Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Cooper Avenue Greystones.50A-89 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 5/15/89 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 5 i \`z 2737- 182 -28 -004 50A -89 STAFF MEMBER: L t S 1 % C PROJECT NAME: Cooper Avenue Grevstones Residential GMOSIS a-)Otoe% Project Address: 810 -816 East Cooper Avenue Legal Address: Lots M, N. 0, Block 111 APPLICANT: Harlan "Buzz" Dopkin Applicant Address: P. O. Box 4696, Aspen. CO 81612 REPRESENTATIVE: John LaSalle Representative Address /Phone: 530 E. Main St. Aspen. CO 81611 5 -6633 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 21 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: v / P &Z Meeting Date - 3Y 1 -015 1 PUBLIC HEARING: 41210 NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFERRALS: - -- City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District V City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas Housing Dir. Holy Cross - State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water ✓ Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Building Inspector Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other ✓ Aspen Consol. Energy Center S.D. DATE REFERRED: ilS/ 8 / INITIALS: 448- FINAL ROUTING: / DATE ROUTED :. /a / City Atty v City Engineer V / Zoning Env. Health V Housing Other: tc, FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: i,{ CLOSE OUT SUMMARY SHEET FOR COOPER AVENUE GREYSTONES RESIDENTIAL GMP AND SUBDIVISION The residential GMP application was approved December 18, 1989 by the City Council. Ordinance 74 was adopted with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall reduce the size of the fence, along the front property boundary, to 4 feet at the center and 4' 3" at the western end and 3' 9" at the eastern end - thus the fence will remain level. Transparent features, such as wrought iron work on the top, may be incorporated into the fence design, however revised fence plans shall be reviewed by the Planning Department. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall make a one time payment -in -lieu indexed to the current affordable housing guidelines in affect at the time of payment or as an alternative the applicant may provide off -site housing through a buy down or may construct housing which will provide the required number of units. The applicant shall provide for 3.75 employees. The housing alternative that is eventually used shall be presented to and approved by the Housing Authority and Planning Staff. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the applicant shall file a deed restriction for a low- income studio unit on -site. The unit shall be deed restricted to low income and rented pursuant to the Housing Authority Guidelines. 4. The applicant shall submit a final plat meeting the requirements of Section 7 -1004 D(2) for review by the Planning Office, Engineering Department and City Attorney prior to final subdivision review by City Council. 5. The applicant shall advise and submit plans for hook up to the Aspen Water Department before connecting to the steel line. 6. All required survey monuments shall be supplied by the applicant's survey company. 7. A complete storm drainage report shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department before issuance of a building permit. 8. The applicant shall submit dry well plans to the Sanitation District before issuance of a building permit. In addition the Council approved a GMQS Exemption for one deed restricted studio unit on site which equals housing for 1.25 employees. The applicant shall make a one -time cash in lieu for 3.75 employees. 2 ( ORDINANCE NO. 74 (SERIES OF 1989) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, ACCEPTING A CASH -IN -LIEU PAYMENT, A BUY DOWN OR OFF - SITE CONSTRUCTION HOUSING ALTERNATIVE, GMQS E7EMPTION FOR A LOW INCOME STUDIO AND GRANTING TWO RESIDENTIAL GMQS ALLOTMENTS TO THE COOPER AVENUE GREYSTONES THROUGH THE 1988 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPETITION WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8 -106 of the Aspen Land Use Code, November 1 of each year is established as the deadline for submission of applications for Residential allotments within the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, because of the administrative delay regarding Ordinance 47 (Series of 1989), the submission date for 1988 Residential GMQS applications was postponed until May 15, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office has calculated the Residential quota available for 1988 as 17 units: 39 units being the annual allocation, less 26 units built pursuant to exemptions, plus 4 units that were allocated but the right to develop has expired; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") on July 18, 1989 to consider the Growth Management Quota System competition for Residential Units, at which time the Commission did evaluate and score the application for the Cooper Avenue Greystones; and WHEREAS, review of the GMQS application was consolidated with subdivision review and review of the method by which the applicant proposed to provide affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the Commission found that the project successfully met the minimum required threshold of 33.6 points by having received 34 points; and WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations and commitments made by the applicant in scoring the Cooper Avenue Greystones and recommends to City Council subdivision approval and acceptance of cash -in -lieu and GMQS Exemption for one studio low- income residential unit on -site with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall reduce the size of the fence, along the front property boundary, to 4 feet at the center and 4' 3" at the western end and 3' 9" at the eastern end - thus the fence will remain level. Transparent features, such as wrought iron work on the top, may be incorporated into the fence design, however revised ( fence plans shall be reviewed by the Planning Department. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall make a one time payment -in -lieu indexed to the current affordable housing guidelines in affect at the time of payment or as an alternative the applicant may provide off -site housing through a buy down or may construct housing which will provide the required number of units. The applicant shall provide for 3.75 employees. The housing alternative that is eventually used shall be presented to and approved by the Housing Authority and Planning Staff. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the applicant shall file a deed restriction for a low- income studio unit on -site. The unit shall be deed restricted to low income and rented pursuant to the Housing Authority Guidelines. 4. The applicant sh .411 submit a final plat meeting the requirements of Section 7 -1004 D(2) for review by the Planning Office, Engineering Department and City Attorney prior to final subdivision review by City Council. 5. The applicant shall advise and submit plans for hook up to the Aspen Water Department before connecting to the steel line. 6. All required survey monuments shall be supplied by the applicant's survey company. 7. A complete storm drainage report shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department before issuance of a building permit. 8. The applicant shall submit dry well plans to the Sanitation District before issuance of a building permit. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Commission's recommendations for subdivision approval and method of the provision of affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Commission's scoring for the Cooper Avenue Greystones project does wish to grant the requested two residential allotments, subdivision approval, GMQS Exemption for one deed restricted studio unit, and has accepted the cash -in -lieu payment while encouraging the applicant to pursue off -site housing through a buy down program or construction off -site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: That it does hereby grant a two Residential 1988 GMQS allocations to the Cooper Avenue Greystones at 810 -816 East Cooper Avenue Lots M, N, 0, Block 111. Section 2: That it does hereby grant subdivision approval, with the previously mentioned conditions recommended by the Aspen Planning 3 and Zoning Commission, for 810 -816 East Cooper Avenue. Section 3: That it does hereby accept a one time cash -in -lieu payment indexed to the current affordable housing guidelines in effect at the time of payment while encouraging the applicant to pursue a buy -down program or construction of off -site housing. Section 4: That it does hereby grant GMQS Exemption for one studio unit, on -site, deed restricted to the low- income guidelines of the Housing Authority. Section 5: That pursuant to Chapter 24, Section 8 -108 of the Municipal Code, this allocation shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the date of approval of a site specific development plan unless a building permit is obtained and the project is developed, or unless an exemption from or extension of the approval is obtained. Section 6: That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the 4 remaining portions thereof. Section 8: Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be continued and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 9: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /6 day of // /r./ 1989 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published one 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 on the 2 2 1V - ' day of ` - n , 1989. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: • Kathryn Koch, City Clerk CAL F INALLY, adopted, passed and approved this /8 ., day of ��Detti21/, 1989. William L. Stirling, Mayor Al EST: 'CL L.a. Kathryn '. Koch, City Clerk 11 /cc.grey.ord 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council l 1 THRU: Bill Efting, Acting City Manager \L m FROM: Leslie Lamont and Amy Margerum, Planning RE: Greystones GMP Allocation and Subdivision, Second Reading, Ordinance 74 DATE: December 18, 1989 SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval, on second reading, of Ordinance 74 allocating two Residential 1988 GMP allotments to the Cooper Avenue Greystones, and recommending subdivision approval, GMQS Exemption, and acceptance of a cash -in -lieu payment for the development of two free market units and one deed restricted studio unit. Following this Ordinance and memo is P &Z's Resolution forwarding the GMP scores to Council and Council's Resolution S3 allocating the development rights. Staff has consolidated the various reviews for this application and the conditions of approval into one ordinance. Please see attached Ordinance. COUNCIL GOALS: This Ordinance is consistent with Goal #14. BACKGROUND: On July 18, 1989 the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and scored the residential GMP application for the Cooper Avenue Greystones. The Commission also recommended subdivision approval, and acceptance of a cash -in -lieu payment and one deed restricted studio unit (on -site) to mitigate affordable housing impacts. Council must review the Commission's recommendations regarding subdivision and the method of providing affordable housing. If Council accepts the Commission's recommendation, the applicant must receive a GMQS Exemption for the affordable housing unit. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: This application represents the development of a multi - family structure. There is an existing two unit building on site and the applicant wishes to add two more units thus requiring a GMQS Residential allocation and subdivision review. An existing fence in front of the building and the vacant portion of the site renders the parcel nonconforming with regard to open space. Open space must be viewed from the street. It is through subdivision review that staff has recommended a reduction in the size of the fence. Pursuant to Section 8 -109 J of the Code, the method by which an applicant proposes to provide affordable housing shall be at the option of the Aspen City Council, upon recommendation of the Commission. The Commission has recommended the provision of one deed restricted studio unit (on -site) and a cash -in -lieu payment indexed to the Housing Authority Guidelines at the time of payment. Pursuant to Section 8 -104 C., the provision of an affordable unit on -site requires a GMQS Exemption from Council. The exempted unit shall be deed restricted to the low- income guidelines and shall meet the criteria as stated in the Housing Authority's Guidelines. Please see attached Commission memo, July 18, 1989, for a review of subdivision criteria and the review criteria for the provision of affordable housing. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST REY ISSUES: 1. The applicant originally proposed to mitigate the affordable housing impact with a full cash -in -lieu payment. Staff recommended and the Commission concurred that it is feasible and more desirable to locate an affordable unit on site. 2. The application does not meet the open space requirements of the Code. The fence in front of the existing building prevents the open space to be viewed from the street. The Commission, as a condition of subdivision approval, has recommended that the applicant reduce the size of the fence by 40% to comply with the Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the allocation of two 1988 residential GMP units, subdivision approval, GMQS Exemption, and acceptance of the cash -in -lieu for the Cooper Avenue Greystones, with the conditions as outlined in the Ordinance. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Council could accept full cash -in -lieu instead of requiring a partial payment and a dwelling unit on -site. 2. The Council may not require the applicant to reduce the size of his fence. The Commission did suggest that the applicant could take down that portion of the fence which is only in front of the proposed development. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance No. 74 (Series 1989) on second reading. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: Council Ordinance 2 L} C k • 1 \V\i-a)r. 417c-' -54Ar MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council THRU: Robert S. Ant,- son, Jr., City Manag MOO FROM: Leslie L.r et -nd Amy Margerum, Planning RE: Greystones GMP Allocation and Subdivision DATE: November 27, 1989 SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval, on first reading, of Ordinance W allocating two Residential 1988 GMP allotments to the Cooper Avenue Greystones, and recommending subdivision approval, GMQS Exemption, and acceptance of a cash -in -lieu payment for the development of two free market units and one deed restricted studio unit. Staff has consolidated the various reviews for this application and the conditions of approval into one ordinance. Please see attached Ordinance. Attached is the resolution, from the Commission, forwarding the residential GMP scores to Council for allocation of the units. COUNCIL GOALS: This Ordinance is consistent with Goal #14. BACKGROUND: On July 18, 1989 the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and scored the residential GMP application for the Cooper Avenue Greystones. The Commission also recommended subdivision approval, and acceptance of a cash -in -lieu payment and one deed restricted studio unit (on -site) to mitigate affordable housing impacts. Council must review the Commission's recommendations regarding subdivision and the method of providing affordable housing. If Council accepts the Commission's recommendation, the applicant must receive a GMQS Exemption for the affordable housing unit. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: This application represents the development of a multi - family structure. There is an existing two unit building on site and the applicant wishes to add two more units thus requiring a GMQS Residential allocation and subdivision review. An existing fence in front of the building and the vacant portion of the site renders the parcel nonconforming with regard to open space. Open space must be viewed from the street. It is through subdivision review that staff has recommended a reduction in the size of the fence. Pursuant to Section 8 -109 J of the Code, the method by which an applicant proposes to provide affordable housing shall be at the option of the Aspen City Council, upon recommendation of the Commission. The Commission has recommended the provision of one deed restricted studio unit (on -site) and a cash -in -lieu payment indexed to the Housing Authority Guidelines at the time of payment. Pursuant to Section 8 -104 C., the provision of an affordable unit on -site requires a GMQS Exemption from Council. The exempted unit shall be deed restricted to the low- income guidelines and shall meet the criteria as stated in the Housing Authority's Guidelines. Please see attached Commission memo, July 18, 1989, for a review of subdivision criteria and the review criteria for the provision of affordable housing. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST REY ISSUES: 1. The applicant originally proposed to mitigate the affordable housing impact with a full cash -in -lieu payment. Staff recommended and the Commission concurred that it is feasible and more desirable to locate an affordable unit on site. 2. The application does not meet the open space requirements of the Code. The fence in front of the existing building prevents the open space to be viewed from the street. The Commission, as a condition of subdivision approval, has recommended that the applicant reduce the size of the fence by 40% to comply with the Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the allocation of two 1988 residential GMP units, subdivision approval, GMQS Exemption, and acceptance of the cash -in -lieu for the Cooper Avenue Greystones, with the conditions as outlined in the Ordinance. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Council could accept full cash -in -lieu instead of requiring a partial payment and a dwelling unit on -site. 2. The Council may not require the applicant to reduce the size of his fence. The Commission did suggest that the applicant could take down that portion of the fence which is only in front of the proposed development. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to read Ordinance No. I move to adopt Ordinance No. on first reading. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: Council Ordinance Commission Resolution Commission memo, July 18, 1989 2 r H Aa) X t/1 ill ■ 11 i Z A y E�; ? l I S 4 I dpi , '.i ;j i i r �L ' 4 0o aJ4 �I N bi 4, 7 # : _ . r r R,i .� �.1 0 b 03 , r. IN ! �— I 4, o - - -- - = -1- -I 1 i `'co –4- a o 1 Li 0 IiICImFfi:N 41 41 ■ p EE 'I. z } ; ■a III 11 , { ' E,:�I , ail c f I a te ■ I ), 1 K. _ i I I/`` I 77 i I — 1` i i o I _ 1 { I 1 i i i t jj 0 d `' `! {! k _. , , 1 i i ; •1;111 1 } S 1 1 i1 i i, I } i ilni I 1 n�, I 1 i I T. :: I at it f , 1! r 1 • 7 , ,11 1 , i � . ,i, 1 li 1 I li- G f III j I 14 y am,/,/ I ? k r illPH-- r. : ® !I1 1 I II Iii ii =}A ' ,_I Y I I � i I , i 1 w..r I . ,ill % ! I mi i i 7!}ti $.3 Ii;$ lee - ....... C i ce° - i i f -- i `I l ij '11 'i _ . i � :; ( �' II i I. ■ . 1 •, : • + � , Q • t . i" ' 1r--- -- i ,, 1 Ili1il ,}li 1: ii ,, I I I ,I o 1 A I 3 . `4 ' Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. with members Bruce Kerr, Michael Herron, Mari Peyton, Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre and Rich Compton present. Graeme Means was excused. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Roger Hunt told the Commission the committee for the selection of consultants for the Rio Grande right -of -way met. Kaiser Engineers was picked unanimously. This will go before the RFTA board for final selection. They will be putting out the contract by next week. Bruce Kerr said the Council has continued the meetings on the Meadows and has set out an agenda for all of September and October. These are structured as work session rather than formally con- stituted sessions. The meetings will be on Wednesday, and Council is encouraging P & Z members to attend as many of the meetings as they can. Tom Baker, planning office, said the process for the Meadows is that there is going to be a master planning effort with the Council as the working committee with input from P & Z. Baker said one the master plan is adopted, the property owners and the non - profit groups will have the ability to submit a conceptual SPA plan and take it through the formal process. Council would like to have P & Z's assistance during the process. Kerr said Council plans to submit summaries of the meeting to P & Z members so they will know what is going on. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie Lamont, planning office, reminded the Board when they did the scoring of the Greystone Townhomes, the applicant, Buzz Dopkin, was directed to go back and look at alternatives for the wall. Ms. Lamont presented the alternatives he came up with. One thing the P & Z directed him to do was reduce the size of the fence by 40 percent. Ms. Lamont said the applicant is proposing to take out every other brick like a lattice work. The consensus of the Board was they could live with a 4 foot fence, which is a 33 percent reduction. MINUTES JULY 11, 1989 Ms. Tygre moved to approve the minutes of July 11, 1989; seconded by Hunt. All in favor, motion carried. 1 PZM9.5.89 ASPEN MEADOWS SPA PUBLIC HEARING Welton re- opened the public hearing and at the applicant's request the application has been withdrawn. BUZ DOPKIN Leslie: When you did the GMQS scoring for the Buz Dopkin Greystones on Cooper Street you gave Buz 3 alternatives. He and I went to work on an alternative and I came back to you to discuss an alternative that Buz has come up with. You were not satisfied and Buz wanted to come to this meeting tonight and speak to you about that and get clear direction from you on this. Graeme stepped down from this because of a possible conflict of interest. Buz: The problem seems to have arisen when a permit was given to me to build this fence. It dawned on me after we had our previous meeting that it was a ploy on the part of the Building Department to say "Hey, it might have slipped by us about this G 's fence that we are going to be changing how the fence can be put A up ,. But it came to mind to me that at the time that I requested the fence to be put up there the land has always been zoned one thing -- Residential /Multi - Family. Then at a later date they said "Well, it was OK in the beginning because what you were doing in the beginning was only a duplex. So then they came back and said "Well, what can we do to correct our mistake ?" And we will say if you want to go put those other 2 units up there, you are going to have to do one of these 3 alternatives that they gave me at the last meeting that I came for. The other point was that next door that no one knew at the time there exists a 6ft fence there right next door that was grandfathered to all of this. It is really my appeal to you that all of this should be grandfathered to all of the recommendations. If not it is still my prerogative to pursue that as far as I can and I will. The last point was that it was very clearly stated to me and is on record and by the article that I have in the newspaper that I was explicitly told "We are not going to leave this to the discretion of you or the Planning Department. We are going to give you 3 provisos and you will follow one of them ". 3 PZM9.5.89 Again, I am not saying that I am agreeable to that but this is the worst scenario that I promised my buyers who have bought these 2 places. I wouldn't want to jeopardize sales of this size because of some little misunderstanding. It was very clearly stated to me "You will do one of the three ". You will take the whole wall down to 3 feet. You will take down the wall in front of the new area that you wish to build which after the second thought dawned on me what I just told you - -that always was zoned RMF. And the whole thing should absolutely be grandfathered to all of this. And the 3rd proviso was that "You will leave 40% of the wall open ". So I sat down as the designer that I am and tried to do the best that I could with what I was trying to create. There are several architects that complimented me on how well I handled what was done there considering the street, the dirt, the noise and that it was really a great idea and the place looked beautiful. So I came back, made a little sketch of the wall coming down and then being built back up and leaving every other brick out which more than covered the 40% that you requested. Then it comes back to me that you don't like the idea. You like another idea after it is on record. Where is your sense of fairness and decency and of reliability when you tell somebody something and then somebody abides by it and then you say "No ". We think that this whole thing should really not even be before you because it is all totally grandfathered to the new open space ruling. Leslie: If Buz does nothing more to this property the Department feels like "Yes the fence is grandfathered in." But because he is doing major developmental re- development on this parcel that then compliance with the open space becomes an issue. And because the fence is not transparent he is not in compliance with the open space and during the GMP scoring we discussed this and there were 3 options that Buz was given. Richard asked for explanation regarding "grandfathered" as regards this case. Buz: It is different for R -6 or Residential Multi- Family. But they can say - -just her inference right there is exactly what I am talking about. They are saying "We agree that it is all grandfathered, and you are given permission, pay for a permit and you pay to put that wall up there. But now that we have you in a spot that if you would like to build the others we are going to 4 PZM9.5.89 use that to make it come up to the new thing ". That really isn't cricket. Roger: I disagree with what is cricket in this case. I happen to agree with the Planning Office. If you wanted to leave the duplex there, that wall is grandfathered. But now that you are re- developing that property we have the right to look at the part that is - -you are developing that property and it needed to come through approvals so that is a new development on that property and I think we have the perfect right to look at something and improve it and get it closer to conformity, etc. Specifically about that approach with every other brick is - -the portion of every other brick is not 50% opening. It was 40% and the reason for that is I wanted to allow you room for a solid gate if that is what you wanted. So that 40 %, to my mind, was the entire front - -fence and gate, etc. Additionally I look at it as transparency. As soon as you get to a 45 degree angle to that wall all of a sudden the transparency of that wall falls off markedly because of the thickness of the bricks. Transparency should include that 40% when you are off at a 45 degree angle. That, to my mind, is transparency. I feel like staying with that position at this point. That has not gotten to where I felt to where we had agreed to. Bruce: The reason that you want to go with this kind of scheme rather than dropping the whole fence down to 3 or 4 feet is because you represented to your buyers that there will be a 6 foot fence of some kind without regard to whether it is open bricks or closed in? Buz: I took the Board at their good faith and I passed that on to my buyers. Bruce: That is the reason you have selected this option instead of one of the others? Buz: Yes. Michael: Is the reason that the 6 foot wall is there is because you are on Highway 82? Buz: That was my primary basic reason for designing it that way - the dirt, the dust, the noise and the environment. There still has been no mention of a building permit being issued - -me to pay for it and somebody saying "We made a mistake and would like to re- imburse you for this mistake ". 5 PZM9.5.89 Mari: I, too, agree with the Planning Office and it just does not meet the definition of "open to view ". You can't really see through this unless you go up and stick your head right between 2 bricks. I just don't see how this meets the definition. It is not open to view. Michael: If this was a court of law a judge would tell you it is 40% open. If you tell him to make it 40% and it is 40% then it is 40 %. I think what we are not doing is being fair. I wouldn't like to see the west end of Aspen have 6ft fences on it. But I can certainly understand somebody living along the highway looking to have a wall. I just don't see what the benefit to the citizens of Aspen are for the open space on this particular piece of property insofar as it outweighing the benefit to these people having a solid 6ft wall to protect themselves from the highway. When you have open space in a commercial area that is one thing. But this is an area where the open space is of little or no benefit to anybody and the protection afforded by the wall, I think, has a much greater protection to the people living there because of where the property is located. I think that is the consideration you have to look at. Richard: I understand the desire to shut out the highway. I go by that property a lot. In fact I lived on that property once when the old miner's shack was there so that does make me sensitive to it. I find that the presence of the wall there is a major change in the character of the neighborhood, not just the buildings, but the wall itself. So I agree with the staff position on opening it up to keep the transparency. With the re- development of the whole block a solid wall along there and if this becomes the precedent then we are looking at a whole different kind of neighborhood than we have now and I think that we want. Jasmine: I know we were all having trouble coming up with a specific instruction to the applicant as to what would be acceptable in terms of the design. But the intent of what we said and what we wanted to accomplish was very clear in that we wanted to have more of an open feel rather than a wall. The 40% number we did not come up with as any indication that you had to put into an exact formula but as a general indication of how much more open we wanted it to be rather than a specific measurement. I thought that that had been conveyed to the applicant more clearly that we wanted a more open feel rather than relying on the technicality of the 40 %. Apparently he misunderstood that and now he is accusing us of not fulfilling our own technicalities. Yet thinking back on the discussion I don't really believe that was the way the discussion 6 PZM9.5.89 went. And when you came back with this I think everybody said "Well, that is not really what we had in mind when we were talking about making it more open ". And therefor I don't feel that we are being unreasonable in saying "OK you took out 40% but technically we don't like it ". I don't think it was really that technical a discussion to begin with. So I would go along with the Planning Office on this one. Mari: I just think that when we discussed what we meant in our direction, we have to go back to the definition of what an open space is and the definition of open space is defined as open to view from the street. That is why this, to me, does not meet that definition. I am afraid if we agree that this is open to view from the street, how are we going to tell anybody in the future that you can do it but they can't. Buz: I think you have to take into consideration that a building permit was issued that I paid for and I built the wall. Then just to say "We are sorry, too bad, you can't get a building permit there again ". And no responsibility whatsoever on the City's part. And not only once, but twice. Roger: I don't think there is any responsibility on the City's part for the undeveloped piece. You chose to put that wall up there at that time. Then you chose to re- develop that piece later. Well, you have to take the brunt of that. Buz: It is that RMF Zone. It was never zoned anything any differently than what it was. Roger: All right but by the time you decided to re- develop there were some changes. Buz: I didn't re- develop. The zoning did not change. No matter what I put up there, the zoning did not change. Roger: The definition of open space maybe did. And that is the crux of the problem. And the problem is you decided for whatever reason not to develop that piece we are looking at now until now and so it is a problem now so we are having to deal with it. Leslie: My understanding is that when Buz built the fence he was caught in between the changes and he was put on notice that the fence would not comply with the open space when he came back to develop the second parcel. And I also agreed and I still agree that this is something that you guys directed us to work and bring a solution to you and when Buz brought the solution to me we talked about it because to do this he would have to take down the whole fence. 7 PZM9.5.89 The 2 of us talked about when he is taking down the fence maybe to do it in stages so we would have a chance to actually look at a 3ft high fence, a 4ft high fence and talk about alternatives as he was taking down the fence. Before I brought this to you he found a buyer for his property and then just wanted to go with this proposal. So I feel that the 2 of us are at an impasse. That is why I am bringing this to you. Welton: I think you have got 4 fairly consistent voices on this side that the discussion that took place in dealing with transparency and openness and open to view that what was said at that meeting doesn't seem to agree with the solution. The consensus a few weeks ago when you were not able to be here was pretty much the same. That is that the transparency doesn't mean looking through a lace filigree of brick. I think you could just verbally make a suggestion such as a wall that is 60% of the height of the maximum allowable height of a wall ie. a 3ft 8in high wall instead of a 6ft high wall - -or whatever works out to be 60% and ask the Commission if that is more in tune with their thinking for transparency and view to the public way. That is just a suggestion. : ), Roger: As an idea if wanting to retain the 6ft, what about the „ idea of reducing the brick portion down to 3 or 3ft 8in and then having an open iron fence on top of that? That is a very common type of fence and it is a very transparent one. The iron fence around the Sardy House for example, you hardly see the thing because it is so open. Maybe some combination of iron fence on top of a brick wall. Welton: I think Roger made you a suggestion. I think it is real obvious to me, not having been party to the first meeting, what happened at that first meeting. That was that the goal is the community's visual feeling of open space for this property not be walled off behind a very impenetrable plain. You are going to have to come up with a solution that can accomplish that. 1 Buz: The last thing I heard is that the solid wall can be up to \oft. Am I to take that as if we can come up with something and again I have my last plea to the Council on all of it is that if we do have the wall up to 4ft that if there is some sort of wrought iron thing up above it that is almost totally open, is that acceptable? Welton: Does anybody on Commission have a reaction that that sort of thing is acceptable - -not necessarily 4ft but say 60% of what is -- _. 8 PZM9.5.89 Bruce: I am the one who made the statement regarding the 4ft. solid wall. I said I would rather have 33.3% open and have a 4ft solid fence because I thought it was more in compliance with what our idea was of open space - -being able to see over it and not be totally walled off. I said "If it means 4ft instead of aft Bin or whatever the exact percent figure is I could buy into the 4ft fence. And I wouldn't care if you have an iron grate on top of it or not. Jasmine: I just don't want to get tied down to a specific measurement like that. And I don't think that is fair because it is going to be misinterpreted again. I think you understand what we are trying to accomplish here. I really think it is up to you to talk to your buyers, find out what is acceptable to them, and then come back to us. Welton: 60% would be 43) inches tall. Mari: It seems to me like we are going to have to define exactly what it is that is acceptable. We have said what we want to accomplish but it does look like we are going to have to define exactly what is acceptable. Welton: Something in the neighborhood of a wall 60% of the maximum allowed that has some sort of transparent features such as wrought iron work on top of it as suggested by Roger and Bruce. Does something like that strike you as being something that can be responded to favorably? Mari: I would respond favorably as long as it is open to view. As far as I am concerned if it is only 4ft high it is open to view. And if it has an iron fence above the 4ft it still is open to view. (Richard: We can argue about ap or but that is ball park. CURB & GUTTER /SIDEWALK (NOT ON AGENDA) Chuck Roth, Engineering Dept.: Does somebody want to talk about curb and gutter and sidewalk? I am going back to Council with this on Monday night. Graeme: I don't know what you are referring to and I didn't have any input in having you come here but I was one of the ones who was pretty much against putting sidewalks in the west end. Something might be acceptable to me if it came out of the street so the street became narrower. The curb might stay where it is and I think on certain streets that would, in my opinion, maybe be a good approach. Then you might take 4ft of the street and 9 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN ALLOCATE THE 1988 RESIDENTIAL GMQS ALLOTMENT TO THE . GREYSTONES AND THE SPORTSTALKER APARTMENTS Resolution No. 89- WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8 -106 of the Aspen Land Use Code, November 1 of each year is established as the deadline for submission of applications for Residential allotments within the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, because of the administrative delay regarding Ordinance 47 (Series of 1988), the submission date for 1988 Residential GMQS applications was postponed until May 15, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office has calculated the Residential GMQS quota available for 1988 as 17 units: 39 units being the annual allocation, less 26 units built pursuant to exemptions, plus 4 units that were allocated but the right to develop has expired; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission ") on July 18, 1989 to consider the Growth Management Quota System competition for Residential Units, at which time the Commission did evaluate and score the only two applications that were received: the Cooper Avenue Greystones and the Sportstalker Apartments; and WHEREAS, the Commission found that the projects successfully met the minimum required threshold of 33.6 points, the Greystones receiving 34 points and the Sportstalker receiving 35.5 points; and WHEREAS, review of the GMQS application for the Greystones was consolidated with subdivision review, and review of the method by which the applicant proposes to provide affordable housing; and WHEREAS, review of the GMQS application for the Sportstalker Apartment was consolidated with subdivision review, GMQS Exemption for on -site affordable housing, conditional use review, special reviews for parking and trash area reduction; and WHEREAS, the Commission recommended the adoption of the Planning Office's scoring subject to the following conditions: Cooper Avenue Greystones 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall reduce the size of the fence, along the front of the property, by 40 %. Revised plans shall be '.• reviewed by the Planning Department. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall make a one time payment -in -lieu indexed to the current affordable housing guidelines in affect .. at the time of payment. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall file a deed restriction for a low - income studio unit on -site. The unit shall be deed restricted to low- income and rented pursuant to the Housing Authority Guidelines. 4. The applicant shall submit a final plat meeting the requirements of Section 7 -1004 D(2) for review by the Planning Office, Engineering Department and City Attorney prior to final subdivision review by City Council. 5. The applicant shall advise and submit plans for hook up to the Aspen Water Department before connecting to the steel line. ,r, 8. There shall not be any food service operation located on the property without a re- evaluation of the special review approval granted to reduce the size of the trash area. 9. The applicant shall install a trash compactor for boxes and similar materials prior to the occupancy of any of the residential units on the property. 10. The applicant shall obtain a growth management allotment from the Council prior to obtaining final subdivision or GMQS approval for the project. In order to obtain the allotment, all material representations and commitments of the project shall become conditions of its approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby forward its scores of 34 points for the Greystones and 35.5 for the Sportstalker Apartments, with the above conditions to the Aspen City Council. • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Commission that it recommends to the Aspen City Council subdivision approval and GMQS Exemption for the Sportstalker Apartments. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Commission that it recommends to the Aspen City Council subdivision approval, GMQS Exemption, and acceptance of cash -in -lieu for the Cooper Avenue Greystones. APPROVED by the Commission at their regular meeting on November 21, 1989. ATTEST: ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk C. Welton Anderson, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Fred Gannett, Amy Margerum, City Attorney Planning Director 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office RE: Cooper Avenue Greystones Residential GMP DATE: July 18, 1989 SUMMARY: The applicant requests a two unit residential growth management allotment. The applicant proposes to build two 2 bedroom dwelling units, located at 810 -816 East Cooper Avenue, lots M, N, 0, block 111. This proposal represents the attachment of a third and fourth unit onto an existing 2 unit building making it a multi - family structure which is subject to the GMP review process. Please find attached our recommended scoring of this proposal. The score exceeds the minimum competitive threshold, therefore if the Commission's score meets or exceeds this recommendation, the project will be eligible for an allotment from Council. BACKGROUND: During the last year, the applicant built and condominiumized a new duplex on a 9,000 square foot lot. Now the applicant wishes to complete the project by attaching another two units onto the existing building. Review of this proposal shall also include subdivision review and review of the payment -in -lieu for affordable housing. APPLICANT: Harlan "Buzz" Dopkin, represented by John LaSalle LOCATION: 810 -816 East Cooper Avenue, City of Aspen ZONING: RMF STAFF COMMENTS: Review of the proposal pursuant to the criteria for subdivision and cash -in -lieu is as follows: A. Subdivision Because the applicant is creating a multi - family structure with the addition of two more units for a total of 4 dwelling units the Aspen Land Use Regulations require subdivision review. This project, however is not dividing the property into separate parcels of land; thus many subdivision review standards do not apply. Those issues that are of concern follow: 1. Pursuant to Section 7 -1004 C. 1(d), the proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this chapter. This proposal does not comply with the minimum 35% open space requirement in the RMF zone district because according to Section 3 -101 of the Land Use Code, open space is defined as areas that "shall be open to view from the street at pedestrian level. Fences or walls shall only be permitted within or around the perimeter of open space if such structure shall permit views from the street into and throughout the open space." When the first two units were built, the applicant built a six foot high masonry fence along the front boundary of the entire property. At the time, the open space definition in the prior Code was somewhat unclear and appeared to permit fences around open space. When the fence was built, the applicant was put on notice that the open space requirement was changing with the adoption of the new Code. Since the applicant is developing additional land area (land that is currently vacant) without providing open space pursuant to the Code, we view the nonconformity of the project as increasing. Moreover, the fence is incompatible with the surrounding parcels and presents a harsh and hard surface onto Cooper Street, one of the gateways into Aspen. Most of the surrounding buildings, which are also multi - family, have a variety of vegetation along their borders while the two single family homes adjacent to the project, have small, 3 foot high, wooden fences bordering their front yards. Unless the applicant can create a more transparent barrier in an attempt to comply with the spirit of the open space provision, this proposal does not comply with the Code. Perhaps the applicant could explore making holes in the fence or eliminating sections of the fence to increase the feeling of openness. 2. The applicant shall prepare a final plat and all necessary specification prior to subdivision review by City Council. 3. Should the application elect to connect to the old 5.5" steel water line, it will be necessary to purchase a special saddle for the main. The applicant shall advise and submit plans for hook up to the Aspen Water Department before connecting to the steel line. 4. All required survey monuments shall be supplied by the applicant's survey company. 5. A complete storm drainage report has been submitted to the Engineering Department. It is necessary for the Engineering Department to review and approve the report based upon the proposal for the additional two units. 6. It is necessary for the applicant to submit dry well plans to the Sanitation District to ensure that no clear water connections are made to their system. 2 We can only recommend subdivision approval if the applicant is able to bring the project into conformance with the spirit (if not the letter) of the law regarding open space requirements. The Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to review revised plans of the fence before making a recommendation to Council. B. Payment -in -lieu for Affordable Housing Pursuant to Section 8 -109 J of the Aspen Land Use Code, the method by which an applicant proposes to provide affordable housing shall be at the option of the Aspen City Council, upon recommendation of the Commission. When considering the applicant's proposal the following criteria should apply: 1. Whether the City has an adopted plan to develop affordable housing with monies received from payment of affordable housing dedication fees. Response: The Housing Authority does have a housing trust designed for the production of affordable housing within the city and county. 2. Whether the City has an adopted plan identifying the applicant's site as being appropriate for affordable housing. Response: No plan has identified the site for affordable housing. 3. Whether the applicant's site is well suited for the development of affordable housing, taking into account the availability of services, proximity to employment opportunities and whether the site is affected by environmental constraints to development or historic preservation concerns. Response: The site is well suited for affordable housing development as it is within close proximity to many city services as well as transportation services. 4. Whether the method proposed will result in employee housing being produced prior to or at the time the impacts of the development will be experienced by the community. Response: It is unlikely that affordable housing will be produced using payment -in -lieu monies prior to the completion of the Greystones. 5. Whether the development itself requires the provision of affordable housing on -site to meet its service needs. Response: The applicant has not indicated that the proposal will require on -site service needs. 3 Upon review of the floor plans, staff believes it is possible to provide 50% of the total number of bedrooms built on -site as affordable housing. The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 25% of the total bedroom count as affordable housing and this is certainly possible. In summary: the close proximity of city services, the existence of free market and affordable housing in the neighborhood, the inability of off -site housing to be built before the Greystones are completed, and the capacity of the project to support on -site affordable housing provide the catalyst for staff to recommend the provision of at least 1 one bedroom dwelling unit, housing 1.75 persons, on -site. Should the Commission concur with the staff's recommendation then there would also be a commensurate reduction to the generous payment -in -lieu offer, to approximately $97,500. With the provision of an affordable housing unit on -site, the applicant may also propose to reduce the parking requirements, through special review. The Commission may elect to waive the parking requirement concurrent with this review and to grant GMQS exemption for the new 1 bedroom low income unit. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends that P &Z approve the following motions: "Move to recommend that Council grant subdivision approval." "Move to recommend that Council accept the payment -in -lieu of approximately $97,500 for affordable housing and the 1 one bedroom low income apartment." Conditions of these motions should be as follows: 1. The applicant shall reduce the size of the fence, along the front of the property, by 40 %. Revised plans shall be reviewed by the Planning Department. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall make a one time payment -in -lieu indexed to the current affordable housing guidelines in affect at the time of payment. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permit, the applicant shall file a deed restriction for a low- income studio unit on -site. The unit shall be deed restricted to low income and rented pursuant to the Housing Authority Guidelines. 4. The applicant shall submit a final plat meeting the requirements of Section 7 -1004 D(2) for review by the Planning Office, Engineering Department and City Attorney prior to final subdivision review by City Council. 4 5. The applicant shall advise and submit plans for hook up to the Aspen Water Department before connecting to the steel line. 6. All required survey monuments shall be supplied by the applicant's survey company. 7. A complete storm drainage report shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department before issuance of a building permit. 8. The applicant shall submit dry well plans to the Sanitation District before issuance of a building permit. ljl /grey 5 i 7 / MEMORANDUM -TOT City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Electric Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Eire&Marsha11 `` o IOW Debbie Skehan, Planning Office RE: 1989 Residential GMQS Competition: 1. SportStalker Apartments Subdivision /Residential GMQS, Alan Richman 2. Cooper Avenue Greystones GMQS /Subdivision, Leslie Lamont DATE: June 5, 1989 Attached for your review and comments are the two application for Residential GMQS allotments in 1989. Please review this material and return your comments no later than July 5th. Thank you. r 4 -e �ru / > • - I- C •//�' Aspen (9onsolidated Sanitation )istlrict 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. 13031 925-3601 Tele. 1303) 925-2537 July 3. 1989 Debbie Skehan Planning Office it 5 130 S. Galena .N� Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Cooper Ave. Greystones GMQS/ Subdivision Dear Debbie: We have commented as to our ability to provide service for this project. Our initial comments remain accurate. The application refers to underground parking and a heated apron which are to be drained to a dry well beneath the driveway. We are required by the Clean Water Act to ensure that no clear water connections are made to our system. At some point during the review process we will need to review a sketch of the dry well, the connections to it. and it's capacity. This information could be forwarded to us from the applicant's engineer. The applicant will need to take a tap permit out through the District office, which will estimate the connection costs, and protects the applicant from rate increases for ninety days. Prior to the actual connection for service we will need to do a final fixture count. All associated fees and paperwork must be completed prior to the actual connection. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager cc: Mr. Buzz Dopkin CC y\,)i rcryinn\thlAi 1q1:1: ' . • .)6 , - r' ( ( 9 ' c (... -e.., ( , i 6 , / r ---- it ' ' ( 2 r - A 2 ' \ / ' i . • ( j ( , ii /o :-,, ./- e - 1 , f P .. ■ . • - . ' '` rt r • ' " 7•511 ) , ./ 4 ___ ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT TO: Leslie Lamont FROM: Jim Markalunas SUBJECT: 7 / 12 / 6 Cooper, The Greystones DATE: 7/12/89 , W ai k usja We have reviewed the ication for The Greystones and wish to note that should they elect to connect to the old 5.5" steel line, it will be necessary to purchase a special saddle for the main. Please advise us so we can obtain the saddle. Water will be available to the project upon application and payment of the prerequisite permits. cc: Buzz Dopkin MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department Date: June 26, 1989 Re: Cooper Avenue Greystones - GMQS Competition The Engineering Department has the following comments on the above application: 1. Water - the project can be serviced with the existing water system in Cooper. The applicant has indicated that it will not be necessary to dig up the asphalted road to access the water line. Recommended score - 1 point 2. Sewer Service - the sewer line in the alley can adequately service this project. Recommended score - 1 point 3. Storm Drainage - we require that the applicant maintain the historic drainage through a drywell system. This project has a slanted driveway off the alley that will collect alley runoff. The new section of this project should also have drains in the driveway to collect alley runoff and runoff from the site. The addition of these drywells has not improved the overall effectiveness of the City's drainage system, it has just maintained the historic runoff. Recommended score - 1 point / 4. Parking - the design provides one parking space per bedroom, as required in the code. However, it seems as though the area noted as "gym" on the plans could a third bedroom. The project states that it provides additional parking in the driveway. We feel that any driveway over 6% grade is too steep to be considered for a parking space. If the steepness of the driveway could be reduced, then we would support a score of 2 points for this. Recommended score - 1 point 5. Roads - the roads is this area are adequate to service this project. This project does not improve the quality or service of the adjacent streets. To achieve this, we would recommend that the applicant agree to pave the alley. Recommended score - 1 point 6. Sidewalks - the applicant has constructed a sidewalk in front of this project which improves pedestrian circulation. However, according to Resolution 19 of 1975, this project is in the boundary where sidewalk, curb and gutter are required of every new construction. No curb and gutter has been constructed. Addition of curb and gutter might help to keep runoff from Cooper Street from going onto this project. We are not requiring that curb and gutter be installed because it does not exist anywhere else on this block. The drainage from Cooper Street is sometimes a problem, but since Cooper Street in Highway 82, it should be up to the Department of Highways to rectify the problem. (We have requested this from the Department of Highways). Recommended score (Trails category) - 2 points MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Office FROM: Janet Raczak, Housing JUL 1 4 RE: The Greystones - Residentual GMQ Submission DATE: July 5, 1989 REQUEST: This project, located at 810 -816 E. Cooper, is an existing duplex with 4 total bedrooms, containing 4,240 s.f. The applicant proposes to build two additional 2 bedroom free market units, and proposes a payment -in -lieu, and /or caretaker housing, or a combination of the two. REVIEW: The applicant proposes to build two 2 bedroom free market units, and proposes a payment in lieu of $150,000 or a caretaker unit with an adjustment to the payment in lieu amount. Unit Type People /Unit Total People 2 Free Market 2 BR 2.25 4.50 Payment In Lieu 5 = $30,000 /low 5.00 Total People Housed: 9,'0 % People in Affordable Housing: 5 of the 9 people are housed in affordable housing, equals 52% housed in affordable housing. POINTS: 52/5 = 10.5 x 1 point = 10.5 points (one point for every 5 percent housed in low income units) The applicant's proposal of $150,000, is intended to supply payment in lieu of 110% of the total number of persons to be housed in the low income schedule. However, the applicant has miscalculated and a payment of $150,000 provides only 52% of the projects people to be housed via employee housing /payment -in -lieu. ($150,000/$30,000 = 5 low income employees payment -in- lieu). CARETAKER UNIT REVIEW: The applicant has indicated that they may wish to construct a caretaker unit. According to Ordinance 47, the caretaker unit cannot be used to meet any of the GMQS requirements with respect to employee housing provisions. Therefore, if the applicant still chooses to provide a caretaker unit, it should be reviewed under the provisions of Ordinance 47. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the applicants proposal to provide a payment -in -lieu but requiring a payment of at least 60% of the project's residents housed and that the amount must be calculated based on the Guidelines in adoption at the time of issuance of a Building Permit. GREYSTON.LUA CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION Project: Greystones Date: 7/18/89 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services (maximum 12 points) Each Development Application shall be rated as follows with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services, by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new public facilities and services at increased public expense. 1 -- Proposed development may be handled by, existing public facilities and services, or any public facility service improvement made by the applicant benefits the proposed development only, and not the area in general. 2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of public facilities and services in the area. a. WATER SERVICE (maximum 2 points): Considering the ability of the water supply system to serve the proposed development as well as the applicant's commitment to install any potable water facility extensions or treatment plant, or other facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: The proiect will hook up with the existing public facilities and services system. According to Jim Markalunas this proposal does not require the provision of increased services. b. SANITARY SEWER (maximum 2 points): Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development as well as the applicant's commitment to install any sanitary sewer extensions or treatment plant, or other facility upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 1 1 COMMENTS: The existing sewer facilities are adequate to serve the proposal. c. STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points): Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the development site. If the proposed development requires use of the City's drainage system, consideration of the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long- term shall be made. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: The applicant proposes to install drvwells identical to what was approved by the Engineering Department for the first 2 units. The system will only maintain the historic drainage pattern, not improve it. Existing public facilities are adequate to service the proposal. d. FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points): Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide any fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: The project is in line with fire protection standards. It is within close proximity of the Fire Department. There are no public facilities improvements required of this project. e. PARKING DESIGN (maximum 2 points): Considering the provision of adequate off - street parking spaces to meet the needs of the proposed development, pursuant to the requirements of Art. 5, Div. 2, and considering their visual impact, the amount of paved surface, and the 2 convenience and safety of the spaces provided. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: The application provides enough parking to meet the requirements of the Code only. f. ROADS (maximum 2 points): Considering the capacity of major roads to serve the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns, creating safety hazards or maintenance problems, overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Considering the applicant's commitment to install the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: Impacts of this project on the road system should be manageable, the applicant proposes a small indentation at curbside to help ease a potentially congested traffic situation. 2. Quality of Design (maximum 12 points) Each Development Application shall be rated based upon its site design and amenities by the assigning of points for neighborhood compatibility, site design, trails, and green space, according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- A totally deficient design 1 -- A major design flaw 2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- An excellent design a. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY (maximum 3 points): Considering the compatibility of the proposed development (including its scale, siting, massing, height and building materials) with the land uses in the surrounding neighborhood. RATING: 2 3 COMMENTS: This is a multi - family neighborhood with large buildings. Setbacks are small as is yard space. The design of the proiect is standard for this area as there is a wide variety of architectural styles within the neighborhood. The design does little to break up the massing on the site, on the contrary, the scale of the proiect (both existing and proposed) is large and bulky appearing to engulf the parcel. When the proiect is complete it may well have a commanding presence especially juxtaposed next to the small single - family homes to the east. The building materials used are unique and are somewhat uncharacteristic of the predominantly wood structures in the surrounding neighborhood. b. SITE DESIGN (maximum 3 points): Considering the quality and character of the following components of the proposed development: landscaping and open space areas; the amount of site coverage by buildings; the extent to which clustering of development is used to preserve key features of the site; the amenities provided for residents such as bike racks, recreation facilities, bus shelters and similar improvements; the extent of underground utilities; and the arrangement of improvements for efficient circulation, including access for service, increased safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage areas. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: There is a requirement in the Code that requires open space to be open to view from the street. The applicant has erected an approximately 6' high solid masonry fence along the entire front property line. Very little landscaping has been provided on site and site coverage is 4 basic following setback requirements without enhancing the site. No amenities are provided for on site. c. TRAILS (maximum 3 points): Considering the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provision of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: A sidewalk has been put on site. however. sidewalk. curbs and gutters are required of all new development in this area. A sidewalk is a standard provision. d. GREEN SPACE (maximum 3 points): Considering the amount of vegetated open space in the proposed development which is usable by the residents of the proposed development, and offers relief from the densities of surrounding development. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: As stated above. the proposal does not comply with the open space requirements of the Code. and this is a major flaw in the provision of green space. The maiority of the rear yard is driveway. The fence is incompatible with surrounding land uses as most parcels have either vegetative buffers. while the houses to the east have small (3') wood fences. 3. Resource Conservation Techniques (maximum 6 points) Each Development Application shall be rated based on the resource conservation techniques for energy, water and wastewater, and air, by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development fails to meet the standards of the Municipal Code or does not result in a net conservation of resources 1 -- Proposed development meets the standards of the 5 Municipal Code or results in a standard level of resource conservation 2 -- Proposed development exceeds the standards of the Municipal Code or results in an exceptional level of resource conservation a. ENERGY (maximum 2 points): Considering the extent to which the proposed development will use passive and /or active energy conservation techniques in its construction, including but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient woodburning devices; and the location of the proposed development, relative to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably result in energy conservation. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: For wall insulation, "Foil Rav" is being used to increase the side wall insulation factor to 20.79. Ceiling insulation is being doubled to achieve an R value of 38. Tinted skylights are also being included. Gas is being utilized as much as possible. Although the conservation techniques are not unusual they do slightly exceed the standards of the Municipal Code. b. WATER AND WASTEWATER (maximum 2 points): Considering the extent to which the proposed development will use water conservation techniques such as water conserving plumbing fixtures or wastewater reuse systems or will conserve surface water resources through irrigation, sprinkling, ponding and similar site enhancements, and considering whether the applicant dedicates water rights to the City of Aspen. RATING: 1.5 COMMENTS: All possible water saving devices will be installed. However, the application does not specify the amount of water to be saved or list the types of water 6 saving devises. The proposal meets the standards of the Code and on -site storm water containment is included in the proposal. c. AIR (maximum 2 points): Considering the effect of the proposed development on the City's air quality, including but not limited to whether fewer or cleaner woodburning devices than allowed by law will be installed; whether existing dirty burning devices will be removed or replaced by cleaner burning devices; whether dust prevention measures are employed on the unpaved areas; and whether any special emission control devices are used. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: No wood burning devices are being provided. This exceeds the standards of Municipal Code. 4. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points) Each Development Application shall be rated based on its proximity to public transportation and community commercial facilities by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations: a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (maximum 3 points): 1 -- Proposed development is located further than six (6) blocks walking distance from an existing bus route 2 -- Proposed development is located within six (6) blocks walking distance of an existing bus route 3 -- Proposed development is located within two (2) City blocks walking distance of an existing bus route RATING: 3 b. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FACILITIES (maximum 3 points): 1 -- Proposed development is located further than six (6) blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in the City. 2 -- Proposed development is located within six (6) blocks walking distance of the commercial 7 facilities in the City. 3 -- Proposed development is located within two (2) blocks walking distance of commercial facilities in the City. RATING: 3 For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. The Planning Agency office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in the City to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 5. PROVISION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 20 points) Each Development Application shall be assigned points for the provision of affordable housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City, and with the provisions of Sec. 8 -109. ASSIGNMENT OF POINTS: Points shall be assigned as follows: i) One (1) point shall be assigned for every five (5 %) percent of the proposed development that is restricted to use by occupants meeting the low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations; ii) One (1) point shall be assigned for every ten (10 %) percent of the proposed development that is restricted to use by occupants meeting the moderate income price guidelines, and moderate income occupancy limitations; iii) One (1) point shall be assigned for every twenty (20 %) percent of the proposed development that is restricted to use by occupants meeting the middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. In order to determine what percent of the proposed development is restricted to affordable housing, the Commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the proposed development with the number or persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria: Studio: 1.25 residents; One - bedroom: 1.75 residents; Two - bedroom: 2.25 residents; Three - bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of space 8 For the purposes of this section, the proposed development shall be considered to include the number of persons in the free market units plus those in the employee units, regardless of whether employee housing is provided on -site, off -site or via cash -in -lieu of housing. a. Low Income Housing Provided (One (1) point for each five (5) percent housed. RATING: 10.5 COMMENTS: The applicant incorrectly calculated this score and is only providing 52% of the project as affordable housing in a payment -in -lieu. Acceptance of the payment or requirement to provide housing is at Council's discretion. b. Moderate Income Housing provided (One point for each ten (10 %) percent housed. RATING: COMMENTS: c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One point for each twenty (20 %) percent housed. RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 34 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 5 points) RATING: 0 9 SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 4.8 6 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 4.8 6 3. RESOURCE CONSERVATION TECHNIQUES 2.4 5.5 3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 2.4 6 4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR 7 10.5 MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING 5. BONUS POINTS: 0 0 TOTAL POINTS: 33.6 34 Name of P &Z Commission Member: PLANNING OFFICE 10 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman and Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: 1988 Residential GMP Scoring DATE: July 18, 1989 Attached for your review is the recommended scoring for two residential GMP projects. The Planning Office staff met to review these recommendation and provides them to you as a consensus of the Office. These applications would have been submitted on November 1, 1988, however as a result of the administrative delay regarding Ordinance 47 the submission date for 1988 residential GMP submissions was postponed until May 15 1989. The deadline for 1989 residential GMP submissions is November 1, 1989. The two Residential GMP applications are as follows: Name Free Market Units Affordable Housing Sportstalker Apartments 1 Proposal Cooper Avenue Greystones 2 4 units $150,000 The Planning Office has calculated the residential quota available for 1988 as 17 units: The methodology used for this calculation is as follows: 1. Annual quota = 39 units 2. 8 excess allotments were granted to 925 Durant and 771 Ute -8 units 3. No allotments were carried over from prior years = 0 units 4. 18 units "net" were built pursuant to exemptions -18 units 5 . Sunny Park expiration = + 4 units 1units Clearly there are more units available for 1988 than have been requested, therefore if the applicants meet the threshold requirements, then each should receive their requested allotments. Given the critical shortfall of affordable housing in the City, the Planning Department recommends that the units which are not allocated not be carried over to 1989 for free market units. Rather, these units should be "set aside" for affordable housing. To summarize the review process, the Department recommends that the "auxiliary" reviews for each project take place first, followed by the GMP scoring for each project. For your information, we have included a table summarizing the staff recommend scores of both projects. Scoring Minimum Sportstalker Greystones Categories Threshold Points 1. Public Facilities 4.8 6 6 2. Quality of Design 4.8 6.5 6 3. Resource Conservation Techniques 2.4 5.5 5.5 4. Proximity of Support Services 2.4 6 6 5. Provision of Low, Moderate or Middle Income Housing 7 11.5 10.5 6. Bonus Points 0 0 0 Total Points 33.6 35.5 34 lj1 /cover88gmp 2 (f SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR THE GREYSTONES 810 -816 E. Cooper Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Submitted by Mr. Buzz Dopkin P.O. Box 4696 Aspen, Colorado 81612 (303) 925 -7488 4 Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 supplied with the GMP Application. Attachment 3 - Specific Submission Content: I have met with Elise at the Engineering Department and all information requested in this attachment A to E have been supplied by Alpine Survey to her department. (g) No change in the landscaping will be done and no large trees exist. (h) No hazards exist. (i) Does not apply. (j) See Attachment 3 of GMP. (k) See Attachment 3 (e). (1) See site plan GMP page 8 -D. (m) Does not apply. (n) See Attachment 3 GMP a, b, c, d. (1) (a - f) Alpine Survey has supplied this information to the Engineering Department. (2) and (3) Alpine Survey has supplied this information to the Engineering Department. (4) Title policy has been supplied with the GMP Application. (5) through (7) Are forthcoming with final approval of the Engineering Department. (8) All utilities exist on site and detailed analysis of our storm drain system has been received by the Engineering Department. (9) Landscape: See Attached Landscape Plan "A" at end of report. (10) Has been provided by Alpine Survey. (11) None (12) None Attachment #4 - Review Standards: 1. General requirements. (a) The existing area (see Zoning Map GMP page 8 -H). Also building has been kept to a low -scale with most appropriate architecture in accordance with comprehensive plan. (b) There are three buildings in our block that are multi - family housing (four or more units) and it is my understanding a sizeable complex is to be constructed across the street in the near future. (c) To the contrary (see page 12 neighborhood compatible of GMP) (d) All explained in GMP Application and meets all requirements. 2. Suitability of land for subdivision. (a) Not applicable. (b) Not applicable. 3. Improvements a. Required improvements (1) Complied with. (2) Complied with. (3) Complied with. (4) Alley exists. (5) Existing (6) Existing (7) Existing (8) Existing (9) Existing (10) Existing (11) Existing (12) Does not apply (13) Existing (underground) (14) Existing (15) Existing (16) Existing b. Approved plans All construction is complete. c. Oversized utilities No oversized utilities are required. 4. Design Standards a. Streets and related improvements. All streets and related improvements exist. (1) No extension necessary. (2) through (20) not applicable. (21) Street sign exists. (22) Traffic control sign exists. (23) Street lights exist. (24) All trees exist. b. Easements (1) through (8) does not apply. c. Lots and blocks (1) through (8) does not apply. d. Survey monuments (1) through (3) All required monuments supplied by our survey company, Alpine Survey. e. Utilities (1) through (7) See Attachment 3, specific submission of GMP pages 1 through 4. b. Storm drainage (1) through (4) Complete report has been submitted to your Engineering Department by Banner & Associates, Engineers. c. Flood hazard area. Does not apply. - . 7 ALL.tr eSCCY" II I W••••••X•••• ■ •••• , ., — / I N.I / / • * .?-1 04 .4 i , o FENCE; t_YABIIINC / • 91 _9 • - 81 / j , / , / • a / / ..- - / . . / / --. // i ewe, I goad i No 612- / 81+ tic, 1 t, =Feta i e. =Fes es 'active,* i e:c=Pes 1 - i ____ / . / 13Lu CLUMP -.% 1 - 1 0-fis.ni r-I tea • ) A5pEkl 54 b ttli 9 • TRC-55 k C : 4 de i lz415111a eoty" wciew _a170 spRuc ANSAL - - - - - - c a 2 p t s a b i \ l t t i - C r - i i - t i t FjpoE12. c asaic4 km_ -4 e ET weer Inc . 3 - rsert PLA > f* LANDsGRE PLAN • :4 r=2.12 a PUBLIC NOTICE RE: COOPER STREET GREYSTONES RESIDENTIAL GMQS APPLICATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on July 18, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 to consider an application submitted by Buzz Dopkin requesting GMQS allotments for two (2) bedroom free market units to complete a four plex on a 9,000 square foot lot located at 810 -816 East Cooper Ave, Lots M, N, 0, . Block 111. For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 920 -5090. s /C. Welton Anderson. Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on June 29, 1989. City of Aspen Account. MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Electric Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Fire Marshall FROM: Debbie Skehan, Planning Office RE: 1989 Residential GMQS Competition: 1. SportStalker Apartments Subdivision /Residential GMQS, Alan Richman 2. Cooper Avenue Greystones GMQS /Subdivision, Leslie Lamont DATE: June 5, 1989 Attached for your review and comments are the two application for Residential GMQS allotments in 1989. Please review this material and return your comments no later than July 5th. Thank you. ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -5090 June 5, 1989 Buzz Dopkin P. O. Box 4696 Aspen, Colorado 81612 RE: Cooper Avenue Greystones Residential GMQS /Subdivision Dear Buzz, This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application is complete with the exception of the subdivision review standards. We have scheduled your application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing on Tuesday, July 18, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to your application is available at the Planning Office. For the public hearing you are required to post a sign on the property and mail notices to adjacent landowners. If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -5090 Mr. Buzz Dopkin P.O. Box 4696 Aspen, Co., 81612 RE: Cooper Avenue Greystones Residential GMQS Dear Buzz, This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application IS NOT complete. In order to complete the application, you will need to provide us with the required application fee. The fee for all GMQS applications is $2,700, plus $50 for a housing referral and $200 for the Engineering referral, for a total fee of $2,950. I know there was some question in your mind as to the applicability of this fee to your proposal. Please be aware that the fee equates to 20 hours of planning staff review time for your application. Any unused hours will be refunded to you at the rate of $135 per hour. Any time above 20 hours spent on the project will be billed to you at the rate of $85 per hour. Your application is also incomplete because it does not address the subdivision review standards and procedures. The addition of the third and fourth residential units to this building makes it a multi- family structure, which, by definition, is subject to subdivision review. I suggest we meet immediately to go over the subdivision review procedure. A complete subdivision submission must be made as soon as possible so that we can consolidate the project's review procedures, allowing you to finish the land use application process as expeditiously as possible. I would like you to be aware of one additional issue which will arise during the review of this application, so that you can begin preparing your response. As you recall, when the fence was built around this property the Planning and Zoning staff expressed concern that it did not meet the requirements of the new Code. You correctly pointed out that the fence was being built pursuant to the prior regulations and it was permitted to stand. I would caution you that the present design of the site means that there is no open space on the property, since it is all hidden from pedestrian view. Since the new construction is proposed under the current regulations, we will be evaluating whether or not this nonconforming situation must be rectified. Our analysis of this issue will be reported to P &Z and Council for final determination. Any arguments you wish to offer will be welcome, either prior to or at the P &Z meeting. We are holding off setting a date for the residential GMQS scoring until we hear back from you and the other applicant, who also has some technical additions to make. Please make all efforts to complete this application on or before June 1 so that we can initiate the referral process. Sincerely, Leslie L ont Planner frm.incomplete.greystones ATTACHMENT 1 ' ...AMUSE APPLICATION FORS 1) PLVject Nam Cooper Avenue Greystones 2) Project Location 810 -816 E. Cooper Avenue Lots M, N, 0, Block 111 (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) 3) Present Zoning RMF 4) Int size 90 x 100 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # Buzz Dopkin, Box 4696, Aspen, CO 81612 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # John D. LaSalle 530 E. Main Street. Aspen. CO 81611 (303) 925 - 6633 7) Type of Application (please Check all that apply): — Conditional Use — Conceptual SPA — Conceptual Historic Dev. _ Special Review — Final SPA — Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline PUD — Minor Historic Dev. 1 — Stream Margie — Final PUD _ Historic_ Demolition — Mountain View Plane X. Subdivision — Historic Designation Condaniniumization Text/Map Amendment X r All —` — Lot Split/Lot Line ' GCS EXemp ion Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses ( nmber and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the Pro Pert') - An existing duplex consisting of two bedrooms each (total 4 bedrooms), total square footage, 4,270 9) Description of Development Application Two matching units attached to the existing duplex of the same size and shape. 10) Have you attac3aed the following? YPS Rye to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents Yos Response to Attactnnent 3, Specific Sntmission Cbntents Vec Response to Attadunent 4, Review Standards for Your Application ATTACHMENT 2 1. See letter attached. (Applicant's name, address, etc.) 2. Address & Legal Description: 810 to 816 E. Cooper Avenue, Lots M, N, 0, Block 111, City of Aspen, Aspen, Colorado 3. Certificate From Title Insurance Company. See attached. 4. Vicinity Map. Enclosed. 5. Substantive Development Review. See Review Standards Attached #4. May 15,1989 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I, Buzz Dopkin, am the owner of the property at 810 to 816 E. Cooper Avenue. John D. LaSalle, Esq. is authorized to act on my behalf on this project. His address is 530 E. Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611, 303) 925 -6633. S'nc e; Z - z z Dop - -A 2112 McLain 'rats Road P.O. Box 4696 Aspen, CO 81612 (303) 925 -7488 • 4 Prepared for CC's to: Carol Dopkin Real Estate Carol Dopkin Real Estate 520 E. Cooper, Suite 15 SCHEDULE A Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Ms. Carol Dopkin Customer Reference: Greystones Inquiries should be directed OF No. 400375 -C to Norman E. Larkins NL /nl 1. Effective date: March 21, 1989 at 7 :00 A.M. 2. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount (a) r -! ALTA Owners Policy — Form — 1970 $ _ Proposed Insured: TO BE DETERMINED (h) • ALTA Standard Loan Policy. Coverage — 1970 Proposed Insured: 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: FEE s Title to said estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: HARLAN DOPKIN 5. The Inr referrer) to in this Commitment is located in the County of P i tk i n State of Colorado and described as follows: LEGAL DESCRIPTION SET FORTH ON SHEET ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE INCORPORATED HEREIN AND MADE A PART HEREOF. Owner's Premium: $ Lender's Premium: $ Add'I Charges: $ Tax Certificate: $ TOTAL CHARGES: AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION COPYRIGHT 1971 (REV.) { #1.\) SCHEDULE A - continued Order No. 400375 -C Plat I.D. No. Covering the Land In the State of Colorado, County of Pitkin Described as: Lots M, N and 0, Block 111, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. SCHEDULE B -1 No. 400375 -C i her bAnvm inq are Ur requirements to be complied with: 1 Instruments necessary to create the estate or interest to be insured must be properly executed, delivered and duly tiled for record. 2. Payment of the consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. 3. Payment of all taxis. charges. assessments, levied and assessed against subject premises. which are due and payable. it Satisfactory evidence should be had that improvements and /or repairs or alterations thereto are completed. that contractor, subcontractors, labor and materialmen are all paid. 5. Release by the Public Trustee of Pitkin County of the Deed of Trust from Harlan Dopkin for the use of Alpine Bank, Snowmass Village, to secure $650,000.00, dated June 2, 1988, and recorded June 3, 1988, in Book 565 at Page 602. 6. Deed from Harlan Dopkin to a grantee or grantees to be determined. 7. Evidence satisfactory to the Company or Its duly authorized agent that the "real estate transfer tax" imposed by the Town of Aspen, Colorado has been paid, and that the lien Imposed thereby has been fully satisfied. f •. V � fix--✓ , .r SCHEDULE B -!! Order No. 400375 -C if '<ch• •futo F3 of the policy or policies to he issued will contain excepp.c.nn to the itmowing rnatters unless the same are 'isonsed of to the satisfaction of the Company: t Rights or claims of parties i n possession not shown by the public rec . e;. ?. Easements or claims of easements. not shown by the public rcrcv " -. .3 Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines. shortage in area, once.. chments. and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4 Any lien, or right to a lien. for services. labor or material thereto{ ' or hereafter furnished, imposed by law . and not shown by the public records. 5 Defects, liens. encumbrances. adverse claims or other matters, it any. created. first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. Exceptions numbered are hereby omitted. 6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessments, charge or lien Imposed for water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district. 7. All ore and minerals and mineral bearing rock embraced within Lots M and 0 in Block 111 of the City and Townsite of Aspen, as conveyed by R. M. Hetherly to E. L. Ogden by Quit Claim Deed recorded July 27, 1891, in Book 93 at Page 22, and by J. W. Warren to E. L. Ogden by Quit Claim Deed recorded May 19, 1891, in Book 93 at Page 56, respectively, and any and all assignments thereof or interests therein. 8. The full, free and perpetual right to dig, work, search for, mine and remove all ore and mineral bearing rock and earth underneath Lot N in Block 111 of the City and townstte of Aspen, as conveyed by Charles Emmett to The Aspen Deep Mining Co., a Colorado corporation, by the Mining Deed recorded November 16, 1891, in Book 105 at Page 264, and any and all assignments thereof or interests therein. 9. Any and all unredeemed tax sales. NOTE: Upon receipt of a Certificate of Taxes Due evidencing that there are no existing open tax sales, the above exception will not appear on the policies to be Issued hereunder. 133H1S ONV13A313 .y �� r J yw tie G• * I - __ rn,. , 1 * - it -_ -___ p l / -- . I I s t I �� - I I I I o * 1 0 _ I l -. O is. H • K 01 O P: 1 Se 4. j IQ * i l I : st Hi A 1 0� y d_ E C/ -4 1 I • b c L E a : Ir I �_ =_ o I • �__ 1 I -- . olo 6 .1 ro , AfIt . ! 1 1 �; I I t �i JI o o .1.33211S & at - 15 3 M Et R Fir r �� I ( II ■ tom. & ==ti i Q I IL ,mo 'yi I � w � 0 � o t ° 1 O p • 1 • • �i1 • • t om ' L , L y ___ . 3tl16 1VNIOWO o ., . - w it I r - - I , -- 1 i1 31 I I__ 1 ; 1� I lg w ooa I it Z _it r I �r > z i i it . I 1 ; Lj ; a a ri a 1 I a „___ its at a Fi i,A 1 • - I Er 4 ry ,- • N CITY OF ASPEN PRE -APPL CATII N` ON CONFERENCE SUMRY PROJECT: `-/ Y \ Q S g 14 /94.11 om 14- , , ( APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: = 1z- T Lf -- ' k n / ? A \ -~ REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: C� 1 V OWNER'S NAME: ', i r' In SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: v.7 rr■ r ; ;' y :' . ,A. 2. Describe action /type of development being requested: i, 3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments ■ 4. Review is: (P &Z Only) (CC Only) ' ,,\ (P &Z then to CC) 5. Public Hearing: ! (YES)) (NO) 6. Did you teLL- .applicant to submit list of ADJAC ROPERTY OWNERS ?` (YES) NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YES) (NO) 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit:(14+ (i 8. Anticipated date of submission: "0--, On 9. COMMENTS /UNIQUE CONCERNS: j` ' h 1 ' fl }t Y''- ' I I g G l �1 a 5L 1 J frm.pre app w 0 0 - L\ - w THE GREYSTONES "' 810 -816 E. COOPER AVE. r - LM1t t ��A It"'f �&•'41'�9im !9L _iN y44r m `4 6L 't l "A - M1 a 4 - _X5 M1 MN VI ti 4y�s i aI r 7 - VI K . L"t: ckV y i d VI NV 1. 1 _ 1 .5 I II 1 x 41 t or I Iwo . w -fp g i� �� , i 1 t. am - 1Y3 •! ftw i E " � = ° # x BB 28 lox t X x re s 000000 tgliN In mil - ry .,. ::„' .9 Wm...., t 5 - - RESIDENTIAL GMP SUBMISSION MAY 15 1989 - - - w L. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Attachment 3 Specific Submission Contents 1. Opening Statement 1 (a) Public Water Connection 1 (b) Public Sewage Connection 1 (c) Drainage System 2 (d) Fire Protection 2 (e) Total Development Areas 3 (f) Effects on Roads & Parking 3 (g) Affordable Housing 4 (h) Stoves and Fireplaces 6 (i) Proximity to Parks & Playgrounds /Public Services 6 (j) Location of Retail and Service Outlet 7 (k) Adjacent Land use 7 (1) Construction Schedule 7 2. Site Utilization Maps (a) Artist's Concept (b) Architectural Floor Plan (Reverse for GMP) (c) Photographs of Exterior & Surrounding Areas (d) Site Plan (e) Area Transportation Map (f) Area Park and Trail Map (g) Historic Grade and Utilities Map (h) Zoning Map of Area ATTACHMENT #4 REVIEW STANDARDS b 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services (a) Water 9 (b) Sanitary Sewer 9 (c) Storm Drainage 9 (d) Fire Protection 10 (e) Parking Design 10 (f) Roads 10 x 2. Quality of Design 11 (a) Neighborhood Compatibility 12 (b) Site Design 13 (c) Trails 14 (d) Green Space 14 Continued SECTION PAGE 3. Resource Conservation Energy 14 Water and Wastewater 16 (c) Air 17 4. Proximity to Support Services (a) Public Transportation 17 (b) Commercial Facilities 17 5. Affordable Housing (a) Applicant's Proposal 6. Bonus Points 18 7. Competitive Thresholds 18 ATTACHMENT 3 1. Opening Statement: The Cooper Avenue Greystones have been designed with every major consideration of design, conservation and compatibility being addressed with great care and sensitivity. As one resident said, "When the Greystones are complete, they will look as though they have always been there." (a) Water Service ' The units will be served by the existing 6" main on Cooper « Avenue, directly in front of the property. Mr. Markalunas of the Water Department has indicated that the main is quite sufficient to serve the proposed units. The impact will be minimal and no system upgrade will be necessary. No digging of the paved road will be necessary. (b) Sewer Service An 8" main is available in the alley directly behind the proposed units. Bruce Matherly of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitary District has indicated that the line is very adequate to handle our proposed units. No upgrades to 1 system will be necessary. (c) Drainage No changes will be made to the historic storm water. Virtually all water goes directly to the groundwater table. All water from the driveways and rear roof go directly into dry wells provided under each driveway. With the addition of the dry wells, a substantial reduction in storm water will be directed to the public system. Banner & mpany has submitted a detailed report to the Engineering Department. (d) Fire Protection Two fire hydrants are located on Cooper Avenue and West End Street approximately 150 ft. from the property. One fire hydrant is located on the corner of Cooper Avenue and Original, approximately 125 ft from the property. The Fire Department is five blocks away. In speaking with Peter Worth, the fire Chief, the response time would average three minutes, day and night. All phases of construction including fire and smoke detectors, and all materials are in compliance with the fire and building codes. Any reasonable suggestions from the Fire Department or Building Department to enhance this area will be included. The proposed units will also be pre -wired to a local security company for fire 2 ! protection in cases where occupant is not present. (e) The Development There is an existing duplex with four total bedrooms (pictures on cover) on 4,500 sq. ft. of this 9000 sq. ft. parcel of land. There is a parking space provided for each bedroom in a private garage. We will do so also in the proposed project. Visitors will park on the provided driveways. Existing duplex is 4,240 sq. ft. (F.A.R.), the same as the proposed units. A total of 8,480 sq. ft. IF.A.R.) will be on the entire site. Maximum allowable E.A.R. is 9,000 sq. ft. Building footprint is 4,270 sq. ft. or 47% of site. There will be 3,400 sq. ft. of open space. 3,248 sq. ft. is required. Side yard requirements are 5 ft. We have provided 10 ft. each. We are proposing to build for the GMP two, two - bedroom free 1 -2> market units A very generous "In Lieu of" payment, and /or k-caretaker housing, or a combination thereof will be Lc. - provided. See III -�� } (f) Traffic Count, Roads and Parking Design A private garage parking space has been provided for each • - bedroom of this project with guest parking provided on the " . 3 driveways. The driveways are heated in an efficient manner to provide a non -slip and safe surface. I think this parking design will lessen the need for parking in this block. The parking spaces in front of the project have been widened to provide safer egress from vehicles parking on Route 82. These homes are designed to be second homes that are occupied during certain periods. These homes are within a block or two walking distance to almost any need a person might have. Therefore we think the impact on the roads will be negligible. Public transportation is also right in front of the buildings (See attached shuttle service map). The roads would be utilized principally going and returning from Snowmass and Buttermilk if occupants chose not to utilize the public transportation to these areas. The expected amount of vehicles to be stationed at each unit would be less than 1.5. Although two parking spaces are provided for each unit, I would think no more than 1 - 1 1/2 trips per day would be generated by one vehicle per unit. (g) Housing There are circumstances that I would like the members of the Commission and Council to consider. This project was started last year when "In Lieu of" was an acceptable alternative for affordable housing. Times change and now it appears that the "In Lieu of" payment is not quite 4 as desirable /acceptable as it was. My original planning was done with the help of a well known planning consultant in cooperation with a member of the Planning & Zoning Department to lay out my guidelines and accepted practices. After continuing with their recommendations, I constructed the existing duplex in anticipation of completing the second half of the project under the GMP and "In Lieu of" acceptance. My actual construction has now been left in the middle of a verbal policy change. I believe I am the only applicant that has physically been left in this predicament. Now with my entire master plan set, I am left with one blank wall (SEE PHOTOGRAPH NEXT PAGE) and a design modification that must be addressed with one half of the project instead of its entirety. I know it was my thoughtful decision to proceed along the guidelines set forth by my consultant and the Planning & Zoning personnel as I thought the scope and scale of these townhouses to be appropriate for Aspen. My alternative by right was to build a massive 9,000 sq. ft. duplex, get in and out of the project quickly, have no GMP to contend with, and have a greater margin of profit. I think we will all agree that a mistake was 4 N C made when these huge duplexes have been built in the past and are an eyesore in our community. I hope I am not made to suffer J because of my decision. Therefore, I am making a most generous employee housing proposal in Attachment 3 of this application and ask your consideration in extending your past policy in this unique case. 5 F s e• n e ..'47414 an.H.H11040084". � 10 , d 'Aaa. s haw d YLHe - °S Nt • BLANK WALL FROM REAR • d °r arc y _,r x a a d BLANK WALL FROM SIDE 5 A Affordable housing will be provided by "In Lieu of Payment" supplying 110% of the total number of persons to be housed in the low income schedule. Or a studio caretaker unit on one of the lower levels, with some adjustment to the "In Lieu of" payment. The contribution will be $150,000. I know this is a most generous amount to contribute in view of the small cope of the project, but after searching my options, of a design change now it is the only sensible alternative after a judgment of architectural integrity and compatibility are made. (h) Stoves and Fireplaces Three gas appliances will be used in each unit for a total of six. They are completely clean burning. No log burning will be used. (i) Proximity to Parks and Playgrounds The proposed units are 1/2 block from the City Market. A map is attached showing how convenient this project is to parks, playgrounds, schools, hospital and airport. Mass transit is addressed in Section (f) of this section. The impact on the above mentioned should be negligible in view of the size of this project and the recent improvements in these areas. 6 of the size of this project and the recent improvements in these areas. (j) Proximity to Retail & Services The enclosed map should also show the proximity of the project to the sales and services our cit provides. There has been quite a spurt of new commercial space downtown. We therefore think this project will have little impact. (k) Effects of Adjacent Land Uses We think the effect of the proposed project will have little effect on the adjacent land use. Furthermore, we feel it will add some needed relief and enhance their properties. We encourage your comments upon visiting the site. (1) Construction Schedule It is my extreme need to complete this project as soon as possible in view of the blank wall, to make the existing duplex marketable. Aesthetically a need exists to complete the project for my own pride of creative architecture as well as for the community's. The construction schedule will depend upon how long this GMP process takes. A wise determination will have to be made as to the lateness of the 7 year and weather conditions. 2. Site Utilization Maps (a) Artist's Concept (b) Architectural Floor Plan (Reverse for GMP) (c) Photographs of Exterior & Surrounding Areas (d) Site Plan (e) Area Transportation Map (f) Area Park and Trail Map (g) Historic Grade and Utilities Map (h) Zoning Map of Area 8 i ' AO . L. ,fman , CA i . \ i • * ■ -____,......01 .‘,,\ i f ! 1/4 '4 ),-7 i 4 i / CU ;4 44 j g k, , Ile A 1 vi. r i; Ith„ uh:nran•I` g ft —.- r -- : 1 \ 0 \ ( \ / i t " s P ;1 IN q IN A ) ••■„_. ra. • ti‘ : rrralili;114th., ., . .t,.. N / Jr, 0d "3 In tr' Ai k kr • *liTISIVW 0 1, i ( >Ill Cll.) , d it hi 1.1h ;R II I PLIIP I ik - Mr wWen• - /I C: ( \ \ / • Al r • , ... tX) , CU , _ . zim , c,' /0 .,..-5fii... ,, 0 izt ?It , , , , ,,,,, ,, , __ ., r // ,, ,,,,( dta.i : Li Et . A A - i t- in ' k 'lit ,‘, -.1--. Itkr ---"4=:' 4 -4-=:: M ii A \ - , 2 t \ al..4 i /ANA i.;_41: li /.k ;Nli i ihel;;;Irr I, 1/1/ tuirrs -1 -, -0 . aiet.: • t-- -./ '-' ----1 -- r" --7- ic i rt - r :7- -as 'ill 1/ 1 I / ... CU tt , 4 ,,, ,,,,,, , , . TR _ . 4 , ... (X) ;* s -= I 1:1. .. I , 4 1 A I al. • - ", A 4 , 4 4 . e. . - C.....(= - =4 i) ; I / IS I A -... rulki 1 1:4../ I \MMIll I ' a: •ti =4: i. - b o i Cin - rvv.t ;111.i Cr I rainy I L al IL 1 i f•r. ,1 -, . ..,..!., I f 1 1 115ild IPIP 91Pi Ili MI:I il P ..,, Cla IZ1.) rsZ V li I `• 4 ni• • ,` ' 1r f ' . ///, / • * E...."1 ! b / -. $1111114 ■ , . 4 v 0 e \ vw,„ ,, • ,.. hi ,, i • 4. glik 0 -4t, , N N, --,‘ - t 41.)1=itec • " N si U = - 0 , N ,,,,, , ------ c e. 1,- ,- : - ,,fre-cer -... ---r hi I \\ .I ,. Imo .. ._________ . rm. ima .--11 t _ _ __ I fr Y ) _r ill � 41 1 1 ' o f 1 po I 3 O O , �a � J Se • 1 '111-1\--H 1 Unit I 1 @IO 1`�aii .1m 9 '0 tt 1 114 A c � r J J . 1 11 ii 11* I _ - - -- - 9 L 1 II I inp 1,' §: '- . I I v - 1 �I II 11 ' S --1-7 � �j a • >- x I U1 w 41 ? n7 it p� * 9 g en E T 1 el - 1, E E_ �:.� a� 1 :. �x Cam' �� ll i in S II I C _. IllIL • 0 1111!1 ' o o u • t I l LI 11 II iI II w , �o - Q. ,; -: x q ° liC II �I= IIl !I 1 �i�' I �I II 11 I r 1 1 11■11 ' 4 oIIt I II II it I I F� —T( dial , �� - ( . c) 1 11 1 rc 1 d a a to 2i� II .. r IIIU � � II 3 O1I I.( g °# 1 . 14 • a .,.w. >5 Y FRONT ELEVATION • ��a g r � } 1 a .1 q ,. a INTERIOR DETAIL c ..' ..{ ll t } ... b.= , nY , �' ; V T. s " mix € '� -. � � k4 , ,., FINE DETAIL OF FRONT ENTRANCE W " c „ fi a. g at .. FINE DETAIL OF WEST ENTRANCE W n a ° s a ° ea. ,.., r S`" s.. . ° ', -t. ,. ^ ° 1 a0. VIEW LOOKING SOUTH Y g 4 ` 1Y .9t"•- 4 ... u ' ,,y 4 ° Jc... (�INR T `Arv.&°b ° i.. . pe F W �r S i VIEW LOOKI NORT a v4peAx yyqqyy h, , . �„ e r`.xzzsy gym„. gB, ma. REAR ELEVATION & LOOKING WEST r x , • es xa i,.,ak -s . w , �a i t {�a MI -° ,<.:0%.,,,,,°,-,..''',$,° xf fr u� ?r+fe wit 0. - LOOKING EAST so AL LAY itl-Q"- 111 09.gi5' w _ / e Q % 81D 512. / 814r ewe, e-. ca2R5 t I e. treats I e. Orpr.. $ \\ ciferre c-_Cats 14415-171ha_aii-0 . 11 1 w o 1 J rnFr...atK. /C. ialme III < rnsiCiINA.L L..I " CND SIT- t''u r-201 -0" I It a . ..1 7 a r �+' 9 at s y 1 1 _ Z P n ❑ .ik,,f 2 ! .1 1 11 -d U E E . Is y E 11 F I ••• g g .Th ..._, . I. . _ _ ij Lost i I 11 1 - II II -II F nn . �i i I 011a MIMIC. 11 11 g -2 0 43111111110~, w i 91 BI i . 1 € 1 \ M C 4M 0 �+ y r lrpJ UUU g 2 M� 7 T�3 ? le �,�,� a 4 g31 � g T '� +e " '^ r C .m r i a I 4. 4t.:::::31 e ; 1 p , ,. mo _ _ _r - r a : _ ,, tt, tz 8 1 a /� t� 04'4. 3 p p (.J = �3 5 i :, ty _ r 4 N 4 ►gam w p ! sv < < x ct nvrnm. eil 7 21 2 B I t t a 8 i9 2A O 0131 i� t y � s T t_ 4 „,,,,t, �re p{ Y d„.... � i a if i s3f— , 6N _ a �y {A O $ � � 1 7. O ( I -; 70107 T • 1111.111 .0 ��! I EF Pialill _.,,-al ft I F I �- I ` � � 2 i s s H H (( 1 u H 1 , .�_1eA!3 ;, s� we 1s Nas!wev w li= w 6 c.t - I 7 3tl5N3CS: j i = z 1 E c t ° F YI . • L x = 8 \ r4P �--�.. 3 41SM:HpNJN J 'v "-, X .; wo • _ °V I y 4 5 ' llV ^ 15 _ _ _ W re S "I W v 4 ' — ' 5 .3 tl ,� —1 a � � ~u ` ♦ c r W N3 tl9 El O ¢ ,- Y pie. .eze -: 1:4 . ?.� .3 i z u , C E cs Al xi b Owaas Sp e,i J Lag IS TWEAK) i l- , , a 1 t • ]I 1 S aN31S3M t 4 *4 L ca., l' t. 0 ",1 A Ai 4 a §§ ce , ¢ fi 4 A 1S ONV13n3TJ ~ ' n F > c s u�∎ T .Y • \ ts r 3 , ` M rli . re 3Ab YHA W Y - i1ti31.b V 4 y J , re - 0, SAH a- C. a In /� r c re \: 1 ) / i a t, a l r il a ; f7 11:7 . ___N.r.____.__ . _Th__ \ 1--- t \ 1 1 . \ , • M ,/N / O 7 i / / 1 ... 1 ' - ' / ,. crl — / ----'k" / // __i - / i (-' Y - T— rXrSflHfi n W W _ W it coo is a� + - Iii � OIMILI4L —�' E WEST END / W END siSI .T IH�IS�T I TT IC CtzAbn 4 g I �� �� 4 2 A 7 6 2 I 3 4 5 6 I \ UD IIINIM 1 FR.N S 5 I G: 2 • '`� • � IS 1718 I• •• 1 t , `, PUB ' ' ,©i_ : p Io 112 ( �� .. Tr C PAS :,_, , 5 P D 4 %• A 4 1 al 0 G bE 1 © = _ • ! �� MINI NW _HYING FIELD ` „t `-- CI aS 2KING LOT — j' PARK P ` • 3 1 K��yC R-15 A <I" \\ A in sr --- ,. , -6 1. `�Y 'IIT X111 111 - 111 IIInIh> f R - / / I CdI � 1 111111111 Iiiiigil HERRON PARK O UEEN Y, R 1 —15 ,. , 1 .' ► .. - - - -, P _E „ 50011 600E 700E 11/1 1 1111!1. II _ r j rr ��`? -rte - � !1 ii 1 i � � . !IIIIIP! ! ::iiii 111111111 I •__ _J 1_J E. HOPKINS AVE. l F.11 ' , '� - i ' 111!,11 I H i 1 il 111 "1111 1��11111 , 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 P[ T �,1 I!1 111 H �i I MIMI __ I LI • E. HYMAN AVE. Q IN II .IInl1 % 1�I,elll II I I HWiHJHH'HHJ __ • _ a 1 1 I l 11 W III11EZ '111111 i o lmI11111 l 11 1 1 111 !rrImIr __ �__�N E. L'ER AVE. Q N ,. 2 1111! I1IIJIIIU1IL 1, l_ . II n 1_ I I I l , , - a '� �a1 1 1 2 L 1 Ilnnl I l ll ikl 111 ,____. -i L.. 1 r TI AVE' - ' 1'1l•U "" " 1 I l 3 l 1 I _ ' 1 . '111!! IFNI: 1 _ 1 V 71\ _ �.. -�r ..I niirnii __��, 11111111 1111 FP: I 1 - -y - 38 39 I 1 S ! • �IY1 q _ ,. z � .; * Qo Q 1 _ ; . II�F 111 4 G , 9/ 2 Al N 91 _ �.. I P / 15 ; L /TR 5 ` a Nps ze 6 ra I 4 . /2. i / / = , I s) ^ / • 1 I II ' % ' \ 7 I �� , =� / io , -----2 / 4C • ... � r i 4 , —1- // _ 1 z � 1 R -1 : / � J 1 . 1 � _ C 4 - (PUD) �/ .L_ \� 1 T .. aa ATTACHMENT 4 Review Standards 1. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (a) Water The water line exists in front of the property and no system upgrade will be necessary. No digging up of the paving will be necessary. Requested Score 1 point (b) Sanitary Sewer The more than adequate sewer line exists in the alley directly behind the property and no system upgrade will be necessary. Requested Score 1 point (c) Storm Drainage By putting in extra drainage facilities, we have improved the overall effectiveness of the city's drainage system. A w 9 letter from Banner & Associates has been filed with the Aspen Engineering Department. Requested Score 2 points (d) Fire Protection Three fire hydrants are within 125 -150 ft. of subject property. We are in the three - minute response time area of the Fire Department. Fire and smoke detectors will be installed. All materials and standards are in compliance with the fire and building codes. The units are pre -wired to a local security company for fire protection in the event occupant is not present. Requested Score 2 points (e) Parking Design The requirement of one parking space per bedroom has been ti met by placing the vehicles in private garages on the lower level of each unit. Additional guest parking is provided on snow - melted driveways. All of the parking is off of the rear alley to keep the visual impact to an absolute minimum. We have also widened the parking spaces in front of the property to create safer egress from vehicles parking on 10 the street (Route 82). Requested Score 2 points (f) Roads As previously stated in aforementioned parking design (3), it was our intent to remove some of the parked cars off of the surrounding roads. I think we have done that. The small impact created by this project can be easily handled by our existing roads. Requested Score 2 point 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN If Aspen is to retain its unique quality, future design must be the keynote. It is in the this area that I think this project excels. I received a call from a builder in California who said he has been coming to Aspen for over 20 years. He told me he had nothing to buy or sell but just wanted to tell me how beautiful and fine my small project was. He said it was the most appropriate architecture for Aspen since the Hotel Jerome and the Sardy House. A bit dramatic, I think, but nice to hear for all of us. I will respond below to the design criteria requested, but I think it is vital that you come to the site to see firsthand �. 11 what we are proposing. It would be quite easy for me to paint a beautiful picture with sketches and words but as the old cliche says, "One look is worth a thousand words." I am at your disposal. (a) Neighborhood Compatibility Before starting this project, I had the option of building a massive duplex nit on this site. I found that totally inappropriate for myself and for Aspen. Care was taken not to build to the maximum height. Decks and balconies are a way to create more space not in the F.A.R., but they also create mass. I chose not to include them for architectural integrity and the mass they created. I believe its present scale to be ideal. As stated previously in Attachment 3, Section (e) the square footage of these units are kept well below the maximum F.A.R. The building site and materials used, (special moldings, stone, brick, beveled glass, ironwork, arched windows, keystones roof line) create "the quiet elegance of days gone by" and has been the theme of this project. It has been a major concern to Aspen as to what will be done to the East end gateway to create a r favorable impression, when driving into town from Independence Pass. I think this project is the first step to this end. 12 Requested Score 3 point (b) Site Design As shown in Attachment 3, Section (e), open space has been kept above the minimum requirement. The building footprint has been kept below accepted criteria. I have attempted to keep the landscaping very natural with clump Aspen trees, grass, and encourage occupants to plant annual flowers. A large clump Lilac has been preserved on the Northeast corner of the site. I think a sophisticated and contrived plan would be out of order. All setback requirements have been exceeded. All utilities will be underground, as the last phase of removing the power poles in the rear is underway. All parking and service calls will be received in the rear alley. A new 5 ft. aggregate sidewalk has been built in front of the property and is well lighted. Snow melt will be installed in the walks leading to the units. The brick garden wall in front of the property serves to create a measure of intimacy for the project (as it is located on Route 82). The garden wall serves a two -fold purpose to be r discussed under the noise and dirt pollution areas. Ski racks are provided at the entrance of each unit behind closed doors. I believe the site plan exceeds the standards set forth in 13 the code and care was exercised. Requested Score 3 points (c) Trails With a well lighted sidewalk in front of the project to the snow - melted driveways in the rear, the property affords easy access to public streets parks and trails. (See attached map.) Requested Score 3 points (d) Green Space As pointed out previously, the project exceeds standards set forth for open space, setbacks, and footprint. Requested Score 3 points 3. RESOURCE CONSERVATION (a) Energy The project has been given a North South orientation in order to reap the most solar gain. All wood doors and 14 windows have been utilized in order to keep the insulating factor as high as possible as well as for their beauty. Special attention has been given to insulation. The side walls have "Foil Ray" a new space age product, sandwiched between the sheathing and studs to increase the side walls to a factor of 20.79. By doubling R -19 insulation in the ceiling, we will achieve an R value of 38. The most that can be achieved with normal 12" insulation is R -30. Custom designed and engineered tinted skylights have been placed the full width of the units in order to add additional solar collection and minimize the need for electric lighting. Please note that the skylights are almost undetectable from the outside in keeping with architectural integrity. Old fashioned transoms have been utilized on the interior wherever possible to allow natural light to be used instead of electric. Gas has been utilized as much as possible (heat, stove, oven, hot water, dryer) as it is the most efficient fuel available. The gas heat will be 95% efficient with only a 2" P.V.C. needed for exhaust. Domestic hot water will be supplied in two 50- gallon hot water heaters. Rather than one 100 - gallon heather 15 because of the efficiency of this system. Also, restriction devices will be installed on sinks and shower heads to minimize the use of hot water. Water saver johns will be used. -• Electrical devices will be used in order to turn on lighting from outside the home (by telephone or remote), so leaving on lights when leaving the home will be practically unnecessary. Electrical dimmers will be used where possible to cut the electric drain. In view of the many energy saving features 4 Requested Score 2 points (b) Water and Wastewater As stated above, all possible water saving devices will be used on plumbing fixtures. We have eliminated the need for some of the city storm water system by installing on -site containment (Banner letter to Engineering Department). A r very small electric circulator will be installed in the hot water lines to eliminate the need to let water run until hot. r . 16 a Requested Score 2 points (c) Air No woodburning devices will be used. The beautiful and functional brick garden wall is utilized to restrict dirt, dust, and noise pollution. Requested Score 2 points 4. PROXIMITY TO SUPPORT SERVICES (a) Public Transportation Public Transportation is right in front of the project (See attached map.) Requested Score 2 points (b) Community Commercial Facilities The City Market is 1/2 block from project: from this point on all facilities are continuous. Requested Score 3 points ° 5. AFFORDABLE HOUSING r+ 17 5. AFFORDABLE HOUSING I have chosen to use the "In Lieu of" method of providing employee housing for 110% of the total number of persons to be housed in the low- income schedule or a studio caretaker unit with some adjustment in the "In Lieu of" payment in conformance with Table VII of the Housing Authority. Requested Score 20 points 6. BONUS POINTS w It is my hope that many members of the Commission and City .. Council will see the quality, creativity, and caring that went into this project and award bonus points for the w effort. 7. COMPETITIVE THRESHOLDS It is my belief that we have exceeded the thresholds in every area. r - -spec . lly s j ted, 411111fira cl- sr '72 BUZZ DOPKIN, ` .� 18