The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.728 E Hopkins Ave.A112-99, CASE NUMBER A112-99 PARCEL ID # 2737-073-33004 CASE NAME Hopkins 728 PROJECT ADDRESS 728 E. Hopkins Ave. PLANNER Nick Lelack CASE TYPE Special Review OWNER/APPLICANT Dopkin Development LLC. (Buzz Dopkin) REPRESENTATIVE same DATE OF FINAL ACTION 3/17/00 CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION Approved Reso #9-00 ADMIN ACTION Insub. Amend Approve BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 3/20/00 BY J. Lindt PARCEL ID: ~2737-073-33004 DATE RCVD: | 12/9/99 # COPIES:~30-- - CASE NO|A112-99 CASE NAME:|Hopkins 728 PLNR: ~ INC 4141* PROJ ADDR:~728 E. Hopkins Ave. CASE TYP:~Special Review STEPS:~ OWN/APP: Dopkin Development ADR~ Box 4696 C/S/Z: |Aspen/CO/81611 PHN:~925-7488 REP:~same ADR:I C/S/Z: 1 PHN:~ FEES DUE:~11100 160H FEES RCVD:~1270 STAT: F REFERRALS| REF:] BYE DUE:~ MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED 1 - DATE OF FINAL ACTION:| _3/17/CIO CITY COUNCIL:: REMARKS< PZ: Râ€¢Q.SC.#9 - 00 BOA: CLOSED:| BY: DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: ~ PLAT (BK, PG):~ ADMIN: Ik;6 /twta,2 /lffc#fjocO Â£3~li MEMORANDUM TO: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Nick Lelack, Planne~~r/ RE: Insubstantial Amendment of Development Order for Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 9, Series of 2000 DATE: March 13, 2000 SUMMARY: Land Use Code Section 26.430.090 authorizes the Community Development Director to approve ~Q an insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for special review provided that it relates to a technical or engineering consideration. This insubstantial amendment is a technical amendment to Planning and Zoning Resolution 9, Series o f 2000. On February 15, 2000 the Planning and Zoning Commission passed Resolution No. 9, Series of 2000, approving an application submitted by Buzz Dopkin for Special Review to increase the floor area ratio to 1:1, Special Review for parking, and Residential Design Standard variances for 728 E. Hopkins Avenue. During the public hearing on February 15,2000, the Commission, Staff, and Buzz Dopkin (Applicant) agreed not to discuss the deed restrictions for the affordable housing units because the nature of that decision is housing policy and not land use; instead it was determined that the Housing Board was the appropriate entity to make the decisions on the deed restrictions. The resolution contained the following conditions of approval recommended by the Housing Office: 10. The final deed restriction be brought to the Housing Board for final input and approval. The deed restrictions for the two (2) affordable housing units shall comply with the Housing Board' s final recommendation. 11. The two (2) bedroom affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted to Category 4, and the one (1) bedroom affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted to Category 2. Ilowever, when the deed restrictions were brought to the Board for final input and approval on March 1, 2000, the Board approved Mr. Dopkin's request to deed restrict the unit to Category 3. Consequently, the Board's decision conflicts with the Housing Office's recommended Category 2 deed restriction contained in Condition 11. Assistant City Attorney David Hoeffer determined that an amendment was necessary to correct the Condition so that it reflects the Board' s final recommendation. Community Development Staff recommends amending Condition 11. to read as follows: 11. The two (2) bedroom affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted to Category 4, and the one (1) bedroom affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted to Category 3. 1 RECOMMENDATION Community Development staff recommends approval of the Insubstantial Amendment to the Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 9, Series of 2000. REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS 26.430.090 Amendment of development order. A. Insubstantia/ amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for special review may be authorized by the Community Development Department Director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process. An insubstantial amendment shall include a change to the design of approved off-street parking or to the configuration of a trash/utility service area. An insubstantial amendment shall not include: 1. Any increase in a dimensional requirement established by special review. 2. Any decrease in the number of off-street parking spaces established by special review. 3. Any decrease in the size of a utility/trash service area established by special review. 4. Elimination of any represented feature, such as provision of a trash compactor or the number of trash bins, which was approved by special review. Staff Finding The Community Development Director finds that the proposal qualifies as an Insubstantial Amendment because it is limited to technical considerations concerning the deed restriction for the one (1) bedroom affordable housing unit at 728 E. Hopkins Avenue. Staff believes that changing the conditions of approval contained in Resolution 9, Series of 2000, to reflect the LIousing Board's decision to deed restrict the unit to Category 3 is consistent with Condition 11. Condition 11. states that the final deed restriction be brought to the Housing Board for final input and approval, and that the deed restrictions shall comply with the Housing Board' s final recommendation. The Planning and Zoning Commission, Community Development Staff, and Buzz Dopkin (Applicant) agreed at the Public LIearing on February 15,2000, to not discuss the deed restrictions for the affordable housing units because the nature of that decision is housing policy and not land use. Instead, the Commission, Staff, and the Applicant decided to allow the Housing Board to make the decisions on the deed restrictions. This amendment incorporates the Housing Board' s final recommendation into the approved resolution. 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Insubstantial Amendment to Resolution 9, Series of 2000, Condition 11. to read as follows with one condition of approval: 11. The two (2) bedroom affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted to Category 4, and the one (1) bedroom affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted to Category 3. Condition of Approval: The one (1) bedroom deed restricted affordable housing unit shall meet the then current Affordable Housing Guidelines for dimensional requirements. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Resolution No. 9, Series of 2000 Exhibit B - Housing Board Minutes, March 1, 2000 APPROVED BY: Â· DATE: 4 ~t_-gub 2/(7/CIE-1 f 0Fe Ann Woods &6mmunity Development Director APPROVED AppacNED MAR 1 7 2000 ..8.1 . COMMUNIn'DEVELOPMENI DIRECTOR GlY OF ASPEN i 7 ?fOO .AECTOR C,ON\Wwivt j , 3 MAR. 9.2000 8:03AM ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.835 P. 1 GN/gir- g Housing Office 530 East Main Street, Lower Level As pen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5050 Fax: (970) 920-5580 FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM Date: .3- 9-00 To: Nii aut-- From: -- --- - Fax #: Telephone #: - Fax consisting of _ legal and/or u.3> letter size pages (including this cover page). 1 Brief Description or Additional Instructions: 1 , 6 , 1 9 - 1 - If you have any problems receiving this transmission, please call at 970-920-5050. DEVELOPMENT ORDER ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of the Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption from expiration, extension or reinstatement is granted or a revocation is issued by the City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. Dopkin Development LLC., Box 4696, Aspen, CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number 728 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Special Review for FAR and Parking, and Design Review Appeals Committee Variances for Residential Design Standards Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 9-2000,2/15/00 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) February 25,2000 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) February 26,2003 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 25th day of February, 2000, by the City of Aspen Community Dâ‚¬*Nopment Directqr. 9 <6/ C ~ILÂ«_j ~~~h -- Julif,Ann Wolds, Community bevefopment Director PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 728 East Hopkins Avenue of the City and Townsite of Aspen, by Resolution No. 9, Series of 2000 of the Planning and Zoning Commission. For further information contact Julie Ann Woods, at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept., 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920-5090. City of Aspen Account Publish in The Aspen Times on February 25,2000. Aspen Conso-lidated Sanitation District Sy Kelly * Ch airman John Keleher Paul Smith * T reas Fran]2 Lousliin Michael Kelly * Secy Bruce Matlierly, Mgr RECEIVED January 21, 1996 '141 2 4 2000 ASPEN / PiTk:N Nick Lelack AOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENÂ¥ Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re 728 E Hopkins redevelopment Dear Nick The existing residential improvements located 728 E. Hopkins are currently served by the District. The proposed demolition and redevelopment will require either two new service lines or a single service line (of a capacity approved by our line superintendent). A shared service line agreement will be required to be completed. The plans show a driveway from the alley coming into the garage. The surface elevation of the alley cannot be changed due to the fact that we have minimal cover over the public sewer line in this area. There are downstream collection system constraints that will be eliminated through a system of additional proportionate fees. A tap permit can be completed as soon as detailed final plans are available. Fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. As usual service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications which are on file at the District office. Please call ifyou have any questions. Sincerely, I , .ke C-Â£-/-Â» G-x f- CJ Bruce Matherly District Manager 565 N. Mill St.,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 925-2537 728 HOPKINS PROJECT Revised Drawings (1/6/00) For: Community Development Department REVISIONS 1 104 q.ft. FIRST LEVEL TOWN HOME . side) 372 sq.ft. FIRST LEVEL GARAGE (eo. side) 101 sq.ft. FIRST LEVEL EMA HOUSING (.ea.side) 75'-0" 14-11 5/4" , 14-111/2' , 10'-9" 5'-1. 6 16'-11/ , 1-3 3/4 , , , / / , r// 6 41" // 8'_11' Câ‚¬1 / / 1'-3 1/2" , - A( 7// 1.i +-I - I . ' iW-41' ' f:f Jb=L_.U~ 11:6 h ./ MN OÂ¤ 14'-5 ~ reti 3829 6-1 32 MASTER < < ====0 . / 16'-71,7 L 0 0 --- 1 L A 19'-0 3/4' ..h f 0, 4'-6. L --,1 0 0 , 3 BEDROOM = 0 -d Â« R 10 MASTER f 4 r-4 flo :t BEDROOM f ELI - 8'-6" . COVERED , walk-In 5 ' '10'.1 03 - 1 00 ERQNI PORCH - -A---r- eARAGE ,-7 / 6'-9' - 2-1'-1 U Mil . S O I_ 9:2 J -=7 1, . 2 down Â» . b. 2 ENTRY 6 1 in 4 1 J. I , B - 1 1/ ./ t- 9 b B hi < 4 ENTEY 6/ b -Â«- 1\ EU 23 i ---f .Egg; in ~ , 5-Ii" , 4 5 00 ~~-* ----7 CE] ' ~ . 1 En W 5 0 UD I I -b SARAGE ;i'= lf:Â¤ O 9 M . 20 = COVERED 04=1 0 04 I " . mlk-In 141 - ERONI 2 24 , PORCH N 4 , Cloaet - < - r BEDROOM -; f N MASTER E ID 4-0 3,9 ,- 7 BEDROOM ove 16'-7 1/2 L<\, 14'-8. .A V )MASTER - =====1' 1/ 0 Â«', CO- %E br-/ u , TI ' ' ' '91' [2 . 15-7-71 ........ Ir7*71,, W_CD (2~ ., 1/ i' 4 :Pr (5 - I -1 0 < 0 8'-11" E/) 14-11 3/4' , 14-111/2" , 10-9" , 5'-iE' , 16'-11" , 7-3 3/4' , I ' 1 4 / I N Ce J 75'-a' Pote 12/6/99 5,de 11/81'=1' FIRST FLOOR PLAN REVISED 1/6/00 Dfa, JMK MALE: 1/8"=1 -O" Sheet PRELIMINARY DESIGN A-1 OF Shlets Asnen. C sasud. 9 (8 #.0.14urnUCifY~3 REVISIONS BY 1000 sq.ft. ECOND LEVEL TOWN HOME (ea. 741 sq.ft. SECOND LEVEL EMP. HOUSING 741 sq.ft. THIRD LEVEL EMP. HOUSING , 41-1,1 I 15-5 1/4' , 15'-It 1/2" , 8'-11" , 7 *, , 15'-10 3/4" , I I Cj 1 - <n I I . 1 LC-Â£-,f ' -----, -F . - 0 0 1 v 14wi-2L,[0.-fL-Â£-El K._a_c_.[_1.t--c_c,i,. , , ,--j'-<~1.0-, ~ Af - b 4 ./ POWDER ~, 16'-8 , \' I ROOM 2 JO-/1 - up 4 & down 0 ' . 1 OPEN PECK 11'-to 1/41' .1 Ar 1[u n 1 , 13'-6" . 1-1 3/44" IF 4-00 1, 3 DINING ROOM 1 DEDROOM , , 15'-4 3/4 . i! * 0 / .4 5-51 , t LI VI Ne-ROOM- O -91 -- LIV[Na_ROOM - C\}- - .ID 1- dowt Q lig In doiot | down Dumbwalter INE] Fill 1 1 1 ~ 6'-3 3/4" , 6'-6" - =k I I 1 71 2 -t Id-'DI ../ , 17-5 1/y . h , 4'-ID" , 7-8 8/4 )~ KI TCHEN Pamtr'y , . .. = ' i.' C ID/,4 //Q/ E-- -1 , , 14'--8. -7 2 4 COVERED PATIO - ~ DINING ROOM ~ MASTER 11 , 25'-111/2' - _ - BEDROOM - b 6'-113/4 30 F 01 I I KITCHEN~-1 2 j fâ„¢fil L _ I 25'- 111/2. h 610 I ./ ~1 0:% EQhIQER N-11-=-1 0 10/W l.27 -if 2 I I. 9-4 3/.p -~ U EQQM Lt.1 L.2-1 115 J .1 .C COVERED PATIO T N in , 17-5 1/1 ,--1 - - 423 KITCHEN 4 Pantry ~ ~ ~ -I . I % -7 f.3 4 [Cl Â» . .1 @ In 7-1 1 q L-la ~mbwatter E EL walk-In T domat ~ dcwn ~BATHI V - DINING ROOM -7-WI 4 4 + P * 0 0 7 RIm R IQ O 4- 2 1- LIVING ROOM < - , 4-3 3/4" , -7-6 1/2" , ~ .// N #5 - BEDROOM ~ LIVING ROOM b '' A ' , 11'-10 1/4" 15'-1 3/4' , 4 4 5-6" N Â¤ ,, 4'-Cy' < 7-1 3/4" .073 i T DINING ROOM ~ OPEN PECK uP 6 9 down I .' - . I 153'-6 i P.,fri I , 0. 1 jO 1 9 EQQM 16'-6' 2 - down In < POWDER /'' ' 00 in .2 1 - -;I- , A-v-rli'~, , , , , , , , 7 -. 17-7-7-1 . , , , , , , , / / / , , , Â· , ,i~r'-7-7--1, , ,1 ';-'771 br""F-7-,k 17-7--7-1,1"7'7-71,U -I'.4,4.~~I-~I,-rjm~ri~e~~ ~I . .8 I I . l 1 - . I , 15'-10 3/41 , I I , 19-5 1/4' , 15'-1110 , 6-11" , 16'-91/2" 2 4 2 , 13-4 3/4 , h.-3 , 1 , I , , 1-5-Cy Pate 12/6/99 , 5=Ie 1/8"=1' THIRD FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN REVISED 1/6/00 .* JMK Sheet SCALE: 1/8'=1'-O" SCALE: 1/861'-00' PRELIMINARY DESIGN A-2 0/ Sheets 63*OHNAO,I, AE[I*Vid - IUMM UIYdoH O 'uadsv 99*4-926 (046) 8899- re (046) 10-5 3/4 JO-Cl Oul 'SalepOSS a.2.CIC:opue,Â° REVISIONS Br 75'-d' 7-9 1/2. , 12'-2 1/4 , 14'-1110 , 5-6' , 13'-4 1/2' 1, 18'-2 1/4" , e , + , 1 4 1/2' W 4, 5-0~ 1, 14'-10 1/4" " I ' WELL WINDOW wlE*. 2 I I - 0 -: \Il , 1-G 111 1/* " 14-& 1 11 6 -1 Civt k - = STORAGE 3 CIO E-1 N b BEDROOM T BEDROOM T #21 0~ LIB Â» 2.1 a 4 in .b - . MEDIA ROOM , , . 8'-6. U, ~ STEAM -Q 111 + / I - 7,-17- . - 100 a. : UP \ 2__m_j r Lei[ElLia[ 1 - k A.- 1.3 walk-In ~ /1.-t ~ tip %0 " 4 LAUNDRY ;p 6-6 1/4" 1 , / 18'-10 3/4" Â¥ ' h 1 b 1 1 I 11 03 L---i l--- . I. I 18'-10 3/4" 4 4/ 0,2 1-ZU,- 3 Â·0 LAUNDRY ~ to / k 2 walk-in 1 03 crl - 1~ -F-JV 3- 47 1-6-- Ct CL) cloiat k] walk-In -4 clast ID ,-1- 3 .A iE H O 11 - Â«\ m t 911 0 0 M N 3,7 - P MEDIA ROOMI p m 8 06 9 24 & 2 51.M *03 BEDROOM 1 4 4 BEDROOM 4 in 4 / maIM Â¥ 4 STORAGE m 1-_e 11'-71/4" I4'-8" I. f - \: . I WINDOW WINDOW WELL WELL 14'--IO' 7-91/2' 1 9 1 L4 1/2 , 12'-2 1/4- 14'-11 1/20 , 8'-6" , 18'-4 1/2" , 18'-2 1/4' ' ' 1 1 ' , 2~:EF , 75'-0" -3 85 3 Date 12/6/99 SCO[e 1/8"=1' BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN REVISED 1/6/00 [Drawn JMK SCALE: 1/8"=I'-O" 51Â·eat PRELIMINARY DES I eN A-3 0, 51Â·~2*8 S:i[MOHNALO zznH adsv 88/4-926 0399-[*2 IC)-m, An 9-,9 ' , 7-51/7 , ' D-&' OUI 'Saletoossv Com ass Dr., # 200 90(@IQ -00 Â·Uoll,~In 0 =. ...... Al'.TA 00 . - P ~. REEIFI ...... ...... Immâ€¢â€¢m,mming,I=immumml.ow~/IAY.â€¢mal-mamimmal= ------- I--Ill . ~In-,6.~~Ii.:,~,immi,L~lI=j~-~L~ll=jil~~*Nil~li~.Ii# ~1' .1........11- 0 0 11.1.01.mil ~mth#Ill~~iim..~...me<2*~ mijl~~i~~f#I~filimm"la, Ell/'immium'mill"mill".1--B-----Il-----.2----9----/----4,#'.1Bil/- . 0 -----------------------------------1-I------------------*I---* iwilililililiwiafsimminimellifilizimem///mfiET//Le/-.I..=I.....I/mu~'820!~~HPt .1 . ~ ,~,~..â€ž~. ...Jill.N=22*~0.feavh. p~I----I-~----Ijt;:~,:&=~=~~&~~~,I,1,#aÂ£$&<fHE*%9",..,.~m., .. -: i~Illii**~alll-~11--2 -- . I 0 1 . A/1.A 11.1.1.111.1.111.1.111.1.111.1.111.11.1.11Â£71.11.1.1 .1.111.1111 lili 1.111.1. Im.1.111.0 ..9/::IN milmulgil~ilimm"/9"12 7Â·------'-- ...m-m 9.- 1:qui"r~ *'P /---Il.0 11=mmlmimimillimimim,=mm""Imâ€¢m'mlmm .. , LI--2-1.lill.'12-I-"1Ll-I--Illill""pullillip.luillim~.1"'ll_ill~Ii:::::Ii" ...m= . 4=---- --4,=me-------*---=I -1-m-, . inimmi-mumm~~~~~<~~~~~~,~~-~1~~mimi@EmEE@EE@E@EmIEâ‚¬EEi~~~~~~EE@BEEI@@EE@EEEIâ‚¬@Emi@El,~I,1,1â€ž~E@E~-- 0 ----------.--------- --1-====/===Ilill'll/':i"'1"MulÂ¥ 18'~2 **El~RE~I=~Eff@~~~~~ li~ , .Im./ift--~---------------i~'- -,I.-'4....ima----'.----I....I =*-* ..71",EN,IM:--------------IEX-----I~-------~----i:i:-----$-------------:i'imill'-igti-imil&:lib' 01-=~ I. . -60.66 ..~ 1.. lim REVISIONS BY -â‚¬ REVISED ., 6,00 PRELIMINARY DESIGN m. m. =.mm 1 1 - : 14][3 N 4 g fLITh M ...1111 0113 9 2 E 8 >4 al 11[r % 84 9- - E[LE[[0 KEEEM 8--B - - RIM - FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/6'=1'-01' 01 Â¤ OS CO ~'50 0 3g@F Â¤ 0 . lilli 111111 1,1 M 1 1,11'11 1111 ...1111.1 1: 0 111.111 . 0 8R : 0 0 g:f CO &Â·M [0 hi W < 89 aÂ£h aob 2 0 d -2- E- Â»-0 6, cD Pole 12/6/99 -3 /Ium CLIEILLJ EILIn Seal 1/8"=11 ELLIm CILIn LIZILIZI ELL~ Pro# JMK Sheet REAR ELEVATION EXCETi"=r'-0" A-4 0' S.lots ,[doH 3 9#2, .OUI 'solut 'uadsv SeSLId 99*2.-926 0299-IDE (046) 2 # Â·Â·ic REVISIONS el' ORIGINAL STREET CO 1 1 42" HION FENCE 6' HIGH PRIVACY- FENCE ~ 42" WIGH FENCE iII 30'TO ALLEY 30' TO HOPKINS S leeÂ»" W _ _ - r - -r 0000 X AA A- - I : X# - A X - EGRESS WINDOW UELLD I \ " FIEOJECTION - \ \ * Ga /1 n P.5 5 r F [Q 1 1 L. 04 2 t:-1 r.54 9 0 q> ro 1< lEi 1.-1-1 1= - , \0-401- ER N- -- 1 - ====k [7 ./ - 110 1 Il =1 1 = L 111 3 *1-0 F 11 %11% 1 11 E <D L N I ., co .-1 r C e LU 111.Ii I #=0 Â¤ 0 C. C== 8, ra B E 6 -0 , 1 2 24& N N 1 1 03 1 [ LÂ·. A 1 1 1 U \ C) 1 18" PROJECTION / / A c 16 EORESS WINDOILI WELLS ~ ~ - -- -7: -Â» N 14-504Â£E 4 0 6 8 10000 6' MIC,H PRIVACY FENCE 30'TO ALLEY 30'TO HOPKINS 6' HIGH FENCE M E g 1 &4 4 4 * CM % 3 6 N 0 LOT 17 1118 CITY OF ASPEN - 12/6/99 KNOWN AS 728 E. HOPKINS AVE. 0-9 50 SCALE MULTI FAMILY ZONING SITE PLAN SCALE: 1"=50' RE VIED 1/6/00 Draâ€ž6 JMK Sheet PRELIMINARY DESIGN C-1 Of Sheets 3 619 HE)IH ,â€žEt; ~ ALLEY -EIAV GNI>k=!OM -3 SOSI.Id.I 88*4-926 . 8899-IDZ (046) 909IG '00 'u . 4.2000 2:14PM A HOUSING OFC ~ NO.336----P. 1- Housing Offic __ _ - _ City of Aspen/Pitkin County 530 East Main Street, Lower Level Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5050 Fax: (970) 920Â·5580 FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM Date: 2-4-00 To: /\/7 4 414 From: (2/111 f â‚¬1695 Fax #; Telephone #: Fax consisting of legal and/or _~_ letter size pages (including this cover page). 6.91, ,- Brief Description or Additional Instructions' , P â‚¬ COM -09 J 0%-8. Soaj wl 1 2 4.46 ew gU. /* wiÂ·*--- -444 u)nknek 46 hÂ« 02-2 64- AL Rhow 1 -9- CRY,j Â·fP~ 4-cÂ»-_ If you have any problems receiving this transmission, please call at 970-920-5050, MEMORANDUM TO: Nick Lelack, Planner From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer 8Fl, Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: February 3,2000 Re: 728 E. Hopkins The Development Review Committee has reviewed the 728 E. Hopkins application at their January 19, 2000 meeting, and has compiled the following comments: General 1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." 2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights-of-way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements. Site Review 1. Improvement Survey - Requirement - The building permit application needs to include a revised improvement survey that references a title commitment dated within the past 12 months. The improvement survey must also include the Right of Way lines, curbs, and sidewalks. All current easements need 2. Site Drainage - Requirement - The drainage report submitted with the application is insufficient. The site development approvals must include the requirement meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and a requirement that, prior to the building permit application, a drainage mitigation plan --- (24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the requirements of the Engineering Department Interim Design Standards and must be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The mitigation plan must also address the temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with a percolation test to verify the feasibility of this type of system. Drywells have depths well below depth of frost (10' minimum) to function in cold weather. The drainage plan must contain a statement specifying the routine maintenance required by property owner(s) to ensure continued and proper performance. Drywells may not be placed within public right of way or utility easements. The foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on site, and must be shown on . Page 2 of 3 02/03/00 728 East Hopkins drainage plans prior to application for building permit. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the design storm. Information - The City drainage criteria needs to implemented. This includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation disturbance. Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow and what adverse affects may arise from potential mud and debris flow. 3. Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter - Requirement- As of the request of the Engineering Department revisions need to be made, if urban design features are proposed, as follows: a. All streets and access roads need to have curb and gutter upgrades that comply with City of Aspen standards. b. All streets and access roads need to have sidewalks that comply with City of Aspen standards. 4. Utilities (General) - Information - All use of City utilities must be planned accordingly. 5. Streets Department - Requirement- As of the request of the Engineering Department revisions need to be made as follows: a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 6. Parks - Information - The following information has been provided by the parks department: We have the reviewed the application and offer the following comments. The survey does not show any existing vegetation. However, after a site inspection of the property, there are a few existing Cottonwoods that may be impacted by the redevelopment o f the property. The application indicates that the existing structure will be demolished, however, it is unclear whether that includes the existing basement. If the basement will be reconstructed also, then the large cottonwood at the southwest corner o f the lot must be protected during construction with construction fencing placed at the dripline of the tree. If other trees are impacted by development then a tree removal permit may be required prior to applying for a building permit. The applicant should also include landscaping in the right-of-way as part of the development. 9 ''U Page 3 of 3 02/03/00 728 East Hopkins 7. Utilities: - Water: City Water Department Requirement - a. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as they pertain to utilities Construction: Work in the Public Right of Way Requirement - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: Approvals 1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights of way. 2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920- 5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance. 3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes, streets, and alley. 4. Permits Obtain permits for any work or development, including street cuts, landscaping, within the public rights of way from the city community development department. DRC Attendees Staff: Nick Adeh Applicant's Representative: Nick Lelack Tom Bracewell Ben Ludlow FEB. 4.2000 2:14PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.336 P.2 MEMORANDUM TO: Nick Lelack, Community Development Department FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Operations Manager DATE: February 1, 2000 RE: 728 EAST HOPKINS HOUSING REPLACEMENT & SPECIAL REVIEW Parcel ID No. ISSUE: The applicant is proposing to construct a residential development of four units on the comer of East Hopkins Avenue. The development is proposed to consist of two free market units (each containing four bedrooms) and two deed restricted units (a one-bedroom and a two- bedroom). The Planning & Zoning Commission will be meeting on this issue on February 15 and the Housing Board will not have time to review the project until February 18, 2000. Any recommendations in this memo are made by staff without recommendations from the Housing Board. Those recommendations will be forwarded to the Community Development Department on February 17, therefore, any approval by Planning & Zoning should take into consideration any concerns or recommendations by the Housing Board. BACKGROUND: The properw is a 6,000 square foot parcel and currently contains a single structure with a two-story detached garage and shop, as well asa bandit dwelling unit. Accoding to a City of Aspen Zoning Officer, the property is considered to indude a single, multi-family structure with three units, and was legally built in 1984. The fourth unit (classifed as the bandit unit) existed within the structure for some time. The applicant plans on demollshing the entire structure and redevelop the site. For purposes of Section 26-530-050, Housing replacement requirements, in the event of a demolition of resident multi-family housing, the owner shall be required to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than 50% of the square footage of net residential area demolished or converted. The replacement housing must also be configured in a way to replace 50% of the bedrooms that are lost as working resident housing by the demolition. A minimum of 50% of the replacement housing shall be above natural grade, The replacement housing shall also be deed restricted as affordable housing in accordance with Section 26.530.060. which states; "Replacement units shall be deed restricted in a form and substance acceptable to the City Council. Such deed restricted units may only be rented or sold to tenants or buyÂ®m who meet the city's qualifications In effect at the time of gale or rental, and at sale prices or rental rates whioh are also in compliance with the city's current regulations. The owner shan be entmed to select tenants or purchasers subject to the aforementioned qua/Moations. The mix of a#ordable housing units. as between category affordable housing and resident occupied, may be determined by the owner, provided that no less than 20% of the bedrooms qualify as category 1 and 2 units and no more than 20% of the units are available as resident occupied units." FEB. 4.2000 2:15PM ASPE-N HOUSING OFC NO.336 P.3 The applicant is required to comply with the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program and the Residential Design Standards, and to establish the off-street parking requirements associated with the two proposed affordable housing units. The applicant is asking for a waiver of the off-street parking requirements associated with the two deed restricted units, Currently, the parcel contains approximately 3,335 square feet of net residential square footage and five bedrooms, requiring replacement housing consisting of 1,667 square feet of net residential square footage and 2.5 bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to provide one two- bedroom deed restricted unit of 1,000 square feet, and one one-bedroom deed restricted unit of 667 square feet. The applicant is requesting approval to deed restrict the two-bedroom to Category 4 limitations, and the one-bedroom to Category 3 limitations. The minimum square footages, glated in the Guidelines, are as follows: Category 3 one-bedroom 700 square feet Category 4 two-bedroom 950 square feet Therefore, the one-bedroom unit is smaller by 33 square feet. The two.bedroom, however, is larger by 50 square feet. These units are also proposed to be 100% above natural grade. They will consist of two stories of living space and will be located above the garages, which are for the free market units. The current maximum sales prices for these units would be $122,500 for the Category 3 one.bedroom unit, and $211,000 for the Category 4 two.bedroom unit, The applicant also states that by providing two separate units, there will be two housing lottery winners instead of just one, which states that the applicant has agreed to place both units in the general lottery pool. To construct what is being proposed, the applicant must receive approval for a 1:1 FAR limit and a waiver of on-site parking requirements for the two deed restricted units. Given the location of the site, each of the owners of the affordable units will be entitled to one residential parking permit for on-street parking, plus each will be entitled to a guest parking permit. The applicant states that he has talked with the residents of the neighborhood, and that finding a parking space on the surrounding streets is usually not a problem, The site is located such that transit is easily ~ accessed, the grocery store is only two blocks away, and the commercial core itself is just a block and a half away. RECOMMENDAIION:. Staff would recommend approval of this application with the condition that the one-bedroom unit be restricted as a Category 2 unit, which would decrease the maximum ~ sales price for this unit to $79,500 ($43,000 less), due to the lack of any additional amenities; e.g., no off-street parking, no additional storage space. \referral\728&48,.mlt ' 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director JAO FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner ~~U RE: 728 E. Hopkins Special Review for 1:1 FAR, Special Review for Parking, DRAC Variances from Secondary Mass and Lightwell Standards - Public Hearing DATE: February 15, 2000 APPLICANT: Buzz Dopkin .. 1 1. .. . ~*-- z f'~05:,9. .r/.. ---: 2-1 - LOCATION: A *, 728 E. Hopkins 1. . /50:- p , ZONING: if) p Office *f,te .; 1 1. A .., I CURRENT LAND USE: ..__2 ' 1-*. + Multi-Family Residential 3 units, 1 bandit unit ..1 . PROPOSED LAND USE: Multi-Family Residential - 2 AlI The subject property's front facade facing East units, 2 free market units Hopkins Avenue. LOT SIZE: 6,000 sq. ft. SUMMARY: FAR: The purpose of this application is to create a 4-unit Existing: 3,335 sq. ft. multi-family residential building with 2 affordable housing units and 2 free market units, replacing an Proposed: 6,000 sq. ft. existing 4-dwelling unit building (including 1 -bandit unit). The Applicant is requesting an increase in Allowed: 4,500 sq. ft (0.75:1); FAR pursuant to Special Review approval from 6,000 sq. ft. with Special Review 0.75:1 to 1:1, Special Review for Parking, and (1:1). variances from the Residential Design Standards for the secondary mass and lightwell on the east facade S. Original St. (Hwy 82). 1 STAFF COMMENTS: Buzz Dopkin ("Applicant") plans to demolish an existing multi-family residential building at the corner of E. Ilopkins Avenue and S. Original Street (Hwy 82). The 1964 building contains 3 legal units and 1 bandit unit. The Resident Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program ("Program") requires the Applicant to provide on-site replacement of 50% of the existing net residential square footage and 50% of the existing bedrooms as deed restricted affordable housing (ALI). The existing building contains 3,335 square feet and 5 bedrooms. The Program requires the Applicant to provide 1,667 square feet of net residential square footage and 2.5 bedrooms deed restricted to AH, 50% of which must be above natural grade. The proposal creates a new multi-family residential building containing 2 AH units and 2 free market units. The AH units would include one 1,000 square foot, 2- bedroom unit and one 667 square foot, 1-bedroom unit. This proposal would meet the square footage requirementw exceed the bedroom requirement, and be 100% above natural grade. The proposed deed restrictions for the proposed units would be Category 4 for the 2-bedroom unit and Category 3 for the 1-bedroom unit. Approval of the replacement proposal is an administrative decision. The Housing Authority recommends a Category 2 for the 1-bedroom unit, and agrees with the Category 4 deed restriction for the 2-bedroom unit. In addition, Section 26.530.060, Rental and resale restrictions, requires that "no less than twenty (20) percent ofthe bedrooms qualify as category 1 and 2 units... Thel free market units would be a combined 4,400 square feet with up to a total of 8 bedrooms. Two land use requests are contained in the application in order for this proposal to proceed. First, the Applicant requests special review approval to increase the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the proposed building from 0.75:1 to 1:1, which is allowed in the Office Zone District. This 6,000 square foot lot is permitted 4,500 square feet of FAR under the 0.75:1 calculation; and, increasing the FAR to 1:1, would increase the FAR to 6,000 square feet. Staff supports this request because the provision of affordable housing satisfies both the Residential Multi-Family Replacement Program requirements and Office Zone District requirements. Second, Special Review for ~Â·.-33Â»~, . *Â» I /3- fiftÂ»puttr Parking is required. Section ::i. .Ff.Â· i .:, 3-,i:, :.Â©t > . 1 19%409 26.515.010(B) Off-Street Parking - Requirements for Affordable . I 803*, : iii-lf'~ 4 = . /:1.-â€žh.... Housing allows an Applicant to establish parking requirements for I .. all affordable housing units pursuant -p-* ,-p'Â·,4 844. P i;W' iÂ·Ui, ' 2 to special review. The Applicant is ~. 2 :1Â·.Â· . requesting to establish zero on-site ..- .1 -* i parking spaces for the affordable 1 -I-.4 1 housing units, and, instead proposes ,- , .- A-i .., Â· Currently, residents park in the right-of-way on E. Hopkins and in a 2-car garage on S. Original Street. that the AH owners obtain resident parking permits to park on the streets. Parking requirements for the free market units would be accomplished by the provision of two 2- car garages. Parking requirements for the free market units is established in the Land Use Code and cannot be varied. Although Staff has concerns about the lack o f parking for AH units, Staff supports this request because the community will benefit from the new ALI units that might not otherwise be provided. The site and location are ideal for higher density development, and residents can walk or bike to shopping, parks, downtown, bike paths, several transit stops, the Aspen Mountain ski area, and more. The application did not contain the final building designs, and therefore did not request variances from the Residential Design Standards. However, upon receipt of the building plans, Community Development Staff determined that the proposal did not meet two Residential Design Standards. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting approval of two variances. One variance is from Section 26.410.040(B)(1) Building Form - Secondary -Mass. This standard requires,"All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the building, or linked to it by a subordinate connecting element. The Applicant has attempted to create a subordinate connecting element that more effectively addresses this standard. Staff can support this variance if the connecting element above the first floor is recessed between the primary and secondary structures. Recessing the connecting element will break up the building mass, thereby more effectively addressing this standard. A second variance is from Section 26.410.040(D)(3)(4) Building Elements - Windows, Lightwells. This standard requires, "All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street facing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the foremost wall of the building. " The proposed design contains a lightwell on the east fa~ade, facing S. Original St. . . Â·4 .,~ ..- (Hwy 82). The Applicant plans to 4~'..i 'AÂ·'Â·'C- 71::2.90 .-2 1 place a fence along the street to /4.77 .14 1.Pri(0.. Virpr ~ <1 hide the lightwell. Nevertheless, Staff recommends denial finding m - E - . none of the variance standards are k met. Atthe same time, Staff . : recognizes that recessing the .4#~~ -/ 1 I lightwell behind the foremost wall . .... ...... --4....... - o f the building is a substantial increase in construction costs, and I 1. 1. that the Applicant does not have View from S. Original St. (Hwy 82) and location of other opportunities to provide proposed lightwell. natural light into the basement levels of the free market units. Finally, it is important to note that the existing building contains several non-conforming characteristics in the Office Zone District relating to side-yard and rear-yard setbacks, a Crl lack of parking, and an encroachment in the public right-of-way. In addition, the site contains a bandit unit. The proposed application will bring the entire site into conformance with the Land Use Code and Office Zone District. And, it includes the construction of a sidewalk, curb and gutter, which will complete the sidewalk along the 700 E. Hopkins Avenue block. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the Special Review to increase FAR, Special Review for Parking, a DRAC variance from the Secondary Mass standard, and denial of a DRAC variance from the Windows-Lightwell standard with conditions. REVIEW PROCEDURE â€¢ Special Review to Increase FAR and,for Parking: The Planning and Zoning Commission shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or deny a development application for Special Review, after recommendation by the Community Development Department. â€¢ Residential Design Standards. Upon receipt of an application for Residential Design Standards, the Community Development Director shall determine if the development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Standards. If an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Standards, the applicant may either amend the application or seek a variance. The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing i f the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Special Review for Increase of Floor Area to 1:1, Special Review for Parking, a Residential Design Standards variances for the secondary mass and lightwells on the S. Original Street (Hwy 82) street facing faâ„¢le for a new multi-family residential building consisting of 2 affordable housing units and 2 free market units to be located at 728. E. Ilopkins Avenue, with conditions." Conditions of Approval 1. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final recorded Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. e. A current Site Improvement Survey indicating the nature of all easements of record indicated on the property title commitment. d. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements, landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved. 4 e. A drawing representing the project's architectural character. f. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. g. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. The existing residential improvements located on the subject property are currently serviced by the District. The proposed demolition and redevelopment will require either two new service lines or a single service line (of a capacity approved by the District's line superintendent). A shared service line agreement will be required to be completed. The plans show a driveway from the alley coming into the garage. The surface elevation of the alley cannot be changed due to the fact that the District has minimal cover over the public sewer line in this area. Fees must be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District' s rules, regulations, and specifications. h. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. The survey does not show any existing vegetation. However, after a site inspection of the property, there are a few existing Cottonwoods that may be impacted by the redevelopment of the property. If the basement will be reconstructed also, then the large cottonwood at the southwest corner of the lot must be protected during construction with construction fencing placed at the dripline of the tree. If other trees are impacted by development then a tree removal permit may be required prior to applying for a building permit. The applicant should also include landscaping in the right-of-way as part of the development. i. A completed curb, gutter, and sidewalk agreement. 1) All streets and access roads need to have curb and gutter upgrades that comply with City of Aspen standards. 2) All streets and access roads need to have sidewalks that comply with City of Aspen standards. j. A completed agreement to join any future improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way. k. A completed and recorded deed restriction on the affordable housing units on the property, a form for which may be obtained from the Housing Office. The deed restriction shall be noted on the building permit plans. 2. The building permit plans shall reflect/indicate: a. Conformance with all aspects of the City's Residential Design Standards, unless variances have been granted. 5 b. All dwelling units will contain a kitchen (having a minimum of a two-burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer) and a bathroom (having a minimum of a shower, sink, and a toilet). c. All units are provided one (1) off-street parking space in a garage; the building permit plans shall indicate the designated parking spaces for each unit. d. The dwelling units meet all applicable UBC requirements for light and air. e. An overhang shall cover each units' entrance designed to prevent snow and ice from falling on, or building-up on, the entrance. Snowmelt may also be used to prevent snow and ice from falling on, or building-up on, the entrance to each unit. f. Conformance with the City's requirements for driveways. Driveways must be separated by 25 feet or more (including neighboring driveways), and must be paved from the edge of the street to the property line. Paving alternatives may be approved by the City Engineer. g. A fire suppression system if the gross square footage of the structure exceeds 5,000 square feet. h. A five (5) foot wide pedestrian usable space with a five (5) foot wide buffer for snow storage at the edge of the street paving. 3. A kitchen facility or access to a common kitchen shall be provided. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit: a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood. b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. 5. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines. 6. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 7. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 8. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion for the employee units, a member of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall inspect the units to determine if the units comply with the representations made in the application. 9. Before issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 6 10. The final deed restriction be brought to the Housing Board for final input and approval. The deed restrictions for the two (2) affordable housing units shall comply with the Housing Board' s final recommendation. 11. The two (2) bedroom affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted to Category 4, and the one (1) bedroom affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted to Category 2. 12. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 13. The applicant should provide separate utility taps and meters for each residential unit. 14. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site improvement survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed. 15. The applicant must receive approval for any work within public rights-of-way from the appropriate City Department. This includes, but is not limited to, approval for a mailbox and landscaping from the City Streets Department. 16. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments Exhibit C -- Development Application 7 EXHIBIT A 728 E. HoPKINS SPECIAL REVIEW TO INCREASE FAR, PARKING DRAC VARIANCES FROM SECONDARY MASS & LIGHTWELL STANDARDS REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS SECTION 26.430.040 SPECIAL REVIEW TO INCREASE FAR To 1:1 No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and requirements set forth below. A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved ifthe following conditions are met: 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. Staff Finding The Office Zone District allows an increase in FAR to 1:1 for non-detached residential and duplex uses by special review. This site and location are ideal for higher density development; and, the site is immediately adjacent to the Resident/Multi-Family Zone District, and just a few blocks from the downtown core. The multi-family residential use enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the underlying and adjacent zone districts. Further, the new building's dimensions will be in conformance with the Land Use Code, eliminating many ofthe site's existing non-conformities. Staff believes this criterion has been met. SECTION 26.515.040 SPECIAL REVIEW STANDARDS FOR PARKING Whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to establishment and/or mitigation. Section 26.515.010 allows parking to be established for affordable housing. A. All zone districts. In all zone districts where the off-street parking requirements are subject to establishment and/or mitigation by special review, the applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, the projected impacts onto the on-street parking of the neighborhood, its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. 8 In determining whether to accept the mitigation or whether to require that the parking be provided on-site, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall take into consideration the practical ability of the applicant to place parking on-site, whether the parking needs of the development have been adequately met on-site and whether the city has plans for a parking facility which would better meet the needs of the development and the community than would location of the parking on-site. Staff Finding The projected impacts on the on-street parking in the neighborhood should be minimal. The Applicant has discussed on-street parking with surrounding residents and has found that parking in the area is rarely a problem. The lot size and building configuration do not permit additional on-site parking spaces without encroachments into the setbacks or public right-of- way. The location of the proposed development less than 2 blocks from the downtown core, transit stops, parks, shopping, and more make this site ideal for alternative transportation usage, reducing the need for car ownership and automobile trips. SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Section 26.410.040(B)(1) Building Form - Secondary Mass. "All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detachedfrom the building, or linked to it by a subordinate " connecting element. The proposed development does not meet this standard. The Applicant has attempted to break up the building by creating a design that gives the appearance of a subordinate connecting element between the free market and affordable units. Instead of actually constituting a subordinate connecting element, the Applicant has proposed a design that breaks up the buildings into apparent primary and secondary masses. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Finding: The proposal is not in direct conflict with AACP, nor does it further any of its goals. 9 b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding: The Applicant has attempted to create a subordinate connecting element that more effectively addresses this standard. Recessing the connecting element will break up the building mass, thereby addressing this standard. If the connecting element is not recessed, Staff does not believe this standard will be met. c) clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff Finding: The site is buildable with virtually no unusual physical conditions (i.e., topography, natural hazards, etc.) where reasons of fairness would relieve the Applicant of constructing a secondary mass on site. Section 26.410.040(D)(3*4) Building Element - Windows, Lightweits. "All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the streetfacing facade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind theforemost wallofthe building. The proposed design contains a lightwell on the S. Original St. (Hwy 82) facing facade. The Applicants plans to place a fence along the street to hide the lightwell. Nevertheless, Staff recommends denial finding none of the variance standards are met. In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following findings: a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or, Staff Finding: The proposal is not in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; these standards are a direct outgrowth of the plan. b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or, Staff Finding: The Residential Design Standards discourage creating areas of excavation between the street and building front - or in this case side, since it creates the appearance of a taller building and creates a barrier between the pedestrian and the building. Although this standard has not been met, Staff recognizes that recessing the lightwell into the building would substantially increase the construction costs of this multi-family residential building. c) clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site specific constraints. 10 Staff Finding: This is a completely new structure, therefore the applicant had the flexibility to design in accordance with the Residential Design Standards. Redesign is possible, but the construction costs of developing the foundation are apparently very high for recessing a window well. Staff cannot find the variance review standards are met by the request. 11 EXHIBIT B REFERRAL COMMENTS MEMORANDUM To: Nick Lelack, Planner From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: February 3,2000 Re: 728 E. Hopkins The Development Review Committee has reviewed the 728 E. Hopkins application at their January 19,2000 meeting, and has compiled the following comments: General 1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from. the Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." 2. R.O.W. Impacts: Ifthere are any encroachments into the public rights-of-way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements. Site Review 1. Improvement Survey - Requirement - The building permit application needs to include a revised improvement survey that references a title commitment dated within the past 12 months. The improvement survey must also include the Right of Way lines, curbs, and sidewalks. All current easements need 2. Site Drainage - Requirement - The drainage report submitted with the application is insufficient. The site development approvals must include the requirement meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and a requirement that, prior to the building permit application, a drainage mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the requirements o f the Engineering Department Interim Design Standards and must be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The mitigation plan must also address the temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with a percolation 12 test to verify the feasibility o f this type of system. Drywells have depths well below depth of frost (10' minimum) to function in cold weather. The drainage plan must contain a statement specifying the routine maintenance required by property owner(s) to ensure continued and proper performance. Drywells may not be placed within public right of way or utility easements. The foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on site, and must be shown on drainage plans prior to application for building permit. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the design storm. Information - The City drainage criteria needs to implemented. This includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation disturbance. Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow and what adverse affects may arise from potential mud and debris flow. 3. Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter - Requirement- As of the request o f the Engineering Department revisions need to be made, if urban design features are proposed, as follows: a. All streets and access roads need to have curb and gutter upgrades that comply with City of Aspen standards. b. All streets and access roads need to have sidewalks that comply with City of Aspen standards. 4. Utilities (General) - Information - All use of City utilities must be planned accordingly. 5. Streets Department - Requirement- As of the request of the Engineering Department revisions need to be made as follows: a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 6. Parks - Information - The following information has been provided by the parks department: We have the reviewed the application and offer the following comments. The survey does not show any existing vegetation. However, after a site inspection of the property, there are a few existing Cottonwoods that may be impacted by the redevelopment of the property. The application indicates that the existing structure will be demolished, however, it is unclear whether that includes the existing basement. If the basement will be reconstructed also, then the large cottonwood at the southwest corner of the lot must be protected during construction with construction fencing placed at the dripline of the tree. If other trees are impacted by development then a tree removal permit may be required prior to applying for a building permit. The applicant should also include landscaping in the right-of-way as part of the development. 13 7. Utilities: - Water: City Water Department Requirement - a. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as they pertain to utilities - Construction: Work in the Public Right of Way Requirement - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: Approvals 1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public rights of way. 2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920- 5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance. 3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920- 5130) for mailboxes, streets, and alley. 4. Permits: Obtain permits for any work or development, including street cuts, landscaping, within the public rights of way from the city community development department. 14 r t.21. 4. /10'ald d : 14I-'M ASPEN HOUSING OFC NO.336 P.2 MEMORANDUM TO: Nick Lelack, Communny Development Department FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Operations Manager DATE: February 1, 2000 RE: 728 EAST HOPKINS HOUSING REPLACEMENT & SPECIAL REVIEW Parcel ID No. ISSUE: The applicant is proposing to cons#uct a residential development of four units on the comer of East Hopkins Avenue. The development Is proposed to consist of Mo free market units (each containing four bedroorns) and two deed restricted units (a one-bedroom and a two- bedroom). The Planning & Zoning Commission will be meeting on this issue on February 15 and the Housing Board will not have time to review the project until February 18, 2000. Any recommendations in this memo are made by staff without recommendations from the Housing Board. Those recommendations will be forwarded to the Community Development Department on February 17, therefore, any approval by Planning & Zoning should take into consideration any concerns or recommendations by the Housing Board. -: The property is a 6,000 square foot parcel and currently contains a single structure with a two-story detached garage and shop, as well as a bandit dwelling unit. According to a City of Aspen Zoning Officer, the property is considered to include a single, multi-family structure with three units, and was legally built in 1984. The fourth unit (dassified as the bandit unit) existed within the structure for some time. The applicant plans on demollshIng the entire structure and redevelop the site, For purposes of Section 26.530-050, Housing replacement mquirements, in the event of a demolition of resident mum-family housing, the owner shall be required to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than 50% of the square footage of net residential area demolished or converted. The replacement housing must also be configured in a way to replacâ€¢ 50% of the bedrooms that are lost as working resident housing by the demolitlon. A minimum of 50% of thi replacement housing shall be above natural grade. Thi replacement housing shall also be deed restricted as affordable housing in accordance with Section 28.530.060. which states: "Replacement units shall bl deed restricted in a form and substance acceptable to the City Council. Such deed restricted unite may only be rented or sold to tenants or buyers who meet the city's qualifications In efhct at the timâ€¢ of salâ€¢ or rontal, and at sale prices or rental rates which are alio in compliance with the city'* curmnt regulations. The owner shall be ent#led to select tenants or purthasers subject to the atbrementioned qual#loations. 7779 mix of affordable housing unita. as between category affordable housing and reeldent occupied, may be determined by the owner, provided that no lesa than 20% of thâ€¢ bedrooms qualify = category 1 and 2 units and no more than 20% of the units are available as resident occupied units." 1 -U. 1 . LUUU L â€¢ 1-,1 1 1 mar-cl l CULJOillW ur L MU. dab F. 21 The applicant is required to comply with the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program and the Residential Design Standards, ariel to establish the off-street parking requirements assodated with the two proposed affordable housing units. The applicant is asking for a waiver of the off-street parking requirements assodated with the two deed restricted units. Currently, the parcel contains approximately 3,335 square feet of net residential square footage and five bedrooms, requiring replacement housing consisting of 1,667 square feet of net residential square footage and 2.5 bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to provide one two- bedroom deed restricted unit of 1,000 square feet, and one one-bedroom deed restricted unit of 667 square feet. The applicant is requesting approval to deed restrict the two-bedroom to Category 4 limitations, and the one-bedroom to Category 3 limitations. The minimum square footages, stated in the Guidelines, are ae follows: Category 3 one-bedroom 700 square feet Category 4 two-bedroom 950 square feet Therefore, the one-bedroom unit is smaller by 33 square feet The twvbedroom, however. is larger by 50 square feet. These units are also proposed to be 100% above natural grade, They will consist of two stories of living space and will be located above the garages, which are for the free market units. The current maximum sales prices for these units would be $122,500 for the Category 3 one-bedroom unit, and $211,000 for the Category 4 two-bedroom unit. The applicant also states that by providing two separate units, there will be two housing lottery winners instead of just one, which states that the applicant has agreed to place both units in the general lottery pool. To construct what is being proposed, the applicant must receive approval for a 1:1 FAR limit and a waiver of on-site parking requirements for the Iwo deed restricted units. Given the location of the site, each of the owners of the affordable units will be entitled to one residential parking permit for on-street parking, plus each will be entitled to a guest parking permit. The applicant states that he has talked with the residents of the neighborhood, and that finding a parking space on the surrounding streets Is usually not a problem. The site is located such that transit is easily accessed, the grocery store is only two blocks away, and the commercial core itself is just a block I and a half away. RECOMMENDATION:. Staff would recommend approval of this application with the condition that the one-bedroom unit be restricted as a Category 2 unit, which would decrease the maximum sales price for this unit to $79,500 ($43,000 less), due to the lack of any additional amenities; e.g., no off-street parking, no additional storage space. \referral\ 728ahep.mlt 2 HOPKINS 728 HOUSING REPLACEMENT & SPECIAL REVIEW LAND USE APPLICA TION SUBMITTED By BUZZ DOPKIN 80X 4696 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 (970) 925 -7488 DECEMBER, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. SUMMARY...................................................................................1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS.................................................................1 III. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS................ IV. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.... 3 V. REVIEW STANDARDS 4 A. Section 26.530.050, Housing Replacement Requirements . .. . . . .. . . . ....1 B. Section 26.710.180, (O) Office Zone District 6 C. Section 26.515.040, Special Review Standards (Parking)................8 D. Section 26.430.040, Review Standards for Special Review (FAR)...10 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Land Use Application Form Exhibit 2: Attachment 2, Dimensional Requirements Form Exhibit 3: April 22, 1999, letter from Sara Thomas Exhibit 4: Proof of Ownership (Warranty Deed) Exhibit 5: Pre-Application Conference Summary SUMMARY My name is Buzz Dopkin, and I am a long-time local resident of Aspen. I plan to build a residential development of four (4) units at the northwest corner of East Hopkins Avenue and South Original Street. The property address is 728 East Hopkins Avenue. In general terms, my development will include two (2) free market residences as well as two (2) deed restricted affordable housing units, and two (2) two-car garages. The garages will be accessed from the alley. The entire development will be configured as one multi-family structure of 2 - 2.5 stories, with four units. The deed restricted units will each have two stories of living space and will be located in a side-by-side configuration above the garages. The side-by-side free market units will each contain two stories above grade as well as a basement level. The two free market units will have their front doors on East Hopkins Avenue, while the doors to access the deed restricted units will be located on the sides ofthe structure (one facing South Original Street). As demonstrated in the following application, my proposal exceeds the requirements of the Resident Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program (also known as Title 20) and has the endorsement of the Housing Office, Only Special Review approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission is required in order to (a) allow the 1 1 FAR limitation (as opposed to 0.75:1 by right), and (b) establish the parking requirements associated with the affordable residences. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property contains six thousand (6,000) square feet of land, with no applicable , lot area reductions --- there are no slopes in excess of 20%, no right-of-way easements, and no high water lines. It is zoned (0) Office, which as of right allows multi-family residential dwellings as a permitted use. The property currently contains a single structure with a two-story detached garage and shop as well as a bandit dwelling unit. According to the Aspen/Pitkin County Building Permit files and the April 22, 1999, letter (attached as Exhibit 3) from Sara Thomas, former City of Aspen Zoning Officer, the property is considered to include a single, multi- family structure with three (3) units, and was legally built in 1964. A fourth unit (the bandit unit just mentioned) existed within the structure for some time, presumably illegally, but prior to my acquisition of the property. It is my intention to demolish the entire structure and redevelop the site. For purposes of the Resident Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program, the property is considered to contain three multi-family units, and I will have to provide on-site replacement of fifty (50) percent of the existing net residential square footage and fifty percent of the existing bedrooms as deed restricted affordable housing. As pointed out in the attached letter from Sara Thomas (Exhibit 3), the building presently contains approximately 3,335 square feet of net residential square footage and five (5) bedrooms, requiring replacement housing 1 1- i ALLEY -1908 SET 3 750 09' 11. E Gooo SET A .E--ela.2.-ELAil'.WIT.- r B *41 621 #gam#y#s-~GE, i CONC. PAD 82 4 1 . - -3 -. . 240 , -., 5~~ 1 .I-44..-M-*-1#1~--1. .I-1 - 1 .. 2W 8 l ly- A < WEAE Fles/1OED i 4 Dr'THE- a/VEÂ·Â·IEM.. 1 ----- 1 \ b :7\. C- 228'.'' I a 1 1;1 11 4 ~0111:!Â· CJ 0 20 m 40 don. 1 -Ff. ONE STORY HOUSÂ¢ ... 1 C "0* SCALE: 610' BASIS OF BEARING FOUND MONUMENTS SE COR BLK. 96 TO 9/ BASEMENT ' ..1 ,-**A â€¢* 4 THE NE COR. OF BLK. 99 514â€¢30'49-U / il ''. . i L. 0 Ulpâ‚¬!-E CE.KnFICATE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE. iFZZ' I HEREBY CERTIFY THATâ„¢IS MAP ACCIJRATELY DEPICTS -- 1 J/4/tr> F FCDCA, HCLKEDI- CE,Irr A SURVEY MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION ON NOVEMBER 6,1979. - ' A VIS(AL IN,mnoN drne COLORADO. THE ONIE STOHY HOUSE AND GARAGE WERE FOUID 1 1 11-IAT ON JAINOÂ«1' 13, 1990 1 MADE OF LOTS 17 8 18. BLOCK 28, EAST APEN TOWNSITE, ASPEN, pROF'EMIr tÂ»-IS#N Â»40 CreCMIDED TO BE LOCCED E'fnRELy Wm- nE BOUIVOARY LINES OF THE o MEMEON Â»4[3 TUAT HO Ck-IANUED ABOVE DE9CRIBEI) PROPERTY THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS 11.-C' / VA,-E ItUH D EXCLFT *5 el--laWN OF ALL EULDINGS, IMPROVEMENTS EASEMENTS.RIGHTSÂ·OFÂ·WAY . 2! 7, ~ : i *O Harro ,-EMEDÂ·4. THESE PREISES AREE ACCURATELY SHOWN. IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME AND b,CROACHMENTS BY OR ON ,â€¢. 62/'646< ~ CONG -/ -'.6 /3'Ff'\ C.IC D- 1-00- 1 *.9 1 An 9 17 ALANE SURVEYS by : JAMES F RESER 18 Pr....a.&22- ----- IA 9 SET r-1 4 ., NOVEMBER 19.1979 LS.9164 r . 7-Â·-4 N 7Â£09'll-W 6000 .Râ„¢ cm... 4 ixt:Â· -_0'2#AVE 7 AS-ACT P....NG 11 NOTES' 1. SET â€¢ 9ET +BAR W PLAS CA' L.1 . /4 1 REMOOELING lÂ»,DER WAY AT Tll#E OF UPDATE S-WEY HOPKINS A V E. 3 SECOIÂ«) STORY AND DEIK ZOED TO GIIAGE I ,â‚¬~er aRnrY T},AT 0,7 MAY7 TH , 1906 A VISUAL- F~2 2-Far&. OCTOIER 21, 1-0 Avall INSPFUTION -5 4â€¢DE Uâ€¢OER WY SUPERÂ¢ISION OF THE Allo/E m~ --m-migig:=1 a SCRIeED PROP'FRTY AND NO CI-GES WERE FOUND ExCEPT AS SHO- HEREON AS SHO- AND NOT. D *EMEON. A~252, '' LS -Jl 5. Obmi~I~ .. 111?A RESER Alpine Surveys Son,vid 6 NOM 1979 M M A-lions UPDATE 210CI 1980 -i IMPROVEMENT St.RVEY Job No 79- 224 DE"//d 15 NOV. 1979 0.8 ADD SETBACK DIST. TO SO'ERLY LOTS 17 8 18 Clant WESTERLIND POK Office 80, 1730 BLOCK 28 E.AT. a E'ERLy HOUSE LitES 5 MAYI983 A,Oen. Color- 816tl 9 MAY 1986 UPDATE 303 925 2688 21 JAN 111 D L.)rt3â€¢TE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO 4 â‚¬601998 400 78/0 64 ov-Â£1 J 66 A 7/25 M 14' 30'4,"E 1 994:%\ l 4 4 VE 19 Property Map i 0 CD Seuctures FV Roads (11 Dâ€¢-- 0\J c=x=m ~ Parcel Botlndaries 7916 HOPKINS - N 7 442 wE 6 S 0 50 Feet kl 4 1 1 fr - //-*/1/I /1/k-d-d / "/â€¢ 'I/â€¢ 2 71* m,Â¢*D-â€¢9 â€¢ â€¢ Bm*â€¢0â€¢1 -~-,=*'4= -Ii"imt- The=-0,-ye-00 0 9 I a,p--, on - --0-n- or malct= Â® loGo lly..... 1 e O 7922 . l A -~* l/' i - ALLEY 6 75'09'll" E lill - 60001 d 1 1 ul 5 li 1 Â«b . 41 1 OE - 4 ~2~1 i 0 m - C J 11 1 6'-a' ~ r u u 9 e (D - allo O 'lid 1- I m Ed n , ~ OB l d GUI 1 -0 4\ 9 bit ..1 L li 5 LD 52 Â» YE L V ?1 8 9 r -01 81 Aj m 4 W 4 11 T. 0 2 E 1 01 0 0 1 1 tri I E 2 IM m 4 E 41 r U J< 9 1\ / /Ar - I CZO 1 50-1 1- 54 ~ - 1 1 <P m 4 0 1 .-' 1 1 1 1 . 1 -T IN A 31 ZI? ' -.Ar 10 (161 0-n, , -61 lEi -1 (D 1 1 0 -0 zm W & CDZ 6 1 0 I oU 4 iII N 75-09'll" W X - R A 6/M 142" UlcU424~-.-1- -r 1- ,â‚¬ 1. E. NOPKINS AVE. 9 ~<~1 JMK Buzz Dopkin Enterprises MULTI-FAMILY TOWNHOMES 0 .I 1- ifi ; a Associates, inc. Box 4696 728 E. Hopkins Ave. . =LO==2%b.,8,1 Aspen, CO 81612 (170) 1,1-*13 (970) 925-7488 Aspen, CO ORIGINAL STREET 6' WIG64 19â‚¬IVACY FENCE 11IWVJ I NÂ©ISECI >L~VNIJAI-13266 consisting of 1,667 square feet of net residential square footage and 2.5 bedrooms. The replacement housing must also be a minimum of fifty (50) percent above natural grade. This replacement housing requirement need only be provided within one, single unit of deed restricted housing. 1 intend to exceed these requirements, as explained below. The existing property contains many nonconforming situations with regard to the requirements ofthe Office zone district, specifically with regard to side yard setbacks, rear yard setbacks, and parking. For instance, the required side yard setbacks are five feet (5') and six feet eight inches (6' 8") --- 6' 8" for the second street-bordering side since on corner lots, the owner shall have the choice as to which yard shall be considered the front, with the remaining street-bordering yard allowed to be reduced by one-third (1/3) of the i required front yard setback. The side yard setbacks of the existing structure, however, are just 2'7" on the side requiring a5' setback and only 4'2" on the side requiring a 6'8" setback. Similarly, the required rear yard setback is fifteen feet (15') and the existing structure is setback just 3' 11" from the rear property line. Lastly, the existing development carries a parking requirement of six (6) off-street spaces (@ 2 per unit), and only two (2) legal, conforming spaces exist on-site --- in the garage. It is also worth mentioning that the existing parking for the site encroaches upon the right-of-way, precluding the installation of sidewalks. My redevelopment of the site will eliminate this encroachment and provide sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. My development plan will eliminate all of the nonconforming setbacks by bringing the same into compliance with the (0) Office zone district requirements. There will be a light well within the setback area on both the east and west sides, but since these will be the minimum necessary to comply with Uniform Building Code Requirements for egress from the corresponding bedrooms, a variance is not necessary. My proposal also includes two (2) off-street parking spaces in garages for each of the free market residences, with another four parking spaces available in the on-site driveways. This will significantly reduce the level of nonconformity, and if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Special Review, will completely eliminate the nonconforming status of the lot with regard to off-street parking requirements. I am requesting that no on-site spaces be required for the deed restricted units, as further explained below. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS My property is located in the (0) Office zone district, on the northwest corner of East Hopkins Avenue and South Original Street, Surrounding uses include both free market and affordable multi-family residential (see list below), lodges (Buckhorn, former Bell Mt., etc.), commercial (Aspen Athletic Club, etc.), offices (Hannah Dustin Building, A-frame structure, etc.), condominiums (see list below), and even single-family residential. Thus, it would be accurate to say that the surrounding area is made up of a diverse mix of uses. This wide range of uses reflects the nature of the zoning in the area. 2 2 h- m ..il m ' - S SPRING ST f . 2 f7 , O r Â¥ S SPRING ST . N: . ./- . 52 10 8 196:Zilititz*TB.-:rfÂ·Â·24; , ..4 .41: .11:.1,~.--17 fi-/; 1 1 -, f m : r 1,>8;. i .ff,<4~.t ~ t; 7'tÂ· r I r /40.. I . 1 ' 4 4, r:9 1 P :Al... V, P.2. .11 . 1 4 "/A.4. ... t-1 f -J .- pelqns deVV uo'Wool Immediately across Original Street, to the east of the subj ect lot, the zoning changes to Residential Multi-Family (R/MF), and the same is true just across the alley to the north. One block to the west of my property, the zoning is (C-1) Commercial. and (CC) Commercial Core just one more block to the west. Two blocks to the south the zoning is (NC) Neighborhood Commercial, with a single lot of Commercial Lodge (CL) zoning even closer. Also, the Benedict Commons Affordable Housing development is one block to the south of the redevelopment site and is zoned Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH/PUD) Therefore, it is fair to say that the proposed redevelopment site represents an opportunity to transition from the adjacent, quieter R/MF, Residential Multl-Family distnct (to the east) to busier (C-1 and CC) commercial areas (to the west), The proposed use --- multi-family residential with a mix of free market and affordable units --- and its proposed design are fully compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood. In fact, with just a brief walk around the immediate neighborhood, I noticed the following multi-family developments: 1. The Larkspur (NE corner of Hopkins and Original), directly across the street. 2. 801 East Hopkins, 3. 830 East Hopkins; 4. 825 East Hopkins, 5. The Mountain House (corner of Hopkins and West End); 6, Mountain River Manor (900 East Hopkins); 7. The Queen Victoria (910 East Hopkins); 8, Hy-West (835 East Hopkins). 9. Chateau Blanc (901 East Hopkins); 10. Benedict Commons (SW corner of Hyman and Cooper); 11. The Bell Mountain Townhomes (NE corner of Cooper and Spring); and, 12. others PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS I had met with Sara Thomas when she was still the City Zoning Officer, Mitch Haas when he was still one of the City' s Planners, and Dave Tolen when he was still the Housing Director. I also had a work session with the City Planning and Zoning Commission to generally review my proposal and the potential issues of FAR and parking in June of 1999. - Most recently, I had a pre-application conference with Chris Bendon, Planner, on September 30, 1999. All of these meetings have confirmed that my proposal must comply with the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program and the Residential Design Standards, and receive Special Review approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for increasing the allowable FAR from 0.75 1 to 1 1, as well as to establish the off-street parking requirements associated with the two proposed affordable dwelling units. 3 In accordance with these requirements, my proposal is to be reviewed against the following sections of the code: Section 26.530.050, Housing Replacement Requirements; Section 26.410.040, Residential Design Standards. Section 26.710.180, Office (O) zone district; and, 26.430.040, Review Standards for Special Review. I f it is found that any variances will be required from the City's Residential Design Standards, 1 would like an opportunity to redesign or respond in writing to the specific variance criteria prior to the hearing. Also, if a variance(s) is to be requested, I would prefer that the request be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission concurrently with the Special Review. It is my understanding that Special Review necessitates a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, but without any notice requirements. I further understand that, if any variances are needed from the Residential Design Standards, the proper sign will have to be posted on the property for at least five (5) days prior to the hearing, and a signed affidavit with a photograph of the posted sign will need to be provided to staff prior to the hearing. REVIEW STANDARDS: The following section of this application provides each of the applicable review standards, with each standard followed by my response demonstrating compliance with and/or satisfaction of the requirement. Section 26.530.050, Housing Replacement Requirements As explained above, it is my intention to demolish the entire existing structure and redevelop the site. For purposes of the Resident Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program, the existing property is considered to contain three multi-family units. A. Minimum replacement requirement. In the event of the demolition of resident multi-family housing, the owner shall be required to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the square footage of net residential area demolished or converted. The replacement housing shall be configured in such a way as to replace fifty (50) percent of the bedrooms that are lost as working resident housing by demolition. A minimum of fifty (50) percent of the replacement housing shall be above natural grade. The replacement housing shall be deed restricted as affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of Section 26.530.060, below. RESPONSE: I will provide on-site replacement of fifty (50) percent of the existing net residential square footage and fifty percent of the existing bedrooms as deed restricted affordable housing. As pointed out in the attached letter from Sara Thomas, the building 4 .Msiohm V 1046 eq.Ft. FIRST LEVEL TOWN HOME (a. side) 373 sq.ft. FIRST LEVEL GARAGE (ea. side) 98 sq.ft. FIRST LEVEL EMP. HOUSING (.ea.side) i 15-G I I 191-11 3/40 1, 14.-11 1/2.1 , 1â‚¬7-q 5'-iâ€¢ , 16'-11' , 7-3 3/4' , , ' ' ' 00 6 1/2",2,4 e'-It- 84 Ca r\\ FIA e 23 r-1 ,",val,Â·,1.Â·,f'.'.''r'''r'. b -A ;? gag 4 2. ' 1. 8-4 9 - 0 1 lt-0 3/40 I (4 , 4 -6. ' 1 Btlgal ~' MA ~ ~ ag :43 4 MaIm * =Q!=31 1 ~ 84 , 8'-60 I wak-In i GGZM2Â¤2 ' 1 clo..1 0 - 1 00 ~VAIN/15 -- 808/ N _L r.- -t 7 , 6'-Cr I - Ail . , 5'-5 L 2 - L U UP . 1 -aL 1 - -J - 6- 24- 4/b 2Â£[BI o '~ b f i 7 : I pr, > I 9. - . I I ./1 1 5 k~- 3 6Lili 1, 11 _M\1 1--7' - 2341=1 F : 0 N 1 a co i , 5'-5' , - 1 T 1 ,"cr P-mr .-1 - * 2=: g walk-in Ie 28882 3 dosat , 6 -4 vgjaim 2 0 8'-6. EY=Ct! de-t - r - -1 hi -V I U -0 3/4" . ~ '' 41-6" 1 Y RCREQQM I - 2 -Â«-Be-- 12 j M801= - 16-7 12 I I 10 O A /211:1 21, 0, 7. b 14'-8â€ž :f lim m -1 - 1 V -â€¢ I I V 7 , ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' '1 , '1' I ' ' ' ' , ' 6 , '1' 1 4~: : : 1=e . % I C /[2 .8 V Â¥ k j it 1 8 6 1/27/ X / Â¢ -15 \ n 1 19-11 3/4 14'-it 1/2' , 10-9- , 5-" 1 16-11. , 7-3 3/4" , 25.111 11 E- 12/6/99 15 -C 4 .- 1/8.-1' FIRST FLOOR PLAN -- JMK SCALE: 1/8'=1'-O ./. PRELIMINARY DESIGNI A-1 17 AM sagridialul I zzng 11, 926 (046) 48'-0 5 1/2' . 3'-It. I 9-10" , 50-3 1/2" 6, ~(3-2" , 9-7 8-to. , 3'-11' , , P ., } * * . 39! 1 . .1 . 1 1 . - A >1 1 - 111 , 3'4 + 1/1 71 % 1 1\ it ~ % s 611 , Al Q \ rl . / -3 1 7 - - - . 171 - '- 0 96 0 U I , F -*--/ % H F 1 28 A -2- 0 0 E Â«DE- 4 ~0" g EtÂ» IT R T. XI Squ A in 151 b! - -7 ~CE . - k -1-4 1 r ~ ' U! I 1 01 4 4 16.-0 1/7 1 11 111 11 t 17-5' L--1:- 1. 48-9 , 8- 18'-11 1/â€¢. 1 4 28*-4 3/4 1 / \ J U L U U L Z-REAL-1' 1 h : I .. - .- C . 4 - 9 -1 . -1-1 â€¢ -T- I XN 7 7 1 2 71: : 1 1 1 U U' 4 1 5 - I /1 r-71 Â· *lgir-7--1 4 - C 4 1 - : -/ 1 Q I - 131-3. J I L_EcrIE - L 13'-* , I I -1 E 11 ' .'. 1 h.4 12'-77 1/< -]MEn rilIMP - o IJ'-7 I/40 ~ I I. . 1 -7-' li_ _1_ 7- i li i 6 + S - mEI! 2 4 201-5 3/4 1 j \C* 3/4 _._ - ~ tz . -1 1- 1 1- U 1,3'-2 1/4' U =1-- 1 1% 1- f L -1 1 1-,4= 11,3'-2 1/4' 6 0 ./Ab /1.71, , 1 42 IL_-1 , 3-6 1/4" p---1 I I --/1. ' ' I 4 b I I r- 01 , 5'-ID 3/4' , .-i 5- ID 3/4. 9 -7 - ' 51-2. , 01 06 ' 0 --=m.. $ & ot - 00% R t 70 r -. 1 ' 8-6, , , 8,-6. , 4 Z,~67 1 1 205 3 . F -08 I 5 5 -,4-0 . 7 7 4 U U S, ; 4 4 6 4 ' 4. .4 1 .. : : 6WOO . 2 ~mw 23'-1" . ' 2*- r â€¢ I. I . I I. -k- + b . , U ULA- -- 98 *38 3OI Ul Q w 4 0 7 # a &1! g g 1 1 2! 4 0 0 far-1 1 0 1-rur.,F 4 n I. --I- -r . I I I , 10-Cr ~ 3'-8 In' ,|, 3'-81/2' , 20-0. / 'L, ' I 48-3 I 9 1111 JMK Buzz Dopkin Enterprises MULTI-FAMILY TOWNHOMES 3> & Associates, bic. Box 4696 728 E. Hopkins Ave. 16%35 /784 Com.. Dr. 1 100 ~ Qud Junettom. CO- 81000 Aspen, CO 81612 (970) 925-7488 Aspen, CO I , Ne I SECI 129Â¥N I IN Ilahld f'IJaa - side) 48-0. -r , 7-11 1/22' 7-5 1/2" , 8'-3 1/2' 8'-3 1/2, 7 1,-5 \/7 4 7-It 1/2- 0_ G Â·D 3 31" 2 un r __I. I mt k} b -71. - 0, , 6 5 e 2 26-1 V:r 4 6'-6' 6'-6" 16'-11/2. b - .J kJ 4 /1/ M 01=U flth 72'-If Id -1 A 2 > - 9 R ill U) 11 b i 11 -1 2 1 'Z -1 39 -1 1 71 r J 0 4 -3 CR C===== , 1 A v. 0, 1 X} I 6-It In. 2 4'-6. A. 4-6 + Â£'-7 \ 1 - r r--1.; L--r 4 . L \ 11 140-4. 17--1 1--11 11 P 4 4 3 i L-7, r n Ev=' I , 5'-8' - Ct-I-P~ lu U gre- 19 - / . 0 k ., 0 05 1 14 4 n 0 *T - - Â·/3 k k 1 1 - 1 ..1..1, 1 1 1 , 159 , 5-3 1/7 ./ 8-9 i /7 1 15'-9 , * r. Â¥ 7 -7 48-0 4 J n D 7 ,1 1 1 1 JMK Buzz Dopkin Enterprises MULTI-FAMILY TOWNHOMES & Associates, Inc. Box 4696 728 E. Hopkins Ave. Lâ‚¬e 4~2; CLcl~ Aspen, CO 81612 (970) 925-7488 Aspen, CO e.8016.91 ' /691 " j~ 49~4 .AN '4Â«41; p..[.4 44*4*443*\ w *PX.*492%\7 -4 , 1 V h .0 9,6 i C:A 9.1444*ZY N & 4403:40 4 vy )&91 0 a) >. X 0% 639%%94XXXX %/p, ~. AN,1 1.,nn 2, x 367 1 >W = - w - - 17 r --40/7-11'r rn rl,., 4 A h.41Â¥97.- ~T~7Â¥rl- iF * aw-*. 43Â»1737 - I Atfu~~ '<pituoÂ· 00 E- N 442222 4[bbfrÂ¥ r 7- r Â¥-T T A - 30 4~1 < . t ..7 - ' ~~~Â·r.Â·r-~.UQ. ...1-.7-Â«4554 [r'- .. , %/6 0 23 .31 -- 4 + ---1 1 2 84 41 1 0 4,9 ,-,Fl 025Â» r . T # --1/4 6 F. 01 9% 74.* -4 . I T 1 -Â»9.2 5.- ,Â« I 1'1 0011'7 ' 16 K Cl' ait -A, 2 Â» 76 If / I %A lrI 'rÂ¢ 1 0 1 0 4 FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8'=1'-0 N CO :8 414.'944Â»x M - l â€¢4Â·â€¢Â·YX %4*3494 0Â¤ O m N . 4 994$54%2/46* 9 2 1 0 adducquol . 'y'Â· Â·~Â· >(YX~Â· Â·'Â·''Â·':~:'''':'' Â·' ''AX ~~ ' i >3fx>'/499,4,< ' 0 - 4 4 I ''' ' '6\> XX:.Â©<Y. i.~' ~ ~ '~ ~1'. 1 Â·'Â· v xyvvy#.'494Â·, . i 26>y, ix, ,,F~i~, .21,~~ ~,~J~*~r~~~~, , ,>47:>:iI~t~~~~I X>~,>><~,. ,, Â·~, .' Â·~. ~Â· Â·1 7 Â¢/\,'j~~~x '.â‚¬;'j ,.Alâ€žpo,~x 4~4>2ft.~i<>>4It~40~~4349~~~;,Y x~, %Â· . 3'4~), Yt/Y '.49Â£24 64 -3/Lic.-4 T , Â«*1221.2-- .07.111 4Â«4Â·...2 * ...Â·c co.,, Â·49.- Â·Â·e ' Â·.Â·-'-YrÂ·'uÂ·rr Â·r~,UÂ·rn* ~ 339. ~ -Â·rei~ ' . A--73%r T.4.gal 32Â«grums 7. 2.01 - 7 ri,Or -W-YrÂ·YtiXIA.3 UPÂ·r,OICI. tr- uÂ·,.--,, 4 2 -0 4 Â·6'rÂ»Â·r-A Ff/4,4.<02: - .Â¥ -1.. V..#v -: r w -' U./..'Â·Y--' -------- .--- U-h-k-.------ 5%3314 93-. 0 0 -0 lai ~z=En ~===n 000 000 01 01 EZZIn EZZIJ 25-ZEK EZZIn ELLIJ D- 12/6/99 - 1/8.-1, REARELEMAILON cÂ»- JMK 50*_E /8"=1'-0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN A-4 m - 00 'uadsv 98*L-926 (046) saSI.Idialul upld zzna Ii,ASIONa BY Y . *t Y '<4>9~, )~ '' ~ * 2 040,<x' kA eÂ»,','~ 1.1 .ry : Â·, L '4,; 4 4404% \''h ,; 3)4/1 ~ 7,-199?. :* f'. 3(X~OF IX' / :X f ,< 1 7% 1 1>J>J ./. 7 ,1 vi 44:ft ,~ , 0 Vi.. 4 -' Â·*Â¤Â»IÂ©Â»r E-151 10*XYN<3.tr:3391 - -Â·etÂ¥Â»9Â«.4~444.-I--411'r '--1014/.tolt>40*XIXJ - Â«1Â«CID~-'-14-~ Â·05> 21 J,Â©f, exÂ©351,41/1 1 N 10_44Â«11 - - Mgr' ' ' 4(+1360 2- r. -1 - 1 41 . 1 6-Â·-r-,4 Â· 1- 17*<72Â¢Â«6 - '- CO 14441/24 -...' ,54 I.Â»3;Z - Â· .Â·'-4 T fe- v-/4/ 14 7.Â¥ - -' 7 -c-r][Y-*ICÂ¢cor~- -lr Tat>4~{ 00 54941.96:Â«--: RIGHT SIDE ELEVATI ON SCALE: 1/8'=1'-0 N 02 00 - .'.1.1 ' ' I ' . ' . ' I. 'lili ./ . N A - IT 1.1 lir Cd O - f gg B 2.'.8'.'1~'~~'~'5/0 / 4.01 m 4'- re:**46555 + rTittÂ«Â· S 7 TON=>33' ~~<fit;if~ 7- 7...211.. Â¥-23999â‚¬14-5/Â¢203.' ~ 1 1 in 04 A., W \KX~ -:01Â£2427421* re CO**:70=0. Â¤Â¤ -49~239 6-2557X~k-~,93 -493 922.Y 00 f=.1/2&-0-473 00 -93363613-2239 25.1/K - - 12/6/99 -4- â€¢i 1/8:f LEFT SIDE ELEVATION 0- JMK - SCALE: ./8 = -O PRELIMINARY DESIGN A-5 ... ns Ave. -MID ROOF HEIGHT 00 'uadsv 991,4-926 (046) -Id,lfl* sasudialu doG zznE[ 00 'uadsy ' avarÂ·4& 1HGIBH dooa a iw OUI 00$67 presently contains approximately 3,335 square feet of net residential square footage and five (5) bedrooms, requiring replacement housing consisting of 1,667 square feet of net residential square footage and 2.5 bedrooms. Notice there is no requirement that the replacement bedrooms and net residential square footage be provided in more than one unit. Nevertheless, being a long-time local resident of Aspen and understanding the need for as many units of affordable housing as can reasonably be provided, it is my intention to meet the minimum requirements by providing two distinct deed restricted units. Specifically, I am proposing to provide one (1) two- bedroom deed restricted unit of 1,000 square feet. and one ( 1) one-bedroom deed restricted unit of 667 square feet. The two-bedroom unit would be deed restricted to the Housing Office' s Category 4 limitations, while the one-bedroom unit would be deed restricted to the Category 3 limitations. These units will be, not 50%, but 100% above natural grade. The two units will each contain two stories of living space, and be located above the garages. By providing two separate units, both of which will be fully above grade, I am exceeding the requirements of Title 20. Also, Title 20 allows me to replace only two bedrooms and pay cash-in-lieu of the fractional bedroom, as provided in the following standard. As we all know, this cash-in-lieu would never be used to directly provide a bedroom of deed restricted housing, Instead, I intend to provide three full bedrooms within high-quality, beautiful units located not on the periphery of town, but right in the downtown area. By providing two separate units, there will be two housing lottery winners instead ofjust one, an immeasurable benefit to some lucky, local resident. B. Location of replacement requirement. Multi-family replacement units shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate that replacement of the imits on-site woidd be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be an inappropriate planning solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on-site which the City Council determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining imits offsite, within the Aspen Metropolitan Area. When the owner's housing replacement requirements involves a fraction of a unit, cash in lieu may be provided to meet the fractional requirement only. The amount Of cash-in-lieu shall be computed using the formula set forth at Section 26.620.020. RESPONSE As explained above, I intend to provide the replacement housing on-site and in excess of the minimum required. There are no applicable adopted neighborhood plans. I fully believe the proposed development plan is appropriate for the site, specifically, and for the neighborhood, in general. I believe the above narratives more than adequately demonstrate this. 1 1 5 Whether or not the replacement housing I intend to provide is indeed appropriate for the site, will really be a function of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decisions with regard to my requests for a 1 1 FAR limit and a waiver of on-site parking requirements for the two deed restricted units. In truth, if my proposal is deemed inappropriate by the Commission (i.e., no increase in FAR allowed, or no waiver of off-street parking requirements), I have no intention of following up with the City Council. Instead, I would - simply provide the minimum on-site and pay the cash-in-lieu for the remaining half- bedroom. Please understand that this is in no way intended as an ultimatum or threat, I just want to make sure the facts and ramifications of deeming my proposal inappropriate - are clearly understood, C. Timing and quality of replacement unit. Replacement units shall be available for occupancy at the same time as the new Imits or imits, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on-site or off-site. and shall contain fixtures, finish and amenities required by the housing designee's guidelines. When replacement units are proposed to be bitilt off-site, the owner shall be required to obtain a development order approving the off-site development prior to or in conjunction with obtaining a development order approving redevelopment on the site on which demolition is proposed to take place. RESPONSE: No off-site replacement housing is proposed. I understand the requirements of this standard, and agree to comply with them. Section 26.710.180, Office (O) The property contains six thousand (6,000) square feet of land, with no applicable lot area reductions --- there are no slopes in excess of 20%, no right-of-way easements, and no high water lines --- which meets the minimum lot area requirement of 6,000 square feet. It is zoned (0) Office, which as of right allows multi-family residential dwellings as a permitted use. My development plan will eliminate all of the nonconforming setbacks (described above, under "Existing Conditions ) by bringing the same into compliance with the Office zone i district requirements. The lot is 60 feet wide, thereby meeting the minimum lot width requirement. Under the submitted proposal, the structure will at no point exceed the twenty-five (25) foot height limitation, as measured pursuant to the City Code. Nevertheless, I believe and staff may find that the a modest two (2) foot height variance for the flat-roofed portion of the building would greatly increase the livability of the affordable units, a twenty-seven (27) foot measured height would actually be the true height of the flat roof. Only one structure is proposed, so the minimum distance between buildings on a lot requirement is not applicable. There is no open space requirement in the Office zone district. 6 4 1 My proposal includes two (2) off-street parking spaces in garages for each of the free market residences, with another four parking spaces available in the on-site driveways. This will significantly reduce the level of nonconformity, and if approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Special Review. will completely eliminate the nonconforming status of the lot with regard to off-street parking requirements. I am requesting that no on-site spaces be required for the deed restricted units, as further explained below. In terms of density (minimum lot area per dwelling unit), the following requirements j apply, since the lot contains 6,000 square feet and two of the four proposed units would be restricted as affordable housing e. Multi-family dwellings on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less, when at least fifty percent (50%) of the units built on-site are restricted as affordable housing: 1 Studio: 500 [square feet of lot area per] 1 bedroom: 600 [square feet of lot area per-] 2 bedroom: 1,000 [square feet of lot area per]. 3 bedroom: 1,500 [square feet of lot area per]. 3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 500 square feet of lot area. With the proposal including one (1) two-bedroom unit and one (1) one-bedroom unit, 1,600 square feet of lot area are consumed for density allowance purposes This leaves 4,400 square feet of lot area available for determining the number of bedrooms that will be allowed in the two free market units. Since 4,400 divided by 500 equals 8.8, a total of eight (8) bedrooms are permitted by right between the two units. Each of the free market units will, therefore, contain up to four (4) bedrooms. With regard to FAR- for a multi-family structure in the Office zone, 0.75:1 is permitted by right. With a 6,000 square foot lot, 0.75:1 results in 4,500 square feet of allowable FAR floor area. The term "FAR floor area" is intended to indicate that not all floor area counts toward allowable FAR. The zoning provisions allow the 0.75:1 FAR limitation to be increased to 1.1 (6,000 square feet) by Special Review. Special Review approval for such an increase is requested below. While the Internal Floor Area Ratio provision does not apply in this case, it is interesting to note that the same 0.75:1 limit can also be raised to 1.1 by special review provided 60% of the additional floor area is to be used for residential use restricted to affordable housing. This means that 4,500 square feet of FAR is allowed by right, and another 1,500 square feet of FAR can be approved by Special Review provided 900 square feet of this g 1,500 square foot increase is to be used for residential use restricted to affordable housing. My proposal involves the development ofjust 4,333 square feet of free market residential FAR, which is 167 square feet below the maximum allowed on the lot by right. Therefore, since I am also proposing 1,667 square feet of residential uses restricted to affordable housing, 100% of the additional floor area requested by Special Review will be for residential use restricted to affordable housing. 7 Section 26.515.040, Special Review Standards IParkingl Pursuant to Section 26.515.010 ofthe Land Use Code, the off-street parking requirements for affordable housing must be established by Special Review. Section 26.515.040 of the Municipal Code states that "whenever the off-street parking requirements Of a proposed development are subject to establishment and or mitigation via a payment in lieu by , special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met: " A. All zone districts. In all zone districts where the off-street parking requirements are subject to establishment andor mitigation by special review, the applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents. customers, guests and employees of the project have been met. taking into account potential uses of the parcel. the projected traffic generation Of the project, the projected impacts onto the on-street parking of the neighborhood. its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special , services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. In determining whether to accept the mitigation or whether to require that the parking be provided on-site, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall take into consideration the practical ability of the applicant to place parking on- site, whether the parking needs of the development have been adequately met : on-site and whether the city has plans for a parking facility which would better meet the needs Of the development and the community than would the location of the parking on-site. RESPONSE. There are no set parking requirements for the affordable housing units; instead, they are to be established as part of this review. Since no requirements exist, the proposal does not contemplate mitigating this lack of a requirement via a cash in lieu payment (in lieu of what?). The proposal includes the provision of two (2) off-street parking spaces for each of the two free market units in their associated garages, with additional parking in the driveways to said garages. The provided parking will only comply with the established minimums for the free market units. However, this does not leave any room for on-site parking spaces dedicated to the affordable units, especially since a trash dumpster will be necessary along the alley frontage. The side yards do not provide any room for parking spaces either, nor would such spaces be desirable. For instance, one side yard fronts of South Original Street and provision of parking along this yard would run contrary to the direction and goals of the Residential Design Standards. The same is true for the front yard facing Hopkins Avenue. The other side yard is only five feet in width. Therefore, there is no practical ability to place additional parking on-site. There are no City-sponsored or other plans for a parking facility that would better meet the needs of the development and the community than would the location of parking on- 8 site. Given the location of the site, each of the owners of the affordable units will be entitled to one (1) residential parking permit for on-street parking. They will also each be entitled to a guest parking permit. Having talked with residents of the neighborhood, it is my understanding that finding parking on the surrounding streets is usually not a problem. It has long been a goal of the City's to minimize its residents' dependency on the automobile and to find disincentives to automobile usage. This site represents a prime location for acting on these worthwhile goals. The site is located such that transit is easily accessed, with stops nearby. Grocery shopping is available at the City Market, just two blocks (the short side of the blocks) to the south. The downtown, commercial core is just a block and a half to the west. Given the forgoing, it is my wholehearted opinion that there need not be designated parking spaces on-site for use by the residents of the deed restricted units. All needs in j town are within easy walking distance. Parking is available on the surrounding streets, and the residents will be entitled to resident and guest parking permits. Transit is close by. The site cannot practically accommodate additional parking beyond the minimum necessary to comply with the standards for the two free market units, and allowing for no parking requirement associated with the deed restricted units will further the City' s goals of minimizing dependencies on the automobile. B. Multi-family dwelling units. Off-street parking provided for multi-family dwelling units which do not share a common parking area is not required to have unobstructed access to a street or alley, but may consist of a garage area, parking strip or apron provided that the applicant demonstrates that adequate landscaping will be installed to reduce the parking's visual impact. Developments consisting of three or more dwelling imits shall install one (1) planter buffer per three parking spaces. Planter buffers shall be a minimum often (10) feet long by two and one-half (2-1 2) feet wide by two (2) feet high unless otherwise varied by the Commission. The location and dimensions of the planters may also be varied by the Commission based on site specific circumstances provided that no fewer than one (1) planter buffer is provided per three (3) off-street parking spaces. Multijamily projects lising this provision shall access parking from the alley, ifavallable. RESPONSE: All provided parking for the multi-family structure will be access directly from the alley. There will not be three contiguous open-air parking spaces in any location on the site. The driveways will be only fifteen (15) feet long and will, therefore, not be legal head-in parking spaces (18 feet required). Consequently, there will not be three open spaces contiguous to one another, and therefore, the provision of planter buffers are not required by this standard. Furthermore, even if deemed to be required, the planter buffers would have to be located between the two driveways, and with the requirement that the planters be only two feet in height, they would hardly be visible from the existing street grade. Without being clearly 9 visible from the existing street grade, not to mention being on an alley, these planter buffers would serve virtually no purpose whatsoever. ,Section 26.430.040, Review Standards for Special Review IFARJ As explained above with regard to FAR for a multi-family structure in the Office zone, 0.75:1 is permitted by right. With a 6,000 square foot lot, 0.75:1 results in 4,500 square feet of allowable FAR floor area. The zoning provisions allow the 0.75 1 FAR limitation to be increased to 1 1 (6,000 square feet) by Special Review. Special Review approval for such an increase is hereby requested. Pursuant to Section 26.430.040 of the Land Use Code, "No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all the standards and requirements set forth below. " A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a proposed development are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved ifthe following conditions are met: 1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district. RESPONSE. I am requesting that the allowable FAR on my site be increased from 0.75:1 to 1:1. I am, therefore, not sure that this standard applies, but feel that my proposal more than satisfies these requirements anyway. The mass is perfectly consistent with that found throughout the neighborhood (see "Neighborhood Characteristics," above); the height, density, setbacks, and open space complies with the standards of the Office zone district. ' The many existing nonconformities will all be eliminated with the development of the proposed project. The configuration is consistent not only with the neighborhood, but also with the goals and directions of the Residential Design Standards. Given the existing development on the site, my project will substantially enhance the character and appearance ofthe surrounding neighborhood. 1 li 2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts including, but not limited to, the effects Of shading, excess traffic. availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking Of a designated view plane. 10 RESPONSE. The lot is on a corner, and thus, would only have the potential to shade the property to the west. This will not be a problem as the height limit will not be exceeded, and the building setback from that (easterly) property line will be increased from the current setback of 4'2" to 5'0" Also, while the existing property contains only three legal residences, it is known that a fourth, "bandit" unit has existed on the property for many years. The existing development has only two (2) on-site parking spaces for the four units thereon. Since my proposal involves the development of four (4) units with at least four (4) on-site parking spaces, it is clear that my development will not have adverse impacts on the existing levels of traffic or availability of parking --- there will be the same amount of units as exist today, but with more on-site parking. There are no designated view planes affecting the property. Therefore, there will be no adverse impacts to mitigate. Instead, my development will improve upon the current situation, not only by providing more parking than currently exists, but also by eliminating the setback encroachments, providing two (2) deed restricted affordable housing units that are sorely needed in Aspen, and generally improving and beautifying the site and its structures with new constr-uction and landscaping. The existing encroachments upon the rights-of-way will be eliminated, and sidewalks, curbs, and gutters will be installed. B. Reduction in open space requirement in CC or LP zone districts. RESPONSE: Not applicable. C. Increase in floor area permitted in R/MF zone district. Increases in external floor area shall only be permitted on sites subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.530, Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program. To obtain the increase, the applicant shall demonstrate a minimum Of two-thirds (2 3) of the additional floor area allowed is used to increase the size Of the affordable housing units beyond the minimum size standards Of the City's housing designee and the development complies with the dimensional requirements of Section 26.430.040(A)(1) and (2) above. RESPONSE: As already demonstrated, my development complies with the standards of Section 26.430.040(A)(1) and (2) above. Earlier portions of this application demonstrate that my proposal exceeds the requirements of the Resident Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program. The Housing Office has given their endorsement of the replacement housing as proposed. Obviously, this standard was written without consideration of the fact that other zone districts, besides the R/MF zone, allow for increases in external FAR by Special Review. For purposes of reviewing my application for an increase in allowable external FAR from ' 4,500 square feet (@ 0.75:1) to 6,000 square feet (@ 1: 1) in the Office zone district, this is not a fair standard because the allowable external FAR by right in the R/MF zone 1:1 11 (exactly what Iam requesting), and can be increased to 1,1 1 by Special Review. I am not asking for al.11 FAR- (6,600 square feet). In the Office zone district, the FAR permitted by right for a multi-family structure is 0.75:1. With a 6,000 square foot lot, 0.75:1 results in 4,500 square feet of allowable FAR floor area. The Office zone district provisions allow the 0.75:1 FAR limitation to be increased to 1:1 (6,000 square feet) by Special Review. Notwithstanding the fact that this standard is not fair for application in the Office zone district, my proposal exceeds the requirement that two-thirds of the additional floor area requested be used for the deed restricted units. That is, with 4,500 square feet of FAR allowed by right, another 1,500 square feet of FAR can be approved by Special Review provided 1,000 square feet of this 1,500 square foot increase (1,000 is two-thirds of 1,500)is to be used for the affordable housing unit(s). My proposal involves the development ofjust 4,333 square feet of free market residential FAR, which is 167 square feet below the maximum allowed on the lot by right. Therefore, , since I am also proposing 1,667 square feet of residential uses restricted to affordable housing, 100% of the additional floor area requested by Special Review will be for residential use restricted to affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the Housing Guidelines of the City' s housing designee. Not only does this meet the two- thirds requirement, but it exceeds it by another two-thirds (167%) Standards D., E., F., and G. of Section 26.430.040 are not applicable to this review. 12 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Land Use Application Form Exhibit 2: Attachment 2, Dimensional Requirements Form Exhibit 3: April 22, 1999, letter from Sara Thomas Exhibit 4: Proof of Ownership (Warranty Deed) Exhibit 5: Pre-Application Conference Sununary EXHIBIT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: #40 PkINS -72.8 Locahom 728 E. 4/op,k/AAr 4 VE Lors / 7Â¢ /8 8Â£0Â« 26 (Indicate street address, lot & block number, leg41 description where appropriate) APPLICANT: f Name: az-1 -Dop +< 646) 71,14) 1*VELDW 5,1- LLC Address: Â£504 44 94 /+SPS-3,01. 816/1 Phone#: 978 - 9.23-- 7482 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: .Shm a Address: Phone #: TYPE OF APPUCATION: (please check all that apply): Conditional Usc O Conceptual PUD m Conceptual Historic Devt. Special Review O Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) I Final Historic Development Design Review Appeal Â¤ Conceptual SPA Q Minor Historic Devt GMQS Allotment 0 Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) O Historic Demolition GMQS Exemption Â¤ Subdivision I Historic Designation Â¤ ESA - 8040 Greentine, Sham O Subdivision Exemption (includes O Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane El Lot Split E Temporary Use O Other: j Lot Line Adjustment D Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description ofexisting buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) -03Â«A C.al_oÂ»Ej /7)Ath; #tuse 2<- c>NE_ BEDn*4 0-prri,2- CAP G-*AGE* S-*OP,606 -86AJEFT LUTT PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) 2. PREE 41*aKEr -Ru-**10- 65 2 Dean /*Er,92 /CrED 72'AJA_waKer. Hav,you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ GFPre-Application Conference Summary ~~ttacbment # 1, Signed Fee Agreement GFBesponse to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form Q~*esponse to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents C~:spers= to .4.:tach:nent .54, Specific Sub:=:ics:cn (recrents GE'Response to Attachment #3. Review Standards for Your Application 000fo EXHIBIT 2 V ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: ~Dek/ES 72.8 Applicant: -Bal=1-1Dup/<14 Ucdom /V .*'. Cc> 7*,AheR- #74Â©Pk-/A/I 4 OUG/MAL Zone District: ( 0 )' / ,=,c./ CE Lot Size: .40 x /00 Lot Area: 4000 (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: A/~A- Proposed: A j/4 Â· Number of residential units: Existing: 10- Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing: 3-- 4 Proposed: / i Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): /6~2) 7- /#*~C,tâ€¢i:>/c DIMENSIONS: 4*0 2472,4.A- 4 6 0 05Â»204Â£ 22EVASW Floor Area: Existing:3335 Allowable: Proposed: GOO 0 Principalbidid height Existing:<25 Allowable: 45- Proposed:.6 43~Â·~159AJED Access.bldg.height: Existing: 2-5 + Allowable: A~/44- Proposed: A//4- On-Site parking: Existing: 2 Required: -7 Proposed: 8 % Site coverage: Existing: /â‚¬%4 Required: /1~* Proposed: *~4 * Â°/o Open Space: Existing: /1(~/A- Required: *~4 Proposed: ,/10~,24. Front Setback. Existing: /(D ' Required: /0 ' Proposed: /~15> ~ Rear Setback: Existing: 3-// " Required: /5 ' Proposed: )S' Corei'adf X. Existing=/31//"Required: N/4 Proposed: 2.5 ' Side Setback. Existing: A- / Required: 5 ' Proposed: 514 " 't - B Side Setback: Existing: 9 -A Required: Gt- 8 Proposed: 4 -S " Combined Sides: Existing: C- 9" Requked: A~A proposed. 1/ - 8 Existing non-conformities or encroachments: S 10â‚¬9472.]M ~/VARD i -4, 0= -7=4/J<joG TPARJU â€¢UG- EA-,CROAU+'M EA.il' ~23#41NT 61*7, A)Â© S/DEWALKY '. Variations requested: /Rt,646 EXHIBIT 3 I ,/9 I . 1 1. . 2/2 r Â· 1 -tr,1 1 i.,r'IPIL 1/Vrh..0 Â·1 r.Cru_ i- 0 'u IU APR-22-1999 16:11 Fi HbMEN/ri ,â€¢un uw. , ....... 1 I . 1. R Werr 3 1 1. 1 1 1 April 22.1999- Mr. Buzz Dopkin Aspen. CO 816({ 1 - RE: 728 East Hopkins AL#N ' PIr*IN 1 Dear Buzz, Conu,&441*744 w.7 1 ' , Â·. Based on our,conversations and the infotmation that you have provided to our office, 728 East Hopkins is a 6000 square foot parcel located in the Office zone districtb According to our building pezmit fles, this 3 unit multi-family building was legally created in 1964. The parcel is subject to the following considerations: I Ir . GROWTH IUANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM: . . The growth management section ofthe land use code JWS for reconstruction of ' completely demolished multi-family buildings provids -hat the requiremeks of Title 20 - Residcat Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program are met. This requires on-site replacement of fifty percent bf the existing net residential square fodiage and Shy percent o f the existing bedrooms. Based on ealculaions done iri 1998 by alocal archited whicharesubject to re- verification by ocr office prior to issuance of a building permit the buildind presently COntainf approximately 3335 square feet ofnet residential square footage aid five bedrooms, requiring replacemenr housing consisting of i667 square feet ofhet residential square footage at.d 2.5 bÂ¢drooms. The replacement units must be a minimum of 50% above natural grade and must be deed resoicted to affordable housing pursuant to the Housing Guidelines. . i : 1 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: . . j ~ Floor area: I . The allowable floor area for ar 6000 square foot parcel in the Offtce-zone d#trict is .75: 1, ~ or 4,500 squee feet The floor area may be increased to 11, or 6000 squde feet subject ro Special Review approval by the Plmm'Ug and Zoning Commission and p~vided thst J 60% of the additional floor ama isrestricted to affordablchousing. T Density: The allowed density for multi-family housing in the office zone districts is based bn the ninnber of bedroorns located 6n the parcel,;plth a sliding scale based on thd percentage of . t 1 1 â€¢ 130 Soup Gâ€¢unu Snipr Â·- A spm, CÂ£*0.410 &1611â€¢1975 - Ple.z 970.920.5090 Â· FAX 97~20.54~9 roakd ..Ell<led P.fler 1 . 1 1,-1 i . 6.1. 6 -2.' 22 22Â· AVrl' i -rirt.VL L/VE/Â·hi, '1 1.Lf-IL -=1 1 r.-1 i - .' 19 APR-22-1999 16:12 FRI ASPEN/Pll-KiN CUM Ltv TO yÂ·-12013rto r.od 1 . 1 affordable housirl g on-site. You have indicated that your preference is to construct the ~ replacement housing square footage of 1667 square feet within two deed restricted units, possibly a 1 bedroom and a 2 bedroom unit. The office zone district allows for a density, ifat least 30% ofthe number of units on the property are deed restricteda!10#ordable housing as follows: 1 bedroom units require 600 square f=t of lot area , 2 bedroom units require 1,000 square feet of lot area j 3 bedroom units require 1,500 squam feet of lot area Units with more than 3 bedrooms require 500 square feet of lot area per bedroom 1 1 ; Construction of 1 one-bedroom deed resticted unit and 1 two-bedroom dee# resticted i ~ unit would requite a total of 1600 squam feet of lot area. This 6000 square foot lot would therefore support up to aa additional 8 bedrooms, depending on the configuration ofthe free market unit(s). I 1 1 Setbacks: The required settacks for the office zone district are: Front yard - 10 feet 1 Side yaId - 5 fee: C 6 feet 8 inches for 2nd street bordering side) Rear yard - 15 feet } Minimum distance between buildings - 10 feet 1 1 .1 * (On comer lots, the owner shall have a choice as to which yard shall be cdnsidered as j 1 the front yari such yard to meet the minimum setbacks for a front yard. The remaining yard bordering a street may be reduced by onethirdÂ·of the required front yard setback distance for the zone district. The rear yard must coincide with the rear alidnment of 2 neighboring lots regardless of which yard is considered the front yard by th6 owner.) 1 Parking: . 1 2 spaces per dwelling unit, or 1 space per dwelling unit if the unit isa studio or 1 bedroom. The off-street parking requirements for all affordable housing units is established through Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. i Buzz, once you have a development proposal, I recommend thar you schedule a pre- application meeting with one of'the City Planners in order to determine what land use approvals will be required. If you need any additional information regarding the zone district requirements, please feel free to contact mc at 920-5104. Sincerely, Mla#AA Â£*Ap Sara Thomas, City Zoning Omcer i . .1 TOTAL P.02 EXHIBIT 4 1 LERierl-_91 RANTY DEED = -23' THIS DEED, made this 09 day of SEPTEMBER -> la -J 1999, between JERROLD A. WISH AND RICMARD LAYFIRLD 0> Â· 64 0 = 1- :92 5 1 GRANTOR, AND BUZZ DOPKIN 1 OF THE COUNTY OF hiklin, 48(-', ST'ATE OF FL 3 0 3 ==as m : 05-au -0 0 - -=94 - GRANTEE e , whose legal address is : P.O. BOX 4696 O 51 .-0 LU ASPEN, CO 81612 2 293 9 0 -- COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF CO W -3 0 WITNESSETH, That for and in con5ideration of the sum of ten dollars 92 0 5 = \ CD - and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of 252% 22 which is hereby acknowledged, the grantor has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these preaente does grant, bargain, sell and convey and ==G Z confirm unto the grantee, his heira and aisigns forever, all the real NM property together with improvements, if any, situate and lying and being in : m 4- C') Ci Â· the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, described ae follows: 100 LOTS 17 AND 18, IN BLOCK 28, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE, SOMETIMES KNOWN AS LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 28, EAST ASPEN ADDITION. 0 F R IÂ« 31:0 ~ q Z TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversiong, remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof. and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whateoever of the grantor either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, ) with the appurtenances, unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. And the Grantor. for himself, his heirs and assigns. does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the enâ€¢ealing and delivery of the presents, he is well seized of the pramises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee aimple, and hag good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature | soever, except those matters as Bet forth on Exhibic "A" attached hereto j and incorporated herein by reference. Â·Mle grantor â€¢hall and will WARRANT AND YORIVIR DEFEND the above bargained premisls in tho quilt and peay*able posslesion of the grantee, his heirs and assigns, against all and/every person or peroons lawfully claiming the , whole or any parp thereo,56/The singular numbm/i~al,1, incjpde the plural, the pluray'Gle jtin~14~~nd the use of gendir 82(arl /be,46]lcable_to all ! genders / \\ 6 yx'' M 14 ( 044(Â» JERR94%* WIS~ '/ RI~HARD LAYFIE~ U STATE OF -TIOn& ) 1 COUNTY OF )4,orn\ Â·Â·492 ) as. The foregoing instrument was ackamil/2,ed br/,re me this 2*h day of 637*rn; 21' r WITNESS my hand and official seal (C:~9~-\)?~11/k.012' my commission expires: JLK Public ~ --=FiCIXIEUTABYS---~ ELIZABETH FERNANDEZ | NCTARY PLIBUC ST'ATE OFFLORDA | COMMISSION NO. CC584413 | | MYCOMMISSION EXP. SEFT 11,2000 | N COUNTY CO Nog.)4 34-9 No. 00( l 3 L.Le 9 -YA q lXHIBIT "A" 1. Taxes for the year 1999 not yet due or payable. 2. Reservations and exceptions as contained in the United States Patent recorded in Book 185 at Page 69. 3. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in License Agreement recorded December 14, 1981 in Book 418 at Page 608. 4. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Statement of Variance and Deed Restriction recorded April 4, 1988 in Book 560 at Page 296. 1 11'll lilli mi 1111 lilli Elli llilll Ill lilli lili Illl 435372 09/10/1999 12:17P WD DAVIS SILVI 2 of 2 R 10.00 0 170.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO EXHIBIT 5 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Chris Bendon. 920.5072 DATE: 10.5.99 PROJECT 728 East Hopkins Special Review REPRESENTATIVE: Buzz Dopkin OWNER: Buzz Dopkin - TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 Step. Special Review for 1:1 FAR and AH parking, DRAC rat-iance DESCRIPTION: Housing Replacement Ordinance multi-family project to be developed to I:! FAR alid waive parking for AH. Possible DRAC variances on window wells and secondary mass. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.430 Special Review for dimension in RMF Zone and AH Parking 26.410 Residential Design Standards (Attached Ordinance) 26.530 Housing Replacement Program (Attached Code Section) Revieu liv Staff. referral agencies for technical considerations. I loosing for referral. Planninit and Zoning , 1 Commission for final review. Public Hearing: Yes, Applicant must post property and mail notice at least 10 days prior to hearing, or at least 15 days prior to the public hearing if any federal agency, state, county, municipal government. school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application Applicant will need to provide proof of posting and mailing irit/1 c/ affidavit at the public hearing. Referral Agencies: Engineering, Housing, Parks, Fire Marshall, Water, ACSD Planning Fees: Planning Deposit Minor ($1110) Referral Agency Fees: Engineering, Minor ($160); Total Deposit: $ 1,270 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $ 1 85/Iiour) To apply, submit the following information: 1, Proofofownership 2. Signed fee agreement. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name. address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 4. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado. listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements. contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 5. Total deposit for review of the application 20 Copies of the complete application packet and maps. 6. HPC = 12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning Staff= 1 7. An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen. 8, Site improvement survey including topug[auhy-and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, ofthe parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) 9. Additional materials as required by the specific review. Please refer to the application packet for specific submittal requirements or to the code sections noted above. 10. A written description of the proposal and an explanation iii written, grapliic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. 11. For Residential Proposals (Ord. 20): a. Neighborhood block plan at 1"=50' (available from City Engineering Department) Graphically show the front portions ofall existing buildings on both sides of the block and their setback from tlie street in feet. Identify parking and front entry for each building and locate any accessory dwelling units along tile alley. Indicate whether any portions of the houses immediately adjacent to the subject parcel are otie story (only one living level). ~ 11. Site planar 1 -= 10' S howground floors ofallbuildings ont|le sllbject parcel, as proposed. and footprints of adjacent buildings for a distance of 100' from the side property lines. Show topography ofthe subject site with 2' contours. c. All building elevations at 1/8" = 1 '-0. d. Floor plans, roof plan. and elevations as needed to verify that the project meets or does not meet the "Secondary Mass" standard. e. Photographic panoraina. Show elevations ofall buildings on both sides of the block. including present condition of the subject property. Label photos and mount on a presentation board. Notes: I. 1-lousing Replacement is an administrative review by the Housing Authority, Submit a letter detailing the number of units. bedrooms. and square footage of the existing development to the Housing Authority requesting a -Certiticate of Compliance purstiant to Section 26.530.040 oi the Aspen Land Use Code.- The Housing replacement agreement must be executed prior to applying for a building permit. 2. Application should include a description of the street parking situation in the immediate area. Disclaimer: rhe foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The sunimary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future. and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. Tile summary does not create a legal 01- vested right.