HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Kraut Affordable Housing Project.A60-91KRAUT EMPLOYEE HOUSING PROJECT
2737-182-27-002
00
r
A60—{al
T
Z
rI
-A
Aspen /
Pitkin County
Housing
Authority
KRAUT
property
Affordable
Housing
Land Use
Application
I
24 October 1991
Housing Authority
kk City of Aspen/Pitkin County
39551 Highway B2
Aspen, Colorado B 1 61 1
(303) 92O-5050
Fax: (303) 92O-55BO
Ms. Leslie Lamont, City Planner
' Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
' Re: Kraut Affordable Housing Development/Land Use
Application for Zone Amendment to (AH) Affordable
Housing
Dear Ms. Lamont:
On behalf of the City of Aspen and Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority, we are submitting the Kraut Affordable Housing Land Use
Rezoning Application. Attached are thirteen (13) copies of the
application for review by the Planning Office and referral
agencies.
Thank you for your assistance and guidance in the preparation of
this application. Should you have any questions, or if we can be
of further assistance, please contact Dave Tolen at 920-5216.
Sincerely,
Robert Nevins
APCHA Planner
1
Fj
rj
I
1
I
r
1
KRAUT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
LAND USE REZONING APPLICATION
Submitted to:
The City of Aspen
22 October 1991
Prepared by:
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
39551 Highway 82
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5050
Robert M. Nevins
Project Manager/Planner
r
1
J
t
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
PREFACE
111
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1
Project Location
2
1.2
Authority and Scope
2
1.3
Background
3
2.0
PLANNING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
6
2.1
Relationship to Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
6
2.2
Relationship to Affordable Housing Production Plan
9
3.0
EXISTING CONDITIONS
12
3.1
Natural Factors
12
3.2
Man-made Factors
12
3.3
Summary of Site Features and Conditions
14
4.0
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
17
4.1
Water System
17
4.2
Sewage Treatment System
18
4.3
Drainage System
18
4.4
Fire Protection
18
4.5
Development Data
19
4.6
Traffic and Parking
19
4.7
Affordable Housing
22
4.8
Stoves and Fireplaces
22
4.9
Proximity to Public Facilities
22
4.10
Proximity to Services
22
4.11
Effect on Adjacent Land Uses
23
4.12
Construction Schedule
23
5.0
LAND USE REQUIREMENTS
25
5.1
Amendment to the Official Zone District Map
25
6.0
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
31
6.1
Detailed Plans
31
- i -
I
1
1
1
1
LIST OF FIGURES
Follows
Figure
Figure Title
Page Number
1.1
Location Map
2
3.1
Site Summary
15
4.1
Site Plan
17
4.2
Floor Plans
17
4.3
Massing Studies
17
4.4
Public Facilities Map
22
5.1
Existing Zoning Map
26
5.2
Proposed Zoning Map
26
5.3
Neighborhood Context Map
28
LIST OF TABLES
Table Table Title Page Number
4.1 Dimensional Requirements 20
4.2 Development Data 21
LIST OF EXHIBITS
(in Appendix)
Exhibit Title Exhibit
Special Warranty Deed A
Authorization to Represent B
Square Footage Ranges and Income Maximums C
Property Survey D
Pre -application Conference Summary E
IPREFACE
The City of Aspen, owner/applicant (Special Warranty Deed,
Exhibit A), and Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA),
owner's representative (Authorization to Represent, Exhibit B)
request land use approval for the rezoning of the Kraut parcel to
(AH) Affordable Housing. The project site is located within the
' city boundaries of Aspen, at the southwest corner of East Hyman
Avenue and Original Street. Twenty-four (24) to thirty (30)
affordable, deed -restricted rental or sale units may be contained
within the tentative development proposal.
This application is submitted by APCHA pursuant to Section 5-206.2,
Affordable Housing (AH), Chapter 24, Land Use Regulations of the
Aspen Municipal Code. The specific land use request is:
Amendment to the Official zone District Map, Rezoning
Approval to (AH) Affordable Housing from (0) Office
(Section 7-1102).
The land use rezoning application is divided into six (6) sections:
r
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Planning Goals and Objectives
3.0 Existing Conditions
4.0 Development Plan
5.0 Land Use Requirements
6.0 Implementation Plan
Within each section of the application, figures (maps and/or plans)
and tables are provided to supplement the text. Pertinent
documents are referenced as exhibits and contained in the Appendix.
The Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority has been diligent in its efforts
rto provide the City of Aspen with a complete and thorough applica-
tion. During the review process, should information need to be
clarified and/or additional issues arise pertaining to the Kraut
Affordable Housing Development, APCHA will be cooperative and
responsive to fully addressing those concerns.
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
- iv -
Project_ Location SOt I `CAN OF-
(irril_c=Ite street address, lot & block .Inmber, legal desCrlption ' rAlcre
approprl.al.e)
Present zanu �E�.�D��I`�' 4) Lot Size COOOe'a.Fi'
�) Applicant s Name, Adaress & alone e-bVG;V\t5L- fNT1'
�q��l f ic-" 1WfllY b� ^€� ^I,G �10 b1&1 f ob' aIrl •Fhsct5;,q)
`) Ilepresentative's Name, Address & Pixxse $ T' ly� 11LIS,�Pc NNE
i) Type of Application (please dedc all that apply)
condit.i-onal Use Cax:eL al SPA Concept:iUal historic Dev.
Special lb--rFinal
iew Final SPA Iistoric Dev.
8040 Grensllirle concepLiml RM Minor historic Dev.
Stream Margin
Final PUD
Iistoric Demolition
LISountain
View Plane -
Subdivision
Iistoric Designation
Cjndcmi n i t mi ;-a tion
Tex Map Amax3m nt
GxQs AllotmerTt
Lot SplivLot Lisa'
- E�M=Pti-o'n
Adjustment
Dc_ _iption of ad_ting Uses (r�bPs and
type of �asL-itx� sL��ctures;
approximate sq- ft- ; err
of bedzccros; any previous
approvals granted to tine
/ •DDO iV4 f=OOT'
f.�T-- 1��i�NT`�f'lo
IST7l��' S7-7�1G
- �vP--
- VC
LDescription of Development: Application
� ZoN rN�- ��vD {� f� P(� � �fi71 °�(-' ��M �N•T' T'° t�
�1SqT-4 S�=
M v you at zcbed the follow
10) Have e y ing -
• Response to AL-tadmv-nt 2, minim= SULL siori Contents
• Izespozse to Attacfrmant 3, Specific Submission Contcsits
• Ike to Attadimicirt 4, Ravicu StamLrd-- for Your APPlicatson
V
11
fl
1 1.0 Introduction
L
Ll
11
n
u
1
11
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Kraut Land Use Plan provides the City of Aspen with a set of
guidelines and plans to allow for the creation of a quality, well -
planned, residential enclave through the orderly development of the
site. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority envisions a rental
or sale project that will accommodate variable households of
qualified residents and/or employees of Aspen and Pitkin County.
The residential buildings will be integrated into the neighborhood
fabric through the siting and inter -relationships of the units to
one another; to existing, adjacent structures; and to the street-
scapes of East Hyman Avenue and Original Street. To further ensure
the development's acceptance within the community, special emphasis
will be given to the project's architectural massing, scale,
character, and detailing.
Through sensitive site planning and design, it is anticipated that
the Kraut Affordable Housing Development will continue a course
' toward achieving the mutual goals and objectives of the City and
Housing Authority by encouraging other well -planned public and
private affordable housing projects within Aspen and its environs.
I
1
1
1
1-1
F1
1
1
1
1.1 Project Location
The Kraut Project is located near the base of Aspen Mountain,
within the southeastern quadrant of the Aspen city limits (Location
Map, Figure 1.1) in Pitkin County, Colorado. The site is situated
two (2) blocks east of the downtown commercial core area, and two
(2) blocks south of Main Street at the intersection of East Hyman
Avenue and Original Street.
1.2 Authority and Scope
The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA), a multi -
jurisdictional housing authority, was established under the
provision of Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) 1973,
Section 29-1-203 et. seg. on 9 January 1984, by and among the City,
the County, the Housing Authority of Aspen, Colorado ("City Housing
Authority"), and the Pitkin County Housing Authority ("County
Housing Authority"). Authorization to contract between the City
and County to establish a separate governmental entity to be known
as a multi -jurisdictional housing authority is sanctioned by
Article XIV, Section 18 of the Colorado Constitution and C.R.S.
Section 29-1-204.5.
The purpose of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) as
set -forth in the Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement
of 1988 is:
- 2 -
C
o
c
TO
q)
J
En
a,
w rid
3 a
4-1
tr 41
to. In
rA
a
N
o
.�
4
In
rl
y
rd
(1l
�l
QI
rl
n
a;
a
u
a
4C
CD
ln�l 111 l I�� I�iii l BSI 1 1 I�'I l i'� I I-1
.......
Y \
I
dN9�JL ,V� I •�
=
V'l
I'lol) I
TI
__^�c� [11Dt, Dd, I
3 3—IF
E-1110 11-1,
t
I I E]Boll
1 ,u;L A
❑l 1sr 1�111911
itt
c ,
CTJ
U
0
O
O
O
im m raw w m m m m M r m Mao m man m r m
�1II
LJ
of to effect the planning, financing, acquisition,
construction, reconstruction or repair, maintenance,
management, and operation of housing projects pursuant to
a multi -jurisdictional plan to provide residential
facilities and dwelling accommodations at rental or sale
prices within the means of families or persons of low,
moderate, and middle income who are permanent residents,
persons employed in the City or the County, senior
citizens, disabled persons, or to the population segments
identified by the Authority, residing in or needing to
reside in the City or the County, intended for use as the
sole place of residence by the owners or intended
occupants."
The Housing Authority's current inventory of deed -restricted
housing exceeds 1,100 units. The housing stock is comprised of 60%
rental units and 40% sale units. These figures include the
recently completed developments of Marolt Ranch (100 dormitory
units), Twin Ridge (25 sale units), and Fairway 3 (30 sale units).
The Housing Authority has identified a target of 800 additional
units that need to be produced between 1990-95 if the economic base
within the area continues to expand. Legislated, private, and
public efforts will be required to achieve this goal. Between
1990-95, the public sector's responsibility is to produce 463
affordable, housing units.
1.3 Background
Development of the Kraut property
as an affordable, deed -
restricted, rental
housing project
follows many years of growth and
change within the
Aspen community.
The City of Aspen established
a policy favoring
the development
of housing for employees of the
community with the
adoption of its
1973 Land Use Plan.
- 3 -
fl
1
To address the ever-increasing affordable housing dilemma, Aspen,
Pitkin County, and the Housing Authority cooperated in crafting and
pursuing a multi -faceted, comprehensive program. The plan seeks
to: 1) preserve the existing affordable housing stock; 2) require
developers to mitigate a "fair share" of their affordable housing
impacts; and 3) produce new affordable housing to reduce/eliminate
the current affordable housing shortfall.
The Kraut development represents the continued implementation of
the City's and the Housing Authority's Affordable Housing
Production Plan. More importantly, Kraut represents a sustained
and vital commitment by the community to provide affordable housing
to those citizens in need.
- 4 -
I
1
a
1 2.0 Planning Goals &Objectives
1
1
I
[l
1
I
2.0 PLANNING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Housing Authority's planning process for Kraut is based upon a
set of adopted goals and objectives that are included within the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the adopted Affordable Housing
Production Program. This section discusses the relationship
between the Kraut development proposal and the Comprehensive Plan
and Housing Production Program.
2.1 Relationship to Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan is divided into various elements,
each of which has its own vision or goal. The vision statements
relevant to the Kraut project are listed below in bold type, and
the planning method used to comply with the goal is described.
Housing: Create a housing environment which is dispersed,
appropriately scaled to the neighborhoods and
affordable.
Long-standing planning goals of the community have been: 1) to
preserve the existing housing inventory; and 2) to provide new
housing opportunities dispersed throughout town. The attainment of
these goals will aid in promoting a socially and economically
balanced community.
To achieve these goals, the City acquired "scattered sites"
throughout the community for the purpose of developing affordable
housing. The parcels (Kraut, West Hopkins, East Hopkins and
Austin) vary in location, size, potential development density and
character. Each development will be planned within a "neighborhood
Icontext."
The Kraut proposal will be complimentary to the existing Commercial
Core and East End development patterns. The residential units will
be administered by the Housing Authority to ensure the project's
' long term availability and affordability to qualified
residents/employees.
Character: Preserve and maintain the existing character of
the community.
Traditionally, Aspen's neighborhoods have been comprised of a mix
wof housing types, including those which are affordable by its
working residents. Development of the Kraut property will
invigorate and sustain a year-round resident population within the
r City core. It will be compatible with the Commercial Core and East
End neighborhoods in terms of land use, development intensity, site
Idesign, massing, scale, and architectural character.
Process: The community should collectively address and
resolve its issues and problems by considering the
interest of all its citizen.
Affordable housingcontinues to be an important local issue and
P
concern. To assist in resolving the affordable housing problem,
City and County residents have responded by approving several
- 7 -
sources of funding. New tax provisions were enacted by the City's
electorate, creating tax revenues of over $2 million per year for
ithe next ten (10) years dedicated to affordable housing. County
voters approved up to $6 million in bonding authorization for
affordable housing.
To further ensure the success of the affordable housing program,
local residents are encouraged to participate at the neighborhood
level in the planning and development of the various affordable
housing sites.
Transportation: Create a creative non -auto oriented public,
mass transportation system which integrates
pedestrian and bike trail system with
community facilities and services.
The Kraut Development has the potential of becoming a "model" auto -
disincentive project. The development will be within easy walking
distance to the downtown core area which provides employment, goods
and services, public facilities and recreation. The project will
be well -served by existing mass transit bus routes, a network of
pedestrian sidewalks and bikeways. Off-street parking spaces will
be limited to minimize automobile ownership and dependency.
Balanced and Encourage land uses, businesses, and events
Managed Growth: which serve both the local community and
the tourist base.
The Growth Management Plan was established to ensure that
components of community growth are balanced. Even with this
- 8 -
"system balance" in place, the community has become asymmetrical as
many working residents are excluded from Aspen's neighborhoods.
The (AH) Affordable Housing Zone, along with the City's other
' legislated efforts (Ordinance 1; Cottage in -fill), will assist in
realigning and revitalizing Aspen's residential neighborhoods.
The AH Zone is intended for use primarily by permanent and/or
working residents. The rezoning of the Kraut Parcel to (AH)
Affordable Housing personifies balanced and managed growth that
directly benefits the local populace. These individuals and their
dependents constitute the essence of the Aspen community.
' 2.2 Relationship to Affordable Housing Production Plan
The Affordable Housing Production Plan is intended to be used as a
tool by elected City and County officials to guide housing deci-
sions through 1995. The purpose of the plan is four (4)-fold:
r* To identify the existing deed -restricted inventory by type,
price, and quantity.
* To identify the existing affordable housing shortfall and
likely demand through 1995.
* To identify demographic trends which may influence the
community's decisions regarding the type of affordable
housing to build in the future, and
* To identify a six (6) year production program to address
the community's affordable housing need.
I�
1
1
I
n
I
1
The plan identifies a 1990 deed -restricted housing inventory of 966
units. It also substantiates the need to produce an additional 800
units by 1995 if growth within the area continues at its present
rate. To achieve this goal, it is estimated that legislated
efforts will provide 222 units; the private sector will develop 115
units; and the public sector (City and County) will be responsible
for producing 463 units. Data indicates the need to provide
affordable rental housing for single -person households. Addition-
ally, current trends indicate a need for ownership opportunities in
family housing.
The Kraut project is included within the 154 units targeted for
development in 1991-92 by the public sector. The proposed twenty-
four (24) to thirty (30) units are designed to meet the needs of
Category 1 and 2 households including single persons (Square Foot
Ranges and Income Maximums, Exhibit C).
The key factor to the success of the Affordable Housing Production
Plan is implementation. The actualization of the Kraut project is
another important step towards realizing the community's affordable
housing goals.
- 10 -
1 3.0 Existing Conditions
I
' 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The development plan is designed to be compatible with the environ-
mental conditions of the property and surrounding land use
patterns. Further, the plan is to be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Plan established
by the City to guide development. This section of the application
idescribes the environmental and man-made factors which have been
Iconsidered in the planning of the Kraut parcel.
1 3.1 Natural Factors
' The parcel is located three and one-half (3-1/2) blocks to the
north from the base of Aspen Mountain. The site is not endangered
by rockslides, mudslides, avalanches or other natural hazards. The
land is relatively flat.
There is no significant tree cover or vegetation on -site. Several
inches of gravel exist on top of the natural soil conditions.
3.2 Manmade Factors
The site is a 150' x 100' rectangular parcel (Property Survey,
Exhibit D) containing approximately 15,000 square feet of land. It
consists of Lots E, F, G, H and I, Block 105, City and Townsite of
' Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado.
1
- 12 -
1
I
1
1
II
1
1
P
The site is presently zoned (0) Office. The areas north and south
of the parcel are also included within the (0) Office Zone
District. The exception is the Bell Mountain Lodge, which is zoned
(L-P) Lodge Preservation. The area to the east of Original Street
is contained within the (RMF) Residential/Multi-family Zone.
Block 100, west of Spring Street, is (C-1) Commercial.
Manmade improvements on -site are minimal. There are eight (8)
metal posts with concrete bases, a wooden sign, and railroad -tie
planter
boxes.
The site
is currently being
used
as a commercial
parking
lot.
The parcel
is accessible via
paved
public streets,
East Hyman Avenue and Original Street, and by a dirt alley between
Hyman and Cooper Avenues. The public streets have curb and gutter.
There are no paved sidewalks, only gravel paths. Utility lines are
proximate and contained underground within the public street
rights -of -way and/or alleyway. Several utility boxes are located
in the alley along the northern property boundary.
The property is bounded by several existing structures. West of
the parcel is a two-story A -frame with the three-story Hannah -
Dustin office building on the corner of Hyman and Spring Streets.
The Buckhorn Lodge, a two and one-half story structure, is across
the alley along the site's southern boundary. To the southwest is
the two-story Bell Mountain Lodge. Across Hyman Avenue, to the
north, is the Aspen Athletic Club. West of the two -plus story
Athletic Club are the 700 Hyman Townhomes. This development
- 13 -
I
1
1
1
ll
[I
consists of three (3) half -duplexes containing six (6) units total.
Each residence contains two (2) floors and a garden level. To the
east, across Original Street, are one (1) and two (2) story single-
family residences and condominiums.
3.3 Summary of Site Features and Conditions
The Site Summary Map (Figure 3.1) presents an illustrative summary
of site features and existing conditions that characterize the
Kraut parcel and adjacent properties. These features and condi-
tions represent both opportunities and constraints for development
of the site.
Opportunities for Development:
* Minimal site preparation and grading will be required
due to gentle topography.
* The site is not impacted by natural hazards (ava-
lanches, rockslides, flooding, etc.). There are no
significant stands of vegetation, rare or endangered
plants, or wild -life habitat to impede development.
* The parcel is readily accessible via existing roadways
and transportation systems. It is also within walking
distance of downtown.
* Utilities are proximate with available capacity to
serve the development.
* The neighborhood contains a variety of land uses,
intensities of development, and architectural styles.
* There are excellent views in three (3) directions;
north, south and east.
- 14 -
fi
IConstraints to Development:
' * Minimal slopes will require careful site grading to
promote rapid surface -water runoff and drainage.
* Subsurface soil conditions will need further investi-
gation to determine below grade development potential
and/or the need for large excavating equipment.
* Development alternatives are limited by adjacent land
uses and existing structures.
n
fl
- 15 -
>1
4-
CZ
:3
>1
4-
a
0
U)
o
U)
D
0
A--
4-
13
T
<
n
41
rl
P4
IN
(1)
In
�
0
0
0
41
41
04
a)
rA
x
.rA
ai
rA
04
0
0
p
P4
EA
Ul
TI
4J
41
.1i
N
a
-
0
a)
a)
r A
0
W
p o
V 4-J
41
r
U)
(n U)
w
P4
w
EA
P4
O
tj-." HN
V-
J-1
oaL
--J- -�7 11 � /. 0
;rl I y I CY CT ..e I
-{1-14 o 5S
0
CO
cd
0
I
I
1 4.0 Development ('Ian
I
' 4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority proposes to
construct a mix
of twenty-four (24) to thirty
(30) affordable,
deed -restricted
residences on the 15,000 square
foot Kraut parcel.
The potential
development plan may consist of
a mix of studio,
one -bedroom and
'
two -bedroom apartments contained
within two separate buildings.
' The plan (Site Plan, Figure 4.1) incorporates traditional, planning
' concepts. It is reflective of development patterns within the
Aspen Town -site. Primary residential buildings are oriented toward
' public streets. Automobile access and parking occur along the
rear, service alley.
In terms of architectural character, the goal is to achieve a
' livable, human -scale residential development consistent with the
Commercial Core and East End neighborhoods. Building forms are
envisioned to be simple, two- and three-story rectangles with
varied facades. Entryways will be detailed and positioned to
provide individual identity and privacy for each residence. (Floor
' Plans, Figure 4.2; Massing Studies, Figure 4.3).
' 4.1 Water System
The City of Aspen can provide service to the project from its
existing water lines in East Hyman or Original Street. The lines
' have adequate pressure and capacity to meet the domestic and fire
' protection needs of the project.
17 -
11
4-J
Q)--
cvU
�•o
U)
Q04-
:3 A--
0
a
P.
o
�r
Cj
Q-+
N
•
O
V
. -4
4-1
o
4.)
o
0
N
m = = = = m = = m m = ! m = = = r
4-
:)
C am,
G
a
0
.0
�
Q
C
o
_o
—
=Q
Fh
N
CIO
L
(D
00
W4
0
0
O
r-�
N
Cld
O
O
� J
Q
N
m m m m m m m m m m = m
:3
Ol
->
C:
U
.�
o
fix=
D
-F—
yz-
zo
� � � S ,\ .and Nd�✓,�N
�A
z
zZ
0
,D
.v
cril
o
N
.0
Cl
o
I
I
o
N
......m=mm=mm..m.rm�..mmm
4.2 Sewage Treatment System
The Aspen Sanitation District has sufficient line and plant
capacity to service the development.
4.3 Drainage System
It is anticipated that the development shall have a minimal impact
on the property's historic drainage patterns and/or the amount and
distribution of surface -water run-off. Historic drainage patterns
shall be maintained. All run-off shall be detained on -site and
released at historical rates. A drainage analysis will be prepared
and submitted by a professional engineer at detailed submission.
4.4 Fire Protection
The site is within the Aspen Fire Protection District. The Aspen
fire station is located on East Hopkins Avenue approximately four
(4) blocks northwest of the proposed development. Response time is
estimated to be between three (3) and five (5) minutes. There is
a fire hydrant at the northeast corner of the parcel across East
Hyman Avenue near the Aspen Athletic Club.
The buildings shall conform to Uniform Building Code standards
regarding: sprinkling, fire -wall separation, fire alarms/smoke
detectors and extinguishers.
I
- 18 -
1 4.5 Development Data
Compliance with Section 5-206.2 (AH) Affordable Housing of the
Municipal Code is shown in Table 4.1, Dimensional Requirements.
' Table 4.2, Development Data, summarizes the Kraut Affordable
Housing proposal.
4.6 Traffic and Parking
The primary arterial roadway servicing the Aspen community is
Colorado State Highway 82. The highway enters town and follows the
west/east alignment of Main Street, then turns south on Original
Street. At Cooper Avenue, Highway 82 veers east out of town toward
Independence Pass. East -west circulation to the site is along East
Hyman Avenue, a local street.
A twenty-four (24) to thirty (30) unit project will potentially
generate approximately seventy-two (72) to one hundred fifty (150)
vehicle trips per day, based upon an average of three (3) to five
(5) trips per unit per day. The site is five (5) blocks northeast
of the Rubey Park Transportation Center. Additionally, it is well
serviced by several existing bus routes along Cooper Avenue, Spring
' and Original Streets. An extensive network of pedestrian walkways
and bicycle trails are proximate and readily accessible. The
idowntown commercial core is within easy walking distance. City
f Market is one (1) block to the south. Given these considerations,
it is anticipated that a minimum number of vehicle trips will be
Igenerated by the residents.
- 19 -
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 4.1
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
AH Zone
Maximum
Criterion
Requirements
Proposal
Minimum front yard
10,
10,
Minimum rear yard
10,
10,
Minimum side yard
5'
S'
Minimum distance between bldgs.
5'
Maximum height
25'
301(by spec. review)
30'
Minimum lot size
3,000 s.f.
15,000 s.f.
Minimum lot area/unit
Studio
300 s.f.
10 units =
per unit
3,000 s.f.
One bedroom
400 s.f.
10 units =
per unit
4,000 s.f.
Two bedroom
800 s.f.
10 units =
8,000 s.f.
Minimum lot area total
15,000 s.f.
Maximum F.A.R.
1.1:1
Maximum Floor Area
16,500 s.f.
(15,000 s.f. lot)
Minimum open space (%)
Special Review
Open space
Special Review
Off-street parking
Special Review
24-30 spaces
(1 space/unit)
- 20 -
TABLE 4.2
DEVELOPMENT DATA
Number Unit Type Unit size
Category 1
4-5 Studio 350-400 s.f.
4-5 One Bedroom 450-500 s.f.
4-5 Two Bedrooms 700-750 s.f.
Category 2
4-5 Studio 450-500 s.f.
4-5 One Bedroom 550-600 s.f.
4-5 Two Bedrooms 750-800 s.f.
24-30 Total Units
Total Net Livable: 13,000-17,750 s.f.
NOTE: The figures above are "Net Livable," not "gross" square
footages. If a maximum development program at 30 units is
pursued, garden level units will be necessary for the project
to stay within the maximum F.A.R. permitted under the AH zone.
- 21 -
' A maximum of thirty (30) off-street parking spaces (1 space/unit),
is proposed. Parking will be accessible from the alley via either
' Spring or Original Streets. A combination of surface and
structural parking spaces will be provided.
4.7 Affordable Housing
The Kraut development will provide 100%, affordable, deed -
restricted housing in compliance with Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Guidelines and 1990-95 Production Plan. A summary of the proposed
' affordable housing project is detailed in Table 4.2.
1 4.8 Stoves and Fireplaces
' The development will not have any residential units equipped with
heating stoves or fireplaces.
1 4.9 Proximity to Public Facilities
The site is near a variety of community facilities. The Public
Facilities Map (Figure 4.4) illustrates the projects' relationship
' to parks, schools, libraries, governmental offices, etc.
' 4.10 Proximity to Services
The Kraut project is centrally located with respect to existing
' retail and service outlets. It is situated at the eastern edge of
the downtown, central business district. The Hyman and Cooper
Avenue Malls are three (3) blocks to the west. City Market is
located one (1) block to the south.
- 22 -
4—
O
•�
W
OL U
'C
�
Q
_o
41
._l
ii
r-1
W
tti+
O
O
U
'�
W
V,
L'
ri
O
N
H
N
N
O
a
fd
C!
r-1
W
rU
w
H
'd
'Ar1
z
U
In
tr
x
--
u
�
x
rd
4-1
-r1
N
O
x
Z
O
H
U
O
U
r-i
O
0
0
14
rd
U'
N
U
H
P
41
O
O
Z
W
O
r�
c7
O
1,1
N
x
1
w
w
1-1
U
O
D4
tll
U13
w
rd
a
rid
O
.,Arc!
pi
3
ci
W
kD
r-f
1-
ri
00
rA
Ol
rl
O
N
rf
N
Ca
N
N
C1
N
V'
N
Un
N
W
N
N
00
N
01
N
>I
O
(h
ri
Cl
P4
O
N
ri
x
>,
.r
U
ri
.ri
N
i
N
ru
rri
��
b
N
tP
!
oG
r(d
a
1d
a
'J+
W
a
4-14)
U
ri
N
9
!�i
H
�i
P
U
zH
64
H
O
{�
11
O
U
N
m
U
}J
•']
0
U
�1
01
U
t'
0
O
>+
rd
!a
A
�a
1
RWf
W
W
4-1
O
4J
O
a,
U
cn
4j
V1
N
O
a,
N
p
N
ri
Iv
.00
3
�+'
H
Ci
a)
U)
,
Ci
al
1A
r
En
rd
U
O
41
tn
1-1
aC
V1
W
C1
YV
_1 r
R/
I()
to
I.
c0
�
O,
O
r--I
1
r 1
rl
rl
rl
�f
,I h
�-.. "-f �,,
RS D
L
U
n
ON
M
O
O�
O
M
0
o
N
0r-
0
.�
rJ
CTJ
rJ
O -
rl
O
J
O -
In
�.
~
O
~
O
r-f
m m m M r r m m m w r m= m m i w m m
1 4.11 Effect on Adjacent Land Uses
The Commercial Core and East End neighborhoods are characterized by
a variety of land uses and development densities. The planning
process for Kraut acknowledges this fact. The development will be
compatible with the existing multi -family projects to the north and
east. It will also create an effective transition zone between the
commercial uses along East Hyman and Cooper Avenues and the
residential neighborhoods east of Original Street. The land use
patterns and neighborhood character will be maintained and
strengthened by this zone amendment.
' 4.12 Construction Schedule
The Housing Authority is seeking to begin construction of the Kraut
project in the spring of 1992. It is estimated that a twelve (12)
month construction period shall be required to complete the
development. The residences should be ready for occupancy by
' Spring of 1993.
J
- 23 -
rl
5.0 Lana Use RegUirenlents
E
I
F
L
1
1
5.0 LAND USE REQUIREMENTS
The Kraut Affordable Housing Rezoning Application addresses the
Amendment to Official Zone Map review standards (Pre -application
Conference Summary, Exhibit E). Within this section, compliance
with the land use requirement is discussed.
5.1 Amendment to the Official Zone District Map
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) requests the City of
Aspen to grant rezoning approval to (AH) Affordable Housing from
(0) Office for the Kraut parcel. Section 7-1102 of the City Code
establishes standards of review for rezoning amendments. In the
following section, each of the review standards is listed in bold
and the methods of compliance are stated.
Section 7-1102(A). Whether the proposed amendment is in
conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter.
The proposed development complies with applicable portions of the
Aspen Municipal Code Land Use Regulations as demonstrated within
this application.
Section 7-1102(B). Whether the proposed amendment is
consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
The Housing element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, Phase 1,
1991, establishes a goal of creating a housing environment which is
dispersed, appropriately scaled to the neighborhoods and
- 25 -
affordable. The proposed rezoning amendment, (AH) Affordable
Housing from (0) Office, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
' (Land Use Application, Section 2.1) and 1973 Land Use Plan
(Section 1.3).
Section 7-1102(C). Whether the proposed amendment is com-
patible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, con-
sidering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
' The neighborhood is characterized by having varied zone districts
(Existing Zoning Map, Figure 5.1) including: (0) Office, (LP)
' Lodge Preservation, (C-1) Commercial, and (RMF) Residential/Multi-
Family. Land uses also vary widely: Professional offices,
' athletic club, fast-food restaurant, small lodges, townhouses,
' multi -family units, and single-family residences.
' The Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone is one (1) block south of the
site. It includes City Market, a video rental shop, liquor store,
two (2) delis, a ski shop, and hair salon.
IThe proposed zone district of (AH) Affordable Housing and multi-
family land use (Proposed Zoning Map, Figure 5.2) are compatible
and characteristic of the existing neighborhood (Land Use
' Application, Section 4.11).
' Section 7-1102(D). The effect of the proposed amendment on
traffic generation and road safety.
A twenty-four (24) to thirty (30) unit development should generate
approximately seventy-two (72) to one hundred fifty (150) vehicle
- 26 -
fl.
•�i � cu
_�
SF
(d t ; N n1 rt1
U o ..I I •, I I
D n� c�'. 4-1 0
U o I q1 c°� `s) (
-1 Ol -1 -0 p
E j CJ� r.
U) r1 E: 1 . V. 3
44 p n) 1 O a)n O 0
XXr
Q)
J
l t�
qL
w
Q
1 � N
1 N �
._... C CD
C:: L-
W
(-i8•��+�IH �t�.lS a4-d�l�lo��
14 do
!,S
m r = = m w = = = m = = = = m
1iI � N •� \ N
T I u (1) tr�
b >a .o
- >, U
Q) -1-1
L al p� In rd
O �� (J N j r; rt1 N n1
p,
'd •'I ni ;ai ai aai ' -- � � >a •� U N
to .,-f 4-, EH
va o ��-, o N O N p n 0
T7 011� x o ;; u z u u u
- --Xx
- -
Q)
it
1
<1
kno
q
ssv
Ct\
_I
a
G
img
= r = = m = = = r r = r = = m = r
' trips/day (Land Use Application, Section 4.6). Due to the in -town
location and proximity to mass transit routes, it is estimated that
a minimum number of vehicle trips should be generated by residents
' of the project on a daily basis. The proposed amendment should not
adversely impact traffic generation and/or road safety.
Section 7-1102(E). Whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would result in demands on public
facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such public
facilities, including but not limited to transportation
facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and
emergency medical facilities.
The Kraut Affordable Housing Development, based on APCHA
Guidelines, should generate a resident population of approximately
fifty-three (53) persons. This figure is calculated for a maximum
thirty (30) unit project as follows: (10) studio units at 1.25
persons/unit (12.5 persons); (10) one -bedroom units at 1.75
persons/unit (17.5 persons); and (10) two -bedroom units at 2.25
persons/unit (22.5 persons). The actual number and mix of units
will depend on the results of market research currently underway.
The proposed development and its resident population should not
over extend the capacities of existing public facilities. Current
facilities are capable of accommodating the service demands of the
project and its residents.
C
- 27 -
Section 7-1102(F). Whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse
impacts on the natural environment.
The project is within the existing, developed Aspen Townsite and
shall not adversely impact the natural environment (Land Use
Application, Sections 3.1 and 3.3).
Section 7-1102(G). Whether the proposed amendment is
' consistent and compatible with the community character in the
City of Aspen.
' Aspen's neighborhoods, including the Commercial Core and East End,
have been traditionally comprised of various housing types,
' including those which are affordable by working residents. The
' proposed (AH) Affordable Housing amendment is consistent ana
compatible with the community character of Aspen (Land Use Applica-
tion, Section 2.1 and Neighborhood Context Map, Figure 5.3).
' Section 7-1102(H). Whether there have been changed
conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding
neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Neighborhood conditions within close proximity of the Kraut parcel
have changed significantly in recent years. Substantial quantities
of free-market housing, traditionally used by working residents,
have been removed from the available inventory. A variety of
factors have contributed to this situation: demolition/ redevelop-
ment of older properties, speculative second -home development,
condominiumization, conversion to short-term rental, and increased
rental rates.
- 28 -
7
L
b
4 N b �4�
�-� 04 o o u a°
O L a U) rd rl r-1 p i I
Q U in Q N 1 rt1 r td rd R1
ci i4 41 rd •14
U
4-1 44
44 0 44 0 a, �mf 0 a 0 0 0
iT
TJ �x o a a u zu u u
C
J
61
____L :�7v
lu
cs�
f% LO
o CD
CD
(—G q
--- 7 171N ,91--�1
m
• _ -4W
jJ
X
O
N
O
U
�
kD
kD
°o
Ot
O
to-
m m m m m i = m = m i = = m = = m i m
To address the affordable housing problem, the City, County and
Housing Authority enacted a comprehensive program. An important
component of this multi -jurisdictional plan is to produce new
' affordable units. Affordable housing projects recently completed
include: Marolt Ranch, Twin Ridge, and Truscott Place. Williams
1.
Woods, formerly Rubey Lot 6, is being constructed and the West
Hopkins project should be under construction in the spring of 1992.
The Affordable Housing Production Plan establishes a goal of an
additional 463 units to be produced between 1990-95 by the public
sector. The Kraut development is consistent with this production
plan.
Recent changes within the community support and strengthen the need
for the proposed (AH) Affordable Housing amendment (Land Use
Application, Sections 1.3, 2.1, and 2.2).
Section 7-1102(I). Whether the proposed amendment would be
in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with
the purpose and intent of this chapter.
The proposed amendment is consistent with established public policy
regarding affordable housing. The adoption of the 1973 Land Use
Plan instituted a policy favoring the development of housing for
employees of the community. The current Land Use Regulations,
Comprehensive Plan, and Production Plan are further refinements in
striving to attain the community's affordable housing goals (Land
Use Application, Sections 1.3; 2.1 and 2.2).
- 29 -
I
6.0 In-iplenlentation Plan
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
6.1 Detailed Plans
A detailed submission shall be prepared for the Kraut Affordable
Housing Development. The detailed plan shall conform to the Land
Use Rezoning Application in terms of general location, proposed
type of dwelling units, density range, and general standards of
development.
The detailed submission shall be consistent with the City's current
application and submittal requirements. The detailed plan shall be
developed subject to all conditions imposed as terms of the Land
Use Application rezoning approval.
- 31 -
Appendix
I
I
1
exhibit A
I
I
L
Ll
` ` 3 1 , 16 R E7 EMPT
j Silvia Da.v eclO.tiq BF:. PG 192
Fitk:in Cnty Clerk,
Doc
�O
w z ^TT Recorded at o'clock M.
� y
c a, Reception No. Recorder
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
^'• Y; Edward M. Caswall, Esq.
Aspen City Attorney
v 130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
'
H GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
HO
zwx
a a l�j ELAINE KRAUT A/K/A ELAINE M. KRAUT, as Grantor(s), for one million one
`� hundred thousand and no/100 ($1,100,000.00) dollars and other good and valuable consideration,
.�
r� in hand paid, hereby sells and conveys to CITY OF ASPEN, A COLORADO MUNICIPAL
c l' CORPORATION, as Grantee(s), whose address is 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado
F F 81611, the following real property in the County of Pitkin, .state of Colorado; to wit:
� z-
y LOTS 1 AND 2, KRAUT LOT SPLIT, ACCORDING TO THE
W
PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 24 AT PAGE
5, ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS E, F, G, H AND I, BLOCK 105,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
r STATE OF COLORADO
with all its appurtenances and warrants tide to the same SUBJECT TO AND EXCEPTING:
to
i— 1. Taxes for the year 1990 due and payable in 1991 and all subsequent years not yet
L; due or payable.
1- 2. Reservations and exceptions as contained in Deeds from the City of Aspen,
recorded December 10, 1887 in Book 59 at Page 150, and recorded January 28, 1889 in Book
59 at Page 540 as follows:
Provided, that no title shall be hereby acquired to any mine of
gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or
possession held under existing laws
3. The mineral rights as conveyed to Edward J. Smart by Deed recorded October
25, 1984 in Book 475 at Page 676.
4. Terms, conditions, restrictions, reservations, provisions and obligations as set
forth in curb, gutter and sidewalk Improvement Agreement recorded in Book 616 at Page 574.
i5.
Terms, conditions, restrictions, reservations, provisions and obligations as set
forth in Statement of Exemption form Subdivision recorded in Book 616 at Page 576.
6. Terms, conditions, restrictions, reservations, provisions and obligations as set
forth in Ordinance No. 10 (Series of 1990) recorded in Book 627 at Page 827.
7. Easements, right of ways and other matters as shown on Plat of said Lot Split
recorded in Plat Book 24 at Page 5.
8. Existing parking leases installed by Sy Kelly (Double K Parking) and master lease
agreement between Sy Kelly and Grantor.
Signed this day of January, 1991.
Elaine Kraut a/k/a Elaine M. Kraut
exhibit A
S i1via * vis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk:, CO $. 00
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
The foregoing General Warranty Deed was acknowledged before. me this day of
January, 1991 by Elaine Kraut a/k/a Elaine M. Kraut.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: ..............
40
Joy S. HigensiNotary Public Notary tblic -0-0-0-
� 1 .1
My Commission expires 4/22194
601 East Hopkins
Aspen. Colorado 81611
.P.k—,1103—
-2-
ii
F
I
r
F�
n
u
5
exhibit B
IRegular Meeting Aspen City Council August 26 1991
uncilman Peters moved to adopt Ordinance #17, Series of 1991/nce
o
se and seconded by Councilwoman Richards.
Cou,reading;
man Peters said his intention is to legitimize whae
with no�urther development. Councilman Peters said to ee
L
mistakesould fly in the face of everything elseCouncil .
Councilwoman Richards said she would rather see a hot ub in the
window well than force it in the decks above ground. yor Bennett
agreed 8 feet below grade would have less effect on he neighbors.
Ms. Johnson read\the condition, "No further develo ent, including
but not limited to pools, retaining walls, wind wells, shall be
permitted on the west side of lot 111. Council an Reno disagreed;
this condition was riot brought up and Council should not be adding
new restrictions on to 1's envelope. Mayo Bennett said he would
prefer not to get involled in telling the pplicants what they can
and cannot do in the bott m of the wind wells.
Ms. Johnson suggested in co dition tt5 No further development,
including but not limited to • . shall be permitted outside of
the building envelope on the weside of lot 111. Ms. Johnson said
this would allow anything tha not floor area, because the
building is already non-confo ing \ like a barbeque or not tub.
Ms. Margerum suggested addin "No further development above grade".
Councilman Peters withdr his motion.
Mayor Bennett said he ould vote to prohibi anything at all that
is above the bottom f the existing window wells or nothing shall
come within 6 feet grade.
Councilman Peters moved to adopt Ordinance #17, Ser es of 1991, on
second reading inserting language to prohibit any f:ure develop-
ment on the/"st side of lot 1 excluding any development,within the
window wet/Ts 6 feet below lot grade or more; secondby Mayor
Bennett./Roll call vote; Councilmembers Pendleton, yes; Richards,
yes; RR no, yes; Peters, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried.
Cou c` ilman Peters moved to suspend the rules and extend the meet' ng
P
to/ 10 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Richards. All in favor,
Motion carried.
AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT REZONING APPLICATION KRAUT PROPERTY
Carr Kunze, housing director, requested authorization to submit on
the city's behalf, a rezoning application for the Kraut property to
AH, affordable housing. Kunze reminded Council the ultimate
development authority has not been determined yet. The proposal is
for 22 to 28 units, subject to unit mix, neighborhood concerns, FAR
and livability concerns. The housing authority has recommended a
mix of income categories with an emphasis on categories 1 and 2.
13
exhibit B
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council August 26, 1991
Councilman Reno said he requested this be taken off the agenda as
Council had questions about development and finances of develop-
ment. Councilman Reno said he would like to see where the money is
coming from to develop this project before it goes any further.
Councilman Reno said he also wants the city to look at private or
non-profit developments. Councilman Reno said he also wants to
make sure that the use of the parcel is being maximized. If there
are other potential uses, these should be looked at.
Councilman Peters said a complete open door policy does not mean
the city will get a lot of good applications. Councilman Peters
said he would like to go forward with the development. Not knowing
where the money is coming from is not an impediment. Councilman
Peters said maximizing the property has not been completely
addressed in terms of subgrade space. Kunze told Council the
housing office has a good model with the rezoning of West Hopkins
and a good format. Councilwoman Richards said she favors moving
forward with the rezoning application. Mayor Bennett said he
favors giving the housing authority the go ahead while Council
seeks any private enterprises for this project. Councilwoman
Pendleton said she likes this site and its location for building
employee housing.
Councilman Peters moved to authorize the housing authority to
prepare an AH rezoning application for the Kraut property; seconded
by Councilwoman Pendleton.
Councilwoman Richards said she would like to see notices of the
meetings include a special notice to invite private proposals into
the development of the property. Councilman Reno said he is only
opposed to this as it limits some opportunities.
Councilman Peters encouraged the housing authority to take another
look at the development plan; the current plan has about 70 percent
of the subgrade space not developed. Councilman Peters said he
does not feel this is reasonable in the commercial core.
All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Reno. Motion
carried.
PROPOSED FNMA FORECLOSURE PROCEDURES
Car unze, housing director, told Council Federal N
Mortgage 'ation provides a secondary market D enders; it
buys mortgages an s them on the nati arket to institu-
tional and private investo u e_said local lenders would be
very interested in havin ss to - rovided financing. This
provides a wider y of mortgages and more etitive interest
rates. said FNMA has a concern that in the t of a
fore osure that they would have an ability to remove a
14
1
exhibit C
Ci
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
INFORMATION ITEM
TO: Housing Authority Board
FROM: Yvonne Blocker, Administration Manager
DATE: March 17, 1991
RE: Amendment to Affordable Housing Guidelines 1990
SUMMARY: The 1990 Affordable Housing Guidelines were amended by
the Aspen City Council on December 17, 1990 and the Board of County
Commissioners on December 18, 1990 to provide for the revised
Maximum Income Tables and the addition of a Category #3 square foot
range. The revisions are as follows:
Cat tt l
Cat ,# 2
Cat ,# 3
Studio
300-400
401-500
501-600
One Bed
401-500
501-600
601-700
Two Bed
501-750
751-900
901-1,000
Three Bed
750-900
901-1100
1101-1200
SFH
901-1100
1101-1200
1201-1400
INCOME MAXIMUM TABLE REQUIRED
Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3
Studio
$13,333
$20,961
One Bed
16,666
24,121
Two Bed
24,998
37,712
Three Bed
28.895
46.092
$30,283
35,331
50,473
60,568
SFH 36,664 48,400 70,662
Cat #4
601-650
701-750
1001-1100
1201-1400
1401-1600
Cat 4
$38,379
44,283
64,942
82,662
94,470
exhibit C
I
exhibit D
Fl
1
I
u
I
SFr... -U -u a -.��cwlWi wide J�-• _ ,' '- - .•.
.. OU<J P _ ¢WZ� r71<''1C701 fi$, I h� - ,Jr11I �.. I \ W�zFoKs•i F
WHf F WO W. ,,`•..~.•••,I V.r ��J -' 1 A - - rN[. .
u- a °
._ - W t'Jo_�< .- ' :err U•rS�Wrsozoio .,
o '//��,...¢ 0. f wga�i � z t
VO=NZ ¢4owO1"WH ,�-•.-. O O �� J . - f.L. .. r 4 i0 •RJ _ .W
• r o J o «o > m ¢ :v<mom. LPJI W.- CW
itw�¢n�F»'... . �:W Q i> o U -06 aoF;i^� Inr
m WJ zoJ _ K< o °r¢ "<oi. > to �••: Y IW- u <zmNr - pci '. ..
'— y. >r•Co° T .. .. UUA ai'na awrZ[w°I.f` (� C _ /a/��' F. ¢ L7 , (� '6 P z zo•W5 u+ r
7F dpO JS w J W `� L _ L{� O 6 1 i J W Y �J,�,�1y U _ [q�V_ J 1
_� '� I.. I..aClcj ,UiJZ 0. Q•<O -m aI V Q Vr., �•-..11-•1.¢1W 4`r--,W WZ m.' .O.
< p,rw mo I 1'• �/� <4 11--•• r�mJt- F�+ 3 - i —
<rf- GK U. Fo�r%¢r0 NN O1 LL V) NWQrb¢<¢Or.-, OW ,
'w Q ¢4 < Zc F4<O<K O.. •' KK KN<O U U WZwJ ZV Y
�OGjON OS j1{.0.1� '^ISG w'^ M A.- Oy
oo U W 7Wwn Ubf/V/yy' V`/ _-14 LQi: „y F {(�. I
L•fJiU.IOVz w.<� 4.. F•<>6 <.••ZO ¢• lL _Jp4l`lfl /�" 40 uJolO •• W W,'J¢ �j a1Z Zr.wUJ. MY �Z. 'i'
r iauk l Ty �\< U,' uwv:'fJ•rm �» `IW--•�� W NN W Im m i F' IRV
w J r w- < n ••. <: _ I i J. rTo l w pFm s. r a
F .O m_ M>< 7 X r¢4Z F. a h Fw< gal ¢ x
�5a <mw z_ �/� m <€ 4��Ty. 4 JF_ • .� -J-N I O 00 _ Z T tJ J••, �•• Y -U
N"WCl.'W ► N �N W 5W2 N ) F r•° x -
In
W Z U \� O >1. lL '. �O -Z
U {�1---O..r 4A4 4. ; W 0_ mOl��t<F �W , O •• I•' 7 W ` �. U F'•iDY.. _ W J WM. F•=f/W�
NCYf- '\ r..^ O, PFW P <N L O: •. (p ..y 7<Y U •1112F•° •1r rv'
WC LrJ - .V O. S..z.. 1-. N. ¢K I,,,,,, ¢ O YNI W CC W• .'r, VfJO Z:I lJ�4.`-, x _ p _ Y_ < YW ¢ V FZNO<C<SS W x V'•• Q
N4 •Z V 4 SO _NOJJr V Y4 wF �4 1 /y 41U N NWrNK a> W
rt�hC- I Ciu< w W F FMz,,Tj } ."�; P. 'rJm4WL'l�mu�x. .. - •off .,sm-IL
L_]L•-, ttW� J o c./0� W p��¢ .f•.N. t¢.� Y Q 4C U G`'W .•V CF" W W JOwF�1¢WZZ =' I �_.J �O¢ J -
4 L ._w z•+ \� V ww-r ¢ 4.., COMi r�1. 41 F• Q
W F Omb / c �oF�>r m CN O <4
W4-<O 58^ figg i mJ< ¢ W } ou < `� ruS} ^� v 4F r NJ
- �� _g^�F• rou -•1—r
Z O< s {L z2 rG1Z> ° <� Y i" a41Z �` I< i �O 0 F <_4 u� f Mo z O .�
1+ �C {.. <4 1 = W w U OrJK 6T <� ¢ Z
•°J I. NOS _, xg F• _J 0.••'(VO00> m CF • ' -...w 1�. FW auso w �••" _ s4PiK o Azm s z =o -W
o J J SN 2Cr^• C V L Z 1� V Cr', •< ¢ F,-•Or rOU - < O 400 4
r '^ J, lIJ J4 4 O 'N < W WI 'U OOWT•m J �.
O -, tjyY~ ZV 4(J{��OLN N Wr=a,.Wm 1O r —• < O <G< 1 <:..' O WN ¢I-O Vt ��0' 4 N •,U V,
. JL.U>V W <W 01.1>• U :J U .-•U I'• Z `� T W ZC r 1--Y�W<J)W�C U 4 O V W
JO ~ Jo ¢<m O¢<m¢ I V \ .. �'! zz U .. J,: Y< < _ Ww <G-I O OtZNY
.< O=HJ.+NZJ T LI 1 W .4 {.� •[ 4-•O !��I..\ J 4WU Z¢44J { Ot 'Y Z
K •o w com `Nr>Vr�w0 I tJJ X
w wl ,cU CC J �¢-•^ IC.� O Y q.+ Um¢L-•Wf., - Ww'� w ,]•• C _. PIY ._
uo° w<s-w m...�(\�I>• mF N-o.• c »FJ I Ic ,SM p
O-411JO t �w4IC oL o4wz > '"O I!" I,,,, ^� ��•I�' U _ u W C -.O�^C < ^�4 < +1
^�N LW F• G�V^�'CG:.CW WO I<�-Z •+ .F� L, N�'• Z J `J LLG7117<OVWr '-ON _ t]F-`• >' J4 N ^`
1 a.KCNO YI VF IT= -HJ-n ^!r0¢V G iFW IU LF��<,-1\.� �F •-O U .�O�c:=<:..UKo;n >u< �i uF• I.>•Tz �__. W
T z v
Lu
Q
S"
Q
LU
(301• .11"111
o' 133y1 S 7 V N / J / 4Y0 H1 n0S
g �
o:
W
f F
O r W
J w
u z
I W a a
r
1
0
I
— — — — � — — — —
L_
O
1 _
I O
�—
O
\
J
O
0
+
J
O
m
---------------
0
U)
-
O
O
0
un
0
v
O
J
11
Q
W
O
I
n '
l U
.Do uu
T-- - 3•,6 Y•Ot.
U
IJJ
I
— 0 —
Q)
k
v
U)
w
O
z
co
0
z
'W
V
W
J
r= r w= r= m w i s m w m m w m r
1
it
exhibit E
1
n
CITY OF ASPEN
' PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT,
' APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE:�t�t�
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: o�I
OWNER'S NAME: ak, "-
Ci
n
1
SUMMARY
1. Type of Application: Y\1C5L_0 A,/
2. Describe action/type of development beinq requested:
3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types
of reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent
r'
Comments
4.
Review is: (P&Z
Only) (CC Only)1e?1't0
5.
Public Hearing:
` L�(Y9) (NO)
6.
Number of copies
of the application to be submitted:T3
7.
What fee was applicant
requested to submit: �\S+Qp—,tN"JA
8.
Anticipated date
of submission s-I"�_
9.
COMMENTS/UNIQUE
CONCERNS:
E
exhibit
frm.pre_app
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 10 25 91 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: li 14 2737-182-27-002 A60-91
STAFF MEMBER:— LL
6-F-for� a
PROJECT NAME: Kraut rnQGL�ousing Project mab )9hie-not rY1eh_/L_0reZonkn
Project Address: 707 East Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611 -fp K44-V
Legal Address:__ Block 105, Lots E, F, G, H, I
APPLICANT: Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: Dave Toldf, Housing Authority
Representative Address/Phone: 39551 Hwy 82
Aspen, CO 81612 920-5050
PAID:(YES) NO AMOUNT: NC NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED 13
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: X
P&Z Meeting Date �DpG, PUBLIC HEARIN YE NO
CC Meeting Date
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
PUBLIC HEARING: YES
VESTED RIGHTS: YES
Planning Director Approval:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption:
REFERRALS:
City Attorney Mtn Bell
City Engineer Parks Dept.
Housing Dir. Holy Cross
Aspen Water Fire Marshall
City Electric Building Inspector
Envir.Hlth. Roaring Fork
Aspen Con.S.D. Energy Center
NO
NO
Paid:,
Date:
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
State HwyDept(GW)
State HwyDept(GJ)
Other
DATE REFERRED: / I l g h I INITIALS: 0(J
FINAL ROUTING:
City Atty
Housing
DATE ROUTED: INITIAL:
City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
0 40
ORDINANCE NO. 39
(SERIES OF 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A REZONING FROM
OFFICE (0) TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH) LOST E, F, G, & I, BLOCK 105,
ON THE CORNER OF EAST HYMAN AVENUE AND ORIGINAL STREET, ASPEN
COLORADO
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code
the applicant, the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority, has
submitted an application for a map amendment for the rezoning of
Lots E, F, G, & I, Block 105, on the corner of East Hyman Avenue
and Original Street, from O (office) to AH (affordable housing);
and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on
December 17, 1991 to consider the map amendment at which time the
Commission tabled review of the application pending a worksession
with the City Council and interested neighbors; and
WHEREAS, staff met with interested neighbors on March 5, 1992
to discuss neighborhood concerns with regard to the rezoning; and
WHEREAS,the Commission held a public hearing March 17, 1992
l to reconsider the rezoning of the parcel from Office to Affordable
Housing; and
WHEREAS,the Commission considered the representations made
by the applicant and interested public and found that the rezoning
application complies with Section 24-7-1102 and is consistent with
the goals of the City to provide scatter site affordable housing
throughout the City and within walking distance of the downtown,
that the site is consistent with the 1973 Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan and the 1992 draft Community Plan that identifies this site
as a multi -use site, is not in conflict with any applicable
portions of Chapter 24, is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen, and is in harmony with
the purpose and intest of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Commission recommends to the City Council
approval of rezoning the parcel from Office to Affordable Housing;
and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council concurs with the finding as
made by the Commission as set forth above and having considered the
Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation for a map amendment
does wish to grant the requested map amendment for the southwest
corner of East Hyman Avenue and Original Street, Aspen Colorado.
► s
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1•
That it does hereby grant rezoning of the southwest corner of East
Hyman Avenue and Original Street, Lots E, F, G, & I, Block 105,
Aspen Colorado from O (office) to AH (affordable housing).
Section 2•
The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen, Colorado,
shall be and is hereby amended to reflect those rezoning actions
as set forth in Section 1 above and such amendments shall be
promptly entered on the Official Map in accordance with Section
24-5-103B of the Municipal Code.
Section 3•
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 4•
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 remaining portions
thereof.
Section 5•
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending
under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 6•
A publi hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 2 %
day of� 1992 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen
City Ha spen 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 rovided by law, by the
City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
1992.
J John Bennett, Mayor
0
i
ATTEST:
r
Kathryn S Koch, City Clerk -
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this L� day of
1992.
John nnett, Mayor
ATTEST:
athrY n S. Loch, Y Cit Clerk
0 0 Vill b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direct4�
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
DATE: August 10, 1992
RE: Kraut Property Map Amendment Office to Affordable -
Second Reading Ordinance 39, Series 1992
SUMMARY: Council tabled second reading of Ordinance 39, Series of
1992 at the July 27, 1992 public hearing. Council requested staff
to provide the following items for their review which would support
the rezoning of the Kraut parcel from Office (0) to Affordable
Housing (AH):
* Commuter/Workforce Information
* Relevant Sections of the Draft 1992 Aspen Area Community
Plan
These items are discussed in the current issues section.
Council also requested information regarding the proposed text
amendments for Affordable Housing zone district and this
information is provided in Attachment "C".
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: This rezoning request was tabled from the
July 27, 1992 public hearing.
CURRENT ISSUES: In October of 1991 a citizens Housing committee
was appointed by the City Council and Board of County Commissioners
to research the housing needs of the Aspen area community. The
Committee's work has been an integral part of the formation of the
Draft Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). The Committee studied the
housing issues of the community for over nine (9) months concluding
with specific recommendations to the AACP Oversight committee. The
Housing committee recommendation process can be summarized by four
(4) distinct phases of work.
1. Review of Phase I technical data housing needs assessment
2. Establishment of a housing philosophy
3. Identification of a potential housing locations
4. Housing needs assessment (actual survey through AACP
consultants)
5. Final recommendations to the Oversight committee
J
Once step 4 had been competed, the Housing committee recognized
that the future planning of the Aspen area community was dependent
on revitalization of the local resident workforce. Research (see
Attachment "A", Housing Needs Assessment, May 1992 and Attachment
"B", Implications of Community Plan Policies) indicated that the
resident workforce has dropped by 15% (to 45%) since 1987, meaning
that more of the Aspen workforce was moving away and relocating to
other communities and commuting to Aspen.
The Housing committee used 1987 as a baseline since that is the
year they agreed that many of the workforce began to leave the
residential community. The committee determined that a sense of
community is lost when the level of the workforce living in the
community drops below the 1987 level, which represented 60% of the
workforce living up valley of Aspen Village.
The AACP is premised on the committee's final recommendation which
was accepted by the Growth and Character committees' and approved
by the Oversight committee. In order to achieve the ambitious goal
of providing housing for 60% of our workforce in the Aspen area
community, the public and private sectors must contribute through
the production of affordable housing.
The AACP has established other parameters which help define the
level of public contribution required for housing over the next 23
years (at which time the community theoretically reaches buildout).
The Plan, to date, suggests that 53 dwelling units of affordable
housing are required per year, based on continued buildout in the
commercial, lodge and free market residential sectors and based on
a 650 dwelling unit deficit. The contribution of the various
sectors of the community is estimated as follows:
53 AH units: 19 public sector units built per year;
8 units built per year in association with lodge
development;
9 units built per year in association with new
free market residential development;
17 units built per year in association with new
commercial development.
The rezoning of the Kraut property for affordable housing was
identified by the AACP Housing committee as a location for
affordable housing. The committee has established the need for
affordable housing located between Aspen Village and the City of
Aspen. In order to reach the specific goal to house 60% of the
workforce in the community at the time of buildout, an established
unit count contribution by the public sector is 19 units per year.
In addition, for the public record, staff has attached the July
27, 1992 memo with all the pertinent information.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends
approval of the rezoning of Lots E, F, G, H, and I, Block 105 of
•
11
the Aspen Townsite (Kraut property) amending the Official Zone
District map from Office to Affordable Housing.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Housing Need Assessments & June 23, 1992 Memo to Sub -committees
B. Action Plan Recommendations
C. Draft Affordable Housing Text Amendments
D. Council July 27, 1992 Memo with Exhibits
AD
. #4 ttr
ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN
HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES
MAY, 1992
•
•
ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A. Purpose
In the approximately 15 years since the City of Aspen and Pitkin County first began
addressing the problem of affordable housing, several assessments of the future need for
such units have been accomplished. Surveys of employees have been conducted in 1979,
1981, 1983, 1987 and 1990/91, providing a statistical basis from which to determine the
community's need for affordable housing.
In January of 1980, the first numerical definition of employee housing need in Pitkin County
was issued. Based on survey data, which established the number of persons who wanted to
move to Aspen from down valley, the number of persons paying housing costs beyond their
means and the number of persons living in overcrowded conditions, a 250 unit
rental/ownership "shortfall" was defined. The report also projected the need to produce 67
units per year, to address demands due to growth in the size of the work force.
The several needs assessments which have occurred since 1980 have taken into account the
same basic factors as the original study, while adding some new considerations. A constant
factor throughout each assessment has been the 250 unit shortfall, to which has been added
the demand associated with growth in the work force and the demand due to displacement
of employees from free market units.
The Housing Committee -of the Aspen Area Community Plan has examined the housing
needs assessment methodology which the City and County have been utilizing in recent
years. The Committee finds that several refinements should be made to this methodology
to reflect the current housing situation in the Aspen Area, so an estimate of housing
production needs can be formulated for the Community Plan.
The methodology which is being used in 1992 builds upon the previous assessments, but does
not take the 250 unit shortfall as its point of departure. That shortfall reflects the 1979
housing market and employee profile, which is vastly different than today's. Some key
differences are the older, more permanent population, which is seeking more family -oriented
housing, the greater housing choices which now exist down valley, and the widening gap
between the price of free market ownership housing opportunities in the Aspen Area and
employees' ability to pay.
This assessment instead begins with the Committee's determination that in 1986 (when the
1987 housing survey was actually conducted, and prior to the displacement of the late
1980's), there was a more acceptable community balance than presently exists in the Aspen
Area between resident and non-resident housing. The Committee finds that the number of
persons needing to be housed to re -constitute the prior balance provides a better way of
defining the current unmet need for affordable housing than the prior shortfall analysis.
A new housing needs assessment has, therefore, been conducted in conjunction with the
Community Plan. The purpose of this report is to summarize the housing needs assessment
methodology which the Committee chose to utilize and describe the results obtained.
It should be recognized that a comprehensive plan for addressing the community's housing
needs must not only take into account the total number of employees requiring housing, but
should also consider the type of units these persons desire, the amount they can afford to
pay for housing, and the location/design of the units.
The plan should also consider whether the amount of housing which needs to be produced
can be achieved within the buildout permitted by current zoning, or whether changes should
be made to the zoning maps or land use regulations to achieve the community vision. These
changes could include designating lands for development within the affordable housing zone
district, or changing the percentage of all new development which must be affordable
housing. An analysis of buildout as compared to housing need is provided within this report.
B. Components Of Housing Need
The three components which the Committee finds comprise the total housing production
need for the Aspen Area are as follows.
1. The current unmet need for affordable housing in order to increase the percentage
of the work force which is housed in the Aspen Area.
2. The demand for housing from new commercial, lodge, residential and recreational
development and from growth in public sector employment.
3. The need to replace free market housing from which residents are displaced when,
units are converted to second home or seasonal occupancy.
For purposes of this analysis, the Housing Committee has defined the study area as that area
up -valley of Aspen Village, excluding Snov�na. s�V_illa ;g. Data has, therefore, been collected
for this area, which is an area larger than that being addressed by the Community Plan.
Analyses were conducted to calculate need in each component. To the extent possible,
calculations address both the ultimate need for affordable housing within the area and the
amount of housing which must be produced annually to achieve the ultimate objective.
1. Increasing the Percentage Of The Work Force Housed
As noted above, the Housing Committee has determined that in 1986, a more acceptable
balance between resident and non-resident housing existed than is found today in the Aspen
Area. In order to determine the number of persons who would need to be provided with
housing to re -constitute this balance, the following questions must be answered:
2
* What percentage of the work force was housed in the Aspen Area at the time
of the 1986 survey? How does this compare to the percentage housed in this
Area today?
* What is the current size of the work force in the Area?
Using this information, several different scenarios for increasing the percentage of the work
force housed in the Aspen Area can be provided to the Committee for policy direction.
Staff of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority analyzed the data files for the 1987
survey to correlate the survey responses to the area in question. They determined that in
1987, approximately 60% of those persons working up valley of Aspen Village were also
living in this area. They conducted a similar evaluation of responses to the more recent
survey, and determined that by 1990/91, this percentage had dropped to approximately 45%.
Employment data provided to the Housing Authority by the State of Colorado indicates
there was an annual average of 12,750 jobs in Pitkin County in 1990. The 1990 Housing
Survey demonstrates that each employee holds, on the average, 1.29 jobs. Assuming the
number of reported jobs is accurate, there were ab ut 9,880 employees in the County in
1990. Of these, the Housing Authority estimates 8,`00 held jobs in the Aspen Area, with
the remainder working in Snowmass Village or within the down valley area of Pitkin County.
In order to verify and better understand this information, a survey of nearly 50 businesses
(including both skiing companies, hotels, restaurants, retail shops, professional offices, the
media, construction services and local government/special districts) in the Aspen Area was
conducted. Employees were asked to identify where they lived and whether they lived in
deed restricted or free market units. This survey reached over 2,800 employees, which is
35% of the Aspen Area's work force. The survey results are summarized in Table 1.
Table l
Survey Results Where
Employees Working in the Aspenrea;Live
Area
Number of Employees
Percent of Work Force
Surveyed
Up Valley of Aspen
1,158
41.2
Village
Down Valley of Aspen
1,334
47.4
Village
Snowmass Village
320
11.4
Totals
2$12
100.0
Ki
To make this information comparable to that compiled from the housing surveys, those living
in Snowmass Village should be excluded. Using this approach, 46.5% of the current work
force lives up valley and 53.5% lives down valley of Aspen Village. These results are quite
comparable to and confirm the 45% figure obtained from the 1990/91 Housing Surveys.
In order to provide options for the Housing Committee to consider, three scenarios were
analyzed for increasing the percentage of the work force housed in the Aspen Area. These
three scenarios would increase the percentage of the work force housed in the Aspen Area
from 45% to 50%, 55% or 60%. The results of this analysis follow below.
Percentage of Work
Force Housed in Area
.45
.50
.55
.60
Number of Employees
Who Are Housed in Area
In order to increase the percentage of the work force housed in the Aspen Area to 60%,
an additional ,1,200 persons will need to be provided with housing. Survey data indicates
that an average of 1.9 persons occupy each deed restricted dwelling unit in Pitkin County.
This means that 630 new units would need to be produced to house an additional 1,200
employees. Production would only need to be 420 units, housing 800 employees, or 210
units, housing 400 employees, to increase the percentage to 55% or 50% respectively.
The Housing Committee will need to choose among these options and will also need to
select a time frame for accomplishing the necessary production. If the Committee chose a
target of housing 50% of the work force, it might be reasonable to try to accomplish the
necessary production within a five year period. If a higher target is chosen, a longer
production period will likely be necessary.
2. Providinii Housing In Response To New Development
The second step in the methodology is to calculate the number of employees for whom
housing would need to be produced due to growth in the commercial, lodge, residential,
public and ski area sectors. Tables 2 through 7 summarize the results of this analysis, with
the columns which are shaded representing the key data for purposes of this study.
Table 2 calculates the number of full time equivalent (FTE) employees which would be
generated by Tkey' and "maximum" buildout of commercial space within the study area.
These buildouz levels are from an analysis of buildout summarized on pages 96 - 101 of the
Community Plan, Phase One Report. It was not necessary to update this data, since a check
of building permit records indicated no new commercial development had occurred since the
Phase One Report was issued. The data has been rounded off to simplify this analysis.
4
11
•
D
O
O
U1
�2
to
to
O
t(�
Lii
to
P
W
N
N
W
L
G1
a ,
w
O
O
O
O
M
M
O
Ln
O
8
fV
M
M
M
W O
W r
U.
40
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
to
O
N
U1
O
o
a
o
.r
in
Ul
N
M
C7
LLC
O
N
CDO ti
0
�
M
�O
Y•-
W
L
d
G.
Y
O
O
O
O
n
M
M
N
O
M
U1
M
O
M
Ar
a
QQ8
O
E7
W r
J
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m7
I.
co
�O
N
a
Ln
N
N
N
Y
J
�+
U
•L
L
N
O
L
Y
L
Y
:
U
U
C
Y
Q2
U
N
•--
t0
C
\
\
7
OG
N
U
U
U
z
f
O
J
U
O
U
7
m
M
O
`O
M
t
O
%O
1
ti
N
d
N
W
YO7
O
O
O
O
O
O
t7
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
W
++
W
�
V
•7
O
O
O
O
O
Uo
L
O
.r
O
to
t
o
to
U%
N
M
_
O
M
N
to
N
61
F-
�
J
�
O
t0
41
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
W
Y
y
O
cm)L
N
O
C
0
N
Co
0
N
O
0
W
M
a .
O
0
0
0
t0
•O
a
cc";,
Z
Y
o
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m7
O
CO,
O
'f
N
t0
•O
N
N
d
Y
J
N
u
L
o
a
L
L.
Y
t
Y
lU
in
U
D
U
U
C
Y
C
N
U
2
U
U
U
W L
E ++
7 � L
Ln
M
- a
N
r�
O
M
m
O
Fn
O
10
ej
a
F-
N
t9
N
Y
W
LL
U.
m
O 4+
O
O
to
l!1
O
LL
6
L
Ol
„•,
a
- i�
c0
�
�
J O
E
W
O
Ln
rn
N
to
to
N
N
L
W
d
• !U
J
W
r
LL
W0
d W
Ln
N
^
O
L
Y
J
M
U
•L
L
N
O
L
Y
N
L
Y
O
N
s
p
is
tU
U
C
T
Y
U
\
N
\
co
C
U
2
O
U
lo
tn
0
41
L
0-
h
co
P
00
`O
N1
N
fV
W
1+
W
L
a
o
a
N
+,
N
a
o
o
\
O
O
O
2
GQ11
L
yJ
Ul
�[
W
M
H
�O
Y
LL
N
Y
L
O
(0
Qy1
ol
LA
Q
N
N
m
co
O•
\
O
Z
O
r
wxxv
s
i+
d
l0
to
O
O
O
'JDQ`C1
8
LL
WC
L
�
Cl
D_
F-
O
�
L
N
yd
�
N
Q
O
O
a
O
O
O
LLLLJJ
N
W
F•
M
�O
W
H
O
a
N
ccLn
s
p
O
M
Y
M
y
a+
�C
O
U
y
a+
c
C
N
N
9
U
U
L
i 1
W
_0
Q
O1
y
0J
UAll
ti
O
N
N
ro
d
0
N
J
w
m
_
d
N
Y
7
m
P
r
000
K
z
O
N
F
y
T
L
ro
_
u
�
i
Y
J
d
Y
W
O
L
7
n
LA
LP
m
un
d
Y
J
y
N
C
y
.�
ro
pOf
C!
a+
C
�
✓
C
U
U
ILI
y
O
N
JN
CL
-o
c
7
m
-
O
N
N
N
N
H
y
Y
H
L
�
U
O
L
O
W
H
W
v-
O
L
00
`O
M
N
N
a
f0
z
�y1
N
W L
cc
ti
-0 >
O ++
N
M
J
� J
� .
.0 Lu
L
Y
4
J
Y
CLy
7
m
M
O
O
O
O
N
N
N
F-
y
_-W
W
G/
N
W
W
4-
Z
O 10
ti
O
O
1
01
N
N
N
cc
�
Y
Y
J
y
N
C
L
O
O
a�
ro
U
Q
C
+
C
N
co
N
a+
!a
U
C)
Q
U
U
L
Q
L-'-,
O
J
The employee generation factors in Tables 2 and 5 are those contained in the Aspen Land
Use Regulations or the Pitkin County Land Use Code, except those for residential units and
ski areas, which are from the Town of Snowmass Village Land Use Code. The residential
factor has been verified for the Aspen Area by a study of employee generation performed
by the Planning Office in 1988, which found an average of 0.21 employees generated per
residential unit. The factor for the CC/C-1 zone districts is the average of the -low (3.5) and
high (5.25) ends of the range, while the factor for lodge units is within the Code's range of
0.2 to 2.0 employees per unit.
Table 3 demonstrates the number of years it would take to build out the remaining
commercial space, based on the adopted City and County quotas. These results are then
used in Table 4, to calculate the number of FTE employees which would be generated per
year, based on full utilization of the existing commercial quotas.
Tables 5 through 7 document a similar analysis performed for the lodge and residential
sectors. The likely and maximum buildout levels shown are taken from the report "Visitor
and Resident Dwelling Unit/Population Growth Under Zoning Buildout and Draft
Community Vision", dated 3/17/92, prepared by Alan Richman Planning Services.
The methodology used for calculating employee generation from growth in the public sector
and ski areas was different than that for the other three sectors. This is because buildout
has been calculated from underlying zoning and growth quotas have been established in the
residential, commercial and lodge sectors, but this is not the case for ski areas and public
sector growth. It was, therefore, necessary to establish a baseline for comparison for these
two sectors. For the public sector, this was done by identifying the current number of City,
County, School District, Hospital District, Sanitation District and Federal employees, which
is approximately 800 persons.
For the ski areas, this was done by identifying the current skiers at one time (SAOT)
capacity of the three ski areas within the study area, since an employee generation factor
of 63.5 employees per 1,000 SAOT has recently been calculated by the Town of Snowmass
Village and included in their Land Use Code. The U.S.. Forest Service rated capacity of
Aspen Mountain is 4,200 SAOT, that for Aspen Highlands is 4,500 SAOT, and that for
Buttermilk is 4,000 SAOT, for a total of 12,700 SAOT.
Since there are no locally adopted projections of future growth in ski area capacity or public
sector employment, it was necessary to establish a methodology for making such projections.
Previous studies by the City and County have demonstrated a balance between the area's
skiing capacity and available. short term accommodation. It is reasonable, therefore, to.
assume that growth in ski area capacity will be in proportion to future resident and visitor
dwelling unit growth. A similar conclusion can be reached for growth in public sector
employment, which should rise in proportion to the demand for services from a growing
population.
7
The analysis of remaining lodge and residential buildout in the 3/17/92 report demonstrates
that the existing resident/visitor dwelling unit inventory in the Aspen Area could increase by
26% (likely) to 36% (maximum). Proportional growth in public sector employment equates
to a likely increase of 210 employees, and a maximum increase of 290 employees.
Proportional growth in ski area capacity equates to a likely increase of 3,300 SAOT,
(generating 210 employees), and a maximum increase of 4,500 SAOT, (generating 285
employees).
Table 8 compiles the results of all of the growth impact analyses into a total number of
employees to be generated by buildout, and the annual employment requirements from these
sectors. It should be noted that the annual employment requirements from these sectors will
diminish over time,.as each sector fully builds out. For example, Table 3 illustrates that the -
likely buildout in the °"CL and Other" and "County Metro" commercial categories will be
realized in 2 years and the maximum buildout will be achieved in the "County Metro"
commercial category in 4 years. The employee generation associated with these zones will
then cease, and should be deducted from the annual requirement shown in Table 8.
Table 8 also recognizes that the growth management quota system makes developments
responsible for providing housing for a percentage of the employees they generate. For
example, 60% of commercial and lodge employees generated in the City and 100% of those
generated in the County must be provided with housing.
Based on current City and County policies, it can be assumed that at least 60% of the
employees generated will be housed in the Aspen Area. This percentage recognizes that
some development will be exempt from the housing exaction while other developments will
actually exceed the 60% requirement. Achievement of this percentage will mean that future
growth will not cause the percentage of the work force housed in the Aspen Area to decline
over time.
....... ....
Table 8
Stjneary of Employee Generati00 Fr.m Ail Sec ors
Sector
Likely Number of HE
Naxju Huber of HE
Annual -Huber of
Employees to be .,
Employees to be
Employees to House
Generated By Buildout
Generated By Buildout
Commercial
2,345
3,980
107
Lodge
290
385
14
Residential
415
670
32
Public
210
290
11
Ski Area
210
285
11
:.
#ctal
3,47Q . ,
<:: 561Q
,. ...........175:
60X of total ta:be
2,080
3365-------------
105
housed In: Aspen Area
i
3. Providing Replacement Housing Units
The last step in the methodology is to determine the number of free market units which are
presently housing employees which could become non-resident units over time. There are
a total of about 3,100 resident occupied dwelling units in the study area. This total reflects
the following determinations:
* Table 1 on page 44 of the Community Plan, Phase One Report, states that there
were 2,600 resident dwelling units in the Aspen Area as of 1/1/90.
* A review of City and County building permit reports indicates that about 150 new
resident units were built in 1990 and 1991. However, it is assumed that displacement
of residents from existing dwelling units wiped out any gain in the inventory.
* The Brush Creek, Woody Creek, McLain Flats and Aspen Village areas are all
outside of the Aspen Area but up valley of Aspen Village. Records from the Down
Valley Master Plan and estimates of growth since that time indicate there are about
500 resident dwelling units.in these areas.
The total of 3,100 resident occupied dwelling units appears to be high in relation to the
survey -established figure of only 3,600 employees housed in the Aspen Area. While it is
reasonable to assume that some residents do not hold jobs, these numbers do not appear
to correlate. Additional research is being done in an effort to verify the resident dwelling
unit totals for the study area.
Ian
Among the 3,100 total units, there are 1,225 deed restricted units, and , free market
resident occupied housing units. The free market units could become non-resident units
over time, displacing persons in the work force. However, based on information contained
in past Planning Office growth and housing reports, it is estimated that about 1,275 of the
free market, resident occupied units are located in Aspen, where the Land Use Regulations
require partial mitigation of displacement by applicants, through provision of replacement
units or cash -in -lieu. The remaining 600 free market, resident occupied units are located
outside of the City limits, and could be lost to conversion to second homes over time.
It is unlikely that occupancy of all of these units will change to non-resident, due to the
location and type of units. Since, however, 600 units is 20% of the resident dwelling unit
inventory in the study area, this number provides a worst case estimate of the potential
future erosion of the percentage of the work force which will be housed in the area.
The Housing Committee will need to decide how best to incorporate the displacement
potential into the production calculation.
C. Implications
0
•
•
The key findings from the Housing Needs Assessment are as follows:
1. Presently, about 45% of the 8,000 employees in the Aspen Area live up valley of
Aspen Village. To increase this percentage back to its 1987 level of 60%, an
additional 1,200 persons will need to be housed. This requires production of about
630 units. This production need drops to 420 units to increase the percentage to
55% and to 210 units to increase the percentage to 50%.
2. Private development is required to provide affordable housing for 2,080 new
employees generated by likely buildout under zoning, or up to 3,365 new employees
generated by maximum buildout under zoning. Housing these employees within the
study area is consistent with housing at least 60% of the work force in the area.
3. There are approximately 1,875 resident occupied units in the Aspen Area which could
be converted to non-resident units over time. It is estimated that 1,275 of these units
are located within the City limits, while 600 are located in unincorporated Pitkin
County. Displacement which occurs within the City is currently subject to mitigation
requirements, while that which occurs in the County is not.
Table 9 summarizes the likely and maximum number of employees to be. housed in the
Aspen Area, based on these three factors.
Table 9 .;
Summary of Honsing Needs Assessment
Housing Production Needs
Likely Number of
Maximum Number of
Employees To House
Employees to House
To increase the percent
400 - 800
800 - 1,200
housed in the Aspen Area
To address ultimate
2,080
3,365
buildout under zoning
To address displacement
?
?
Total
2,480-.1800 + ?
4,165 4,565 + ?
It is also important to determine whether remaining residential. buildout in the Aspen Area
is likely to accommodate this need. Estimates prepared by Alan Richman Planning Services
in the report Visitor and Resident Dwelling Unit/Population Growth Under Zoning
Buildout and Draft Community Vision", dated 3/17/92, indicate that 520-636 new deed
restricted dwelling units will be developed by the public and private sectors under existing
zoning, while 715 - 921 new deed restricted dwellirg units will be developed by the public
and private sectors under the draft vision contained in the Community Plan.
10
The 921 new deed restricted units would house 1,750 persons, at an average of 1.9 persons
per unit, which is below the likely range of need, depending on how the Committee chooses
to address need from displacement. The buildout estimates do not, however, include that
portion of the Aspen Area from Brush Creek Road to Aspen Village, which is outside of
the Community Plan study area, which may provide additional buildout for resident housing.
In order to balance the production need with the Community Plan, the following options
should be considered:
1. Reduce the total ultimate buildout potential from commercial and lodge
development.
2. Increase the percentage of affordable housing which is obtained from new residential
development.
3. Identify additional sites for production of affordable housing by the public sector.
The anticipated number of deed restricted dwelling units which will produced also excludes
the 150 - 440 accessory dwelling units which are expected to develop within the area. It may
be appropriate to assign these units towards the demand from displacement, since both the
City Council and Board of County Commissioners have recently recognized the importance
of such units in addressing the changing balance between housing units which are provided
by the public sector or required to be provided by the private sector, as compared to those
which are voluntarily provided by the private sector, such as accessory dwelling units.
11
MEMORANDUM
TO: Community Plan Committees
FROM: Alan Richman Planning Services
SUBJECT: Implications of Community Plan Policies
DATE: June 23, 1992
On June 3, the Oversight Committee accepted the following Community Plan policies:
Quantity
1. Overall peak population at buildout for the metro area should be 30,000 people.
2. 60% of the Metro Area work force should be housed up valley from Aspen Village.
Quality
3. The majority of future residential and commercial growth should be community
oriented; the residential sector should be made up of a mixture of economic levels.
4. Emphasis should be given to the production of family and ownership oriented
affordable housing, although this should not preclude other resort needs for housing.
5. The community should promote diversity.
The purpose of this memo is to illustrate the population and growth analysis at buildout
which results from these policies and to identify the Community Plan implications of
achieving these policies. These implications can be summarized as follows:
1. Likely commercial buildout in the Aspen Area will be reduced from about 700,000
to 400,000 sq. ft. by increasing the percentage of the allowable floor area that is on -
site affordable housing from its current level of about 15-20% to about 30-35%.
2. There will be a mandatory minimum ratio of 60% affordable housing to 40% free
market housing in new residential projects. This will be consistent with the currently
adopted requirement to house 60% of new lodge and commercial employees.
3. Affordable housing should be produced within the area up valley of Aspen Village.
4. 750 out of the existing 1,275 free market resident occupied dwelling units in the area
up valley of Aspen Village will need to be preserved or replaced in order to achieve
the total required number of work force housing units.
ATTACHMENT B
The AACP sub -committees have developed an Action Plan for
implementation of recommendations from the Aspen Area Community
Plan. This attachment includes those Action Plan items that
support the rezoning of the Kraut property to Affordable Housing
and the discussion regarding a mixed -use development on the
property.
The Action Plan has been reviewed by the Oversight Committee and
will be incorporated into the overall Plan that will shortly begin
the public review process for adoption.
ACTION PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
Growth
* Establish locational preferences for growth within the Aspen
Area to promote infill development. Priority for allocations
should be given to applications in preferred locations.
* Give a higher priority to on -site housing in the commerical
core e.g. more points, more credit.
Residential
* Encourage infill development within the existing urban area
so as to preserve open space and rural areas and more
employees will be able to live close to where they work.
(Mid- and Long -Term also)
* Rezone and subsidize selected parcels in the City and County
to allow for well -designed and imaginative affordable housing,
especially townhomes and patio homes.
* Continue the approach of disbursed mid -size to smaller
projects throughout the Aspen metro area and upvalley of Aspen
Village. Do not promote a single big project solution to
affordable housing except on certain large acreage parcels
where micro community development may be appropriate. On
certain large acreage parcels, micro community or neighborhood
development may be appropriate, and should be considered, to
accommodate permanent residents, neighborhood character,
appropriate density, mixed housing types and uses, useable
open space and convenient public transportation. Including
but not limited to: the Moore property, AABC, Aspen Village
and the Zoline property.
* Encourage government agencies to be the catalyst for the
acquisition of employee housing property to be used for
affordable housing, but not the owner developer or property
manager.
* Public funds for housing should be used almost primarily for
purchasing and inventorying land on which affordable housing
could be built, in partnership with the private sector and/or
acquiring existing structures for deed restriction and resale.
This should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Each
project should be analyzed to achieve the best public policy
purpose at the most efficient cost.
* Encourage City and County partnerships where the City's
Housing/Day Care funds are used to purchase land suitable for
family type housing upvalley from Aspen Village.
* Develop small scale resident housing which fits the character
of the community and is interspersed with free market housing
throughout the Aspen Area and up valley of Aspen Village.
(Long -Term also)
* Encourage more incentives for providing affordable housing on -
site in the commercial core: (Long -Term also)
a. Increase the use of upper floors of commercial buildings
by revising existing zone district ratios to increase
square footage for housing and encourage affordable
quality and street noise buffering. (Long -Term also).
* Zone additional parcels for affordable housing development as
identified on the Housing maps. (Long -Term also [Kraut
property has been identified on Housing maps])
Commercial/Retail/Office/Small Lodges
* Create an acceptable, enforceable definition of "locally"
serving uses and encourage locally oriented businesses via a
menu of options. (Long -Term also)
a. Study GMQS incentives for local serving neighborhood
commercial uses. Ensure that projects which receive such
incentives are permanently restricted as local serving
uses. (Also see the Growth section)
b. Explore FAR bonuses for restrictions for locally
servicing uses.
C. Explore buy down of commercial space for locally oriented
uses and deed restricted local space.
* Zone additional areas for NC and SCI development within the
City, specifically to include the "superblock" bounded by
Durant, Hyman, Original and Spring Streets.
a. Rezone the superblock area to NC and SCI.
* Study location for a neighborhood office zone district. This
concept can incorporate vertical zoning and alley uses.
(Long -Term also)
a. Develop a Neighborhood Office zone district.
b. Rezone areas to Neighborhood Office.
Design Ouality and Historic Features
* Continue review of public projects and Public Projects Review
Group (PPRG).
Transportation
* Pursue the construction of a public parking facility beneath
the Kraut property or the Bell Mountain Lodge/City Market
site; this was recommended as Phase II in the 1987
Transportation Element.
* Reduce the number of on -street parking spaces within the
commercial core by phasing out a portion of the parking spaces
in conjunction with parking and transit alternatives.
* Establish a resident parking system which restricts parking
in the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the commercial
core to residents through a signage and a permit system
(administrative fee only). This shall be established
simultaneously with the "pay for parking" system in the
commercial core.
•
•
ATTACHMENT C
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning commission has recommended text
amendments for the Affordable Housing zone district. Before formal
review of the text amendments, staff requests a work session with
Council for an informational discussion of the amendments.
However, a draft of the recommended amendments are attached to help
Council understand the potential of the property with a rezoning
to Affordable Housing.
Additionally, the Character and Growth committees' of the AACP
identified areas of the community which could be modified to help
support the overall "vision" of a balanced community.
It was established that the Aspen area community was lacking in
local support businesses typically identified with a neighborhood
commercial (NC) type zoning. Several issues relative to an NC zone
district were discussed and included:
- The need to establish additional areas for NC zoning;
- The erosion of the existing areas zoned NC due to other land
use approvals and lack of enforcement (ie. revise the NC and
SCI zone district use lists to ensure that local serving uses
are permitted);
- Specific recommendations for the "super block concept",
which includes the area bounded by Durant Ave., Hyman St.,
Original St., and Spring St., to include some neighborhood
commercial and parking facilities.
The Character committee recommendations support the concept of
"vertical zoning" which establishes multiple uses on sites within
the core of town. This concept includes the type of development
proposed on the Kraut parcel; neighborhood commercial and housing
located on different levels within the downtown business area.
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the text
amendments for the Affordable Housing zone district for the second
time at a May 5, 1992 public hearing. The Commission voted to
recommend to Council the proposed text amendments.
COMMENTS: Staff has participated in numerous worksessions with the
Commission and Council regarding the rezoning of the Kraut property
to AH Zone District. As part of those discussions, the concept of
a mixed -use development was considered. As a result, staff has
proposed to amend the AH Zone District, for those parcels that are
within the commercial or office zone districts, to allow up to 40%
of the total square footage to be free market commercial and
residential development with a minimum of 60% of the total square
footage as deed restricted dwelling units.
Following are the proposed text changes as recommended by the
Planning and Zoning Commission (bold indicates proposed language):
I. That Article 3, DEFINITIONS, Section 3-101 of the Municipal
Code shall be amended to read as follows:
Mixed -use development means a combination of residential and
commerical/office land uses in one structure or structures on one
parcel.
II. That Article 5, Division 2, Section 24-5-208 of the Municipal
Code shall be amended to read as follows:
Section 5-208 Affordable housing (AH)
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone
District is to provide for the use of land for the
production of low, moderate and middle income affordable
housing and Resident Occupied Units. The zone district
also permits a limited component of free market dwelling
units or commercial square footage to off -set the cost
of developing affordable housing. It is contemplated
that land may also be subdivided in connection with a
development plan. The Affordable Housing (AH) Zone
District is intended for residential use primarily by
permanent residents of the Community. Recreational and
institutional uses customarily found in proximity to
residential uses are included as conditional uses. To
promote mixed -use development within the commerical core
and to promote locally oriented businesses, sites within
the commerical and office zone districts may be
considered for rezoning to Affordable Housing for a
mixed -use development. For those mixed -use projects, in
the commercial and office zone districts, a mandatory
PUD overlay is required to establish appropriate
dimensional requirements that are consistent with the
commercial and office zone districts.
Lands in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District should
be scattered throughout the City to ensure a mix of
housing types, including those which are affordable by
its working residents; at the same time the Affordable
Housing (AH) Zone District can protect the City's
neighborhoods from rezoning pressures that other non -
community oriented zone districts may produce. Further,
lands in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District should
be located within walking distance of the center of the
City, or on transit routes.
B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of
right in the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District.
1. Residential uses in residential zone districts
restricted to Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4 price and
income affordable housing guidelines and resident
occupied units as determined in the Affordable
Housing guidelines must comprise at least 70 percent
of the unit mix, of the development. Free market
residential development may comprise up to 30
percent of the unit mix and 40 percent of the
bedroom mix of the development. Residential uses
may be comprised of single-family, duplex and multi-
family dwelling units;
2. Residential uses in a mixed -use development deed
restricted to low, moderate and middle income
affordable housing and resident occupied units as
determined in the Affordable Housing guidelines must
comprise at least 60 percent of the total square
footage of the development. Free market residential
development must be combined with commercial/office
development and shall not exceed 40 percent of the
total square footage of the development.
Home occupations; and
4. Accessory buildings and uses.
C. Conditional uses. Free market commercial development,
which may include free market residential development,
shall not exceed 40 percent of the total square footage
of a mixed -use development. Parking for on -site users
or parking approved as an essential public facility
pursuant to Section 8-104 C(1)(b) shall be excluded from
the total square footage of the free market
commercial/office and free market residential
development. The following and similar uses are
permitted as conditional uses in Affordable Housing (AH)
Zone Districts located within the commercial or office
2
zone districts and are subject to the standards and
procedures established in Art. 7, Div. 3.
1. Drug Store
2. Food Store with limited customer seating not to
exceed ten seats and not to include waitservice
3. Liquor store
4. Laundromat and pick-up station for dry cleaning and
laundry
S. Beauty and Barber shop
6. Post office branch
7. Record store
8. Electronic sales and repair shop
9. Shoe repair shop
10. Video rental and sale shop
11. Garden shop
12. Hardware store
13. Business and professional office
14. Consignment clothing store
15. Parking garage
16. Open use recreation site
17. Day care center
18. Satellite dish antennae
19. Dormitory
D. Residential dimensional requirements. The following
dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted uses in
the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District in residential zone
districts within the City of Aspen.
1. Minimum lot size (sq.ft.): 3,000
3
2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (sq.ft.): Detached
residential dwelling: 3,000
Duplex: 1,500
For multi -family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 sq.
ft. or less or for lots of 43,560 s.f. or less when
approved by special review pursuant to Art. 7, Div.
4, the following sq. ft. requirements apply:
studio: 300
1 bedroom: 400
2 bedroom: 800
3 bedroom: 1,200
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: one (1) bedroom
per 400 square feet of lot area.
For multi -family dwellings on a lot of more than
27,000 sq. ft. (except when varied by Special
Review) the following sq. ft. requirements apply:
studio: 1,000
1 bedroom: 1,250
2 bedroom: 2,100
3 bedroom: 3,630
Units with more than 3 bedrooms: one (1)
bedroom per 1,000 square feet of lot area.
3. Minimum lot width (ft.): 30
4. Minimum front yard (ft.):
principal building: 10
accessory building: 15
5. Minimum side yard (ft.): The minimum side yard for
single-family and duplex dwellings is 0 ft. for each side
yard; 15 ft. total minimum for both side yards. (Minimum
side yard shall be 5' for yards which are contiguous to
any zone district other than Affordable Housing.)
The minimum side yard for multi -family dwellings shall
be 5 feet.
6. Minimum rear yard (ft.):
principal building: 10
accessory building: 5
7. Maximum height (ft.): 25; increasable up to 30' by
special review pursuant to Art. 7, Div.4.
8. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (ft.): 5
9. Percent of open space required for building site: to be
established by special review pursuant to Art. 7, Div.
4; open space may be used for off-street parking by
special review, pursuant to Art.7, Div. 4.
4
10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and
nonconforming lots of record).
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS
Lot Size Allowable
(SQ.Ft.) SQ. Ft.
0- 3,000 80 sq.ft. of floor area for each 100
sq.ft. in lot area, up to a maximum
of 2,400 sq.ft. of floor area.
3,000- 6,000 2,400 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 28
sq.ft. of floor area for each
additional 100 sq.ft. in lot area,
up to a maximum of 3,240 sq.ft. of
floor area.
6,000- 9,000 3,240 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 14
sq.ft. of floor area for each
additional 100 sq. ft. in lot area,
up to a maximum of 3,660 sq.ft. of
floor area.
9,000+ 3,660 sq.ft. of floor area.
DUPLEX
Lot Size Allowable
(SQ.Ft.) SQ.Ft.
0- 3,000 90 sq.ft. of floor area for each
100 sq.ft. in lot area, up to a
maximum of 2,700 sq.ft. of floor
area.
3,000- 6,000 2,700 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 30
sq.ft. of floor area for each addi-
tional 100 sq.ft. in lot area, up to
a maximum of 3,600 sq.ft. of floor
area.
6,000- 9,000 3,600 sq.ft. of floor area, plus 16
sq.ft. of floor area for each
additional 100 sq.ft. in lot area,
up to a maximum of 4,080 sq.ft. of
floor area.
9,000+
Lot Size
4,080 sq.ft. of floor area.
MULTI -FAMILY
Allowable
SO. Ft.
5
•
0- 27,000 s.f 1.1:1
27,001 s.f- 43,560 s.f .36:1,
43,561 s.f-
3
acres
.36:1
> 3 acres-
6
acres
.33:1
> 6 acres-
9
acres
.30:1
> 9 acres-
18
acres
.27:1
>18 acres
.24:1
increasable to 1:1
by special review,
pursuant to Art. 7,
Div. 4.
12. Internal floor area ratio: no requirement
E. Mixed -use development dimensional requirements. The
dimensional requirements which shall apply to all mixed -use
development in the Affordable Housing Zone District shall be
set by the adoption of a conceptual development plan and final
development plan, pursuant to Article 7, Division 9, Planned
Unit Development except for the following:
1. Minimum lot size (sq.ft.): 3,000
2. Maximum height (ft.): 25; increasable up to 30' by
special review pursuant to Art. 7, Div.4.
3. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (ft.): 5
4. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and
nonconforming lots of record).
Lot Size
0- 27,000 s.f
27,001 s.f- 43,560 s.f
43,561 s.f- 3 acres
> 3 acres- 6 acres
> 6 acres- 9 acres
> 9 acres- 18 acres
>18 acres
MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT
Allowable
SO. Ft.
1.1:1
.36:1, increasable to 1:1
by special review,
pursuant to Art. 7,
Div. 4.
.36:1
.33:1
.30:1
.27:1
.24:1
F. Off-street parking requirement. The following off-
street parking spaces shall be provided for each use in
the Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District.
C.
1. Residential uses: established by special review
pursuant to Art. 7, Div. 4. The maximum number of
parking spaces required shall not exceed 1
space/bedroom or 2 spaces/dwelling unit whichever
is less.
2. Commercial uses: 4 spaces/1000 square feet which
may be provided via a payment in lieu pursuant to
special Review Article 7, Division 4.
3. All other uses: N/A
III. Article 8, 8-104 (C)(1) Growth Management Quota Systems
Exemptions by City Council of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen, Colorado, are hereby amended to read as follows:
118-104 (C)(1)(e) Affordable Housing Zone District"
No more than fourteen (14) free market
dwelling units for the entire City shall be developed in
one calendar year pursuant to the regulations found in
Section 5-208. For commerical square footage in a mixed -
use development, exempt development shall not exceed the
annual quota available for the most recent underlying
zone district. Exempt development shall be deducted from
the annual quota available within the zone district.
7
ATTACHMENT D
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
i/
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Managerl&,
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direc
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
DATE: Jul Q27 1992
RE: Kraut Property Map Amendment Office to Affordable Housing
Second Reading Ordinance 39, Series 1992
SUMMARY: The City and County, as represented by the Housing
Authority, propose to rezone the Kraut Property from Office (0) to
Affordable Housing (AH). This is second reading of Ordinance 39,
Series of 1992, please see Ordinance Attachment "A".
Subsequent to rezoning, the applicant will submit a development
plan containing all the pertinent reviews for the development of
this parcel for review by the Commission and Council.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application at
their March 17 meeting and recommend to Council approval of the
rezoning from Office (0) to Affordable Housing (AH).
This memo reviews the rezoning of the parcel to Affordable Housing.
However, instead of a rezoning with respect to a 100% affordable
residential development as was originally proposed, staff suggests
consideration of a mixed -use proposal comprised of commercial,
residential and below -grade parking land uses.
The proposed text amendments, which would allow a free market
commerical element in addition to a parking garage within the
Affordable Housing Zone District, are. being considered in more
depth by the Housing Authority and other staff members to consider
the feasibility of a mixed -use development on the site. Staff
anticipates a worksession to review the text amendments in several
months.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In January of 1991, the City of Aspen and
Pitkin County purchased the Kraut Property and directed the Housing
Authority to submit an application for the rezoning and subsequent
development review.
Council approved first reading of Ordinance 39, Series of 1992 at
the May 26, 1992 meeting.)
BACKGROUND - The City of Aspen, Pitkin County and the Housing
Authority have together pursued a comprehensive plan to address the
community's housing problems. The housing plan is threefold: it
seeks to preserve the existing affordable housing stock, requires
developers to mitigate a "fair share" of their affordable housing
impacts and produces new affordable housing to reduce/eliminate the
current affordable housing shortfall.
As part of this comprehensive approach, the City Council adopted
Ordinance 59 establishing an Affordable Housing Zone District (AH).
The AH zone enables the rezoning of land for the purposes of
affordable housing.
The purchase, subsequent rezoning and development of the Kraut
property is a step toward the provision of affordable housing
within close proximity to employment opportunities and neighborhood
services for those citizens in need of housing.
In addition to the site being selected for housing, the 1987
Transportation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
identified this site as one of three centrally located underground
parking garages (the Rio Grande parcel and Wagner Park were the
other two sites). The report identifies this site as a likely
candidate because the site takes advantage of existing traffic
patterns of Main/Original and Highway 82. This location could help
reduce the traffic circulation around the pedestrian mall, Rubey
Park and Durant Avenue. It's proximity to the commercial core and
the gondola make it ideal for both a winter and summer intercept
lot.
The 1992 Draft Aspen Area Community Plan identifies the Kraut
parcel as a site for higher density housing, below grade parking
and local serving commercial space.
At worksessions with the Commission and Council, a mixed -use
concept was discussed. Although both Boards wanted to continue
consideration of a mixed -use development, they did not want to
delay rezoning the parcel to AH. Thus, this rezoning has initiated
the amendment process for the AH Zone District. The amendment
proposes commercial uses in the AH Zone District for those parcels
that are currently located in the Commerical and Office Zone
Districts.
Planning and Housing staff meet with interested neighbors on March
5, 1992 to discuss the rezoning and subsequent development of the
parcel. Please see Attachment "B" for a summary of the
neighborhood meeting and citizen letters.
CURRENT ISSUES
A. Site Description - The Kraut property is located near the base
of Aspen Mountain. The site is two blocks east of the downtown
commercial core area, and two blocks south of Main Street at the
intersection of East Hyman Avenue and Original Street.
The 15,000 square foot lot is vacant and is currently being used
2
•
•
as a commerical parking lot. There are no natural hazards
associated with the site and it is relatively flat. !There are no
significant vegetation on the parcel and several inches of gravel
exist on top of the natural soil conditions.
The parcel is currently zoned Office. The areas north and west of
the parcel are also zoned Office. Across Spring Street, to the
west, the Commercial-1 Zone District begins. The parcels
immediately south of the Kraut property are zoned Lodge
Preservation and Commercial Lodge and across Cooper Street is the
Neighborhood Commerical Zone District. The residential
neighborhood to the east of the parcel, across Original, is zoned
Residential/Multi-Family.
The property is bounded by several existing structures. West of
the parcel is a two-story A -frame and the three-story Hannah -
Dustin office building on the corner of Hyman and Spring streets.
The Buckhorn Lodge, a two and one-half story structure, is across
the alley along the site's southern boundary. To the southwest is
the two-story Bell Mountain Lodge. Across Hyman Avenue, to the
north, is the Coates, Reid and Waldron office building which is
approximately 30 feet high. West of the office building are the
700 East Hyman Townhomes that consist of three duplexes for a total
of six dwelling units. To the east, across Original, are single
and multi -family residences.
The parcel is accessible by paved public streets, East Hyman Avenue
and Original Street, and by a dirt alley between Hyman and Cooper
Avenues. The public streets have curb and gutter. There are no
paved sidewalks, only gravel paths. Utility lines are proximate
and contained underground within the public rights -of -way. Please
refer to Attachment "C" for pertinent maps of the site and
surrounding neighborhood.
B. Project Summary - Many opportunities exist for development of
this site. The neighborhood is a mixed -use neighborhood containing
a variety of land- uses, intensities of development, and
architectural styles. Minimal site preparation is involved. No
natural hazards, critical wildlife habitat or vegetation exist on
the site. All public services are in place with the capacity to
serve the site. The site is within the Central Area of downtown
as identified in the 1973 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and is
within one block of several bus routes.
A very preliminary site plan indicates that between 24 to 30 studio
and one -bedroom affordable, deed -restricted (preferably rental)
dwelling units could be developed on the parcel with necessary
parking. This preliminary proposal does not include other uses on
the site.
It is estimated that an 89 car parking garage could be developed
below grade providing parking for the building and additional
3
•
•
public parking.
Ideally, full use of the site could include below grade parking,
first floor commercial space, and second and third floor
residential units. If commercial space is developed on the site
then the number of residential units will decrease to approximately
20-25 units. However, review of this application only pertains to
rezoning the parcel and not a development proposal. The Land Use
Code does not require the submission of a development plan at the
time of rezoning.
Please refer to Attachment "D" for a review of the dimensional
requirements applicable in the AH zone and how those would be
applied for a 24-30 unit development. These are provided at this
conceptual stage to help the review bodies envision the development
potential of the site. These dimensional requirements pertain to
a 100% residential proposal and do not consider the proposed text
amendments to the Affordable Housing Zone District. If the
amendments to the AH Zone District are adopted, some dimensional
requirements may change and would be reflected in the development
proposal for this parcel.
C. Applicable Review standards are addressed in Attachment "E".
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval of the rezoning of Lots E, F, G, H, & I, Block 105 of the
Aspen Townsite (Kraut property) amending the Official Zone District
map from Office to Affordable Housing.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Table the rezoning until Council has the ability to review the
proposed text amendments for the Affordable Housing Zone District.
2. Table the rezoning until a site specific development plan
accompanies the rezoning application.
® Maintain existing Office zoning. The Office Zone District
allows 100% affordable housing as a permitted use and commercial
parking lot or structure as a conditional use. The only
dimensional difference between the Office and Affordable Housing
Zone District that would affect a 100o housing project is that the
height may be increased from 25' to 30' by Special Review in the
AH Zone District. Parking requirements for all affordable housing
is set by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4.
[AH
ever, if a multi -use development were proposed in the Office
e district, the commercial element or parking garage would not
exempt from Growth Management. The proposed amendments to the
Zone District legislation would allow a free market commercial
ment and/or parking garage, incorporatedwith affordable
sing, exempt from the Growth Management System.
0
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the rezoning of Lots E, F, G,
H, & I, Block 105, City of Aspen from Office to Affordable
Housing."
"I move to adopt Ordinance 39, Series of 1992."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Ordinance 39, Series of 1992
B. March 5 Neighborhood Summary and Citizens Letters
C. Maps
D. Tables
E. Review Standards for Text Amendments
F. Referral Comments
G. Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 92-10
61
• •
City Council Exhibit—L
Approved , 19 _
By Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. 39
(SERIES OF 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A REZONING FROM
OFFICE (0) TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH) LOTS E, F, G, & I, BLOCK 105,
ON THE CORNER OF EAST HYMAN AVENUE AND ORIGINAL STREET, ASPEN
COLORADO
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code
the applicant, the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority, has
submitted an application for a map amendment for the rezoning of
Lots E, F, G, & I, Block 105, on the corner of East Hyman Avenue
and Original Street, from O (office) to AH (affordable housing);
and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on
December 17, 1991 to consider the map amendment at which time the
Commission tabled review of the application pending a worksession
with the City Council and interested neighbors; and
WHEREAS, staff meet with interested neighbors on March 5, 1992
to discuss neighborhood concerns with regard to the rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Commission held a public hearing March 17, 1992
to reconsider the rezoning of the parcel from Office to Affordable
Housing; and
WHEREAS, the Commission considered the, representations made
by the applicant and interested public and found that the rezoning
application complies with Section 24-7-1102 and is consistent with
the goals of the City to provide scatter site affordable housing
throughout the City and within walking distant of the downtown,
that the site is consistent with the 1973 Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan and the 1992 draft Community Plan that identifies this site
as a multi -use site, is not in conflict with any applicable
portions of Chapter 24, is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen, and is in harmony with
the purpose and intent of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Commission recommends to the City Council
approval of rezoning the parcel from Office to Affordable Housing;
and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council concurs with the finding as
made by the Commission as set forth above and having considered the
Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation for a map amendment
does wish to grant the requested map amendment for the southwest
corner of East Hyman Avenue and Original Street, Aspen Colorado.
1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
That it does hereby grant rezoning of the southwest corner of East
Hyman Avenue 'and Original Street, Lots E, F, G, & I, Block 105,
Aspen Colorado from O (office) to AH (affordable housing).
Section 2•
The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen, Colorado,
shall be and is hereby amended to reflect those rezoning actions
as set forth in Section 1 above and such amendments shall be
promptly entered on the Official Map in accordance with Section
24-5-103B of the Municipal Code.
Section 3:
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 4•
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 remaining portions
thereof.
section 5•
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending
under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 6•
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1992 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 day of
. 1992.
John Bennett, Mayor
0
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
1992.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
3
John Bennett, Mayor
•
•
ATTACHMENT B
SUMMARY NOTES OF THE MARCH 5, 1992 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
1. Staff made a presentation regarding the rezoning and
development review process. In addition staff explained the
Affordable Housing Zone District concept with a brief history of
the purchase of the Kraut Property.
2. Staff explained the rezoning proposal and text amendment being
proposed for the March 17, 1992 Commission meeting.
3. Neighbor comments can be divided into 4 broad categories:
impacts to the neighborhood, rental vs. sale units, costs/need, and
specific uses.
a. Impacts: The corner of Hyman and Original is a very busy
corner. Service and delivery vehicles constantly double
parking in the street and at times blocks the alley. The
proximity to the commerical core and the Gondola have made
parking a severe problem and may be exacerbated by the
elimination of the existing private parking lot on the site.
Where will those cars go? It is questionable whether the
proposed development of the lot will be able to provide enough
parking to eliminate potential impacts in the area.
b. Rental vs. Sale Unit: The neighbors believe that rental
units will not be as well maintained as owner occupied units.
In addition, the concept of transient/rental units presents
potential safety issues.
C. Costs/Need: The neighbors posed several questions
regarding the financial capability to build the housing and/or
other uses. How much of the eventual development costs will
be further subsidized by the community? Will this development
lead to yet higher taxes? Is there enough money in the
various housing funds to build the affordable housing? What
about money for a parking garage? .
Regarding the need for more housing the neighbors questioned
whether a demand exists for more affordable housing. There
are existing units sitting vacant. An employer was not
convinced that this new housing will fill his employees needs.
d. Specific Land Uses: Staff discussed the concept of a
mixed -use development on the parcel. The neighbors seemed to
overwhelmingly support a below -grade parking facility
(although ability to finance was in doubt). A parking garage
with a park on top was also widely supported. Commercial
space was discussed as a possible option but only if it was
higher end commercial/retail space or offices. A general
concern was that parking, residences and commerical space may
be too much jammed onto the site with the inability to
mitigate the impacts.
((n�TL
4Lty Comwil zxmmt_L_ -- • ':
G cs 1, l,B1nL, By oras."IWO
516
I
l ;
ll
.0l7e- a� c Cot-ne-
v r Or'�tnaf
C e- he 2Jrn..t P .
ff J
a n G�� •,tea n-S41-cekl .
dPl1 �/1 (l, S �•. Vltlll[�0� rnQ�c�l ��(2 GJ►2e� C SCUfrQ 1
1 I e rn c� �✓ I
(�Ci�hLo.-- .mei C, Uo�t_ed T�Q�. CQY1t Prnr rp�ardt.,S l�n� Cttedf�-
r-
Ue-�
Qm h Con ce-r71f I J./
I e 4cet ��7� an 4l�Paa �4e f�!/�
/f
I /
St'toa��ovt O� fie. ea f� 6%
�.e S1ff e -k,Pa(. %4 p •t�t�s �n
�-' h `C PiT-.) C2 r � /O�o_ pac
//r/ / / G t t'h i C l a / 1
u rop�C Wt�N T�it�h Vt�•�-(P1 er� C�"t`�t1la/ Sl,� -e Oic T��
S �Q3/` ! J�'� i•, 4Ae. /Y U/P3 T 4,lutQ GhQ 7�ct 11
W
tat TS tqe h e/ram-'(/ r= �Qr�t P.: c
A'rt�S�//tJ
F•-
�1j
/
e
6roc( huCr��� / / � l/ J tjPCGLxes
�rca r �
1
v4caf/
C. (1191 � .
Pl
s P-r p� �cttL/ t`-f / v /
/
��GrPU�/,
lew a
/
G h i/ iT r a Cl� ✓ O Gd i ,L !
47
)�%
t
MAR 1 21992
Real Estate - Rentals • Property Management
March 12, 1992
Ms. Lesley LaMonte
City of Aspen
Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Lesley,
This letter is following up the neighbors' meeting held concerning
the housing and commercial project planned for the Kraut property
in the 700 block of Hyman Street in Aspen.
As a neighbor, a tax paying member of the community, and one of
Aspen's largest employers, I am writing to express my thoughts
about the project planned. As a neighbor who shares Hyman Street
and will look across at the project here are my concerns.
1. Impact
Parking and Density
This is a very busy street 8-10 hours per day, and I believe
that 25-30 new apartments and 5,500 square feet of commercial
space will have a serious impact on an already very crowded
street. This area is used for parking for commuters and
skiers, and is a major thoroughfare. If the City is planning
to 'build this project I hope that the impacts will be
mitigated. Parking for those people living or shopping at the
site is not available now and will have to be provided on the
site. If you are planning 25-30 apartments you will be
housing anywhere from 50 to 120 people. Since these are small
units there probably won't be very many families there, so
80%-90% of the people who live there will probably have cars.
Is the City adequately planning for 50 to 100 vehicles on site
plus parking for the commercial?
If you displace the vehicles who currently park on the site,
which by my count, is 20-25 vehicles per day, where are they
going to park? Already the parking for downtown Aspen goes
well beyond Original Street in front of the houses and
apartments down Hyman and Hopkins. What is the City planning
to do to mitigate the parking problems which this project will
present? Much of the parking in the lot at Hyman and
Original is by people whose business requires them to use
their cars in the course of their business.
Aspen Office - 720 Cast Hyman, Aspen, Colorado 81611 - (303) 925-1400 - FAX (303) 920-3765
Snowmass Office - Suite 113, Snowmass Center, Box 6450 - Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 - (303) 923-4700 - FAX (303) 923-4198
•
•
Page Two
Lesley LaMonte
March 12, 1992
As a neighbor I am also concerned with the appearance of the
property. Again if 25-30 apartments are built on this site
that is quite a bit of density for a small site. What is
going to happen to the people, bicycles, skis, cars, dogs,
friends, underwear that needs to be dried, potted plants,
extra clothing, extra furniture, etc. Will that all be
hanging out their windows or sitting on their decks? How is
that going to affect the neighborhood? Has the City concerned
itself with these needs and questions in its design?
2. Height
What is the height of the building going to be? As I
understand it there will be need for one to two floors of
parking, one floor of commercial space, and two floors of
residential. Will the height allow for view planes? Will the
City have to exceed allowable height restrictions?
3. Cost
As a taxpayer I have serious concerns about the cost of this
i, project. As I'understand it, it is to be funded out the of
the real estate transfer tax. As the planners, you say that
the greatest cost of the project was in purchasing the lot.
I think you should revisit the figures for construction costs
for this property. As I see it the commercial will cost about
$100 per square foot times 5,500 square feet, which equals
$550,000. The residential costs of 25 550 square foot units
at $125 per square foot would be about $1.7 million. The
parking is probably a $1 million per floor. Total cost of the
project looks to be in the $3.5 million to $4 million range
plus the $1.1 million real estate cost. Is this project cost
effective? Will it be self supporting or will we get half way
into the project and find out that we have a $5 million
project that cannot support itself. Can we, the City of
Aspen, really afford this considering our current long term
debt?
4. Affectincr Other Projects
Is this for seasonal housing or year round housing? Has the
City considered that and has the Housing Authority been
consulted? Will the impact of 25-30 more studio and one
bedroom apartments lower the occupancy at the other public
housing projects in Aspen?
•
•
Page Three
Lesley LaMonte
March 12, 1992
As a taxpayer who has seen his property taxes go up 260% this year,
I am already questioning whether .I can afford to live in Aspen.
If this ends up being funded out of property taxes in any way can
I really afford to live here - are you displacing me downvalley?
As an employer I question who this is going to help. Most of my
staff live downvalley. There are a few front desk people that we
employee seasonally who live in Aspen. What employees is the City
targeting for this? Is it for year round or seasonal people? Is
it for housekeepers, reservationists, accountants, or is it for a
higher paid caliber of employee?
My concerns are whether the City is moving too quickly and whether
they have thought out the implication, impacts and the cost of this
project. I hope that you will do this before moving ahead and
creating a tremendous impact on an already crowded neighborhood at
a cost the City of Aspen really cannot afford.
Yours sincerely,
Michael L. Spalding
President
MLS:dd
CC. Todd Southward
•
•
March 10, 1992
Leslie Lamont
Aspen\Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
I own property and live across the street from the Kraut property.
The City appears to have decided that it wants another high -density
affordable housing project on the Kraut property. I think the City
should seriously consider other alternatives. Aspen has a
successful tourist -based economy because of its unique character.
If Aspen becomes just another high -density condominium resort, it
will lose its competitive advantage in attracting tourists. Also,
the low -density mining -town character of Aspen is what makes the
local population want to live and raise families here. What Aspen
needs is more parks and open space and fewer high -density
condominium developments. I would like the City to give serious
consideration to having the open Space Committee make a
contribution to the City for this property and develop the property
as an underground parking garage with a park on the top at ground
level. Neighborhood parks, while not the highest income generating
use of the property, are the type of amenity that makes Aspen
attractive and livable. _
Sincerely,
•
•
March 10, 1992
Leslie Lamont
Aspen\Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re; Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
I own property and live across the street from the Kraut property.
At the neighborhood planning meeting on March 5, 1992, we were told
the neighbors would have several opportunities to comment on the
Proposed Kraut development. Additionally, we were told that the
City is considering several different proposals but has not decided
what will be developed on the Kraut ro for us to comment on or have any slgni f icant It is r a project
when there are no plans for us to look at. I think difficult
for the City to consider rezoning this Propertyit is premature
not even know what it ultimately wants sewdev loped n the ton dthe
property.
Sincerely,
•
•
March 10, 1992
Leslie Lamont
Aspen\Pitkin County -Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Res Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
I own property and live across the street from the Kraut property
and want to express my concerns relative to the proposed
development of that property. I am concerned that we do not know
enough about the project to make any assessment regarding whether
this is an appropriate or even viable investment of the taxpayers'
money. You and Dave Tolen informed us that the City does not know
whether the City intends to develop a 100% residential project, a
residential project with an underground parking garage or a mixed
project with both residential and commercial development. Also,
you indicated there is the possibility an underground parking
garage could be designed to connect parking on the Kraut property
underneath the alley with a future parking garage on the Buckhorn
Lodge and Bell Mountain Lodge properties. At this point in time,
the only thing you can tell us is that no one knows what will be
constructed on that property, much less what the potential cost to
the taxpayers is of the various proposals. At some point, the cost
will make this project an unreasonable use of taxpayers' money. At
this time, it is impossible to determine whether this project is a
reasonable use of taxpayers' money, since we do not know what will
be developed on the property. It is premature to rezone the
property.
Sincerely,
March 10, 1992
Leslie Lamont
Aspen\Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
I own property and live across the street from the Kraut property.
I am very concerned about the proposed density for the Kraut
project. I have been told that the project satisfies the floor
area requirements for either the office zone (only if developed as
100% affordable housing) or the affordable housing zone. I
question whether it is necessary to maximize the buildout of the
Kraut site. The proposed Kraut development is approximately triple
:.he density of the homes existing in the neighborhood. The single
characteristic which sets Aspen apart as a community is its
character as a low -density mining town.
Sincerely,
700
h'ZI a. (
•
•
March 10, 1992
Leslie Lamont
Aspen\Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
MAR 1 2 1992
I own property and live across the street from the Kraut property.
It is my understanding the latest expressed intent of the Housing
Authority is that all of the 24 to 30 affoordable deed -restricted
units to be constructed on the property will be rental units.
Consequently, the tenants will have no equity or ownership interest
in the property and no incentive to maintain and keep the property
in a clean and orderly fashion and state of repair. Further,
development of rental property as opposed to ownershi
Mails to address the commonlye p property
affordable housing, expressed purpose and goal of
which is to provide a stable housing base for
a community including families. There is already an over supply of
affordable rental units on the market. we do not need more
temporary employee housing; although, we may need housing for
families to stay in or move back to Aspen.
Sincerely,
�f
March 10, 1992
Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Ras Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
I own property and live across the street from the Kraut
I am concerned about the horrible traffic and parkingProperty.
our neighborhood which will be made worse b tis Problems in
day, there are Federal Express and United Parcel pSeriCe trucks
lining our street; and there constantly are cars circling the
neighborhood in search of a parking space. As an examplr the Post
Office refused to allow our post office boxes to be located a the
Hymen Avenue side of our homes because of the traffic problems
there. At the neighborhood meeting on March 5, 1992, we were told
the City is now considering the construction of a below -grade
parking garage on the Kraut property with a maximum of 89 possible
parking spaces; but it will very likely be significantly less than
69 spBCes• In most employee. rental projects, there are
approximately two people per bedroom and each person has his own
car. Consequently, the parking provided b a paless than 89 spac®s would very likely satisfy only nthearapare of
king
generated by the new development and would not replace the exieting
approximately 60 parking spaces. At the March 5, 1992, meeting you
discussed the possibility of the City purchasing the Buckhorn Lodge
and Hell Mountain Lodge properties and constructing a large
underground parking facility on those properties which could be
connected to the Kraut property. This is the large parking facility we need type of creative and
in this area of town to satisfy
parking requirements. It would be a sad loess solution to a vast problem if the of a potential
City proc development wis with the Kraut
thout giving Proceeds serious consideration problems in this area of town. to the parking
•
R O N A L D E O H E N
I N V E S T M E N T S
March 13, 1992
Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
I own property and live across the street from the Kraut
property at 706 East Hyman. I am very concerned about the proposed
density for the Kraut project. I have been told that the project
satisfies the floor area requirements for either the office zone
(only if developed as 100% affordable housing) or the affordable
housing zone. I question whether it is necessary to maximize the
buildout of the Kraut site. The proposed Kraut development is
approximately triple the density of the homes existing in. the
neighborhood. The single characteristic which sets Aspen apart as
a community is its character as a low -density mining town.
6500 R(x_-k SprinS Drive • Suite 302 13 tliesda, Maryland 20817 • (301) 493-5800 • FAX (301) 530-1532
• •
LAW OFFICES
KRAI3ACIIGR, HILL Fx I:llWARDS
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO St6tt
a. JOSEPH KRABACHER
THOMAS C. HILL
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS. III
OF COUNSEL
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS. JR.
May 5, 1992
Leslie Lamont
Aspen\Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Proposed Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-6300
(303) 925-7116
TELECOPIER
(303) 925-1161
As you know, our office represents the 700 East Hyman Avenue
Condominium Association. The 700 East Hyman Avenue Condominiums
are located across Hyman Avenue from the Kraut property and will be
substantially affected by the proposed Kraut rezoning.
In general, our clients are opposed to the proposed rezoning and
use of the property because it will have significant negative
impacts on their properties. As was repeatedly expressed at the
Planning & Zoning Commission hearing on March 17, 1992, the
neighbors would prefer that the property be dedicated as an in -town
community park with a parking structure under ground. Further, it
was expressed that the parking structure should be designed so that
it could at some future date be connected to an underground parking
structure on the Bell Mountain Lodge and Buckhorn Lodge sites
through the alley to the south of the Kraut property.
From a more technical point of view, the proposed rezoning fails to
satisfy review criteria "H" of Section 7-1102, Aspen Land Use
Regulations. Review criteria H states as follows. "Whether there
have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment." As
you and Dave Tolen made clear to the Planning & Zoning Commission
on March 17, 1992, the review standards should be considered in
light of the proposed rezoning and the proposal for development of
the property--100% affordable residential housing. The differences
between the Office zone district and the Affordable Housing (AH)
zone district are as follows. The height limit in the Office zone
is 25 feet; and the height limit in the AH zone is 25 feet, which
may be increased to 30 feet by special review. The floor area
ratio in the Office zone is .75:1, which may be increased to 1:1 by
•
U
Leslie Lamont
May 5, 1992
Page 2
special review; and the allowable FAR i
may be increased to 1.1:1 by special re
quota system exemption by City Council
residential housing in the Office
development must compete through the conk
AH zone, all residential developme
requirements. For residential develo
there must be one parking space fo
commercial development, there must be t
1,000 square feet. In the AH zone,
special review; however, there is a
requirement of the lesser of one parki
parking spaces per unit. A parking gar
the Office zone, and certain limited t
permitted uses in the Office zone. In t
and commercial spaces are not current
n
p
a
the AH zone is 1:1, which
view. A growth management
is allowed for affordable
zone, and any commercial
plete GMQS process. In the
nt is exempt from GMQS
ment in the Office zone,
r each bedroom; and, for
hree parking spaces for_ each
parking is determined by
cap of a maximum parking
ng space per bedroom or -two
ge is a conditional use in
ypes of commercial space are
he AH zone, parking garages
1v allowed. The Citv is
processing a text amendment to allow parking garages and certain
limited commercial uses as conditional uses under the AH zone
district. Perhaps most importantly, the lot area per dwelling unit
for a 100% affordable housing project developed in the Office zone
is identical to the lot area per dwelling unit developed in the AH
zone. Under the plan contained in the Kraut property rezoning
application, the limiting factor is the minimum lot area per unit
since the FAR requirements are easily satisfied and any below -grade
development is not counted in FAR. Consequently, the only relevant
differences between the Office zone district and the AH zone
district for purposes of the proposed development are the potential
for an increase in the allowable height by special review from 25
feet to 30 feet and the potentially significant decrease in the
required parking. The application proposes one parking space per
unit (24-30 spaces). Development of the proposed project within
the Office zone district would require 40 parking spaces. At the
Planning & Zoning Commission hearing on March 17, 1992, the only
factor on which there was unanimous agreement among the Commission,
staff and the public is that there is a severe parking and traffic
problem in that neighborhood. There was no evidence presented that
parking is adequate in the neighborhood.
The only evidence of "changed conditions" presented at the Planning
& Zoning Commission hearing on March 17, 1992, was your argument
that there has been a diminution of the lower -cost employee housing
in the neighborhood. While this may be a changed condition, it is
certainly not a changed condition "which supports the proposed
amendment," since the sole basis for the proposed amendment is a
possible increase in height and a significant (25-40%) reduction in
parking. There is no relationship between the alleged changed
condition and the proposed amendment to the official zone map. The
changed conditions must support (have a rational nexus to) the
change in zoning -- there is no relationship.
Leslie Lamont
May 5, 1992 1
Page 3
On behalf of our clients, I object to the proposed rezoning and
request that it be denied because review criteria H is not
satisfied and it would be an abuse of the City Council's discretion
to approve this rezoning. I would appreciate it if you would enter
this letter into the record of the hearing on the proposed rezoning
before City Council.
Sincerely,
7Josep
CH R, HILL & EDWARDS, P.C.
Edwards, III
th
cc Members, 700 East Hyman Avenue Condominium Association
seven\1trs\1amont.07
B.JOSEPH KRABACHER
THOMAS C. HILL
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III
OF COUNSEL
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR.
May 6, 1992
\ • LAW OFFICES . MAY
- 7
KRAi3ACEIEIZ, HILL b GDW RDS 1'�f
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILA
201 NORTH MILL STREET Y ASPEN, COI.ORADO Sl6ll 1%
��/ /✓1 TELEPHONE
O (303) 925-6300
(303) 925-7116
�A i0 TELECOPIER
�i (303) 925-1181
Off. p AA•• Svc%
Leslie Lamont
Aspen\Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
Our office represents the 700 East Hyman Avenue Condominium
Association which is located across the street from the Kraut
property. I was informed there is scheduled on May 11, 1992, a
City Council hearing to consider first reading of an ordinance to
rezone the Kraut property from the Office zone district to the
Affordable Housing zone district.
By motion approved by a vote of six to one, the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of the rezoning. Sections 7-1105A
and 7-1106, Aspen Land Use Regulations, require Planning & Zoning
Commission approval be by resolution, not by motion. While the
headings of these sections relate to suspension of building permits
and notation on the official zone district map, the headings are
not controlling; and the required procedure is for the Planning &
Zoning Commission to recommend disapproval, approval or approval
vaith conditions by a resolution. i s consistent. with the
general characterization of a rezoning as a very important matter
affecting use and rights to private property. Further, the purpose
of a rezoning should not be "to relieve particular hardships or
confer special privileges." Section 7-1101, Aspen Land Use
Regulations.
On behalf of our clients, I object to the improper procedure
followed and request the application be sent back to the Planning
& Zoning Commission for reconsideration and action by a resolution
instead of by a motion. This is particularly important since, at
the hearing on the text amendment for the changes to the AH zone
district immediately after the public hearing for the rezoning on
the Kraut property, both Jasmin and Sara stated on the record that,
if they had properly understood that parking garages were not
allowed in the AH zone district as it is currently defined, they
would have voted against recommending approval of the rezoning of
the Kraut property. Also, it is apparent to us, the City is going
out of its way to "confer special privileges" on itself with this
rezoning and simultaneous amendment of the AH zone district.
Please submit this letter into the record of the City Council
hearing on this matter.
Sincerely,
KRABACHER, HILL & EDWARDS�--P.C.
Jq,geph�\)3. Edwards, II
c
cc 700 East Hyman Avenue Condominium Association
seven\1trs\1amont.08
0
�v
v
.0
O O
�� n/�
p{
•.1 H N r N N N
�I U
C
O'
m
i '1 u j ni ui ui
`Y
O
al J U Ol O O u
U
C
a>
CD
J
7
I
ll) f
l_
a) ,—
c
LO
rr
c
1
rartt
X
LU
i
0 ZNHPMDVIIV
C
CD
d
Y
i
X
0j,
0
,
V,,
u a
p151�
U
Cr)
a
O
� >.
-0
�(
-
v N
N
N
ro—4
-4
p
o r,
--i
U
T
J
-D
LO
A'
ro
.-I "
ro
ri
.[ ro
ro ro
O
ro a
w
G:"
u
o u
u u
(
--
O
cu
v •_',
�a��jji
a v
1
L
EaEt7;
4
i7 W.
o
�:4
' Ion �. A ►!i!
(—L4 �•'dM�J-91a-J 41�J_ls o4y�oi1v7J
0,5)
0
O
CO
.-1
C it
u
u
LL
•
_
city council 8xhibit_
Approved , 19 _
TABLE 4.1 By Ordinance
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
AH Zone
Maximum
criterion
Requirements
Proposal
Minimum front yard
10',
10'
10'
Minimum rear yard
10'
5'
Minimum side yard
5'
Minimum distance between bldgs.
5'
Maximum height
25'
301(by spec. review)
30'
Minimum lot size
3,000 s.f.
15,000 s.f.
Minimum lot area/unit
Studio
300 s.f.
10 units =
per unit
3,000 s.f.
One bedroom
400 s.f.
10 units =
4,000 s.f.
per unit
Two bedroom
800 s.f.
10 units =
8,000 s.f.
Minimum lot area total
15,000 s.f.
Maximum F.A.R.
1.1:1
Maximum Floor Area
16,500 s.f.
(15,000 s.f. lot)
Minimum open space (o)
Special Review
Special Review
Open -space
Off-street parking
Special Review
24-30 spaces
(1 space/mot)
E
TABLE 4.2
DEVELOPMENT DATA
Number Unit Type unit size
Category 1
4-5 Studio 350-400 s.f.
4-5 One Bedroom 450-500 s.f.
4-5 Two Bedrooms 700-750s.f.
Category 2
4-5 Studio 450-500 s.f.
4-5 One Bedroom 550-600 s.f.
4-5 Two Bedrooms 750-800 s.f.
24-30 Total Units Total Net Livable: 13,000-17,750 s.f.
NOTE: The figures above are "Net Livable," not "gross" square
footages. If a maximum development program at 30 units is
pursued, garden level units will be necessary for the project
to stay within the maximum F.A.R. permitted under the AH zone.
a
L�
•
ATTACHMENT E - Applicable Review Standards for a Text Amendment
Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of review for an amendment
to the Official Zone District Map are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: The proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose
of the recently adopted Affordable Housing Zone District which is
"to provide for the use of land for the production of low, moderate
and middle income affordable housing and Resident Occupied
units. —The AH Zone District is intended for residential use
primarily by permanent residents of the Community... Lands in the
AH Zone District should be scattered throughout the City to ensure
a mix of housing types, including those which are affordable by its
working residents... Lands in the AH Zone District should be located
.within walking distance of the center of the City, or on transit
routes."
The proposal is also consistent with the goals identified within
the Housing Production Plan. The Plan is intended as a guide for
City and County officials making housing decisions. The Plan and
the methodology for assessing the need for new housing is currently
being revised. Once adopted, the Production Plan will enable the
Housing Authority to determine the income categories and type of
housing units that are needed.
Currently the parcel is zoned Office. The Office Zone District
does enable the development of 100% affordable housing, however,
the height limit in the district is 25 feet while the AH Zone
allows an increase in maximum height to 30 feet by Special Review.
In addition, the Office Zone District does not enable development
of commerical and office space exempt from the Growth Management
System. The proposed text amendment to the AH Zone District would
allow a free market commercial element to be developed exempt from
Growth Management competition.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The various elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan list several goals that are relevant to this rezoning. As
described in the application those goals are: to create a housing
environment which is dispersed, appropriately scaled to the
neighborhoods and affordable; to preserve and maintain the existing
character of the community; the community should collectively
address and resolve its issues and problems by considering the
interest of all its citizen; and to encourage land uses,
businesses, and events which serve both the local community and
tourist base.
As was mentioned earlier in this memo, the 1987 Transportation
Element identified this site for below grade parking.
1
Additionally, the 1992 Draft Community Plan suggests parking,
housing and commercial space for this site.
The rezoning of this parcel for affordable housing and possibly
locally oriented commercial development is an appropriate approach
to dispersed housing development within close proximity of jobs,
community activities and neighborhood services. Development of the
Kraut property will provide a year-round resident population within
the City's core. Initial site planning proposes a development that
is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of
intensity of land use, site design, massing, scale, and
architectural character. A mixed -use nature of the proposal will
also be compatible with the surrounding mixed land uses and will
provide a transition between the commercial core and the
residential multi -family neighborhood across Original Street.
The use of tax dollars to develop the site is a collective
resolution to an important community issue. As the application
states, "New tax provisions were enacted by the City's electorate,
creating tax revenues of over $2 million per year for the next ten
years dedicated to affordable housing. County voters approved up
to $6 million in bonding authorization for affordable housing.
(The County,participated in the purchase of this property.)
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The neighborhood encompasses a variety of zone districts
and land uses - locally oriented commercial, office, lodge, and
single and multi -family residences. The intensity of land use
varies from the busy Coates, Reid and Waldron office building
adjacent to residential duplexes, to the Bell Mountain and Buckhorn
Lodges both representing different levels of use. Please refer to
the maps, attachment "C", as a visual reference of the surrounding
neighborhood and the Site Description section of this memo.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response: According to the application, a 24-30 unit development
should generate approximately 73-150 vehicle trips/day. However,
due to the in -town location and proximity to bus routes it is
estimated that the number of vehicle trips on a daily basis will
be less. According to the Engineering Department, the roads are
adequate to handle this number of vehicle trips. Parking for
affordable housing is established by Special Review pursuant to
Section 5-301 (B), one space per unit has been considered the
minimum number of spaces to be provided on -site for a 100%
residential development.
One of the primary concerns of the neighbors is the congested
nature of the Original and Hyman Street intersection.
Service/delivery vehicles constantly block the street and this end
PJ
•
•
of town is a popular parking area for day skiers. The neighbors
fear that the elimination of the parking lot combined with
increased development at this corner will exacerbate the congestion
and parking problems.
A conceptual layout of a parking garage shows approximately 89
spaces may be possible on this parcel. The provision, of a parking
garage would mitigate the parking demands for the land uses on site
and create additional parking to help alleviate the problematic
parking situation that occurs in the neighborhood. When queried
about a below grade parking garage on site, the neighbors expressed
support and desire for a solution to a growing parking problem.
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities,water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Response: Based upon the Housing Guidelines, the development could
house approximately 53 residents in a 30 unit project. There are
existing utilities on the site or proximate to the site which have
the capacity to service the development. The original proposal
included on -site parking for the dwelling units. A mixed -use
development would reduce the number of residential units on site
to approximately 23-25.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Response: The site is flat with no significant vegetation.
Development will not adversely impact the natural environment.
Landscaping and appropriate site treatments for drainage, runoff
etc. will be addressed during subdivision.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: Affordable resident housing has historically been
interspersed throughout Aspen's neighborhoods. The Commercial Core
and the East End are comprised of various housing types including
housing for working residents. The proposal for multi -family
housing is compatible with the character of the immediate
neighborhood. The rezoning is also consistent with the various
goals and programs that the City has been working on to effectively
preserve the local nature of town and provide housing for working
residents.
A mixed -use proposal would be consistent with direction given from
the Sub -Committees working on the 1992 Aspen Area Community Plan.
The committees have identified this parcel for housing, parking and
local commerical space.
3
•
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Response: The neighborhood surrounding the Kraut property has
changed significantly. Affordable housing throughout the City has
been largely replaced with second homes priced far beyond the reach
of the majority of the employees in town. The East End,
traditionally home for working residents, has greatly shifted to
a neighborhood of second homes. For example, the duplexes in the
700 block of East Hopkins Street (Pitkin Row) replaced
approximately 4 miners cottages that were estimated to have housed
3-4 residents each. The Cooper Avenue Greystones replaced 1 miners
cottage and an alley shed that housed 5 residents total. Another
example is the approved redevelopment of the Valley Hi apartments
on East Hopkins which will replace 19 dwelling units with 4 deed
restricted affordable units and 4 free market units.
The City, County and Housing Authority have been actively working
to counter this trend in a comprehensive manner. The Housing
Production Plan approaches the problem from several facets:
preservation, production and replacement. The AH Zone District is
one avenue available for the public and private sectors to address
the community's housing problems. This rezoning is proposed as an
attempt to develop new affordable housing integrated into the
community.
Additionally, if a commercial component were to be considered,
commercial space that is locally oriented and meeting the service
needs of the surrounding neighborhood should be encouraged to help
reverse the trend of losing these types of services in the
community. As an example, the duplexes in the 700 block of East
Hyman replaced a local health food store, resident unit and the
"christmas tree lot".
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
Response: The amendment is consistent with established public
policy. As early as the 1973 Land Use Plan the development of
employee housing was a goal of the community. As was discussed
above, many plans and policies have been developed to facilitate
the provision of affordable local housing for the community.
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
0coamil-wit i
vad
-� ordiname
DATE: November 15, 1991
RE: Kraut Affordable Housing Project Map Amendment
Having reviewed the- above application and having .made a site visit;
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. There are 72 to 150 vehicles trips/day that the applicant states.
could be generated by this development plus the 700 trips/day for
Hyman Avenue and 4,700 trips/day for Original Street which was
given in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element..
These volumes can be. adequately accommodated by the -50-foot widths
of the these streets.
2. The applicant indicates -that this development will generate a -
resident population of approximately 53 persons and that current
public facilities are capable of accommodating the service demands
of the project and its residents. Although the Engineering
Department utility maps show that this location is.served by all
utilities, the applicant -still needs to furnish confirmation that
the existing water and sewer systems have sufficient capacity -to
accommodate this project.
3. The applicant needs to agree to join a, special improvement
district if one is ever formed.
4. The applicant needs to get an excavation permit from the Streets
Department and approval of design from the Engineering Department
for any work done in the public right-of-way.
jg/kraut
cc: Chuck Roth
L_
• OCY Council Exhibit
Approved , 19
By Ordinance
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN
REZONING THE KRAUT PROPERTY, LOTS E, F, G, & I, BLOCK 105,
ASPEN COLORADO, FROM OFFICE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Resolution No. 92-11�1
WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on
December 17, 1991 to consider the rezoning of the vacant parcel
from office to affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the Commission tabled review of the application
pending a worksession with City Council and a neighborhood meeting;
and
WHEREAS, the Commission and Council held two worksessions in
February of 1992 and staff meet with interested neighbors in March
of 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the rezoning at a duly
noticed Public Hearing March 17, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Commission found that the rezoning is consistent
with the goals of the City to provide scatter site affordable
housing through out the city and within walking distance of the
downtown; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning addresses changes within the
neighborhood where a significant number of affordable housing has
been lost; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning is consistent with 1973 Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan identifying this site as a multi -use site and
the goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan to provide affordable
housing for the Community.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Commission
I
that it recommends to the Aspen City Council the rezoning of Lots
E, F, H, & I, Block 105 Aspen Colorado from Office to Affordable
Housing.
APPROVED by the Commission at their regular meeting on May 18,
1992.
ATTEST:
L
(tj
i
Jan arney, Depu City Clerk
2
ASPEN PLANNING AND
N MMISSION
J smine Tygre. Chairwoman
•
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I, Cindy L. Christensen, do hereby swear that a copy of the
attached Public Notice was mailed to the attached list of names on
Wednesday, July 29, 1992.
Cindy L. ristensen
Administr tive Assistant
JUL -'j ".� U' +: SLRr1 CITY OF 4SPEr l F. 1. 1
• •
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO 'THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FOR REZONING LOTS E, F, G, H AND I, BLOCK
105, KNOWN AS THE KRAUT PROPERTY, FROM OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT
TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Monday, August 10, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm befcre the
Aspen City Council, District Courtroom, Pitkin County Courthouse,
506 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
submitted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority requesting
approval of an Amendment to the Official Zone District Map of the
City of Aspen. The applicant proposes to amend the zone district
for Lots E, F, G, H, and I, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen,
located at the southwest corner of East Hyman and Original Street,
from Office to Affordable Housing in order to develop a multi-
family affordable housing complex. The Affordable Housing Zone
permits residential affordable housing, free market housincl, hone
occupations and accessory buildings and uses. See Section 24-5-
206.2 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin
Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5090.
slJahn Bennett. Mayor
Aspen City Council
Carlos Olivares
Monika S. de Olivares
Robin Michael Molny
• 1020 E. Hyman Avenue
M B Joint Venture
c/o Fred Martell
826'E. Hyman
Aspen, CO 81611
3 Quail Run
Aspen, CO 81611
Old Westbury, NY 11568
John and Joan Antonelli
Michael and Gloria Goldman
Richard and Dorothy Simmons
2300 Sunrise Key Blvd.
62 West Glaconda Way
c/o Code Hennlsy & Simmons
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304
Tucson, AZ 85704
303 West Madison, 17th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Sylvia Bringolf-Smith
Herbert and Harriet Davis
Simon and Nora Kelly
George A. Smith
210 West Railroad Avenue
P.O. Box 1583
250 S. Original Curve, Unit#
Forked River, NJ 08731
Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen, CO 81611
Madeline Lieb Schulte Trust
Susan and Armond Chaput
Frank D. Ross
800 East Hyman Avenue, UnitA
3426 Westcliff Road South
520 E. Durant, #204
Aspen, CO 81611
Ft. Worth, TX 76109
Aspen, CO 81611
Jon Chapman, Trustee John Hayes Francis P. Hoffman, Trustee
800 East Hyman Avenue 835 E. Hyman Avenue Francis P. Hoffman Revocable Trust
Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611 219 Inverness Lane
Scherville, IN 46375
Colin Chapman Kathleen & Walter B. Smith, Jr. Donald H. Witt
250 South Original, Apt. B 6527 Lange Circle 1412 Grand Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611 Dallas, TX 75214 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Candice L. Lavigne Lisa Clawson Stanley L. Seligman
P.O. Box 7695 710 East Durant, #C P.O. Box 72
Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81611 Grand Junction, CO 81502
Robert C. Blitz DLRFinancial Corporation Karen Bernice Kiefer Trust
John O. Antonelli 2907 Lucern Court c/o Walter J. Kiefer, Jr.
9701 River Road Arlington, TX 76012 P.O. Box 70136
Potomac, MD 20854 Seattle, WA 98107
Skvler S. DeBoer W. R. Walton Kathleen Elizabeth Kiefer Trust
Box 6381 400 West Main Street c/o Walter J. Kiefer, Jr.
Snowmass Village, CO 81615 Aspen, CO 81611 P.O. Box 70136
Seattle, WA 98107
Kathleen Elisabeth Kiefer Trust
Galen and Mary Lou Martin Frank J. Woods III aka Kathleen Elizabeth Kiefer Trust
5001 Hopewell Road P.O. Box 1361 c/o Walter J. Kiefer, Jr.
Louisville, KY 40299 Aspen, CO 81611 P.O. Box 70136
Seattle, WA 98107
Spring Street PO Kristin P. Kiefer Trust
Adrian C. Dorworth c/o Vincenzi c/o Walter J. Kiefer, Jr.
P.O. Box 2694 P.O. Box 2238 P.O. Box 70136
Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81611 Seattle, WA 98107
Walter J. Kiefer III Trust WilliamF. Carr, Trustee Toby and Janet Mazzie
_c/o Waltcr J. Kiefer, Jr. • P.O. Box 4619 1425 Sierra Vista
P.O. Box 70136 Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81611
Seattle, WA 98107
Florence W. Hellinger Fred and Barbara Martell Greg Sherwin
1849 Wycliff Drive 3 Quail Run 1020 E. Hopkins, #1
Orlando, FL 32803 Old Westbury, NY 11568 Aspen, CO 81611
Max and Helen Natterer
c/o Reinmax Ltd. Robert Baum 312009 Ontario Limited
Box 5069, Station F 35 Mayflower Drive 180 Steeles Ave. West, #206
Ottawa Ontario, Tenafly, NJ 17670 Thornhill, Ontario
Canada K2C-3H3 CANADA L4J 2L1
757253 Ontario Limited
Nancy Weil Ronald and Dana Cohen Ontario Corporation
1401-23rd Avenue Court 6500 Rock Spring Drive c/o Landawn Shopping Centers
Greeley, CO 80631 Bethesda, MD 20817 11 Poison Street
Toronto, CANADA M5A IA4
Ethel Caro Gofen Stephen and Elissa Salzman Catharine Black Peterson
455 City Front Plaza, Suite 3000 789 Woburn Street 2309 Gadd Road
Chicago, IL 60611 Wilmington, MA 01887 Cockeysville, MD 21030
Don and Marian Willoughby Red River Valley Peter and Rochelle Berman
12322 Rio Van Winkle Investments Co. 10021 Ormond Road
Houston, TX 77002 408 St. Peter St., Suite 440 Potomac, MD 20854
St. Paul, MN 55102
Matthew and George Kellner Dennis Chookaszian Bruce V. Michelson
570 Dover Drive c/o CNA Insurance 56 Fair Oaks
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 CNAPlaza, 40 South St. Louis, MO 63124
Chicago, IL 60685
Richard G. Benter
Robert N. Rivers Tamara & James Hunting Mason and Brenda Simpson
c/o Richard G. Benter 2720 Darby S.E. 25 Saddlebach Road
21 Morgan Grand Rapids, MI 49506 Tequesta, FL 33469
Irvine, CA 91718
Manutea Knight Phyllis M. Coors Patty K. Landers
Alan A. Storey Panorama Estates P.O. Box 4680
100 Poloke Place Route 5, Box 763 Aspen, CO 81612
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 Golden, CO 80401
Paige Vitousek
Arden Moore Joel and Elaine Gershman Michael and Gail Craig
100 Poloke Place 250 S. 18th Street 6519 Seaside Walk
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Long Beach, CA 90808
Ajae Limited Partnership
Williamand Carolyn King Suite 202 Annette and Gerald Krans
405 Buckingham Road 1910 N. Grant Street P.O. Box 1592
Pittsburgh, PA LittleRock, AK 72207 Aspen, CO 81611
Dasha Belkova
650 'N-Rio Vista Blvd.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
•Alan and Karen Berkowitz
P.O. Box 35 0
Brooklandville, MD 21022
John A. Elmore II
P.O. Box 881
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Weston T. Anson
1345 Crest Road
Del Mar, CA 92014
Weston T. Anson
2041 Del Mar Heights
Del Mar, CA 92014
John E. Correla
6730 E. Northwest Highway
Dallas, TX 75231
Gale D. Spence
P.O. Box 9806
Aspen, CO 81612
Gary D. Spence
P.O. Box 9806
Aspen, CO 81612
Yvonne and Raymond Klika
32415 Burlwood Drive
Solon, OH
James and Julia Price
32670 Woodsdale Lane
Solon, OH 44139
Herron -Gray Partnership
Box GG
Aspen, CO 81612
Joseph and Anna Marie Carrillo
236 Henry Street
Brooklyn Heights, NY 11201
W. C. Mears
1914 Peninsular Road
Akron, OH 44313
MKDGIIIAspen, Inc.
410-17th Street
Denver, CO 80202
Affordable Commercial'Space May Be Added To Kraut Housing Plan
Daily News Staff Report
Long-term affordable rental units
have to comply with the guidelines for
No restaurants or
have been planned for the lot, but the
"neighborhood commercial" zoning,
The vacant lot across from the Aspen
idea of combining commercial space
Other neighborhood commercial zones
Althetic Club at the comer of Hyman
b;pufiques would be allowed.
with the units is gaining ground.
in town include the City Market block 1
Avenue and Original Street might some-
' "- ` —
"It would be affordable retail space
and the Clark's Market block. No
day house the underwear store that
dale Silt Aspen,' " said Pendelton.
for locals," said council member Frank
restaurants, boutiques or art galleries j
Aspen city council member Margot
The city of Aspen paid $1.1 million
Peters, who also sits on the Aspen/Pitkin
would be allowed.
Pendelton believes is needed in Aspen.
last year for the 15,000-square-foot
County Housing Authority.
The concept is a long way from reah-
Under Pendelton's thinking, an
corner lot, which is now being used as a
Leslie Lamont, a planner with the
ty. Currently, no commercial space is
underwear store is any store that sells
parking lot. The city bought the property
Aspen/Pitkin County planning depart-
allowed in an affordable housing zone,
those essential goods that can't be found
from Elaine M. Kraut, and it is now
ment, said other ideas include an under-
and there is the sticky issue of fair trade
easily in Aspen anymore, like cheap_
referred to as the "Kraut Property."
Zr.;u d parking lot, and/or a facility like
if the commercial space is subsidized.
socks.
THE CITY is currently going
a small grocery store, barber shop or
"Legally, I don't know how we go .
"Instead of seeing `Milan Pari,.
through the rezoning process to desig-
liquor store on either the ground or
about !his;" said Pendelton. `But if any
London Aspen' across the bottom of the
nate the property as "AH," or affordable
garden level.
property we have that has the potential to
window, it might say `Basalt Cardon-
housing.
ANY ESTABLISHMENT would
something like this, it is this one."
LOCAL
Controversial East -End Project
Goes Before City
Council Tonight
By JEANNE McGOVERN
Aspen Daily News Staff Writer
"I am very concerned
The Aspen City Council will decide
that building affordable
tonight whether to re -zone a piece of
property that ultimately could become a
housing and/or eommeri-
g
controversial housing and commercial
cal Will exacerbate an
development project featuring an
already `packed to the
= . underground parking lot.
The Kraut property, located across
gills' parking situation on
from the Aspen Athletic Club on Hyman
the east end of Aspen."
Avenue and Original Street, is currently
Rita Rasmussen
. being used as a parking lot. Some neigh-
Kraut Property Neighbor
bors criticize the project for worsening
an already "packed" corner of the city.
City planners and Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Office officials are
proposing moving that parking lot
"At this point in time, the only thing
underground and building a three-story
you can tell us is that no one knows what
commerical/affordable housing
will be constructed on that property,
complex on the land.
much less what the potential cost to
In order to move forward with those
taxpayers of the various projects," wrote
plans, the 15,000 square foot lot would
Fred Martell. "It is premature to rezone
have to be re -zoned "affordable hous-
the property."
ing." It currently is zoned "office." Plans
Although city council members
for the mixed commerical/residential
approved first reading of the re -zoning
use would be presented after re -zoning is
ordinance May 26, they asked for more
approved.
information regarding neighbors
The problem facing council members
concerns.
tonight is opposition and concern from
Tonight they will review those
neighbors of the project.
concerns and make a decision.
According to city staffers, neighbors
If they vote to re -zone the property,
have the following concerns regarding
city staffers and Housing Office official
the proposed re -zoning: impacts to the
will begin outlining the specific deve-
neighborhood; rental vs. sale units; costs
lopment plan.
and needs of the area; and specific uses
Or, the council could table the re -
for the development.
zoning until they can review a site
The neighbors' comments were
specific development plan or the prop -
collected during a March 5 neighbor-
osed text amendments allowing for
hood meeting and subsequent letters.
mixed -use development in the afford -
"I am very concerned that building
able housing -none.
affordable housing and/or commerical
The city council also could choose to
will exacerbate an already 'packed to the
maintain the existing office zoning.
gills' parking situation on the east end of
Although a mixed -use development
Aspen," wrote Rita Rasmussen, a
could still be approved in the office zone
project neighbor.
district, the parking structure and
In addition, neighbors fear re -zoning
commercial element would not he
the property tonight would be a prema-
exempt from the Growth Managment
ture decision.
System, making the project less feasible.
ASPEN DAILY NEWS, Wednesday, July 29,1"2, Page 3
LOCAL
Will Units Be Kept "In A Clean And Orderly Fashion?"
Luxury Condo Owners May Sue Over Proposed Employee Housing Project
By BRENT GARDNER-SMfTH
Aspen Daily News Staff Writer
Owners of a three-story row of luxury
condos on East Hyman Avenue are
greatening to sue the city of Aspen over
employee housing and commercial
project proposed across the street.
The owners of the exclusive 700 East
Hyman Avenue condominiums told the
city's planning department they fear
local workers won't "keep the property
in a clean and orderly fashion" and that
"if Aspen becomes just another high -
density condominium resort," it will
lose its "low -density mining -town
character."
In addition, Michael L. Spalding, the
president of one of the town's top real
estate companies is concerned about
"underwear that needs to be dried,"
which renters may end up "hanging out
their windows ... How is that going to
affect the neighborhood?," he asks in a
letter to the city's planning department.
Spalding's company, Coates Reid &
Waldron, is located across the street
from the proposed housing project, and
it manages the 700 East Hyman Avenue
condos.
In addition, owners are concerned that
the project will add to what they see as
an already busy section of town.
The 700 East Hyman Avenue condos,
located next door to the Aspen Althetic
Club, were built in 1987. The six 2,584
square foot condos are now each valued
at $1.16 million dollars by the Pitkin
County Assessor's. office and are
surrounded by a brick and iron fence
Aspen Daily News ; Devon Meyers
HOME TO MORE HOMES? An employee housing and commercial project are
proposed for this parking lot. Some neighbors don't want it to hapoen.
with seven posted "private" signs. All
but one of the tax bills for the six condos
are mailed out of the valley, according to
the Assessor's Office.
The 700 East Hyman Avenue
Condominium Association has retained
Aspen attorney Jody Edwards, who has
put the city on notice that he will be
watching how the city council proceeds
with rezoning the property to an "afford-
able housing" designation.
"The neighbors would prefer that the
property be dedicated as an in -town
community park with a parking structure
under ground," Edwards told the city in
a May 5 letter.
Edwards implied that if there were
errors in how the city handled the rezon-
ing, he might file a lawsuit, according to
Aspen city attorney Jed Caswell.
"We are being perhaps a bit more
cautious than usual in terms of procedur-
al issues," Caswell said.
The city and Pitkin County pooled
housing funds and paid $1.1 million for
the 15SM square foot comer lot in Janu-
ary, 1991, and is now considering build-
ing an 89-car underground parking lot,
one level of commerical, and two levels
of affordable housing, which would
amount to 20 to 25 units.
Aspen city council member Margo
Pendleton had advocated the commercial
space being restricted to businesses
offering essential services and products
for locals. Ironically, given Spalding's
concerns over "underwear that needs to
be dried," Pendleton has often publicly
suggested "an underwear store" be
considered.
The property is currently zoned
"office" and is being used as a commeri-
cal parking lot. The city would need to
change the zoning to "affordable hous-
"What is going to
happen to the people,
bicycles, skis, cars, dogs,
friends, underwear that
needs to be dried ...? '
Michael L. Spalding
Coates, Reid, Waldron
ing," or "AH Zone," in order to build
-inits on the site.
To change existing zoning to the "AH
Zone," a developer, in this case, the city,
must prove that conditions have changed
in the area to warrant the zoning change.
This is one point that Edwards has
challenged.
As a result, planner Leslie Lamont
was directed by the city council on
Monday to gather more information to
make the case that indeed, housing pres-
sures in the community justify the
zoning change. The decision to rezone
was tabled until August 10.
Another challenge is that the zoning
should not be changed until the specific
plans are addressed.
The "AH Zone" allows a developer to
build bigger, taller buildings; exempts
the project from the Growth Managment
Quota System; and requires less park-
ing. The zoning change has some neigh-
boring property owners worried that the
comer lot will be overbuilt in what they
see as an already busy part of town.
In a series of letters to the planning
department, of all of which are typed in
the exact format and begin with "I own
c°lease see LAWSUIT on page 16
FROM PAGE 3
Neighbor Would Like To See A Park
LAWSUIT from page 3
property and live across the street from
the Kraut property," the owners of the
condos at 700 E Hyman list a variety of
concerns.
"What Aspen needs is more parks and
open space and fewer high -density
condominium developments," wrote
JeAaum, who owns a condo at 704 E
H Avenue with Robert Baum of
New Jersey.
"The proposed Kraut development is
approximately triple the density of the
homes existing in the neighborhood.
The single characteristic which sets
Aspen apart as a community is its chrac-
ter as a low -density mining town," said
Bill Can, who owns the unit at 700 E
Hyman.
A representative of the Red River
Valley Investment Co., a Minnesota
General Partnership, which owns the
condo at 710 E Hyman, questions
whether rental units will be kept up.
"...the tenants will have no incentive
to maintain and keep the property in a
clean and orderly fashion and state of
repair," the owner told the planning
office in a letter.
The out-of-state owners are not the
only one who have concerns.
Spalding questions the wisdom of the
city's proposal. "As a neighbor I am also
concerned with the appearance of the
property. Again, if 25-30 apartments are
built on this site... what is going to
happen to the people, bicycles, skis,
cars, dogs, friends, underwear that needs
to be dried, potted plants, extra clothing,.
extra furniture, etc. Will that all be hang-
ing out their windows or sitting on their
decks?," he wrote in a Marche ,2 letter to
planner Lamont.
�isf1�ti
Neighbors' gripes don't stop '
.rezoning for housing project..
limes Daily staff reportNeighbors of a proposed Aspen Iemployee hous-
�ng ProJectgnrg to the city planning commission
�esday night that the project is bad for the city
and bad for them, but didn't stop a zoning change.
With one vote against, members of the plan-
ning commission agreed to rezone the Kraut par-
cel, a 15,000-square foot piece of land the city
bought in 1990 for $1.1 million.
Though no plans have been set for the land,
bordered by Hyman and Original, city and Aspen-
Pitkin County Housing Authority officials have
talked of 24 employee rental units.
Also possible, with the housing, are under-
ground parking and first -floor commercial space.
Neighbors' objections
But neighbors objected to the zoning change,
claiming the project would mean more traffic,
I greater demands on parking, and increased
density.
Neighbors also suggested there's plenty of
rental units available and that the city is wasting
tax money to build what's not needed — or to
build on such expensive downtown land when it
could build more housing for the same money
elsewhere.
Estimates for completing the project range
from $4 million to $6 million.
Owners of adjacent property also said the kind
of short-term rental residents they think the pro-
ject will attract will be poor neighbors, with no
interest in maintaining the property.
Even more annoying to the worried neighbors
is that they don't know exactly what will be built
on the site, and that some feel the city is deter-
mined to build housing regardless of what their
opinions.
Deaf ears?
"It doesn't really matter what I or anyone here
says," said Michael Spaulding. `The city and the
planning board have already made up their
minds this is what is going to happen that's the.
way I feel."
Lawyer Jody Edwards, representing a neigh-
boring condo association, said the uncertain
future of the parcel is one of the most worrisome
factors.
"We can't be sure it will be compatible with the
neighborhood; we can't be sure what the impact
will be until we have a plan," Edwards said.
Many comments from neighbors focused on
plans for adjacent land that's likely to be redeve-
loped. They suggested the Kraut land shouldn't:
be planned without including that other land.
Planning commission members said the city
isn't ignoring possible redevelopment of adjacent
land now occupied by the Buckhorn Lodge and
Bell Mountain Lodge.
And, they noted, worries about design weren't
what they were considering yesterday, and that
city council would deal with that — after more
opportunity for public comment.
P&Z approval
Board members emphasized they were there
only to consider if the change from office zone to
affordable housing zone was justified under
guidelines.
They decided the change was justified, with the
exception of member Bruce Kerr.
Kerr's opinion was that the housing was not
compatible with other uses in the area and
because of traffic and parking problems it might
cause. _
Though a zoning change ahead of an actual
design is standard procedure, Kerr suggested the
Kraut project — because of its size and complica-
tions — is an example of a case in which the city
might do better to present a plan to the public
first and zone later.
1� 2m e— r-�- �- ,re ss
%j�
70 Y 4�w,�
��b l POO
I
it
Aspen/Pi
130
Asp,
(303) 9
August 7, 1992
Joseph E. Edwards, III
Krabacher, Hill & Edwards
201 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Kraut Rezoning Hearing
Dear Jody:
ing Office
street
4611
920-5197
This letter is response to your July 28, 1992 request for
information concerning the Kraut public hearing.
1. A copy of the memo to City Council for the August 11, 1992
public hearing is enclosed.
2. One or all of the following persons will be called as
witnesses at the public hearing: Tom Baker, Dave Tolen and
Jim Curtis of the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Office.
3. Copies of the public hearing notices and proof of mailing are
enclosed.
4. Copies of future public notices will be sent to you.
5. A complete copy of the application for the Kraut property is
enclosed.
Sincerely,
Deborah Skehan,
Office Manager
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Leslie Lamont CC Debbie Skehan
From: Diane Moore
Postmark: Jul 28,92 10:21 AM
Status: Certified Previously read
Subject: Kraut Rezoning
Message:
Since this was tabled to August 10 meeting, we have to properly
notice the homeowners within 300 ft. of property within 10 days of
the hearing by certified mail. Please make sure that all the proper
noticing is done so this can be approved on the loth. Thanks.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FOR REZONING LOTS E, F, G, H AND I, BLOCK
105, KNOWN AS THE KRAUT PROPERTY, FROM OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT
TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Monday, August 10, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the
Aspen City Council, District Courtroom, Pitkin County Courthouse,
506 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
submitted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority requesting
approval of an Amendment to the Official Zone District Map of the
City of Aspen. The applicant proposes to amend the zone district
for Lots E, F, G, H, and I, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen,
located at the southwest corner of East Hyman and Original Street,
from Office to Affordable Housing in order to develop a multi-
family affordable housing complex. The Affordable Housing Zone
permits residential affordable housing, free market housing, home
occupations and accessory buildings and uses. See Section 24-5-
206.2 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/ Pitkin
Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5090.
J John Bennett, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Housing Authority
City of Aspen/Pitkin County
39551 Highway B2
Aspen, Colorado B 1 61 1
(303) 92O-5050
Fax: (3O3) 92O-55BO
17 March, 1992
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department
180 south Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Affidavit of Public Notice
Kraut Affordable Housing Project Map Amendment
Dear Ms. Lamont
The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as applicant for the
above referenced matter, hereby certifies that a Notice of Public
Hearina was mailed to property owners within a NCO foot radius c'L
the property on February 27. 1992.
Sig ;
e Tolen
Project Manager
SUBSCRIBED, CERTIFIED AND SWORN To me in the City of �spen and
Pitkin County, State of Colorado this _ day of
1592, by Dave Tolen
My Commission Expires:
Notary ruiD:_c — --
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FOR REZONING LOTS E, F, G, H AND I, BLOCK
105, KNOWN AS THE KRAUT PROPERTY, FROM OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT
TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, March 17, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd floor Meeting Room, 130
South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
submitted -by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority requesting
approval of an Amendment to the Official Zone District Map of the
City of Aspen. The applicant proposes to amend the zone district
for Lots E, F, G, H, and I, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen,
located at the southwest corner of East Hyman and Original Street,
from Office to Affordable Housing in order to develop a multi-
family affordable housing complex. The Affordable Housing Zone
permits residential affordable. housing, home occupations and
accessory buildings and uses. See Section 24-5-206:,2 of the Aspen
Municipal Code. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at
the Aspen/ Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO
920-5090.
JJasmine Tygre, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on February 26, 1992.
City of Aspen Account
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I, Cindy L. Christensen, do hereby swear that a copy of the
attached Public Notice was mailed to the attached list of names on
Wednesday, July 29, 1992.
Cindy L. 4ristensen
Administr tive Assistant
Carlos Olivares Robin Michael Molny M B Joint Venture
Monika S. de Olivares 1020 E. Hyman Avenue c/o Fred Martell
826• E. Hyman Is Aspen, CO 81611 3 Quail Run
Aspen, CO 81611 Old Westbury, NY 11568
John and Joan Antonelli
2300 Sunrise Key Blvd.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304
Sylvia Bringolf-Smith
George A. Smith
250 S. Original Curve, Unit#
Aspen, CO 81611
Madeline Lieb Schulte Trust
800 East Hyman Avenue, UnitA
Aspen, CO 81611
Jon Chapman, Trustee
800 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Colin Chapman
250 South Original, Apt. B
Aspen, CO 81611
Candice L. Lavigne
P.O. Box 7695
Aspen, CO 81612
Robert C. Blitz
John O. Antonelli
9701 River Road
Potomac, MD 20854
Skvler S. DeBoer
Box 6381
Snowmass Village, CO 81615
Galen and Mary Lou Martin
5001 Hopewell Road
Louisville, KY 40299
Adrian C. Dorworth
P.O. Box 2694
Aspen, CO 81612
Michael and Gloria Goldman
62 West Glaconda Way
Tucson, AZ 85704
Herbert and Harriet Davis
210 West Railroad Avenue
Forked River, NJ 08731
Susan and Armond Chaput
3426 Westcliff Road South
Ft. Worth, TX 76109
John Hayes
835 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Richard and Dorothy Simmons
c/o Code Hennlsy & Simmons
303 West Madison, 17th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Simon and Nora Kelly
P.O. Box 1583
Aspen, CO 81611
Frank D. Ross
520 E. Durant, #204
Aspen, CO 81611
Francis P. Hoffman, Trustee
Francis P. Hoffman Revocable Trust
219 Inverness Lane
Scherville, IN 46375
Kathleen & Walter B. Smith, Jr.
Donald H. Witt
6527 Lange Circle
1412 Grand Avenue
Dallas, TX 75214
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Lisa Clawson
Stanley L. Seligman
710 East Durant, #C
P.O. Box 72
Aspen, CO 81611
Grand Junction, CO 81502
DLRFinancial Corporation
Karen Bernice Kiefer Trust
2907 Lucern Court
c/o Walter J. Kiefer, Jr.
Arlington, TX 76012
P.O. Box 70136
Seattle, WA 98107
W. R. Walton Kathleen Elizabeth Kiefer -Trust
400 West Main Street c/o Walter J. Kiefer, Jr.
Aspen, CO 81611 P.O. Box 70136
Seattle, WA 98107
Kathleen Elisabeth Kiefer Trust
Frank J. Woods III aka Kathleen Elizabeth Kiefer Trust
P.O. Box 1361 c/o Walter J. Kiefer, Jr.
Aspen, CO 81611 P.O. Box 70136
Seattle, WA 98107
Spring Street PO
Kristin P. Kiefer Trust
c/o Vincenzi
c/o Walter J. Kiefer, Jr.
P.O. Box 2238
P.O. Box 70136
Aspen, CO 81611
Seattle, WA 98107
Walter J. Kiefer III Trust WilliamF. Carr, Trustee Toby and Janet Mazzie
' c/o Walter J. Kicfer, Jr. P.O. Box 4619 1425 Sierra Vista
P.O: Box 7(1136 Aspen, CO 81612 Is Aspen, CO 81611
Seattle, WA 98107
Florence W. Hellinger Fred and Barbara Martell Greg Sherwin
1849 Wycliff Drive 3 Quail Run 1020 E. Hopkins, #1
Orlando, FL 32803 Old Westbury, NY 11568 Aspen, CO 81611
Max and Helen Natterer
c/o Reinmax Ltd. Robert Baum 312009 Ontario Limited
Box 5069, Station F 35 Mayflower Drive 180 Steeles Ave. West, #206
Ottawa Ontario, Tenafly, NJ 17670 Thornhill, Ontario
Canada K2C-3H3 CANADA L4J 2L1
757253 Ontario Limited
Nancy Weil Ronald and Dana Cohen Ontario Corporation
1401-23rd Avenue Court 6500 Rock Spring Drive c/o Landawn Shopping Centers
Greeley, CO 80631 Bethesda, MD 20817 11 Poison Street
Toronto, CANADA M5A IA4
Ethel Caro Gofen Stephen and Elissa Salzman Catharine Black Peterson
455 City Front Plaza, Suite 3000 789 Woburn Street 2309 Gadd Road
Chicago, IL 60611 Wilmington, MA 01887 Cockeysville, MD 21030
Don and Marian Willoughby Red River Valley Peter and Rochelle Berman
12322 Rio Van Winkle Investments Co. 10021 Ormond Road
Houston, TX 77002 408 St. Peter St., Suite 440 Potomac, MD 20854
St. Paul, MN 55102
Matthew and George Kellner Dennis Chookaszian Bruce V. Michelson
570 Dover Drive c/o CNA Insurance 56 Fair Oaks
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 CNAPlaza, 40 South St. Louis, MO 63124
Chicago, IL 60685
Richard G. Benter
Robert N. Rivers Tamara & James Hunting Mason and Brenda Simpson
c/o Richard G. Benter 2720 Darby S.E. 25 Saddlebach Road
21 Morgan Grand Rapids, MI 49506 Tequesta, FL 33469
Irvine, CA 91718
Manutca Knight Phyllis M. Coors Patty K. Landers
Alan A. Storey Panorama Estates P.O. Box 4680
100 Poloke Place Route 5, Box 763 Aspen, CO 81612
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 Golden, CO 80401
Paige Vitousek
Arden Moore Joel and Elaine Gershman Michael and Gail Craig
100 Poloke Place 250 S. 18th Street 6519 Seaside Walk
Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Long Beach, CA 90808
Ajae Limited Partnership
Williamand Carolyn King Suite 202 Annette and Gerald Krans
405 Buckingham Road 1910 N. Grant Street P.O. Box 1592
Pittsburgh, PA LittleRock, AK 72207 Aspen, CO 81611
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FOR REZONING LOTS Ej F, G, H AND I, BLOCK
105, XNOWN AS TXE KRAUT PROPERTY, FROM OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT
TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Monday, August 10, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm befcre the
Aspen City Council, District Courtroom, Pitkin County Courthouse,
506 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
submitted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority requesting
approval of an Amendment to the Official Zone District Map of the
City of Aspen. The applicant proposes to amend the zone district
for Lots E, F, G, H, and I, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen,
located at the southwest corner of East Hyman and Original Street,
from Office to Affordable Housing in order to develop a multi-
family affordable housing complex. The Affordable Housing Zone
permits residential affordable housing, free market housing, hone
occupations and accessory buildings and uses. see section 24-5-
206.2 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen%Pitkin
Planning office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5090.
s/John Bennett. Mayor
Aspen City Council
Y- CA-
70 Y
IL
7,3 0 1 /4 1,
Post-W4 brand fax transmittalmemo 7671
F of pages ►
From
Co,
Co.
Dept.
Ph -one 4
Fax ;-C)
Fax w
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FOR REZONING LOTS E, F, G, H AND I, BLOCK
105, KNOWN AS THE KRAUT PROPERTY, FROM OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT
TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Monday, August 10, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm befcre the
Aspen City Council, District Courtroom, Pitkin County Courthouse,
506 vast Main Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
submitted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority requesting
approval of an Amendment to the official Zone District Map of the
City of Aspen. The applicant proposes to amend the zone district
for Lots E, F, G, H, and I, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen,
located at the southwest corner of East Hyman and Original Street,
from Office =-o Affordable Housing in order to develop a multi-
family affordable housing complex. The Affordable "rousing Zone
permits residential affordable housing, free market housing, home
occupations and accessory buildings and uses. See Section 24-5-
206.2 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin
Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5090.
s/,74hn Bennett. Mayor
Aspen City Council
LAW OFFICES
KRABACHER, MLL d: FO WAXOS
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, C01,0RAD0 81611
B.JOSEPH KRABACHER
THOMAS C. HILL
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III
OF COUNSEL
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR.
July 28, 1992
Leslie Lamont
Aspen\Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-6300
(303)925-7116
TELECOPIER
(303) 925-1181
At the public hearing on July 27, 1992, the City Council continued
the public hearing to allow the City Council to receive more
evidence in the record to assist it in its ultimate decision on
this rezoning application. I would appreciate it if you would
provide me with each of the following.
1. A copy of each document you intend to offer into the
record at the continued public hearing.
2. A list of all witnesses you intend to have testify at the
continued public hearing.
3. A copy of all notices previously sent and proof of
posting in accordance with the requirements of § 6-205E,
Aspen Land Use Regulations.
4. A copy of any public notices which are sent in the future
in accordance with the Land Use Regulations.
5. A complete and accurate copy of the rezoning application
for the Kraut property certified by you as custodian of
that application that it is complete and accurate.
Please send me a bill for the costs of copying the above documents.
•
•
Leslie Lamont
July 28, 1992
Page 2
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
3BACER, HILL & EDWARDS, P.C.
E. Edwards, III
JEE cath
cc 700 East Hyman Avenue Homeowners
Edward M. Caswall
seven\1trs\1amont.11
•
LAW OFFICES
•
KRAl3ACIIER, IIILL & '1"i0NVA14.0S
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
201 NORTH MILL STREET
AJPh.N, COLORADO 816LI
B.JOSEPH KRABACHER
THOMAS C. HILL
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III
OF COUNSEL
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR.
July 28, 1992
Edward M. Caswall
City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Kraut Property Rezoning/Public Notice
Dear Jed:
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-6300
(303) 925-7116
TELECOPIER
(303) 925-1181
As you know, our office represents the 700 East Hyman Avenue
Condominium Association and the owners of the individual units
within that condominium. Our clients are opposed to the proposed
rezoning of the Kraut property from office" to 'affordable
housing." I am informed the City failed to comply with the
requirements of S 6-205 E, Aspen Land Use Regulations, concerning
public notice for last night's public hearing on the Kraut property
rezoning. As you know, last night's public hearing was continued
to the next regularly scheduled City Council hearing to allow the
City Council to hear additional evidence.
Since the next scheduled meeting is a "continuation" of the meeting
last night, the notice for the next meeting is likewise
insufficient. I understand that you :could argue that, because I
appeared (thanks to a courtesy telephone call from Leslie Lamont)
and represented our clients in last night's hearing, I waived the
right to object to the adequacy of the public notice. However, I
think if you carefully read Zavala v. City and County of Denver,
759 P.2d 664, 668 (Colo. 1988), you will agree that both appearance
at the public hearing and the failure to object to the inadequacy
or lack of notice combined constitute a waiver of the due -process
argument. In addition to the two members of the public who
objected to the lack of notice (Micky Spaulding and W.R. Walton),
you noted the notice problem in your comments. Further, by this
letter, my clients object to the failure properly to provide public
notice of the hearing which began last night and is continued to
the next regular City Council meeting.
I would appreciate it if you would include this letter in the
record of the continued public hearing.
Edward M. Caswall
July 28, 1992
Page 2
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
, HILL & EDWARDS, P.C.
L:7cath
E. Edwards, III
cc 700 East Hyman Avenue Homeowners
Leslie Lamont/
seven\ltrs\caswa11.01
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direct#--)
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
DATE: June 22, 1991
RE: Kraut Property Rezoning - Continuation of Second Reading
Ordinance 39, Series of 1992
Staff recommends continuing Second Reading of Ordinance 39 to July
27, 1992. Ordinance 39 recommends approval of rezoning the Kraut
parcel from Office to Affordable Housing. Staff is recommending
continuation in order for the rezoning to track with the proposed
text amendments for the Affordable Housing Zone District.
0 •
(�-LZ
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager l"L
iji,
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Director
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
DATE: May 26, 1992
RE: Kraut Property Map Amendment Office to Affordable Housing
First Reading Ordinance 3 1 Series 1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The City and County, as represented by the Housing
Authority, propose to rezone the Kraut Property from Office (0) to
Affordable Housing (AH). This is first reading of Ordinance
Series of 1992, please see Ordinance exhibit "A".
Subsequent to rezoning, the applicant will submit a development
plan containing all the pertinent reviews for the development of
this parcel for review by the Commission and Council.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application at
their March 17 meeting and recommend to Council approval of the
rezoning from Office (0) to Affordable Housing (AH).
This memo reviews the rezoning of the parcel to Affordable Housing.
However, instead of a rezoning with respect to a 100% affordable
residential development as was originally proposed, staff has
suggested consideration of a mixed -use proposal comprised of
commercial, residential and below -grade parking land uses.
The proposed text amendments, which would allow a free market
commerical element in addition to a parking garage within the
Affordable Housing Zone District, is still being reviewed by the
Commission. It is anticipated that Council will have first reading
on the text amendments at the end of May.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In January of 1991, the City of Aspen and
Pitkin County purchased the Kraut Property and directed the Housing
Authority to submit an application for the rezoning and subsequent
development review.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen as represented by the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority
LOCATION: Southwest corner of East Hyman and Original Street
Block 105, Lots E, F, G, H, & I, Block 105, Aspen Colorado
ZONING: O, Office
BACKGROUND - The City of Aspen, Pitkin County and the Housing
Authority have together pursued a comprehensive plan to address the
community's housing problems. The housing plan is threefold: it
seeks to preserve the existing affordable housing stock, requires
developers to mitigate a "fair share" of their affordable housing
impacts and produces new affordable housing to reduce/eliminate the
current affordable housing shortfall.
As part of this comprehensive approach, the City Council adopted
Ordinance 59 establishing an Affordable Housing Zone District (AH).
The AH zone enables the rezoning of land for the purposes of
affordable housing.
The purchase, subsequent rezoning and development of the Kraut
property is a step toward the provision of affordable housing
within close proximity to employment opportunities and neighborhood
services for those citizens in need of housing.
In addition to the site being selected for housing, the 1987
Transportation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
identified this site as one of three centrally located underground
parking garages (the Rio Grande parcel and Wagner Park were the
other two sites). The report identifies this site as a likely
candidate because the site takes advantage of existing traffic
patterns of Main/Original and Highway 82. This location could help
reduce the traffic circulation around the pedestrian mall, Rubey
Park and Durant Avenue. It's proximity to the commercial core and
the gondola make it ideal for both a winter and summer intercept
lot.
The 1992 Draft Aspen Area Community Plan identifies the Kraut
parcel as a site for higher density housing, below grade parking
and local serving commercial space.
At worksessions with the Commission and Council, a mixed -use
concept was discussed. Although both Boards wanted to continue
consideration of a mixed -use development, they did not want to
delay rezoning the parcel to AH. Thus, this rezoning has initiated
the amendment process for the AH Zone District. The amendment
proposes commercial uses in the AH Zone District for those parcels
that are currently located in the Commerical and Office Zone
Districts.
Planning and Housing staff meet with interested neighbors on March
5, 1992 to discuss the rezoning and subsequent development of the
parcel. Please see Attachment "B" for a summary of the
neighborhood meeting and citizen letters.
CURRENT ISSUES
A. Site Description - The Kraut property is located near the base
of Aspen Mountain. The site is two blocks east of the downtown
commercial core area, and two blocks south of Main Street at the
2
•
intersection of East Hyman Avenue and Original Street.
The 15,000 square foot lot is vacant and is currently being used
as a commerical parking lot. There are no natural hazards
associated with the site and it is relatively flat. There are no
significant vegetation on the parcel and several inches of gravel
exist on top of the natural soil conditions.
The parcel is currently zoned Office. The areas north and west of
the parcel are also zoned Office. Across Spring Street, to the
west, the Commercial-1 Zone District begins. The parcels
immediately south of the Kraut property are zoned Lodge
Preservation and Commercial Lodge and across Cooper Street is the
Neighborhood Commerical Zone District. The residential
neighborhood to the east of the parcel, across Original, is zoned
Residential/Multi-Family.
The property is bounded by several existing structures. West of
the parcel is a two-story A -frame and the three-story Hannah -
Dustin office building on the corner of Hyman and Spring streets.
The Buckhorn Lodge, a two and one-half story structure, is across
the alley along the site's southern boundary. To the southwest is
the two-story Bell Mountain Lodge. Across Hyman Avenue, to the
north, is the Coates, Reid and Waldron office building which is
approximately 30 feet high. West of the office building are the
700 East Hyman Townhomes that consist of three duplexes for a total
of six dwelling units. To the east, across Original, are single
and multi -family residences.
The parcel is accessible by paved public streets, East Hyman Avenue
and Original Street, and by a dirt alley between Hyman and Cooper
Avenues. The public streets have curb and gutter. There are no
paved sidewalks, only gravel paths. Utility lines are proximate
and contained underground within the public rights -of -way. Please
refer to Attachment "C" for pertinent maps of the site and
surrounding neighborhood.
B. Project Summary - Many opportunities exist for development of
this site. The neighborhood is a mixed -use neighborhood containing
a variety of land uses, intensities of development, and
architectural styles. Minimal site preparation is involved. No
natural hazards, critical wildlife habitat or vegetation exist on
the site. All public services are in place with the capacity to
serve the site. The site is within the Central Area of downtown
as identified in the 1973 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and is
within one block of several bus routes.
A very preliminary site plan indicates that between 24 to 30 studio
and one -bedroom affordable, deed -restricted (preferably rental)
dwelling units could be developed on the parcel with necessary
parking. This preliminary proposal does not include other uses on
the site.
3
It is estimated that an 89 car parking garage could be developed
below grade providing parking for the building and additional
public parking.
Ideally, a full use of the site could include below grade parking,
first floor commercial space, and second and third floor
residential units. If commercial space is developed on the site
then the number of residential units will decrease to approximately
20-25 units. However, review of this application only pertains to
the rezoning of the parcel and not a development proposal. The
Land Use Code does not require the submission of a development plan
at the time of rezoning.
Please refer to Attachment "D" for a review of the dimensional
requirements applicable in the AH zone and how those would be
applied for a 24-30 unit development. These are provided at this
conceptual stage to help the review bodies envision the development
potential of the site. These dimensional requirements pertain to
a 100% residential proposal and does not consider the proposed text
amendments to the Affordable Housing Zone District. If the
amendments to the AH Zone District are adopted some dimensional
requirements may change regarding those developments that are
within the commerical or office zones. Those changes will be
reflected in the development proposal for this parcel.
C. Applicable Review - Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of
review for an amendment to the Official Zone District Map are as
follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: The proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose
of the recently adopted Affordable Housing Zone District which is
"to provide for the use of land for the production of low, moderate
and middle income affordable housing and Resident Occupied
units ... The AH Zone District is intended for residential use
primarily by permanent residents of the Community... Lands in the
AH Zone District should be scattered throughout the City to ensure
a mix of housing types, including those which are affordable by its
working residents... Lands in the AH Zone District should be located
within walking distance of the center of the City, or on transit
routes."
The proposal is also consistent with the goals identified within
the Housing Production Plan. The Plan is intended as a guide for
City and County officials making housing decisions. The Plan and
the methodology for assessing the production need for new housing
is currently being revised. Once adopted, the Production Plan will
enable the Housing Authority to determine the income categories and
type of housing units that are needed.
4
Currently the parcel is zoned Office. The Office Zone District
does enable the development of 100% affordable housing however the
height limit in the district is 25 feet while the AH Zone allows
an increase in maximum height to 30 feet by Special Review. In
addition, the Office Zone District does not enable development of
commerical and office space exempt from the Growth Management
System. The proposed text amendment to the AH Zone District would
allow a free market commercial element to be developed exempt from
Growth Management competition.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response: The various elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan list several goals that are relevant to this rezoning. As
described in the application those goals are: to create a housing
environment which is dispersed, appropriately scaled to the
neighborhoods and affordable; to preserve and maintain the existing
character of the community; the community should collectively
address and resolve its issues and problems by considering the
interest of all its citizen; and to encourage land uses,
businesses, and events which serve both the local community and
tourist base.
As was mentioned earlier in this memo, the 1987 Transportation
Element identified this site for below grade parking.
Additionally, the 1992 Draft Community Plan suggests parking,
housing and commercial space for this site.
The rezoning of this parcel for affordable housing and possibly
locally oriented commercial development is an appropriate approach
to dispersed housing development within close proximity of jobs,
community activities and neighborhood services. Development of the
Kraut property will provide a year-round resident population within
the City's core. Initial site planning proposes a development that
is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of
intensity of land use, site design, massing, scale, and
architectural character. A mixed -use nature of the proposal will
also be compatible with the surrounding mixed land uses and will
provide a transition between the commercial core and the
residential multi -family neighborhood across Original Street.
The use of tax dollars to develop the site is a collective
resolution to an important community issue. As the application
states, "New tax provisions were enacted by the City's electorate,
creating tax revenues of over $2 million per year for the next ten
years dedicated to affordable housing. County voters approved up
to $6 million in bonding authorization for affordable housing."
(The County participated in the purchase of this property.)
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
5
0
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response: The neighborhood encompasses a variety of zone
districts and land uses - locally oriented commercial, office, and
single and multi -family residences. The intensity of land uses
varies from the busy Coates, Reid and Waldron office building
adjacent to residential duplexes, to the Bell Mountain and Buckhorn
Lodges both representing different levels of use. Please refer to
the maps, attachment C, as a visual reference of the surrounding
neighborhood and the A. Site Description section of this memo.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response: According to the application, a 24-30 unit development
should generate approximately 73-150 vehicle trips/day. However,
due to the in -town location and proximity to bus routes it is
estimated that the number of vehicle trips on a daily basis will
be reduced. According to the Engineering Department, the roads are
adequate to handle this number of vehicle trips. Parking for
affordable housing is established by Special Review pursuant to
Section 5-301 (B), one space per unit has been considered the
minimum number of spaces to be provided on -site for a 100%
residential development.
One of the primary concerns of the neighbors is the congested
nature of the Original and Hyman Street intersection.
Service/delivery vehicles constantly block the street and this end
of town is a popular parking area for day skiers. The neighbors
fear that the elimination of the parking lot combined with
increased development at this corner will exacerbate the congestion
and parking problems.
A conceptual layout of a parking garage shows approximately 89
spaces may be possible on this parcel. The provision of a parking
garage would mitigate the parking demands for the land uses on site
and create additional parking to help alleviate the problematic
parking situation that occurs in the neighborhood. When queried
about a below grade parking garage on site, the neighbors expressed
support and desire for a solution to a growing parking problem.
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Response: Based upon the Housing Guidelines, the development could
house approximately 53 residents in a 30 unit project. There are
existing utilities on the site or proximate to the site which have
0
the capacity to service the development. The original proposal
included on -site parking for the dwelling units. A mixed -use
development would reduce the number of residential units on site
to approximately 23-25.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Response: The site is flat with no significant vegetation.
Development will not adversely impact the natural environment.
Landscaping and appropriate site treatments for drainage, runoff
etc. will be addressed during subdivision.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: Affordable resident housing has historically been
interspersed throughout Aspen's neighborhoods. The Commercial Core
and the East End are comprised of various housing types including
housing for working residents. The proposal, for multi -family
housing, is compatible with the character of the immediate
neighborhood. The rezoning is also consistent with the various
goals and programs that the City has been working on to effectively
preserve the local nature of the town and provide housing for
working residents.
A mixed -use proposal would be consistent with direction given from
the Sub -Committees working on the 1992 Aspen Area Community Plan.
The committees have identified this parcel for housing, parking and
commerical space.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Response: The neighborhood surrounding the Kraut property has
changed significantly. Affordable housing throughout the City has
been largely replaced with second homes priced far beyond the reach
of the majority of the employees in town. The East End,
traditionally home for working residents, has greatly shifted to
a neighborhood of second homes. For example, the duplexes in the
700 block of East Hopkins Street (Pitkin Row) replaced
approximately 4 miners cottages that were estimated to have housed
3-4 residents each. The Cooper Avenue Greystones replaced 1 miners
cottage and an alley shed that housed 5 residents total. Another
example is the approved redevelopment of the Valley Hi apartments
on East Hopkins which will replace 19 dwelling units with 4 deed
restricted affordable units and 4 free market units.
The City, County and Housing Authority have been actively working
to counter this trend in a comprehensive manner. The Housing
7
Production Plan approaches the problem from several facets:
preservation, production and replacement. The AH Zone District is
one avenue available for the public and private sectors to address
the community's housing problems. This rezoning is proposed as an
attempt to develop new affordable housing integrated into the
community.
Additionally, if a commercial component were to be considered,
commercial space that is locally oriented and meeting the service
needs of the surrounding neighborhood should be encouraged to help
reverse the trend of losing these types of services in the
community. As an example, the duplexes in the 700 block of East
Hyman replaced a local health food store, resident unit and the
"christmas tree lot".
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
Response: The amendment is consistent with established public
policy. As early as the 1973 Land Use Plan the development of
employee housing was a goal of the community. As was discussed
above, many plans and policies have been developed to facilitate
the provision of affordable local housing for the community.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval of the rezoning of Lots E, F, G, H, & I, Block 105 of the
Aspen Townsite (Kraut property) amending the Official Zone District
map from Office to Affordable Housing.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Table the rezoning until Council has the ability to review the
proposed text amendments for the Affordable Housing Zone District.
2. Table the rezoning until a site specific development plan
accompanies the rezoning application.
3. Maintain existing Office zoning. The Office Zone District
allows 100% affordable housing as a permitted use. The only
dimensional difference between the Office and Affordable Housing
Zone District that would affect a 100% housing project is that the
height may be increased from 25' to 30' by Special Review in the
AH Zone District. Parking requirements for all affordable housing
is set by special review pursuant to Article 7, Division 4.
However, if a multi -use development were proposed in the Office
zone district, the commercial element would not be exempt from
Growth Management. The proposed amendments to the AH Zone District
legislation would allow a free market commercial element,
incorporated with affordable housing, exempt from the Growth
Management System.
El
•
•
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the rezoning of Lots E, F, G,
H, & I, Block 105, City of Aspen from Office to Affordable
Housing."
"I move to read Ordinance , Series of 1992, on first reading.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Ordinance Series of 1992
B. March 5 Neighborhood Summary and Citizens Letters
C. Maps
D. Tables
E. Referral Comments
0j
• •
LAW OFFICES
KRABACHER, HILL & EDWARDS
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
B.JOSEPH KRABACHER
THOMAS C. HILL
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III
OF COUNSEL
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR.
May 27, 1992
Leslie Lamont
Aspen\Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-6300
(303) 925-7116
TELECOPIER
(303) 925-1181
I would appreciate it if you would send me a copy of the proposed
amendments to the AH zone district. Also, I would appreciate
receiving advance notice of all future hearings and meetings
concerning rezoning of the Kraut property and amendment to the AH
zone district.
Sincerely,
ACHER, HILL & EDWARDS, P.C.
_ l(
eph . Edwards, III i
th
seven\1trs\1amont.10
#9
COAIFS
REID &LVALDRON
Rend ?'state • Zentlls 'I ina --
May 26, 1992
Mr. John Bennett
Mayor
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado air�;1
Dear John,
I am writing you a letter to express my concerns about the proposed
employee housing and commercial development on the land known as
the Kraut property on Hyman Ave. As a neighbor and manager of the
700 Hyman ' comple:; and the Aspen Athletic Club Building I am
concerned, and I represent a lot of people who are concerned about
having this projeC—, ,.._ izay 'ccation.
I am primarily concerned that. the Housing Authority and the City
will push this project through the system of approval without
addressing all the issues which they would normally address with a
private developer. I have appeared before the planning staff and
the planning and zoning committee with concerns about parking,
traffic, density and the scope of this project, and have left those
meetings with a feeling that the project was going to be pushed
through quickly, no matter what the concerns because it satisfies
an employee housing construction plan, the no car needed concept,
the need for cheaper commercial space, and because it satisfies the
need for the City to get this property into a productive mode as
soon as possible.
I would hope that the City Council will look closely at the
questions that have been presented tonight and in the past, and
make sure that the needs presented and this piece of property
really match up, and that by building 23-30 employee housing units,
5,500 square feet of commercial space, and one to two levels of
parking on a 15,000 square foot parcel in the heart of downtown you
are not creating bigger_ problems than you are solving.
Please know that as a neighbor we are concerned about this project
being pushed into this neighborhood so fast and I would ask you to
ask yourselves the following questions:
1. Does the proposed employee housing and commercial project fit
on this 15,000 square foot piece of land, and if so, what will
it do to the neighborhood?
Aspen Cff ice • 7/20 fast Hvman. �soen. Cc!oraoo 81611 • �303) 925-1400 • FAX (303) 920-3765
3nowmass Office • 01jite ''I". �nowrrass Canter. Box 6450 • Snowmass Village, Colorado 816` • Q03) 923-4700 • FAX (303) 923-4198
Page Two
Mr. John Bennett
Mav 26, =992
2. Whal will have tD be done to fit the vehicle needs of the
tenants and the commercial property? I don't believe you can
build a project for 23-30 units and expect that there will be
no cars for the 50-90 employees living there.
'f ;u t__:ve a . employee based commercial space what type of
-Cen,.ts will you have, and will they be able to buy and sell
their product effectively competing with Carls, the Miners
Building, :'aspen Drug, let alone Wal-Mart?
4. How will ingress/egress be handled for the commercial
development? Is the cost to mitigate all these things worth
the rroject?
5. is `_ie cost wor -h it
5. Are there other berter options for this property?
7. Could a private developer build 23-30 rental apartments on
this property without City assistance?
8. Are you moving too fast? Is more study needed?
Please don't close your ears to the questions that the neighbors of
this property have been bringing up. We live with the traffic and
the parking problems every day, and no matter how you feel about
the Nimby :3yndrt)me we are concerned because we work and live here,
and we don't feel the questions that we have raised have been
addressed. Please make sure before you approve this project that
the A through H criteria has honestly been addressed.
Yours -in rely,
0111
Michael L. Spalding
President
CC. Augie Reno
Frank Peters
Rachel Richards
Margo Pendelton
LAW OFFICES
0
KRABACHER, HILL & EDW /�RDS
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION l% j�
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILD V
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 8161,1//
8. JOSEPH KRABACHER
THOMAS C. HILL C%
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, III �.
l /
OF COUNSEL ®��O^ /
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR. ��� TA_
May 6, 1992 e
Leslie Lamont
Aspen\Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
MAY - a
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-6300
(303) 925-7116
TELECOPIER
(303) 925-1181
Our office represents the 700 East Hyman Avenue Condominium
Association which is located across the street from the Kraut
property. I was informed there is scheduled on May 11, 1992, a
City Council hearing to consider first reading of an ordinance to
rezone the Kraut property from the Office zone district to the
Affordable Housing zone district.
By motion approved by a vote of six to one, the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of the rezoning. Sections 7-1105A
and 7-1106, Aspen Land Use Regulations, require Planning & Zoning
Commission approval be by resolution, not by motion. While the
headings of these sections relate to suspension of building permits
and notation on the official zone district map, the headings are
not controlling; and the required procedure is for the Planning &
Zoning Commission to recommend disapproval, approval or approval
with conditions by a resolution. Tiis is consistent. with the
general characterization of a rezoning as a very important matter
affecting use and rights to private property. Further, the purpose
of a rezoning should not be "to relieve particular hardships or
confer special privileges." Section 7-1101, Aspen Land Use
Regulations.
On behalf of our clients, I object to the improper procedure
followed and request the application be sent back to the Planning
& Zoning Commission for reconsideration and action by a resolution
instead of by a motion. This is particularly important since, at
the hearing on the text amendment for the changes to the AH zone
district immediately after the public hearing for the rezoning on
the Kraut property, both Jasmin and Sara stated on the record that,
if they had properly understood that parking garages were not
allowed in the AH zone district as it is currently defined, they
would have voted against recommending approval of the rezoning of
the Kraut property. Also, it is apparent to us, the City is going
out of its way to "confer special privileges" on itself with this
rezoning and simultaneous amendment of the AH zone district.
Please submit this letter into the record of the City Council
hearing on this matter.
Sincerely,
KRABACHER, HILL & EDWARDS P.C.
t
J t
Edwards, III
J
cc 700 East Hyman Avenue Condominium Association
seven\1trs\1amont.08
C' COY-"(
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE: Kraut Property Map Amendment - Office to Affordable
Housing
DATE: March 17, 1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission, at their December 17,
1991 meeting, reviewed an application for the rezoning of the Kraut
parcel, Lots E, F, G, and I, Block 105, City of Aspen from Office
(0) Zone District to Affordable Housing (AH) Zone District. The
application was submitted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority on behalf of the City of Aspen and Pitkin County.
The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled rezoning review pending
a worksession with interested neighbors and the City Council.
At a February 4, 1992 worksession between the Commission and
Council, and at a February 10, 1992 worksession with Council, staff
was directed to pursue the rezoning of the parcel to Affordable
Housing and initiate a text amendment for the Affordable Housing
Zone district.
Planning and Housing staff meet with interested neighbors on March
5, 1992 to discuss their concerns regarding the rezoning and
subsequent development of the parcel. Please see Attachment A for
a summary of the neighborhood meeting.
This memo reviews the rezoning of the parcel to Affordable Housing.
However, instead of a rezoning with respect to a 100% affordable
residential development as was originally proposed, staff is
suggesting consideration of a mixed -use proposal comprised of
commercial, residential and below -grade parking land uses.
The text amendment is reviewed in a separate cover memo. The
proposed amendment allows a free market commerical element in
addition to a parking garage within the Affordable Housing Zone
District.
Staff recommends approval of the map amendment for the Kraut
property from Office Zone District to Affordable Housing Zone
District.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen as represented by the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority
LOCATION: Southwest corner of East Hyman Avenue and South Original
Street, Block 105, Lots E, F, G, H, & I.
ZONING: O, Office
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To amend the Official Zone District map from
Office to Affordable Housing for Lots E, F, G, H & I, Block 105,
City of Aspen.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached referral comments which
pertain to the original application, attachment C.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A. Background - The City of Aspen, Pitkin County and the Housing
Authority have together pursued a comprehensive plan to address
the community's housing problems. The housing plan is threefold
it: seeks to preserve the existing affordable housing stock,
requires developers to mitigate a "fair share" of their affordable
housing impacts and produces new affordable housing to
reduce/eliminate the current affordable housing shortfall.
As part of this comprehensive approach, the City Council adopted
Ordinance 59 establishing an Affordable Housing Zone District (AH).
The AH zone enables the rezoning of land for the purposes of
affordable housing.
The purchase subsequent rezoning and development of the Kraut
property is a step toward the provision of affordable housing
within close proximity to employment opportunities and neighborhood
services for those citizens in need of housing.
In addition to the site being selected for housing, the 1987
Transportation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
identified this site as one of three centrally located underground
parking garages. The Rio Grande parcel and Wagner Park were
identified as the other two sites. The report identifies this site
as a likely candidate because the site takes advantage of existing
traffic patterns of Main/Original and Highway 82. This location
could help reduce the traffic circulation around the pedestrian
mall, Rubey Park and Durant Avenue. It's proximity to the
commercial core and the gondola make it ideal for both a winter
and summer intercept lot.
The 1992 Draft Aspen Area Community Plan identifies the Kraut
parcel as a site for higher density housing, below grade parking
and local serving commercial space.
At worksessions with the Commission and Council, a mixed -use
concept was discussed. Although both Boards wanted to continue
consideration of a mixed -use development they did not want to delay
rezoning the parcel to AH. Thus, this rezoning has initiated an
amendment to the AH Zone District creating the ability for a mixed-
2
use development in the AH Zone District for those parcels that are
currently located in the Commerical and Office Zone Districts.
B. site Description - The Kraut property is located near the base
of Aspen Mountain. The site is two blocks east of the downtown
commercial core area, and two blocks south of Main Street at the
intersection of East Hyman Avenue and Original Street.
The 15,000 square foot lot is vacant and is currently being used
as a commerical parking lot. There are no natural hazards
associated with the site and it is relatively flat. There are no
significant vegetation on the parcel and several inches of gravel
exist on top of the natural soil conditions.
The parcel is currently zoned Office. The areas north and west of
the parcel are also zoned Office. Across Spring Street, to the
west, the Commercial-1 Zone District begins. The parcels
immediately south of the Kraut property are zoned Lodge
Preservation and Commercial Lodge and across Cooper Street is the
Neighborhood Commerical Zone District. The residential
neighborhood to the east of the parcel, across Original, is zoned
Residential/Multi-Family.
The property is bounded by several existing structures. West of
the parcel is a two-story A -frame and the three-story Hannah -
Dustin office building on the corner of Hyman and Spring streets.
The Buckhorn Lodge, a two and one-half story structure, is across
the alley along the site's southern boundary. To the southwest is
the two-story Bell Mountain Lodge. Across Hyman Avenue, to the
north, is the Coates, Reid and Waldron office building which is
approximately 30 feet high. West of the office building are the
700 East Hyman Townhomes that consist of three duplexes for a total
of six dwelling units. To the east, across Original, are single
and multi -family residences.
The parcel is accessible by paved public streets, East Hyman Avenue
and Original Street, and by a dirt alley between Hyman and Cooper
Avenues. The public streets have curb and gutter. There are no
paved sidewalks, only gravel paths. Utility lines are proximate
and contained underground within the public rights -of -way.
C. Project summary - Many opportunities exist for development of
this site. The neighborhood is a mixed -use neighborhood containing
a variety of land uses, intensities of development, and
architectural styles. Minimal site preparation is involved. No
natural hazards, critical wildlife habitat or vegetation exist on
the site. All public services are in place with the capacity to
serve the site. The site is within the Central Area of downtown
as identified in the 1973 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and is
within one block of several bus routes.
A very preliminary site plan indicates that between 24 to 30 studio
3
and one -bedroom affordable, deed -restricted (preferably rental)
dwelling units could be developed on the parcel with necessary
parking. This preliminary proposal does not include other uses on
the site.
It is estimated that an 89 car parking garage could be developed
below grade providing parking for the building and additional
public parking.
Ideally, a full use of the site could include below grade parking,
first floor commercial space, and second and third floor
residential units. If commercial space is developed on the site
then the number of residential units will decrease to approximately
20-25 units. However, review of this application only pertains to
the rezoning of the parcel and not a development proposal. The
Land Use Code does not require the submission of a development plan
at the time of rezoning.
The following tables from the application detail the dimensional
requirements applicable in the AH zone and how those would be
applied for a 24-30 unit development. These are provided at this
conceptual stage to help the review bodies envision the development
potential of the site. These dimensional requirements pertain to
a 100 % residential proposal and does not consider the proposed text
amendments to the Affordable Housing Zone District. If the
amendments to the AH Zone District are adopted some dimensional
requirements may change regarding those developments that are
within the commerical or office zones. Those changes will be
reflected in the development proposal for this parcel.
Please continue to the next page for the dimensional tables.
4
TABLE 4.1
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
AH Zone
Maximum
criterion
Requirements
Proposal
Minimum front yard
10,
10,
Minimum rear yard
10'
10'
Minimum side yard
5'
S'
Minimum distance between bldgs.
5'
Maximum height
25'
301(by spec. review)
30'
Minimum lot size
3,000 s.f.
15,000 s.f.
Minimum lot area/unit
Studio
300 s.f.
10 units =
per unit
31000 s.f.
One bedroom
400 s.f.
10 units =
per unit
4,000 s.f.
Two bedroom
800 s.f.
10 units =
8,000 s.f.
Minimum lot area total
15,000 s.f.
Maximum F.A.R.
1.1:1
Maximum Floor Area
16,500 s.f.
(15,000 s.f. lot)
Minimum open space (%)
Special Review
Open space
Special Review
Off-street parking
Special Review
24-30 spaces
(1 space/unit)
5
•
•
TABLE 4.2
DEVELOPMENT DATA
Number
Unit Type
Unit Size
Category 1
4-5
Studio
350-400s.f.
4-5
One Bedroom
450-500 s.f.
4-5
Two Bedrooms
700-750s.f.
Category 2
4-5
Studio
450-500 s.f.
4-5
One Bedroom
550-600 s.f.
4-5
Two Bedrooms
750-800 s.f.
24-30 Total Units
Total Net Livable: 13,000-17,750 s.f.
NOTE: The figures above are "Net Livable," not
"gross" square
footages. If a
maximum development program
at 30 units is
pursued, garden
level units will be necessary
for the project
to stay within the maximum F.A.R. permitted under the AH zone.
6
D. Applicable Review - Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of
review for an amendment to the Official Zone District Map are as
follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose
of the recently adopted Affordable Housing Zone District which is
"to provide for the use of land for the production of low, moderate
and middle income affordable housing and Resident Occupied
units ... The AH Zone District is intended for residential use
primarily by permanent residents of the Community... Lands in the
AH Zone District should be scattered throughout the City to ensure
a mix of housing types, including those which are affordable by its
working residents... Lands in the AH Zone District should be located
within walking distance of the center of the City, or on transit
routes."
The proposal is also consistent with the goals identified within
the Housing Production Plan. The Plan is intended as a guide for
City and County officials making housing decisions. The Plan and
the methodology for assessing the production need for new housing
is currently being revised. Once adopted, the Production Plan will
enable the Housing Authority to determine the income categories and
type of housing units that are needed.
Currently the parcel is zoned Office. The Office Zone District
does enable the development of 100% affordable housing however the
height limit in the district is 25 feet while the AH Zone allows
an increase in maximum height to 30 feet by Special Review. In
addition, the Office Zone District does not enable development of
commerical and office space exempt from the Growth Management
System. The proposed text amendment to the AH Zone District would
allow a free market commercial element to be developed exempt from
Growth Management competition.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The various elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan list several goals that are relevant to this rezoning. As
described in the application those goals are: to create a housing
environment which is dispersed, appropriately scaled to the
neighborhoods and affordable; to preserve and maintain the existing
character of the community; the community should collectively
address and resolve its issues and problems by considering the
interest of all its citizen; and to encourage land uses,
businesses, and events which serve both the local community and
tourist base.
7
As was mentioned earlier in this memo, the 1987 Transportation
Element identified this site for below grade parking.
Additionally, the 1992 Draft Community Plan suggests parking,
housing and commercial space for this site.
The rezoning of this parcel for affordable housing and possibly
locally oriented commercial development is an appropriate approach
to dispersed housing development within close proximity of jobs,
community activities and neighborhood services. Development of the
Kraut property will provide a year-round resident population within
the City's core. Initial site planning proposes a development that
is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of
intensity of land use, site design, massing, scale, and
architectural character. A mixed -use nature of the proposal will
also be compatible with the surrounding mixed land uses and will
provide a transition between the commercial core and the
residential multi -family neighborhood across Original Street.
The use of tax dollars to develop the site is a collective
resolution to an important community issue. As the application
states, "New tax provisions were enacted by the City's electorate,
creating tax revenues of over $2 million per year for the next ten
years dedicated to affordable housing. County voters approved up
to $6 million in bonding authorization for affordable housing."
(The County participated in the purchase of this property.)
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: The neighborhood encompasses a variety of zone
districts and land uses - locally oriented commercial, office, and
single and multi -family residences. The intensity of land uses
varies from the busy Coates, Reid and Waldron office building
adjacent to residential duplexes, to the Bell Mountain and Buckhorn
Lodges both representing different levels of use. Please refer to
the maps, attachment D, as a visual reference of the surrounding
neighborhood and the B. Site Description section of this memo.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: According to the application, a 24-30 unit development
should generate approximately 73-150 vehicle trips/day. However,
due to the in -town location and proximity to bus routes it is
estimated that the number of vehicle trips on a daily basis will
be reduced. According to the Engineering Department, the roads are
adequate to handle this number of vehicle trips. Parking for
affordable housing is established by Special Review pursuant to
Section 5-301 (B), one space per unit has been considered the
minimum number of spaces to be provided on -site for a 100%
residential development.
8
One of the primary concerns of the neighbors is the congested
nature of the Original and Hyman intersection. Service/delivery
vehicles constantly block the street while this end of town is a
popular parking area for day skiers. The neighbors fear that the
elimination of the parking lot combined with increased development
at this corner will exacerbate the congestion and parking problems.
A conceptual layout of a parking garage shows approximately 89
spaces may be possible on this parcel. The provision of a parking
garage would mitigate the parking demands for the land uses on site
and create additional parking to help alleviate the problematic
parking situation that occurs in the neighborhood. When queried
about a below grade parking garage on site the neighbors expressed
support and desire for a solution to a growing parking problem.
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: Based upon the Housing Guidelines, the development
should house approximately 53 residents in a 30 unit project.
There are existing utilities on the site or proximate to the site
which have the capacity to service the development. The original
proposal included on -site parking for the dwelling units. A mixed -
use development would reduce the number of residential units on
site to approximately 23-25.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
RESPONSE: The site is flat with no significant vegetation.
Development will not adversely impact the natural environment.
Landscaping and appropriate site treatments for drainage, runoff
etc. will be addressed during subdivision.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: Affordable resident housing has historically been
interspersed throughout Aspen's neighborhoods. The Commercial Core
and the East End are comprised of various housing types including
housing for working residents. The proposal, for multi -family
housing, is compatible with the character of the immediate
neighborhood. The rezoning is also consistent with the various
goals and programs that the City has been working on to effectively
preserve the local nature of the town and provide housing for
working residents.
9
•
•
A mixed -use proposal would be consistent with direction given from
the Sub -Committees working on the 1992 Aspen Area Community Plan.
The committees have identified this parcel for housing, parking and
commerical space.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: The neighborhood surrounding the Kraut property has
changed significantly. Affordable housing throughout the City has
been largely replaced with second homes priced far beyond the reach
of the majority of the employees in town. The East End,
traditionally home for working residents, has greatly shifted to
a neighborhood of second homes. For example, the duplexes in the
700 block of East Hopkins Street (Pitkin Row) replaced
approximately 4 miners cottages that were estimated to have housed
3-4 residents each. The Cooper Avenue Greystones replaced 1 miners
cottage and an alley shed that housed 5 residents total. Another
example is the approved redevelopment of the Valley Hi apartments
on East Hopkins which will replace 19 dwelling units with 4 deed
restricted affordable units and 4 free market units.
The City, County and Housing Authority have been actively working
to counter this trend in a comprehensive manner. The Housing
Production Plan approaches the problem from several facets:
preservation, production and replacement. The AH Zone District is
one avenue available for the public and private sectors to address
the community's housing problems. This rezoning is proposed as an
attempt to develop new affordable housing integrated into the
community.
Additionally, if a commercial component were to be considered,
commercial space that is locally oriented and meeting the service
needs of the surrounding neighborhood should be encouraged to help
reverse the trend of losing these types of services in the
community. As an example, the duplexes in the 700 block of East
Hyman replaced a local health food store, resident unit and the
"christmas tree lot".
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The amendment is consistent with established public
policy. As early as the 1973 Land Use Plan the development of
employee housing was a goal of the community. As was discussed
above, many plans and policies have been developed to facilitate
the provision of affordable local housing for the community.
10
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of
Lots E, F, G, H, & I, Block 105 of the Aspen Townsite (Kraut
property) amending the Official Zone District map from Office to
Affordable Housing.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. March 5 Neighborhood Summary
B. Resident Letter
C. Referral Comments
D. Maps
pz.kraut2.rzg
11
•
El
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE: Kraut Property Map Amendment - Office to Affordable
Housing
DATE: December 17, 1991
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Housing Authority representing the City of Aspen
proposes to rezone the Kraut property from Office (0) to Affordable
Housing (AH). Subsequent to rezoning, the applicant will submit
a development plan containing all the pertinent reviews for the
development of this parcel. Attached for your review is the full
application submitted by the applicant.
Staff recommends approval of the map amendment for the Kraut
property from Office to Affordable Housing.
APPLICANT: City of Aspen as represented by the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority
LOCATION: Southwest corner of East Hyman Avenue and South Original
Street, Block 105, Lots E, F, G, H, & I.
ZONING: O, Office
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To amend the Official Zone District map.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Having reviewed the above application and having made a site visit,
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. There are 72 to 150 vehicles trips/day that the applicant states
could be generated by this development plus the 700 trips/day for
Hyman Avenue and 4,700 trips/day for Original Street which was
given in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element.
These volumes can be adequately accommodated by the 50 foot widths
of the these streets.
2. The applicant indicates that this development will generate a
resident population of approximately 53 persons and that current
public facilities are capable of accommodating the service demands
of the project and its residents. Although the Engineering
Department utility maps show that this location is served by all
utilities, the applicant still needs to furnish confirmation that
the existing water and sewer systems have sufficient capacity to
accommodate this project.
3. The applicant needs to agree to join a special improvement
district if one is ever formed.
4. The applicant needs to get an excavation permit from the Streets
Department and approval of design from the Engineering Department
for any work done in the public right-of-way.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A. Background - The City of Aspen, Pitkin County and the Housing
Authority have together pursued a comprehensive plan to address
the community's housing problems. The housing plan is threefold
it: seeks to preserve the existing affordable housing stock,
requires developers to mitigate a "fair share" of their affordable
housing impacts and produces new affordable housing to
reduce/eliminate the current affordable housing shortfall.
As part of this comprehensive approach the City Council adopted
Ordinance 59 establishing an Affordable Housing Zone District (AH).
The AH zone enables the rezoning of land for the purposes of
affordable housing.
Taking advantage of the Affordable Housing zone district, the
purchase and subsequent development of the Kraut property is a step
toward the provision of affordable housing, within close proximity
to employment opportunities and neighborhood services, for those
citizens in need of housing.
B. Site Description - The Kraut property is located near the base
of Aspen Mountain. The site is two blocks east of the downtown
commercial core area, and two blocks south of Main Street at the
intersection of East Hyman Avenue and Original Street.
The 15,000 square foot lot is vacant and is currently being used
as a commerical parking lot. There are no natural hazards
associated with the site, it is relatively flat. There is no
significant vegetation on the parcel and several inches of gravel
exist on top of the natural soil conditions.
The parcel is zoned Office. The areas north and west of the parcel
are also zoned Office. Across Spring Street, to the west, the
Commercial-1 zone district begins. The parcels immediately south
of the Kraut property are zoned Lodge Preservation and Commercial
Lodge. Across Original, to the east, is Residential/Multi-Family.
The property is bounded by several existing structures. West of
the parcel is a two-story A -frame and the three-story Hannah -
Dustin office building on the corner of Hyman and Spring streets.
The Buckhorn Lodge, a two and one-half story structure, is across
the alley along the site's southern boundary. To the southwest is
the two-story Bell Mountain Lodge. Across Hyman Avenue, to the
north, is the Aspen Athletic Club office building. West of the
two -plus story Athletic Club are the 700 Hyman Townhomes that
2
consists of three duplexes containing six units total. To the
east, across Original, are single and multi -family residences.
The parcel is accessible by paved public streets, East Hyman Avenue
and Original Street, and by a dirt alley between Hyman and Cooper
Avenues. The public streets have curb and gutter. There are no
paved sidewalks, only gravel paths. Utility lines are proximate
and contained underground within the public street rights -of -way
and/or alleyway.
C. Project Summary - Many opportunities exist for development of
this site. The neighborhood is a mixed -use neighborhood containing
a variety of land uses, intensities of development, and
architectural styles. Minimal site preparation is involved. No
natural hazards, critical wildlife habitat or vegetation exist on
the site. All public services are in place with the capacity to
serve the site. The site is within the Central Area of downtown
as identified in the 1973 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and is
within one block bus routes.
A very preliminary site plan indicates that between 24 to 30
affordable, deed -restricted residences could be developed on the
parcel. The potential development plan may consist of studio and
one -bedroom rental units.
It is the goal of the development plan "to achieve a livable,
human -scale residential development consistent with the Commercial
Core and East End neighborhoods."
The following tables, from the application, detail the dimensional
requirements applicable in the AH zone and how those would be
applied for a 24-30 unit development. These are provided at this
conceptual stage to help the review bodies envision the development
potential of the site.
3
• a
The Commission reviewed the rezoning at a worksession November 19,
1991. At that worksession the Commission discussed the mixed -use
development potential of this parcel. This parcel has been
identified in previous transportation studies as an intercept lot
and possible inclusion of neighborhood commercial space has also
been considered. The Commission was concerned that rezoning to AH
would preclude additional uses on the site and rezoning without a
bigger picture may be premature.
City Council discussed the Kraut property rezoning at a November
25, 1991 meeting. The Council also expressed a desire for a more
creative planning approach for this property. Council was
interested in a mixed -use concept but was reluctant to slow the
rezoning process. Council agreed to postpone the RFP process for
the selection of a development team but directed staff to continue
with the rezoning process with the intent of soliciting ideas from
the Commission regarding a mixed -use approach. Council suggested
changes to the AH zone district legislation which would eventually
apply to the rezoned Kraut property. However Council wants a
resolution in a timely manner soon as staff can create that
mechanism.
Staff, in response to these worksessions, has developed some
initial ideas with which to accomplish this task. A development
scenario that could be envisioned is a three story building with
the top two floors residential units, the first floor is local
commercial space, with a 1-2 level, below grade, parking garage.
The following is a summary of ideas for your discussion:
1. Rezone property to AH, amend the AH zone district to allow a
% of commercial square footage. Perhaps the commercial parameters
would be consistent with underlying commerical zoning or
surrounding zoning. (Development within the Ah zone district is
exempt from GMQS.)
2. Rezone property to AH and add a Specially Planned Area overlay.
An SPA will enable a mixed -use development with the underlying
zoning as a guide (it may be necessary to use the original
underlying zoning such..as office for commercial and/or parking
garage improvements).-VHowever, SPA will not exempt commercial
square footage from GMQS but a parking garage may be considered an
essential public facility and could be exempted.
3. Rezone property to AH, amend AH zone district to allow a % of
commercial space with permitted and conditional uses similar to
the Neighborhood Commercial zone district permitted and conditional
uses. However it may be necessary to modify those uses to ensure
that the intended commercial uses are locally oriented by nature.
4. Rezone property to AH, amend AH zone district to allow a % of
commerical space that is also deed restricted in price and or local
11
e
orientation and perhaps identify the permitted and conditional
similar to the neighborhood commercial zone district.
5. Rezone property to AH, amend AH zoned district to allow a
public parking garage.
Staff suggests that the Planing and Zoning Commission review the
rezoning of this property from Office to Affordable Housing. Staff
also recommends that the Commission direct staff to pursue zoning
legislation, based upon the above ideas or additional suggestions,
that would encourage and/or promote a mixed use development on this
site.
D. Applicable Review - Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of
review for an amendment to the Official Zone District Map are as
follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The proposed amendment is consistent with the purpose
of the recently adopted Affordable Housing Zone District which is
"to provide for the use of land for the production of low, moderate
and middle income affordable housing and Resident Occupied
units ... The AH Zone District is intended for residential use
primarily by permanent residents of the Community... Lands in the
AH Zone District should be scattered throughout the City to ensure
a mix of housing types, including those which are affordable by its
working residents... lands in the AH Zone District should be located
within walking distance of the center of the City, or on transit
routes."
The proposal is also consistent with the goals identified within
the Housing Production Plan. The Plan is intended as a guide for
City and County officials making housing decisions. The Plan
substantiates the need to produce an additional 800 units by 1995
if growth within the area continues at its present rate. In an
effort to obtain that goal the public sector was identified as the
responsible party to produce 463 of those 800 units (Affordable
Housing Production Program 1990, Table 6).
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The various elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan list several goals that are relevant to this rezoning. As
described in the application those goals are: to create a housing
environment which is dispersed, appropriately scaled to the
neighborhoods and affordable; to preserve and maintain the existing
character of the community; the community should collectively
address and resolve its issues and problems by considering the
interest of all its citizen; to create a creative non -auto oriented
rA
LA
M
public, mass transportation system which integrates pedestrian and
bike trails system with community facilities and services; and to
encourage land uses, businesses, and events which serve both the
local community and tourist base.
The rezoning of this parcel for affordable housing and possibly
locally oriented commercial development is an appropriate approach
to dispersed housing development that is within close proximity of
jobs, community activities and neighborhood services. Development
of the Kraut property will provide a year-round resident population
within the City's core. The initial site planning proposes a
development that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood
in terms of intensity of land use, site design, massing, scale, and
architectural character. A mixed -use nature of the proposal will
also be compatible with the surrounding mixed land uses and will
provide a respectable transition between the commercial core and
the residential multi -family neighborhood across Original Street.
The use of tax dollars to develop the site is a collective
resolution to an important community issue. As the application
states, "New tax provisions were enacted by the City's electorate,
creating tax revenues of over $2 million per year for the next ten
years dedicated to affordable housing. County voters approved up
to $6 million in bonding authorization for affordable housing."
(The County participated in the purchase of this property.)
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: The neighborhood encompasses a variety of zone
districts and land uses - locally oriented commercial, office, and
residential multi -family. The intensity of land uses also varies,
the Aspen Athletic Club office building next to residential
duplexes while the Bell Mountain and Buckhorn Lodges represent a
different level of use. Please refer to the maps within the
application for the content of the surrounding neighborhood and the
B. Site Description section of this memo.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: According to the application, a 24-30 unit development
should generate approximately 73 to 150 vehicle trips/day.
However, due to the in -town location and proximity to bus routes
it is estimated that the number of vehicle trips on a daily basis
will be reduced. According to the Engineering Department, the
roads are adequate to handle this number of vehicle trips. Parking
for the AH zone is established by Special Review, one space per
unit on -site parking has been considered the minimum number of
spaces to be provided on -site.
0
•
a
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: Based upon the Housing Guidelines, the development
should house approximately 53 residents in a 30 unit project.
There are existing utilities on the site or proximate to the site
which have the capacity to service the development.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
RESPONSE: The site is flat with no significant vegetation.
Development will not adversely impact the natural environment.
Landscaping and appropriate site treatments for drainage, runoff
etc. will be addressed during subdivision.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: Affordable resident housing has historically been
interspersed throughout Aspen's neighborhoods. The Commercial Core
and the East End are comprised of various housing types including
housing for working residents. The proposal, for multi -family
housing, is compatible with the character of the immediate
neighborhood. The rezoning is also consistent with the various
goals and programs that the City has been working on to effectively
preserve the local nature of the town and provide housing for
working residents.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: The neighborhood surrounding the Kraut property has
changed significantly. The East End, traditionally home for
working residents, has greatly shifted to a neighborhood of second
homes. Affordable housing throughout the City has been largely
replaced with second homes priced far beyond the reach of the
majority of the employees in town. The City, County and Housing
Authority have been actively working to counter this trend in a
comprehensive manner. The Housing Production Plan approaches the
problem from several facets: preservation, production and
replacement. The AH Zone District is one avenue available for the
public and private sectors to address the community's housing
problems. This rezoning is proposed as an attempt to develop new
affordable housing integrated into the community.
i
I
�71
In addition, if a commercial component were to be considered, the
commercial space that is locally oriented meeting the service needs
of the surrounding neighborhood should be encouraged to help
reverse the trend of losing these types of services in the
community.
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The amendment is consistent with established public
policy. As early as the 1973 Land Use Plan the development of
employee housing was a goal of the community. As was discussed
above, many plans and policies have been developed to facilitate
the provision of affordable local housing for the community.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of
Lots E, F, G, H, & I, Block 105 of the Aspen Townsite (Kraut
property) amending the Official Zone District map from Office to
Affordable Housing.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Application
pz.kraut.rzg
10
• M
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FOR REZONING LOTS E, F, G, H AND I, BLOCK
105, FROM PUBLIC ZONE DISTRICT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE
DISTRICT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, December 17, 1991 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd floor Meeting Room, 130
South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
submitted by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority requesting
approval of an Amendment to the Official Zone District Map of the
City of Aspen. The applicant proposes to amend the zone district
for Lots E, F, G, H, and I, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen
from Office to Affordable Housing in order to develop a multi-
family affordable housing complex. The Affordable Housing Zone
permits residential affordable housing, home occupations and
accessory buildings and uses. See Section 24-5-206.2 of the Aspen
Municipal Code. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at
the Aspen/ Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO
920-5090.
sliasmine Tygre, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on November 14, 1991.
City of Aspen Account
do
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Work Session - Kraut Property
DATE: November 19, 1991
The Housing Authority has submitted a rezoning application for the
southwest corner of East Hyman and South Original Street. The
Authority seeks to rezone the parcel from Office to Affordable
Housing.
In the past, AH proposals have been initially reviewed in a work
session. This application has been scheduled for rezoning review
December 9, 1991. The Housing Authority would like this
opportunity to briefly review the Kraut rezoning proposal at this
work session prior to you review December 9.
The Authority will make a brief presentation of the proposal at the
meeting.
0
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DATE: November 15, 1991
RE: Kraut Affordable Housing Project Map Amendment
Having reviewed the above application and having made a site visit,
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. There are 72 to 150 vehicles trips/day that the applicant states
could be generated by this development plus the 700 trips/day for
Hyman Avenue and 4,700 trips/day for Original Street which was
given in the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element.
These volumes can be adequately accommodated by the 50 foot widths
of the these streets.
2. The applicant indicates that this development will generate a
resident population of approximately 53 persons and that current
public facilities are capable of accommodating the service demands
of the project and its residents. Although the Engineering
Department utility maps show that this location is served by all
utilities, the applicant still needs to furnish confirmation that
the existing water and sewer systems have sufficient capacity to
accommodate this project.
3. The applicant needs to agree to join a special improvement
district if one is ever formed.
4. The applicant needs to get an excavation permit from the Streets
Department and approval of design from the Engineering Department
for any work done in the public right-of-way.
jg/kraut
cc: Chuck Roth
0
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
SUMMARY SHEET
Chairperson
A n ih
ve:
REFERRAL COMMENTS SUMMARY:
City Engineer: (mpTp fort
County Engineer: (memo : yes no )
yes no )
Environmental Health (memo: yes no )
Fire Department: (memo: yes no )
Parks Department: (memo: yes no )
Building Department: (memo: yes no )
Housing Authority: (memo: yes no )
Attorney: (memo: yes no )
Other:
General Comments:
0 •
*0
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Engineer
City Attorney
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
RE: Kraut Affordable Housing Project Map Amendment
Parcel ID# 2737-182-27-002
DATE: November 4, 1991
Attached for your review and comments is an application from the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority requesting rezoning from
Office to Affordable Housing zone district for the Kraut property.
Please return your comments to me no later than November 18, 1991.
Thanks
00
00
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920-5197
November 6, 1991
Dave Tolen
Aspen-Pitkin County Housing Authority
Re: Kraut Affordable Housing Project Map Amendment
Case A60-91
Dear Dave,
The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the
captioned application. We have determined that this application
is complete.
We have scheduled this application for review at a public hearing
by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, December
3, 1991 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. Should this date be
inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the
date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered
final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application
will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems.
All applications are now being scheduled for the Development Review
Committee. This case is scheduled for November 21st at 3:00 p.m.
A memo explaining the DRC is enclosed.
The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that
a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at
the Planning Office. Please note that it is your responsibility
to mailing notice to property owners within 300' and to post the
subject property with a sign. Please submit a photograph of the
posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of
mailing prior to the hearing.
If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner
assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan,
Office Manager
ATTACHMENT A
SUMMARY NOTES OF THE MARCH 5, 1992 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
1. Staff made a presentation regarding the rezoning and
development review process. In addition staff explained the
Affordable Housing Zone District concept with a brief history of
the purchase of the Kraut Property.
2. Staff explained the rezoning proposal and text amendment being
proposed for the March 17, 1992 Commission meeting.
3. Neighbor comments can be divided into 4 broad categories:
impacts to the neighborhood, rental vs. sale units, costs/need, and
specific uses.
a. Impacts: The corner of Hyman and Original is a very busy
corner. Service and delivery vehicles constantly double
parking in the street and at times blocks the alley. The
proximity to the commerical core and the Gondola have made
parking a severe problem and may be exacerbated by the
elimination of the existing private parking lot on the site.
Where will those cars go? It is questionable whether the
proposed development of the lot will be able to provide enough
parking to eliminate potential impacts in the area.
b. Rental vs. Sale Unit: The neighbors believe that rental
units will not be as well maintained as owner occupied units.
In addition, the concept of transient/rental units presents
potential safety issues.
C. Costs/Need: The neighbors posed several questions
regarding the financial capability to build the housing and/or
other uses. How much of the eventual development costs will
be further subsidized by the community? Will this development
lead to yet higher taxes? Is there enough money in the
various housing funds to build the affordable housing? What
about money for a parking garage?
Regarding the need for more housing the neighbors questioned
whether a demand exists for more affordable housing. There
are existing units sitting vacant. An employer was not
convinced that this new housing will fill his employees needs.
d. Specific Land Uses: Staff discussed the concept of a
mixed -use development on the parcel. The neighbors seemed to
overwhelmingly support a below -grade parking facility
(although ability to finance was in doubt). A parking garage
with a park on top was also widely supported. Commercial
space was discussed as a possible option but only if it was
higher end commercial/retail space or offices. A general
concern was that parking, residences and commerical space may
be too much jammed onto the site with the inability to
mitigate the impacts.
ATTACHMENT B '73; . /Y
,, �
13 a S. G4 le-n &
c f e,,,, . C6 516 i/ MAR 1 21992
�ep r yykS.
e : e- he2Jri�rtS OT T�� lau7` Cro/7P �7 kT i�fC CO�nPr J vhr�r/,c((
(Jfc,nded 4h, vnecA,' d� VLLlV1�0� rna,,k S /�2 -e!C .SeUtr4
nl°r Y1L ✓Y,'l� ��[d UO;LPl0 -NI lr CWIc Pr -or r R r�rn ��C QIOd�Cy
J
Owl UP- Con c P- rn *c �ha r builGl, n� a tJ��li b�c I?eic Sr �� area b }
�O✓v'kvAo cj(, (,iJr�l el4,cPl! f r 4t7e- a h/ llbeaPl/1ctPl/ �0 7�P
S r lu a eQ s r e �z 6 7` /7 r �saz . T!� 2 r e 4 r e v ct (t y J W h h
S i '' P �,PGf /r4 l 't cI f w vl
r� e s are �t /O� -/ lt.c a 1rtit, e 4 r/�
LA �po�p J� WiTN T�Pth VP�rc�PJ d tT (,f) �j �7 rteY' e-
it sr` C I a �rJ e rh 4tie /7 U/P3 � (aCrrl arrLr 7�e bGcillei j c',e' P4rP.r c
Qrr n of .r r o U n lI TD7 e r�LC o�S/ r/� J
(' J r e',
G✓ �� a s'L. � /�? d U�P s r 1 r, •• �'1 p •-
17J c,
VC
1 Vl e Tic e 4,4 f k e i, � �e
p�a �Pr s�.erfJ UQCQ//�x�t°i Ct'rl� �P('UeA-y �rrlc
..r�oell u hC( 7lle
Qh P�PSorG r0r 7�1C� Cr 0� Ale,,
e �u�f�s
ADSp ahli���taJ/n�. �raIUPUP�
llh aCTjrall��e �d` �!x ya�a<jLjr I �j�lOis c
1 s �U
a '0
ATTACHMENT C 4P
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DATE: November 15, 1991
RE: Kraut Affordable Housing Project Map Amendment
----------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Having reviewed the above application and having made a site visit,
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. There are 72 to 150 vehicles trips/day that the applicant states
could be generated by this development plus the 700 trips/day for
Hyman Avenue and 4,700 trips/day for Original Street which was
given in the Aspen Area comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element.
These volumes can be adequately accommodated by the 50 foot widths
of the these streets.
2. The applicant indicates that this development will generate a
resident population of approximately 53 persons and that current
public facilities are capable of accommodating the service demands
of the project and its residents. Although the Engineering
Department utility maps show that this location is served by all
utilities, the applicant still needs to furnish confirmation that
the existing water and sewer systems have sufficient capacity to
accommodate this project.
3. The applicant needs to agree to join a special improvement
district if one is ever formed.
4. The applicant needs to get an excavation permit from the Streets
Department and approval of design from the Engineering Department
for any work done in the public right-of-way.
jg/kraut
cc: Chuck Roth
C
0
C
Q1 4-
U 1
O
w
v
•r0 (3 N 0-1 -I I
[; N N N
D�
a
ro u ou a .0
O i-
N
N I N 14 ?I �l
,V •!I
-7-
N
D
o a
a t u z v v
C
CD
IMURR
E
J
W
cu
LO
n
C
I
O
cll
N
�
v
�
X
W
I—
AMINO ANNAMMA
0
0
x
ro
0 °
0
o
o u
:)
y CL
ul
ro •.1 .-I p .l
i pO, i i
o a
o �
wW
b qmq qw w v
L
w 7
44 ro
ul
cj)
a w
o a�
a z vo z uo u v
0 v
r�...
ERNE
z
W
W
� .• Mln�l�-�ItJ � ' 9n-ivv
�NM44-9144 Q1d1S v4VIW-ilo7)
7004-PI-Wo-t4j..4 os
Q
41
i
v—
et Go
COAIFS
REID &WAIDRON
Real Estate • Rentals • Property Management
January 6, 1992
Ms. Lesley LaMonte
City of Aspen
Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Lesley,
JNI 8199�
i
I have called you by phone and am following up with this letter to
express my concerns about the employee housing project planned by
the City of Aspen on the Kraut property at the corner of Hyman and
Original Streets. Our main office is located at 720 East Hyman,
across from the proposed project.
Here are my concerns:
Inadequate Plans
1. As I understand it, the City wants to rezone the Kraut
property without any specific plans backing lip the rezoning
request. Isn't it proper for a plan to accompany a rezoning
request so adjacent neighbors get an adequate chance to review
the impact of the rezoning and project on their property and
the neighborhood? Why not draw specific plans so that this
project's impact is well thought out and your neighbors can
understand the impact?
Lack of Notice
2. Nick Coates, the owner of our company is one of the owners of
the Aspen Athletic Club Building at 720 East Hyman, across the
street from the proposed project, and neither of us has
received notice of rezoning requests by the City for this
property. Mr. Coates is in and out of town often, therefore
I would like to be notified of any future meetings, hearings,
etc. c/o Coates, Reid and Waldron at 720 East Hyman.
3. Parking
I read about this project in the paper and I am concerned that
there has been a lack of adequate planning given to parking
and that the City will try to under plan for adequate parking.
I am concerned about the number of cars that already park in
this area that will be displaced, and that a high density
project, like the one proposed, would be very detrimental to
the area since it is already jammed with vehicles for workers,
skiers, guest check -ins, UPS trucks, Federal Express trucks
and other delivery vehicles, as well as patrons of the Aspen
Aspen Office • 720 East Hyman, Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (303) 925-1400 • FAX (303) 920-3765
Snowmass Office • Suite 113, Snowmass Center, Box 6450 • Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 • (303) 923-4700 • FAX (303) 923-4198
♦ M
Page Two
Lesley LaMonte
January 6, 1992
Athletic Club, etc. I am concerned that you are going to
repeat the mistakes that are in great evidence at the Marolt
property housing where there is inadequate parking for the
number of people who are living at the project. Tenants will
park 24 hours a day on the city street, making a bad parking
problem worse.
Unfair Height Allowance
4. As I understand it, the rezoning would allow an additional
five feet over current height restrictions. Why does it make
any difference if somebody is trying to look over a City
project at a beautiful mountain as opposed to a project built
by a private developer? Why should the City get any special
allowance? I am opposed to an additional five feet height
allowance.
5. Cost
As one of Pitkin county's largest employers we have always
supported employee housing but I really question whether this
site is large enough to accommodate the scope of housing and
retail space you want to put there. I also question whether
the need is there at this time to justify the cost so I
question the viability of this project as a City of Aspen
taxpayer. It seems that the City is forcing through an
expensive project which will burden taxpayers unduly.
I hope you will give me the opportunity to discuss this with you
and the other planning staff personally, and that you will give me
notice of the meetings so that I can attend to give my input.
Yours sincerely,
Michael L. Spalding
President
MLS:dd
CC. Todd Southward
Joe Krabacher
•
R O N A. 1_, n c. ' r
I7 T M F IN T S
March 13, 1992
MAR � r
Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Kraut Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
I own property and live across the street from the Kraut
property at 706 East Hyman. I am very concerned about the proposed
density for the Kraut project. I have been told that the project
satisfies the floor area requirements for either the office zone
(only if developed as 100% affordable housing) or the affordable
housing zone. I question whether it is necessary to maximize the
buildout of the Kraut site. The proposed Kraut development is
approximately triple the density of the homes existing in the
neighborhood. The single characteristic which sets Aspen apart as
a community is its character as a low -density mining town.
,most sincerely,
nal�
6500 Rock Spring Drive 0 Suite 302 0 Bethesda, Maryland 20817 • (301) 493-5800 • FAX (301) 530-1582
Housing Authority
hL City of Aspen/Pitkin County
39551 Highway 82
Aspen, Colorado 81 61 1
(303) 920-5050
Fax: (303) 920-5580
17 March, 1992
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Department
180 south Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Affidavit of Public Notice
Kraut Affordable Housing Project Map Amendment
Dear Ms. Lamont
The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, as applicant for the
above referenced matter, hereby certifies that a Notice of Public
Hearing was mailed to property owners within a 300 foot radius of
the property on February 27. 1992.
Sig ;
7eT o 1 e
Project Manager
SUBSCRIBED, CERTIFIED AND SWORN To me in the Cityof Aspen and
Piton County, State of Colorado this � day of
1392, by Dave Tolen
My CO' ' ission Expires �a!r:
Notary Public
so N
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FOR REZONING LOTS E, F, G, H AND I, BLOCK
105, KNOWN AS THE KRAUT PROPERTY, FROM OFFICE ZONE DISTRICT
TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, March 17, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission, 2nd floor Meeting Room, 130
South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
submitted -by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority requesting
approval of an Amendment to the Official Zone District Map of the
City of Aspen. The applicant proposes to amend the zone district
for Lots E, F, G, H, and I, Block 105, City and Townsite of Aspen,
located at the southwest corner of East Hyman and Original Street,
from Office to Affordable Housing in order to develop a multi-
family affordable housing complex. The Affordable Housing Zone
permits residential affordable housing, home occupations and
accessory buildings and uses. See Section 24-5-206.2 of the Aspen
Municipal Code. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at
the Aspen/ Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO
920-5090.
s/Jasmine Tygre, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on February 26, 1992.
City of Aspen Account
ti�
4P M
c
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
DATE: February 4, 1992
RE: Kraut Property Worksession
INTRODUCTION: At the December 17, 1992 meeting the Commission
tabled the rezoning (from Office to Affordable Housing) application
for this parcel pending a worksession with staff and Council
members to review the rezoning/development alternatives for this
site.
The 1987 Transportation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan identified this block as one of three primary sites for an
off-street parking facility. The other two were the Rio Grande
site and Wagner Park. The report identifies this site as a likely
candidate because the site takes advantage of existing traffic
patterns of Main/Original and Highway 82 and could :help to reduce
traffic circulation around the pedestrian mall, Rubey Park and
especially Durant Avenue. The site is located next to neighborhood
commercial centers, could serve as a summer intercept lot for
traffic from the east and of the sites surveyed, is closest to the
Gondola.
The 1992 Draft Aspen Area Community Plan also identifies the Kraut
parcel for higher density housing, a below grade parking structure
consistent with the 1987 Transportation Plan, and rezoning to
Neighborhood Commercial to expand the NC zone district.
For this worksession, staff has prepared an outline of the
alternatives that may be considered for this site. Dave Tolan of
the Housing Authority is also preparing an analysis of the site.
The purpose of his review is to approximate the number of housing
units that may be accommodated within a mixed use development.
Dave will present his findings at the worksession.
The development alternatives consider a project that consists of
affordable housing, parking and commerical elements on the
property. A scenario that could be envisioned is a three story
building with second and third floor housing, first floor local
commercial space, and a below grade parking garage.
Although this memo considers a parking garage, no developer has
approached the City or been selected to construct a garage or
commercial net leasable space on this parcel. This worksession is
intended to guide the staff, City Council and Housing Authority
toward a mixed use project that will potentially be put out to bid
for ultimate development.
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS:
o . 1. Rezone property to AH and amend the AH zone district to allow
a % of commercial space with permitted and conditional uses similar
to the Neighborhood Commercial zone district (but to include a
parking garage). However, modification of those uses is necessary
to ensure that the intended commercial uses are locally oriented
by nature.
The primary development incentive in the AH zone district is the
ability of the private sector to build free market housing without
going through a Growth Management Competition. An amendment to the
AH zone district to allow a commercial element could consider a
similar arrangement: free market commercial development, without
GMP, combined with an affordable housing element. Dimensional
requirements for commercial space could be consistent with original
underlying commercial zoning.
Pros: AH zone district has already set up the language in the Land
Use Code that exempts free market development from GMQS; free
market commercial, without GMQS, would subsidize the affordable
housing element; allows a mixed use development with more
flexibility than other zone districts.
Cons: Unless zoning policy were to shift and neighborhood
commerical nodes were to be encouraged throughout the community,
a mixed AH zone of commercial and housing may only be appropriate
in commercial/office zone districts; deriving the effective mix of
commercial space vs. affordable units would be very difficult (the
current 70%/30% mix in the AH zone took quite awhile to develop);
specific to the Kraut property - adjacent landowners were critical
toward any rezoning of the land.
i
2. Maintain existing Office zoning. Om �)
0 Pros: Office zoning allows 100% affordable housing at the same
density as the AH zone; a commercial parking lot is a conditional
C� use in the Office zone; no open space is required in the Office
zone; adjacent property owners have suggested retaining the Office
zoning.
Cons: The Office zone does not allow commercial/retail uses unless
in a historic landmark; the Office zone does not allow the parking
flexibility that the AH zone allows (may not be an issue if a
parking garage is considered).
(� 3. Rezone property to AH and add a Specially Planned Area (SPA)
a � overlay. The purpose of the SPA overlay is to establish a
procedure by which multiple uses can be planned and redeveloped for
the greatest public benefit. The underlying zone district serves
as the guide for development of the land.
2
Pros: An SPA will enable a mixed -use development with the
underlying zoning as a guide; SPA provides land use and design
flexibility; a parking garage may be considered an essential public
facility and exempt from GMQS (which is an option in all these
alternatives); SPA may be an effective procedure for the
redevelopment of the entire block.
Cons: SPA will not exempt commercial square footage from GMQS;
SPA is less precise regarding land uses, dimensional requirements
etc. than the AH zone and may cause additional problems with the
adjacent landowners.
Maintain Office zone with an SPA overlay.
Pros: Retaining the office zone may eliminate one of the
complaints from adjacent neighbors regarding rezoning to AH; a
parking garage is a conditional use in the office zone; the
considerations in number 3 apply to this scenario also.
Cons: Developing commercial/retail space would not be exempt from
GMQS in the Office zone; the considerations in number 3 apply to
this scenario also.
5. Rezone property to AH, amend AH zone district to allow a public
t parking garage.
Pros: A parking garage may be deemed an essential public service
exempt from GMQS.
Cons: This scenario does not include commercial/retail space;
maintaining the office zoning accomplishes the same goal and
eliminates some of the complaints from the neighbors.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission discuss the
goals and vision of this parcel given the past reviews of the
parcel. Staff also recommends that the Commission consider the
above alternatives and guide staff toward an appropriate land use
proposal for the Kraut property and perhaps pursue amendments to
the AH zone district.
3