HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Ulrych 715 E Hopkins.1982 ,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ' 100 Leaves
°=~ "^ o=""R.^
ORDINANCE 00. 33
(Series of 1982 )
,
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 00. 79 , SERIES OF 1981 , TO
ESTABLISH 1982 QUALIFICATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR LOW, MODERATE AND
MIDDLE INCOME OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS
^
WHEREAS, within the provisions of Section 24- 11 . 4 ( b) ( 4 ) ( aa )
of the Municipal Code of the City of 7\sDeu" as amended, housing
'
income-eligibility guidelines and housing l/zioe guidelines are to
. be established by the City Council , and
`
WHEREAS , pursuant to Ordinance 0n. 79 , Series of 1981 / the
City Council established employee housing income-eligibility
guidelines and housing price guidelines for the year 1983 , and '
WHEREAS, for the purpose of establishing uniform employee
housing income-eligibility guidelines and housing price guidelines
for both the City and County and in anticipation of the creation
of a joint City/County Housing Office, the City Council desires to
amend Ordinance 0m. 79 , Series of 1981 , for the pocEmoe of re-
establishing the guidelines as set forth below:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That Section 1 of Ordinance No. 79 , Series of 1981 ^ is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Section l
That the tolInvviog shall constitute the City of Aspen ' s 1982
employee housing income-eligibility guidelines for low, moderate
and middle income employee housing units located within the City
of Aspen: ~
1 . Personal income shall not exceed the following maximum
combined ( family) household income per year ( less alimony and
child support puymeota paid) .
' .
.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 10 C.F.MOEWL B.B.N L.CO.
INCOME RANGE LOW MODERATE MIDDLE
Studio 0 - 10, 00 9 , 250 - 14 , 700 13, 600 - 29 , 400
1 Bedroom 0 - 14 , 350 13, 275 - 22, 050 20 , 400 - 33, 520
2 Bedroom 0 - 21 , 170 19, 585 - 29 ,400 1 r:27 , 200 51 , 750
3 or 4 Bedroom 0 - 25, 580 23, 665 - 38 , 520 35, 630 - 68 , 720
2. Applicants of 55 years of age or older shall be reviewed
according to the current income and residency guidelines for
senior citizens adopted annually by the City Council .
3. Household assets shall not exceed 1500 of the purchase
price of the unit. Assets shall include all fixed and liquid
assets , excluding personal effects . Assets shall include all
professional and business equity for both self-employed persons
and investors. If there remain unsold units within a project , the
150% asset maximum may be increased by 25% increments not to
exceed 200% of sale price until all units are sold .
4. All persons shall be residents and employees in Pitkin
County and shall receive priority according to the following
schedule:
A. Employee-Owned Units :
( a) Residents of five ( 5) or more years with a
minimum occupancy of one resident per bed-
room.
(b) Two (2) to five ( 5) years residency with mini-
mum occupancy.
( c) Two (2) or more years of residency without
minimum occupancy.
( d) Fewer than two (2) years of residency with
minimum occupancy.
2
i
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
C.F.lI FrK FL B.B.A L.C:1.
B. Employer-Owned Units:
In the event units are employer owned, persons
employed directly by the owners shall be given
first priority in accordance with the schedule con-
° tained in subparagraph "A" hereinabove. In the
event there are no persons directly employed by the
owner who qualify or are available, then the unit
shall be offered to such other qualified residents
and employees in accordance with the schedule con-
tained in subparagraph "A" hereinabove.
If there remain unsold units within a project , the two year
period may be reduced by six (6 ) month intervals until all units
are sold. For the purpose of this section, minimum occupancy is
defined as one person (with an ownership interest , or party to a
lease if a rental project) per bedroom, and maximum occupancy is
defined as not exceeding two persons (each with an ownership
interest, or party to lease if a rental project) per bedroom. The
minor children of a person with an ownership interest (or party to
a lease if a rental project) is granted the same status as his or
her parent for the purposes of this section .
For the purpose of assigning priority, the highest number of
years of residency held by a spouse, any person acquiring an
ownership interest, or signing a lease ( if a rental project ) will
determine into which category the applicants will be assigned.
The period of residency need not be continuous and need not
be immediately prior to the date of application .
5. Persons who work in the County full time but live out-
side the County shall be considered residents .
6. All persons shall be full time employees from the date
of occupancy; provided that this requirement shall. not apply to
spouses (and intended spouses) of current owners and persons
fifty-five (55) years of age or older.
3
f
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
iGRM'o C.F.H1)EC✓EL 9.6.F 1,LL).
7 . The :Following shall have preference and enjoy such in
the following priority:
(a) Persons with an ownership interest ( joint or ten-
ants in common) in the unit provided that they have
lived in the unit for at least one ( 1 ) year prior
to conveyance. This section shall not apply when
_. the sale of one owner ' s interest to another is an
exempt transfer under the resale agreement. The
purchase price for this interest must be equal to
or greater than all other bids offered (but not
exceeding the maximum appreciation ) .
(b) Person(s) chosen by the remaining owner( s) to pur-
chase the interest of another owner provided that
he (they) make a bid equal to or greater than all
other bids received (not exceeding the maximum
appreciation) and all owners ( subsequent to sale )
will meet all current qualifications for a house-
hold.
( c) Spouses and intended spouses of current owners .
(Assurances may be required of an intended ;�a.rriage
and require the intended spouse to relinquish his
or her interest in a unit if the marriage does not
occur. )
( d) Any owners of housing under a County Resale Agree-
ment specifically giving the owner a priority over
other applicants for employee housing units within
the City.
(e) Those applicants who have been tenants on the site
of a new employee housing project and shall be dis-
placed due to the construction of the new project
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM`.0 C.F.1IOEr K'l.B.B.q L.C1.
or the conversion of an existing project , provided
that:
1 ) The tenants have lived on the site or in the
units for a minimum of six ( 6) months before
the starting date of construction, conversion ,
or approval for conversion;
2 ) The tenants meet all other qualifications per-
taining to the project.
8 . Debt/income ratios , including all liabilities , shall be
as follows:
31-34% of total income allocated for servicing Dousing
debt and related obligations ,
38%-41 % total income for all serviceable debt and obli-
gations which includes current obligations added to loan
liability for the purpose of calculating and adjusting
the Minimum Required Household Income (M. R.H . I . ) .
9. Unless specifically exempted by these guidelines, all
persons having an ownership interest shall meet these qualifica-
tions and all units shall be owner-occupied. Joint tenancy and
tenancy in common shall be permitted with other forms of joint
ownership permitted only on special review of the City of Aspen .
10. All transactions regarding the conveyance of any of
these types of unit shall be subject to the Resale Agreement.
11 . For the purpose of applying these guidelines :
( a) Assets and equity shall be defined in accordance
with Federal Tax regulations concerning property,
bonds, interest, etc. Income is Adjusted Gross
Income as defined in Internal Revenue Service
( I.R.S. ) regulations .
( b) Proof of residency and employment shall consist
of:
5
I
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORT.•.0 C.F.If fl f NFL D.R.H 1.C).
( 1 ) Employee verification - (W-2 income, Federal
Tax return forms 1040/1040A for financial
information) .
( 2) Employer verification.
( 3) Landlord verification (proof of residency,
physical address) .
( 4 ) *Valid `Colorado Driver ' s License (address ,
issue date) .
( 5) *Post Office Box.
( 6 ) *Telephone (date of installation, person
listed to) .
( 7 ) *Vehicle insurance and registration .
(8 ) *Voter registration.
( c) Employment and residency shall be averaged for a
minimum requirement of nine ( 9 ) months employment
and residency. (Thirty ( 30 ) hours per week divided
by forty (40) hours/full time week - 75%; 12 months
x 75% = 9 months) .
(d ) Applicants shall be reviewed according to the fol-
lowing financial criteria:
( 1 ) Applicant must provide two (2 ) years of
Federal tax returns and income statement and
balance sheet .
( 2 ) No greater than a 20`s discrepancy will be
accepted between income reported on tax
returns and current income statement , without
thorough documentation of the discrepancy due
to wage increase , change in positions , etc.
( 3) Co-signors will be approved for ownership pro-
jects provided that the co-signor is either
related to the purchaser or is an employer of
6
i
RECORD Or PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM*0 C.F.110FCx FI.R.B.A L.CO.
the purchaser and is not liable for more than
twenty percent ( 20% ) of the monthly payments
required to amortize the mortgage.
*Optional methods . "
Section 2
That Section 2 of Ordinance No. 79 , Series of 1981 , is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Section 2
The following shall constitute the City of Aspen ' s employee
housing price guidelines for sale and rental of low, moderate and
middle income employee housing units located within the City of
Aspen:
INCOME RANGE LOW MODERATE MIDDLE
Studio 0 - 10, 000 9 ,250 - 14 , 700 13 , 600 - 29 , 400
1 Bedroom 0 - 14 , 350 13, 275 - 22 , 050 20 , 400 - 33 , 520
2 Bedroom 0 - 21 , 170 19 , 585 - 29 , 400 23, 665 - 38 , 520
3 or 4 Bed r�oo 80 23, 665 - 38, 520 35 , 630 - 68 , 720
Constructed Units
(Allowed price
per square foot)
LOW MODERATE MIDDLE
Sales 1' 2 $58 . 00 $72. 00 $87 . 00
Rental T, 4 ' 5_ . 55 .65 .,82
MINIMUM/MAXIMUM SQUARE FEET:
Studios: 300-600 Sa . Ft .
1 Bedroom: 500-899 Sq.Ft .
2 Bedroom: 700- 1100 Sq .Ft. _
3 and 4 Bedroom: 1000- 1300 Sg.Ft .
NOTES:
1 and 3
Square foot allowance is calculated on living area only
( interior measurement) . Rental rates rounded to nearest Z5.
Sales prices rounded to nearest $ 100 .
7
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM 10 C.F.Ho[f.KFI O.R.R L.CO.
2Allowable price per square foot is calculated at 13% inter-
est amortizing for 30 years with 10% down. If 13% financing
with 10% down is not provided the price per square foot will
be adjusted to reflect appropriate affordability. The aver-
age income to each category for each size unit will be used
to determine affordability.
4Rental prices include all common utilities .
5The rental rates which may be charged for a project is the
rate in effect at the time of general submission approval . "
Section 3
That Ordinance No. 79 , Series of 1981 , is hereby amended by
adding a Section 3, which section shall read as follows :
"Section 3
All employee housing units constructed and operated as 100%
employee housing without any attached free market or commercial
development , are exempt from the housing price guidelines . The
establishment of sales and rental prices will be done on a case by
case basis , and must be reviewed and approved by the City Council .
Requests for establishment or increases in sales or rental prices
must be supported by documentation indicating economic justifica-
tion for such request. "
Section 4
That Section 4 of Ordinance No. 79 , Series of 1981 , is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Section 4
The employee housing income-eligibility guidelines and hous-
ing price guidelines set forth above shall apply to all units deed
restricted to employee housing units after December 28 , 1981 . All
employee housing units approved prior to December 28 , 1981 , shall
be allowed to adjust their rental rates and/or sales prices con-
sistent with the guidelines contained in this ordinance and con-
sistent with any subsequent guidelines adopted by the City of
Aspen, provided, however_ , that in no case shall any previously
8
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM•.0 C.F.NOFCKFL R.D.8 L.
t
deed restricted employee unit be required to reduce its rental
e
rate or sales price in the event said guidelines are decreased. "
" f
Section 5
That Ordinance No. 79, Series of 1981 , is hereby amended by
adding a new section 4-a, which shall read as follows:
I
"Section 4-a
i
The guidelines established above shall remain in force and
effect until such time as they are amended or superseded by
Ordinance of the City Council . "
Section 6
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
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 7
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the _
day of 1982, at 5: 00 P.M. in
the City Council dambers, Aspen City Mall , Aspen, Colorado .
i
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
�_ __ ► 1982 .
{
Herman Edel, Mayor
ATTEST:
t
i
i
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
• E
I
i
I
e
9
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
P.H0! KE1.B.B.a 1..CO.
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of
1982.
Herman Edell,MayorJ���
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
i
1
e
I
r
1
(t
jj
i
f
10
E
i
t
i
public notice
irycb Wining to Density Bonus
r
mSPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE NOTICEIS. ABYGIVEN that there
will be a public hearing before the Aspen
130 South Galena Street Plannmgand Zoning Commission onlhes-
day,October 7,1980,at a ing to bezin
Aspen,Colorado 81611 at5WPMinCityCounci1CChhambsrs,$nd
floor,City Hall,130 8 Galena,Aspen,to
cansiderfi a applicationsubmit itte by Andre
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES Ea�Skopkm0II8�°Pa llnusOatay-
apkins to"Density Benue Overlay"
County family wiildi�ng made up 50%restricted
00100 — 63711 09009 —00000 Subdivision/PUD �tect�thepp�*F��,ISOSGaena,
fanning Offioe,190 S Galena,
63712 Special Review Aspen,92b-2020,°rt29 a/OlofHodstrom
63713 P&Z Review Only P Chairman
Aspen fanning and Zoning Commission
63714 Detailed Review Published m the Aspen Times September
18,1980
63715 Final Plat P,44- 9 Sepr. /B, /98o CITY OF ASPv,N
63716 Special Approval
63717 Specially Assigned
City MEMO FROM JOLENE VRCHOTA
00100 — 63721 09009 —00000 Conceptual Application
63722 Preliminary Application
63723 Final Application
63724 Exemption
63725 Rezoning C ��
63726 Conditional Use
PLANNING OFFICE SALES n
00100 — 63061 09009 —00000 County Land Use Sales � �---�—
63062 GMP Sales
f �
63063 Almanac Sales v 4-5-�� ) ��
Copy Fees r� L
Other
Name: , ''� Project:
Address: Phone:
Check No. Date:
Receipt No. P A' 4 4
i
N
CITY OF ASPEN
MEMO FROM JOLENE VRCHOTA
kspen/Pit ning Office
130s street
aspen,
p 81611
4
t
1
w.
Jack Ilgen
Box 195
Aspen, CO 81612
'.spen/eitk` ning Office
130s street ! ie,r �*
4f
aspen 81611,
Jon E. Chapman.
Box 10059
Aspen, Colorado 81612
U
Aspen/Pitki, lanning Office
a street
130 sot �b a _
aspen 81611
Rosemary Krans
Box 8589
Aspen, Col 81612
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
RE: Ulrych Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning and Other Requests
DATE: September 10, 1980
Location: 715 East Hopkins St. (Lots C and D, Block 104, Aspen)
Zoning: 0-Office
Background; The subject lots currently have a single-family house and
a small dome structure. The applicant proposes to remove
the existing structures and to construct a free market duplex
conforming to present zoning, plus three price-restricted
(moderate) studios. See attached application. Exception
,-to Growth Management allocation provisions for employee units
f' is permitted (Section 24-10.2(h)) . The. duplex is allowed.
approvals are being Approval_, The following app requested simultaneously:q
.Requested:
1. Subdivision exception (waive conceptual approval before
City Council and preliminary plat before P & Z) because
subdivision is required for multi-family dwellings, but
this_ land is already developed, so the granting of an
exception will not e e r7mental to the public welfare.
(Section 20-19 -- P & Z decision to except, P & Z recom-
mendation to City Council )
2. Subdivision exception for condcminiumization. (Section
20-22, P & Z recommendation to City Council . )
3. Special review to consider the appropriateness of the
proposed employee units in terms of number, rental/sale
rates, massing of building, etc. (Section 24-10.2(h) ,
P & Z recommendation to City Council . )
4. Rezoning to 0-Office/Residential Bonus Overlay (RBO) zone
to allow an increase in density when at least 50 percent
of units are price restricted. (P & Z recommendation;
first and second reading before City Council . )
Attorney's If the subdivision exception for condominiumization is
Comments: granted, approval should be conditioned upon the applicant
restricting each unit to six-month minimum leases with no
more than two shorter tenancies in a calendar year (Section
20-22)-
Housing "The Housing Office is supportive of this rezoning application
Director's and would recommend moderate sale and rental pace guide-
Comments: lines be applied to the proposed studio units."
City Water Dept. Water could be made available to the project from a six-
Comments: inch main upon application and payment of the necessary
-tap and investment fees. I see no impediment to providing
service, since the location of the tap would be west of
the Original Street interconnection. (The main dead ends
east of Main Street and requires improvements. )
Y
i
Memo: Ulrych Rezon-t to RBO
September 10, 1980
Page Two
i
Engineering Dept. See attached memoradum dated September 4, 1980. Note
Coiunents: concerns on open .space and bulk. Engineering Department
recommends an exception from full subdivision with approval
of an amended sketch accepted as a conceptual plan.
It also recommends approval of the Rezoning provided that
requirements listed in the memo are met. (Only nine parking
spaces are required. )
Subdivision Exception from full subdivision is recommended by the
Exception and Engineering and Planning Office because the parcel of land
Condominiumi- in question is on developed townsite lots. However,
zation:- approval should be conditioned on meeting the Engineering
Department's requirements.
Further, condominiumization approval is recommended
through the exception process (if all five units are approved)
subject to the filing of a condominiumization plat meeting the
Engineering Department' s approval and deed restriction of all
units to six-month minimum lease restrictions (Section 20-22) .
Special Review Employee housing special review (Section 24-10.2(h)) includes
Considerations: determination of community need considering, but- not limited
to, the number of units to be constructed, the type of units,
t- and the rental/sale mix of the development." (The Housing
Office has determined that the proposal is needed and appro-
priate. )
Rezoning: Ordinance 16(1980) facilitates employee housing by allowing
multi-family residential use with increased density in an
overlay zone. Approval of such increased density is dis-
cretionary and examined on a case-by-case basis. The fol-
lowing considerations are included:
1. The project must be solely residential .
2. Sites have to meet the minimum lot area required in the
underlying district. (This is a 6,000 square foot lot
in the 0-Office zone. )
3. Lot area per dwelling unit may be reduced when one-half
or more of the units are price restricted.
z t.: 1,500 sq.ft./unit in the duplex x 2 = 3,000 sq.ft.
500 sq.ft. per employee studio x 3 = 1,500 sq.ft.
Lot area required = 4,500 sq.ft.
4. Lot width, fronYside/rear yard setbacks and height are
to be the same for new structures as required in the
underlying zone. (According to the Engineering Depart-
ment, the proposed fire escape intrudes into the five-
foot side yard setback: The 28 foot height is the
maximum allowed. )
5. External Floor Area Ratio in the 0-Office zone will be
increased from .75:1 to 1:1 when more than half of the
units are price restricted. (The application is for
: j 5,87.1 square feet on a 6,000 s.quare foot lot. )
6. An application for RBO must be accompanied by a site
plan including requirements of Section 24-8.7(d) and (e)
of the PUD requirements. PUD is intended to encourage
flexibility in development while preserving open space
and maintaining appropriate bulk of buildings. (The pro-
posed site plan includes minimal open space, and the
building is designed to use its building envelope to the
maximum. )
rMemo: Ulrych Rezoning to RQO
September 10, 1980 ,
Page Three
Review criteria generally require that the proposed
development is "appropriate for the neighborhood con-
sidering architectural design, bulk and density." Appli-
cations which meet the following specific concerns are
preferred:
1. Compliance with any adopted housing plan.
The Housing Task Force made several reconunendations with
which this application complies. It provides three studio
units (450 to 500 square feet) in the moderate category.
Further, it disperses them in a small project which is
close to central Aspen, and has easy access to utilities
and public transit.
2. Compatibility with surrounding land uses.
While the proposed structure itself fully uses its
building envelope, it is in an area with numerous large
office and multi-family residential buildings in all
directions. On the same block, several single-family
houses have been expanded to multi-family.
3. Compatibility with underlying zoning.
The project meets all area and bulk requirements for the
O-Office zone (including parking, where nine 'spaces
are required) except that the fire escape intrudes on
the five-foot setback.
4. Compliance with the intent of PUD.
! On a small lot where full coverage in proposed, no
provision for clustering or provision of open space
can be made. _..
Planning Office
Recommendation: By right, the applicant would be allowed to build the
proposed duplex.. Under the Residential Bonus Overlay,
the- community gains three employee units. While the bulk
of the building is maximized, it could be built as is
without the three units. The Planning Office feels that
this is an appropriate location for such a proposal
in a developed area with comparably large structure already ex-
isting -- and that it meets the intent and most requirements
of the new overlay zone. Therefore, the following recom-
mendations are made:
Approval of subdivision exception (waiving conceptual
approval before City Council and preliminary plat
before P & Z�ubject to:
a. The applicant designing the structure so that it
does not protrude into the side yard setback.
b, The applicant meeting the requirements for completion
f of plans and final plat subject to approval by the
Engineering Department J Section C. of the Engineering
Department memo). s -.
2. Approva"1 of subdivision exception for the purpose of
condominiumization conditioned on:
a. Six-month lease restrictions on all units according
to Section 20-22.
b. Completion to the approval of the Engineering Department
and recordation of a condominiumization plat prior
to sale of units.
3. Special review approval of the three studio units to be deed
restricted under the City's moderate income price guidelines.
4. Approval of rezoning from O-Office to 0/RBO, conditioned
on all area and bulk requirements of the 0-Office zone
being met.
-7is
his is a request to rezone WD Hopkins St better known as Dots C & D
Block 104 Aspen Co from Office zone to Office Residential Bonus. I
would like to construct a free market duplex building of approx.
4500 so. ft on lot consisting of 6000 sa ft. This is conforming to
present zoning. I would also like to construct three studios rent
restricted employee units for a total of 1500 sv ft.
Total building F.A.R.i would be 1 : 1 with entire 1500 .sv ft bonus used up
for employee housing. Studios to be rented in the moderate price range
per housing director' s recomendations.
Enclosed please find plan and elevation of proposed building showing three
studios totaling approximately 1500 sw ft inclusive of mechanical
areas. Each duplex to have two stall 'gar_ggs three bedrooms and three
baths, living room, kitchen and dining area and a study with a' n add-
itional bath to serve the third floor, Duplex not to exceed 4500 so
ft living area.
The proposed building is to be primarely frame with a masonary dividing
wall between the duplexes. Ceder stained siding. Design has passive solar
features with most glass areas facing south. I have built various
projects in the Aspen area .over the last 13 years. La5t project was
the present Andre' s Restaurant Building and the new Eagles Club Building.
A L
Andre Ulrych
Box 2202
Aspen Co. 81611
925-7790 925-1133
. 4
' t
i
r
i
r , 1
CITY Our ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen , color ado,A 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office-
DATE: .9eptember 4 , 1980
RE: Ulrych Rezoning and Subdivision Exemption, Lots c
and d, Block 104 , O.A.T.
Having reviewed the above application for subdivision
exemption and- rezoning and made a site inspection, the Engin-
eering Department . has the following comments:
In terms of the request for rezoning from Office to
Office with Residential FAR Bonus, the following requirements
must be met:
A. Under section 24-11. 5 the application to rezone must
be accompanied by the names and addresses of all
owners within 300- feet.
B. To meet the requirements of Ordinance 16 , the
following additional information is required:
1. Parking must meet the normal requirements
of section 24-4 . 5 of one space per bedroom hiK�
which would be 11 spaces . The eleventh bec{roou,s,
space as shown on the conceptual plan is JV
an improper configuration.
2. The fire escape shown on the east side of
the structure cannot protrude into the
setback as shown.
3. Under section 24-10 . 9 of Ordinance 16 ,
the proposed structure does not meet
the following requirements :
a) Bulk and density due to the above
mentioned setback problems .
j .
1
2
b) The requirements of PUD in terms of
open space and reduced area and bulk.
C. As an application requiring treatment as a full
subdivision, the Engineering Department recommends
an Exception from full subdivision for which the
existing sketch should be accepted as a conceptual
plan with the following deficiencies:
1. The plan lacks a 400 scale location map.
2. Existing structures and conditions on the
lot should be shown.
3. There shall be a disclosure of ownership
with the application in the form of title
insurance or an attorney' s certificate.
4 . Prior to construction of the proposed
units, the owner/applicant shall submit
a set of construction plans for review
by this office and subsequent revisions
as required. Following construction
according to the approved plans , the
owner/applicant shall submit a final
plat for recording.
The Engineering Department recommends approval of the
Ulrych Rezoning/Exception providing the above requirements
can be met.
4
i
f
t
i
•
• 1 �
{ t
.lt
i
i
F
rf
�\v� f
s ,
J
I /P
1
t j
a
44-1
� � ) Y
4�1
Cf
(7)C)t
a.
60 1AJD' ETC 7t�
L('e-
-77-0
Ze-
14-—
4 -7
V',Ile NJ.
4C 50�
�io
Cl-
Ij y
1,
cl,
14-1 4.
i/V 3 7 '
A,
lie,
-76
4%.
6 31
- � 9[..L 77 2-
c_ $ 28 ~ 27 — --- —
KSNO •� L rr, fi j ✓ + ` Al
' 620
600 6241632
I 8 3 0 � =98,
916 �
-- .-
y ~ \ ,A E.
701 71.5 7 1 9 7� ,729 ( 8 G 9 ----
�641 623 G
KO 1 9Ofi iI 15 f j5-5
_ 99✓ (j4 _�__ -1-1_ v1
—1l—T — j1 07
,02 , o ! s 16 �� G20
i
720.
L-j 1_� ML 6 3 8. 71 6 N -, -
Ics2 8 26 2 826 906 Cz 98 o
J
AVE.
E.
7 1 9 801 $ ( g 8 3 1
� � 901 923 c
L7 0
FC]7
0
f Z. �+ L
Qf
'--11 610 1 720 730 732
. 650 _ p j
i 2
602 _
kO::2]
8 16 8 2 2
04
ANDRE ULRYCH 715 E HOPKINS STREET BLOCK 104 LOTS C & D. . , ,', . , , .
PROPERTY 300 ft near above. . . .
99.E Leslie Jean Smith Box 1645 Aspen
99.F Jon E. Chapman Box 10059 Aspen
99.G "
99.H W.R. Walton Box 665, Aspen
99. I 11 if
99R Jack Crandall Box 1066 Aspen
99. S
98.K Oats, Austin, Mc Graph Box 1709 Aspen
98. S Hopkins Sit Ventures Box 166 Aspen
98.R if "
98Q Grace Condon 624 E. Hopkins Aspen
104.A Mary Babe Box 254 Aspen
104.B "
104.E Theodore Oki 1560 Wilson, San Marino Ca. 91108
i
104. G Daryl Burns 649 So. Monroe Denver Co 80209
104.H " 1
104. I Jack Ilgen Box-145 Aspen
104.K Leo Rowland Box 502 Aspen
104,LMN
04.0 T. Koutsoubas Box 9064 Aspen
A.P " "
4.Q Aspen Athletic 720 E Hyman Aspen (R, S )
ANDRE ULRYCH PAGE II
105.A B C D.', Hannoh Dustin Bjox 2238 Aspen
105 E F G H I Waukesha BLOCK INC.` 10919 W. Bluemond Rd
Milwaukee Wis 53220
DgADLOND PVDLI&HW6 CO., DENVER R E C O R D OF P R O C E E D I N G S
ORDINANCE 140. 5
( Series of 1980)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIIE Z014ING DISTRICT MAP OF TIIE- CITY
OF ASPE14 COLORADO SEC. 24-2. 2 BY CHANGING TIIE Z01II14G OF
LOTS C AND D, BLOCK, 104 , CITY AND TOWI4SITE OF ASPEN , FROM
O-OFFICE TO O-OFFICE/RD
WHEREAS , the Aspen City Council has been presented with a
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission to amend
Section 24-2. 2 of the Municipal Code , and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt the same for the
benefit of the City of Aspen,
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT ORDAII4ED BY TIIE CITY COUI4CIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
Section 24-2. 2 ( Zoning District Map) is hereby amended by
changing the zoning in the following described area from O-Office
to O-Office/RB:
Lots C and D, Block 104
City and Townsite of Aspen ,
Pitkin County, Colorado
subject to the following conditions:
1. The provision of nine on-site parking spaces ; the
arrangement of which is to be approved by the Engineer-
ing Department,
2. The provision and deed restriction of three approximate-
ly 500 sq. ft. stuio, moderate income employee units for
a period of fifty ( 50 ) years, said restriction to be
executed prior to the issuance of a building perwit;
3. Deed restriction of the three 500. sq. ft. employee units
to six-month minimum rentals pursuant to Section 24-
3. 7(o) ( 1) of the Aspen Municipal Code.
4 . Compliance with all applicable area and bulk require-
ments of the O-Office zone district.
rrt
6
q
3
, 1
I
iA/1A DFORD►UDLIS NING CO.,DENVCR
R E C O R D O E P R O C E E D I N G S
Section 2
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereon
to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity
shall not affect other provisions or application of the ordinance
which can be given effect without the invalid provision or appli-
cation and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are
declared to be severable.
Section 3
That a, pubiic hearing be held on this ordinance on the
day of 1980, at 5 : 00 P.M. in
the City Council Chambers Aspen City Hall , Aspen , Colorado, 15
days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published
once 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, Colorado, at its regular
meeting held at the -.City of Aspen on _
1980.
FIerman Edel
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch
City Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved on the day of
1980.
Herman Edel
Mayor
ATTEST:
t
Ka hryn�S. Koch
City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
RE: Ulrych Rezoning (second reading) and Other Requests
DATE: November 18, 1980
APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR CITY COUNCIL:
City Council approved first reading for e oning from 0 ffice to 0-Office/
RB Residential Bonus Overlay for Lots C d D, Block 10 , Aspen Townsite on
October 27, 1980. The full application request was not fully discussed at
that time, so will be reviewed on November 24. The attached memo from the
Planning Office to P&Z reviews all of the applicant's requests.
The Planning & Zoning Commission considered the Ulrych requests on October 21st.
The members asked the Planning Office to draft a resolution explaining their
decision to recommend approvals. The attached Resolution #80-14 was formally
adopted on November 4, 1980. They wish to stress that, while there were
negative comments from neighbors, the application is an appropriate use of
Ordinance 16 considering bonuses allowed above exisitng zoning (density,
bulk).
Suggested City
Council Motions: 1. Move to read Ordinance No. 56 (Series of 1980) on
second reading.
2. Move to approve the following for Lots C and D, Block 104,
Aspen Townsite:
(a) Ordinance No. 56 (Series of 1980) for the rezoning
from 0-Office to O-Office/RB with amendments:
(1 ) to be consistent with previously-used defini-
tion of perpetuity for restrictions on price
and term of lease, and
(2) to deed restrict all five units to six-month
minimum lease terms;
(b) Final Plat approval for subdivision of the previously-
developed townsite lots to allow a multi-family
dwelling with two free market units and three units
subject to Aspen Housing Price Guidelines, condi-
tioned on:
(1 ) the applicant designing the structure so that
it does not protrude into the side yard setback,
and
(2) The applicant meeting the requirements for com-
pletion of plans and final plat subject to
approval by the Engineering Department;
(c) Final Plat approval for the purpose of condominiumi-
zation conditioned on:
(1 ) six-month minimum lease restrictions on all
units according to Section 20-22,
(2) completion to the approval of the Engineering
Department and recording of a condominiumization
plat prior to sale of units;
(d) Special review for the three bona fide employee units
to be deed restricted under the City' s moderate
income price guidelines; and
(e) Exception from Growth Management allocations for
bona fide employee housing, according to Section
24-10.2 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
pis
This is a request to rezone 7M Hopkins St better known as Lots C & D
Block 104 Aspen Co from Office zone to Office Residential Bonus. I
would like to construct a free market duplex building of approx.
4500 sa. ft on lot consisting of 6000 sa ft. This is conforming to
present zoning. I would also like to construct three studios rent
restricted employee units for a total of 1500 sic? ft.
Total building F.A.R.J` would be 1 : 1 with entire 1500 scr ft bonus used up
for employee housing. Studios to be rented in the moderate price range
,
per housing director' s recomendations.
Enclosed please find plan and elevation of proposed building showing three
studios totaling approximately 1500 sw ft inclusive of mechanical
areas. Each duplex to have two stall gargge three bedrooms and three
baths, living room, kitchen and dining area and a study with a.' n add-
itional bath to serve the third floor, Duplex not to exceed 4500 so
ft living area.
The proposed building is to be primarely frame with a masonary dividing
wall between the duplexes. Ceder stained siding. Design has passive solar
features with most glass areas facing south. Y have built various
projects in the Aspen area over the last 13 years. Lat project was
the present And.re' s Restaurant Building and the new Eagles Club Building.
i
Andre Ulrych
Box 2202
Aspen Co. 81611
925-7790 925 .1133
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
RE: Ulrych Rezoning and Other Requests - 1st Reading
DATE: October 20, 1980
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Find attached a memora du to Aspen P a ning and Zoning Commission concerning
Andre Ulrych' s request o ezone Lots C D, Block 104, Aspen Townsite from
0-Office to 0-Office/R 0 (Residentia onus Overlay) . Several other approvals
are requested, including:
1. Subdivision exception for a multi-family development on previously-
developed property.
2. Subdivision exception for condominiumization.
3. Special review for employee units.
4. Exception from Growth Management allocation for price-restricted
units.
At your October 27, 1980 meeting, you are asked to consider the attached ordi-
nance on first reading. The entire application will be presented by the appli-
cant and Planning Office, but final approvals need not be made until second
reading of the rezoning ordinance.
The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled this item at their October 7th
meeting. To avoid delay, the Planning Office will present the P & Z recommen-
dation from October 21st when you discuss it on Monday.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
RE: Ulrych Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning and Other Requests
DATE: September 10, 1980
Location: 715 East Hopkins St. (Lots C and D, Block 104, Aspen)
Zoning: 0-Office
Background: The subject lots currently have a single-family house and
a small dome structure. The applicant proposes to remove
the existing structures and to construct a free market duplex
conforming to present zoning, plus three price-restricted
(moderate) studios. See attached application. Exception
to Growth Management allocation provisions for employee units
is permitted (Section 24-10.2(h) ) . The duplex is allowed.
Approvals The following approvals are being requested simultaneously:
Requested:
1. Subdivision exception (waive conceptual approval before
City Council and preliminary plat before P & Z) because
subdivision is required for multi-family dwellings, but
this land is already developed, so -the granting of an
exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare.
(Section 20-19 -- P & Z decision to except, P & Z recom-
mendation to City Council
2. Subdivision exception for condominiumization. (Section
20-22, P & Z recommendation to City Council . )
3. Special review to consider the appropriateness of the
proposed employee units in terms of number, rental/sale
rates, massing of building, etc. (Section 24-10.2(h) ,
P & Z recommendation to City Council . )
4. Rezoning to O-Office/Residential Bonus Overlay (RBO) zone
to allow an increase in density when at least 50 percent
of units are price restricted. (P & Z recommendation;
first and second reading before City Council . )
Attorney' s If the subdivision exception for condominiumization is
Comments: granted, approval should be conditioned upon the applicant
restricting each unit to six-month minimum leases with no
more than two shorter tenancies in a calendar year (Section
20-22) .
Housing "The Housing Office is supportive of this rezoning application
Director's and would recommend moderate sale and rental price guide-
Comments: lines be applied to the proposed studio units."
City Water Dept. Water could be made available to the project from a six-
Comments: inch main upon application and payment of the necessary
tap and investment fees. I see no impediment to providing
service, since the location of the tap would be west of
the Original Street interconnection. (The main dead ends
east of Main Street and requires improvements. )
Memo: Ulrych Rezoning zo RBO
September 10, 1980
Page Two
Engineering Dept. See attached memoradum dated September 4, 1980. Note
Comments: concerns on open space and bulk. Engineering Department
recommends an exception from full subdivision with approval
of an amended sketch accepted as a conceptual plan.
It also recommends approval of the Rezoning provided that
requirements listed in the memo are met. (Only nine parking
spaces are required. )
Subdivision Exception from full subdivision is recommended by the
Exception and Engineering and Planning Office because the parcel of land
Condominiumi- in question is on developed townsite lots. However,
zation: approval should be conditioned on meeting the Engineering
Department's requirements.
Further, condominiumization approval is recommended
through the exception process (if all five units are approved)
subject to the filing of a condominiumization plat meeting the
Engineering Department's approval and deed restriction of all
units to six-month minimum lease restrictions (Section 20-22) .
Special Review Employee housing special review (Section 24-10.2(h)) includes
Considerations: "determination of community need considering, but not limited
to, the number of units to be constructed, the type of units,
and the rental/sale mix of the development. " (The Housing
Office has determined that the proposal is needed and appro-
priate. )
Rezoning: Ordinance 16(1980) facilitates employee housing by allowing
multi-family residential use with increased density in an
overlay zone. Approval of such increased density is dis-
cretionary and examined on a case-by-case basis. The fol-
lowing considerations are included:
1. The project must be solely residential .
2. Sites have to meet the minimum lot area required in the
underlying district. (This is a 6,000 square foot lot
in the 0-Office zone. )
3. Lot area per dwelling unit may be reduced when one-half
or more of the units are price restricted.
1,500 sq.ft./unit in the duplex x 2 = 3,000 sq.ft.
500 sq.ft. per employee studio x 3 = 1,500 sq.ft.
Lot area required = 4,500 sq.ft.
4. Lot width, frongside/rear yard setbacks and height are
to be the same for new structures as required in the
underlying zone. (According to the Engineering Depart-
ment, the proposed fire escape intrudes into the five-
foot side yard setback. The 28 foot height is the
maximum allowed. )
5. External Floor Area Ratio in the 0-Office zone will be
increased from .75: 1 to 1:1 when more than half of the
units are price restricted. (The application is for
5,871 square feet on a 6,000 square foot lot or .98:1. )
6. An application for RBO must be accompanied by a site
plan including requirements of Section 24-8.7(d) and (e)
of the PUD requirements. PUD is intended to encourage
flexibility in development while preserving open space
and maintaining appropriate bulk of buildings. (The pro-
posed site plan includes minimal open space, and the
building is designed to use its building envelope to the
maximum. Little chance for clustering exists on small
lots such as this. )
MEMORANDURI
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning; Corunission
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Sanitation District Employee Housing
DATE: December 1. , 1980 `
On Tuesday, December 2 , a public hearing will be held to consider
the application of the Aspen Sanitiation District for three zone
changes intended to accommodate a four unit multi-family project
for their employees. The site is at the location of the old san-
itation plant south of Puppy Smith Street .
The application requests several approvals necessary for the
project :.
1. Rezoning of the southern portion of their property from
Park to Public/Residential Bonus Overlay.
2, Subdivision exception for a four unit multi.-family project .
(The applicant does not request a parceling of the land,
however . )
3 . SPA approval for area and bulk requirements in the Public
zone.
4. Special review approval of the employee units .
The attached maps will show the location of the zone change and
proposed development .
Referral Agency Comments
1. The Housing Director recommends that all four units be deed
restricted to the moderate income level with a six month
minimum lease because there is no GMP exemption for
anything other than deed restricted units in the Public ,
Residential Bonus zone .
The Housing Director recommends these units with the under-
standing they will be rental only and recommends further
review before condominiumization .
2. Engineering comments address several areas including
drainage plans for the site, floodplain consideration , and
stormwater area objectives. While water pressure, trash,
parking, and utilities pose no particular problems for the
site, the above considerations bear discussion . Due to
their specific nature and import , Engineeri.ng ' s comments
are included in your packet .
3 . The Water Department certifies the use of the existing 1L"
pipe for water service with the understanding that the
standard PIF for employee housing b-e paid prior to connection
to the system.
Analysis of Residential Bonus Overlay
The most important review involved in this application is the
rezoning of a portion of the Park zoned land to Public/Residential.
Bonus Overlay . The RBO is necessary not for density purposes ( all
Public :?oned land bulk and density requirements are set by an SPA
plan) but to permit the residential use . The review criteria for
RBO designation include planned unit development criteria, compli-
Niecio : A:.,pen San . 11130
December 1 , 1080
Two
ante with a housing plan, construction quality and unit size,
minimization of environmental and social impacts, geographic dis-
persal , compatibility with surrounding land uses , and proximity
to transportation .
Applications are preferred in areas where it is possible to
mitigate the impacts of development; through clustering and use
of open space.
With respect to the rezoning from Park to Public/RBO, the Planning
Office has the following comments:
Disadvantages
1. The rezoning would have the effect of reducing Park zoned
inventory in an area which has been strongly recommended
by the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan and the 1973 Aspen Land
Use Plan as greenway. Greenway designation is intended to
preserve and support reinstatement of natural ecosystems
in. streams and riparian areas bordering them.
2,. The Rio- Grande Task -Force has recommended implementation =
of the greenway concept on the streamside portions of the
Rio Grande property . Continuation west of Mill Street
would be a definite open space benefit to the public and
a complement to both proposed Rio Grande greenway and to
existing open riparian preserves at Jenny Adair Park,
Hallam Lake, and along the Rio Grande trail .
3. Surrounding land use is low density residential or green-
way on three sides, but Public and commercial to the North.
4 , The access road will require grading within 100 feet of the
river and thus needs stream margin review.
5. There may be encroachment into the floodplain due to man-
made obstructionsin the floodway .
6. Neighborhood concern has been recently expressed over other
proposed area developments.
7, The development may preclude some City service and facility
needs such as stormwater retention and snow dumping.
Advantages
1. The application tends to cluster the units in a manner to
minimize impact on the riverway and preserve existing trees .
2 . There is more than 100 feet of greenway preserved between
the units and the river. The development may .force a new
solution for snow dumping and thus open the opportunity
for restoration of greenway objectives .
3 . If all four units are deed restricted to moderate price
guidelines, the project complies with the Housing Action
Plan .
4. The project represents geographic dispersal of employee
units and is a good example of a local employer providing
housing for employees he generates, also in compliance
with the Housing Plan.
5. Parking and utilities are adequate.
1Ic"ino: Asprn San . 1 130
Docewiber 1 , 11130
PagQ .Three
6. The site is close in , extremely proximate to commercial
support services and to public transportation .
A delicate balance is again posed between community objectives
for open space and housing . , Weighing the input , we believe
the rezoning is supportable only if the following conditions are
met :
1. Existing trees will be preserved.
2. An effort will be made to improve the remaining greenway
when snow dumping is terminated.
3. Stream margin review and floodplain considerations are
satisfactorily resolved.
4. The City Engineer' s comments regarding on-site drainage and
area stormwater treatment objectives can be met regardless
of the development .
5. The four units are deed restricted per the Housing Director ' s
recommendation .
Analysis of the Subdivision .Exception
We agreethat no parceling or condominiumization should be
approved but that exception from full subdivision reviews for a
four unit multi-family project is warranted conditioned on the
three items noted on November 26th by the City Engineer .
Analysis of the SPA Plan for Bulk and Density
The proposed' mult i-f amily structure in the rezoned area will be
the equivalent of a multi-family (R/liF) zoned density . However ,
that, is partly mitigated by the surrounding Park zoned property
owned by the Sanitation District .
Two parking spaces per unit more than meets the parking require-
ment of one space per bedroom.
The height of the building is less than the 25 foot height allowed
in the district although perceptibly the height may seem high
given the lack of nearby structural development . Ten foot side
yards would also meet R/111F standards: Some consideration ,
however, might be given to moving the building east somewhat
given its proximity to the Rio Grande right-of-way. That right-
of-way is currently used as a trail and constitutes an important
element of the greenway. It has also been id.entified. for a pos-
sible realignment of Mill Street .
Open space within the rezoned portion is adequate at 607o.
Subject to the further discussion of the western side setback and
building height , we recommend approval .
Analysis of the Special Review for Employee Housing
See comments of the Housing Director included in your packet .
We recommend that P & Z members take the opportunity to visit the
site. If anyone would like to do so with the architect , please
call our office.
Memo: Ulrych Rezoning BO
September 10, 1980
Page Three
Review criteria generally require that the proposed
development is "appropriate for the neighborhood con-
sidering architectural design, bulk and density. " Appli-
cations which meet the following specific concerns are
preferred:
1. Compliance with any adopted housing plan.
The Housing Task Force made several recommendations with
which this application complies. It provides three studio
units (450 to 500 square feet) in the moderate category.
Further, it disperses them in a small project which is
close to central Aspen, and has easy access to utilities
and public transit.
2. Compatibility with surrounding land uses.
While the proposed structure itself fully uses its
building envelope, it is in an area with numerous large
office and multi-family residential buildings in all
directions. On the same block, several single-family
houses have been expanded to multi-family.
3. Compatibility with underlying zoning.
The project meets all area and bulk requirements for the
0-Office zone (including parking, where nine spaces
are required) except that the fire escape intrudes on
the five-foot setback. FAR is increased.
4. Compliance with the intent of PUD.
On a small lot where full coverage in proposed, no
provision for clustering or provision of open space
can be made.
Planning Office
Recommendation: By right, the applicant would be allowed to build the
proposed duplex. Under the Residential Bonus Overlay,
the community gains three employee units. While the bulk
of the building is maximized, it could be built nearly as is
without the three units. The Planning Office feels that
this is an appropriate location for such a proposal --
in a developed area with comparably large structure already ex-
isting -- and that it meets the intent and most requirements
of the new overlay zone. Therefore, the following recom-
mendations are made:
1. Approval of subdivision exception (waiving conceptual
approval before City Council and preliminary plat
before P & Z)subject to:
a. The applicant designing the structure so that it
does not protrude into the side yard setback.
b. The applicant meeting the requirements for completion
of plans and final plat subject to approval by the
Engineering Department (Section C. of the Engineering
Department memo).
2. Approval of subdivision exception for the purpose of
condominiumization conditioned on:
a. Six-month lease restrictions on all units according
to Section 20-22.
b. Completion to the approval of the Engineering Department
and recordation of a condominiumization plat prior
to sale of units.
3. Special review approval of the three studio units to be deed
restricted under the City's moderate income price guidelines.
4. Approval of rezoning from 0-Office to 0/RBO, conditioned
on all area and bulk requirements of the 0-Office zone
being met.
5. Exception from Growth Management for the three bona fide
employee units (Section 24-10.2).
RES0111TION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMI . _ON OF ASPEN, COLORADO, REGARDI.
ULRYCH REZONING AND OTHER APPROVALS
Resolution No. 80 - H
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission considered an application
submitted by Andre Ulrych for approvals concerning 715 East Hopkins Avenue
(Lots C and D, Block 104, Aspen Townsite) at a Public Hearing on October 7,
1980 which was continued on October 21 , 1980, and
WHEREAS, the application included requests for the following:
1 . Rezoning from 0-Office to 0-Office/Residential Bonus (Overlay) according
to the requirements of Ordinance No. 16 (Series of 1980) of Aspen City Council ,
2. Subdivision exception for a multi-family development on previously-developed
property,
3. Subdivision exception for condominiumization,
4. Special review of employee units,
5. Exception from Growth Management allocation for price-restricted units, and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered comments from referral
and staff agencies. Public concerns primarily dealt with bulk, height and
traffic increases which would result from a density bonus. The Commission found
that the bulk of the proposed building is only slightly increased over a duplex
or office building which would be allowed by right, in which the maximum height
and footprint could be the same. Parking for two existing dwelling units is
currently on-street but one off-street parking space would be provided for each
bedroom under the current application with no reduction requested. (An allowed
office use on the same property could potentially generate as much or more traffic
than this residential proposal .)
WHEREAS, further, the P&Z Commission feels that provision of bona fide employee
housing is meritorious.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
has determined that the advantages of providing bona fide employee housing at
715 East Hopkins Street under provisions of Ordinance No. 16 (Series of 1980)
outweigh other considerations of neighborhood appropriateness, and the Commission
therefore recommends City Council approval or gives Commission approval of the
following requests:
No. T1-
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
la a 1. DATE SUBMITTED: STAFF: Jolow Vr46
2. APPLICANT:
P& Z OO
3. REPRESENTATIVE:
4. PROJECT NAME: IruCIA RC A' OW4%1 %&mK `F oHec cQ
5. LOCATION: -10i P 066 04
vi
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Rezoning Subdivision Stream Margin
P.U.D. _Exception 8040 Greenline
Special Review Exemption View Plane
Growth Management 70:30 Conditional Use
HPC Residential Bonus Other
'Q,u►r� �o� Ov'tr�at
7. REFERRALS:
Attorney _Sanitation District School District
Engineering Dept. Fire Marshal Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
14- Housing Parks State Highway Dept.
Water Holy Cross Electric Other
City Electric Mountain Bell
8.+ REVIEW REQUIREMENTS:
i
U \
R
1. Recommends approval of rezoning from 0-Office to 0-Office/Residential
Bonus conditioned upon all area and bulk requirements of the 0-Office
zone being met; - f
i
2. Approves subdivision exception (waiving conceptual approval before r
City Council and preliminary plat before the Planning and Zoning
Commission for previously-developed Townsite lots subject to:
i
a. The applicant designing the structure so that it does not
protrude into the side yard setback.
b. The applicant meeting the requirements for completion of
4
plans and final plat subject to approval by the Engineering
Department; #
3. Approves the conceptual application for subdivision of Lots C and D,
Block 104, Aspen Townsite, for a multi-family dwelling with two free-
market units and three price-restricted units;
4. Approves subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiumization
conditioned on:
s
a. Six-month minimum lease restrictions on all units according to
Section 20-22.
b. Completion to the approval of the Engineering Department and
recordation of a condominiumization plat prior to sale of units;
5. Recommends special review approval of the three bona fide employee units
to be deed restricted under the City's moderate income price guidelines;
6. Recommends approval of exception from Growth Management allocations for
bona fide employee housing, according to Section 24-10.2 of the Aspen
Municipal Code.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
by We Nv i.-
Olof Hedstrom, Chairman
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen , colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office \�A_
DATE: September 4 , 1980
RE: Ulrych Rezoning and Subdivision Exemption, Lots c
and d, Block 104 , O.A.T.
Having reviewed the above application for subdivision
exemption and rezoning and made a site inspection, the Engin-
eering Department has the following comments:
In terms of the request for rezoning from Office to
Office with Residential FAR Bonus, the following requirements
must be met:
A. Under section 24-11 . 5 the application to rezone must
be accompanied by the names and addresses of all
owners within 300 feet.
B. To meet the requirements of Ordinance 16 , the
following additional information is required:
1. Parking must meet the normal requirements
of section 24-4 . 5 of one space per bedroom h("c-
which would be 11 spaces. The eleventh
space as shown on the conceptual plan is ,jV
an improper configuration.
2 . The fire escape shown on the east side of
the structure cannot protrude into the
setback as shown.
3. Under section 24-10 . 9 of Ordinance 16 ,
the proposed structure does not meet
the following requirements:
a) Bulk and density due to the above
mentioned setback problems .
w 2
b) The requirements of PUD in terms of
open space and reduced area and bulk.
C. As an application requiring treatment as a full
subdivision, the Engineering Department recommends
an Exception from full subdivision for which the
existing sketch should be accepted as a conceptual
plan with the following deficiencies:
1. The plan lacks a 400 scale location map.
2. Existing structures and conditions on the
lot should be shown.
3. There shall be a disclosure of ownership
with the application in the form of title
insurance or an attorney's certificate.
4 . Prior to construction of the proposed
units, the owner/applicant shall submit
a set of construction plans for review
by this office and subsequent revisions
as required. Following construction
according to the approved plans , the
owner/applicant shall submit a final
plat for recording.
The Engineering Department recommends approval of the
Ulrych Rezoning/Exception providing the above requirements
can be met.
MEMORANDUM
TG: Aspen Planning and Zoning Comiiission
FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
RE: Ulrych Residential Bonus Overlay Rezoning and Other Requests
DATE: September 10, 1930
Location: 715 East Hopkins St. (Lots C and D, Block 104, Aspen)
Zoning: 0-Office
Background: The subject lots currently have a single-family house and
a small dome structure. The applicant proposes to remove
the existing structures and to construct a free market duplex
conforming to present zoning, plus three price-restricted
(moderate) studios. See attached application. Exception
to Growth Management allocation provisions for employee units
is permitted (Section 24-10.2(h) ) . The duplex is allowed.
Approvals The following approvals are being requested simultaneously:
Requested:
1. Subdivision exception (waive conceptual approval before
City Council and preliminary plat before P & Z) because
subdivision is required for.multi-family dwellings, but
this land is already developed, so the granting of an
exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare.
(Section 20-19 -- P & Z decision to except, P & Z recom-
mendation to City Council )
2. Subdivision exception for condominiumization. (Section
20-22, P & Z recommendation to City Council . )
3. Special review to consider the appropriateness of the
proposed employee units in terms of number, rental/sale
rates, massing of building, etc. (Section 24-10.2(h) ,
P & Z recommendation to City Council . )
4. Rezoning to O-Office/Residential Bonus Overlay (RBO) zone
to allow an increase in density when at least 50 percent
of units are price restricted. (P & Z recommendation;
first and second reading before City Council . )
Attorney's If the subdivision exception for condominiumization is
Comments: granted, approval should be conditioned upon the applicant
restricting each unit to six-month minimum leases with no
more than two shorter tenancies in a calendar year (Section
20-22) .
Housing "The Housing Office is supportive of this rezoning application
Director's and would recommend moderate sale and rental price guide-
Comments: lines be applied to the proposed studio units."
City Water Dept. Water could be made available to the project from a six-
Comments: inch main upon application and payment of the necessary
tap and investment fees. I see no impediment to providing
service, since the location of the tap would be west of
the Original Street interconnection . (The main dead ends
east of Main Street and requires improvements. )
September 10, 1980
Page Iwo
Engineering Dept. See attached mernoradum dated September 4, 1980. Note
Conoients: concerns on open space and bulk. Engineering Department
recommends an exception from full subdivision with approval
of an amended sketch accepted as a conceptual plan.
It also recommends approval of the Rezoning provided that
requirements listed in the memo are met. (Only nine parking
spaces are required. )
Subdivision Exception from full subdivision is recommended by the
Exception and Engineering and Planning Office because the parcel of land
Condominiumi- in question is on developed townsite lots. However,
zation:• approval should be conditioned on meeting the Engineering
Department's requirements.
Further, condominiumization approval is recommended
through .the exception process (if all five units are approved)
subject to the filing of a condominiumization plat meeting the
Engineering Department's approval and deed restriction of all
units to six-month minimum lease restrictions (Section 20-22) .
Special Review Employee housing special review (Section 24-10.2(h) ) includes
Considerations: "determination of community need considering, but not limited
to, the number of units to be constructed, the type of units,
and the rental/sale mix of the development." (The Housing
Office has determined that the proposal is needed and appro-
priate. )
Rezoning: Ordinance 16(1980) facilitates employee housing by allowing
multi-family residential use with increased density in an
overlay zone. Approval of such increased density is dis-
cretionary and examined on a case-by-case basis. The fol=
lowing considerations are included:
1. The project must be solely residential .
2. Sites have to meet the minimum lot area required in the
underlying district. (This is a 6,000 square foot lot
in the O-Office zone. )
3. Lot area per dwelling unit may be reduced when one-half
or more of the units are price restricted.
1,500 sq.ft./unit in the duplex x 2 = 3,000 sq.ft.
500 sq.ft. per employee studio x 3 = 1,500 sq.ft.
Lot area required = 4;500 sq.ft.
4. Lot width, fronyside/rear yard setbacks and height are
to be the same for new structures as required in the
underlying zone. (According to the Engineering Depart-
ment, the proposed fire escape intrudes into the five-
foot side yard setback.. The 28 foot height is the
maximum allowed. )
5. External Floor Area Ratio in the O-Office zone will be
increased from .75: 1 to 1:1 when more than half of the
units are price restricted. (The application is for
5,871 square feet on a 6,000 square foot lot. )
6. An application for RBO must be accompanied by a site
plan including requirements of Section 24-8.7(d) and (e)
of the PUD requirements. PUD is intended to encourage
flexibility in development while preserving open space
and maintaining appropriate bulk of buildings. (The pro-
posed site plan includes minimal open space, and the
building is designed to use its building envelope to the
maximum. )
Mlrvrh Po",mlinq to • �'
Page Three
Review criteria generally require that the proposed
development. is "appropriate for the neighborhood con-
sidering architectural design, bulk and density." Appli-
cations which meet the following specific concerns are
preferred:
1. Compliance with any adopted housing plan.
The Housing Task Force made several reconmendations with
which this application complies. It provides three studio
units (450 to 500 square. feet) in the moderate category.
Further, it disperses them in a small project which is
close to central Aspen, -and has easy access to utilities
and public transit.
2. Compatibility with surrounding land uses.
While the proposed structure itself fully uses its
building envelope, it is in an area with numerous large
office and multi-family residential buildings in all
directions. On the same block, several single-family
houses have been expanded to multi-family.
3. Compatibility with underlying zoning.
The project meets all area and bulk requirements for the
0-Office zone (including parking, where nine spaces
are required) except that the fire escape intrudes on
the five-foot setback.
4. Compliance with the intent of PUD.
On a small lot where full coverage in proposed, no
provision for clustering or provision of open space
can be made.
Planning Office
Recommendation: By right, the applicant would be allowed to build the
proposed duplex. Under the Residential Bonus Overlay,
the community gains three employee units. While the bulk
of the building is maximized, it could be built as is
without the three units. The Planning Office feels that
this is an appropriate location for such a proposal --
in a developed area with comparably large structure already ex-
isting -- and that it meets the intent and most requirements
of the new overlay zone. Therefore, the following recom-
mendations are made:
1. Approval of subdivision exception (waiving conceptual
approval before City Council and preliminary plat
before P & Z)subject to:
a. The applicant designing the structure so that it
does not protrude into the side yard setback.
b. The applicant meeting the requirements for completion
of plans and final plat subject to approval by the
Engineering Department (Section C. of the Engineering
Department memo).
2. Approval of subdivision exception for the purpose of
condominiumization conditioned on:
a. Six-month lease restrictions on all units according
to Section 20-22. ,
b. Completion to the approval of the Engineering Department
and recordation of a condominiumization plat prior
to sale of units.
3. Special review approval of the three studio units to be deed
restricted under the City's moderate income price guidelines.
4. ApF?roy� il of rf,r,;r�inc, r!xu Tice tt� C�/i?` �g, conditioned
on all area and bulk requirements of the O-Office zone
being mct.
Thi: is a request to rezone 709 flopizi.ns St better known as Lots C & D
Mock 3.04 Aspen Co from Off-ice zone to Office Residential bonus. I
would like to construct a free market duplex building of approx.
4500 so. ft on lot consisting of 6000 so ft. This is conforming to
present zoning. I would also like to construct three studios rent
restricted employee units for a total of 1500 sv- ft.
Total building F.A.R.' would be 1 1 with entire 1500 so ft bonus used up
for employee housing. Studios to be rented in the moderate price range
per housing director' s recomendations.
Enclosed please find plan and elevation of proposed building showing three
studios totaling approximately 1500 sw ft inclusive of mechanical
areas. Each duplex to have two stall 'ga.rgge three bedrooms and' three
baths, living room, kitchen and dining area and a study with a� n add-
itional bath to serve the third floor, Duplex not to exceed 4500 sa
ft living area.
The proposed building is to be primarely frame with a masonary dividing
wall between the duplexes. Ceder stained siding. Design has passive solar
features with most glass areas facing south. I have built various
projects in the Aspen area over the last 13 years. Last project was
the present Andre' s Restaurant Building and the new Eagles Club Building.
k A L
Andre Ulrych
Box 2202
Aspen Co. 81611
925-7790 925--1133
1
i
� i
.z
i%
7/ ,5-
r0
Mal 5a�t C�. -AD 7iAO
perm-
FA
4' J
16 :�--
/90
Fri,
L,4-)
.5
cc
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Ulrych Rezoning to Density Bonus Overlay
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there will be a public hearing before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, October 7, 1980, at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in City Council Chambers, 2nd floor, City
Hall , 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by
Andre Ulrych to rezone the parcel located at 715 East Hopkins to "Density
Bonus Overlay" for the purpose of constructing a multi-family building
made up 50% restricted employee housing. For further information, contact
the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 298.
s/Olof Hedstrom
Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on September 18, 1980
City of Aspen account
Aspen / itkinn,� Office
130 sou ¢ « 1en a street
aspen , � olorado .81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron Stock, City Attorney
Dan McArthur, City Engineer
Jim Reents, City Housing
Aspen Water
Aspen Sanitation
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Ulrych Rezoning and Subdivision Exemption
1
DATE: August 20, 1980
i'
The attached application requests designation as a Residential Bonus Overlay
district and exemption from the full definition of subdivision. This item,
submitted by Andre Ulrych for his property located at 709 E. Hopkins, is
scheduled to come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on September 16,
1980; therefore, may I please have your written comments concerning this appli-
cation no later than September 3, 1980? Thank you.
A d C/A i'
T R.< <_ -1-
E
TO: Sunny Vann
FROM: Jim Reents
DATF: September 3, 1.9,13 0
SUBJECT: t?lyrich Rezoning and Subdivision nxerlption
The dousing Office is supportive of this rezoning application
and could recommend moderate sale and rental price guidelines
be applied to the proposed studio units .
I
I
JR:ds
I
I
i
I
I
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: SUNNY VANN-PLANNING
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: ULRYCH REZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION
DATE: AUGUST 29, 1980
I have reviewed the proposed project and note that it is located in Block 104
between Spring and Original Streets. Therefore, water could be made available
to the project from a 6" main upon application and payment of the necessary
tap and investment fees. I see no impediment to providing service, since the
location of the tap would be west of the Original Street interconnection.
However, please be advised that any connections east of Original Street
should be reviewed with care, as this section of main is a dead-end main and
needs to be interconnected with a proposed interconnection on Cleveland Street.
0
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Ulrych Rezoning to Density Bonus Overlay
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there will be a public hearing before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, September 16, 1980, at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in City Council Chambers, 2nd floor, City Hall ,
130 S. Galena, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Andre Ulrych to
rezone the property located at 709 East Hopkins to Density Bonus Overlay for
the purpose of constructing a project made up of 50% restricted employee housing.
For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen,
925-2020, ext. 298.
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
by Olof Hedstrom, Chairman
Published in the Aspen Times August 28, 1980.
City of Aspen Account.
As en Pitki x -ning Of f ice
130 so� '} . at r e e t
aspen , 1611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron Stock, City Attorney
Dan McArthur, City Engineer
Jim Reents, City Housing
Aspen Water
Aspen Sanitation
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Ulrych Rezoning and Subdivision Exemption
DATE: August 20, 1980
The attached application requests designation as a Residential Bonus Overlay
district and exemption from the full definition of subdivision. This item,
submitted by Andre Ulrych for his property located at 709 E. Hopkins, is
scheduled to come before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on September 16,
1980; therefore, may I please have your written comments concerning this appli-
cation no later than September 3, 1980? Thank you.
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen , colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
DATE. August 26 , 1980
TO. runny Varin
FROM: Ron Stock
RE , Ulrych Rezoning and Subdivision Exemption
It the above entitled subdivision exemption is granted: the
approval should be conditioned upon the applicant meeting the
following requirements of Section 20-22 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen.
[ ] Notice and option provisions to current
tenants
[x] Each unit restricted to six-month ,ninimum
leases with no more than two shorter tenan-
cies in a calendar year.
RWS:mc