The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ud.L-2 Zone.1978 ,-.... r-.. , I ~ E M 0 RAN DUM I I , ! TO: Aspen City Council FROM: RE: Planning Office, K~ren Smith I Code Amendment to ~dd Single Use in the L-2 Dis~rict Family and Duplex Uses as a Permitted DATE: June 8, 1978 , The ordinance that you Willi consider on first reading Monday would add single family and duplex residences to the list of permitted uses in the L-2 (Lodge 2) Zone district. ! The proposal foll owsa req~est for use determinati on brought by Mr, Robert Blitz in late March, and tHe subsequent recommendation by Bill Kane that a use determination was inapRropriate because the zoning so conspicuously avoids mention of a duplex [in that zone. Bill felt; and the City Attorney agreed, that in view of th~! way the zoning code is constructed, the clean- est way to consider such u es as permitted in the L-2 zone is to amend the Code to specifically provi e for same. ! The proposal points up a conflict in two separate planning goals for the City of Aspen. On the one [hand you have the stated intent of the Lodge 2 district, which is "to encqurage the construction and renovation of lodges in the area at the base of IAspenMountain and to allow construction of tourist oriented mUlti-fam~'lY units." The intent of L-1 is even clearer: "to prevent conversion of xisting lodges into long-term residences." We bel ieve it was the intent t the time of zon'ing code adoption that both these districts be reserve9 for short-term use, The areas zoned this way were thought to be more appropriate as tourist areas because of their location at the base of th~ mountain and proximity to transportation and the commercial core. Furt~ermore, it was felt that short-term accomoda- tions would be incompatiblEj with llong-term residences .because of high turnover and a generally hi!gher level of activity during the tourist seasons. I On the other hand, you hav~ the goals expressed in the Growth Management Plan as expressed in Bill K~ne's April 7 memorandum. That is to reduce the Aspen tourist potential, to contribute to county-wide transportation, fiscal, and beds to ski capacity balance. Allowing the construction of single family or duplex residences in L-2 would implement this goal by reducing the inventory of 11and available for tourist accomodations, i While there may be some cortcern that this amendment would adversely affect the Lodging districts by depleting the supply of accomodations, it appears that there would be little Iland in the Lodge-2 district where single family or duplex construction wou~d take place. Even if there were a decreased supply of tourist accomoda~ions in L-2, changing conditions makes this Jess of a problem than mig~t have been recognized at the time of adoption Of the L-2 district.. For example, build out at the Institute would pro- vide an inventory of confe~ence beds and facilities in a location other than lodge zones. . The Planning Office recomm~nded approval of the zone code change without limiting single family and iduplex uses to a 6 month lease. We felt this was more consistent with t1e short-term intent and nature of the district. P & Z recommended approval,after a public hearing at their May 17 meeting, citing the reasons that th amendment would reflect changing conditions since adoption of the Code, would effect the purposes of the GMP, and would provide flexibility to owners without diminishing tourist accomo- dations. I sr ~. ,-.. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Planning Office, K,ren Smith Code Amendment to Add Single Family and Duplex Uses as a Pennitted Use in L-2 District DATE: May 11, 1978 FROM: RE: i I There will be a public heating on May 16th to consider an amendment to Section 24-3.2 "Pennitted and Condl tiona 1 Uses". Specifi ca lly, the proposal is to add to the list of permittE[!d uses in L-2, "single family and duplex residences subject to a six month minimum lease." i The proposal follows a reqijestfor use determination brought by Mr. Robert Blitz in late March, and t~e subsequent reommendation by Bill Kane.that a use determination was inap~ropriate because the zoning so conspicuously avoids mention of a duplex'jin that zone. Bill felt, and the City Attorney agrees, that in view of the way the zoning code is constructed, the clean- est way to consider such uses as permitted in the L-2 zone is to amend the Code to specifically provi~e for same. i The proposal points up a c~nflict in two separate planning goals for the City of Aspen. On the oneihand you have the stated intent of the Lodge 2 district which is "to enoourage the construction and renovation of lodges in the area at the base ofjAspen Mountain and to allow construction of tourist oriented multi-faml1y units." The intent of L-l is even clearer: "to prevent conversion of $xisting lodges into long-term residences," We believe it was the intent ~t the time of zoning code adoption that both these districts be reserve~ for short-term use. The areas zoned this way were thought to be more ap~ropriate as tourist areas because of their location at the base of th~ mountain and proximity to transportation and the commercial core. Furt~ermore, it was felt that short-term accomodations would be incompatible with I long-term residences because of high turnover and a generally higher lev~l of activity during the tourist seasons. On the other hand, you havl' the goals expressed in the Growth Management Plan as attached in Bill K ne's April 7th memorandum. That is to reduce the Aspen tourist potentia to contribute to county-wide transportation, fiscal, and beds to ski ca acity balance. Allowing the construction of single family or duplex residences in L-2 would implement this goal by reducing the inventory of jand available for tourist accomodations. I While there may be some co~cern that this amendment would adversely affect the Lodging districts by depleting the supply of accomodations, it appears that there would be littlelland in the Lodge 2 district where single family or duplex construction wo~ld take place. Even if there were a decreased supply of tourist accomodations in L-2, changing conditions make this less of a problem than mig~t have been recognized at the time of adoption to the L-2 district. For example, build out at the Institute would pro- vide an inventory of conference beds and facilities in a location other than lodge zones, ' i i The Planning Office recomm~nds approval of the zone code change with one exception. The 6 months mlnimum lease restriction probably was intended to keep single family and ~uplexes in the L-2 zone as long-tenn residences. Inasmuch as the district if short-term oriented and high prices of land probably dictate that such housing would not be low and moderate income, we suggest you consider dr@pping the six month lease restriction. The I text of L-2 Uses would the~ read: i Intenti on i ... and to allow the ~onstruction of tourist-oriented single family, duplex, and multi-famlly units. Pennitted Uses Lodge units, boardinglhouses, hotel. dining room, laundry and recre- ation facilities for ~uests only, single family, duplex and multi- family residences. i ~ 1""'\ M E MaR AND U M TO: Dorothy Nuttall, City Attorney FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office ~.. RE: Request for Opinion DATE: April 18, 1978 At their meeting on April 4th, 1978, the City P & Z got into a discussion of whether the code was designed with an "exclusive" or "cumulative" use list. It was Bill's recollection that Sandy always stated that it was "exclusive"; hence the reason for his memo (attached) about allowing single family or duplex uses in the L-2 zone, P & Z asked us to seek a written opinion from you and to set the single family/duplex issue for a hearing to amend the L-2 district. sr " r-\ ~ M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Pl ann i ng Offi ce, Bi 11 Kane . RE: Use determination for duplex residence in the L~2 zone. DATE: April 7, 1978 The Commission is being asked to determine the propriety of allowing the con- struction of a duplex in the L-2 zone within the City of Aspen. The request is necessary because neither duplex nor single family hOUSing is 1 isted as a permitted use within the L-2 zone, The bUilding inspector is barred from issuing a bUilding permit for such a use, While there is considerable support for this type of land use in the zoning . district within the Growth /1anagement Plan, the zoning so conspicuousfy avoids any mention of "duplex" development as to make a "use determination" the improper vehicle to achieve the objective being sought. The Code organization strongly suggests that a code amendment to include single fam- ily and duplex development in the L~l and L-2 zones would be the only way to grant this use reque~t, The G.M,P. (p, 45) states "the City of Aspen could make a very positive contribution to the overall, transportation and fiscal balance of the comunity by undertaking a program to substantially reduce the potential for tourist accomodations expansion--__." Allowing single 'family and duplex development subject to a six month minimum lease would add an implimentation to this goal of the plan. However, in light of the current wording of the zoning code, ~Ie find a totally inadequate baSis to achieve by use determination and recom- mend that a hearing be set to consider this as a code amendment, 0, t r.. '-" ,y' ~ ~/ GIDEON I. KAUFMAN ~at~ (303) 9225.81 68 BOX 10001 '280 UTE AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 }'T.arch 27, 1978 Ms, Karen Smith Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Karen, Please consider this letter a formal request for use deter- mination for Mr, Robert Blitz for Lot 15, Anthony Acres, in the City of Aspen. The land is presently zoned L-2. A review of the City's zoning ordinances reveals that; in L-2, the building of a duplex or single family is not specifically authorized as a permitted use. In light of the City Council's position to discourage the further development of lodges in town and to encourage the downzoning of one's property, I feel that this exclusion is an oversight in the present zoning. We would, therefore, request a hearing in front of the Planning & Zoning Commission for use determination to authorize the building of a duplex on Lot l5, Anthony Acres Subdivision. If you have any questions on this, please feel free to contact me. Per our prior conversation, I hope that this matter will be able to be set for the April 11 Planning & Zoning meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ~~ Gideon Kaufman GK ch