HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Vincenti,John 1015 E Hyman.1981 IC181
1981 RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SUBMISSION - PROJECT PROFILE
1. Applicant: John Vincenti
2: Project Name: 1015 East Hymn: Avenue
3. Location: Hyman Avenue between Cleveland and th'e Roaring Fork River
4. Parcel Size: 9,000 Square Feet
5. Current Zoning: R-MF
6. Existing Structures: There are presently two - 2 bedroom units adjacent
to the vacant lot which is the subject property.
7. Development Program: The applicant proposes to add three units to the
• site - two additional 2 bedroom units and one studio while also retaining
the existing units. One 2 bedroom unit is proposed as a free market
unit, while the other 2 bedroom unit and the studio are to be restricted
to low income guidelines.
8. Special Review Requirements: Special review for employee units and
employee parking, subdivision exception, condominiumization.
9. Miscellaneous: While 2 of the 3 units will be employee housing
units, only 55% of the total floor area and 58% of the total bedrooms
will be so restricted.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: 1015 East Hyman Avenue - Exemption of Employee Units from the GMP;
Exception from Subdivision
DATE: July 31 , 1981 APPROVED AS TO FOR • / A /
Zoning: R-MF
Lot Size: 9,000 square feet
Location: Hyman Avenue between Cleveland and the Roaring Fork River
Background: This project is one which received an allocation during the
1981 Residential GMP competition. There are presently two
2-bedroom units located on this parcel . The applicant proposes
to add three units to the site; two additional 2-bedroom units
and one studio. This proposal does meet the underlying zone
district regulations in terms of minimum lot area per dwelling
unit (9000 square feet needed) and floor area ratio (9000 square
feet available, 8250 square feet to be built) . A GMP alloca-
tion has been given for one of the 2-bedroom units. The
applicant is now requesting that the two bedroom employee unit
and the studio employee unit be exempted from the GMP, as
provided in Section 24-11 .2(h) of the Code. The applicant is
also requesting an exception from full subdivision procedures as
provided in Section 20-19 of the Code.
Employee Housing The Code states that your approval shall include a determination
Review Criteria: of community need considering, but not limited to, the number
of units, and the rental/sale mix of the development. In
response to these criteria, the applicant has indicated that:
1 ) Both units will be restricted to low income rental or sale
price guidelines; and that
2) Despite the fact that both units exceed the maximum size
guidelines for their type, the applicant will scale their
rents solely on the maximum square footage provision of
the housing guidelines.
The Planning Office feels that this project represents pre-
cisely the type of GMP application originally envisioned by
City policymakers. It provides two low income deed restricted
employee units in exchange for a single free market unit,
thereby creating dispersed employee units in a small , low
impact setting. The Planning and Zoning Commission concurred
in this determination and recommended that you exempt these
units from competition under the GMP. The Planning Office
would strongly recommend that you exempt both employee units
from the GMP, subject to the following conditions:
1 ) The applicant providing deed restrictions which are
approved as to form and content by the City Attorney
which limit the single studio and the single two bedroom
unit to low income housing guidelines and occupancy limits.
The price guidelines to which the units are restricted shall
be those which are in place for new units at the time of
approval of the exemption from GMP by City Council . The
units shall be eligible thereafter for annual price adjust-
ments as existing units, according to the approved rates
of the City of Aspen.
2) The applicant recording the building plans for the employee
units to insure that they are built as originally proposed
in the GMP submission.
Memo: 1015 East Hyman Avenue - Exemption of Employee Units from the GMP;
Exception from Subdivision
Page Two
July 31 , 1981
Subdivision Section 20-3(s) of the Code defines multifamily development as
Exception: a subdivision. However, at the time of the public hearing for
the GMP competition, P & Z heard the applicant's conceptual pre-
sentation, while Council concurred with P & Z's recommendation
at its subsequent meeting by allocating a development right to
this project. It would therefore be unnecessarily redundant to
require full subdivision review for this application. It is
important, at this phase of the review, for Council to consider
those aspects of the proposal which emerged during the GMP
review and for which the applicant received points during the
competition. The review comments received at that time include:
1 ) The Engineering Department noted that the curb cut located
on Hyman Street may exceed the Code requirement (Section
20-101 ) that cuts be a maximum of either one eighteen-foot
wide cut or two ten-foot cuts in the RMF zone.
2) The Engineering Department further noted that the applicant's
proposal to handle drainage through surface absorption would
not be adequate, and that the alternative suggested by the
applicant -- a dry well -- should be employed.
3) The Environmental Health Department commented that any fire-
place units installed in the structure be designed with
energy conservation in mind and that the numbers of installa-
tions be limited to minimize air pollution impacts of the
project. The Planning Office further notes that the appli-
cant proposed several energy conservation features in the
GMP application which should be included in the final design
of the building, including:
- insulation characteristics to exceed the Code;
- maximization of south-facing glass; and
- domestic hot water collectors on the free market unit,
and; if possible, the employee units.
4) The Planning Office comments that since this project
represents new residential development, that park dedication
fees are required, as specified in Section 20-18 of the Code.
This section indicates, however, that City Council may
exempt the development from these fees if a low or moderate
income subdivision is proposed. The Planning Office feels
that it is appropriate to require park dedication fees only
for the free market unit and not for the employee units.
Planning Office The Planning Office recommends that you approve the applicant's
Recommendation: request that the two employee units be exempt from the GMP and
that you approve the request for subdivision exception. The
Planning and Zoning Commission concurred with this recommenda-
tion at their meeting on May 5, 1981 .
Council Action: Should you concur with the recommendations of the Planning Office
and P & Z, the appropriate motion is as follows:
"I move to approve the request to exempt the two employee units
and to grant subdivision exception approval to the 1015 East
Hyman Avenue development, subject to the following conditions:
1 ) The applicant providing deed restrictions which are approved
as to form and content by the City Attorney which limit the
single studio and the single two bedroom unit to low income
housing guidelines and occupancy limits. The price guide-
lines to which the units are restricted shall be those which
are in place for new units at the time of approval of the
exemption from GMP by City Council . The units shall be
eligible thereafter for annual price adjustments as existing
units, according to the approved rates of the City of Aspen.
Memo: 1015 East Hyman Avenue - Exemption of Employee Units from the GMP;
Exception from Subdivision
Page Three
July 31 , 1981
2) The applicant recording the building plans for the employee
units to insure that they are built as originally proposed
in the GMP submission.
3) The applicant not exceeding the Code requirement that curb
cuts in the R-MF zone be limited to a width of 18 feet or
two ten-foot cuts;
4) The applicant agreeing to provide a dry well for drainage;
5) The applicant agreeing to install the energy conservation
measures outlined in the original GMP application for the
free market units and permitting energy efficient stoves
to be installed in the employee units if approved by the
Environmental Health Department.
6) The applicant agreeing to a cash payment or land dedication
to meet the park dedication requirements for the free market
unit, The precise arrangement for these fees will be com-
puted by the Building Inspector at such time that a building
permit for the project is requested."
I i:;- „
'it
• 1
i
tih, rn 9 /% 1089 il
1.-
Pe:a/ P:T*1\1GO.
Iljecooat 17 , 1 s, ,.. .ri_A. .
-.‘: M‘ifV3OFFICE •
slideon 4aut;T:an, br5d. . . . , . .
oil uest . ain tracd:
Aspen , Colorado hi nil
near LiAenh :
i nave your lett€r oi iJeci_n•n- ih reglrInc ::::;(:. Vincenti L.ondo-
71:iniunt2.
nace Jinco:2saa dt lans:tn , 1 construe L.ention 20-21 to clear-
.17 require that any caannn to a recorded Flat be processel in
ccoro;Jace ‘..ltn the oubeivision regulptionn contaiaeo in Chaater
zu or the vunicipal Co,:la. You know also that it is nv interpreta-
tion that a conacn%ininn a t,,,lis witnin tt:a d(4init1on at ..5t final
subdivision Oat which !gust be anroved by the City Council unless
an axerption Lro:• the nubcIvthien re9ulationo is acanted . This
interpretation anC construction of Section 20-21 has been the con-
oiotont r,olicy of my oLiice since I 17,ncav,e City i;ttorney .
our letter states that the sulprieff:ental Llaia and declaration for
toe Vincent! Condoninium‘a re flies in accordance vdt,L bind in
reliance upon 0.7oceclures estanlished cv my iiredecesunr, Ron Stock.
An von Knou, it Lien not ocea Jiy 5-ractice to cdande prevlousiv
establishen policies and i,ractic,as in !licstrean, edpecially when
tht-,re h-in vpecn ceilanec. Accordinely, 1 se no real:en an ti,is
:taint to r.liorarc. your ruresentationc dna atte:fl.pt to unsettiP
the rcenrcaLloel . ! vet , you ate adviseh thort fro this point cc
It is Lac ia,O_tion of tams ottice that any change to e' recorded
.)iat , ,,,,bc/chc..r it : .. ::: ce)naoirliniu or otnerwis , i•aat be procens,a,o
throunh the City uubaivioinn re ,ultions.
gy curl) of chi:.; iettm: I F41• advi':.ihq he COLMLY Clerk awl cecorcer
tnat snn should not accevt a :..ndr.ients to recorded piets without;
::,cy.:,e inciicotion ntet the ,-±rr.:ThCu 1; ;e7-Ivi= t 15 in rnh,:,.cliance witil
Lhe City huudiviolon roeulatinns . •
•
•
. •
Vi ' truiy yoLics ,
l'aui J. l'cidilune
city :.1: ijtny
k*j .',L.w
cc : Loanc;. Clerk ,sii6. .. ca-,:-,,?i.
.—t*tTcrlidri:i 2iraeaL .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: Amendment to Employee Housing Guidelines Regarding 1015 E. Hyman
// if
DATE: October 5, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1' ' ' ' v if
In 1981 you granted final approval to a project at 1015 E. Hy . Avenue I
had previously received a GMP allocation. The project consis 'd of a fr•e
market and two employee units , along with a free market duplex built outside of
the GMP. These units have been built and the developer is now trying to get
the employee studio and two bedroom units occupied. However, a problem associated
with our guidelines has hindered the accomplishment of this objective.
The two units have been limited to low income sales guidelines. At the time
the units were proposed, the City had no income occupancy guidelines. As a
result, we did not recongize the problem that the units are sized at or beyond
the maximum square footage for their room category and therefore are unaffordable
by persons within the low income occupancy guideline. The developer is therefore
asking that you allow him to sell the units to persons in the moderate or
middle income occupancy guideline, while continuing to offer the unit at the
low income sales guideline. The Planning Office is in favor of this solution
and recommends that you move to allow the applicant this flexibility.
This situation also points out a loophole in our employee housing guidelines
which we intend to rectify. When approached by a representative of the applicant,
the Planning Office indicated that we do not customarily require that GMP appli-
cants qualify prospective renters and purchasers and market their units through
the Housing Office. However, it is clear that if we want to ensure that employee
units are offered to the widest audience and are occupied by the proper persons
this is the proper approach to take. However, we also need to give consideration
to the developer of the small mixed free market/employee housing project who
may want some say in the composition of the project by offering prospective
employees to the Housing Office. The Assistant City Manager, Assistant
City Attorney and Assistant Planning Director have already met on this subject
and expect to come before you at some point in the near future with amendments
to our guidelines to deal with this situation.
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen , colorado 81611
March 16, 1981
Gideon Kaufman
Box 10001
611 West Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Gideon,
I am writing this letter to set out for you the application requirements
for the 1015 East Hyman Avenue 1981 Residential GMP Project. I have sat down
and discussed these ideas with both Richard and Sunny so I think we can be
certain at this point that my recommendations represent a Planning Office
consensus.
Since this project involves only one free market and two employee units,
a subdivision exception procedure would be appropriate. Your conceptual re-
view by P & Z would involve exemption of the employee units from the GMP, con-
dominiumization and an overall presentation of the project concept. I believe
that we have enough detail in the GMP proposal to satisfy the conceptual pre-
sentation needs for this application. I would suggest that you prepare addi -
tional application narrative for the condominiumization request and particularly
for the exemption for the employee units. In this regard, the evaluation will
be based on the size, type, rent and consistency with the Housing Action Plan
and I'd suggest that you address these points.
The final plat presentation before City Council would also involve these
same items, condominiumization, exemption for the employee units and final
approval of the project plat. You should also note that the appropriate deed
restrictions for the employee units will need to be filed before a building
permit can be issued for the project.
I don't believe that this will be a time consuming review process for you
to go through and I would encourage you to file your application for condo-
miniumization/employee unit exemption at the earliest date. We will try to
schedule you before P & Z about one month after you submit the application and
then bring you quickly before City Council , hopefully having you through the
process during the spring. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance
between now and then.
Sincerely,
Alan Richman
Assistant Planner
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
BOX 10001
611 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN.COLORADO 81611
GIDEON I.KAUFMAN TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
DAVID G.EISENSTEIN March 30 , 1981 925-8166
Alan Richman
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re : 1015 East Hyman Avenue, 1981 Residential GMP Project
Dear Alan,
Please consider this letter an application for exemption
of employee units from the GMP for the above-referenced project.
We are seeking exemption of one (1) two-bedroom unit
containing one thousand four hundred seventy-one (1, 471)
square feet and a studio unit containing six hundred seventy-
five (675) square feet. The applicant will deed restrict
these two (2) units to low income rental or sale price terms
within the housing price guidelines . The Code provides for
studios to contain four hundred (400) to six hundred (600)
square feet and two-bedroom units to contain seven hundred
fifty (750) to one thousand (1, 000) square feet; both these
units exceed the square footage requirements and yet the
rents charged will be controlled by the maximum square
footage set forth by the housing guidelines . This will
provide an excellent value to renters. This project was
favorably received by P & Z during the GMP scoring.
If you need any additional information please refer to
our GMP application for this project or call me. I would
appreciate it if you would schedule this application before
P & Z as quickly as possible. Thank you very much for your
help.
Very truly yours ,
Gideon Kaufman
GK kw
[' 9l
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 13, 1981
1 Councilman Collins moved to adopt Ordinance 437, Series of 1981, as amended; seconded by 1
Councilman Knecht. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Knecht, aye; Parry, aye;
ICI Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried.
i
SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Vicenti
II Alan Richman, planning office, told Council this is a request for condominiumization of a
II duplex which is next door to property which received a residential GMP allocation for
1981, located at 1015 East Hyman. This is in the R/MF zone on a 9000 square foot lot. I
This duplex has not been occupied. The engineering department made comments about the
3;� resubmission of the plat. There are four bedrooms and only three parking spaces. The .•
II applicant should provide one parking space per bedroom, and therefore, should be required
to regrade the space on the side of the building for parking, or add an additional space
11 in the alley. Richman told Council a rental unit was located on this property; it has
been revised and determined it was rented at a price which exceeded the housing price
o guidelines. The house was donated and moved to ACES to be used as employee housing. The
qplanning office recommends the six month minimum lease restriction be a condition. Council-
man man Knecht said he felt this restriction was impossible to enforce. :fl
I' Councilman Knecht moved to approve the Vicenti Building Company subdivision exception for
the purposes of condominiumization, subject to the following conditions; (1) the applicant
II agreeing to revise the condominium plat to meet the specifications of the engineering .
j department memoradnum of May 26, 1981, and resubmitting the plat prior to recordation;
(2) the applicant providing four usable parking spaces for the four bedroom duplex by
either regarding the space on the side of the building so that it is usable or providing
�! a second space in the alley behind the building; (3) the applicant agreeing to provide
j an electrical./communications easement at the southeast corner of the parcel; and (4) the
Ij applicant restricting all units to six month minimum leases with no more than two shorter -
lIj tenancies per year; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried.
tl I
III SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION - Vicenzi/Goldstein
11 1
'I Alan Richman told Council this is a request to condominiumize an office/commercial structure
'i located at 300 South Spring in the 0, office zone. This is on 6,000 square feet with ,.
nine units and has been known as the Hanna-Dustin building. Since this is a commercial
•
building most of the requirements of Section 20-22 do not apply. There are comments from
the engineering department. The applicant should obtain an encroachment license for the '
11 intrusion of the building into the right-of-way; the applicant should construct a five
n foot wide sidewalk; the applicant should revise their plat. .
iii Richman told Council there are comments from the building inspector as to numerous life, •
health and safety violation at the building. Richman reminded Council a life, health and
safety ordinance relating to condominiumization was enacted earlier this year requiring the
building inspector to conduct inspections of structure prior to condominiumization to
determine life, health and safety violations. Richman told Council the report from the
building inspector to P & Z was complicated and two problems arose because of this. P & Z
made a statement that they were looking, from this ordinance, to get a report; they were
•
not looking to be a review body for building violations. The building inspector has his
9 Y
own mechanism for compliance. The planning office and P & 7 feel for the staff to place
re compliance on the building inspector's report as an aspect of approval is redundant and
is not as strong a mechanism as the building inspector has for code violations . Richman
said the staff did not want to put the building inspector compliance as part of either
sli, j the P & Z recommendation or the staff to Council. Richman said P & Z felt they did not
11 j have the expertise to say which violations were not life, health safety violations.
Richman said P & Z did not want to put these as a conditions because if they are conditions,
then the applicant has to sit and argue on a due process consideration and have the P & Z
decide who is right and who is wrong.
Paul Taddune told Council the P & Z did not want to act as an appeals board; there is one.
ij P & Z's position is that they do not have jurisdiction to make rulings on determinations
made by the building department; the building department has its own mechanism for this.
'jl PP board;
! Mayor Edel said one of the conditions for approval is to conform to the building code;
' if an applicant does not conform to it, they go to the Board of Appeals. Gideon Kaufman •
told Council he is concerned because the original intent of this was to look at life,
health and safety violations was could cause serious problems, with the understanding that
li some old buildings cannot be brought up to Code. Kaufman pointed out that when the
li building inspector goes into a building he makes a list of all violations; the initial
request for health and safety inspections has gotten to a larger degree. Kaufman said he
j felt the Council should listen if an applicant feels aggrieved because this has gotten
16 I outside of the intent of the ordinance. Kaufman told Council this building went before
lI the Board of Appeals in 1969 and received a variance. The building department is now
I asking them to undo the variance they received. Mayor Edel said if an applicant gets the
II l privilege of condominiumization, they should conform with the building code. The building
, li codes are different in 1981 than they were in 1969. Kaufman said the only change when
f condominiumizing is the possible ownership, not the use of the building. Richman said
jl the best avenue to determine whether or not these are life, health and safety issues is
;
f to appeal to the Board of Appeals. Councilman Collins suggested going to the Board of
' • f� Appeals with this and then come back to Council.
j,
;I • 1i Councilman Collins moved to table this item; seconded by Councilman Knecht; All in favor, •
with the exception of Councilman Parry. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE 438, SERIES OF 1981 - Ute City Place Rezoning to RBO •
G Alan Richman told Council this project received a residential GMP allocation; it is
j located in the R/MF zone on 15,000 square feet on Cooper avenue east of West end street.
One lot is vacant; one lot has a unit on it. Council heard this application in March at
1., conceptual stage. P & Z has heard this at preliminary plat for rezoning to RBO; also
:'. for request from exemption from GMP for the employee units; for condominiumization. P & Z
•
approved all requests. This presentation is only for rezoning to RBO as it is an
'. ordinance process; the other requests will he heard at second reading of this ordinance.
•
w
No. ( 5-l/
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
1. DATE SUBMITTED: 3/3i)/1 STAFF: Ah`i Alj11i:
2. APPLICANT: Sohn " !"
3. REPRESENTATIVE: tit �9 /".;6-,/ :11, / )"– _ ±.
4. PROJECT NAME: IJ ,`: � /F/ , / r� / i. J</,?' �j ,�., i, %%• 'I7
5. LOCATION: /J ;/ Il_'/7"/ 'l y ij
- lore
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Rezoning
K Subdivision Stream Margin
�r —
P.U.D. %\ Exception 8040 Greenline
Special Review Exemption View Plane
X Growth Management 70:30 Conditional Use
HPC Residential Bonus Other
/2l9l / ./
7. REFERRALS: /Irr :rte" —/{/'(f/T
_Attorney Sanitation District _School District
_Engineering Dept. Fire Marshal Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
_Housing Parks _State Highway Dept.
_Water Holy Cross Electric _Other
City Electric Mountain Bell
8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office
RE: 1015 East Hyman Avenue - Exemption of Employee Units from the GMP; Exception
from Subdivision
DATE: April 24, 1981
Zoning: R-MF
Lot Size: 9,000 square feet
Location: Hyman Avenue between Cleveland and the Roaring Fork River
Background: This project is one which received an allocation during the 1981
Residential GMP competition. There are presently two 2-bedroom
units located on this parcel . The applicant proposes to add three
units to the site; two additional two bedroom units and one
studio. A GMP allocation has been given for one of the 2-bedroom
units. The applicant is now requesting that you recommend to
City Council that the two bedroom employee unit and the studio
employee unit be exempted from the GMP, as provided in Section
24-11 .2(h) of the Code. The applicant is also requesting an
exception from full subdivision procedures as provided in Section
20-19 of the Code.
Employee The Code states that your approval shall include a determination
Housing Review of community need considering, but not limited to, the number of
Criteria: units, and the rental/sale mix of the development. In response
to these criteria, the applicant has indicated that:
1 ) Both units will be restricted to low income rental or sale
price guidelines; and that
2) Despite the fact that both units exceed the maximum size
guidelines for their type, the applicant will scale their
rents solely on the maximum square footage provision of the
housing guidelines.
The Planning Office feels that this project represents precisely
the type of GMP application originally envisioned by City policy-
makers. It provides two low income deed restricted employee
units in exchange for a single free market unit, thereby creating
dispersed employee units in a small , low impact setting. The
Planning Office would strongly recommend that you exempt both
employee units from the GMP, subject to the following condition:
1 ) The applicant's recordation of deed restrictions limiting
the studio and two-bedroom employee units to low income
housing price guidelines, as adjusted by annual price
increments by City Council .
Subdivision Section 20-3(s) of the Code defines multifamily development as
Exception: a subdivision. However, at the time of the public hearing for
the GMP competition, P & Z heard the applicant's conceptual pre-
sentation, while Council concurred with P & Z's recommendation at
its subsequent meeting by allocating a development right to this
project. It would therefore be unnecessarily redundant to
require full subdivision review for this application. It is
important, at this phase of the review, for P & Z to consider
those aspects of the proposal which emerged during the GMP
review and for which the applicant received points during the
competition. The review comments received at that time include:
1 ) The Engineering Department noted that the curb cut located
on Hyman Street may exceed the Code requirement (Section
20-101 ) that cuts be a maximum of either one eighteen-foot
wide cut or two ten-foot cuts in the RMF zone.
Memo: 1015 East Hyman Avenue - Exemption of Employee Units from the GMP; Exception
from Subdivision
Page Two
April 24, 1981
2) The Engineering Department further noted that the applicant's
proposal to handle drainage through surface absorption would
not be adequate, and that the alternative suggested by the
applicant -- a dry well -- should be employed.
3) The Environmental Health Department comments that any fire-
place units installed in the structure be designed with energy
conservation in mind and that the numbers of installations be
limited to minimize air pollution impacts of the project.
The Planning Office further notes that the applicant proposed
several energy conservation features in the GMP application
which should be included in the final design of the building,
including:
- insulation characteristics to exceed the Code;
- maximization of south-facing glass; and
- domestic hot water collectors on the free market unit,
and; if possible, the employee units.
4) The Planning Office comments that since this project
represents new residential development, that park dedication
fees are required, as specified in Section 20-18 of the Code.
This section indicates, however, that City Council may exempt
the development from these fees if a low or moderate income
subdivision is proposed. The Planning Office feels that it
is appropriate to require park dedication fees only for the
free market unit and not for the employee units.
Planning Office The Planning Office recommends that you approve the applicant's
Recommendation: request that the two employee units be exempt from the GMP and
that you approve the request for subdivision exception subject to
the following conditions:
1 ) The applicant's recordation of deed restrictions limiting
the studio and two-bedroom employee units to low income
housing price guidelines, as adjusted by annual price incre-
ments by City Council ,
2) The applicant not exceeding the Code requirement that curb
cuts in the R-MF zone be limited to a width of 18 feet;
3) The applicant agreeing to provide a dry well for drainage;
4) The applicant agreeing to install the energy conservation
measures outlined in the original GMP application and mini-
mizing the total number of fireplaces employed at the project;
and
5) The applicant agreeing to a cash payment or land dedication
to meet the park dedication requirements for the free market
unit. The precise arrangement for these fees will be computed
by the Building Inspector at such time that a building permit
for the project is requested.
a .S\otA- e}4-024 ..ce
.k'2_ -V c)
— (—Ow L Q \.. A a-4 V\c. l r. c/A. `�'Y� "�'C'✓p .�^C. v I�Q
O C.-Yet-" f eGt, L., P
* 9va.RA 11. nn
Co c2ekua` (Lc 5 . - 9%6,4- 8S w.P Ptp6'
U
4- - Arc A-P o„e
z
S
` (
o
w � _ 21 n
D
C
0
1` -4) N CO CO NJ NJ M CO CO N .-y r-1 ti r-i .-I ri CO
ri
w
sI I I
CD LO CT CO CO N CO I N CO CO Q) NJ r-i rr •ti ,� I NJ m•O ti
is
N I
r-I
CO
7
N iup rn C
N CO
_C Z 0
Cr) N N N CO ti NJ N •-v rti rti N 0
-_ O r� rti
,_.. �. I I
(r:C
Lc) C) CU
Ell O F- C i I I i
J W
U) J W
_1 J N " a N N NJ NJ N NJ CO U) N ti .--a N I O I .- j N al l
CC V) J
2 F Y
Z:1'-
S J
F O CC) I I
d F-
O
CY N CO r5 I NJ CO N NJ NJ NJ CO
CD
'21 r0- i CO N N r-C r~ �--i '-r NJ 0
cc ca_
I I
J
t_)
:� N
V) NJ CU N CO N NJ � N NJ �--I •ti v--i
LL —I I NJ ti 0 r-i N CO
n
C)
N
>1
5_
•-- C N CO CO N NJ N CO I�
Cu r-( .-i .-y )--I '--) '--) N CO
0
•
I
C) N
E
> (U
C CJ v
U CU X
S- 0> C )r6 S-
•-,C 5_ 0 N V) 4- .
C l E co
0 V) +i Cl CU (U V=
ll) 13 .� '-- 4-) L' 5_ F-
C en
W J r 5, -- 0 L)
(b (U C) .0 CO (U U .F) •— r- C Cl. -)
N C) C_)
N In (3 U rt5 43 O) 1) U C'1 U U •r- Cl. M
0 C ,N C U V) CU c 1-' j_ , r.) i_ to (f)LL. Q)
E- CU a) S.- 0 i� S- S R. N Cr) r6
5- C a.
-e-
a) - v) v) C) Co U C) rU I_ C n . C) C) •-- C) )- U S_V C C E . U) U
O) rU U) CU 5_ U) �C U T) (3 .-
C LC. -■' :p 'D S- D r) _ _ E
0 S- 5- ti W Lt_ 11 �� � 2J F.
•_ r0 N i) •r- CO 0 C 'r- U U C ?
4�) U V) V) L)_ CL CC Li) _I O • ) C) CU m )
C_)
D. • • • • • •-- •
O •I' u") iJ f
ca: •
•
LL Cu <L
a Cu
I
C
• CC0
I
• J- +
>_ C)
a) a)
CU E •1-
a) a) S-
E i O
•r 0)
to 0 C)
O'
0
O a) (0 to
O i U
• W
I-
0
Z
W
CD
Q .
R
W 1--,.. 0
c 10
•
•
C
U N N CO 0 CO '-I
;, N N e U)
a)
nS' N N 0 0 0 O
�J N N IL) U)
O
CC
LLD N N O) O N
N N e LO
1
1
i i- N N 1.0 O OD 1f)
N N e
•
i
I
N N CO
N O CV
C
M N e
LID
N N N N N V Ul �' CO
O N N e I e
J
CL/ ,
tT
to
R
F- >
W S-
W N N f-- O N Ol
�"� i N N e e
CI._
= CI
_
!n
r
.J
I--
1-
Z
W _I p)
Q U rC W
LLI F- - 1
C O < U
cL aJ I- C
ea to to
U W C W •
(1) H
CC LI_ CC
DC 2 tv u) O cp
E W C Iy
C) ^ o al F- CT
Cr. = to U E 2 •r Q
W i 01 H O U C U
N C N U .0
_1 W _0 r F_ c v) N
..0 F to o a) I- S-
1--
a) C U +' Z O u)
' 'L i O - O
L31 '- CT a) -0 R C R
CI C N -o -o O o
Q) O O r a_ J
V) -FJ >5 J 5 to
w 1-- O O F- - 0
Li Ci. r-I N 01 F- o L I,,i Ni E i
m CC W 0.. ❑]
O) t'✓- o
R U p E1
•I_