Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sr.KSNO.1980SC avn ►1 cJ `:k ) Z-tg R'l • 01 TO: Fred Crowley, Building Inspector ' FROM: Jim Reents, Housing Director DATE: November 17, 1980 SUBJECT: KSNO Project I have spoken with Tim Hagman about the possibility of getting a partial CO on the radio station portion of this project. I have no problem with that as long as it is clear that the radio station cannot expand into any unfinished space; the four studio units are next to be completed and must be deed restricted; the two bedroom unit will be finished off last and must be deed restricted and any use other than the above require new special or GMP review. JR: ds. cc: Tim Hagman @ CHY APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CITY OF ASPEN it" 4_111 Ail DATE IOf30180 CASE NO. APPELLANT Tim Hagman ADDRESS Post Office Box 2736, Aspen 81612 Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd PHONE (303) 925-2867 OWNER Albert W. Vontz ADDRESS ' 925 Dalton Street . Cincinnati, Ohio 45203 LOCATION OF PROPERTY East 1/2 Lot O and Lot P. Block 98 City of Aspen, Colora o Street & Number of -Subdivision Blk. & Lot No., Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part cf CASE NO. THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION'IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHORING JUSTIFICATIONS: REFER ATTACHED Will you be represented by counsel ? Yes No SIGNED: Appellant PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON FOR NOT GRANTING: n Status Signed PERMIT REJECTED; DATE DECISION DATE APPLICATION FILED MAILED DATE IF HEARING SECRETARY LJ • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Jim Reents, Planning Office RE: KSNO Employee Housing Project DATE: June 18, 1979 Larry Yaw first contacted this office in December of 1978 representing KSNO to discover what could be done in response to current codes to provide employee housing on the KSNO Radio Station site. The property is currently zoned C-1. Within the zone, the permitted buildout is 1 to 1. As an incentive to provide employee housing, one can apply for an FAR bonus of .5 to 1 for deed restricted low, moderate or middle income housing. (A Code amendment in the spring of 1979 amended this bonus to .2 to 1 additional commercial space and .3 to 1 employee housing). The subject property is also within the commercial Growth Management area. By only replacing the existing square footage and building out to the allow- able FAR plus bonus in employee housing the project was perceived to be exempt from Growth Management (Section 24-10.2 a and g). �{ p In March of 1979, a Special Review application was—pi-e sed by this office for the approval of the use of the density bonus for employee housing. This application for special review went before both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Aspen City Council. At the time KSNO's proposal was processed, to my knowledge no one had taken advantage of the FAR bonus for employee housing before. In more detailed analysis, it was discovered that there were conflicting requirements within the code as it was applied to this project. Off street parking was required for residences within the C-1 zone. The code currently requires one off street parking space per bedroom. It became apparent that in meeting this requirement, the number of parking spaces that a particular building site could accommodate would dictate the number of units actually built (it was not a viable alternative because of the cost when compared to income on a deed restricted unit). On the recommendation of both the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the City Council, the Planning Office processed a code amendment which was adopted on final reading June 11, 1979 which allows the off-street parking requirement to be varied by City Council for low, moderate and middle income deed restricted housing units. Under the applicable code at the time of special review approval, a trash storage area was required on the back of the building (30' x 10' x 10'). This trash storage area is required in the same area as the logical location for off- street parking. There was a code amendment in process at the time of approval. This code amendment was changed in process, rejected, and then approved in an amended form on June 11, 1979. Under this new trash area requirement there is still a conflict with parking and trash storage both located off the alley. In addition, the project was caught under both the�A�mentc and the ack of approval of the employee housing overlay zone.`' OWA Under the currently considered FAR definition, overhangs are counted as useable square footage. Under this definition, the total FAR of the project is 1.67 to 1 where the code allows 1.5 to 1. This discrepancy is equal to the area under overhangs on the project. If the employee housing overlay was adopted in its current form, a variance of this type could be allowed by special review. Unfortunately, what we have is an applicant willing to do a project which the City is supportive of, however, the need to amend the code to facilitate some problems or conflicts with the proposal is at best, a slow process. There has developed a conflict between the need to amend the code and the need to proceed with the project within this building season. Memo to City Council 0 Re: KSNO June 18, 1979 Page Two The applicant is therefore appealing directly to City Council for help in resolving the conflicts within his proposal as well as facilitating the project. The Planning Office is supportive of the intent of the project and would recommend any action which wouldn't put the current code into a legally indefensible position. 0 Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen Colorad( 11 303 925 2867 15 June 1979 Mr. Herman Edel, Mayor P.O. Box 3929 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: KSNO Studio/Employee Housing Project Dear Herman: Thank you for taking time to discuss the issues affecting the proposed KSNO project. As � p p p j per your request this letter will recapitulate those issues in the form we will discuss before City Council on 24 June at Special Review Approval. In simple terms the overall issue frustrating the project is that certain detail of the zoning regulations are in conflict with city policy which encourages the inclusion of new employee housing such as this project proposes. Because this is the first project to identify these issues which are prototypical rather than of special circumstance I hope subsequent similar projects may also benefit from you consideration. The project was initiated in December of 1978 with the encouragement and approval of the Manning Office. Its concept was simple: To construct a new broadcasting facility for KSNO, which is allowed to replace the existing space by right and withou-:, approval other than building permit review; and to construct a maximum number of low and moderate rental employee units, which are both needed and encouraged by the City. Through what may be described as unfortunate project timing with regard to the City's reconciliation of intent and appropriate employee housing legislation this project has been bounced around new approvals, changed laws and pending legislation ever since a period of over six months in approvals will have lapsed when this project comes before Council for its second Special Review Approval. Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd Architccts is • Letter to Berman Edel 15 June 1_979 Page 2 For the purpose of specific footnote! the following listing of approvals which have not yet permitted implementation of this project are included: a. Approval of non conforming lot (lz lots) b. Special Review P & Z C. Special Review City Council d. Conformance to proposed employee housing overlay ordinance. e. Board of Adjustment hearing f. Special Review (24 June) City Council The building project for which Special Review approval is requested is a 4 story structure of which one story would include a 1500 square foot broadcasting facility with the remaining 3 levels to include low and moderate income housing comprised of 4 studio units and 1 two bedroom unit for the station owner. (Total enclosed square footage of employee housing approximately 5200 sq.ft.). It must be emphasized here that the ownership of KSNO is providing the employee housing not by reason of bonus GMP paints or any other form of legislative coercement, but because it recognizes the need to provide housing for its own employees to maintain a quality of personnel in Aspen. The building as designed: exceeds tae.25o open space requirement; meets the building set?3ack requirements; is within the height limit; is within the bulk requirement and meets the letter of all building code regulations. The recent adoption of ordinance 24 (Trash access require- ments) and ordinance 29 (Employee housing parking require- ment) certainly mitigate the circumstances of conflict prior to their adoption but do re uire council•approval of the following: (a) Trash and Utility Access Ordinance 24 requires an area 15 ft (alley frontage) x 10 ft high x 10 ft deep. In order to include a funtion- ally appropriate amount of parking off the alley (total 45 ft. available) we wish approval to provide an area 10 ft. w-ide (alley frontage) x 18 ft. deep x 10 ft. high. This provision is approved by the Planning Office and would be more than adequate to handle (2) two yard dumpsters, a box bin and adequate space for transformer and other utility metering requirements. Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd Architects If i • Letter to Herman £del 15 June 1979 Page 3 (b) Parking Ordinance 29 specifies that provision of off street parking for employee housing shall be established by Special Review of City Council. The KSNO occupancy does not require parking. We wish council approval to provide 3 parking stalls (91xl8') for the 5 housing units provided in the project. This parking provision is approved by the Planning Office and by the previous council which specifically expressed the opinion "For the KSNO project alternative off street parking should be the responsibility of the individual employee!" Located in the C-1 zone the housing units are in close proximity to necessary support services such as daily shopping needs and transportation. (c) Floor Area Ratio The Housing overlay District ordianance which was F initiated by the previous council, but which has not yet been adopted into ordinance form offers a method by which City Council can increase F.A.R. to allow more employee housing units (sect. 24-9 2.3). Because this ordinance will likely take some time to refire and adopt, a time frame which would in all likelihood cause abandonment of this project, we request that City Council delete the inclusion of projected overhang art --as on the building from the F.A.R. calculation method. This would have the effect of increasing the allowed F.A.R. from 1.5/1 to 1.7/1 (approximately 850 sq.ft.). In terms of employee units this would permit the inclusion of approximately 1200 sq. ft. (2 studio units) of low income employee units which would not be possible under the present F.A.R. calculation method. The actual enclosed space in the building does not exceed the F.A.R. 1.5/1 (F.A.R. 1.5x4500 sq.ft.=6750 sq.ft.). It is the inclusion of area under overhangs which penalize the enclosed space devoted to employee housing. Justi- fiably the overhang area in this project, as in any project on a small site, is used for covering the parking areas, refuse and utility areas, protection of entry areas, exterior decks for employee units, for visual relief of building walls exposed as elements of the street scape and for suit control. �-opianci Hagman Y.,w Ltd Architects • • Letter to Norman Edel 15 June 1979 Page 4 Again it must be pointed out that the situation of KSNO is prototypical of projects on small sites that wish to include employee housing rather than circumstantially special. We request of approval of this concept so that we may construct this project without further delay but ask that council consider incentive plannin2 measures such as bonus F.A.R. for subsequent building projects that wish to include employee housing without the penalties incurred under present law. I personally, as does the ownership of KSNO, wish to thank you for considering our request and taking the effort to specifically involve youself in the details surrounding its reconciliation with the issue of employee housing. Please feel free to call me if you have questions or require any further clarification, Very truly yours f Co land Hagma Yaw i Larry Y w principal JLY;cs Copland Hagman 4Ltd Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen Colorao 611 303 925 2867 7 May 1979 Mr. Jim Reents City of Aspen Planning Department 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: KSNO Project Special Review Dear Jim: Based on owner approved schematic architectural plans (enclosed for your review) we wish to slightly modify the employee housing portion of the approved special review application. The modification request is based on serving the specifically identified housing needs of KSNO employees and would of course, remain subject to the rental guidelines by legal covenant. The following table identifies both the approved unit mix and the requested modification. Approved Unit Special Group Review Low Income (3) studios at 500 sf = 1500 sf Moderate Income (3)studios at 500 sf = 1500 sf Modification Request (2) studios at 480 sf = 960 sf (2) studios at 510 sf = 1020 sf MIBR at 980 sf = 980 sf Middle Income (1) 2 BR at (1) 2 BR at 1700 sf = 1700 sf 2300 sf = 2300 sf Totals 7 units = 4700 sf 6 units = 5260 sf Copland Hagman 1*Ltd Architects • Letter to Jim Reents 7 May 1979 Page 2 Special Review - Floor Area Ratio Further, we request special review approval to vary the area requirements as provided in the pending Housing Overlay District ordinance. The F.A.R. granted by right (with employee housing) for this project is, 6750 sq. ft. The actual plan area of enclosed space, not including mechanical equipment space, is 6625 sq.ft. Using the zoning ordinance F.A.R. calculation method which requires the inclusion of area under architectural projections the calculated F.A.R for the project is 7605 s.f. (1115 s.f. over the allowed F.A.R.). The additional F.A.R. requested is primarily a function of the building overhang over the required parking spaces adjacent the alley and does not add to the actual height or bulk of the building. Our request for Special Review approval is based on the fact that we would have to delete 2 low income studio units from the 6 units provided in order to comply with the specifics of the F.A.R. calculation method. In addition to being specifically needed for KSNO employees the project would provide 6 needed units to the employee housing inventory without change to the actual area and bulk requirements provided for in the zoning ordinance. Special Review - Parking As previously approved by special review the project will provide off street parking for 4 vehicles. We request that three of the parking stalls be 9 ft. wide and the 4th stall be a somewhat irregular size to acco- modate a small car. This is a necessary result of the structural system required to configure a mixed use building. Additionally stalls are completely covered and will remain snow free and accessible during winter months. Special Review - Utility & Trash Area In order to provide the required off street parking (4 vehicles) across the dimension of the site (45 ft) parallel to the alley a resulting dimension of 10 ft. remains to accomodate trash access and electric trans- former. Section 24 - 3.7 (h)(4) requires a minimum Copland Hagman 0Ltd Architects • Letter to Jim Reents 7 May 1979 Page 3 length measured parallel to the alley of 15 ft., a minimum verticle clearance of 10 ft. and a minimum depth of 10 ft. We request special review approval to utilize a space 10 ft. wide (parallel to the alley, 10 ft. high and 19 ft. deep to accomodate the trash and utility requirements of this project. Please call if you have any questions or require further clarification. Very truly yours Co,Lanyd Ha m n Yaw Ltd Larryn p ncipal JLY:cs encl. • MEMORANDUM U TO: City Council FROM: Jim Reents, Planning Office_ RE: KSNO Employee Housing Project DATE: March 21, 1979 This application is for a growth management exempt employee housing project at 620 East Hopkins, the current site of the KSNO Broadcasting Studio. Under the new employee housing exemption to Growth Management, projects of this nature become special review items under the Code. Within the scope of the special review, the following determinations were made by the Planning and Zoning Commission: 1. That there is, in fact, a need for this type of housing within the community, 2. That the project constitutes employee housing, 3. That the project qualifies for the FAR bonus within the zone district, 4. A reduction of required parking should be made. The P&Z also endorsed the proposed income mix for the project. Under the definition of subdivision (Section 20-3) within the City's Code, multifamily projects are defined as subdivision. This is primarily to facilitate the condominiumization ordi- nance. This application is also requesting exemption from the subdivision requirement primarily to facilitate the con- struction of employee housing within the next calendar year. A recommended requirement for granting this exemption would be full subdivision review if at any time in the future the project is proposed to be condominiumized. The Planning Office has worked closely with the applicant on this project and feels that it warrants the City's support as the type of project the Code amendment exempting employee housing was trying to encourage. ss MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jim Reents, Planning Office RE: KSNO Employee Housing Project DATE: March 9, 1979 This application is for a growth management exempt employee housing project at 620 East Hopkins, the current site of the KSNO Broadcasting Studio. Under the new employee housing exemption to Growth Management, projects of this nature become special review items under the Code. Within the scope of the special review, the following determinations need to be made by the Planning and Zoning Commission: 1. That there is, in fact, a need for this type of housing within the community. 2. That the project constitutes employee housing. 3. That the project qualifies for the FAR bonus within the zone district. In addition, a recommendation as to the mix of low, moderate and middle income units should be made to Council. Under the definition of subdivision (Section 20-3) within the City's Code, multifamily projects are defined as subdivision. This is primarily to facilitate the condominiumization ordinance. This application is also requesting exemption from the subdivision requirement primarily to facilitate the construction of employee housing within the next calendar year. A recommended requirement for granting this exemption would be full subdivision review if at any time in the future the project is proposed to be condominiumized. The Planning Office has worked closely with the applicant on this project and feels that it warrants the City's support as the type of project the Code amendment exempting employee housing was trying to encourage. �rrr�re2e s l�z ��r fir.- - liyGC•l/� � S7z��o �T= C Soo s•� ��� O. C" l �� •1e. ��/Y�f' JA s� �Tvo�o AF77 CIRw%H7'7v/Y �r — Z.S'O 7vT.�tt.. = 6 Aso s � T��� �7Y�'L.05�Jr�•L�' 2Sl 1 ��fi''��'C �'Y S'�i • S�T� Gt17p ���V�A77MS!, �RGU�7Ta1y /700 7oT�t-L... �70o s•� 21 lb C 0 u N T Y L_J 506 E. MAIN STREET Elsa � 141tit � - tvaJ 4r.,7 c,!:n - - W� r �cl-e -9 %j acae�2fcZi� Ci' UEP.� QM lil p�'i5 ? U • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 VA6� ram: 4wm 0) �5wln V�[r5 0 • FILCORD Of PROCEEDINGS APPENDIX LOW INCOME MODERATE INCOME Rental Price $.36 $.47 Studio 144-216 188-282 1 Bedroom 216-288 282-376 2 Bedroom 270-360 352.50-170 3 Bedroom+ 342-504 446.50-658 Sale Price $45 $53 Studio 18,000-27,000 21,200-31,800 1 Bedroom 27,300-36,000 31,800-42,�,00 2 Bedroom 33,750-45,000 39,750-33,000 3 Bedroom+ 42,750-63,000 50,350-74,200 100 Leaves MIDDLE INCOi1E $.58 232-348 348-464 435-580 551-812 $61 24,400-36,600 36,600-48,800 45,750-61,000 57, 950-85, 1.00 It The owners of KSNO, the locally based AM Radio Station, are currently building a new facility. It will be comprised of office/broadcasting space for the station and five rent -controlled employee units; four studios and one two -bedroom. The project location is the site of the old KSNO station, east of the Professional Building on Hopkins, and on the south side of Hopkins (1 } city lots) To take advantage of the views of Aspen Mountain and to allow the public to be able to view the broadcasting studios, the design has incorporated a certain amount of south -facing glazing. However, to control the potentially harmful heat gain, we are asking that bronzed glazing be allowed instead of the required clear glazing. The heat gain realized through cleas glass imposes excessive cooling require- ments and consequent energy consumption, a situation not consistent with energy policies of the county and a hardship to the owner. It is demonstratable that by incorporating bronzed glass, we will be able to reduce cooling loads and still maintain comfortability and some passive gain. Thank you for your consideration. • KSNO Project Special Review Submission Submitted to: City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Applicant: KSNO Mr. Leon Lowenthal 620 E. Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Architect: Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd P.O. Box 2736 210 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 • • KSNO Project Special Review Submission INTRODUCTORY 1. Project Name 2. Location 3. Lot Size 4. Zoning District 5. External Floor Area Ratios 6. Permitted Uses in C-1 Zoning District 7. Minimum Lot Area 8. Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit 9. Open Space Requirement 10. Parkin, Requirements 11. Size of Existing KSNO Facility 12. Surrounding Zoning KSNO PROJECT 620 E. Hopkins City of Aspen 45 x 100, 4500 sq.ft. C-1 1:1 .5:1 bonus for employee housing Multi -family Units Broadcasting Stations 3000 sq.ft. Commercial 6000 sq.ft. Residential 1000 sq.ft. /Studio 1250 sq.ft. /One Bedroom 2100 sq.ft. /Two Bedroom 250/1125 sq.ft. Commercial - None Residential - 1/Dwelling Unit 1500 s.f. C-1 Surrounding uses are primarily office and commercial shop space, with limited single-family residential mixed in 13. Historic Designation None KSNO Proiect Special Review Submission 14. Program Proposal It is allowed, by exception, to reconstruct the existing KSNO facility provided there is no expansion in the existing gross floor area of 1500 sq.ft., which size is planned for the new broadcasting station facility . Within the remaining 3000 sq.ft. allowed within a 1:1 external F.A.R., one two -bedroom unit (1700 sq.ft.) & two studio units (500 sq.ft. each) are planned. The .5:1 external F.A.R. allowed for employee housing permits four studio units (500 sq.ft. each). From the foregoing, the following program is constructed: L l F.A.R. (on 45' x 100' site) 4500 sq.ft. KSNO Broadcasting Station 1500 sq.ft. (1) Two bedroom employee apartment 1700 sq.ft. (2) Studio apartments @ 500 sq.ft. 1000 sq.ft. Circulation Space 300 sq.ft. Subtotal 4500 sq.ft. 0.5:1 F.A.R. Bonus 2250 sq.ft. (4) Studio apartments @ 500 sq.ft. 2000 sq.ft. Circulation Space 250 sq. ft. Subtotal 2250 sq.ft. TOTAL 6750 sq.ft. 4 Parking Spaces Trash Area Mechanical /Storage /Utility 15. Program Rationale The acknowledged need to provide affordable/desirable housing in the Aspen area is a goal readily accepted by the present owners of KSNO. Within the zoning parameters as outlined, it is requested to construct seven employee housing units, one of which would be owner -occupied (ultimately more than 85% of the time). A certain number of these units would be occupied by KSNO employees. Once offered to and occupied by KSNO employees, the remaining un- occupied units would be offered to other qualified occupants. Since there are 6-10 employees, however, it is conceivable that all units will be occupied by KSNO employees. All units, including the owner two bedroom, would come under employee housing restrictions, i.e. rent controls, lease controls etc. KSNO Project Special Review Submission 15. Program Rationale - cont'd Parking spaces are limited to four down from the seven required. Several factors support this. The site, being only 1i lots wide, simply cannot physically accommodate seven cars and yet allow, after open space as well, sufficient room for a building at ground level. Three quarters of grade level would be autos. Additionally, within a 45' width, an underground parking scheme is impossible due to insufficient turning radius (60' required) . Also close proximity to all downtown conveniences and services and public transit only one-half block north on Main Street further diminishes the need for cars. Since this program form does not create detailed and remote employee housing, it potentially helps create a high quality of housing through close proximity to place of employment. The entire project would be constructed in one phase, thereby insuring the inclusion of the pro- posed housing. Since this project proposes a partial solution to lower income housing to the maximum allowed by zoning, its approval as outlined is requested. Additionally it is requested that the project be exempted from sub- division exemption due to several factors. The primary objective is for provision of employee housing; none of the units have been intended for condominization. Consistent with current policy to provide economical and desirable housing, it is anticipated that initiation of construction could begin within the coming building season. Should the project ever be considered for sale as condominiums, the project would be processed through subdivision. Also, all utilities and services have been accounted for, as subsequently outlined in this report, and offer no obstacles relative to the need to expand any services /utilities for proper serving of the project. Services 1. Water System A 6" main presently exists on Hopkins Street, directly adjacent to the project site. This would allow a maximum 1I" water service to the project. A preliminary review by Mr. James Markalunas indicated a 1" water service line as likely being adequate to provide service with- out creating unmanagable impact upon the treatment plant, currently operating at about 75% capacity. Z. Sewer Svstem The site is presently served by an 8" sewer line in serviceable condition located in the alley to the north between Main Street and Hopkins directly adjacent to the site. A preliminary review of the proposal by Mr. Heiko Kuhn of the Aspen Sanitation District indicated no unmanagable impact upon the treatment plant, which presently is operating at 75-80% of capacity. By 1980, with 50 o expansion (1 million gallons per day) the plant will be operating at slightly more than 50% capacity. 3. Power Electricity is presently supplied to the existing facility through single- phase transmission underground from the adjacent alley to the north Should it become necessary due to increased building size, to provide three-phase transmission, it would be provided with underground lines. Only a new transformer would be required, according to Mr. Stogie Madallone, which imposes no substantive impact on existing facilities. 4. Telephone/Television Adjacent to the power line in the north alley is sufficient capacity for fifty service lines, fourteen of which are presently in use. Review by Leon Peach of Mountain Bell indicated ample capacity for providing service. Cable television is available from the north alley of sufficient capability to serve the project, according to Haus Von de Kaup of Canyon Cable. 5. Natural Gas A 4" gas main presently exists in the north alley directly adjacent to the property. There presently are no moratoriums and, according to Mr. Willward Clapper, none are foreseeable. Natural gas is available through a 1111 line, should it be decided upon as an energy source. 6. Fire Protection The project is located approximately two blocks from the fire station which would enable an appropriate maximum response time. A fire hydrant located within 200' at the corner of Hunter and Hopkins would serve the project site. According to Mr. Willard Clapper adequate static pressure exists and there are no identifiable problems with regard to fire protection. Access is possible, in an emergency, from both Hopkins and the north alley. As well, sufficient room to pass around the building on the east or west sides from Hopkins to the alley would be provided. 7. Storm Drainage To avoid expansion of any public drainage systems, the drainage control for this project would collect, retain, and disperse all surface runoff through sufficiently sized on -site dry wells. 8. Public Transportation The project site presently is being served by both the Aspen Free Transit and Pitkin County Transit. All four city routes and the county route presently are no further away from the project site than I block. The close proximity to public transportation is a significant factor in requesting the deletion of 3 required parking units. As well, many other conveniences and services are within five minutes maximum walking time. ■ EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT PLAN KSNO PROJECT SIZE 500 S.F. SOUTH 0 2 4 8 16 0 311OFESSIONAL BUILDING ALLEY HOPKINS SITE PLAN KSNO PROJECT NORTH RESIDENCE 0 5 10 20 40 s W J J O z c J_ m J z W 0 z N J tl� W LL U. O O O cc = d Y cc 44 cm O z N O �C 0 c y Z O N ~ LL i V _ W N W i ZO/O� -M) W a a 9 m O = W IL L ''z V♦ N z_ 19 d O x 'R Ito _0 Employee Housing The request for employee housing is comprised of six studio apartments (500 sq.ft.) and one two -bedroom apartment (1700 sq.ft. and owner - occupied) . As shown on the typical studio unit floor plan, each apartment is ap- proximately 500 sq.ft. and will be augmented by common laundry, storage, and work -room facilities. All units will be constructed concurrently with the remainder of the project to provide for occupancy as soon as possible. Pending approval of the proposal, occupancy is scheduled for December, 1979. The employee unit mix presently is projected as follows: No. of Unit Income Rental Monthly Units Tvne Tvpe Price Rental 3 Studio Low $.36 sq.ft. $180.00 3 Studio Moderate $.47 sq.ft. $235.00 1 2-bdr. Middle $.58 sq.ft. $580.00 Rental structures are per recently adopted housing price guidelines.