HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Lodge 1 Zone.1979Aoo,)Ox- CA I. 01
Ltxi Z),e
e
%
C
P
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office
RE: L-1 Code Amendment - Public Hearing
DATE: September 14, 1979
On August 27th the Aspen City Council was presented with a request to
initiate a code amendment to allow single family, duplex and multi -family uses
as permitted uses within the L-1 zone district. As you will recall, the Planning
and Zoning Commission had previously refused to initiate that code amendment,
feeling basically that such action could reduce the number of units available
in the short term rental market and further facilitate the conversion of lodges.
The applicant was then required to make application by August 15th and due to
the nature of the notice requirements, was presented with a burden that was
unmeetable before the August 15th deadline. Council considered the applicant's
presentation on August 27th and has initiated the code amendment for the purpose
of getting your formal comments on the matter.
I have included in the packet some of the previous materials dealing with
this code amendment, as well as the revised application letter of Richard
Sabbatini. Briefly, for your review, are some of the pros and cons of the proposal:
1. The proposal may open the way for the condominization of lodges by
making multi -family uses a conforming use and thus raising the possibility
that lodge units could convert by adding kitchens and converting to
single ownership. This may be partially mitigated, however, by the fact
that such conversion which involves reconstruction requires the applicant
to go through growth management approval and seek a quota for development.
It may also be mitigated by any standards that the Board may incorporate
for review of the condominiumization of lodges, e.g., restrictions insuring
that the lodges will not convert to single ownership and be taken off the
short term market.
2. If the proposal did result in a reduction of the lodge inventory, it
reduces the lodge inventory in the very area where we most wanted it
to be concentrated. In one sense an overall reduction of lodge inventory
in the City of Aspen would further serve to balance the imbalance that
currently exists between Aspen and Snowmass. However, over the long
run, the Planning Office cannot recommend that lodge inventory should be
reduced but rather should be preserved as a resource which will become
scarcer as time goes on. Again, the area at the base of the mountain
is the best area to locate lodges and hence the designation of L-2 and
L-1 zone districts.
3. We had discussed limiting the code amendment to allowing single family
and duplexes as permitted uses within the district. There would therefore,
be very little incentive for a lodge to convert to a single family or
duplex use, while there might be incentive for them to convert to multi -family.
This provision may not work for the applicant in this case since the
applicant was considering reconstructing the existing six units in the
form of townhouses.
4. The most positive aspect of the proposal is that it allows a non -conforming
use which is residential in nature to improve. Residential uses are one
of our most treasured resources serving an invaluable function to the
City whether they are short or long term. In this instance, the use has
been primarily long term and to say that we should not allow such residential
uses to improve is clearly defeating our purpose. The applicant, of course,
should be aware that the condominiumization of these units will be looked
out very closely for their impact on displacement at the time when any
condominiumization application is sought. I want to correct an earlier
statement I had made to the P and Z which was that condominiumization
would be allowed regardless of the use's non -conformity. Ron Stock has
corrected that to say that we do not allow the condominiumization of
non -conforming uses but would allow the condominiumization of conforming
uses. That is another opportunity that the Board may wish to consider.
Memo to Aspen P & Z
Re: L-1 Code Amend.
September 14, 1979
Page Two
5. Within the lodge district is is true that the only remaining develop-
ment potential is that existing on the Sabbitini property. We therefore
would not likely see a rush to build single family, duplex and multi-
family residences. Again the main consideration is for conversion.
The Commission may also want to consider an alternative which we have mentioned
in the past but have only now prepared a draft. That is a provision that would
be a "residential and lodge preservation clause", inserted as a subsection under
the non -conforming use Section of the Aspen zoning code. The purpose of this
section would be similar to one in the County's Land Use Code, that is, to allow
the improvement of residential and lodge uses even though they are non -conforming.
The rationale for this would be that both residential and lodge uses are valuable
resources, in scarce supply, and their maintenance as viable economic structures
is within the public interest. Approval of any improvements would be by some
special review of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. This would
allow the use that Mr. Sabbatini has to the extent of the improvements would be
a matter of review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and it is not clear whether
the P and Z or even the Staff at this point would recommend the reconstruction to
such extent that a multi -family structure was converted to townhouses. We have not
thought the amendment through that far and the County does not have any guidelines
to assist in this determination. At any rate, we will bring a copy of that proposal
to the P and Z for your consideration on Tuesday.
Please note that this is a public hearing on the code amendment as it stands
with single family, duplex and multi -family units and that the City Council does
desire, as soon as possible, your recommendation. City Council was impressed by
the need to allow not only residential uses to improve but also lodge uses and hence
requested this other amendment.
•
•
Karen Smith, Director
Planning Department
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
September 7, 1979
This letter is submitted to request that the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission recommend for approval of an amendment to the text
of the Zoning Code for the City of Aspen which would make single-
family, duplex, and multi -family residences permitted uses within
the Lodge -One (L-1) zoning district.
This request is made following the decision of the Aspen City
Council to initiate the above stated zoning code amendment. ( See
attached copy of Aspen City Council meeting minutes, 8/27/79. )
The code amendment approval recommendation is requested by me,
as a landowner within the Lodge -One district, to allow the reconstruc-
tion of six living units which presently exist on lots K,L,M,N,O,
Block 77, City of Aspen to create six free-market townhouse units.
At present, this proposed reconstruction is not allowed as these units
ar a non -conforming use under the zoning code.
The following information is offered to support the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission's recommendation to the Aspen City Council for
approval of the above zoning code amendment:
I. Within the Lodge -One (L-1) district, there are presently 310 con-
dominium, townhouse, and apartment units which all are non -conforming
uses under the zoning code as written, and which existed in their
present form at the time of code adoption. (See Exhibit A) As inter-
preted by the City Attorney, these non -conforming uses cannot be re-
constructed, unless destroyed by an act of God, except in conformance
with the zoning code and those provisions therein concerning lodge
units; specificially, no kitchens are allowed in lodge units. To
comply with these provisions in the zoning code, it seems unreason-
able to require that a person solicit an act of God, such as fire,
to be allowed to extensively remodel or reconstruct a building in
need of such action.
2. At the time of adoption of the Growth Management Plan and the
Zoning Code, lots K,L,M,N,O, Block 77 was the only parcel of land
within the Lodge -One and Lodge -Two districts with any development
potential, as determined by the Growth Management Workshop. The
zoning, by creating a non -conforming use on the above property,
disallowed any reconstruction, extensive remodelling, or develop-
ment other than a financially impractical 18 unit lodge. ( The
Growth Management Plan lodge -unit allocation for the entire lodge
one district. )
3. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in its decision of 7/31/79
not to initiate the above code amendment, felt that such action
could reduce the number of units available in the short-term rental
market if existing lodge units were converted to condominiums and
sold. However, with the current price range for condominiums and
townhouses within the lodge -one district, it is most often necessary
to rent such units short-term to defray the costs of ownership.
Also, of the six townhouse units proposed for Lots K,LM,N,O, Block
77, at least four of the units would be sold and are likely to be
added to the short-term rental market. It is highly improbable
that a large number of existing lodge units within the Lodge -One
district would be reconstructed and condominiumized if the request-
ed code amendment is approved as most of the lodge units exceed
current maximum allowed densities.
Your consideration in this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
� zo-_e �9 -c-c_-
Richard E. Sabbatini
cc Ron Stock, City Attorney
•
•
PUBLIC NOTICE
Re: Amendment to L-1 Zone
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, $eptember 18, 1979, at 6:00 P.M.
in City Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, Aspen City Hall, 130 South Galena, Aspen,
to consider an amendment to the L-1 zone district to add duplexes, single family
and multi -family residences as permitted uses. Further information may be
obtained from the Planning Office, 130 South Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 225.
/s/ Olaf Hedstrom
Olaf Hedstrom, Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on August 30, 1979.
To be billed under City of Aspen fund.
YaL fl* ak, ----
&7ab, f Y� �U�
m
U2�lazdp
�Q
ce i,
Y
J
l��rr�w�c.uG(�6
k9k
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Aspen City Council
Board of County Commissioners
Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
Open Space Advisory Board and Agreement
August 21, 1979
Amendment to the Joint OpenSpace Agreement
As you will recall, at a joint meeting on July 23rd, you approved certain
amendments to the Joint Open Space Acquisition Program Agreement which provided
for the inclusion of Snowmass Village in that Agreement. Language was changed
to include the Town as well as City and County, and the composition of the
Open Space Advisory Board was altered to include Snowmass representation.
One point of contention, however, was lack of a contribution by Snowmass to
staff time or funding, meeting that contribution made by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Planning Office. Snowmass indicated a tentative interest in making a
proportionate contribution; I expect a representative to be at your joint meeting
to report the Board of Trustees' final decision.
To calculate a reasonable annual contribution to OSAB staffing, I made the
following calculation:
City/County payment for staff (Karen's and my time)
January through July 1979: $2,269
Projected for January - December, 1979: $4,000
Reco nmended
Contribution To
Population Percent of OSAB Staff.
(1978 Census) Total Population $40)0 x %)
Aspen 3,804 35% $1400
Snowmass Vi l l ag 2 984 9% 360
Rest of Pitkin County 5,961 56% 2240
• 10,749 100% $4000
Therefore, the ?lanning Office has requested that Snowmass contribute
approximately $400 to the City/County Planning Office budget for Open Space
Advisory Board for one year beginning from the date on which the amended
Joint Agreement is signed. This amount may then b2 adjusted annually for population
changes with a calculation similar to that above.
In addition, the City and County established a $5,000 fund in 1979 over
and above salaries for use in publishing an Open Space Piaster Plan, hiring a
negotiator, and other specific tasks. The Council and Commissioners might consider
that Snowmass will be participating in the open space program for one-half year
in which this fund is effective or you might request that the Town contribute
to any such special fund in the future.
The following amendment is proposed to incorporate this cooperative effort
at funding the Advisory Board and to formulate a technical advisory which takes
advantage of City, County and Town expertise.
Section 5, Open Space Coordinator, shall be repealed and reenacted as follows:
The parties may jointly establish and fund the position of Open Space Coordinator
who will act under the direction of the City/County Planning Director and the
Snowmass Village Planner. The Open Space Coordinator shall participate in
all phases of the Open Space Acquisition Process and constitute a focal point for
communications, and dissemination of information, among public and private
participants in said Process. In addition, the Open Space Coordinator shall
undertake to acquire rights -of -way for each the City, County and Village when
required for the Open Space or other programs of any of the three.
• • Memo to Council + BOCC
Re: OSAB and Agreement
August 21, 1979
Page Two
Nothing herein shall require the appointment of an Open Space Coordinator and
in the event that either or both of the parties hereto shall determine to not
establish and fund this position, the responsibilities of the Coordinator shall
be undertaken by a technical advisory group, composed of six persons including,
specifically, the City, County and Town Managers and the City, County and Town
Attorneys. The Director of the City/County Planning Office shall provide.
staff for the Open Space Advisory Board 'and such Land Management Committees as
are established. (The staff duties shall include preparation of agendas and
conducting of meetings.) The Town shall make a financial contribution proportionate
to its population or, alternatively, contribute staff time to assist the Advisory
Board. In addition, the three jurisdictions shall all contribute to any special
fund which might be established for such specific tasks as publication of an
Open Space Master Plan.
(Note: It is requested that the status of the coordinating committee be changed
from actual coordinators to a technical advisory capacity since we have learned
from experience that the Planning Office can do the preparation and follow-up
for meetings itself. A coordinating committee with attorneys, managers', and
planners from all three jurisdictions would be unwieldy.)
Open Space Advisory Board Member Nominations
At your last joint meeting, you also appointed people to fill four of the
five vacancies for two-year positions on OSAB. For the fifth position, you
indicated a desire to continue representation of Trout Unlimited if they would
provide a specific name. The T.U. Board of Directors reported to me that they
asked Bill Pedersen to continue as a member, if reappointed by City Council
and the Commissioners, primarily because of his familiarity with the Board's
activity. The Planning Office recommends appointment of Bill Pedersen as an
alternate member for a two-year term.
A
August 14,1979
Aspen City Council
Aspen, Colorado
This letter is submitted to request that the Aspen City Council initiate
an amendment to the text of the Zoning Code for the City of Aspen which would
make single-family, duplex, and multi -family residences permitted uses within
the Lodge -One (L-1) zoning district.
This request is made following the decision of the Aspen Planning and
Zoninq Commission not to initiate the above -stated zoning code amendment.
( Seeattachedcopy of Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes, 7/31/79)
Subsequent to the Planning and Zoning Commission decision on 7/31/79; it
became impossible to initiate the amendment as an individual landowner within
the Lodge -One district and comply with the procedural code requirements for
such action. ( Time was not available to obtain signatures from 80% of the
landowners within the district )
The code amendment is requested to allow the reconstruction of six living
units which presently exist on lots K,L,h1,N,0, Block 77, City of Aspen to
create six free-market townhouse units. At present, this proposed reconstruc-
tion is not allowed as these units are a non -conforming use under the zoning
code.
The following information is -offered to support the Aspen City Council's
initiation and approval of the above zoning code amendment:
I. Within the Lodge -One (L-1) district, there are presently 310 condominium,
townhouse, and apartment units which all are non -conforming uses under the
Zoning Code as written, and which existed in their present form at the time
of code adoption. (See Exhibit A) As interpreted by the City Attorney,
these non -conforming uses cannot be reconstructed, unless destroyed by an
act of God, except in conformance with the zoning code and those provisions
therein concerning lodge units; specifically, no kitchens are allowed in
lodge units. To comply with these provisions in the Zoning Code, it seems
unreasonable -to require that a person solicit an act of God, such as fire,
to be allowed to extensively remodel or reconstruct a building in need of
such action.
2. At the time of adoption of the Growth Management Plan and the Zoning
Code, lots K,L,M,N,O, Block 77 was the only parcel of land within the Lodge -
One and Lodge -Two districts with any development potential, as determined
by the Growth Management Workshop. The zoning, by creating a non -conforming
use on the above property, disallowed any reconstruction, extensive remodel-
ing, or development other than a financially impractical 18 unit lodge. (The
Growth Management Plan lodge -unit allocation for the entire Lodge -One District)
3. The Planning and Zoning Commission, in its decision not to initiate the
requested code amendment, felt that such action could reduce the number of
units available in the short-term rental market if existing lodge units were
converted to condominiums and sold. However, with the current price range
for condominiums and townhouses within the Lodge -One district, it is most
often necessary to rent such units short-term to defray the costs of owner-
ship. Also, of the six townhouse units proposed for lots K,LM,N,O, Block 77,
at least four of the units would be sold and are likely to be added to the
short-term rental market. It is also highly improbable that a large number
of existing lodge units within the Lodge -One district would be reconstructed
and condominiumized if the requested code amendment is approved as most of the
lodge units exceed current maximum allowed densities.
In view of the fact that this request for initiation for the proposed
zoning_code—amendment has previously been submitted to and considered during
public hheearing by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission; it is asked that
this current request for initiation and approval of said zoning code amend-
ment be resubmitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its recommend-
ation after the August 27, 1979 City Council Meeting.
•
In conclusion, it is felt that the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code
to allow single-family, duplex, and multi -family residences in the Lodge -One
district would not significantly affect the short-term rental market; and .
furthermore would allow the replacement; on lots K,L,M,N,O, Block 77 of an
old, non -conforming, poorly built structure with an esthetically pleasant,
and beneficial use.
Your consideration in this matter is appreciated.
S i ncere-yy,
%chard E. Sabbatini
cc Ron Stock, City Attorney
Karen Smith, Planning Department
NAME
Exhibit A
L-I Zoning District
Ownership and Existing Development
July 24,1979
OWNER LOCATION # LODGE
UNITS
CONDOMINIUM Ott
APARTMENT UNITS
I.
Aspen Townhouses Central
Multiple
Lots
K-O,BIk70
2.
inverness lodge (Dormez-Vous)
Lots
P Q,BI1k70
24
3.
Pines Lodge
AI-Zahid
Lots
R S,Blk70
4.
Snowflake Lodge
Goodnough
Lots
C-I,Blk76
18
5.
210 Cooper Condominiums
Multiple
LotsK-M,Blk76
6.
Limelite Lodge (North)
Paas
Lots
0-.S,Blk76
34
7.
Deep Powder Lodge
Hallum
Lots
A B,BIk77
8.
Limelite Lodge (South)
Paas
Lots
C-I,13107
26
9.
The Carriage House
Sabbatini
Lots
K-O,BIk77
10.
Aspen Manor
Lots
P-S,BIk77
25
11.
Timberridge Condominiums
Multiple
Lots
1-4,Blk4
Eames
Add.
12.
Lift One Condominiums
Multiple
Lots
5-II,Blk4
Eames
Add.
13.
Southpoint Condominiums
Multiple
Lots
(5)
14.
Chart House Restaurant
Lots
(4)
15.
Blue Spruce Lodge
Cantrup
Lots
A-D,Blk84
15
16.
Mountain Chalet
Melville
Lots
E-►,31k84
44
17.
Hillside Lodge
Aspen Ski
Corp/Lots
(3)BIk91
18.
Woodstone (Glory Hole)
Cantrup
Lots
(3)BIk107
93
19.
Chateaux Dumont
Multiple
Lots
(4)BIk107
20.
Chateaux Cheaumont
Multiple
Lots
(4)BIk107
21.
Captain's Anchorage
22.
Glory Hole Condominiums
Multiple
Lots
(2)BIk107
23.
Two Single Family Units adjacent
to Glory
Hole Condominiums
and
Aspen Alps on
Original Street.
24.
Aspen Alps Condominiums
Multiple
See Map
25.
Manorhouse Condominiums
Multiple
See Map
12
18
21
8
6
18
31
30
J
4
15
24
24
on
1
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office
RE: L-1 Code Amendment Reconsideration
DATE: July 27, 1979
bn June 5, 1979, the Planning and Zoning Commission was asked to consider
the proposed code amendment brought by a private applicant that would add
multi -family, single family and duplex residences to the permitted use section
of the L-1 zone. There was some confusion over the P and Z's intent regarding
its action at that meeting. The minutes reflect that the P and Z did not feel
that there was demand for such an amendment and did not support the amendment
at this time. However, the tape was garbled and difficult to hear and certain
people recollect that the P and Z had really intended for the Planning Office
to develop more information and bring it back. Please note that the applicant
is asking you to sponsor this code amendment, since private applications for
code amendments may be made only once a year, albeit soon on August 15th.
For the benefit of the new members and to refresh the memories of the
old members, I will include the previous memorandum to the P and Z in the packet.
The P and Z, I think, was interested in finding out the possible buildout
would be in the L-1 zone district and how this district might be affected by
the code amendments. I believe that the P and Z was also interested in what the
experience had been with the L-2 zone district since adoption of a code amend-
ment allowing single family and duplexes as permitted uses within that district.
The applicant has prepared a summary of the buildout in the L-1 zone district
for your information. As you can see, there are already a number of condominium
or apartment units existing within this district. This proposed code amendment
would make them conforming rather than non -conforming. We also note from our
GMP public hearing process that the remaining buildout in the L-1 was very low.
In fact, it affected only the property of the applicant in this particular case,
Rich Sabbatini. The Sabbatin.i parcel has 9,000 square feet potential buildout,
which translates into 18 lodge units. In this case, S-abbatini is requesting
permission for the code amendment so that he can build duplex units or remodel
into duplex units rather than build a lodge. This is the historic use of the
property.
We are bringing this back to you to ask for clarification whether you wish
to consider this amendment further and whether this information is sufficient to
help you make a decision. It is clear that the intent of the L-T district is to
prevent the conversion of existing lodges. The affect of this code amendment
might be to facilitate the conversion of lodges into condominium or apartment
units. However, we note that such conversions must go through the Growth
Management Plan which does serve as a disincentive. And, the P and Z may wish
to simply eliminate multi -family residences as a permitted use and allow only
single family and duplexes on the theory that only in the most rare circumstances
would a lodge with lodge density wish to convert to single family and duplexes
on the same lot. Our experience with the L-2 has been minimal. To our knowledge
the only duplex built since the code amendment was passed was the Blitz duplex
owned by the person who requested the amendment. The only problem with that is
that the duplex is built almost to lodge density. It might be appropriate to try to
limit the size of single family and duplex residences therefore.
•
E
i
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
Resolution No. 79- ��___
Re: Zoning Enforcement Officer
WHEREAS, in response to the rapid growth that occurred within the City of
Aspen
in the late 1960s and
early 1970s, the Aspen City
Council,
upon recommendation
by the
Planning and Zoning
Commission, has implemented
a series
of amendments to
the zoning and subdivision regulations, which amendments are intended to promote
orderly development of residential, commercial and other properties and to mitigate
adverse impacts of any such growth. These regulations include City-wide zoning
patterns, 8040 Greenline Reviews, Stream Margin Reviews, Viewplane Preservation
Ordinances, Historic Preservation Reviews and Reviews of various Conditional Uses,.
among others, and
WHEREAS, the Growth Management building quota system was implemented in 1978
requiring new subdivisions to compete for limited buildings permits available on
'an annual basis, in which competition applicants are required to make various
representations and commitments about the nature of the improvements and any
amenities included therein, and
WHEREAS, more recently the Aspen City Council has adopted numerous provisions
to promote the construction of employee housing o,Aside the Growth Management
quota system, providing exemptions from competitiv(! reviews in return for
commitments to price restrictions in the low, moderate and middle income price
ranges. Similar restrictions are attached to the -,onversion of residential units
from rental to ownership status in order to prevent the displacement of low and
moderate income households, and
WHEREAS, as it w,is necessary to adopt these various Code amendments in order
to promote the accomplishment of the Community's goals and objectives, it is
equally necessary to insure that these Codes are enforced fairly and comprehensively
to insure that their underlying purposes remain intact. Uniform administration
is important also for the protection of neighborhoods and other districts and
the individual property owners within them, and
WHEREAS, current City administration is already overburdened with the
daily demands of accepting applications for building permits and reviewing
construction under these permits, over and above the particular and special
conditions of these new procedures.
L
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
that it does hereby recommend to the Aspen City Council that in view of the
abundance of substantive conditions being attached to new development within the
City and in view of prospective and imminent construction as that occurring in the
Lodge District as well as in Specially Planned Areas such as that of the Aspen
Institute, that it is timely to.consider allocation of sufficient funds for
staff to administer and enforce these requirements. The Planning and Zoning
Commission further recommends that it is appropriate to identify
staff to be primarily responsible for monitoring compliance with conditions
designed to protect the goals and objectives of the City of Aspen. Such
staff should be free enough from the routine chores of processing new applications
such thattheycan pursue complaints which may be brought and to perform periodic
checks for compliance with conditions which may be stated in subdivision agreements,
various other special review approvals of this Commission and of the Council,
in planned unit development or specially planned area agreements, or in Growth
Management applications.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
believes that such a system will promote compliance just by existence and would
generate a feeling among the general public that fairness in implementation of
local Codes is being achieved. 1-714,
Approved by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Corvnission on this z''mt day of
July, 1979.
ATTEST:
Sheryl Si n, Deputy City Clerk
-2-
a c e st m, c C )airman
Asp/ Planning and Zoning Commission
MEMOUNDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jim Reents, Planning Office
RE: L-1 Code Amendment
DATE: May 31, 1979
This is an informational item for the Planning and Zoning Commission to
see if there is interest on their part to process a code amendment adding
"multif-amily residences, single family and duplex residences" to the permitted
use section of the L-1 zone. This is identical to the code amendment processed
by the Planning and Zoning Commission last May for the L-2 zone.
For clarification of this issue, the minutes of the public hearing on
the code amendment for the L-2 zone district.
0
I i
i
■RADFORD PUOLISHINO CO., DCNVFR RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ccial Meeting Aspen Planninq and zoninc7 Commission July 31, 1979
-�'he Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a special meeting on July 31, 1979,
:t 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Members present were Olaf Hedstrom,
•'_•iton Anderson, Nancy McDonnell, Lee Pardee, Perry Harvey and Roger Hunt. Also
--esent were Karen Smith and Richard Grice of the Planning Office and City Attornetr
.:onald Stock.
-1 Code Amendment Smith introduced the item. The P&Z is to consider an
consideration amendment to the L-1 zone district to add duplexes, s-Lngle
family and multifamily residences as a permitted use. The
request is being brought by Rich Sabbatini who asks that
the P&Z sponsor this amendment. Smith felt that the last
consideration by the P&Z was not clear on their support.
She asked that they consider the impacts in the L-2 district
since an amendment allowing single family and duplexes in
that zone. She noted a map showing the potential buildout
in the L-1 and L-2 district. Currently, the potential in
the L-1 district is for 9,000 square feet which translates
to 18 lodge units; this property is owned by Mr. Sabbatini
who wishes to convert the existing residential units to
duplex condominiums. She noted that this code amendment znay
encourage conversions from lodge uses to condominiimi multi-
family uses which is not the intent of the district. The
P&Z would have control over this with the condominiumization
reviews. She also noted that if kitchens were addedr this
would put it under the GMP. She said there have bean two
duplexes either 'built or proposed in L-2 since the amendment
and she knows of very little other land that has that poten-
tial. She asked for the P&Z's opinion of this amendment,
Hedstrcm asked if the amendment to L-2 opened the wiy ,for
condcminiumization of the lodges, Smith said no, the
cn_dmert merely added single family and duplex. She
suggested adding single family and duplex and not multifamil,.
thereby avoiding that potential for conversion. She
introduced Rich Sabbatini.
Sabbatini stated that he owns*Lots K-O, Block 77, which used
to be the Pines Lodge. When he purchased the property five
year's ago, he converted it to apartments and has rented it
as apartments since. He lives there himself. His intent
in buying the property was to improve it but never intended
to operate it as a lodge. They are a nonconforming use in
their district. He submitted a list of uses in the L-1 zone
which showed a 50/50 split between lodge units and condomin-
iums or townhouses. They wish to build 5-6 townhouses,
sell three or four_, live in one and rent one. There are
presently 6 units on the property. Smith asked if they
wish to construct three duplexes. Sabbatini said they have
not decided yet. Harvey.asked the potential of the. property
Smith said he could build 18 lodge units going through the
GMP. Harvey asked if he would have to go through GMP for
the duplexes. Smith said no since he would not be convertin,
the use. Pardee said the intent of the L-1 zone is to en-
courage short term uses. He would be in favor of single
family_ or duplexes if there were a deed restriction for
short term. Sabbatini noted there are 250+ condominiums
within the L-1 districts with no rental restrictions.
Joan Klar entered the meeting.
Anderson asked if they would see this application if the
amendment passed. Smith said if he wished to construct
single family dwellings or duplexes or reconstruct the
:multifamily, he would not reed the review. If he wished to
condominiuimize, lie would go through the review. She noted
a dilemna in the code; it encourages the construction of
lodges in the L-1 district and discourages the conversion
of lodges uses but the condominiumization regulation dis-
courages displacement of Low, Moderate and Middle income
families. historically, this property has rented to this
-2- 0
ecial Meeting Aspen Planning and ZonLng Commission July 31, 1979
income bracket.
Hunt felt they were whittling down the intent of the zone.
Hedstrom said a part of the GMP is to limit the increase in
the number of lodge. He felt this followed this intention
of the GMP. Hunt felt the intention was to space out this
growth over the years. Pardee felt they were opening the
door for many of the lodge units to be taken off that market.
Hedstrom agreed with this. McDonnell noted that there are
many 'Lodges in need of repair. She felt this would en-
courage these lodges to convert to apartments.
Sabbatini supported the amendment and noted this is the only
underdeveloped piece of property in this zone. Anderson
suggested allowing this as a conditional use rather than a
permitted use. Pardee asked if the applicant could renovate
his building. Stock said he can repair up to 10% of the
replacement cost of the structure in any calendar year,
Anything further must be heard by the Board of Adjustment,
Harvey added that he can apply to the GMP for a lodge,
Anderson again suggested the conditional use approach.
Stock said they could not consider she displacement of
certain income brackets in a conditional use hearing.
Bil Dunaway asked if this is a public hearing, Smith noted
the public hearing was held June 5th and was closed,
Hunt moved not to reconsider the L-1 code amendment at this
time primarily because the L-1 area has historically been
an area designated for the accommodation of tourists and to
allow a significantly lower use in that area puts the
tourist pressure in other zoning areas in the community,
Klar seconded.
Harvey agreed with the intention of Hunt's motion but felt
they were keeping nonconforming, long term rental, Low
density units in the L-1 where Sabbatini was attempting to
upgrade his.structure. He noted that any other lodge would
go through GMP to convert. Smith corrected her previous
statement to say the public hearing was_.not held siace_this
is a request to set a public hearing on the amendment.
Roll, call vote: Anderson, nay; McDonnell, aye; Pa.rdee,
aye; Harvey, nay; Klar, aye; Hunt, aye; Hedstrom, aye;
Motion passed.
3040 Greenline Smith introduced the application. The current access is
Yarbrough Single from the ski slope in the summer. The*Engineering Depart--
ramily House ment noted this was the result of a subdivision that was
approved in 1959 and it was annexed without condition.
The Planning Office recommends that P&Z give special atten-
tion to the questions of visual impact and integration
with the natural terrain from an area and bulk standpoint
and considerations of slope stability. She submitted
photos -from the applicant drawn to scale showing how the
building integrates with its surroundings. Smith noted
that they have not accomplished the soils review and asked
that they table action for this input. Hedstrom asked
what they could do for the access, parking and fire access
problems. Hunt'felt they could approach this problem by
limiting the number of people affected.. Stock noted that
on the Bliss approval, adjacent to this property, the P&ZIs
conditions of approval were that they use fire resistant
materials or a sprinkler system, place a fire hydrant .near
the structure and store a fire hose in the area and�a
covenant of indemnity to not hold the City respons,_ ILA L(or
any damage, personal or property, in case of fire..
MEMORANDUM
O-CdTO-:Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office
RE: L-1 Code Amendment Reconsideration
.DATE: July 27, 1979
bn June 5, 1979, the Planning and Zoning Commission was asked to consider
the proposed code amendment brought by a private applicant that would add
multi -family, single family and duplex residences to the permitted use section
of the L-1 zone. There was some confusion over the P and Z's intent regarding
its action at that meeting. The minutes reflect that the P and Z did not feel
that there was demand for such an amendment and did not support the amendir';m t
at this time. However, the tape was garbled and difficult to hear and certain
people recollect that the P and Z had really intended for the Planning Office
to develop more information and bring it back. Please note that the applicant
is asking you to sponsor this code amendment, since private applications for
code amendments may be made only once a year, albeit soon on August 15th.
For the benefit of the new members and to refresh the memories of the
old members, I will include the previous memorandum to the P and Z in the packet.
The P and Z, I think, was interested in finding out the possible buildout
would be in the L-1 zone district and how this district might be affected by
the code amendments. I believe that the P and Z was also interested in what the
experience had been with the L-2 zone district since adoption of a code amend-
ment allowing single family and duplexes as permitted uses within that district.
-The applicant has prepared a summary of the buildout in the L-1 zone district
for your information. As you can see, there are l�_ready_a_=mbe- tof—condominium
or apartment units existing is istrict. This proposed code amendment
wo—ul-& make Tather forming . We also note from our
GMP public hearing process that the remaining buildout in the L-1 was very low.
In fact, it affected only the property of the applicant in this particular case,.
Rich Sabbatini. The Sabbatini parcel has 9,000 square feet potential buildout,
which translates into 18 lodge units. In this case, Sabbatini is requesting
permission for the code amendment so that he can build duplex units or remodel
into duplex units rather than build a lodge. This is the historic use of the
property.
We are bringing th-:s back to you to ask for clarification whether you wish
to consider this amendment further and whether this information is sufficient to
help you make a decision. It is clear that the intent of the L-T district is to
prevent the conversion of existing lodges. The affect of this code amendment
might be to facilitate -.he conversion of lodges into condominium or apartment
units. However, we rote that such conversions must go through the Growth
Management Plan which dues serve as a disincentive. And, the P and Z may wish
to simply eliminate multi -family residences as a permitted use and allow only
single family and duple
'<es,on the theory that 'only in the most rare circumstances
would a lodge with ledge density wish to convert to single family and duplexes
on the same lot. Our experience with the L-2 has been minimal. To our knowledcie
the only duplex built since the code amendment was passed was the Blitz duplex
owned by the person who requested the amendment. The only problem with that is
that the duplex is built almost_ to lodge density. It might be appropriate to try to
lfmit the size of single family and duplex residences therefore.
�j
ro
+ ry �11
441VW
,. MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jim Reents, Planning Office
RR: L-1 Code Amendment
DATE: May 31, 1979
This is an informational item for the Planning and Zoning Commission to
see if there is interest on their part to process a code amendment adding
"multifamily residences, single family and duplex residences" to the permitted
use section of the L-1 zone. This is identical to the code amendment processed
by the Planning and Zoning Commission last May for the L-2 zone.'
For clarification of this issue, the minutes of the' public hearing on
the code amendment for the L-2 zone.district.
.. e
rz
RECORD OF PROCEEMNGS 100
_ _ �_____
Regular Meeting Aspen P1<<rntiing and %oniiig rSaY 7.6, 19 -78�
t,
The Aspen Planning and 'Zoning Conunission hold a regular me-ting on May 1G, 1978,
at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. Mciiibcrs present were Charles Collins, i
Olaf Iledstrom, Donald Ensign, Frank Baranko, . Wel ton Anderson, John schuliruacher,
and Joan Mar. Also present were City Attorney Dorothy Nuttall, and Karen
Smith and Richard Grice of the Planning Office. -
Approval of Minutes Hedstrom moved to approve the minutes of may 2 & 9, 1978,:
as amended, Baranko seconded. All in favor, motion
approved. 11,
Code Amendment Smith noted the Planning Office memos of May 11 and
L-2 District April 7, 1978. The P&Z is considering a change in
Public Iiearing language of the permitted and conditional uses in the
L-2 zone. Smith noted two conflicting objectives that
the P&Z must consider. The intent of the L-2 district
is tourist oriented. There is very little land left
-in this district. On the other hand, the GRIP reduces
the tourist potential over a long term. Smith did not
feel that such an amendment would adversely affect the
inventory of lodge area available. it would allow less
intensive use in that district. She recommended a
change in language under intention to allow the con-
struction of tourist -oriented single family, duplex,
and multi -family units. Under permitted uses, add the
language "single family and duplex". She did not rec-
ommend the six month minimum lease restriction as it
is not within the intent of this district.
Schuhmacher asked the definition of a tourist -oriented
single family. Smith said it meant the unit could be
rented short term. Baranko asked if a lesser use is
automatically a permitted use. Nuttall said no. She
felt that the code change is appropriate. Collins
asked where the majority of the L-2 district is located.
Smith said south of Durant and noted the other sections
on a map.
Klar felt that in a free market system, if it is more
viable to builda single family unit, they should be
allowed to do it. Ensign felt the objectives have
changed since the code was drafted. He supported the
amendment.
Collins opened the public hearing. There were no
comments from the public. Collins closed the public
hearing.
Collins felt that the L-2 zone was intended to keep the
tourist facilities neat- the mountain. Ile felt that
the small amount of land left in this district should
be devoted to tourist fvcilities. Smith noted that
the small parcels left are not large enough to build
a lodge or multi -family units. Klar asked if it would
be appropriate for other lodges to expand into the land
that is left. Smith said that would-be the only alter-
native if this amendment is nat passed.
Smith noted that in thi: L-1 and L-2 districts under
minimum lot required per dwelling unit, there is no
provision for single family or duplex. She suggested
that they add the language "same as RMF". Baranko
asked if there is an FAR in the RMF zone. Smith said
only for boarding housQs and offices.
Recrular Meeting Aspen Flanning and Zoning May 16, 1`�78
--
Hedstrom moved to 'recommend amendment to the zoning
code in the L-2 zone to reflect ch,.nging conditions
since the adoption of the code,to affect the purposes
of the Growth Management Plan,to'provide greater flexi-
bility for property owners in that area without dimin-
ishing the opportunity for additional tourist accom-
modations,an amendment to read as follows: under
Intentions, add "and to allow the construction of
tourist -oriented single family, duplex, and multi-
family units", and Permitted Uses, Lodge units,
boarding houses, hotel,dining room, laundry and recre-
ation facilities for guests only, single family, duplex,
and multi -family residences, Ensign seconded. Roll
call vote: Baranko, aye; Anderson, aye; Klar; aye;
h
Ensign, aye; Hedstrom, aye; Collins, nay; Schumacher,
nay. Motion approved.
Code Arlendment Smith noted the Planning Office memos of May 12, 1978,
FAR Calculation and a memo from Clayton Meyring, Building Inspector,
Public Hearing of May 16, 1973. The code amendment would change the
language under measuring FAR. The code now could be
interpreted to count private balconies and areas under
.a roof overhang in FAR calculations. Meyring has as:ced
that they change 'the word subgrade in the definition
of basements.' Smith noted two ways of amending Section
24-3.7(e)(1) regarding inclusion of areas under hori-
zontal projections in calculations of FAR. Meyring
does not have any problem with the code as it stands
but the Planning Office feels that clarification is
necessary. Meyring feels the key word in this section is
usable which means any area necessary for the function
of the building (access, egress, etc.). Meyring does
nbt include private balconies. Smith felt it very
important to include exterior stairwells, corridors,
etc. She recommended adding a phrase to the second
sentence of the Section which notes that FAR shall
include any usable area under a horizontal projection
of a roof or floor above except where that area is an
unenclosed individual balcony not used as a passage
way.
Hedstrom asked if Meyring has no problem with the
code as it stands, why are they amending it. Anderson
noted that the code is vague. The Board discussed
a case that came before the Board of Adjustment appeal-
ing that section of the code that includes the areas
under balconies in the calculation of FAR.
Hedstrom was afraid of making the code too specific.
Bill Dunaway of the Aspen Times noted the problems
they may have if Meyring leaves and another Building
Inspector interprets the code differently. Anderson
noted necessary overhangs are often avoided to reduce
the,FAR. Ensign noted that an entrance porch is not
counted in FAR unless there is a roof overhang.
Anderson asked that they delete the word unenclosed
from the amendment. Smith supported this. Nuttall
asked that they include balconies and patios to in-
clude first and upper floor. projections.
The Board then discussed how to clarify basements in
the code. They decided there.were_still too many
unanswered questions to amend the code at this time.
Ensign moved to table the code amendment for measuring
FAR, filar seconded. Baranko asked that this be refer-
red to the nui.lAing In: p,2ctor, City Attorney and the
Planning Office. All. in favor, motion approved.
lire
•r: • i"',,�R � � 1 l ., ' --'tea---!`Y r 'mil, • � !• • • w � � o • ► \ � , .c - � �- .
• . • a / , . �.- . y It - •�; • •��r�-1F�`i.a �a �- • � '�"s,, � • d • ' • .s ` • �\. • �� • _ _ -
It i
.,Q-*.•�� : r • ` �• s ri e / • ;� • ® •• aS �• , '� • .--� ' T • fir. .v
�� 1/; '!" � 'ram \� • . `'r • ii k
ne Specially
Planned
Area
/ A
kAN
jP
46
1
_• •r \� Y,�,,� r. a�. t tea
W
J �\ •
� `• �';.._.
k
AK