh..
9,~~Sk;
10 .'1g~}~,,~
,1I.L,-1'fllt f<tclS~ i ~UJ
\ '2" ~hR\ sot JY't'.QJ
J!3.{))~ll'l (hb.s~
l't.. Coort ~'ltS~
}s. '-4iRU,6,.t,
IfI. \4. ht,~Ht.~
,'1., c.oc.c.~ 1 i~~+ '
\3, CR.tS~h~u.J
I~. ~~~.19:th.~
Z.~ OV9~iClN
~l. :DR tp ii,wdt '"
'2.'2. e~d~\le~
2.~, .\j.~ ~ I).~~~d.
~.thG.\rl ~\$I
2S. .s ~OI.oUOI.l U ~
2t" J\)\J."~"
2.". "SW\ s.~ eh.~,'ti
2'.~UCo llo\\!oJ
2.ct. A\'\J4~ )k~.S
"31> .
""'}j~~... ~,.J'~'/~
I
f.~~U '~
;2()I'.)\ N ,0. l..G'tS 1% t. 13J~~S'~~f\ll~~'t>1:> ~t~s
"P1+3SJ-<>>. .2 ~ ~ tVl 2(.'12'2 ~')S ij\NJ J) ~
R- (, 21)O(:)~ ':2.\,288J()(, ,:s~()t..v,. ~f~i~
,.~ ,~S(S() 1~~1S 10S. 31\ W. m~'N
~,;{, 9,ol;)c l")/~1HP~1 33 ~\..U. \..IClpl1il
C> l5,060 Il, "2.~ 1() 233W. (TI.c. t to.)
a :2.1, ~~C 1'3,1")'2,. "C> 5~1 W. '(Y\o..\~
Rm/-' 9,OClO ",)S\ ~'l ~.,()l:) W01.~l~lJ~
e \3,SOC IIT;~SJ.)- ~ S,()t.J. fr)C\.\.w
C> IS,oo() 1'2.,(,s\ ~~, lOJ W, Yh"'\.J
D ~,~t) cali~"S ~O .26.6 W.mOI)>
RP)F l+,S~b S,~lg .(,0., ",r. ~~WR
() \ 0) S b()'")) t-J~ S<..:2..3:2 . l,J. (TI '" i ~
R. ~ ~) t>()O ~,31(P S~,l2-& U). ~~iVJ
() I+, SC>o 3;) 13SJ '32 ~ W. ~ i )oJ
-Rm r: \ 5, OQ() I 0,12 ~ St).., ''3(U.~,l, Coo,.t it
fl.- ~ \ $') 'lSo 13~ 2~ol.. tZ'1 w. 14.'KI~$
R. (, l'2/OC() S;',5'3 3~ 2a2W,'thPfllJj
.(.2,)~ $2)2'1"2,. 'lIV\,\ 3s '30) (.lAWJg2
~~,- 9~c>oc 8)2.l.t~. 3s l3l4- f.J4'1t'1W\Ol~
~tr)f' ) ~/C>~~ 10. ~'1~ '3'+ B6JW. ~.tj(.,.. .
R.. \ S C, , CClo 4-,'3 lP*, :!l22G, t. C ooftJ 'f(
"Rm~ Lr,SOt> '3fl+I~Z(,~~t .~()pJriJJj "
R1T\t=')3,8()() "),~')(,2S 92 ~f.~~tt~;-
R1l)j: f1,t)O() 3,810 ~() 1(:)6 €. H~/r't\.~
Rfl) F JotS O~ IS '3'2. li\21t f. Coo~ ((.
~ :'2..-h~f> la.t.,2t;>(., \()~ \\C> w. mQ i}..,J
(J '2'"'),~6~ '33~'1 ~()'?> W.iY\Q/"')
() (,.t tt>c It't(.. ') '3 '1 2. ~()W.-N\Cl;~
~fr)r-:: ~28S S~.~b '13St. ~Ro/o.)T
<. ~
,-...,
,-...
~Deu ~ }>j~--! iq to {\jQ ~(ld...
'y"<
'~"
ry~O\. .~. ft. ~oj~
~./,~:f{~.~fl~~o~~ Q~S~"
\s.~~ ~~-L~
w~lo..
/~;:'~'6
tf?-
.~~
tAl~ ~ ,D 7r~ 7S-:
ib fi"',,~ ~/
~ /) .,. C' ~)u/}.mJII/:$,
".., 'U~'(I ~I ~7.
cIuJc, f'lof - !r~.
71/kA<".-U~"~ ~
P{Wl~, C~, ~. ~,
~. ~ ~!ru (/Sf::- 1
~ ,~
9~.f. D'I{~ __
~~~.~ cd- ~,.,
,~ ~"~..,'~""'~\.
t,,~
~, ~, oj ,~ M-/~ ~
~ ~.
- i., , ~~,~
~ -~ ".
~. ~-~;".f~
~..~r4J- ~~ -;V ~..
tj'~ --j _I '- (}, ~
~ 't=~ 1tl~~~
- ~~~
~ ~ 10~fB~ ~--'"
~ ".' '.,~
Or;K.AJ1A ~ ~
,W~ ~ w~
~ M ;) .M.- A
~~,~
f~ 1 v":' -;
^~
-
"..,....;,,,..
.f... d~'_ ",~
,-...
~
.
,11,
'"':\,.'.~~
CITY,~OF'!?ASPEN
130 sJuth'ga!d13 ~treet
<"'~,,"'''' ',', ~
aspen" ~o I orad~,81611
'.0...;;,;....,. __...:>~
.......~
MEMORANDUM
-
DATE: July 30, 1979
TO: Members of Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ron Stock
RE: Condominiumization of Lodg'es
Recently Karen and I have had to deal with the question of the
c.ondominiumization 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-
agementplan 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 theCoQ,e requires growt.hmanagement approval
prior to the "construction" of residential dwelling units, lodge
units,a,nd certain commercial and officeflpace. 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 aWclre of an adverse impact in 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-
ren.t non-conformi.ng uses. We have always. enCouraged the recon-
struction of these 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 dis,courage such conversion.
'. ';>J'~ Y :;-: ~:;;';-,,:r-~~' ,:o:~,y;::.
~~~~~'~-_." '~~'.~:~~'~~" <~,~.~,--C~7 :~':t1~.,~q':.:~,'~;,~--:-~1:: ~,~,,,,. :_'~;..;.~~:-: ~':": 'I'~:7I"~ .. '~'~:t~'~i;.~' ~~~
~;F;S: . ~l:f: :,?'iF, .~n~':; tJL'.r';~'.,-~~'~.,:,f~
.:::(,,;:O:;t. ""]'f~\ ",.;,: ",- ~_.""n-:. ,,'~'L,.;. . ,,<:.
"i',I';}~":~l'.~\ '. VL' "';':""i I, !~~
"' ',:
.('
,t
": ' -', -, .. '-.. .... : .:-t':; " .. ...,.,.- " "",'>'. ..
'Bf.'''~ ,q.':~~i'""':'-"';''';'~ ,"<,,,>,...-.,,,,_,.."f ,,'- .- ,."",..-
0~f~4]t:f.,'2;'i.?~"'n:fy-;.'\,~r ;"T~+Ti:::~~';~:'
'--::~"" . .^ii-ii<~.~;}.~"":{'~;Z~~><: ~<) "/~:"f:".' {"r ' .i'~ '
k ~ - f ~..
,
~,"":,\ . ,
1
'r"'f- ,:
~ ~.......t7 I'
..: ---c""'~-r " ."--' -f' .. "J;~ j: :
-"' . , II- ~
l._'_.~c..',-"- ~""'-.""":' ',~
.' o,C f" '
.., ~"') , "' . /.
, " ~~lt
. . }'t~. 1
.. -.,- -. .~ . ..-
,
,:r:~"
-'
. ....,: ~'...i~ '
, t,.'....~1"" ,',
~'~;;,'--:' ~''.
<' ",y.:;.'t.A,
"'l"~ '.., .,;
-..,~: '~
::: . ~
.~.
" -.l:
:<.;
.','
A,'" ,.:'
'~. .
~,.. -,'
1 :::"~:'.."..
....:,:"
":.,
~\ i '.",
",'.!'r,
'1':
'::~,~;,
i',""
t
i
"-"".~~"'~'"
. '! ,I
~i
.' "
.,,'.0
J:/ -;}
. r :
<i
"t;.,
~ ,1
"
, ~','\r,v,~,,::,~. 's,...a,,""""'~~,iff.,,_';:"'~:'~;"""':::~~,&",'~,:!>,-' ,~~';,-,' ,'~,"~~"1',;..:. ,t..
'~ " l~" \:~~'..~~::f~i~,','~2;~'f.:i;d$~f;.,:' ;~"f.~y.' . ~,~.:._-~-~
k ' "";~'4:~:::;''''-;'",<~,.",. ',> "If.r"-" ,.
~- <L ' '~~~~:...,. ~~;" ' '1l>~. ~,/L..;d./';'"", ' ~" '..
Yfi',1f"
{.,
."..-"._,-~.,-.,.
~
i~f;"':'1'~
~
!""".
!""".,
Memo
July
Page
and Zoning Commission
VJ 0 \\~
~10
to Planning
30, 1979
2
t~
fP
L
To offset this negative impact and to prQvide for consistency (not
having one provision of the Code, -- zoning -- require eventual
conversion while a second provision -- GMP -- prevent the conver-
sion), I would reconunend an Amendment to Section 24-10. 2 exempting
from the GMP the conversio6 of property from a non-conforming us~
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 ManagE!ment
approval. I, therefore, reconunend your approval of the applica-
tion for subdivision exemption conditioned upon the continued use
of the property as a lodge.
RWS:mc
. .
",,,,,!,~.,,,, ...-~..-:-o:;:~
. ,
"-~.-.,,...."
,..,.r-;:r'W'?'_._-....-~'.lJ;r;.;:r""'-"~~.,.'".
~'~""t,,:,.' .~_"~~__.,;.'i'.~~.
. .
j
'''~ , .
.
-~-~
'e' il
~,
Ii
. , 1\
r-r- [ 01 I! ;
,- ,~;"x-I-" : - -:, . ',J~.,
A1'",: "
" ,,:.:J. ,
~ ~- ~--- ~,
.....~~.
. '. ""'~ '
~. ."
, . ~:' "
. '_"""--'h
I' i,
. .'~
':,
,
l\'t.:'
. ~ y
'.k:~";,
t' .
, ~
/,
.1
;'"
',..C;.:2=.t:"
..~...""-~.^...
\~ 'V'
"
~
'.p'.
;,'
,
,
-;$i
r-..
, r\
^,
fb?elBV\~~ ' ' ~ L. "1
t~~M. tJ~~~\ '
~i()'(&h~ oF ~t6
~YiV\~Wf 1w-i6.f-U 'B~~
l6>>.;ru.;,uL ~t ~\
feIVAie""' k.."Tl~ ~T'I Nt( ~
~U\SJi~~<- tl ~ll OlUher, opet.~ ~~
Cc,^ve(,pjoV\.. c::f ~~ -6 ~e('" WV"~
\Vd'o.+iv~ w.d . I
~ i"'; LU\I\\ ~W1
~udi~rt ',\I) *r(llNX:. ~ ~c)JiJ.~
, hi4~"v 4.UMitvi,
M~~~vd- ,\
n~'-i~ 4U6\l~h~li~t
1U'euG... k-~~ AfF~1\ 1'441
NI(\.~Yl'\(.i~. ~ Y"~~d1Drt~
10% \,\W-t~&V\,:> vS<- ~14t~ -*i11~~C~
G\Job..~~ ~V"" ~~I~ - \ ,'Vl(.lis -=M='<$.
~'dol<...: 4>~'MYlA.ilJJ\,4."t 'ZO..-HC1A ~V\-\-v~l~,
beA~JttM~ of uA-t.~ ~~l:> \~ I $h,(i--\tfW\.
. . ~do .......~D(f:+.erM. \It;. .Ib~ {-eV'"IU.!I'\ot-
.tAi ~+f V' G.r
~'(~
/
~
,-...
"'t.
.
\.... "
.,/
~''''lr - '~-T-.'
.~ ~
,~1....~",
'"
";..,4,, .,'..,,-,
I
I
! 'I
, , ."
t~gJ[}\ I,\v';~ \' ,'-'
'/1)")
'" '
~-'~I'
"\. ,
. ~-. $
I IJ ' /
<(I) l fi(~~( OJ
o .
!;\ "I/A ~iJ
. (,:\6 lU' f~L. II, i it
~ ,I 1;"...Jt" I
/.) I "It)..) "I I
'I.IV "J" (riiL<1 a ,l~'.,'~, 'v,;
,~
II R i\ F T
lle~emher 18, 1979
TO: Plonning Office, City Attorney anJ City r.f'::lllnger
Aspen P (I Z
Aspen City Council
^LA Executive Committee
ACR Bo:!rd and Betty
FRO'!: Al Blomquist, ALA T:!sk Force on Non-conform:!nce
SUB.JECT: Prop0sed New Lodge Overlay Zone _h Plus.
This report deals with the problem of NON-CONFORMING LODGING. Karen Sdth
. (:;'''''''j)
"...--,.,..-'"
obtained :!nd sup,gested thn the ALA consider thc.'Pheonix "Special Conservatio:l
<--~~--,,--,....
uis trict': oTd:i.nance for a model.
,
?," i
util izes the" Pheonixa:oPToach.
\-"-""-" - ~.
sel f-plD.nnin~ feature.
The attached uraft of a LODGE OVERLAYZOXE
"
/
/
The/Pheonix
I .
",^~-~",,-
ordinance included a neighborhood
ro:r i\Sperl the ne~'l zoning provision is cal] ed an ",Overlay'" i.:one bee....."'- '" .; 1-
leaves the underlying districts and regulations applicable to all uses except
"existing lodging", to which the Overlay applies. It creates lodging as n
spccio 1 "class'l of business tlSe and makes existing lodp,in~ \v'i thin the overlay
zone fully legal and enal> I ed and encoura?ed to up-grade.
Addition:!l research done by the ALA suggests that ~o..!.:: than just a Lodge
,
Overl:!y Zone is neede~ ~f the follo\dng objectives are to be achieved:
1. Lcgali:e, 'wi.thout reservation, lodging in two
mixed use neighborhoods "here such lodging is
now non-conforming.
2. Allow limitetl expansion and unlimi ted upgrading
of existing lodges without automatically enabling
tOI!':: i j}P'.
.1
I
,
,
,
.f
if
other pruperties to be used for totally new.
'~,;~' "'?r:!"'l -~'~~""';"-'-CT;-;fr"J;'"
''''''''','''':11 ,,[
.V. J I.
.~. ,1 1
~
I""
t'""\,
.',
-.. ... ~~--. .
,
"
:'
3. Preserve the mixeu-lIsc' character and neir,hbor-
hoou ambi cnce of both the Shado\; ~lount"in anu
Glory l~le Park residential-lod~inR neighbor-
hoods.
4. Establish lodgir.r; as the business or providinr:
short ten:; rental Clccomodc.tions to the Aspen
visitor.
S. Provide for 1 icensing to the end that beth
the lodging inventory ai1c~ sales tax f~:j':('~i,ons
are COi;,;:,:ctc, accl..:ratcJ and curl~cnt.
6. Ptu",;it1e an oppo~~~.t:nit)" fo:::" ~hc Sh:!CQ\'1 ~bu.:tcin
and GlorI" Hole Par}: r.e:..ghbc~hoods to plan for
tr.cir int!ividua! improvemer:t ~oth (~sre$:r!c:nti:al
~~~ ~~ ,~~_:_~ -_:_~~~-~--~~
......- -- *-","~"'::' ;.-.......,..;..""......,....,.......
7. Establish "ACR as a q~~~i-govcrn;;;c::ta~ ta)'~ sup-
por-tee: entity free fror.i accl:~sations of priv~tc
c::::10poly, price fixir:go= col! :':5:'0:; '(ie. r.:.~!:c
it pc:-r.;anent ar:d a f:-ee service to n 11 ASJ1cn
visitors ,dth all Asper. lodgir.g represented).
TOl;Chicvc the above oqjectives, the fOlloliing programs should be impli-
mented:
PROGRA~ ONE -- LODGE OVERLAY ZONE
(n) Ar.':cnd r~.1.~I'os_c., Section :,1-1.2, to include a new
purpose:
(i) To protect and encourage the ir:1p~ovcrnent
of lodging ?s an /Gren business that offers
the visitor variety ns to size, type, loc-
j~~~!~~:~.~:~l:""~~~~~.~~,5~'i:~;~.~7:~r;"'f.'"'\~"-~.~.~~':
~. . ...p~' . .":j
.~"_l :i:.::;....:.~.:..~. -I.':'
,~.-
..
",""~-<JC~~.,~""~'~1"'I>~~?--_.- T~i"'" ...--~"" ~.
.4 j t
,-...
,-...
..
,
....',\It
.l\..-r,--.--....... .
"
. ~ ',;" '
", ,!
";til~;"""",'
-""~~-,
"
. ........'.-.
~...._,~":.f'S,~'"'
.,
, ""~..._-,._.;..;.,.,;..~,_.,.~._-
atian, quality, services, 3menities, acl,iencc
anJ price.
(1)) Amend P_':..fJ_~i}i..?E..s_, Section 24-3.1, to distin~::ish
bet\vecn "Lodging'1 <:5 the business' of provid.~:1g
short term :::-cntal ~lccorr:odations for' the Aspen vis'i-
tOT (upon to-hieh sales tax is collected) and HHous:r:g"
as long teri:1 rental and ot..71er-occupa:1cy not for
S!lort term rental visitor use. E1 iminate the J.cs-
t:nction bct\<lcen lodge, hotel, m~l ti-fn::1ily a:~d!o~
CO:1do. A."i!end uny other ol'din<lnces 'IoJith dcfini tio::s
inconsistant therm\'ith so tHe destinction bct\\'CO:1
short-term versus long-term is cO'nsist8.nt throughout
the Ci ty Code,
Enactthc!--?i~~~_. OV~~J~~_ ZONE a?p:roximatcly as provided in the
attached draft.
PROGRAM TWO --- BlJSIXESS L1CU;SE
Amend the Business License Ordinance. Section
, to
require all Lodging (short term rentals) to have a separate
Lodging business license for each property (as identified by
the Assessor's Parcel Xumber-l>l digit code), Said License
shall not include a restaurant or other buslness - only the
.1\)d,~i;l" ftlncti0:1. OtJll'r hllSlllCSSl'<; ull ~hc 5aI:l(; parcel. sh.:ill
. ; I:t \' I..: : ~ ~d.': l;';.: ~
': ,- ,\".
,"..:.
~'l.1
, ' ---p","
'~-'<-"f .
J
..~...' "'~'''~r",r
'>.~,,"'; ':'
. "f
:~
"
,--.. ~ .
, "'"Y."
..."...,...,.,:_"")
:t~,'/",:". f" :
'"'; l'
:",'.
j
. J
., J
I
~..tit<
.
.
",-....
,-"
"',.. H';..;vi..-----..
.'
.....~...d
:'r' .,'\':
. I
I,
,;., ;
''',~ \ -\:',' . '\,'; '-r", ".,
Amend the Sales Tax Ordinance, Section
.' to
require all Sales Tax Account Numbers to correspond to
the above Business Licunse Number and Assessor's Parcel
~umbcr as defined above so tllat tIle monthly sales tax re-
cei;1ts pur account shall refle,ct accurately the short
tern rent3.1 nctivit)' on the properties so identified.
!,~_q.~/~\~. r_~~~. _-_-=--:~_ ~!.c?.:~.~.;~i ~r~X_!~2Ji ~~.~!~~~i:_..5~~~._Sl~~~.~J!~~
^~c~d t~c S~lcs T~x Ordinance, Section
, to
cli;:;:;;~lte all filinp, and p[;,yr:Jcnt options except for
~onthly filing and payment. ~e~ociate'wit~ the Stcte and
Cotlr:ty to J7.2.ke the Citv the agc.nt to collect the.ir sales
t~:xcs fro::: Ci ty busi r:.csses, ~T"!(! to "0 O;:() ~~,~ ~h -:)',
~\07::: :
';"~,", ^<"~ r: .,' ,....-.. ; \,';~h' ^ ~"''':'l .........1
. .,..... """'.i,en ..COP',vlll.V' ...5 I....../::",>.::.y 5C.:::.$0...... .;....~;
:.~s mGntbly
prog:-ess p.ceds to be ccasurcd accurately ?iiC in a timel)' \'lay.
The flow of lOL,r;in['. receipts DoS J:',cas1.:;:-ed by sales tax collect-
ed is the r.:a5t acc.L:l'atc,m~d reflective index availc:role for
use throughout the rear. Ho\','ever, yhil e SOJilC properties
report monthly, ma.ny report qucrterly, and for SCr.16 of thern
th.eir Jant:::.ry receipts C~n 5110\'; up in t~1e st~tistics as late
as Apri 1 'or !~1u.y. Thus, the salos tG.X receipts, as 110\.' re-
port.ed, ~!o not. accurately reflect t.he extrerco seasenality
. of the local econol'lY.
PI:OGRN.! rIVE
CO~.!PUTEH r:EPC!:TS
The r:inancc Office 5hould prCpal"C ~anthly computer prli1tO:lts
0n till' :;hOTt ter" re~tal activity in the City for IIse of the
~
~~}:;~~(7~'C:'~~~~~~!f'i
\~';'::'<:' ~",'?!'!ilf:C,',""":"':,!"~:~"""""',~r.
. - ~\
,>' ' f}:._._
~"'-:"'-:-:-'~""~k .
~~.,!,.,
-..:c,"....,......~
J--~r"
.
....;..,
r--
l
I...
,.
~r
,
,-...
.~
'.
"'.'<11 ~--,.... .
..
._~'" _......,.,'..,.~itc"';., """.!
-..c,
.,.' ,.
Zoning Enforcement Officct I the planners and the lod~ii1g
industry (^Ci~, ALA, etc.).
Ih?~ ??.!~~!~~]~l}_s.!_~~~. t':ould inJci1tify all ?arccls (Assessor's
14 digit parcel idcntific3tio:l 'nu;';1ber). T~le zoning, the
business license nu:nber, the ~ales tux account number,
the SIC, the sales tax collected for the previous n:ont~l,
nnd nny prope:'ties licensed l;';.:~ not paying this liionth4
1!~e3~~~1:.~1_2!~.~Y_~_~~~L~~:~,!L ~iould report total receipts,
r:;;~~er of ;JGlI'ticipants and nU;7';oer of del:.n~tlenciesby ncigh-
bo~'i:~Gd and SIC fo:- t;,e cu-;..:-c:-:t m071th, and t:1e changes :.::-om
the same month a year "go, and last ii:onth.
.\ s:;::11.-~;:::~131 ~ix r.i::J:lth :'C~-;CTt on
locgin~ ind~stry perfo:-
rr:ancc c:lch t1inter ~nd c::lch su;;:mer \'Joule be prepc:-cd, ~'Jl rn
,
special n:1alysis cOTJparing the Assessor t s inventory of
lodging ~\'ith t!1e City Fina:1ce Office inventory and the ACR
inventory. Each YC;Jort \'lould also compare st.::runer (t.lay thru
October) and winter (Noveh1ber th-:u April) performances,
mcnsurc the off-scaso~ lows, iden~ify long term trends, etc.
Each \'Iould include a specific report on the GMP lodge unit
q:.lotn anti its relationship to market conditions and the
grow.th control objectives.
!~O~.P:,\'I__~I.:x.. .::::..::., !\. QIJ:,::s.r.:-J~J_n.L I C _CO!~_0'_A TE_ :'!~R
ACR is the third or fourth or more in a. series of up-again
and dOlm-a,r,ain reservations services pur]lortin~ to represent
:1l1 vf I!HI';r Ivd,l'.in.l'. availabilit:' -- each intl.:ndeJ aSH (.:un-
.
I
,
._-'''' < .. ".--' -~--''''-f--''''''''''''''~- '1'j
.,- ,.... '~7i". :. '--. .. '-"
l
.. ,:f.. ..
~
2:~~lC)~
~~,:tr,~~;::~~:p7~T~1;~&;'~~~:~-:~lir;r.~""'~'~7"-~<~,:-;-
. .', ~\ .
, " , ., <'c.',
~.. ;i:::.t."<", :{....'i.:.~ ...... 1.!:-_
. '--'-
.-''!1'~'?'~'1!'('~..,?:,."[t,i.'.
,
1'""\
r\
,
,
.
P'
~. ,~
#"..
'lI\r:.1,~
...' .
'.. ,~. ....~
..
. ..~ "'....:{...,
v(.~niCil"::~ to the ASticn visitor.
It is tilJC to settle 011 Oile
p{?rmancnt ent i t)', one n." tiono.l1y advert iscd tel Ci)ltol1c nt~li1;)CT
an;.~ ltiake tile finGncin;: di~0ctlY' pror.ortionrll to the gross
rC:~11)t5 of C~l~;l IJ~:Jing JrJpcrty.
To assure tllC r)erm~nencc and cffc~tiveness of ACR it silO~lJ
no~" be created :lS n. quasi public entity fl;1~~nccJ by a fixeJ
percentage of City sales tax receipts from lodging (short
ter'1.1 :-ent::lls) and be requi~ed to :rc?resc:1t all licenseJ
!cd~:.:;.~ "t);,opertics in the City linits, and those ou:siJc
the Ci ty 11:7lits on COj1tl'o.~t fo::.~ a fee..
Its <''':'i:1:'ter s:10u1d lir,~it it to the daily i:1vcnto:-:,' of lodg:ns;
;tvail41:)il it)'") a nationnl1y advertised teleJlhonc,~:::;::he:' (SOO?),
~~ ;1ot::::;e to each 1odl'inge:1tity, r258Tvnt:o;1ists, etco, etc.o~
c:::: nD :~:.1c:l,n~es, otc., ote,. Its bOCl.:-d 07 di:-cc::ors S;10i~~~;
i~clu~c t::c City ~ianagcr or the City Finance Officer, ~:1d o~c
!od~,~i::~~ 0;';:-:'3:' 01"' ;:,:~n~gcr' elcctcu f::-cm en::::h o~ :.::e t:::-BC lo~:(:i:"12,
~lci7~~2:,huc(ts~ t!ld p:'esident oft}le ALA a~J the. preSlccnt of
:;1C ~.':.\.
CO\CLUS I o:~
Tile rlh'Y'/c :dx p:,o)"',ra;:<s i::terclate ~o strcn:;tllcn t:1C AS;1cn
lodgin,~l. industry by .o.iving it new status in kt~.; and SO::1C
ir~r)ro'lcd central and data services. They c1 if:1i:1ate sc'/cral
current ilindranccs to lodginr, effectiveness r!.l1d they ~~ivc to
each ol<ner considerable freedom to i!7lprove operation, and
Ilnl~r,1...!C' f~ciljtic5. As Stich they cOr.iprise incentives t.o
t~ll.~ ilh!'l."rn' t(l il,l!l.I'I)\'C servicc"" t\l t':iC \'isi:():o.
. .
.. "'f?,.,<~~"J~:'
~,_":
;,\',:z- ,~;:'
.-
,
.
.4
"-'""'~' :..
~
1
11"1f"~"'''-'''''''''''''1
. - J ,,--;::-;;-
,. .~ ., j
~""-"-"< J
I
I
j
~... .-."""....,.
,1""'"'\
r'I.
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 Heritage 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;
.
1'""\
,....."
-2-
- 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.
i
Y'
I
,
t
,
,
t
1
'1/
t
t
,-,
CRITERIA FOR DESIGN ANALYSIS
I. 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
.~
r"-
MEMORANDUM ~rr\" O~\'/
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen City Council
Ri chard Gri ce, Pl anni ng Offi ce
Condominiumization of Lodges
October 16, 1979
The Aspen Lodging Association is currently doing a study of the lodging
concerns in Aspen. A draft copy of thi s dncument has been provi ded 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 qocument 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 accowmodations 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 we 11 as a responsi bi1 i ty of thi s City and went ahead and
approved the condomi ni umi zati on of the Ii pp 1 e Lodge.
The last portion of that motion directed the ~;taff to come up ~/ith a Code
Amendment "addressing" the problem. Since Counci1did not take either the Planning
Offi ce or the City Attorney's recommendati on on the fi rst condomi ni urni zati on of
a lodge, we honestly do not know that Council desil'es 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 of two things occur. We need to
see the finished report on the condition of 10dgin9 in Aspen prepared by the
Lodge Associ ati on and/or a clear di recti ve from Council as to preferred pol i cy.
\
~'.
'::"
~+-
. ~ 0 ~" -&t/VfJ1^
1A '" ddtrfij~{I.P. ·
~
,
TO:
~/\C~
)v ~(~( ~ ~;;AA~M
Aspen City Counei 1) 1JlffJ..))J.. { f-
Ron Stock, City Attorney /
Richard Grice and Karen Smith, Planning Office
Report ~Lodge Preservation Clause
September 18, 1979
'\
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Early this summer, the new owners of the Smuggler Lodge on Main Stre
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 "ordi nary repairs not to exceed 10% of the repl acement value of
the structure in anyone year". Tne variance was granted on the basis that
it was in the public interest and in light of te~timony 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, lodg~, residential) was one that should be
preserved in order to maintain the residential scale and character of Main
Street. Limited commercial uses Ivere 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. l.Je propose the following as a way
to allow the up-gradin se ~odges without allowing the construction of
ne~1 lodges or the e ansion 0, ld lodges. This could be accomplished by
adding a newSecti 24-12.10 'en itled "Lodge Preservation- Clause". Suggested
/' /~anguag;,w.oul d ,be a fo 1 J 01'15" Z4- -IZ ,S--
;,?t:F;i~,~ ~l lodg,;;uses that were lawfully establ i shed and continua 11y ,f}-,,;r,
/~ I iJJ~ (J'\ so used thereafter shall be entitled to continue and be deemedtVflf
. ! /":(,,,., till I Howed 'Jses; provided, however, that they may not change, &i,e~r A
, lJ~ 1 ,. eplace, alter or repair, extend, restore, .or resume after f' I'
i 1tJ.)(fJi), ---- , isconti,lua~c~ without havi~g . obtained ap~roval thereof pu:sutn'1..1". .,'
i IJto the ,condl.tlonal use proVlslonS .of Sectlon 24-3.3. NOtl1lth- .
\ .v., LUf!lt standing the provisions of this Section, there s~all be n~I7/#, If
\ h~1Ji ..' increase in numbers of units." {d(j1lJJta/c, .
~~ ...' /~es are an important facet of Aspen as we have a tourist based economy.
f ~i1e the Planning Office recommends the retainirg of the present rate of
11 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
1:t~ the up-grading of our 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:
be,
Uk
WU
Ji Jl-", . ,to. ' '1.
~W~n
~\.1~(>ltlrl
~'3.
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.
The provision could also be extended to non-conforming residential
uses. We would recoo~end it for the same reasons--to allow up-grading
'(including expansion of square footage). provided the units are
limited to six-month .rentals, i.e.. long term.
As proposed this, applies to all non-conforming lodges--not,just
. those on Main Street. This Inay 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. .
,
~
~
J
'>-
"'-
,~
1
~
. "
J
~
&.-ii~~f>1~ ~ . (~
. lLA ' ' ,~tlc c~ > ?J/ll()~ ,.k;,;u
~()(J' 17@AJ /cWf<J Wlf4/;fjjfXJ
,-,
6cIJJ /
AtJ, ~uJ
~~IJ(
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
~pen~tt, y Counc'jJ,L ,.~
m <;[I(..j(, I ClfV f1 t{fi't,4tU'j'(
Ri.~hard G,ri~eA Planning ~ffice
ra,/I.W,- ~ , .,
Report on Lodge1 p~",fJ.l.-h"t C:.~t...,..
DATE: September 17, 1979
tt1A.Pe:1 A
1f ,(J' ~,~ ~16fI"
(f~''Main Street v'as iRiHolly ~lJlI.,d OfficeAin f97C,""the Planning Office
supported making J.of!geS~r) allpwi?:Q, JI,W!",in that zone, district. We felt that the
existing use mirmas 6ne"Jfhats'l1ciU1d Df! preserved ,i~c>rder to maintain the
residential sca~ and character of Main Street.~~mmercial 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
expa~si n, f..J~ i i ~1Oj;j~2s Wijjhll.!!.t,IJ1~fWiLt.~n .9t,.,.thS;.JppgE}S..B.9Q:=.~hOr;I!1JrJg"-"L01.Jill.t'A
uses a IwaY..;.tcfJa'11CfW"t1Te up-~rJBi\'1'g"Of tli'0W"i6ag'e!s Wl r;nQfi'r --1;-aili;-;/'
allo ng ttfe g st ctl f\"\~ net lodges or the expansion of old lodges. This CIj>-t((6l(/t,w
could be accomplished by adding a new Section 24-12.10 entitled "Lodge Preservationo ,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
discontinu n e wi OIU ,.(;ha,; in~ .ob ine val thereof pursuant
to the & II "" . . . -Cemffli 5si op
" " '-,'.' . . \ ~\.rr+t>C-:d,.tA":\j~A.~"" i 1~~~<' try\.~ o''{' ~{.( S:,," ,~
~.9dQes "~.r:e:~;;'_iffi;t:~;~~<lf_ej; O;<OA$;~V::'~: :;v:(~~::~~i st base~ ~~~~~e~~~:
vJhile~P~~R e~~~rate of growth in lodge units,..,-l.tliel:i- ~? "
____I ~:~l;:~ in ~i al",ti c"..:.f !lrl;.:tA mal:1~g1''''-' h ,w~ ~o ROt'l'l~e1' i erati QR eitpo,"..
-~ -- -a-~er a- up-gradlng of those lodge facllltles. Recently, there has been
support from abroad spectrum of the community for the up-grading of our lodges. .,
The Chamber of Commerce has participated in nationwide surveys which indicate t. I~
that Aspen's image is ~~6I1liR9 nv".~..I.uL tal"flisA@e1 because of cleterieratiR~ lodge v,,', !}
conditions.'e f2. o.~. ~. ~
l1itiJfvt:t !{o-' I! ' tf)
In recent weeks YQ,u have seen app 1 i cati on for }Sondomini umi zati on of lodges vAl! J
both in the Lodge zone anq outside the Lodge zone.; In the case of the Tipple bl~,l
Lodge located in the Lodge '.:~pne, we took the pos iA:i on that condomi ni umi zati on /l,~,,,;':,'l'i
of the lodge would constitut~a change in use bivirtue of the fact that it ~.1l'i\ I
could not be guaranteed to rema.jn as a short term facility. In the case of the !~.
Mollie Gibson Lodge which is loca,ted in a resvBential zone and was non-conforming, 0\ .(J
we also felt it, would constitute a change iniiJse to allow the condominiumization. , {It'lJ ,ill
In addition, we were extremely conc ned ov~r the possibility of seeing a deteriora- \ ,'~
tion of the availability of short ter fac;VIities in the only zone where short term ~," I
facilities are permitted. We also felt t t the condominiumization of the Tipple \.
Lodge in the R-6 zone would potentially nstitute a change in use and therefore )1j6
we had to recommend denial of that appl,ca i,on to avoid a violation of the Growth !'
Management Plan. I
f
Ron Stock is currently working pn an amenCll)1el)t to Section 24-10.2 CGMP) which
would allow an exempt, ion from GMp f..6r t, he, conYe~lon of property from a non-"co,nfOrming
use to a conforming use. This exeliipti,on from GMP"combined with the lodge preserva-
ti on Cl.au,s,e 1'10, U""ld a, cC,om. pl i sho,ur, Albject, ive of a 11 ow~" g the up-g,rading an,d, renoyat;:on
of,existing lod~es wi~hout allo~ng expansion or the onstruction of new lodge .
un) ts \J1,J,":,u q\V\ \ /
\J
Additional thought needl to be given to wh,ether this\would be an appropriate
procedure for dealing with ,the lodges located in the resid~tial zones.' .
I . \
! . ,
(Karen, I am sorry ~his ;:s such a shoddy attempt at a memo, when I return
week after next I will g'lve it some addH;:onal attention.) \,
\.,
'-,
t'.
V"
"'-7
:y~
__/)..-f"
,fe'
\\
~~/
,,-,
Memo to Aspen P & Z
Re: Lodges
Febnuary 28, 1980
Page Two
,A
, \
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.
Perhaps the most significant problem Aspen's nonconforming
lodges are facing has to do with the limited sca1e.'ofthe
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 exp~nsion 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 sing1e-
and multi-family development at a low rate." Finally, the
lddge 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 bui1dout, 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, ahQrtof allow-
i ng expansi on, in order to improve thei r economi c vi abil ity.
(3)
"
,U
\
tI.
~
~ ~JU'\
IN
.{'rvv
\. c~J\
\ '\ '."" \
J' \\ ..
The Planning Office recommendations are as follows:
f@~~~~ ".'.': ,."."J'~-~/--- t~~jZ..__.-=:._--~-----J.. -:- .-~--~~----_.
.- ...~n.l_~~iiJ;~~~
.". .'...'. ~~. .,.' ~~~~..jI,..,. ' "jt2-~.r(ffi:g ~~~-~
.L."e.l!)tl,A2:~lIt<' ._,_~.,n.~.
,~~...~~ ?~..~~~..._~---._;n~-c.-~._-_. ,.... ...:. ... "~-'~~;-.- '...'. ... ----
--3ii.,,*<fd-T~41~.-~~ff_L<~'
..:i~.y~?[Ib;I.A.-;j.~ t~ + .fZ:\4 ~<:!:l.~
~''''n __ ~._~_ j~~~~ __11'1-<4 . &~{.crK.5?))0J~Ald.(dJ-
.. n~V1JjffAJ:~ 1J:(.'~1: C
-_._~..-.~~--.--_-tt:~:DA:".~~- "~'O~---~ .-~:.- :i~9:" J
--,~~~~t~l!J~~0~ Tv:,~h1f
Jt1J.h'.l1; t ~I~_. . :'{~ _'JIftAL tJ {,4,< /t.. ~.e~t<~.~Z2 ~_' TJ'?i:J-~.~ .
_ .... . _ .___ _~ .~ffYJk::JU.!c:~+~t j~d!~Ud& ~_e;.lL.d~~
- '1f'2~ ;; III ~~~(,{~J;; ;vJ.LIt.? '-.. J~ l?,:i~';r ,..~,...~
.~J~ ~1 -- ___.?1i~-f-~U_'''d. i~Ly~.? .~,.:---.. I'r I G1~-fe;--
/' (t.. ,~~~ f~.tl~".. :",L>~a tUA.A. ~.~~"C,,/ .. ~. _ 1 .____.__
-. -.- -- - -' ~~U~ '~"1-\...- - .L.,t'J)tA,.,l_~~-1,~~.,l:~_
_. __._ _ . ~t{d"'l~d"._.i::~L,,--.J~1xL_uiJ"~Ui<:I~;
~/ (..1
I
-/~-;=f'J; A#>f-.. f~,l ie.{b :;/f):)~Lg_~".~!~._1
.~..=J!;;-f:;;i~:;:;;;:- ~0:Zi~-:L"Mdtio
____,.,__f1!Z1,,,_~~~~_,.4tt.(oIMJ.: f.~t,,~:x",_ !',"",3i:_(&~=-,f:i c.I,.-l
J" I. f{ _ _ I ~ - V .i-",,"r<;:,:,,>q-'y,
..---.--._J.kGL.L"j)J:1:f;f:k': _._Za.~~~ "'....,-"!5cJLI
.~----c.JcJd2:f..'C::~.:..tct',...~.J?t:=-C~~t(~,,':'::1.. .
d L ,l ' .
_.__._~.J:':.~16;:1p!.t:iC!!:..,:_~tr__{,'1.t/.'1"~,_.n 5G2fi~JRc.l:~':L't:7" ..1
!" ':' f.' "'". t
if U'
,--~--~._.__._--_._."._..~._-_._~.._-----,_._.__. - -.,-
-..----.-(i~:..~_tE1'141:::~J)."cz..~~-~-
J .~._. -"_, ...,~..__
II
/
'.,.1
?',~
~
r
CITY OF ASPEN.
MEMO FROM CARLA SCHUCK
, ~~
~~~'"
VJ}
--
~
.~~
-
"r.~
rJ..r~i~~~
~=--'_-='--~"~'~~<"."~'7'-' ,--
-----
,.. tA../...Jo-vr
, " ~
~J.4t' ~