HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.iz.Aspen Cooperative Housing.1974 e
4
g
CITY ic: 7 ,ii-').- EN
1
aspen ,co,,, -_
.tr,, x:311 box v
1
i
TO: Building Inspector
FROM: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
SUBJECT: Aspen Cooperative Housing Project t
DATE: March 7 , 1974
At its continued meeting of February 21, 1974, the P & Z t
Commission denied an application by Aspen Cooperative
Housing Project under Ordinance 19 Conceptual Review
for a four unit condominium development at 655 S . Monarch.
;* x;
Denial was based on the following reasons:
Four permanent resident townhouses , which assure
(� continual, year around use and maximize the use
7
,^(v�,u,X of private automobiles , are inappropriate at the
bl� location because of:
L„✓ 1. Inadequate access , i.e. , road width and
,b grade, visibility and lot entrance. C.2 . (a)
vok, i
ed 2. Insufficient off street parking spaces on - , , i
street which is presently congested. C. 3.
il
3. Adverse impact on already existing problems
tfr of circulation and snow removal. C.4.
ur 4. Excessive density and lot use for physical
conditions of development site and immediate
surroundings . C4. (a) , -..,
.-------". (1.4.4,4.,..4.-- (11....C-ale....•••
Chairman
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February <_L, 1974
not be as they are now.
Schiffer_ reminded the Commission that they have 30
days to act on this project unless the applicant wishe.
to waive the 30 day limit.
Vagneur stated that she would like to see the build-
ings go two and two, without putting a protective cove-
nant on the use of Molny ' s office.
Landry stated that she agreed.
Johnson stated he would like to review the site be-
fore making any decision.
Jenkins stated that he had no problem with the use or
the transfer of density.
Aspen Cooperative Rick Farrell, Baryard Hovdesven, Dr. Bill Wesson and
Housing Partnership - Monte Hughes were present to represent the project.
Conceptual Presen-
tation Farrell stated that the applicants have optioned the
property located on South Monarch Street, down hill
from the Caribou Condominiums . Stated that they were
proposing to build a fourplex for their own use.
Stated that each one of tacm would end up owning one
of the units that results .
Farrell submitted memo to the Commission showing con-
ceptual site plan. Stated that the architecture sug-
gested in the memo was very preliminary. Hoped the
Commission would consider density and use rather than
the exact building layout. Stated that the general
idea was a towhouse type unit with two bedrooms , two
baths, living room, kitchen and dining room and pos-
sibly a small basement area for storage.
Chairman Gillis questioned if the applicant felt that
circulation would be a problem.
Farrell stated that it could be because any time you
have a dead-end street, not an attractive planning -
situation. Stated that there is a street below what
is known as the Hirst Apartments , which provides some
circulation.
Chairman Gillis questioned if one parking place per
unit would satisfy their needs.
Farrell stated that it would.
Vagnuer questioned if the proposal was to limit these
units to the owners use and not to be used as rental
units .
Farrell stated that they would prefer not to put some
covenant on it over an indefinite period. Stated that
he would not live in this unit forever, and since it
is in a tourist zone, at some time he would probably
sell it. Feel that putting a covenant on it would
restrict future marketability. Felt that if it does
revert to a tourist use, that would be appropriate .
Farrell further stated that he would probably rent
-8-
•
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21 , 1974
his unit out at Christmas . Stated that the intent of
the applicants is through this method, allows the ap-
plicant to create these units for their use at about
$50 , 000 or less . Feel that to get an equivalent unit
in the open market would cost probably $70 , 000 .
Jenkins stated that the only thing that dictates use
is the zoning in the area , so feel that is an academic
subject to discuss . Felt any discussion should be in
the way of circulation, etc. . .
Jenkins stated that in that area in particular , have
no problem with parking , density etc. during the off-
season. Stated that it is generally a tourist accom-
modation.
Farrell stated that this project was designed for per-
manent use. Did not disagree with Jenkins that it
probably will , at some future date, become a tourist
accommodation. Stated that density and parking spaces
are in compliance with existing zoning code and reco-
mmended land use .
•
Schiffer stated he did not understand what the reason-
ing was behind having two units be two stories and
the other two units have three stories.
Farrell stated that that was an issue for the prelimi-
nary architectural review. Stated that at this time
the problem is to produce 12 , 000 square feet - gets
. pretty tight on the site. Stated that the applicants
have not involved an architect at this point.
Schiffer stated that he did not understand how the
applicant could maximize views by creating three stor-
ies .
Farrell stated that that would be by going higher in
order to look over the surrounding uses. Stated that
the only real views are out of the corners . Pointed
out that the architecture is very uncertain at this
time.
•
Ms. Baer pointed out that the Caribou is uphill from
the proposed development, as is Mountain Queen, so the
view is lost anyway from the street.
Vagneur questioned if the ownership would bring the
project under subdivision.
Farrell stated that it would. Questioned the Commis-
sion on what problems might arise in subdivision.
Pointed out that Mountain Queen ' s solving their utilit
problem also solved the problem for this application .
Chairman Gillis stated that if this project is to be
considered tourist oriented at some future date , not
appropriate for the Commission to even consider it .
Vagneur stated that she would not like to see the ap-
plicants cut out on that basis since the housing pro-
blem is so critical for permanent residents .
Landry stated that she did not feel the project would
-o_
•
f
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
C.F.H'E'KFC 9.8.9 L.CO. _______..
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21 , 1974
for permanent resident use . Stated that if it were ,
that site is too inconvenient. Stated that for a
woman to maintain a household would be difficult and
would maximize the use of a car for a woman living
there.
Farrell stated that he felt that was a personal value
judgment and felt it more convenient than Red Mountain
or Starwood. Stated that would be their other alter-
native.
Vagneur questioned if the applicants could live with
one bedroom.
Applicants expressed desire for the extra bedroom for
guests, etc. . .
Jenkins stated that he felt the biggest problem was
access and was not sure that this was a suitable site
for more development.
Vagneur questioned if there were problems concerning
fire protection.
Ms. Baer pointed out that the procedure for making the
street at the top of Monarch has not begun yet .
Chairman Gillis stated that until the Commission gets
o more information from the economst, etc. . , does not
feel that Commission should get into more condominium
use.
Farrell requested that the Commission disapprove the
project since the applicants had entered into a con-
, tract that requires approval or disapproval to es--
t.ablish their legal position in terms of the contract.
Felt that by the Commission not saying anything , does
not help the applicants.
Jenkins made a motion to deny this project on the basis
that there are more appropriate places to put permanei
resident, townhouse type units. Motion seconded by
Johnson. All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Chairman Gillis stated that the public hearings on sub
Margaret Meadows & division for Margaret Meadows and Aspen Center will be
Aspen Center continued to March 5 , 1974 at 5 : 00 p.m.
Johnson made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded
by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried . Meeting,
adjourned at 7 : 30 p.m.
QI + F
Casey ,..rmstrong , `Jecrc_ t ;,.y
April 5, 1974
MEMORANDUM
TO: MEMBERS OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FROM: SANDRA STULLER, CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: ASPEN COOPERATIVE HOUSING PARTNERSHIP
Dear Members:
I have been advised that your Baord has some question
about its exact role in the Ordinance 19 Review Procedure.
Inasmuch as I will not be in town for your next meeting, let
me explain, as well as I am able , how you fit in to the pro-
cedures described in Ordinance 19.
Procedural Outline
Ordinance 19 (hereinafter called "19") establishes a pre-
permit review of most new building in the city. It is initiated
by all applicants filing a permit application and paying an
estimated building permit fee (part of which is refunded if
approval is not given) . After P & Z review, and in the event
of denial , the building inspector must give the reasons therefore
and deny the permit application . This is the "order, requirement ,
decision or determination made by any administrative official
charged with the enforcement of the regulations established by
the zoning laws. " In the event any of you do not have a copy
of 19, we are enclosing the same for you.
It was intended, at the time of adoption of 19, that your
Board review denials within the limits of your dia retion both
to (1) give applicants a method of review of P & Z disapproval
and (2) to give relief within the traditional areas of review
by your Board.
Elements Subject to Review
In reviewing P & Z appeals , the Board is requested to
grant variances only as to "the use, construction or alteration
of buildings or structures , or the use of land" , and subsequent
to a determination that there are "practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardships" as a result of the P & Z determinations
under 19. You are bound to a finding that one of the following
Memo to Members of Board of Adjustment
April 5, 1974
Page 2
reasons exist for granting a variance (as prescribed in Sec.
2-22 (d) ) :
"1. That the special conditions and circumstances do not
result from the actions of the applicant .
2. That special or extraordinary circumstances apply
to the subject property
3. That the grant of a variance is essential to the enjoy-
ment of a substantial property right (resulting from)
the special conditions or extraordinary circumstances.
4. That the granting of the variance will not adversely
purpose of the comprehensive general plan. "
As to the latter, recall that 19 has incorporated the 1973
Aspen Land Use Plan which is the proposed update of our master
plan.
Aspen Cooperative Housing Partnership Project
The Board is requested on hearing of the appeal of ACHP
to review the specific findings of the P & Z and consider
arguments from ACHP as to why the criteria imposed by the P & Z
creates hardships for or practical difficulties for the applicant .
I agree that yours is a unique position , but we solicit your
cooperation in Ordinance 19 review and anticipate you will
receive few such appeals within the lifetime (mid-July, 1974)
of the ordinance.
SMS:mw
cc : Donna Baer
1
de>ele.. / „,,,/,,6j Qt:/
I, ,..---6” '_ a..)--4,---1 71-14- 6 de ,......e...,..)
1 /9/7,7 — 7.�c���
Cam .
ii
, . /4„,,e,r___,,,,,Jr-c-1
H
,,/ ter.=. _--_
,. di.) , 4.), ,e„,......6:"..... Lee_.........
lat' / /
i / j' 2"- r. -- ---le-' 144 a- e-'6'7"1 7 e..te-__--
2 -, (.-,'Id----'(__...) y _ d_,-iss2e.....e)
(;,,r_e7
1
H .
.5ii . . --Izi
1 - _,7,-)1 . - .e„o , e_e__re___e__J ,
r
.1
, 7
rl
,1 Arri 1,
I 1 ' ' 7 s
�//, - ____,,4_,../ _ - a i
•
C � °
I c
c__tsie__..) 7
1 1--e--e------, ,.-
it
11;
1
II'.
it
I'
I;
If
II
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Rick Ferrell , Aspen Cooperative Housing Partnership
SUBJ : Concept Review Hearing of February 21 , 1974
•
DATE : February 22, 1974
I believe that I made a serious procedural error which
negatively influenced the Planning and Zoning Commission ' s
vote on the Aspen Cooperative Housing Partnership ' s project
being reviewed under Ordinance 19 Concept Review last Thurs .
evening, February 21 , 1974 . In hindsight , I feel that I
pressured the Commission into disapproving the project with-
out permitting the Commission the full time as permitted
under the Ordinance to review the facts presented . I be-
lieve that my spoken words implied that I requested dis-
approval . I wish to make it clear and to have the record
show that my intent was to request a timely decision, not
to request disapproval . We are before the Commission seek-
ing approval of our fourplex project .
To clarify this issue, I would like to request that the
Commission move and vote to recind last night ' s disapproval
of the project . Then, taking as much time as they desire
and as allowed under Ordinance 19 (30 days) , re-vote when
the Commission feels that they have evaluated the project
and the facts presented without pressure from the applicant .
The Aspen Cooperative Housing Partnership has no additional
facts to present at this time, but below I have summarized
the facts previously presented :
1 . We propose to construct a fourplex consisting of four •
two-bedroom apartments on 6, 000 sq. ft . of land on
South Monarch Street between the existing Caribou Con-
dominiums and, the existing Hirst Apartments .
2 . The proposed project is in compliance with all existing
land use regulations .
3 . Each of the four units will be conveyed to the partners
for their personal use as residences .
4 . Since the site is zoned tourist (AR-1) and the Ordinance
19 Proposed Land Use Map indicates tourist use, (AR-Tran-
sition) the partnership does not feel that it is appropriate
•
Memorandum to P . Commission
February 22 , 1974 - - - Page 2
to covenant the units to permanent residential use by
agreeing to a deed restriction that prohibits rental
for periods less than six months as suggested at last
night ' s meeting .
5 . All surrounding properties have been developed at AR-1
densities and are primarily tourist-related uses .
I regret my error and apologize for the inconvenience and I
hope that you will rescind the previous vote and re-vote at
. your leisure as provided under the terms of Ordinance 19 .
RWF :
•
II
,
, .
" .
/ I ,/ , . ,
i
,I 4
Cil 9 (74,1 .
i
71,..
/
, ■ ->t--ec-) 1 T
1 v id.
1
1, /
_ Zer__?
e'672'e-la--b 4/ i ,„/
' - ---"---e- e-,e-/r--e--e.,- '
I .
1 ' 2! /Z2"---e)
)
, 2---t-C--IZ--e_.--e.--<2_) --/--e.fr-a-e---c---e-- -e
1 1 0
- --) / ... . e__), , -4 /)(---1°/2e
./ /
7le,
, .. ,
' s
(ly pp 1
,
-4ft-c
- 6).
t>,4-,-. 4,4,i) .
(;)
■ ,
Vi
\
_7i64/(}
1
4 1 /
' / i
CIT---W /9
1 . 1
j l
/c J o ,40,/ �OU /6/('c)i l U6.", // /c'y 5,c%‘, ;7 / vsG, (i f'ii irc�,J)
- - //d3( i i i 2 �� " ? 0 al-- 1 l"7 t�7"i t-r , - /
C C.-�C C f id,/, hoc, �� �iv/cl
MEMORANDUM
TO : Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Aspen Cooperative Housing Partnership
SUBJ : Conceptual Review Under Ordinance 19
DATE : February 12 , 1974
The Aspen Cooperative Housing Partnership is a partner-
ship that has been formed by four local residents to
construct a four-plex near Lift lA on South Monarch .
Each of the four resulting units will be conveyed to
the respective partners after construction . By, using
this method of joint effort , we feel that we can pro-
duce reasonable housing that can be afforded by each
of the partners .
The site is located on South Monarch Street downhill
from the recently constructed Caribou Condominiums .
To the North the property is bounded by the Hirst
Apartments, and to the rear is the Skier ' s Chalet
Lodge . It is 60 ' by 100 ' and , therefore, consists
,of 6, 000 sq. ft . Under existing zoning and under the
Aspen Proposed Land Use Map, the property can accommo-
/✓ date four units (1500 sq. ft . of land each) .
The project that we propose would incorporate the
following features :
1 . Four condominium apartment units consisting of
approximately 1200 sq. ft . each . They shall be
two bedroom, two bath units .
2 . The apartments will be in a four-plex structure
with an approximate total square footage of 4800.
3 . Two of the apartments will be in a two story
section of the four-plex . To minimize site
coverage and maximize the limited views , the
other two apartments will be three stories . The
three story units may require a height variance .
It is envisioned that these taller units will re-
late to the Caribou which is a very high building
to the South . The height issue will be addressed
at the Preliminary Architectural Review after we
have performed detailed architectural studies .
Memorandum to Aspen P and Z Commission Page 2
4 . Four on-site parking spaces will be provided .
5 . We will attempt to preserve the large existing
cottonwood tree.
RWF : jd
54/CJC' . t.-1'r rtLC
• •
- -- - - > 10f0 51-0
•
lb Up
IA
2 sTDRY 2 D"
+ 1160 sq.pr. H 1200 SQ.F r
5 STZY
t 54"
,r (?PO FT- EHT1 NC
774E
c14RiQov Hlle5r
it/ymcis-rawcw 'TREE'
hP/RMENT
1D BE P ER.Vb
500V MotJPrR.CN MEET' N
ASPEN GcopRT1VE Hoo.NG- Pf r JE l P go)( y sd9 A5PE14
Se-A-LE: ,
,
1
i4/65I 2 (1.1. c+p � - -v � qCn �" .`; s .9 ".Is lw k't'
k_ . e ,.'' i n ah,' 4 a d
,
+ 1`i Y OF ASPEN O <
,. ��'�1-, - �"t�.l,' � °.�� �! � 1 1141 J �:C�1 ,I.AD0 _
i g„; t0.;6 655 South Monarch CLPISTRL CTIC I
e WHEN SIGNED AND VALIDATED BY BUILDING INiPECEI N �_EFA{ i,±ENE TI IS F_RMIT AUTHORIZES THE WORK OO1SCRIBED BELCW. .
Y ■
t
[CLASS OF WORK:K: NEt�r' ' ADD Fri rt. to i E 1, I e r) )-1 ❑ I'aP cIR r7 M 9 °E CJ ',t F C".V..' �_I .
OW t.4 Ea
Partnership I
NAME Aspen Cooperative Housing/ fi DDRESS 4.509 PHONE 12=1
it LICENSE LICENSE
• NAME (AS LICENSED) CLASS NUMBER
LP - -- ------- INSURANCE..
Q I
( 1
M
z _ADDRESS PHONE LJ ;
O SUPERVISOR
- --- - -__.,
Ci
FOR THIS JOB NAME DATE CERTIFIED
LEGAL - 520'Lot 14; all of Lot 15 --_ :
DESCRIPTION LOT No. N 10' Lot 16 BLOCY. NO. - 1 AUDITION_ Conner's Addition
SURVEY ATTACHED DESIGN A uc.
BY BY Carr and �cCafrer PE No.
AREA (S.F.)
2032
HEIGHT NO. TOTAL { OCCUPANCY
AT GRADE _— � gh _ (FEET) STORIES 2 2 UNITS 4 i GROUP DIV.
I FIN. SINGLE O ATTACHED n TOTAL I TYPE FIRE
BASEMENT GARAGE
UNPIN. ❑ DOUBLE El DETACHED Ej ROOFiS 1 CONSTR. ZONE
DEPTH FIRST SIZE —SPACING SPAN AUTHORIZED
BELOW I AGENCY BY DATE
7 GRADE FLOOR --
—�' BUILDING
RI� REV!E W
EXTERIOR I
�° FOOTING CEILING
Vb
4 SIZE 0
'11% f ZONING
,y _ J'
! "' I EXTERIOR CONC. L, 1_ PARKING
FDN WALL ROOF
, THICKNESS MAS'Y ❑ -- _
THICK ri CAISSONS ROOFING PUBLIC HEALTH
SLAB A GR.BEAMS ❑ MATERIAL - —
MASONRY ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE ENGINEERING
EXTERIOR THICKNESS 1ST FLR. —_ 2ND FIR 3RD FLR. -- — ^
'ALL I STUD SIZE ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE
8 SPACE
1ST FLR. 2ND FLR 3RD FLR.
REMARKS — (
ToT�hQ�.�eS - condos - -
- no ..survey-or-plans i --a1.dg_--.dept__nn--2-2Z -4 !i-
t — --
F— — +— — ------— —
L- To P5Z_2_27-74 - -1!
1NOTES TO APPLICANT:
EOP INSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CALL 925-7336 — — — _--I I
FOR ALL WORK DONE UNDER THIS PERMIT THE PERMITTEE ATCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR I I
COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE COUNTY ZONING RESOLLIHON OR CITY II VALUATION e,°
ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ALL OTHER COUNTY RESOLUYIONS OE CITY ORDINANCES WHICHEVER I! OF WORK 120,000
APPLIES. I,
SEPARATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMPING AND HEATING, SIGNS, {� PLAN r P TOTAL FEE
SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES. li '
PERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK IS STARTED. FILED
REQUIRED INSI'ECT'IONS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE. I DOUBLE I CHECK I -j 246.50
�1.. - - 123.25p1ck
ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SBIALL BE MADE ON ALL ITEMS OF WORK BEFORE OCCUPAFNCY IS FERAAITTED. ii FEE CASH r- I
I— t 1 't
THIS BUILDING SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED.❑ ti BUILDING DE P,,RTMEN r 36-97743
PERMIT SUEJECT TO REVOCATION OP SUSPENSION FOR VIOLATION OF AMY LAWS GOVERNING SAME, II
SIGi ATU3t ; f, , , / I if-
C i , / JI ;r '7 /•y/; /'.' 1
�L I_I'c�1�'� �,' r i ,r l lii , ,r !" I - ' — <.- !Hi / f - �---- 1 APPROVAL BY DATE ---I
THIS PERMIT ONLY LATE PERMIT NO. LICENSt F1 RECEIPTS CLASS AMOUNT
WHEN VALIDATED HERE RL 4Iftt g.
4,T'
_-27-74 48--74