The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutlanduse case.boa.925 E Durant Ave.007-82 c ~ ......."" NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 82-7 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public'hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colo- rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment reques~ing authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Drdinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited'to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state,. yo~views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to · grant or deny the request for variance. 'The particulars of the hearing and of the reques ted variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: ,Date: July 22, 1982 Time: 4:00 P.M. ..----- Name and address of Applicant for Variance: Name: H.B.C. Investments Address: 450 S. Galena St. Suite 202 Aspen, Co. 81611 Location or description of property: Location: L t F n H I Bl I. 119 . . . 0 s " ", " oc. C~ty of Aspen 925 East Durant Street Descr:Lpt:Lon: This appeal is made under Section 2-21 (3) of the Aspen Municipal Code (P.153) for a three foot height variance on the R.B.O. portion of the project. ,Variance Requested: Moritorium Dec. 22, 1981 reducing height in R/MF zone from 28 to 25 ft., Ordinance 82-11, passed May 24, 1982 reduced height maximum from 28' to 25', Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one) Tem~araYy Permanent Will the applicant be represented 'by Counsel ? Yes X No THE:. CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY Remo LaVRQ"nino r.h;lirm;ln Virginia H. Beall, Deputy City Clerk . J b ~~ ZlUAd. ~ ~/(, ;/{L ~.d. ~ ~ ~'~ !eH! ~,~ :#C c ...... -- .. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 82-7 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council, Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colo- rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment reques~ing authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Drdinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited'to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state,. yo~views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions , of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to · grant or deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: July 22, 1982 Time: 4:00 P.M. ----- Name and address of Applicant for Variance: Name: H.B,C, Investments Address: 450 S. Galena St, Suite 202 Aspen, Co. 81611 Location or description of property: Locat~o:1: Lots F.G,H,I, Block 119 City of Aspen 925 East Durant Street Descr:Lpt:Lon: This appeal is made under Section 2-21 (3) of tbe Aspen Municipal Code (P .153) for a three foot height variance on the R.B.O. portion of the project. Variance Requested: 1I0ritorium Dec. 22, 1981 reducing height in R/MF zone from 28 to 25 ft., Ordinance 82-11, passed Hay 24, 1982 reduced height maximum from 28' to 25'. Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one) Tem~aFary Permanent Will the applicant be represented 'by Counsel ? Yes~ No_____ THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY Rerun Lavaenino r.h:lirm::ln Virginia H. neall, Deputy, City Clerk n.~ A4~'- ~ .~ aL/! .. -' ~) /00/ t'. ~# I Regular (. , , '( , C '1 Heet~ng .~ ]\.spen c~ ty ounel. . .... '--'--""'~--" I-""'-"'~-'--'-'---"-----""~---'---. .. . "u_. "..__.-"-......~"---_---'-'--'-_..___.._....___.._._,.......__ ( /'" ..,~,/ -~~-~-. November 10, 1980 ...............---.. --._._~. ,'I"E ~1.Z\RSHAL POSrrION Ci ty Hanager Chapman reminded Council \...hen the building GPf'.::.irt.rr.cnt h'ZlS rcol.~ganized, the dcpCtrtment attempted to get by \.,ihtout having any specific fire rearshal position~ Fred Crowley reports he is having some difficulty providing full attention to fire inspections. Chapman said he felt this SUHllTICr has proven a fire marshal is needed. Hayor Edel ask.ed the costs. Chapman said the fire marshal position is still in the never; it was never taken out. However, for 1981 he will have to check with the county because they prepared the budget. Fire Chief Clapper said he was quite unhappy about this when it happened and it has proven to be more tho.n anyone can take care of. The county and city should strongly look at this as a full time position. Councilman Isaac said he felt someone should be hired before the winter season. ii I'!' 'Councilman Collins moved to adopt the recommendations of the building department; seconded II by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. " I' I! " ii 'i i I I I II II :1 1; I , , I , , II CONDOMINImlIZJI.TION REGULA1'IONS Council will have a, stuG.Y session on this. SUBDIVISION - 925 E. Durant Jolene Vrchota, planning office, told Council final plat approv@Q is requsted tonight. The application is for 12 studio units at 925 East Durant, this application received an allocation for growth management plan in 1978. 'The Council has seen this project \...hen the units were changed on the site. P & Z h~s seen this and has had a public hearing. There \-;as concern about access. being only from Durant, about noise generation, and about too many people living in the units. P & Z did not fe~l these were overwhelming concerns and most of them are addressed. P & Z gave conceptual and preliminary plat approval to the application. . Councilman Isaac said this is for 12 units; he thought there were going to be 24 units at the project. Ms. Vrchota told Council these are two separate things. The applicant plans to come in and request rezoning to REO for the other 12 units. Councilman Isaac asked how long the deed restriction was. Ms. Vrchota said on these 12 units it is 5 years; all growth management allocations in 1978 were deed restricted for 5 years. Council Inan Behrendt said he had no interest; this is a short term buyout that doesn't get the city anything buy density. Mayor Edel agreed all units should be deed restriced for 50 years but asked how Council can totally reverse itself because the approval was given in 1978. Mayor Edel said if the next 12 units are going to be restricted for 50 years, is there a major problem with restricting the whole project to 50 years. Councilr.lan Behrendt said this is not the original proposal anyway; it has been delayed and delayed. Vann said the original sublnission" was a two-site solution, with a differ.ent angle. In anticipation :1 of a residential bonus overlay, they submitted for building permit in order not t:o loose II the allotment, a plan with a simpler building pushed over' to onc side of the site. ..' Because this was a change 'and brought back to Council. On the understanding t:hey would proceed to pr.ocess an appl..ication for the extra 12 units, Council approved the change. Councilman Behrendt suggested Council table this for staff to look at requestinq 50 year deed res.trict~ons on al~ Lhl:;.: uu";"L~, InC.1Ud1nq the or1ginal 12. Councilman Behrendt said tne 5 year restrictions were lmposed to get employee uni.ts in a hurry. This was approved in 1978 and will not be built until 1981, which is a three-year delay and is not achieving the purpose of the community. Mayor Edel said this project carne to Council six months ago, and Council deferred the park dedication fee. Councilman Isaac said the Council approved this two years ago, and he feels they have to approve it again. Mark Danielsen outlined the history of the project; the GMP process with residential allocation bei.ng given to the project in 1978. In December 1979 and January 1980, this came to Council for the granting of an extension for building purpose. In Harch 10th Council gave approval for changes in the construction dr2.\.,i::tgs, and in July 1980 Council approved a park dedication fee deferral. Two \veeks ago this \.:a5 presented to P & Z and they gave conceptual and preliminary approval~ This is the final step of the entire application process. Andy Hecht said he would not like to see Council unilnterally impose 50 year requirements on the part that has already }),een approved. Hecht said it would be bad precedent to rescind approval on the park dedication fee deferral. Councilman Behrendt moved to table for t~o weeks in order to get co~~ents fr.o~ planning and the attornc~ seconded.. by . Counc:~ln~an ,~~e,<3;~. ""AIJ-~~.i~.,t~XL'4.J.o~_"ti.Q.n" S~FET~ed. DISCUSSION & ML"'ING"OC~.,;;i:o~';~~~F;';: FOR LIQUOR LICENSES Hayor Edel said he brought this concept up because these taxes have not been raised in a long time, and he ....:ould suggest doubling them. Councilman Behrendt said- he would not like to raise the beer & wine fees any furthHr. Mayor Edel said the Council could change the three-"'Jay license fees and look at the rest during next year. Councilman Isaac said he would rather see these raised when all other licenses and taxes are looked at. Council asked staff to prepares some figures and perhaps a~ ordinance to change the occupation tax. CO~~SF.~'1' AG8NDA ~dyor Ede]. rc~ucsted #11, liquor license transfer - Godfatller's Pizza, be deleted. ~ou!;cilrnall Is~ac.reg~cstcd #9, IRE's fnr KOV?~J pr?~ect; Council~3n Co!lin? r~q~ested th2.~ .ltc:~;:: L, ResolutIon ~20, Growth :-lLlna9o:~.'.2nt aj_l-::.;.cc:r:"l8;~S, Co:::~('rcldl 1331, D(~ ueleted Cl:;.d Itci~ ~2, Ordin~tllCC #54, NicholsOll Rezoning to ~'~sidential Bonus b~ .dcledted. Council~an B0hr~ndt reqllest0d #10, Little Annie's c~croas~~~~t b~ deleted. :<:)~,'cr ;""leJ r'~~~-('l tr',.~ '~u')l~- he'Pl'~~ on ..- . ....}l_.L:d:L:,~ . .0::::.1-'''' ~:." u~ ~'''l__'' S:u~~a l!~ SIC'I : C'rCl!~2~C0 =~~_ Ordin.::::.ce .;.; 5 3, 5e.:-- ::'05 (If 1920, CO~:..-::e~cial ?:-:o::.c- ''":'.",.... i ce,',: ~";:' 1['.:','1 _.~.j..h -._~_ __..: .-..__~~_____ I"'" '-' ,".. ... APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CITY OF ASPEN Appellant: H.B.C. Investments Owner: Hans B. Cantrup Dea r Cha i rman : Appellant/owner Hans B. Cantrup, DBA H.B.C. Investments, owns lots F,G,H,I of Block 119, City of Aspen, Colorado. Located next to the site of Alpina Haus, this property was the subject of the 1978 Residential G.M.P. application for twelve (12) low-income, employee units. This was the maximum number of units allowed on the 12,000 square foot parcel at that time. The Durant parcel vias part of a tl'lO site G.M.P. application, the other site being the 700 South Galena Street project. The 1978 application won the residential G.M.P. compet- ition, and was awarded the appropriate quotas in City Council Resolution No. 11, Series of 1978. During that time, and throughout 1979, substantial discussions, planning and reviews were made by the Plannin9 Office, the Plannin9 and Zoning Commission and City Council to incorporate a Residential Bonus Overlay (R.B.O.) zone. The intent of the R.B.O. zone is to promote development of (low, moderate and mi ddl e income) employee hous i ng by all owi ng an increased (doubling) residential density, therefore, a substantially re- duced per unit land cost. The R.B.O is for those developments that have one-half or more units on the site deed restricted to the appropriate employee guidelines (as given in Section 24-11.4(b)(3). The 925 East - f'" " Appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustments City of Aspen H.B.C. Investments Page 2 Durant Project well meets those guidelines, as approved under the Subdivision Agreement for the Project (see attached). As such, the 925 East Durant Project contributes a significant amount of much needed employee housing and furthers public policy and land use goals as described in the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen. This R.B.O. Zone Code Amend- ment was approved in Ordinance No. 78 Series of 1979, by Aspen City Council. Throughout this entire period, the applicant had been trying to maximize the number of units that should be placed on the site via the R.B.O. zone, therby, providinq 24 employee units. On March la, 1980, Aspen City Council approved the design change in the site plan to move the orginal 12 unit G.M.P. building from the center of the site back to one corner of the site, so as to allow for another building which would accommodate the additional 12 units received via the R.B.O. zone. Included in the design change was a conversion from surface parking areas to a 22 space underground parking garage, located beneath both buildings. As such, both buildings must be the same height. The height as permitted during these years was 28 feet. In August of 1981, Aspen City Council enacted a construction moratorium in the RMF zone. Since the 925 East Durant project was so far along in the planning and design stages and had already received an allocation, it was exempted from the moratorium. It was this moratorium that gave rise to a proposed reduction of height limitation for buildings in the RMF zone and implementation of the 35% open space requirement. Approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in resolution No. 81-18, the height limitation was reduced from 28 feet to 25 feet. The resolution, yet to be approved by the City Council at the time of this writing,does not allow permits to be issued that would "'- '" , ".-- Appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustments Ci ty of Aspen H. B. C. Investments Page 3 be non-conforming under the new requirements of that resolution, adopted on December 22, 1981. The project, with the R.B.a. units, does meet the new open space requirements. While the 925 East Durant Street Project has been exempted from the moratorium and the new requirements as found in Resolution 81-18 for the G.M.P. units, the units created from the R.B.a. zone have not been exempted. As the R.B.a. portion of the project has been anticipated, planned and designed for several years, the recent change in require- ments creates an undue hardship for the owner that did not result from any actions of the applicant. Inasmuch as City Council approved a design change to allow the R.B.a. units some two years age, which included improving the project by placing twenty-two (22) parking spaces under- ground, it is clearly seen that these are special and extordinary circum- stances that apply only to this particular site and do not apply to any other properties in the same vicinity or zone. The granting of the variance is, therefore, necessary to carry out the plans and design changes already approved by City Council that permit the R.B.a. units and underground parking garage to be placed on the site to complete the Master Plan of the project. As the excavation pennit was issued September 25, 1981 (the permit is still active) the change in height limitation made December 22, 1981 would effectively prohibit the project from being completed. The underground garage cannot be lowered an other three feet and still be accessible, and the units cannot have the ceiling height reduced and still meet standard code require- ments. Consequently the granting of this variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right but is currently denied because of the above special and extraordinary circumstances. As the granting of this variance will allow the continued ability of the appellant to provide additional low income employee housing units, such approval will enhance the general purpose of the comprehensive general plan and the public policy goals of this cop,munity. . ,'..... .. /" "'''-<,7 Appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustments Ci ty of Aspen H.B.C. Investments Pa ge 4 Due to the above facts and special circumstances outlined above. it is respectfully requested that a three foot height variance be granted by the board for the north side of the 925 Durant Street site. Thank you for your time and attention on this important matter. Sincerely yours, ;%r~ /7 / /?o,~ r Mark A. Danielsen l ~ BA-rES LUMBER CO. Office P.O. BOX 7095 ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87194 (505) 247.1481 Manufacturers of PONDEROSA PINE. ENGELMANN SPRUCE WHITE FIR. INLAND DOUGLAS FIR Mill SOUTH SECOND ST. ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO (505) 877-2010 July 14, 1982 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 506 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gentlemen: I am the owner of two homes in Aspen, one being #203 Chateau Snow, and I am against the variance requested in Case 82-7. The Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Offical Code of Aspen was put in place after proper study considering all factors involved. I can see no reason to counteract all the good of the existing ordinance by granting unnecessary variations. My condominmum would be directly damaged by the granting of such a variance. Yours very truly, Bates Lumber~mpany, Inc. /V(?vd6J W. C. Bates President WCB: je 1 See o'Lley s /J~ ~ 4 ~ i - - NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 82-7 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUE~TED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public h~aring will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colo- rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment reques~ing authority for variance f~om the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state.. yo~views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions .of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. . .. 'The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follmys: Date and Time of Meeting: .Date: July 22, 1982 Time: 4:00 P,M. ---- Name and address of Applicant for Variance: Name: H.B.C. Investments Address: 450 S. Galena St. Suite 202' Aspen, Co. 81611 "1 ~ Location or description of property: Locat~on: Lots F.G,H,I, Block 119 City of Aspen 925 East Durant Street Descr:Lpt~on: This appeal is made under Section 2-21 (3) of the Aspen Municipal Code (P .153) for a three foot height variance on the R.B.O. portion of the project, Variance Requested: Moritorium Dec, 22, 1981 reducing height in R/MF zone from 28 to 25 ft" Ordinance 82-11, passed May 24, 1982 reduced height maximum from 28' to 25', Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one) Tempa~ary Permanent Will the applicant be represented'by Counsel ? Yes X No ----- ----- THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF. ADJUSTMENT BY Remo LaVRl!nino. r.h,q;rm::ln Virginia H. Beall, Deputy City Clerk o VE: ~ ..... ~-- ~'~l"".'._""''''.c.-.."-_",,,..:.:~ JJ..5 ~ IJ 11'6 j Gentleme:..'1 : I live in the eight hundred block on Durant Avenue about three-fourths of a block from the proposed building on lots F,G,H,and I on block 119. I will be looking at that new building for the rest of my life. I am fully in accord that REO Investments should be granted a variance so that they can build a 28 feot high building. It will have a good and positive affect on the neiGhborhood and will enhance the area. They have my blessings to go ahead and start building the structure as soon as possible. I hope that it will be at least 28 feet high. I have lived at the same location on Durant Avenue since 1916. Very truly yours, rnildtw- ~ Kr, Matthew Oblock 82c) Durant Avenue P.O, Box 573 Aspen, Colorado 81612 bOX 573 Aspen, Color2do S1612 cJft OF lJlMOCR.IoCV {~~..U.".l: S .' ~ . .' , . ~ ~ / Ci ty of As}en, Board of Ad .111stmen t Remo Lavagni~o, Ch3irma~ 130 douth Galena street Aspen, Oolorado P1611 I , I I l, I . # ~r1 9'26 East Durant !\spen. Colorado 81611 July 21, 1982 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Sirs: We are addressing you to register our disapproval of a request to increase the maximum height from 25 to 28 feet on lots F, G, H, and I of Block 119, City of Aspen, located at 925 E. Durant Avenue. Our reasons for this action are as follows. The Brass Bed Inn is a small European-style lodge, our lobby area is the focal point of IlDSt of the guests' activity. The view of Aspen !.buntain from the front lobby will be greatly re- duced with any structure, and we feel the only way to minimize this impact is to restrict the height of the proposed building to the legal 25 feet. Also, both the winter and SlIllIJEr view from our patio/jacuzzi area to Aspen !.buntain will be affected, Part of our selling power is being able to offer a close proximity to town with a nice llDuntain view. Any interference of this quality will decrease one of our competitive edges as a lodge. We therefore must oppose this requested variance because we fell no physical hardships exist on these lots. Very ;c1Y ~o~' I Lerr Olender, Manager The Brass Bed Inn IPO/jh 'l---..- - ._--' - -' IN WITN8SS WH8HEUF, the ~arties hereto have hereuntu executed this Ayrecillcnt on the year and date hereinabove set forth. CITY OF ^SP~N, a Colorado Municipal Corporation By Benllan Edcl, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APP~OVED AS TO FO~I: ----~-_. '\. .\.:~\ Paul J. Taddune,' City Attot:ney ~ BSC INV ST~ll::tJTS Q.-(.L J AT'rr;S'l': STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss, County of pitkin ) The foreyoing Subdivision Agreement was sworn to and acknow- ledged before hle this day of , 1982, by Herman Edal, Mayor, City of Aspen, WITN~SS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. i I rl , 1 \ i Ii My cOfi@ission expires: .., Notary Public Address: 3 , , ~ "'....... /"" ."...,JI THIS i.GREEMl::ln, 1982, by and uetween ~efe~r.eu to as City) as Subdividel:) SUBDIVISIUN AU~~~NT nti"je tnis q-f!J day of ).('c/( tne Citj 01 '\Spen, CO.l.o~aou (he~einatter. and Il11C Inves Lnents (he~e inafte~ ~e fer.~ed , to WIT N E SSE T H: WIlEj{EA5, tne Subdiv~de~ has sUbnlitted to the .City fo~ apP~oval, execution, and r.ecor.dation, a final plat (her.einafte~ ~efe~~ed to as the "Plat") conce~ninoi the development of an employee hOusin~ p~oJe<,t known as the "925 East Durant ProJect" on a vacant par.cel of real pruperty owned by the Subdivide~ and located at 925 East Durant Avenue, and for,nally desc~ibed as Lots F, G, II, I, 810c~ 119, C~ty of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State ot Colo~acJo; and WHEj{EA", on lIuOju>>t 28, 1981., tne hspen City Council granted final plat app~Oval for the pr.oject subject to certain specific cond it ions ; anu WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council will apP~ove, execute, and accept tor reCordation tne plat on the fUrther condition that 5uo- divider execute this AJreement fo~mally acknOwledging its accept- ance of all tile conditions and requirements imposed by tne City. NO\'i, THEHEFOHE, in cons ideration of the premises, ,'ovenants, and conditions containeCl llerein. and the approval, execution and acceptance of the plat for recordation by the City of Aspen, it is mutually a~reed as fOllows: 1, The Suudivider will const~uct a sidewalk in f~ont of the prope~ty along Durant Street whict1 shall extend from the p~ol-'erty line on the east to the property line on the west and shall install a trash facility on the p~operty adjacent to the alley along the south prope~ty line having dimensions of no less than 10 feet deep and 25 feet long, Said i.mp~ovej"ents shall be installed and constructed in conjunction with the const~uction of the Pro- Ject and shall be completed p~io~ to the issuance of a ce~titicate of occupancy for the project. ~~ 2. With ~espect to the imp~ovements to be constructed by Subdivide~ as set forth in pa~ag~apll "1" hereinabove and in accordance with Section 20-16 of the Aspen MuniCipal Code, Sub- divide~ ayrees to provide a yuarantee fo~ no less than one hunored (100) percent of the CU~~ent estimated cost of the il!lprovel.\ents as cOl<1puted by the City Engineer, ~eflecu,Cl in Exl1ibi.t "!.", annexea hereto and incorporated herein. The gua~antee shall be p~ovided to the City pei.or to the issuance of a buildin':l per..1it fo~ the , I ~: ~j ,. .~.,.r..... r c """" -i l'n.lject and shall be in the form of a cash escrow wit.h t.he C~ty, 0~ a bank or savin~s and loan asociation, or dn irrevocable siyht d,."tt or letter. of COI1\I,litll",nt fro", a finJncially responsi.l..lle lender; and shall 'live the City the unconditionJl riyht, upon default. by th,> SutJdivider, to withdr.aw funds upon de."and t.o par- tially or fully cOll'plete and/or l'ay Lor any h\provement or pay any outstandiny bills fo~ wor.k done thereon by any par.ty. In addi- tion, Subdivider heretJy ayrees to warr.a'nt all iU'[Jrovelilents for a period of one year after. accel'tance by the City. I , I :1 :1 I' Ii :! ,. 3. Subdivider ayrees tnat. all of the units within this e,nployee housinej pr.oJect shall be subject to r.estrictive covenants for.' a term of :;0 year.s ffo,1I the date of r.ecordation- thereof wllieh covenants snaIL pr.ov ide ttlat SJ ~d el,\ployee hOLlS iny Lln its will not be rented or. sold excei-'t in accor.dance Wi.ttl the low inco.lle yuide- lines established oy the City of ASfJen as the same .\lay oe lnodified from time to till,e uy tile City of AS[Jen. :jaiu restri,~tive COve- nants shall be recorded simultaneously witn the recordinej of the final plat. I I I I I I 4, The provisions hereof shall be bindinej udon and shall inure to the benefit of the Subuivider. annd the City and their respective successors and assiJns. 5. 1'his Ayree.nent snal.L be subJect to and construed in accordance witil tne laws of tne State of Colorado and the Munici- pal Code of the City of Aspen. 6, If any of the provisi.ons of this Agreement or any para- grafJh, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section or the afJplica- tion thereof in any circumstances is invalidated, such invaliaity shall not affect the validity of the rell,ainder of this Agreelilent and the validity of any such provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section under any other circwustance shall not be affected thereby, 7. This Subdivision Agreement contains the entire under- standing and agreement between the parties herein with respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder and may be altered or. amended from time to time only by written instrument execut.ed by each of the parties hereto. 8. Any notices required to be given to tile fJarties to this - Agreement shall be deeined to have been given if p'ersonally given or deposited in the United States mail to the parties by regis- tered or certified l1\ail at the addresses indicated below. City of Aspen: City Manager 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado H1611 Subdivider or its Successors or Assigns: HBC Inves tll\ents P.o. Box 3H8 Aspen, Colorado 81612 2 ". . "~.- / ~ ll~ WI'l'N8SS WIlEIU:;UF. the t-odr:ties her.eto have her.euntu executed this ^yr.eement on the year and date hereinabove set for:th. CI'!'Y OF hSPt::N. a Colorddo Municipal Corpor:ation By lIerlUan Edel, Mayor ATTEST: Kathr:yn S. Koch, City Cler:k APPKOVED AS TO FO~I: --\~ 0-- '\ -, .~-~ \ __ Paul J. Tadduno: City Attor:ney HllC I.NV SnlWTS //) L Uh-c-Se-z ATT!::S'!': STAT!:: OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of pitkin ) J The fore':)oing Subdivision ^yr:eement was swor.n to and acknow- led<jed before hle this day of , 1982, by Bennan Edel, Mayor., Cit.y of Aspen. WITNESS MY IIAND AND OFFICll\L SEAL. My con~ission expir:es: - Notar:y Public Addr.ess: 3 CITY OF ASPEN. MEMO FROM VIRGINIA BEALL To: The Board of Zoning Adjustment Just a note to let you know that I have a copy of the complete R.B.O. Rezoning Application and the 70:30 GMP Exemption Request for 925 East Durant Street. If you would like to review this information before the meeting, please call for a copy. ~I ,1 DO CITY OF ASPEN V ~ \INANCE DEPARTMENT CASHIER'S RECEIPT LICENSES & PERMITS o GENERAL OCCUPATION BUSINESS L1C. o LIQUOR OCCUPATION LICENSES o BEER, WINE, LIQUOR o LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL FEE o LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION o EXCAVATION PERMITS o SEPTIC TANK PERMITS o NON.COURT DOG LICENSES o COLORADO FOOD SERVICE LICENSES 00111.61000 00107.60900 00107.61030 00107.61031 00107.61039 00115-61211 00125.61213 00135-61100 00125-61001 FINES & FORFEITS o CITY SHARE.DUI'S o COURT TRAFFIC FINES o TOWING FEE.CITY o PENALTY ASSMTS. ON TOWS o STORAGE FEES o NON.TOW PENALTY ASSMTS. o TRAFFIC FINES o NON.COURT DOG FINES o NON.COURT IMPOUND FEES o NON.COURT VET OR R.V. o NON.COURT ADOPTION FEES o CITY COURT FEES o COURT BOND FORFEITS o COURT COSTS o ACCIDENT REPORTS/XEROX o GENERAL ACCT. NO. I ' 00131.64002 00132.64003 00132.64011 00132.64013 00132.64014 00132.64014 00132-64020 00135-64040 00135.64041 00135-6404 2 00135.64045 00135.64043 00131.64101 00131.64201 00131.63420 DESCRIPTION: (NAME, NUMBER, ETC.) RECEIVED FROM DATE: RECEIPT !J'.' ~3: 21 $ APPl:!i"TO 8Dr\~)1 (f ZO:ll r:G MJJUS' '\~JT CITY OF ASPErJ DATE I'lay 20, 1982 CASE NO. ADDRESS 450 S. Galena St. Suite 202 -ft;s~ell, Culuradu 81611 APP El L AriT H, B. C. Investments PHOIlE OWNER Hans B. Cantrup ADDRESS P.O. Box 388 Aspen, Colorado 81612 LOCATIO.', OF PROPERTY Lots F,G,H.I, Bloxk 119 City of Aspen .. 925' East Durant Street (Street. (. '1umber of Subdivision SH. Z. l.ot 1:0.) Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of CASE rID. THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAI~ ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION, DESCRIPTlC:; OF PROPOSED EXCEPTIOn SHO\-lIrlG JUSTIFICATln:1S: rpOVISI8::S :)F THE zornNG ORDINANCE TO FOR~~RD THIS A?PLICATION TO ThE FOR NO~ u~r'\:~~: I\G: ~~ ~ :L-:t, lG.&\ M~~cJ- -.:.... 't{\M.~ 2-dtJ..L ~ ~<:r -\.0 ~c;-~. O~ '7r2-\\ ) ~~cC \AA.~ 2'-11l'1rL ~ ~\J- ~ ~ '2..~' +-v L~' This appeal is made under Section 2-21 (3) of the Aspen Hunicipal Code (P, 153) for a three foot heigh~ Variance on the R.B,D. portion of the project, This low income employee project has been master- planned tu accommodate a total of twenty-four (24) employee units since 1978, Planning and Zoning Resolution 81-18 initiated new height and open space requirements in the RMF zone, reducing the height limitation from 28 feet to 25 feet. The projects.initial twelve (12) units were exempted from the moratorium that led to Resolution 81-18, Please refer t9 the attachments which are an integral part of this appl.ication. Wll1 you be represented by counsel ? Yes x No / . -- -/~- ' S I G NED: ;j//. . I; ( iJ ' t vi,=..: /~ ~ Hans B. Cantrup ! -."=1 REQUIRING THE BUILOING 1~~p~CTnR BOA ROO F ;\ D JUS HI EN TAN D R E ,; S C' ': ~~ S'ta tus . ~. PERMIT REJECTED, DATE APPLIC~TION FILED MAILED DECISION DATE IF HEARING DATE . SECRETARY c '""" --' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 82-7 . ,J BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colo- rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment reques~ing authority for variance f~om the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited'to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state.. yo~views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give se~ious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected tn deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. "The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: .Date: Time: July 22, 1982 4:00 P.M. ..---- of Applicant for Variance: Name: H,B.C, Investments Address: 450 S. Galena St. Suite 202 Aspen, Co. 81611 , i, l 1 Name and address Location or description of property: Locat~on: Lots F.G,H,I, Block 119 City of Aspen 925 East Durant Street Descr:Lpt:Lon: This appeal is made under Section 2~21 (3) of the Aspen Municipal Code (P.153) for a three foot height variance on the R.B.O. portion of the project. Variance Requested: Moritorium Dec. 22, 1981 reducing height in R/MF zone from 28 to 25 ft.. Ordinance 82-11, passed May 24, 1982 reduced height maximum from 28' to 25'. Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one) Tempa~aYy Permanent Will the applicant be represented'by Counsel ? Yes X No THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY Remo Lav;t:~ninn r.h::l;rm;::m V~rginia M. Beall, Deputy City Clerk . 41. . ," ( , ,..) (" " '. c,___ November 3, 1980 Mark Danielsen H,BoCo Properties 420 S. Galena Suite #2 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re:" Residential Bonus Rezoning and 70:30 Exemption Application for the ..925 E. Durant and 500 S. Galena Projects Dear t1ark: This memo is issued to confirm the items discussed and conclusions reached during our meeting on October 3D, 1980. The Durant and Galena sites have always been considered as one project, the Durant site serving as the employee portion of the total application. The Durant site is zoned R/tlF, and the Galena site (zoned L-2) allows residential multi-family dwellings as permitted uses. These sites were the subject of a 1978 GI1P app 1 i cati on for 12 low-income employee studio units at Durant Avenue and 17 units at Galena Street consisting of one employee and 16 free market units. The GMP application was awarded the residential development allotment requested and was authorized to proceed with construction via the appropriate review process under the City Council Resolution No. 11, Series of 1978. It is understood that HBC Properties has recently been given approval for subdivision exception, conceptual plans, and preliminary plat by the Aspen P&Z Commission for the original 12 units on the Durant site. City Council will consider final plat approval at its November 10, 1980 meeting. The Planning Office understands that, as stated in your Durant subdivision exception application, it is now your intention to apply for an additional 12 employee units (to be price restricted for 50 years) on the Durant site (for a total of 24 units there) in conjunction with an application for 5 additional free market units on the Galena site. This application is made possible by using the Residential 80nus (R.B.) Overlay (under Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1980) rezoning and the 70:30 exemption process (as allowed under Ordi nance No. 20, Sed es of 1980). These ordi nances now allow for the app 1 i- cation to be reviewed and processed in the following manner: 1. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1980: Residential Bonus Overlay: A. Determination of number of units using minimum lot area required per dwelling unit, section 24-10,S(b)(S), < ( "'-, ) ( /, .... -" ..",J Mark Dani el sen November 3, 1980 Page 2 1. Durant site, RMF zone, 12,000 sq. ft. lot, 500 sq. ft, require- ment per studio unit. 12000t500 = 24 studio units allowed. 2. Galena site, l~2 zone, 21,600 sq. ft., 500 sq. ft./studio, 625 sq. ft./one bedroom. 21600t625 = 34 one bedroom units allowed. However, it is understood that this applica- tion requests 21 one-bedroom units of approximately 1262 sq. ft. each, plus one employee studio unit of 500 sq. ft, B. Determination of size of units using external FAR requirements of 1,25:1, section 24-10.5(G)(5). 1. Durant site, 12000 sq. ft. X 1.25 = 16,000sq. ft. usable FAR less the 12 original units totaling 7,000 sq. ft, leaves 9,000 sq. ft. for the remaining 12 units of this application. 9000t12 = 750 sq. ft. per studio unit allowable size later limited by Housing Price Guidelines. 2. Galena site. 21600 sq. ft. X 1.25 = 27,000 sq. ft, usable FAR. less 500 sq. ft. employee unit = 26,500+21 one bedroom units = 1262 sq. ft. per one bedroom units allowed. 2, Ordinance No. 20, Series 1980: Exception from GMP requirements for projects that provide for deed restricted units in a 70:30 ratio: A. Minimum 70% deed restricted units under price guidelines required. Durant site: 12 deed restricted units, Galena site: 5 free market units. Ratio 12:5 = 70:30. This ratio meets the requirement of the ordinance. B. Recommendation only, for minimum 50% floor area devoted to deed restricted units. Durant site: 12 deed restricted units totalling 7000 sq, ft. Galena site: 5 free market units of 1262 sq. ft, totals 6310 sq. ft. The opprl r9s~~rtion of the total project thus exceeds the floor area recommendation of the ordlnance. "-- C. Recommendation only, for maintaining an average of 1.5 to 2,0 bedrooms in the deed restricted portion of the project. The Durant site consists of 12 studio units which minimizes impacts on the particular parcel of land and surrounding neighborhood. The Durant site also addresses itself to a segment of the market (those who prefer studio units) that has not been addressed fully in other projects. such as Hunter Long- house and the Water Plant project. These considerations are seen to be overriding factors in terms of the ordinance's general recommenda- tions. D. Compliance with adopted housing plans, The Durant site addresses itself to the need of studio units as stated in the adopted housing plan. No one project can address the needs of the entire community; rather, it is preferable in terms of cost efficiency. to aim indivi- dual projects to particular segments of the market, in this case to employees desiring small low-cost units. , . c, ,. . . ( -~ , "... -. , '"" ,- , ,.~..,., ".., ....- ,. Mark Danielsen November 3, 1980 Page 3 3. Housing Price Guidelines and units size requirements stipulating maximum unit size for which rent can be charged. Studio units low Income Rent .48/sq. ft. Unit Size 400-600 sq. ft. The deed restricted Durant studio units of 455 sq. ft. meet these require- ments. Summa ry: Consequently, the 1978 GMP approval coupled with the new application meets the requirements of Ordinances No. 16 and 20, both series of 1980. As the appli- cation meets the specific requirements of the Overlay and GMP exception as herein discussed, you may continue with the application for the required review approvals. Such application shall include discussion of all other aspects of the ordinances. There are three ways to handle the application under the review process, Subdivision exception could include only conceptual presentation and approval by the Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Commission, immediately followed by final plat review and approval by City Council. This method is feasible, but not likely to be approved, as indicated by the P&Z on Tuesday, October 21st, when the commission reviewed subdivision for the first 12 studios on the Durant site. P&Z approved this subdivision exception (waiving only conceptual before City Council), but also strongly stated that more detailed review would be required in any future applications. The second application is a modified subdivision exception review. A modified exception process could allow for the waiver only of conceptual review before City Council. The procedure would be Conceptual review and approval by P&Z, Preliminary review and approval by P&Z, and final plat review and approval by City Council. This method is possible, but also not probable, as indicated by the P&Z in that meeting. Based upon P&Z comments, the most likely process to be approved would be to go through full subdivision review. This method requires conceptual review and approval by P&Z, and City Council, Public Hearing and Preliminary review by P&Z and, Final Plat review and approval by City Council after first and second reading for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay. I hope this clarifies the interpretation of the ordinances as they will be applied to your application, and outlines the probable review process required. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, :~t&">-J?_ t4d:~ Jolene Vrchota Assistant Planner 'l'ime sh..~r ing ~- r;;.sl.'!:l I I I I I I I 9.-.&0 \ .0 o 'le.. . ~l)-. g..qul,,'l' Ii." ~ i nq t\~;IJt...'1\ City C<JlIlIC i 1 :'.l!'(']; 1(', l'JQ.0 ('Ollll"ilwnrhHI !.l.ic-lldC'l !:10\'cd to r('~ll1C:f>t the Sl.l:[ to il~ili-lh"' rt-'<'0r~i:"1 fOl .I lIl(:nt L.c-i 1 i I Y ,1I1.;1 that the rctjl.le~;t tab: t h.~' (orm ot ("ollc~'plll,ll ,qJl'~'l'\':d .1:.1 pl-O('l'~::;; sc.eol1lk.d lJy Councilll1<.tJI {',U-t'Y. i\ll in [.;-1\.'01, motiO!l e-,ln'iL,d. .:'.; (; :,l' 'rIHE SIlAHING DlSCY_~SION, Ii 1 I I ~ Ii " I, ~ ! ~ JCtTY Hewey, r.1.J.Jl.1Q..r of l\sllCn 1\1(15, told Council he hilS follo'.;(.'<:1 s('natp hi lIs c1:I'~ ::c'~:'':' bills of intcl.'e~t ....'hic!l pertilin to the condominium indl\5tn'. S.B. 132 dlf':~lIS:-;<' t :ll1\~ shLtring ,:1nd would have' alloVled o...men:; to tirr.(' slwre C'n in.-'tj\.ichw1 units. This "':0'l' : make it difficult [01' condominium manag(~rs; this W,-IS ~;truck from 1I\l' bill. lIe:'.",-'Y 1,)1 Council thir; hill did restrict municipulitics fro:-.1 ]('c;isli1ting tiw' ~hilri:lq. lk'~.'cy said people in the condominium business have told lcgisl,Jtoui lhey \~'o~ld lib' t(, ...:ork on the bill!; and Ilave hills th.:Jt arc hnntlle.1.hlc for condominium m.llh"lqcrs anr. ('o.,.,ml'n;tit.~s both. Hewey Rtil.ted he ....!as of the opinion lh.:lt if til1l(> shnrinq is dL'nc rl(:ht, it i~ a good thing. Stock ~aid he felt it is impol'Uwt th,ll tllis <Jnmp 11.10. tilkC!l ~(Jn ~"l:~" ('If thc' responsibility in front of lhe lcgislatun~. This (jro\lp ......as instrumental in lcstifv'Jnq on the bill and having it modified. council thanked Hewey for hif; time il!hl intc'n.~t.- HOVS1Nr;-OVF.RT ,:'\ Y_.F511~wu~rc~lW"nTd ina~ out'! i~h~!-t KarL'n Smilh, plilnnin(J din~clor, reminded Council they h,'1\'(, had study r',csf;iollf; on thi~ and the planning office would like some direction in drc.ftint.1 onlin,lIlces. Thc plan:li:1Q office hilS recomrllcndcd that bandit units and mandatory clllployc'e housin\J not iJ,' di ~~eu:,s':_'~ at thi:; tim(; ouL ...:i 11 be di:,cuszecl ....:i th gro...,th managE'ment pl.::ln amendments i1:1d code streamlining. 'l'he fin;L ordinance regards carcta}:cr units which is bafiicL:lly ~tP:'lic<d>lc' to single family lots ano would involve a small, limited. in ::;ize, attached uni~:. I: there aloe f'xistin(J o....ltlched structures, these would be grandf(lthcrcG. !-1~. Smith :lointc:~ out Ulerc arc cxisting structurcs illl over t.own that could be convl'!"t.ed to ci.lr'loy~€ ul:i' with liLtle impact. For nc....' construction, attached structures would ba less imp3clin'J both vis\1.:11Iy ilnd land use-\\"isc. The prOCt'~;5 decided upon fOL" car.C'lab.r units \,oulu b.:: the conditional \1!:iC proccs!O; the revie..... criteria ...;ould be that existing in the c0li(liti.e,:. use Geclion. Cuuncil loay waI!L to add that for detacllcd structllrps nO F.A.R inc~0aso ~C' be tll]O\~'(;rl, buL ~;lIbstantial rcmodc1liu<j could be done. A criicl'ia that s!lOi.:ld l>e add.::(: js that tht'fie be clc..('d l."c~trict:ed. Hayor- Pro Tern H(:hrendl said he felL th<.~ ilppnx!c.:h on this W"l~~ to t.:\kc c:lch .1rc',1 ;In<1 \,')r;. it lhrouyh r~l(J",,'ly to geL pub"lic irl!,uL and not ilttC"mpt to redesign the community in 30 day~. Hs. ~~mith pointed out shc had hrnk<.'n tile various recommcndation~ into ;.;ep~r;:.t(" onlillancm; tlnd djd not sec ,:lllY ptoulcm::; in proce(.(ling with the fir~t 3 orr1in.:l.ncC's <l.t once. 'l'h(~se 3 gol hiyh cOIl~"'n~.;uS ouL ()[ the cll!1uounity hOU5in<;l \~'orkshop. Councilman \'.Jr Nes!; tld'l'd if Illes(' prnpDsL'd onlinanrC'!: arc tal~:inq about d('n~~ity incrN~~f'f.. Hz. Smit~~ s.:dd fe~;. lIli!-> .....Oll](\ /10\: a11m>l l\-JO ulliU; Oil <1 pal'c('l \.;hich pn'viou!.;l)' .\llov:('c1 Oile'. Hs. Smith n0lpc! in onlinaflc('l (ci:,r('tat;cr units) the area iJ.nd hulk l"Njllir('lnents ,'!mlld bc Lhe> !,i1IIlC: ,IS tIlV Z()f\I' n'qllill'lrvlll:;. hllllln'~;olvc=l qll,-~sli(Jll i~; Wlll.thL'r ll.."l <111(\',. .',)t"('t.,',- 1ll1it.:-; on duph'x lot~; th(' pl;lllldng pffiCf.~ recommpnucltion is not to alloH thc's..' dt thl~; point. 'nil' p],:.IIlnlIlQ ol.J j':L' i:; u'yililJ to illI'nlify nIl thC" prol'osf"'d tce-hni'll:(':"': [01' incrp.I~',ilhJ (,mploy"'--' "()ll~;inq itlHl t'roj('c:t Itr)\" l1lany llllit:-. t.he city .....i1l cJ'.!l. Coul1C'i 1~1"1I \ Ne!,~; :;':-lid 11(..' did lIot :;f'(' \,;1t.11 the' inc(!ntiv(~ on thi:j .....as. Ms. Smilh said thl.: th('\.__'!rv is :iomt' IH:Op)" indY not wi~;h to J..IVl' SOffil..'01lv t~lse livinq ill the house. using t.lle fi1C"i lit 1(" hut. nlilY "'Illm~' ~'or:lC'('lr'" to live in a selhlriltt' unit and keep \\"atch on tho hUtl5C. I'o~s. ;'1:1:' f;Li.id tht~ city .....i]) h,,\'0 tG ipll): ilt the imp;.ct on facilities on serviCeS; thi5 .....ill be IHonit{.Jn~d ill.d tl;r: Coullcil could put tPp ~~ct limits on the n1lI11be1.- of ullits to l)i": ('uter" t iJillc,d in one Y"d' . I' t 'filL' !:('('0I1'l i,nll,(/:;,.rj on1illdnCl' i:; ,1 dpl\!;ity bonu~ for on" aCI-C and litrcJer in sinCJl~ f<lmi1y <.ih'!; il. I' C. Z0f1f: tllr()uqh H-40. Hs. Smit.h Gilid there may b<.' ]0 to 15 in tl:<.' ci: ho'.;cv.,r, llli!; wi 11 ('0111(' into play \-:h~'ll .J.nlll::xiIlCj lalld to the city. The permitted US":' ..,i]l b(: ~;iJIl')l(' f.l!:lily. duplex, multi-filmily, Clnd townhou5Cs if 70 per cent. or m;:>rc cf uni~.~; an' ch.'vd rl'~tricl(~d. 'Ih<.' n:vip..... procc(lul.C would be rc;u'IIling wit.h subdivision Ot~ f,llhdi\'i~.j()ll L'>:cvpt iUll .h.h"J"e aIJpli(;il.Lll'. '.l.'h(' review cl-Ueria would bc the salO0. <IS ol-iqi:. prop,.).,cd ill Onlilli::tlH:P ~7C. 'l'he plallllill{j office rC'C"ommcnds adding new criteria to som~ L~ cnCOll!d(JC CH'iI!.iO!l or o.....l\cn,hip unit.:=>. COllncil a5kcrl tllat criteria be dropped. Thf!: arca .;ind bulk wjl1 b(~ v<lI-it~d ,i:; in the> oriqilla1 onlinance. l\ difference [l.om thc oric:i' onlin;.t:lc(' i!~ thal the lllilli"lIJll\ lot arc., per' <h.!clling unit .....ould be 5UOjcct to a nlaXimu;'l ~O lwr celll re<1ucticHl, .....hic:il means a potential 50 per cent incrc<l5C in density. TILt' Vdl-iiltion in lol wj(lLil, r;cth<-.t<;'Y.s, open ~paec, etc. would DC varicd a5 they nO\': arc in pLlnnc-c] lln.i l ck'VC'lupHlcnt. Each unit CClnnot be setback under the guidelines of the zo:v~ <1i~;trlcl OJ' then' will nol 11(' cl\lGtet-ing. Ms. Smith said this ordinance docs not touch the R/:'U' Zt;llC. ^ question caml.: up .....h(;thcr to a 110""" rcdevelopmC'nt of non-vacant land, and Lho pl<I'l"Iiwl uffice' rec0mmended no; it is not .....orth getting into the unknO\~.11 right nO',.,. 'I'lll' onlill,lflCI' \:ill only bc it11()wl::d Clll vacant ).in<1. Another question was whether lu allow dun,:.s, ,md tile: plilnning offi('f": aq.-lill n"colmIH':~llded no. 'l'hc thinl ordill..tnc~' i~:; prop()~;ed density honm~C5 in CC, sIC/I, N/C, C-I, C-L, L-l, L-2 Puhlic, 0, and H/i-l!" to a11m" siJ1{Jl~ family, duplex, multi-family, tuwnhouses and dorms if '/0 I'c'1" CI.:nt d(.cJ rcstricte>c1. The I"cvic-.,; procC'ss v;ould be the saMe as ordinance 2 u~ v.-'0111d IJf~ t.he r0'Jie'.,' critC'l-ia. The ilrC'a ."lnd bulk n~quiremcnts could be varied a5 in Lhe orjtJinal h'Jl1~;iH'] L.vc..'rl<tY unJincH1cc, a!l(l the Itlininum lot ilrea pf'1" dwC"lling unit .....0\11<. bc ~:l:l,j('c' tc~ it 100 ~,'('l' cent rcductiun, ....'hich .....'ou1d allow t.....icc cJS mrlny units. HmoleVC'r thC' l'f,n i~ OIil'l 51111;,"'cl.. to i1 25 per cent incrci:l~c. This means ,J doubling of the numb"" of ul1il~j .....itJ. Oldy 2:1 pel' c('l1t incn:>ilse in l-,ulk. 1'015. Smith asked if Council ....'ant('d to cOIl:.;i<lcr t.hi~ in ..!~;H]C'l"Iic ,l.r.d part 7.011E'. council si1id to delete it in both. 1>1s. SmiLh lold Couw-:il :...b, \,..,)11 III 1 ikc' to draft the ordinanc"~' .IS discu,sscd and clarify the poinls bl'Ollqllt out HI (li:~r.ld;si..OIl. COUllci}w0r.un r.1ichdel Ruid 5he .....ould like people to identif: ..... i th these <:to. ~~r'i"1 r.) t C' 01 (Ii n,1I1ees ilnd \.:01\ ld 1 i ke them presented sc:p.:tratel y. Counc i I man Bt:hrl'llut !-'~\i(l 1.\' .....\)u\rl like lht.~ ~,(concl t\\'o to go together. to r,0nsirC'r :t.lr"'1-ln-cp l~rC1ro~~dlltJT'd:inQn~~~~~'r.n~.=Fd j!l f' :'Jvor, ....'1 th t he excepf'ion...oi",~yol....~ll.") ~c.:n...Bc.h.Lcnd.t... Coull~.ilUlan Van Nessmovp.d 1':, councilm"ln T'~Try. l'dl Motjon ~i'lrrir.r.. .0 o /-.,....ellllIJ ^~pcn City Cou:lcil :.~arc:h 10, l~(lO IH~QU~:~'t~. i':~l< ll\JJ.L1HN.... P1::.ltMl'J.' - 925 Durant Employee tlousing Project Sunn)' Vanl" p).lnning officC', t01d COlwell that 975 D~l1.anl j~; llt....~ cmpl{J':'''''\~ ho\!slnq l\Ollioll of a project \-.hic;h [('ci'i\<'-'1,1 ll~:;.ith:'lltj"l C.lI' ~1l1oc,-lli()Tl in 19iH. TI1l'i1 .111n.~.:ltj"l\ j!; i1bout to l..;.:pirc dud thcy ~aJl)li1Jtt('tl ("('d~,lr\lctjO!\ dr.:.\-"lnq!> in (InlC'r to :,~Cl1!.' <'1 building permit. ]n rc\.j~wjlLr; thC' lj'f!ll('~;l for t1 }'lJildi:l<] I'l.'nuil., ~l...' huilr1ill<J ...1t'l';IJlr;'I'nlnlltiC't'.! diffe%"e>f1<.:e:; trom th0 ori'-Jin-d ~\;.bndf;::ion; beld bac~. 011 tlll.' permit and .n~fCJrL.d lh..... p~-oj{'cl to the plilflIliflg office!;. \,'.lnn ~~t.llecl thL' corle rf",:(h; that .,ny ':1f'?lic.:1Ht ".....,:n.c0d dc\.,,"}Qrr:....:n:.. nllotrrH.'nt. dcvinling in f'~;~l'p...i<.Jl C'1CIilt'lll~~ from U,(' original prQPofial, th<-' p].lllllino 0rfi,-~(> shall be notified and Sh~lll !loLiry Ct)uncil. Vano ~:lj(l Ll1e quC'~~tinn i~ .....thlt is an t."ssentl.ll e1f'mcnL; Lhe Code> is noL gpc.'ci fie. 'I'll(' pl.:lnuing office hils ilqn'h~ th.Jt .those items score',: or received poillts con~L:itlll(' ess(;nLii11 c~lcm('Hls. 'J'hC' huildin'J ckp.::nm0nL idt.'nliflc'd various csscnti'll clc:ncnts. 'rhe nrea5 thal have ChClII(J.,(\ an.~ paIl:iIlC), I.:ncrqy. hil'~dic.:1r'P"u; the entirc Luildinfj tl<lS cha:l-Jpd as fnr <IS overall dt'sl'j::. R,,'I1:" ..... ,~ .'. City stttff met ...:ith tl1c ;'Pldici'lIlt to disc1\sS thes(' dlilnqt'.oi, thr)' i'I~;kt'd for <In ol'll0rtullity to mitilJatc somC' of Uw ("h"nlJc~. 'fhe Id,Hlllinq office 1:..1~; no 1'('.11 pn"lhlcl~ .....ith ~,nIN~ of the chanrJcs as lonq ,15 t.IF' ('lld n.'~adl would not hilvv ch.=tIl'1Ctl the ~:cop' o~rl il detl'il~.(,llt to lht> proccr.s itr:e]f. The plillmjnCj o(fic(' docs hdVt.' !iO:ll(' J1tohll'r'\ .....ilh llll' f.l("t th\~~ l~~ ,1 complclt~ly <UffC'I"ent buildi.fLtJ. VilllJl pointcu out th:lt d~.~-:iqll iU-:i'lf i:-; not ~l"Ou"J <1S l'.'l.rt o[ the rcsiu(}nt.i.JI proc~ss; howevpr. he i~ of the> opinion Llldt it cannot: he ~;i..'tJ.Hatdl fH' thi'lt process. Val1n told CoulIcil L1wt oriyinally the :IJlplici'lnl did !lot rec,"iVt" sllffit'H'nL points; they ilppe.Jl"d to C,.)uncil and in the apppal procC!ss the ~;c-nn' \,a:. J<"i:;eu in l".:'r~<li.:t areas to ki.ct them o\.'('r the minimum. V,lnn told. Councll there WilS llpt annthl'J ,1~Tli( -Int close enough. I I I J\shley ',ndcrson, r('present i ng the ilppl iC"rtnt, laId Cot!lIL'i 1 1 hey havp beell 1 ry i !1,j l (' 1\\.1;': 1 - mize tile numtwr of units for two yeilr~. 'l'll(!y \,'<I1l1t:J. to pr("sl.'r\'e the Cll'::ility to l,uil,l 11 addit.io:1al uniU; under the Lousing ovprlClY. Andcl'!'",Oll stated Uwy ...:cre not bt'fon:.- \<"lllllCil for an cxtcnsi(,n; thC'y an~ :"cauy to start diq~ing. ]t was suqqeslcd th('y \nOVe' the' Luildin~J on the site; lhis caused t;Ol.1e chanqcs which lhf'Y do not fe(ll i1l"e iml'Onil!ll. l\ndl"n'on told Council th05~ arf' not frue mar~;et units. COllncilmClI1 V~m Nos!'; f,<lin he 1C'lt l\\'O thinqs arp importilnt; (]) the n~ct~;on for the dli1Il!)es. and (7.) \dlcthr>r the c:ll.1Clgl'S in terms (\f GMP ~icoring criteria arc' 11('~('fjci,ll (JI" d(.trimcllt<ll - whethPI the I))'oj0ct wOllld 9Pt Innre or 1055 points. Counci ltniill Van Nc~;s f;oid he felt t!1~lt puLrin<j half the parl:inq un<1c>rqround v.'ould have a differC::llL visual impact but ...:ould b(' il. b>.!npfici.Jl Ch.-:llllJC. l\a(ler~;oll t.old Conncil on Lh,~ on.::ryy CIl.lllY':, ""h<~n the lluildinq dr'r~J.l'tnH:nl rcv('l\:cd the- pl.:~n~, the units \-lere f,lCin() cast <Iud \,'c~;t. r~()H tilv uniu; ilJ"C'" .:\11 fi1<..:inq south liLt' thc'y .:tn' ~~llppO~;l'd tn. l / \ . I CouncilJr.oll Van ~:e:";G concludt.c llnl(.ns ~o:nr'0n(o cuuld <:laim lhi!; would (jet less the GC()r(' on GHP ljrad i IIY, lllcr;c Ch,Hll.JC'~; lire- !J(:nt.. f i ci. ~ll. r.:::. 5mi t I. !~t.) t ('(1 Counc i 1 Iia:'> to oce ide in each circumstance ...:h(:thet" iL i~; " hcn<,fjcial chanQe flnd ...:bclhC'r it ,.:ou'd 11':1\'(~ af[ecU~c! ho'"" t lt0 <11J1-'1 icant ~;co(('cl. CrlllTlcilllldfl V,W t~t'5~ asked i t thc~;C' ch,wgcs wllultl h.JVC' decreased or incl'cas(.d thC' G!U' scorc. Vann Lold Council thc p)iIJlninc] officI" i~ of the opinion in v.:orking \"..ith till' appJic,ml th.'lL tht'"' Ch,lIlC]C5 Cdll lJ(' Illitig.ltcd "neh th<lt, to their [:.Jtiti- fact.~on, tit<' applici1I,t's ~;('(ln-' wouhl tlot he c!l:I1\<jc(l lo tht! dctrim("nt of ~nothC'r i11'plicant. Yltn,,-Mrio.t'he-orudaer. question 'is-the code dO~8 IlOI.: ddd.t:~.6..dt;t08i.Yli-ot-Wt!lil>ltP~~.n-th. .corinq-proc~8s. Thp. ori~inal bu11~ln~ occupied all thr ~it~: thp. ftew~uildtng-1s~on one..cOLJU,r or- thC' !:it(' ,,11c\'11nq for .:1noth~r builrtinq which would_tlu~..1..4.._l.4l1dnor.e"unit.-. Cou~~.a4c mqYQd.to approve the chnnqas~ scconda~ bY-~du~lwom~n-M~~~11-in~ tavo~td-O'~~;L;: 1: ied...,. II ~.H:1)Il~~NCJ; ~~~--.:~r!q):;;.l))".)972. _ H.II.0.I'. ^1I11l.:X,ltioll ,,11<1 HC7.onio<j City J\ttorncy Stock told Council thi~", couln not be ilddn'sspd \lnt.il th0 Opal Harolt ilnnC':-':iltior, is completed i1S lhcll' i:-. ;-. lJruljlL'm~; with contiguity. CCllncilTPiln Van l~('ss Il\ovc.~l to contillllc the f;('cond n~ildiny \Intill\lJl"il 1'1,1980; sC'conded vi' Councilwo:ntln tiicl"wl. All ill [..IVOI', motion edl"riC{l. I' . ()kD~CE #7_,_r.!~H~--.S!!'---22J.!_O. - h'iiU-'L l'lant J1ou~;in<J 51'1\ HaYOT Pro Tern l-\chrC'not. ope'neel thc' puh1ic- hC.1rin<j. 'l'hc-TC' \-!ere no COlments. Mayor Pl-O 'l'cm Dphrendl clo~cd the pul)lic h(~Jriny. Counci1mi'ln IsailC Inovcd to n:nd Ordin..lIH;e ~7, SL'ric~; of 1980; seconded by Councilman Parry. All il) favor, motion carried. :, ., i " ., ~ ,I ~ ~ ~I OROINJ\~CF. # 7 (S0ries of 1(80) lIousiny Direclor Jiffl f:C('I,U; told Contle-il thiB is ...1 ,1pplication by the city for 80 units of )"[>Iltal hou~illY Oll cil'j-C;\-l;WU property adjacpnt. t,j the hospital. The SPA as approved <'1]10....5 for. the' R/HF an:d to C(tvcr till' f:ile propofi{'d for the hOlltiing. The rest cf the ~;.iLt. .....il1 be' Public for till' w.:-t:er plclnt <tnd open ['.p.:lcC!. AN OHOINJ\NCl:: Rr:Z()~llIJG '1 ilL \'1l1.'n:R PI,ANT SITE ACCORDING 'l'0 AN APPROVALLD SPECIALLY PLM-HH;n AnEA lo1T\STJ:R PLAN FOR '1'1Ir. SITE, THF: J.:t.EHCNT$ OF WIIICH r.1l\STER PLA[~ WILl. CO!\iS'l'I'l'll'I'E 'I'W'; DCVJ:J,OI'~tl;r:T Rl:C;Ur.ATIO~JS FOR THE AHEA ALL Af.; rnO\'IDI;O BY lIH'rICI.t: VII 0:" CflM'1'F.n 24 (IF TilE ASPEN HtlNICIPAL CODE '-tas rcad ui' lhc cily clC'rk Cu:.lncilw(1;r.i1n :,lich.:lel r.!ovc.d Lo i\l-lopt Ordin.1ncc #7, 5('rie~ of lC)RO on ~ccnnd reading; sr:conocd Ly CO\lrlC'ilm.1n 1'~lrq'. Hol1 c.lll vote; Coun(;ilm':~f,lb0rs I~:i1ac, aye; r-~ich<lcl, aye p<H-ry, aye; V.1J\ r~("ss, ,Ji'l'; r'~L1YOl' Pt"O 'l'c:1I Bchn'ndt, ayC'. Hotion carried. I'f'cnls r(,C!IlC~;te-U Cmlllcil il!'i'}^O\-,(' !",ubilli\:i~ion f:xemptiC"il for the project. with the condition t.h,1t if at. nTI:: point in till.' futur.:' till.' pr-oject c(Jmc~; ill for condominiumizntion, it DC I,'quirc:j t(1 I:,(.-"l the' full ~.tJb:1ivisi(J!1 n"'quircn;cllt!:'. AFFIDAVIT COUNTY OF PITKIN ) ) ss STATE OF COLORADO) The undersigned, Mark Danielson, being first duly sworn, deposes and states that: 1. He is over the age of 18. 1. He posted the requisite sign in accordance with section 2-22(c) (1) of the Municipal Code on July 11, 1982. 3. He checked the sign at various intervals during the entire ten day period. 4, did continue 1982. To the best of his knowledge, posting of said sign throughout the ten day period prior to July 22, Further the affiant sayeth not. Dated this ~~ day of July, 1982. ~ #: ~..h'~( ;,J~'----' Mark Daniel--son