Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Corkscrew Duplex19 Sl - F-P` of Corkscrew Duplex Exemption from GMP EI ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES County 00100 — 63711 09009 — 00000 Subdivision/PUD 63712 Special Review 63713 P&Z Review Only 63714 Detailed Review 63715 Final Plat 63716 Special Approval 63717 Specially Assigned City 00100 — 63721 09009 — 00000 Conceptual Application 63722 Preliminary Application 63723._ SaZI (P'J`jd! Final Application 'ixemption' 6 z'4-� r� 63725 ►tr Rezoning 63726 Conditional Use PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00100 — 63061 09009 — 00000 County Land Use Sales 63062 GMP Sales 63063 Almanac Sales Copy Fees Other ` Name: gut '�` Project: C� �lav+nA Q Address: Phone: ►'� Check No. Date: PU!!(JCr 891. Receipt No. P : Special meeting ED BAKER DUPLEX August 28, 1981 41 excerpt Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council this is the final application caught in the moratorium and is located at 11.8 East Hyman. This is a duplex and was proposed at 1:1 FAR; This has been discussed with Ed Baker and his attorney, Ron Austin. The only issue is special review exemption for Ed Baker; this is exempt from growth management and from subdivision. This was proposed at 9,000 square feet on a 9,000 square foot lot at 1:1 FAR. Attached is a letter from Ron Austin, representing their proposal to bring the building into compliance for the changes anticipated in the R/MF zone as a result of the moratorium. Vann told Council Baker is proposing to reduce the heighth of the building by 3 feet to bring it into compliance or 1 foot below the maximum height.currently allowed in other single family/duplex zone districts. The overall bulk will be reduced to 8200 square feet rather than 9,000 square feet. The FAR will be .9:1; the overall footprint will be reduced by 1-1/2 feet on all sides. The setbacks are more than the approximately 14 feet (McGrath; 14-1/2 feet when you need 5), which significantly those currently in place in the R-6 through R-30 zones. Baker's open space is approximately 40 per cent or more which exceeds that required in any other zone district in the city. This is a compromise; the planning office does not have the specifics that would be applied to single families and duplexes in the R/MF zone. Until such time as the moratorium is completed, the planning office feels this is reasonably in line with those controls which would be imposed. Vann made two corrections to the resolution Councilwoman Michael moved to read Resolution #43, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Parry. . All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION Ed Baker clarified they will want to include two employee units in this duplex; but, they will not for multiple of the .9:1. These units will be included in the floor area ratio. There will be no bonuses asked for. asked for a stake to see how high the house will be. stated their concern is how much higher this will be than the buildings that are already there. City Attorney Taddune said this is not required of other applicants. The requirements for building are established in the abstract. Baker said he had drawn a profile of the block and he would be glad to show it to the neighbors. Councilwoman Michael noted Baker has compromised with the Council and the Council has gotten the best of both worlds. Baker can build and the city can get their moratorium. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve Resolution #43, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Corkscrew Duplex - Exemption from GMP for Employee Housing DATE: January 11, 1982 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Location: 118 and 120 E. Hyman Street, Lots N, 0, P, B ock 68, Ci: and Townsite of Aspen Zoning: R-MF Lot Size: 9,000 square feet Applicant's Request: Exemption from GMP competition for two employee units to be con- structed in the garden level of a duplex at 118 and 120 E. Hyman Street. Referral Agency Comments: City Attorney "It appears that the above -referenced application has been submitted pursuant to the requirements of Section 24-11.2(h), which provides as follows: (h) All housing units constructed pursuant to Section 24-11.10 subject to the special approval of the City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission which approval shall include a determination of community need considering, but not limited to, the number of units to be constructed, the type of units and the rental/sale mix of the development. Assuming that the applicant meets the above criteria and receives approval, the applicant should submit for approval by my office as to form the necessary covenants restricting the units to the City's employee housing guidelines. In this respect, be advised that the City Council is presently considering a revised format for the City's employee housing guidelines, to bring them into conformity with what exists in the County." City Engineering "Having reviewed the above application for exemption from the GMP, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. We note that provision of two one -bedroom employee units within the structure creates a four-plex from a duplex. This new multi -family configuration would make it illegal for the applicant to utilize "stacked" parking whereby the spaces within the garage are denied unobstructed access to the street. The applicant should be required to apply for special review for a reduction in parking for the employee units resulting in a reduction of two spaces for the four-plex and allowing stacking of the parking for the free-market bedrooms. 2. The applicant will be required to file a complete condo- minium plat prior to sale. 3. This project is required to provide a 5 foot sidewalk along the Hyman Street frontage. • 0 Memo: Corkscrew Duplex - Exemption from GMP for Employee Housing Page Two January 11, 1982 4. The applicant should also provide a 10 foot by 7 foot electric/communications easement in the northeast corner of the property to allow placement of transformers and pedestals for existing underground power and phone lines." Fire Marshall/Building Department No comments received as yet. Planning Office Review: The employee units will be deed restricted for 50 years and the applicant requests that the rentals be in the moderate income category. The units are each approximately 800 square feet with one bedroom, four piece bath, living room/dining room combination, and all -electric fully -equipped kitchen. Each unit has its own private entrance and patio. The housing office was contacted and indicated that one -bedroom, moderate income units can be used in the inventory of employee housing right now. New guidelines were passed subsequent to this application which set the maximum square footage for a one -bedroom, moderate income employee unit at 650 square feet. Mr. Baker has indicated that he would rent them at this size limitation. These units are located in a structure which is one of four which received an exemption from the R-MF Moratorium by resolution of the City Council. The space being reviewed for exemption as employee units was approved as a component of the F.A.R. calculations when this construction project was reviewed at the start of the R-MF Moratorium. At that time, Mr. Baker submitted a letter in which he indicated that the square footage of the building would not exceed 8,200 square feet, the setbacks would be 14.5 feet on each side. The side yards of the actual building conform to the agreement, although decks and stai.rs do extend out to the 5 foot setback. This is not a problem, but the Planning Office wants to note that the side yard is 5 feet. The agreement worked out with Mr. Baker reduced allowable FAR to a total of 8,200 square feet. The present configuration has 1,586 square feet in the basement level, 1,436 square feet on the first floor and 1,506 square feet on the second floor. These figures include garage square footage, which at present i.s exempted from FAR. Total garage space per unit is 635 square feet which leaves 3,890 square feet per side of the duplex, for a total of 7,780 square feet for the structure which is within the parameters set by the agreement. P & Z Action: The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application at their December 22, 1981 regular meeting and voted to deny exemption from GMP for the two employee units and to deny special review approval for a parking reduction of two spaces. Planning Office Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends GMP exemption for the two employee units to moderate income rental prices. 1. Submission of the necessary covenants restricting the units to the moderate income category of the City's employee housing guidelines to the City Attorney for approval. 2. A complete condominium plat be submitted prior to sale. 3. Provision of a 5 foot sidewalk along the Hyman Street frontage. 4. Provision of a 10 foot by 7 foot electric/communications easement in the northeast corner of the property to allow placement of transformers and pedestals for existing under- ground power and phone lines. LAW OFFICES AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUITE 205 RONALD D. AUSTIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH. JR. O January O, 1982 WILLIAM R. JORDAN III ,J B. LEE SCHUMACHER The Honorable Herman Edel Aspen .City Council Members The City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Employee Housing Application for Edwin W. Baker, Jr. Dear Mayor Edel and Council Members: AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2604 As you know I represent Edwin W. Baker, Jr. with respect to his duplex at 118 East Hyman Avenue and with respect to the difficulties that earlier arose concerning the FAR and height regulation in that zone. More parti- cularly, I am now representing him with respect to his request for allotment of two employee housing units within the structure as allowed by the City of Aspen Code. On December 22, 1981 the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission by a vote of 2 - 1 voted to recommend against approval of the employee housing units by the City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission also refused to allow an adjustment in the parking spaces by special review. We urge you to approve the employee housing units and in support thereof point out the following: 1. Employee housing is a pressing matter in the Aspen area and one for which we believe the City Council has expressly stated its policy in support thereof, both by ordinance and by its course of conduct; 2. Mr. Baker's duplex, which was reduced in size by agreement with the City Council, is already in ex- istence and the requested two employee units would not increase the bulk, height, or other size aspects of the duplex; 3. While there has been some opposition to Mr. Baker's duplex by a handfull of personally interested parties • • AUSTIN McGRATH & ..JORDAN The Honorable Herman Ede1 Aspen City Council Members January 8, 1982 Page 2 in the immediate vicinity, the general reaction of the citizens of Aspen has not been one of disapproval. There are 6 off-street underground parking spaces for the building, and there will. be two additional outside off-street parking spaces. Thus, the addition of the two employee housing units will cause no vehicular impact on the area in the nature of parking congestion. In response to statements made by other lodge owners in the vicinity we would state that the parking problems caused by their own lodges far surpass any conceivable parking problem caused by these two employee housing units; 4. Although the units will be single family and will contain 800 square feet (the guidelines are for 650 square feet) Mr. Baker commits and agrees to charge rent only on the -basis of 650 square feet; 5. Finally, to consider refusing this application for employee housing units would be to question the validity of the residential bonus overlay ordinance and its employee housing implications. This we anticipate is not the course intended by the City Council and we urge your approval. While we hesitate to say it was clearly implicit in the settlement of the moratorium issue as it related to Mr. Baker's duplex that the employee housing units would be favorably looked upon, it certainly is consistent with that settlement and with our understanding of the settlement. We respectfully urge your favorable vote. Sincerely, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN By RDA/js Ronald D. Austin CC: Paul Taddune, Esq. Mr. Sunny Vann Ms. Colette Penne 0 0 • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Corkscrew Duplex - Exemption from GMP for Employee Housing DATE: December 22, 1981 Location: 118 and 120 E. Hyman Street Lots N, 0, P, Block 68, City and Townsite of Aspen Zoning: R-MF Lot Size: 9,000 square feet Applicants: Exemption from GMP competition for two employee units to be con - Request structed in the garden level of a duplex at 118 and 120 E. Hyman Street, and special review for reduction in parking. Referral City Attorne Agency "It appears that the above -referenced application has been sub - Comments: mitted pursuant to the requirements of Section 24-11.2(h), which provides as follows: (h) All housing units constructed pursuant to Section 24-11.10 subject to the special approval of the City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission which approval shall include a determination of community need consid- ering, but not limited to, the number of units to be constructed, the type of units and the rental/sale mix of the development." Assuming that the applicant meets the above criteria and receives approval, the applicant should submitt for approval by my office as to form the necessary covenants restricting the units to the City's employee housing guidelines. In this respect, be advised that the City Council is presently considering a revised format for the City's employee housing guidelines, to bring them into conformity with what exists in the County." City Engineering "Having reviewed the above application for exemption from the GMP, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. We note that provision of two one -bedroom employee units within the structure creates a fourplex from a duplex. This new multi -family configuration would make it illegal for the applicant to utilize "stacked" parking whereby the spaces within the garage are denied unobstructed access to the street. The applicant should be required to apply for special review for a reduction in parking for the employee units resulting in a re- duction of two spaces for the fourplex and allowing stacking of the parking for the free-market bedrooms. 2. The applicant will be required to file a complete condominium plat prior to sale. 3.- This project is required to provide a 5 foot sidewalk along the Hyman Street frontage. 4. The applicant should also provide a 10 foot by 7 foot electric/communications easement in the northeast corner of the property to allow placement of transformers and pedestals for existing underground power and phone lines." Fire Marshall/Building Department No comments received as yet. • 0 Memoramdum: Corkscrew Duplex Page Two December 22, 1981 Planning The employee units will be deed restricted for 50 years and the Office applicant requests that the rentals be in the moderate income Review category. The units are each approximately 800 square feet with one bedroom, four piece bath, living room/dining room combination, and all -electric fully-equiped kitchen. Each unit has its own private entrance and patio. The housing office was contacted and indicated that one -bedroom, moderate income units can be used in the inventory of employee housing right now. These units are located in a structure which is one of four which received an exemption from the RMF Moratorium by resolution of the City Council. The space being reviewed for exemption as employee units was approved as a component of the F.A.R. calculations when this construction project was reviewed at the start of the RMF Moratorium. At that time, Mr. Baker submitted a letter in which he indicated that the square footage of the building would not exceed 8200 square feet, the setbacks would be 14.5 feet on each side. The side yards of the actual building conform to the agreement, although decks and stairs do extend out to the 5 foot setback. This is not a problem, but the Planning Office wants to note that the side yard is 5 feet. The agreement worked out with Mr. Baker reduced allowable FAR to a total of 8,200 square feet. The present configuration has 1,586 square feet in the basement level, 1,436 square feet on the first floor and 1,506 square feet on the second floor. These figures include garage square footage, which at present is exempted from FAR. Total garage space per unit is 635 square feet which leaves 3,890 square feet per side of the duplex, for a total of 7,780 square feet for the structure which is within the parameters set by the agreement. The applicant was initially proposing•a 3-car garage for the free market units and a driveway space for the employee unit. This arramgement is not acceptable (as per the Engineering Department's comments) so the 4pplicant is simultaneously requesting special ' review approval for a reduction of one space per unit (to allow for 3 cars rather than 4). His request suggests that 2 garage spaces will be provided for the free market units and 1 garage space for the employee unit. This seems to be a reasonable request, especially since the cars are in an enclosed space and not visible. Also, it is conceivable that one occupant of a 3-bedroom unit may not have a car or the employee may not have a car. Planning The Planning Office recommends GMP exemption for the two employee Office units to moderate income rental prices and special review approval Recommen- for a parking reduction of two spaces with the following conditions: dation: 1. Submission of the necessary covenants restricting the units to the moderate income category of the•City's employee housing guidelines to the City Attorney for approval. 2.' A complete condominium plat be submitted prior to sale. 3. Provision of a 5 foot sidewalk along the Hyman Street frontage. 4. Provision of a 10 foot by 7 foot electric/communications ease- ment in the northeast corner of the property to allow placement of transformers and pedestals for existing under- ground power and phone lines. -Pie MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney City Engineering Department Fire Marshal/Building Department FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Corkscrew Duplex - Exemption from GMP for Employee Housing DATE: November 16, 1981 Attached is an application submitted by Ed Baker requesting Exemption from GMP for Employee Housing for two deed restricted employee units to be constructed in the garden level of the duplex at 118 and 120 E. Hyman Street. This item is being scheduled for City P & Z on December 22, 1981; please review and return comments to me by Monday, December 7. Thank you! LI • CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, Colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 1981 TO: Colette Penne FROM: Paul Taddune` \ RE: Corkscrew Duplex - Exemption from GMP for Employee Housing It appears that the above -referenced application has been sub- mitted pursuant to the requirements of Section 24-11.2(h), which proviaes as follows: "(h) All housing units constructed pursuant to Section 24- 11.10 subject to the special approval of the City Coun- cil upon the r_econuuendation of the Planning and Zoning Conutiission which approval shall include a determination of comtiunity need considering, but not limited to, the nuiuber of units to be constructed, the type of units and the rental/sale aix of the development." Assuming that the applicant meets the above criteria and receives approval, the applicant should submit for approval by my office as to form the necessary covenants restricting the units to the City's employee housing guidelines. In this respect, be advised that the City Council is presently considering a revised foriaat for the City's employee housing guidelines, to bring them into conformity with wnat exists in the County. PJT:mc Suite 1220 650 South Cherry Street 303/320-0600 Denver, Colorado 80222 October 28, 1981 Sunny Vann Planning Director City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sunny: Pursuant to our earlier conversations, I would like to request special review for two (2) deed restricted employee units to be constructed in the garden level of the duplex I am currently building at 118 and 120 East Hyman St., Aspen, Colorado. I agree to have these units deed restricted for fifty (50) years when rented to employees qualifying for moderate income housing as well as moderate income sale prices if condominiumized separately from their upstairs units and sold separately. Attached to this letter are floor plans for the units themselves as well as the free market units they attach to upstairs. As stated above, each of these one bedroom units is attached to a free market unit above numbered 118 and 120 East Hyman St. It is not anticipated that the employee units will be condominiumized and separated from their respective units above. Each unit contains approximately eight hundred (800) square feet of living space and includes one bedroom, four piece bath, living room/dining room combination and all electric fully equipped kitchen. The kitchens include disposal, dishwasher, ice maker refrigerator, range and self cleaning oven. Adequate closets and storage are provided. Each unit also has its own private patio and separate entrance. Finish will be comparable to the units I built at 117-1172- W. Hyman, which you may recall is excellent. In return for reduced rent, I will plan to have the tenant in my unit (120 E. Hyman) provide nominal caretaking duties. Each of the three bedroom free market units has a three car enclosed garage. In addition, there are three spaces on grade adjacent to these garages for employee and guest parking. Therefore, there are a total of twelve parking spaces for the eight bedrooms in the free market (6) and employee (2) units. In addition to three sets of floor plans for the employee and free market units, I enclose three plot plans including parking plans and locator map. If there is anything else you require, please let me know. Present plans call for completion in early spring. I would appreciate being placed on the agenda at the earliest possible date. Thank you for all your assistance and past courtesies. Yours very truly, I Edwin W. Baker, Jr. J EWB/cjh Enc . Real Estate Investments and Development W-UFE.JITLE INSURANCE Company of alias Pots N, 0 & P, Block 68 ' City and Townsite of Aspen a Baker Endorsement Attached to and forming a part of Commitment No A81-329 Issued by ASPEN TITLE COMPANY USLIFE Title Insurance Company of Dallas Schedule A, Item 3. is hereby amended to read: EDWIN W. BAKER, JR. Schedule B-Section 1, Requirements, is hereby amended by deleting Items (b) 1. and (b) 3. This endorsement is made a part of the policy or commitment and is subject to all the terms and provisions thereof and of any prior endorsements thereto. Except to the extent expressly stated, it neither modifies 1 1 any of the terms and provisions of the policy or commitment and prior endorsements, if any, nor does it . i extend the effective date of the { olicy or commitment and prior endorsements or increase the face amount •.rtx►+; ,e thereof. Dated: September 22, 1981 USLIFE Title Insurance Company of Dallas President & Chief Executive Officer Attest Executive Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer tssu ASPEN, COLORADO Authorized Countersyna:we . FornnAy DALLAS TITLE AND GUARANTY COMPANY FORM S 10 40M SETS 378H TITLE INSURANCE Conwzmv of Dallas Commitment for Title Insurance sw USLIFE Title Insurance Company of Uallas, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A. in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A. upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been insertod' in Schedule A hefeul by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of tale insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months altar the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue• whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. Schedule A 1 Effective date August 26, 1981 2 Policy or policies to be r,tivad _ at 8 :00 A. M. A ALTA Owner'% Policy Piojm%vil In,orPd 8 At TA Loan Policy Pruposud Inured C ALTA CONSTRUCTION LOAN POLICY Proposed Insured: GUARANTY BANK & TRUST Case No.. _ A81-329 Amount $ ASPEN TITLE COMPANY Inquiries directed to 925-4444 Premium $'_ ___ Premium 900 000.00 Amounts __ _ _ Premium $_l , 737 . 00 * *Upon payment of A81-234, premium will be reduced to $1,262.25 (Company information only) 3 Thu estate or interest ill the Lna! described or referred to ut this comniitrnent and covered herein is fee simple and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vestal ur MERRITT COOK and PHYLLIS COOK 4 The land rcietfed tom this cununitment is described as follows Lots N, 0 and P Block 68 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Pitkin County, Colorado Schedule B—Sectiun 1 Requirements The following are the requirements to be complied with: Item (a) Payment to or for ihrt account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Itium (b) Proper instrument(s) ueaun9 the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. to -wit: 1. Deed from Merritt Cook and Phyllis Cook vesting fee simple title in Edwin W. Baker. 2. Deed of Trust from Edwin W. Baker to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, Colorado for the use of Guaranty Bank & Trust to secure $900,000.00. 3. Evidence of compliance with the provisions of the Real Estate Transfer Tax, Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979). (OVt NI f,+nnoilyUAUASTITLEAND GUARANTY COMPANY FOPN 105 (Col 5mego" Schedule B—Section 2 Lxcel,ft Street Address of Prop The policy or policies to be sued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company. 1 . Rights or claims of pattnts tit pm%essron not shown by the public records 2 EasPfnent5, or claims of e.rsements, not shown by the public records. 3 Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines. shortage in area, encroachments. and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by th , public *records. 4 Any lien. or right to a hen. for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5 Defects, hens. encumbrancu-, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created. first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective elate hereof but pilot to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Conuuitiuent Exceptions numbered .. .. -0 _.are hereby omitted 6. Taxes due and payable: See Tax Certificate No. 19433, attached. 7. Any tax, assessments, fees or charges by reason of the inclusion of the subject property in Aspen Fire Protection District, Aspen Sanitation District, Aspen Street Improvement District and Aspen Valley Hospital District. (:unthtium. and Strlrulatrnns 1 f he u•nn 'nrortgage. whim unrd herein, shall include d,-,!d of trust, trust cforr1, or other security instrument. 2 If the proposed insured has ur acqu,tes actual knowledge of any defect. lion. encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting thr t•state or udcrest or ntottfjolle thnn•on covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to ilia i„sit such knowladcle to tilt- Company ,n writing. the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from .uiti .tc:t of tch,utc,• hereon to the exn•ot the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured ,boll drse.lose such knO%vlcdge to the Company. or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, .td%rrse claim of Other rrt.titer the Company at its option may amend Schedule 8 of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the. Company from fi,tbiltty previously incurred pursuant to paragtaph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the dchntion of Insured sit the furor of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking if, good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule 8, or (c) to acqu.ire or create Ow , st.ue of ouctest or mortilago tltnrt•nn covered by this Commitment In no event %hall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A his the policy ur poht•res communed lot and such liability is subject to the ttriurmq provisions, excdasion from coverage, and the Conditions and Stipulations of the fossil of policy of policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and ,tie made a part of t(us Contnutinent except as expressly modified heterrt 4 Any claim of loss or cfamacpr, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or to -.-st or the hen of the tnsuftrd murtgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and conditions and suPulations Of tilts t onlmttinent r IN Wi7NESS WHEREOF, the Conmpeny has caused this Commitment to W signed and sealed, tc become valid when countersigned by an imihortred officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By Laws This Commitment is effective as of the date shown it Schedule A as "Effective Date " S EA L. USLIFE Title Insurance Company of Dallas Piw t,dwm L CI,,a l'.n'un.• OII,[N __. ... _.__/ Al-( f1 w ,,1 or Sw[nr,,,..—I .ion e.a S,p, MEMORANDUM TO: Collette Penne, Planning Department FROM: Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer DATE: December 2, 1981 RE: Corkscrew Duplex, Lots N, 0, $ P, Block 68, O.A.T. Exemption from GMP for Employee Housing Having reviewed the above application for exemption from the GMP, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. We note that provision of two one -bedroom employee units within the structure creates a fourplex from a duplex. This new multi -family configuration would make it illegal for the applicant to utilize "stacked" parking whereby the spaces within the garage are denied unobstructed access to the street. The applicant should be required to apply for special review for a reduction in parking for the employee units resulting in a reduction of two spaces for the fourplex and allowing stacking of the parking for the free-market bedrooms. 2. The applicant will be required to file a complete condominium plat prior to sale. 3. This project is required to provide a S foot sidewalk along the Hyman Street frontage. 4. The applicant should also provide a 10 foot by 7 foot electric/communications easement in the northeast corner of the property to allow placement of transformers and pedestals for existing underground power and phone lines. • • LAW OFFICES AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS McGRATH. JR. WILLIAM R. JORDAN III S. LEE SCHUMACHER HAND DELIVERED 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUITE 205 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 December 17, 1981 Colette Penne, Planner City Planning Office Aspen Planning & Zoning 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Ed Baker Duplex Parking Dear Colette: AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925-2601 Pursuant to our telephone conversation this letter constitutes the official application by Edwin W. Baker, Jr. for a special review at the City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Tuesday December 22, 1981 with respect to the parking requirements. As you know, at that hearing Mr. Baker's application for two employee units is to be heard. If the employee units are approved then there would be eight off-street parking spaces required based upon the one space per bedroom requirement in that zone. The purpose of this request for special review is to ask that two parking spaces be eliminated from the requirement and that six spaces be required, two each allocated to the condominium units and one each allocated to the employee units. As you know, these six spaces will all be covered, underground parking spaces and the two spaces being eliminated would be outside parking spaces. We will anticipate addressing this request at the meeting and I appreciate your consideration. Sincerely, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN ZP, ",tj, By P on D Austin RDA/js Attorneys for Edwin V. Baker, Jr. CC: Mr. Edwin W.. Baker, Jr. Mr. Stan Mathis Suite 1220 650 South Cherry Street 303/320-0600 Denver, Colorado 80222 October 28, 1981 Sunny Vann Planning Director City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Sunny: Pursuant to our earlier conversations, I would like to request special review for two (2) deed restricted employee units to be constructed in the garden level of the duplex I am currently building at 118 and 120 East Hyman St., Aspen, Colorado. I agree to have these units deed restricted for fifty (SO) years when rented to employees qualifying for moderate income housing as well as moderate income sale prices if condominiumized separately from their upstairs units and sold separately. Attached to this letter are floor plans for the units themselves as well as the free market units they attach to upstairs. As stated above, each of these one bedroom units is attached to a free market unit above numbered 118 and 120 East Hyman St. It is not anticipated that the employee units will be condominiumized and separated from their respective units above. Each unit contains approximately eight hundred (800) square feet of living space and includes one bedroom, four piece bath, living room/dining room combination and all electric fully equipped kitchen. The kitchens include disposal, dishwasher, ice maker refrigerator, range and self cleaning oven. Adequate closets and storage are provided. Each unit also has its own private patio and separate entrance. Finish will be comparable to the units I built at 117-117z W. Hyman, which you may recall is excellent. In return for reduced rent, I will plan to have the tenant in my unit (120 E. Hyman) provide nominal caretaking duties. Each of the three bedroom free market units has a three car enclosed garage. In addition, there are three spaces on grade adjacent to these garages for employee and guest parking. Therefore, there are a total of twelve parking spaces for the eight bedrooms in the free market (6) and employee (2) units. In addition to three sets of floor plans for the employee and free market units, I enclose three plot plans including parking plans and locator map. If there is anything else you require, please let me know. Present plans call for completion in early spring. I would appreciate being placed on the agenda at the earliest possible date. Thank you for all your assistance and past courtesies. Yours very truly, Edwin W. Baker, Jr. J EWB/cjh Enc . Real Estate Investments and Development LPUF: TLE INSURANCE Company allas Endorsement Attached to and forming a part of Commitment Nu A81-329 Issued by ASPEN TITLE COMPANY USLIFE Title Insurance Company of Dallas Lots N, 0 & P. Block 68. City and Townsite of As-; Baker t V. Schedule A, Item 3. is hereby amended to read: EDWIN W. BAKER, JR. Schedule B-Section 1, Requirements, is hereby amended by deleting Items (b) 1. and (b) 3. •�����'��= ••ilk: ..a •1 .t . r.� J'.rrc� co This endorsement is m,de a part of the policy or commitment and is subject to all the terms and provisions ?•;''.. ti thereof and of any prior endorsements thereto. Except to the extent expressly stated, it neither modifies SA Ai ] ; any of the terms and provisions of the policy or commitment and prior endorsements, if any, nor does it c� //f o extend the effective date of the Aolicy or commitment and prior endorsements or increase the face amount •.rtx�• �o thereof. September 22, 1981 Dated: USLIFEE Title Insurance Company of Dallas President & Chief Executive officer Attest Executive Vice -President, Secretary and Treasurer Issue ASPEN, COLORADO Authorized Countersignature Formerly DALLAS TITLE AND GUARANTY COMPANY FORM S 10 4OM SETS 378H WiIVE TITLE INSURANCE cur„E»f, of Dallas Commitment for Title Insurance sw USLIFE Title Insurance Company of Dallas, herein called the Company, for valuable consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A. in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred to in Schedule A. upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment or by subsequent endorsement. This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent. Schedule A I Effective date August 26, 1981 2 Policy or policies to be issu1 -1 at s:oo A.rc. A ALTA Owners Policy Propu-,e(I Inutred 13 At TA Loon Policy Proposed In SLrted ALTA CONSTRUCTION LOAN POLICY Proposed Insured: GUARANTY BANK & TRUST Case No._- A81-329 Amount $ ASPEN TITLE COMPANY Inquiries directed to 925-4444 Premium $ Amount $ . Premiums---- 900 000.00 Amount S 1,737.00 ------_______ Premium S_-- *Upon payment of A81-234, premium will be reduced to $1,262.25 (Company information only; :3 The estate or interest in thtr I.,ntl described or referred to in this commitment and covered herein is fee simple and title thereto is at the effective date hereof vested in MERRITT COOK and PHYLLIS COOK •1 T he land relarred to in this cunvnitinent is described as follows: Lots N, 0 and P Block 68 CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Pitkin County, Colorado Schedule B—Section 1 Requirements The following are the requirements to be complied with: Ile- (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. Itein (b) Propet instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to -wit: 1. Deed from Merritt Cook and Phyllis Cook vesting fee simple title in Edwin W. Baker. 2. Deed of Trust from Edwin W. Baker to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, Colorado for the use of Guaranty Bank & Trust to secure $900,000.00. 3. Evidence of compliance with the provisions of the Real Estate Transfer Tax, Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979). (UVE HI Futmuoy DALLAS TITLE AND GUARANTY COMPANY FORM 105 (CO) 5M660h or Schedule B—Section 2 Exce Street Address of Prop The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1 . Rights or claims of parties rn possession not shown by the public records 2. Easements, or claims of easernents, not shown by the public records. 3 Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4 Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records, 5, Defects, bens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created. first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. Exceptions numbered - - '0 are hereby ornitted 6. Taxes due and payable: See Tax Certificate No. 19433, attached. 7. Any tax, assessments, fees or charges by reason of the inclusion of the subject property in Aspen Fire Protection District, Aspen Sanitation District, Aspen Street Improvement District and Aspen Valley Hospital District. Comi'lrum. and Stipulations 1 the term nunigafje• when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument ? If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting thr• "stake or ul'erest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to d , IuSe such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from .tct of rchanca hereon to the exti-nt the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured ,h,,ll disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, .uhrrse claim or other maser• the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment hall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. :i Liability of the Company under Ill's Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking rn Ijood faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create it"! -.tale of uuetest or mortgage Own -on covered by this Commitment to no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A fw the policy or policies conumrted for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage, and the Conditions ,1m1 Stipulations of the form of polity or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4 Any claim of loss or danurge. whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or nuc„rsl or the lien of the insured mortgage covered hereby or any action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to the provisions and c oncfdtons and stipulations of this r ommilment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, tc become valid when countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By -Laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Effective Date " !+EAL`: USLIFE Title Insurance Company of Dallas & chm/fbeec/ut/{r..J�e, o(r¢er --. -- Atrnr (.ecurrv� V,ce P,et,denr. SeC"ta,. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office RE: Corkscrew Duplex - Exemption from GMP for Employee Housing DATE: December 22, 1981 Location: 118 and 120 E. Hyman Street Lots N, 0, P, Block 68, City and Townsite of Aspen Zoning: R-MF Lot Size: 9,000 square feet Appiicants: Exemption from GMP competition for two employee units to be con - Request structed in the garden level of a duplex at 118 and 120 E. Hyman Street, and special review for reduction in parking. Referral City Attorne Agency "It appears that the above -referenced application has been sub - Comments: mitted pursuant to the requirements of Section 24-11.2(h), which provides as follows: (h) All housing units constructed pursuant to Section 24-11.10 subject to the special approval of the City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission which approval shall include a determination of community need consid- ering, but not limited to, the number of units to be constructed, the type of units and the rental/sale mix of the development." Assuming that the applicant meets the above criteria and receives approval, the applicant should submitt for approval by my office as to form the necessary covenants restricting the units to the City's employee housing guidelines. In this respect, be advised that the City Council is presently considering a revised format for the City's employee housing guidelines, to bring them into conformity with what exists in the County." City Engineering "Having reviewed the above application for exemption from the GMP, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. We note that provision of two one -bedroom employee units within the structure creates a fourplex from a duplex. This new multi -family configuration would make it illegal for the applicant to utilize "stacked" parking whereby the spaces within the garage are denied unobstructed access to the street. The applicant should be required to apply for special review for a reduction in parking for the employee units resulting in a re- duction of two spaces for the fourplex and allowing stacking of the parking for the free-market bedrooms. 2. The applicant will be required to file a complete condominium plat prior to sale. 3. This project is required to provide a 5 foot sidewalk along the Hyman Street frontage. 4. The applicant should also provide a 10 foot by 7 foot electric/communications easement in the northeast corner of the property to allow placement of transformers and pedestals for existing underground power and phone lines." Fire Marshall/Building Department No comments received as yet. Memoramdum: Corkscrew Duplex Page Two December 22, 1981 Planning The employee units will be deed restricted for 50 years and the Office applicant requests that the rentals be in the moderate income Review category. The units are each approximately 800 square feet with one bedroom, four piece bath, living room/dining room combination, and all -electric fully-equiped kitchen. Each unit has its own private entrance and patio. The housing office was contacted and indicated that one -bedroom, moderate income units can be used in the inventory of employee housing right now. These units are located in a structure which is one of four which received an exemption from the RMF Moratorium by resolution of the City Council. The space being reviewed for exemption as employee units was approved as a component of the F.A.R. calculations when this construction project was reviewed at the start of the RMF Moratorium. At that time, Mr. Baker submitted a letter in which he indicated that the square footage of the building would not exceed 8200 square feet, the setbacks would be 14.5 feet on each side. The side yards of the actual building conform to the agreement, although decks and stairs do extend out to the 5 foot setback. This is not a problem, but the Planning Office wants to note that the side yard is 5 feet. The agreement worked out with Mr. Baker reduced allowable FAR to a total of 8,200 square feet. The present configuration has 1,586 square feet in the basement level, 1,436 square feet on the first floor and 1,506 square feet on the second floor. These figures include garage square footage, which at present is exempted from FAR. Total garage space per unit is 635 square feet which leaves 3,890 square feet per side of the duplex, for a total of 7,780 square feet for the structure which is within the parameters set by the agreement. The applicant was initially proposing a 3-car garage for the free market units and a driveway space for the employee unit. This arramgement is not acceptable (as per the Engineering Department's comments) so the applicant is simultaneously requesting special review approval for a reduction of one space per unit (to allow for 3 cars rather than 4). His request suggests that 2 garage spaces will be provided for the free market units and 1 garage space for the employee unit. This seems to be a reasonable request, especially since the cars are in an enclosed space and not visible. Also, it is conceivable that one occupant of a 3-bedroom unit may not have a car or the employee may not have a car. Planning The Planning Office recommends GMP exemption for the two employee Office units to moderate income rental prices and special review approval Recommen- for a parking reduction of two spaces with the following conditions: dation: 1. Submission of the necessary covenants restricting the units to the moderate income category of the City's employee housing guidelines to the City Attorney for approval. 2. A complete condominium plat be submitted prior to sale. 3. Provision of a 5 foot sidewalk along the Hyman Street frontage. 4. Provision of a 10 foot by 7 foot electric/communications ease- ment in the northeast corner of the property to allow placement of transformers and pedestals for existing under- ground power and phone lines. `1 LAW OFFICES 4, AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN r 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUITE 205 RONALD D. AUSTIN ASPEN, COLORADCII`)V J. NICHOLAS McGRATH. JR. January 8 , 1982 ' AREA CODE 303 WILLIAM R. JORDAN III ELEPHONE 925-2601 B. LEE SCHUMACHER JA 11 198, ASPEN_ / Pi 1 KIN r0• The Honorable Herman Edel PLANNING OffICE Aspen City Council Members The City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street - - Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Employee Housing Application for Edwin W. Baker, Jr. Dear Mayor Edel and Council Members: As you know I represent Edwin W. Baker, Jr. with respect to his duplex at 118 East Hyman Avenue and with respect to the difficulties that earlier arose concerning the FAR and height regulation in that zone. More parti- cularly, I am now representing him with respect to his request for allotment of two employee housing units within the structure as allowed by the City of Aspen Code. On December 22, 1981 the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission by a vote of 2 - 1 voted to recommend against approval of the employee housing units by the City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission also refused to allow an adjustment in the parking spaces by special review. We urge you to approve the employee housing units and in support thereof point out the following: 1. Employee housing is a pressing matter in the Aspen area and one for which we believe the City Council has expressly stated its policy in support thereof, both by ordinance and by its course of conduct; 2. Mr. Baker's duplex, which was reduced in size by agreement with the City Council, is already in ex- istence and the requested two employee units would not increase the bulk, height, or other size aspects of the duplex; 3. While there has been some opposition to Mr. Baker's duplex by a handfull of personally interested parties .v AuSTIN McGRATH & JORDAN The Honorable Herman Edel Aspen City Council Members January 8, 1982 Page 2 in the immediate vicinity, the general reaction of the citizens of Aspen has not been one of disapproval. There are 6 off-street underground parking spaces for the building, and there will be two additional outside off-street parking spaces. Thus, the addition of the two employee housing units will cause no vehicular impact on the area in the nature of parking congestion. In response to statements made by other lodge owners in the vicinity we would state that the parking problems caused by their own lodges far surpass any conceivable parking problem caused by these two employee housing units; 4. Although the units will be single family and will contain 800 square feet (the guidelines are for 650 square feet) Mr. Baker commits and agrees to charge rent only on the basis of 650 square feet; 5. Finally, to consider refusing this application for employee housing units would be to question the validity of the residential bonus overlay ordinance and its employee housing implications. This we anticipate is not the course intended by the City Council and we urge your approval. While we hesitate to say it was clearly implicit in the settlement of the moratorium issue as it= related to Mr. Baker's duplex that the employee housing units would be favorably looked upon, it certainly is consistent with that settlement and with our understanding of the settlement. We respectfully urge your favorable vote. Sincerely, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN By RDA/js Ronald D. Austin cc: Paul Taddune, Esq. Mr. Sunny Vann Ms. Colette Penne - !�K'ryC'�. :v. .4'a 5�a.A •t?3 - 4 T� 4 t - '..y „�CW .: No. - CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE r��S7ec� C9vrP�de- _1OV, J&, )98) STAFF: 00kale 7mmew 1. _ la 2. APPLICANT: �c�!GUivt. W BO Yetr r U 3. REPRESENTATIVE: A � . /nr� �/� /"Pi. r� �tl,a�P�X —' �.►�l�I%%��Bl'l ITrA�n'! /r- 4. PROJECT N P1L-. _ 5. LOCATION: 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning P.U.D. Special Review Growth Management HPC oil A-n 7. REFERRALS: Attorney X Engineering Dept. Housing Water City Electric �` Subdivision Stream Margin Exception 8040 Greenline X Exemption View Plane 70:30 Conditional Use Residential Bonus Other Al � Z91AI LIA11 r,',' r g Sanitation District School District Mountain Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Parks State Highway Dept. Holy Cross Electric _____Other X Fire Marshal/Building Dept. � r 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: Gr-)P ✓�W_h1` ' 9. DISPOSITION: P & Z Approved- Denied ✓ Date I Council ✓ Approved ✓ Denied Date 10. ROUTING: Attorney Z-Building L_Engineering Other 1454 1 -v ;I ............ ...... .... • 107 J, zoJNG Sty -Gr's'- 4 7- V A (4j' eg�,O� f-1,JKZ44 ic C--\-/ A--7 L EEI�116-,T i Of A e-la% so c J, V-1 — — ------- — Mir . ............ Eyz-T 4 -71 Z —LJ, f--� o" F551 -'T OA. Xcw e-5 TI ,z-LIL L, np . r-- -Li /— is Krsa If Tf, I CYf-,V-0 r- -ro C15AL]ft4A M A NL IF b G. 4 CU- 721 -1- iC,hIINC AV4[LASLZ ff cft '41 r- Lj k1---r io kJ -11 - - - -- -- - -, - ---- — - - - ---- — . IT Ir F -x-- lot5 Fv- 7 7 T--- ---- l000p A060% c; E-7 t', 14- e", - Pt- 04 STAN ALUM MATHIS B-1090 � -- \� � _ �. � �-1 : ✓ems �'r _ �.�:; � ` .-, i �i��C^� 1 i -- la ---- _. r- --- -- - t� — I E 1 �i h I ` - N j � ,aln E I j . j ' ��•\p Z- .�` :"�".� :}�_. ... - ' _ .. y, . 1 a :. � __.1.._.. , _.... �, '.:.� �!i :I i 1C - X f � �w .,w..w.�.. I � ;•ram-m.,,.-..-m-.-^,---*—`.-- � �.^� _ UE i, .r A r r ti T J v`. l — 4 I .44 41 6 �d .N I r - 1 : _r a 'riA — —' — ol 141 J` -_:__. _ __ ..-,__..__-._---.�� .fin"cTK" ,.-T-..--.� -. ''T_�4'•"r- �.a — f ; I I n w ' L Y rl 'r;-SFr„• J� �. -.-.. 1.." I - .�lv 4 1 _ _ ,__ - __. 3 _ 4 i { — I J^ g , i E i ' E a , i I I I � I I: i — I 1 I I, y ax— W. � { I v I& "m.1,. i , ._:4 4'- c s 1>> ' .Q STAN AE-EEN #AAT►Ng p�4 1G9p !I,-- Nc1 __,i;t- ! — �IW •`E .r r ,i, i w.rw. �_.�x.,�_-. ......... i s � 1 Y rir i� �' sTa i �yz ` �ilallJ�irt�d �►:® 9► Kim OM t 4J - ' L WE