The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.gm.111 W Hyman Ave.A86-92CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 11 02 92 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 1 2735- 124 -69 -? A86 -92 STAFF MEMBER: KJ PROJECT NAME: 111 West Hyman Residential GMOS & Conditional Use Review for an ADU Project Address: 111 W. Hyman Legal Address: Lot G and East 1/3 Lot F. Block 61 APPLICANT: William D. Snare' Applicant Address: 300 Clermont Street, Denver, CO 80220 355 -8 REPRESENTATIVE: William Griffith, Attorney Representative Address /Phone: 1700 Broadway, Suite 720 FEES: PLANNING $ 3,800 ENGINEER $ 90 HOUSING $ 55 ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ 3,945 Denver, CO 80290 861 -7055 (FAX 861 -70561 APPS RECEIVED 21 PLATS RECEIVED 21 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL:_ 1 STEP: _ 2 STEP: x P &Z Meeting Date S .3 PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date Z S 3 PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO Cam• VESTED RIGHTS: YES O DRC Meeting Date REFERRALS: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Dir. Aspen Water City Electric Envir.Hlth. Zoning Parks Dept. Bldg Inspector Fire Marshal Holy Cross Mtn. Bell ACSD Energy Center DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: UV'V' FINAL ROUTING: City Atty Housing School District Rocky Mtn NatGas CDOT Clean Air Board Open Space Board Other Other DUE: ---------- - - - - -- DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: City Engineer X Zoning Open Space _ Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: _Env. Health s,. PROJECT: APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATI' nWNFR'S NAME 1. CITY OF ASPEN PRE- APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY :4-A / Jf SUMMARY- Type of Application: 6ikP - D 2. Describe action /type of development 3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent C 1� b. :i: ► Comments 4. eview is: (P &Z Only) (CC Only) then to CC) 5. Public Hearing: (YES (NO) 6. Number of copies of the application to be submitted:_ 7. What fee was applicant requested to submit:4 3 300* f��= 8. Anticipated date of submission: 9.A — COMMENTS /U�NIQVE�CONCERNS: A. frm.pre_app October 30, 1992 Aspen Planning & Zoning 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Kim Johnson Re: 111 West Hyman Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Ms. Johnson: In connection with my Growth Management application, Mr. William M. Griffith, Attorney at Law is authorized to act on my behalf. His address and telephone number is as follows: 1700 Broadway Suite 720 Denver, Colorado 80290 (303)861 -7055 (303)861 -7056 FAX William D. Snare c/ CERTIFICATION I, WILLIAM M. GRIFFITH, an Attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that William D. Snare and Margaret W. Snare are the owners of the property known as 111 West Hyman Street, Aspen, Colorado. There are no mortgages, judgments, liens or easements (except utility easements) affecting the property. There does exist a Right of First Refusal to purchase the land or the other 1/2 of the duplex unit to be constructed. This Right is owned by Theodora H. Ives, the owner of the 1/2 duplex at 113 West Hyman Street, Aspen, Colorado. William M. Griffith Attorney at Law 1700 Broadway Suite 720 Denver, Colorado 80290 (303)861 -7055 Reg. No. 526 r" II ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and William D. Snare (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for 111 West Hyman Street (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 44 (Series of 1991) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and /or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and /or City Council to make legalLy required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ ags which is for 25hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post . approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN By:� DiWle Moore City Planning Director APPLICANT By: W �1.%n�ti�_ v y Date: 11/1/92 -------------------------------- For Planning Office Use Case Number Case N Deposit or Flat Fee Referral Fees: Engineer: Housing: Environmental Health: ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -5090 FAX# (303) 920 -5197 November 10, 1992 William Griffith 1700 Broadway, Suite 720 Denver, CO 80290 Re: 111 West Hyman Accessory Case A86 -92 Dear Mr. Griffith, Residential GMQS and Conditional Use Review for an Dwelling Unit The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, January 5, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. Should this date be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office. Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to property owners within 300' and to post the subject property with a sign prior to the public hearing, on or before December 26, 1992. Please submit a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing prior to the public hearing. All applications are now being scheduled for the Development Review Committee (DRC) . The DRC is a committee of referral agencies which meet with Planning and the applicant early in the process to discuss the application. This case is scheduled for November 19, 1992 at 3:00 p.m., City Hall, City Council Chambers. If you have any questions, please call Kim Johnson, the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, r Suz nne L. Wolff Administrative Assistant -^N ASPENTITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920 -5090 FAX 920 -5197 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Department Electric Department Parks Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Aspen Fire Protection District Roaring Fork Energy Center FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: 111 West Hyman Residential GMQS and Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit DATE: November 10, 1992 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by William D. Snare. Please return your comments to me no later than December 4, 1992. The Design Review Committee will be meeting on November 19, 1992 at 3:00 p.m., 1st floor City Council Chambers. Please return the application to the Planning Office if you have no further need of it. Thank you. I William D. Snare 300 Clermont Street Denver, Colorado 80220 IL UL IZ..Q • oj�� 1 � t.�'fi.�1 � 1 L ► W . �f`�. b�nn.�... I . �.. w Wq .mow, � �a,� �•v+•:� Na,,,..� C c%k$ \ g tom. JIB CI-7 I 3. 6 M ql;,to- Arv, w,At e�� A — 3 e AA 2�..( uzi. WILLIAM M. GRIFFITH ATTORNCY AT LAW �f 1700 BRQAOWAY - SUITE +1*' / 20 DENVER. COLORADO 80250 November 23, 1992 City Engineer 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Chuck Roth Re: Growth Management Application of William D. Snare 111 West Hyman Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Roth: Enclosed is a copy of my letter to Kim Johnson. the parking problem and some other items. . i TELEPHONE (303) 6e1.7055 This letter addresses At the development review meeting you informed us of the necessity of four parking spaces. We will provide an additional parking space at the rear of the lot where we had already provided two parking spaces. We would respectfully request a variance from the requirements in sec- tion 19 -101 for a driveway and curb cut leading into the garage as designated by the plans submitted. You have been provided with a plot plan showing the building site as a part of the application. The construction of this proposed unit will complete this project which was started in 1980. There are three existing units and this fourth unit would present a complete project which would blend into and complete the development. The asthetic appearance of two identical buildings on these five lots would add to the neighborhood appearance. It is anticipated that the market unit would only be used seasonally and add little traffic and no on street parking. Mr. Chuck Roth November 23, 1992 page two Since we are putting three parking spaces in the rear of the unit, the only feasible space for the fourth parking space would be in the garage with access from the street. request you as City Engineer to approve this vari- to work with you on any necessary details a respectfully y if this ance. i would i happy rove the property or architectural improvements to imp e is granted. Very truly Yours' Or -14*wk- William M. Griffith WMG /cm enclosure WILLIAM M. GRIFFITH ATTORNEY AT LAW 1700 BROADWAY - SUITE mwK 720 DENVER. COLORADO 80290 TELEP"ONE 13031 861.7056 November 23, 1992 Aspen Planning & Zoning 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Kim Johnson Re: Growth Management Application of William D. Snare 111 West Hyman Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Kim: At the development review meeting I mentioned that inadvertently a sentence describing the employee unit had been omitted. In paragraph III e, the following sentence should be added: The garden level basement will include approxi- mately 800 square feet of living space with one bedroom, bath, kitchen, living /dining room and storage space. Also as we discussed at the initial review m standing that only three parking units would conference we had the impression that it was vide a parking space for the employee unit. neer indicated it would be necessary to have ie. one for each bedroom. We are correcting cate a space for four vehicles on the lot. =_eting, it was our under - be required. At that not necessary to pro - However, the City Engi- £our parking spaces - our drawings to indi- In addition, we will have the architect draw in the location of the bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, and living /dining area in the employee unit. If it is necessary, I can mail these revised drawings to you or we could bring them to the hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion on January 5, 1993. Kim Johnson November 23, 1992 Page two Also, I would appreciate it if you could accelerate the prepara- tion of the notice to be sent to adjoining land owners. We will mail these notices from Denver and would like to post them ahead of the deadline. Very truly yours, William M. Griffith WMG /cm 41it 4� 4116 U " ND tit ev ti ti v;X 1 '.1 vi/� ✓I��1 ,�� j ��Nt✓`"""/y�� .iJ� 1 1 �1��11'L/� 1.'V i�l'i. Xe �� MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer 69-P Date: December 6,. 1992 . -r Re: One Eleven (111) West Hyman Residential GMQS and Conditional Use Review for an Affordable Housing Unit Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: DRC Meeting and Site Visit 1. Snow conditions on the street precluded inspection to determine if sections of the curb and gutter need repair or replacement. 2. Snow removal is not being performed on existing sidewalks as required by Section 19- 180 et seq of the municipal code. 3. A site improvement survey is not required and was not submitted, therefore we cannot tell if fences or trash facilities encroach into the public right -of -way. 4. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights - of -way, we would advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920 -5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920 -5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920 - 5130). Scoring 1. Availability of public facilities and services (a) Water - 1 The proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services. No improvements have been provided. (b) Sanitary sewer - 1 The proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services. No improvements have been provided. (c) Storm drainage - 1 The proposed development offers to mitigate its storm runoff without broader improvements. (d) Fire protection - 1 The proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services. No improvements have been provided. (e) Parking design - 1 The application provided one fewer parking space than required. This appears to have been due to a procedural error, and the applicant has agreed to provide the four required number parking spaces. (f) Roads - 1 The proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services. No improvements have been provided. 2. Quality of design (a) Neighborhood compatibility - 2 (b) Site design - 1 The site plan indicates a driveway curb cut on Hyman Avenue which is not permitted by code and which results in the loss of on- street parking. There is an alley available at this site for providing access to the property. The applicant has submitted a request for a curb cut variation as permitted by Section 19 -102, however the request was not approved. An on -site trash location is not designated. A site improvement survey was not provided to verify, but it appears that existing trash facilities encroach into the alley. There are two vehicles currently stored in the public right -of -way which are not legal parking spaces. No snow storage areas, such as for parking areas, were indicated. The application does not offer to construct sidewalk as an enhancement although minimal sidewalk construction is required by the municipal code. (c) Trails - 2 No improvements have been offered. (d) Green space - The engineering department does not evaluate FAR and green space as necessary to suggest scoring in this category. The comment on page 4 of the application, item B. 4), suggests that no more than minimum green space is being provided. The project could provide more subgrade parking and /or living spaces which could improve the site design. 3. Resource Conservation Techniques (a) Energy - 1 It is not clear or specific that the application provides "a net conservation of resources." Gas heating is referred to on page 4 of the application, at item C. 1), but it is not a clear commitment. The space air heating versus water heating versus cooking heat provisions are not clearly committed to using natural gas instead of electricity. No electric load saving devices are offered which would exceed code requirements. No reference is made to solar considerations. (b) Water and wastewater - 1 The application does not present design features that exceed code requirements. (c) Air - 1 This suggested scoring is based solely upon the application contents concerning dust prevention on unpaved areas. The detail where an additional point could have been considered is if the applicant had planned to pave the parking spaces. This scoring is not intended to represent a full evaluation of air issues. This scoring does not address wood burning versus gas fireplaces. 4. Proximity to Support Services (a) Public transportation - 3 This department's copy of the application is lacking the vicinity map required by Sec. 6 -202. The free shuttle stops at Cooper & Garmisch, which is less than two blocks from the proposed development. (b) Community commercial facilities - 2 Project site is located about four and a half blocks from center of commercial core. 5. Provisions for affordable housing. No comment. 6. Bonus points - 0 There are no design presentations for which the engineering department would recommend bonus points Recommended Conditions for Development 1. If there are any encroachments into the public right -of -way, they must be removed at the time of development. The applicant may request an encroachment license by filing an encroachment application with the City Engineer. 2. Any work in the public right -of -way (R.O.W.) must be properly designed and permitted. 3. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the Building Department, the applicant must submit a construction plan to the Engineering Department to include, but not be limited to the following: (a) A storm run -off plan meeting the requirements of Section 24- 7- 1004.C.4.f and prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado must be provided to the Engineering Department. (b) Erosion control such that no storm runoff carries soil onto the R.O.W.. 4. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: (a) The storm run -off design construction must be certified in a letter by the design engineer; and (b) Any curb and gutter requiring repair or replacement must be repaired or replaced. 5. A condominium plat amendment must be filed which meets the requirements of Section 24- 7- 1004.D of the municipal code prior to the conveyance of the unit. 6. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right -of -way. cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director M91282 CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION RESIDENTIAL GNP COMPETITION 33,5 32,`1 d Project: � � Lei, �U��cu^ (. S�2d,, - Date: 2 Z 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Service MyM - Each Development Application shall be rated as follows with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services, by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new public facilities and services at increased public expense. 1 -- Proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services, or any public facility service improvement made by the applicant benefits the proposed development only, and not the area in general. 2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of public facilities and services in the area: a. WATER SERVICE (maximum 2 points): Considering the ability of the water supply system to serve the proposed development as well as the applicant's commitment to install any potable water facility extensions or treatment plant, or other facility upgrading required to.serve the proposed development. RATING- COMMENTS: b. SANITARY SEWER (maximum 2 points): Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development as well as the applicant's commitment to install any sanitary sewer extensions or treatment plant, or other facility upgrading required to serve the development. PAYING: COMMENTS: C. STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points): Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the development site. If the proposed development requires use of the City's drainage.system, consideration of the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long- term shall be made. ff RATING: / 5 d. FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points): Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide any fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project. RATING: COMMENTS: e. PARKING DESIGN (maximum 2 points): Considering the provision of adequate off - street parking spaces to meet the needs of the proposed development, pursuant to the requirements of. Art. 5, Div. 2, and considering their visual impact, the amount of paved surface, and the convenience and safety of the spaces provided. RATING: � S f. ROADS (maximum 2 points): Considering the capacity of major roads to serve the proposed development without substantially altering existing traffic patterns, ti creating safety hazards or maintenance problems, overloading the existing street system or causing a need to extend the existing road network. Considering the applicant's commitment to install the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: COMMENTS: CA-� vvw I 2. Quality of Design (maximum 12 points) �r Each Development Application shall be rate3— based upon its site design and amenities by the assigning of points for neighborhood compatibility, sit e space, according to the considerations. 0 -- A totally deficient design design, trails, and green following standards and 1 -- A major design flaw 2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- An excellent design a. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY (maximum 3 points): Considering the compatibility of the proposed development (including its scale, siting, massing, height and building materials) with the land uses in the surrounding neighborhood. RATTNa: �)- .q� b. SITE DESIGN (maximum 3 points): Considering the quality and character of the following components of the proposed development: landscaping and open space areas; the amount of site coverage by buildings; the extent to which clustering of development is used to preserve key features of the site; the amenities provided for residents such as bike racks, recreation facilities, bus shelters and similar improvements; the extent of underground utilities; and the arrangement of improvements for efficient circulation, including access for service, increased safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage areas. RATING: i COMMENTS: {t' ✓G.� �V� �� ',.GtiLCo.w� v ..1 rJ�.L4M 4' Cr �.� ,`"�C -r. tt�tl �i��A�/Urx.- ��jyl%D•� C. TRAILS (maximum 3 points): Considering the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provision of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING: ZS COMMENTS: on d. GREEN SPACE (maximum 3 points): Considering the amount of vegetated open space in the proposed development which is usable by the residents of the proposed development, and offers relief from the densities of surrounding development. t) s ' RATING: COMMENTS: 3. ' Resource Conservation Techniques (maximum 6 points) Each Development Application shall be rated based on the resource conservation techniques for energy, water and wastewater, and air, by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development fails to meet the standards of the Municipal Code or does not result in a net conservation of resources 1 -- Proposed development meeds the standards of the Municipal Code or results in a standard level of resource conservation 2 -- Proposed development exceeds the standards of the Municipal Code or results in an exceptional level of resource conservation a. ENERGY (maximum 2 points): Considering the extent to which the proposed development will use passive and /or active energy conservation techniques in its construction, including but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient woodburning devices; and the location of the proposed development, relative to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably result in energy conservation. RATING: COMMENTS: b. WATER AND WASTEWATER (maximum 2 points): Considering the extent to which the proposed development will use water conservation techniques such as water conserving plumbing fixtures or wastewater reuse systems or will conserve surface water resources through irrigation, sprinkling, ponding and similar site enhancements, and considering whether the applicant dedicates water rights to the City of Aspen. RATING: C. AIR (maximum 2 points): Considering the effect of the proposed development on the City's air quality, including but not limited to whether fewer or cleaner woodburning devices than allowed by law will be installed; whether existing dirty burning devices will be removed or replaced by cleaner burning devices; whether dust prevention measures are employed on the unpaved areas; and whether any special emission control devices are used. [Kii 4I we 21 \M Ps RATING: I' r 4. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points) Each Development Application shall be rated based on its proximity to public transportation and community commercial facilities by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations: 0 -- Proposed development fails to meet the standards of the Municipal Code or does not result in a net conservation of resources 1 -- Proposed development meets the standards of the Municipal Code or results in a standard level of resource conservation 2 -- Proposed development exceeds the standards of the Municipal Code or results in an exceptional level of resource conservation a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (maximum 3 points): 1 -- Proposed development is located further than six (6) blocks walking distance from an existing bus route 2 -- Proposed development is located within six (6) blocks walking distance of an existing bus route 3 -- Proposed development is located within two (2) City blocks walking distance of an existing bus route FATi ti & v_� b. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FACILITIES (maximum 3 points): 1 -- Proposed development is located further than six (6) blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in the City. 2 -- Proposed development is located within six (6) blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in the City. 3 -- Proposed development is located within two (2) blocks walking distance of commercial facilities in the City. For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. The Planning Agency office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in the City to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 5. PROVISION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 20 points) Each Development Application shall be assigned points for the provision of affordable housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City, and with the provisions of Sec. 8 -109. ASSIGNMENT OF POINTS: Points shall be assigned as follows: i) one (1) point .shall be assigned for every five (5%) percent of the proposed development that is restricted to use 'by occupants meeting the low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations; ii) One (1) point shall be assigned for every ten (10 %) percent of the proposed development that is restricted to use by occupants meeting the moderate income price guidelines, and moderate income occupancy limitations; iii) one (1) point shall be assigned for every twenty (20%) percent of the proposed development that is restricted to use by occupants meeting the middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. ,c In order to determine what percent of the proposed development is restricted to affordable housing, the Commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the proposed development with the number or persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria: Studio: 1.25 residents; One - bedroom: 1.75 residents; Two- bedroom: 2.25 residents; Three- bedroom or larger: 3.00 residents; Dormitory: 1.00 residents per 150 square feet of space For the purposes of this section, the proposed development shall be considered to include the number of persons in the free market units plus those in the employee units, regardless of whether employee housing is provided on -site, off -site or via cash -in -lieu of -housing. a. Low Income Housing Provided (One (1) point for each five (5) percent housed. L� RATING:! COMMENTS: .-�' b. Moderate Income Housing provided (One point for each ten (10 %) percent housed. RATING: COMMENTS: C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One point for each twenty (20 %) percent housed. RATING: COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 5 points) RATING: SCORING CATEGORIES 44INIMUM THRESHOLD POINTS 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 2 . QUALITY OF DESIGN PROXPMITY OF SUPPORT SEfZV!CiS" (' l - PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR e MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING r 5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT AWARD BONUS POINTS TOTAL POINTS: Name of P &Z Commission Member: 1 J MEMORANDUM TO: Kim Johnson FROM: Cindy Christensen DATE: November 30, 1992 RE: 111 WEST HYMAN RESIDENTIAL GMQS AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT After reviewing the above - referenced application, the Housing office approves the proposed attached accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Chapter 24, Section 5 -510, of the City of Aspen Municipal Code: Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred (300) square feet of allowable floor area and not more than seven hundred (700) square feet of allowable floor area. The unit shall be deed restricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall be limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. Owners of the principal residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the accessory dwelling unit. The floor area requirement is for net liveable square feet as defined by the Housing Office below: Net Liveable Square Footage is calculated on interior living area and is measured interior wall to interior wall, including all interior partitions including, but not limited to, habitable basements and interior storage areas, closets and laundry area. Exclusions include, but are not limited to, uninhabitable basements, mechanical areas, exterior storage, stairwells, garages (either attached or detached), patios, decks and porches. Per the applicant's calculations, the accessory dwelling unit is to be approximately 800 square feet, which meets the minimum Housing office guidelines, is to be a one bedroom, one bath unit, with a kitchen and a separate entrance. It is also suggested that since this unit is located on the garden level, that extra windows be put in for additional light. The mechanical /utility room for the principal unit cannot be located within the accessory dwelling unit. The accessory dwelling unit has to be a completely private dwelling unit. Per the application, this accessory dwelling unit is to be low income employee housing and will be deed restricted to rental and sale price terms within the housing price guidelines and to occupancy limitations within the housing income eligibility guidelines established by the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines. According to the 1992 Guidelines, the maximum unit sales price of a Category 1, one - bedroom unit is $32,000; the maximum monthly rent for a Category 1, one - bedroom unit is $379. This unit is limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. Owners of the principal residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the accessory dwelling unit, but the employee must be qualified through the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority. Once a lease has been agreed to and signed, a copy must be sent to the Housing Office for its records. Prior to building permit approval, a signed and recorded Deed Restriction must be completed. A copy of said deed restriction has been attached for the applicant's use. This process could take from three to four days. The Housing Office must have the recorded book and page number prior to building permit approval. \word \work \111wh.ref Pa ttY' Ill WEST HYMAN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION FOR 1993 CONSTRUCTION SUBMITTED BY: WILLIAM D. SNARE 300 Clermont Street Denver, Colorado 80220 (303) 355 -8022 November 1, 1992 TO: Chairman Planning and Zoning City of Aspen I II III Commission Aspen, Colorado 81611 GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION LOCATION: Lot G and East 1/3 Lot F, Block 61 City of Aspen; Also to be 111 West Hyman Street PROPOSAL: This proposal is being submitted on behalf of William D. Snare. We are proposing to duplex. the house at 113 West Iiyman by adding an identical unit to the East side of the house. If approval is obtained, we would also ask for Employee Housing Bonus Overlay Re- zoning to com- plete one deed restricted affordable housing unit. Approval was ob- tained for re- zoning of 113 West Hyman for construction of a similar employee unit. The Hyman Street duplex subdivision was formed in 1979. it consisted of 5 lots fronting on West Hyman Street between First Street and Gar - misch Street. These lots have been owned by the applicant since 1958 and are a part of applicants house and lots he has owned since 1953. In 1980 -81, construction was completed on one duplex and 1/2 of the other duplex. These units were sold at that time. The applicant now desires to complete the final stage of the project by constructing the other 1/2 of the duplex. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT: a. A 6" cast iron Aspen City water main is located in the street, directly in front of the proposed duplex with sufficient capa- city to serve all of the proposed development, including the employee unit if approved. The estimated daily demand for the one -half duplex and employee unit would be 180 gallons. b. A City of Aspen sanitary sewer main is located in the alley dir- ectly behind the proposed site with sufficient capacity to serve the proposed unit. The estimated sewer demand for the one -half duplex and potential employee unit would be approximately 180 gallons per day. C. Surface water will be drained into dry wells constructed on the site. This will alleviate any drainage into the existing storm drainage system. -1- d. Fire protection with the Aspen fire station is six blocks away and the nearest fire hydrant is 100 feet from the unit. The fire department can provide fire protection well within its established response standard. In addition, applicant has offered to provide additional fire protection facilities by replacing the existing fire hydrant if deemed necessary or desirable by the fire department. e. The total development area is 3,750 square feet (one -half of the existing house site of 7,500 square feet). The one -half duplex would be two stories with garden level basement, con- sisting of approximately 2,000 square feet of living space on the upper two floors, including three bedrooms, three full baths, living room, dining room, kitchen, wet bar and utility room. There will be an attached, enclosed, one car garage. An owners' lock storage closet is also located in the basement. f. Hyman Street and all intersecting streets are paved and include curbs and gutters. All are in excellent condition. Buses pass in front of the property with stops on each corner. Additional routes are on Main Street two blocks north. Proximity to town (3 blocks), availability of buses and good roads for bicycles provide an excellent disincentive to automobile use. The proposed development will have little or no impact on the excisting roads, streets, or traffic pattern in the neighborhood. Off - street parking will be provided for three cars including one in the garage. It is estimated that no more than two cars will be used in conjunction with the one -half duplex, including guest parking. This would permit one parking space for the employee unit. There will be little visual impact as parking space is being allocated off the alley. One space would be in a parking garage. It is anticipated, except for seasonal use, the employee space would be the only one occupied. g. The garden level unit would be dedicated to deed restricted em- ployee affordable housing for one or two persons in conformance with the provisions of Sec. 8 -109. h. There will be one fireplace installed in the upper unit. The fireplace in the living room will be a wood burning fireplace. However, gas will be brought to the fireplace and capped. This will allow for easy conversion to gas. This is a substantial fireplace reduction in the project. The three other units have two wood burning fireplaces in each unit. Nor was there any ar- rangements provided for conversion to gas in the other units. -2- i. Parks are located one block away at Main and Garmisch (Paepke) with Wagner Park only two blocks East. A new volleyball park has been added one block away. The skating rink is on the cor- ner. The hospital is two miles West, while the airport is five miles West. We foresee a minimal impact on these facilities caused by this development. The nearest elementary school is approximately three blocks, while the middle school and high school are approximately three miles West. School buses run on Main Street, two blocks North. It is doubtful that there would be any impact on schools caused by this development. j. Retail and commercial activities in the central business district are three blocks East. The development impact would assist, but not significantly burden, existing establishments. It is antici- pated that no more than six to eight persons would occupy both units at any time (one to two in the employee unit, four to six in the one -half duplex.) k. There would be little impact on adjacent properties. There is a duplex at 117 -119 West Hyman, adjacent to this proposed duplex, which represented Phase I of this project. This proposal would be the final phase of the development which would be comprised of four free market units in the two duplexes plus four controlled one bedroom employee units. On the West end of the block is a duplex across from the Cottonwoods condominiums. On the East end of the block adjacent to the proposed unit is a duplex completed on two lots. Across the alley is a lodge (The Fireside Lodge) and another condominium /office combination. 1. The proposed construction would begin in the summer of 1993 with projected completion of the unit in 1993. There would be no phas- ing as this would represent the final phase of the development. As stated above, these units would complete development of the site. It will also assist in solving Aspen's critical housing shortage for employees by developing an additional employee housing unit. -3- REVIEW STANDARDS: A. Concerning the availability of public facilities and services, applicant would like to emphasize the following points: 1) Storm drainage facilities being installed on the site would not require use of the city drainage system and main- tains historic drainage patterns. 2) Applicant's offer to replace the established hydrant,if necessary,aids the fire department in providing fire pro- tection. 3) The parking plan with little visual impact also will al- low employee parking for the employee unit. 4) The proximity of the project to the center of the city, parks, skating and recreational facilities promotes pedes- trian and bicycle travel without any effect on traffic pat- terns or street maintenance. B. Concerning the quality of design, the applicant would like to emphasize the following: 1) The proposed building would complete the duplex which is unfinished. It would be identical to the duplex completed at 117 -119 West Hyman and would present a completed subdivision. As mentioned earlier this would be compatable with the other buildings in the block and neighborhood. 2) As to site design on the 3,750 square feet of the balance of the site remaining, the footprint of the building will take less than 50% of the land area providing adequate area for both lawn and other landscaping as has been done with the balance of the development. 3) Trails in and around the site are accessible from the side- walk in front of the duplex. A bike rack will also be instal- led to encourage use of the parks and trails without using an auto. 4) The green space as set forth in "2" provides a yard for the occupants and is the maximum under the available space left in the project. C. Concerning resource conservation: 1) Energy will be conserved whenever possible. Gas heating offers little pollution. The building will meet or exceed the standards in the model energy code, including all "R" factors. -4- 2) The water and waste water will be no burden to the city's existing facilities. 3) This project has cut back by 50% the planned fireplaces to aid the quality of air in Aspen. In addition a gas line will be brought to the fireplace for subsequent conversion at a small cost. D. Concerning Proximity to Support Services: 1) The proposed development is located within two city blocks walking distance of an existing bus route. 2) The proposed development is no more than two blocks to the first commercial building and four blocks to the main commer- cial mall. E. Concerning Provision for Affordable housing: 1) The project will provide one unit of employee housing against one unit of free market housing. The ratio of square footage will be approximately 800 square feet for the employee unit against 2,000 square feet for the free market unit. There will be one bedroom provided for employee use against three bedrooms provided for free market use. It would be low income employee housing and will be deed restricted to rental and sale price terms within the housing price guidelines and to occupancy limitations within the housing income eligibility guidelines established by the City Council. (Catagory 1) F. Concerning Bonus Points: 1) The completion of this project which was started in 1980, would totally complete the development in the 100 block of West Hyman. It removes a large blank wall which is meant to be the deviding wall of the duplex but is currently the outside wall of 113 West Hyman and converts the last vacant lot in the block into a completed project which should be of benefit to the neighbors and, in fact, to anyone going down Hyman Street. Respectfully submitted, (b � Ear v, _� mR tie, William D. Snare -5- PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 111 WEST HYMAN RESIDENTIAL GMQS ALLOTMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 5, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO to consider an application submitted by William D. Snare, 300 Clermont St., Denver, CO requesting approval for one Residential GMQS allotment and Conditional Use for one deed restricted affordable housing unit. The applicant proposes to create a duplex at 113 West Hyman by adding an identical unit to the East side of the house, with an employee unit on the garden level. The proposed residence is located at 111 West Hyman, Lot G and East 1/3 Lot F, Block 61, City of Aspen. For further information, contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 920 -5090 s /Jasmine TVare, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on December 18, 1992 City of Aspen Account November 1, 1992 TO: Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION I. LOCATION: Lot G and East 1/3 Lot F, Block 61 City of Aspen; Also to be 111 West Iiyman Street II. PROPOSAL: This proposal is being submitted on behalf of William D. Snare. We are proposing to duplex. the house at 113 West Hyman by adding an identical unit to the East side of the house. If approval is obtained, we would also ask for Employee IIousing Bonus Overlay Re- zoning to com- plete one deed restricted affordable housing unit. Approval was ob- tained for re- zoning of 113 West Hyman for construction of a similar employee unit. The Hyman Street duplex subdivision was formed in 1979. It consisted of 5 lots fronting on West Hyman Street between First Street and Gar - misch Street. These lots have been owned by the applicant since 1958 and are a part of applicants house and lots he has owned since 1953. In 1980 -81, construction was completed on one duplex and 1/2 of the other duplex. These units were sold at that time. The applicant now desires to complete the final stage of the project by constructing the other 1/2 of the duplex. III. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT: a. A 6" cast iron Aspen City water main is located in the street, directly in front of the proposed duplex with sufficient capa- city to serve all of the proposed development, including the employee unit if approved. The estimated daily demand for the one -half duplex and employee unit would be 180 gallons. b. A City of Aspen sanitary sewer main is located in the alley dir- ectly behind the proposed site with sufficient capacity to serve the proposed unit. The estimated sewer demand for the one -half duplex and potential employee unit would be approximately 180 gallons per day. C. Surface water will be drained into dry wells constructed on the site. This will alleviate any drainage into the existing storm drainage system. -1- d. Fire protection with the Aspen fire station is six blocks away and the nearest fire hydrant is 100 feet from the unit. The fire department can provide fire protection well within its established response standard. In addition, applicant has offered to provide additional fire protection facilities by replacing the existing fire hydrant if deemed necessary or desirable by the fire department. e. The total development area is 3,750 square feet (one -half of the existing house site of 7,500 square feet). The one -half duplex would be two stories with garden level basement, con- sisting of approximately 2,000 square feet of living space on the upper two floors, including three bedrooms, three full baths, living room, dining room, kitchen, wet bar and utility room. There will be an attached, enclosed, one car garage. An owners' �iJ n' yF,W k age closet is �also � i aged in t e bazsez 6A4 � � b i� I i r�arvoor+t � w. �a �rky,v� �N1AC -) %ol", ;. Hyman Street and all intersecting streets are paved and include "4w 11N curbs and gutters. All are in excellent condition. Buses pass in front of the property with stops on each corner. Additional routes are on ruin Street two blocks north. Proximity to town (3 blocks), availability of buses and good roads for bicycles provide an excellent disincentive to automobile use. The proposed development will have little or no impact on the excisting roads, streets, or traffic pattern in the neighborhood. Off - street parking will be provided for three cars including one in the garage. It is estimated that no more than two cars will be used in conjunction with the one -half duplex, including guest parking. This would permit one parking space for the employee unit. There will be little visual impact as parking space is being allocated off the alley. One space would be in a parking garage. It is anticipated, except for seasonal use, the employee space would be the only one occupied. g. The garden level unit would be dedicated to deed restricted em- ployee affordable housing for one or two persons in conformance with the provisions of Sec. 8 -109. h. There will be one fireplace installed in the upper unit. The fireplace in the living room will be a wood burning fireplace. However, gas will be brought to the fireplace and capped. This will allow for easy conversion to gas. This is a substantial fireplace reduction in the project. The three other units have two wood burning fireplaces in each unit. Nor was there any ar- rangements provided for conversion to gas in the other units. -2- e^ ,N i. Parks are located one block away at Main and Garmisch (Paepke) with Wagner Park only two blocks East. A new volleyball park has been added one block away. The skating rink is on the cor- ner. The hospital is two miles West, while the airport is five miles West. We foresee a minimal impact on these facilities caused by this development. The nearest elementary school is approximately three blocks, while the middle school and high school are approximately three miles West. School buses run on Main Street, two blocks North. It is doubtful that there would be any impact on schools caused by this development. j. Retail and commercial activities in the central business district are three blocks East. The development impact would assist, but not significantly burden, existing establishments. It is antici- pated that no more than six to eight persons would occupy both units at any time (one to two in the employee unit, four to six in the one -half duplex.) k. There would be little impact on adjacent properties. There is a duplex at 117 -119 West Hyman, adjacent to this proposed duplex, which represented Phase I of this project. This proposal would be the final phase of the development which would be comprised of four free market units in the two duplexes plus four controlled one bedroom employee units. On the West end of the block is a duplex across from the Cottonwoods condominiums. On the East end of the block adjacent to the proposed unit is a duplex completed on two lots. Across the alley is a lodge (The Fireside Lodge) and another condominium /office combination. 1. The proposed construction would begin in the summer of 1993 with projected completion of the unit in 1993. There would be no phas- ing as this would represent the final phase of the development. As stated above, these units would complete development of the site. It will also assist in solving Aspen's critical housing shortage for employees by developing an additional employee housing unit. -3- e . REVIEW STANDARDS: A. Concerning the availability of public facilities and services, applicant would like to emphasize the following points: 1) Storm drainage facilities being installed on the site would not require use of the city drainage system and main- tains historic drainage patterns. 2) Applicant's offer to replace the established hydrant,if necessary,aids the fire department in providing fire pro- tection. 3) The parking plan with little visual impact also will al- low employee parking for the employee unit. 4) The proximity of the project to the center of the city, parks, skating and recreational facilities promotes pedes- trian and bicycle travel without any effect on traffic pat- terns or street maintenance. B. Concerning the quality of design, the applicant would like to emphasize the following: 1) The proposed building would complete the duplex which is unfinished. It would be identical to the duplex completed at 117 -119 West Hyman and would present a completed subdivision. As mentioned earlier this would be compatable with the other buildings in the block and neighborhood. 2) As to site design on the 3,750 square feet of the balance of the site remaining, the footprint of the building will take less than 50% of the land area providing adequate area for both lawn and other landscaping as has been done with the balance of the development. 3) Trails in and around the site are accessible from the side- walk in front of the duplex. A bike rack will also be instal- led to encourage use of the parks and trails without using an auto. 4) The green space as set forth in "2" provides a yard for the occupants and is the maximum under the available space left in the project. C. Concerning resource conservation: 1) Energy will be conserved whenever possible. Gas heating offers little pollution. The building will meet or exceed the standards in the model energy code, including all "R" factors. -4- 2) The water and waste water will be no burden to the city's existing facilities. 3) This project has cut back by 508 the planned fireplaces to aid the quality of air in Aspen. In addition a gas line will be brought to the fireplace for subsequent conversion at a small cost. D. Concerning Proximity to Support Services: 1) The proposed development is located within two city blocks walking distance of an existing bus route. 2) The proposed development is no more than two blocks to the first commercial building and four blocks to the main commer- cial mall. E. Concerning. Provision for Affordable Housing: 1) The project will provide one unit of employee housing against one unit of free market housing. The ratio of square footage will be approximately 800 square feet for the employee unit against 2,000 square feet for the free market unit. There will be one bedroom provided for employee use against three bedrooms provided for free market use. It would be low income employee housing and will be deed restricted to rental and sale price terms within the housing price guidelines and to occupancy limitations within the housing income eligibility guidelines established by the City Council. (Catagory 1) F. Concerning Bonus Points: 1) The completion of this project which was started in 1980, would totally complete the development in the 100 block of West Hyman. It removes a large blank wall which is meant to be the deviding wall of the duplex but is currently the outside wall of 113 West Hyman and converts the last vacant lot in the block into a completed project which should be of benefit to the neighbors and, in fact, to anyone going down Hyman Street. Respectfully submitted, (t) &&'4YI William D \), S.,InAlte. Snare -5- 1, I ftV . 1 1112 William u. Snare 300 Clermont Street Denver, Colorado 80220 b aA, -� 4,Z \tf-' 111 W. hl- bw%.o.., �. W Wq vw. �vw�a u ti vow. V"4-a� 3. B M �1-•� � w,�ll �owr.«� e,h, k A-3 &.AA 2��a Zt xj4zop IdL r WILLIAM M. GRIFFITH ATTORNEY AT LAW 1700 BROADWAY - SUITE zowx % 20 DENVER. COLORADO 80290 _ TELEPIIONE (303) 861.7055 November 23, 1992 Aspen Planning & Zoning 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Kim Johnson Re: Growth Management Application of William D. Snare 111 West Hyman Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Kim: At the development review meeting I mentioned that inadvertently a sentence describing the employee unit had been omitted. In paragraph III e, the following sentence should be added: The garden level basement will include approxi- mately 800 square feet of living space with one bedroom, bath, kitchen, living /dining room and storage space. Also as we discussed at the initial review m, standing that only three parking units would conference we had the impression that it was vide a parking space for the employee unit. neer indicated it would be necessary to have ie. one for each bedroom. We are correcting cate a space for four vehicles on the lot. aeting, it was our under - be required. At that not necessary to pro - However, the City Engi- £our parking spaces - our drawings to indi- In addition, we will have the architect draw in the location of the bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, and living /dining area in the employee unit. If it is necessary, I can mail these revised drawings to you or we could bring them to the hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion on January 5, 1993. RIO Kim Johnson November 23, 1992 Page two Also, I would appreciate it if you could accelerate the prepara- tion of the notice to be sent to adjoining land owners. We will mail these notices from Denver and would like to post them ahead of the deadline. Very truly yours, William M. Griffith WMG /cm WILLIAM M. GRIFFITH ATTORNEY AT LAW ^� 1700 BROADWAY - SUITE ] 11M / 20 DENVER. COLORADO 80290 December 16, 1992 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Kim Johnson Re: William D. Snare Residential GMQS Allotment Dear Kim: 1. TELEPIIONE (303) 881 -7053 Enclosed are three copies of the revised site plans showing the additional parking at the rear of the property. Also enclosed are three copies of the revised foundation plan and basement floor plan. The revisions show the following: a) Separate utilities for the main unit and the employee housing unit - ie. hot water and electrical panel. b) The layout for the employee housing unit, showing kitchen, bath, bedroom, and living room. c) Location of dry wells in lower unit utility room and in the yard. When we reduced the foundation and basement floor plan it is .a little difficult to read. We will bring the larger original plan to the hearing. If you desire I can reproduce the original plan (24 inches by 42 inches) and send you three copies of the larger size. Please let me know. Very truly yours, William M. Grif£it WMG /cm enclosure CC: William D. Snare 0 ON= 0 177 1 Ir �- YICINITY 1-IAF' - � C llyml CITY. OF ASPEN APPROVAL '& . AC Till! I � K A tre. clrT a.�. -,earl TrM]y �0 1 ATTEDT, r c[TY ENGINEER w d mile c - M; eTnTt � _ PLANNING & Z COMMISSION Al r 1 C r PARIS APPROV Tff9 nwAlaq FLAT Cr Mr nvvaweD of .W. crtr a nevcl+. TK 7 A CLERK & RECC ACCEPTANCE TM nrw. euagvtfron r n Kccr2v rac R6 r AATr - ?!ti3 OCLOCKCrn -1 v v gMTpAH M1gR�[a�R1l AT PALO- % - tt Mi J-4 C}.:ItTIFICATE C I Ptib T W IMMRA, tm * Ccllopl�o, 1:0 I � I yr O1TKIf1 lgURY y1pW MERCpY M'KY14N S1Rr race Aro LLUR or Au Anv W Frl SIM T er c%LCI1 T!W 1101[T(aYG [ a � »T. =701 Q Q W1mi " e��TMrnTfT Jt GL C3' 4 y 1 . 1 _ i oq Iw - $Q.T._- ''1PIrM4 = '•15.D9S•'��• site PWO ��1•tM-L 44 •'�pL -1�- Yj//h0'DCL i'1`16fL4Y L�GG' co" ICAO, �.��1- +1�ili /Yu'iWlZUtsi 4' �DL"fdiL�4 - = 3. 3 •opFhtres�-( P °cxlr+S� W°`^vCV -- - - --- - � �C(vJNL F, "LEO d -d tit � J_ —>/•. I ~i � " '• c � y+ •_�..a•. , �. as :{c -'Z+ .• ;ir 11 / �I �J ;��y� • , a � t� .InwM /�- L � I Y •. ..,.+r ,it 1� &-�. : ��+u+±� Ramer. � � I 'L r ti 4 4s- jrl- ILI lei r - f. . �J � �T'1 S l.. , ~ � •A aa�♦ wt �! '•YT'T .�r� +' j-f!i� a.� �• .t`, _ 7^ ♦ ;^ ay'"µ �:, C ;4 33 ^t k. K x t .- • iy.�. a^n Sy af�1>,. '� '\ rkfay -� t t,. Fl � 'F r! t?t>. R •M's ��'S]�, ? e•. X .`+�y fi' V far r Nr'♦ ia ie ``�'. ,.e ✓ aft r ��',t�Sf -,ti lry ��` t .: C • i� -j>ir t uYay C Sie✓ � � '" _.: •a .l ;cM.a' 1 £' „_ ig_ / ,fie' mac' eh ii � .+ �. r� rt. t r. -- � 3. �. ♦a G ♦ a t .,xt J \ 77 t r Ir t T jJ w � id • _y�"�Yy� __. � O A I i / � , �. ?� i r � , i ii � '`r ass. �_ a a:E'i+N i �- :ee°° � ��, x J � ��_ _ f 'r a � esi!i •� -`Nn� �a � ]F7.'r {'� 2 � .�T 7p ��a�xr �rl '° �^ •a w. t � f � i �s"f�d�.Y� g1t Y ��.�� da .''H� " , °fir ��'n- YF ^�� '{tti ;` ia+}" t. } #ra�� }�'<a. r w vT 4 S !i` .. ° :? � r?a ��t`5 ..•� r!. �kr ".r;.� aA �� ''b�rwc._�e'�.lf'.is�Y�. ,� l� i .�•.�— . i o .. :. i �S '. . ^�t .: r u.L t4,i',� Y �t•t Ta a -J •'r.I •�.k V � � <'f.�L -ass )ini * .a =..ter A 9 � � "Cer! d�4.��., � Ufa f�'�"" .',� V �� ' is :r w c�.7r� �'�U't'�"`k *',n t {i' _ �� .'�! ` 3 i ;, `% 1 � _�. �.F 1'iw!ala tpnw'�/g8l 1 PoIrmi, lie a •. OU opeiolm uedse uewd4 ^� £tl swrnuiwopuOO uedse • + I 1 :., " A - 7 f ty 'eisG`rb / j 1 I IAI Y v1 1 / ) t 1 i%.r � #'.,� Yi�1." µ r f' ^y�l•'3 �r L.. -... Jr '3` T� � � -} / �. r L: o- t D•�' w'Fts S�' v ^7P) �C'•,SPI a�'Y'clrym -x�, > e_L�4 iF•t �' f)rt+ i �t- �s' Y Y ° • t . #�* �a �v All �!1 �f 1 t r { *8°..11 r� y �r i t ✓ 1 D'i !v. >n � r• j -. o^` a ;t �SIY -4.✓' y, rr l � t� r Ir,�1at i Nc1„ i '� 4,rr4:. t �,<��r ) x + to 1 �1` �l el+ i �i t1 •'f .c r�'^7 � :- u�l Y t � L • a t Siis�.� • .. � *yr � `�*. c t :.s' �. 1 . 1 e •. i •sl > f � SEEN ...m grim m- 11 tlx: (�4 t ri irr�ir;�, — � #t #1�` kis`tl ;* O p1. rb a` t.s F�T � :• '"! 'f, 1 i .f44ry . � �' 1��i �+.r 3 �"� � 7 ' ��• •�, t „,. {. � ti' v` 1 ! `lt� � tt6 � � v ;3 1 � y � � . k�� t�s i'� �xc � � r +��i it 3 Kr_w �� !k yy r ((( r 6.r s+'+ �, 1 {{ � yam! r � �• r �F�. y�,;� , <. n r7 ,,° t?� � �•'dqA. t ct i i i � �i� R:'liyy% s"i i`f 41.x} �t1'r L t F.• { *y w. AK' ;e;' j Shr"• TY ?•.. F� 14 •.S4 r +r�J L• `,"l. � i STr � � /•yY 3G- � i gip. \ 4 A' ! ti r M�� S �,%'�' •::-. ..%:. fl�i 4/ c't`' A��'1`;tkFS SW,`a t� sh r Ittt �g is jM1''y��, ~Y5$ H 1 e .{ i r iir R% es it f TO: Kim Johnson FROM: Cindy Christensen DATE: November 30, 1992 --10� RE: 111 WEST HYMAN RESIDENTIAL GMQS AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT After reviewing the above - referenced application, the Housing Office approves the proposed attached accessory dwelling unit pursuant to Chapter 24, Section 5 -510, of the City of Aspen Municipal Code: Accessory dwelling units shall contain not less than three hundred (300) square feet of allowable floor area and not more than seven hundred (700) square feet of allowable floor area. The unit shall be deed restricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines for resident occupied units and shall be limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. Owners of the principal residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the accessory dwelling unit. The floor area requirement is for net liveable square feet as defined by the Housing Office below: Net Liveable Square Footage is calculated on interior Irving area and is measured interior wall to interior wall, including all interior partitions including, but not limited to, habitable basements and interior storage areas, closets and laundry area. Exclusions include, but are not limited to, uninhabitable basements, mechanical areas, exterior storage, stairwells, garages (either attached or detached), patios, decks and porches. Per the applicant's calculations, the accessory dwelling unit is to be approximately 800 square feet, which meets the minimum Housing Office guidelines, is to be a one bedroom, one bath unit, with a kitchen and a separate entrance. It is also suggested that since this unit is located on the garden level, that extra windows be put in for additional light. The mechanical /utility room for the principal unit cannot be located within the accessory dwelling unit. The accessory dwelling unit has to be a completely private dwelling unit. Per the application, this income employee housing anc sale price terms within occupancy limitations wit guidelines established by ti Guidelines. According to sales price of a Category maximum monthly rent for a accessory dwelling unit is to be low will be deed restricted to rental and the housing price guidelines and to hin the housing income eligibility .e Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority the 1992 Guidelines, the maximum unit 1, one - bedroom unit is $32,000; the Category 1, one - bedroom unit is $379. I This unit is limited to rental periods of not less than six (6) months in duration. Owners of the principal residence shall have the right to place a qualified employee or employees of his or her choosing in the accessory dwelling unit, but the employee must be qualified through the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority. Once a lease has been agreed to and signed, a copy must be sent to the Housing Office for its records. Prior to building permit approval, a signed and recorded Deed Restriction must be completed. A copy of said deed restriction has been attached for the applicant's use. This process could take from three to four days. The Housing Office must have the recorded book and page number prior to building permit approval. \word \work \111wh.ref PA Rim ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTION APPROVED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 60 (COTTAGE INFILL), ORDINANCE ONE (HOUSING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM), AND SECTION 5 -510 OF THE ASPEN CITY LAND USE CODE, AND RESOLUTION NO. 92- THIS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTION is made and entered into this day of , 19_, by William D. Snare, ( "Coventor ") for itself, its successors and assigns, for the benefit of the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation, and the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority, a multi - jurisdictional housing authority established pursuant to the AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT recorded in Book 605 at Page 751 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office ( "Authority "). WHEREAS, Coventor owns that parcel of real property located at 111 West Hyman, in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, Colorado, more specifically described as Lot G and East 1/3 of Lot F, Block 61, City of Aspen, upon which is situate a duplex to contain an attached 800 net liveable square foot one bedroom accessory dwelling unit ( "Unit "); and WHEREAS, Coventor agrees to accept and impose certain conditions on its use and occupancy of the Unit as an accessory dwelling unit under the Aspen Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations contained where, the Coventor hereby covenants and agrees as follows: 1. The Unit as identified hereinabove shall not be condominiumized and, if rented, shall be rented only in accordance with the guidelines as adopted and as may be amended from time to time by the Authority governing "resident- occupied" dwelling units. 2. Coventor need not rent the Unit; however, when rented, only qualified residents, as defined in the Housing Guidelines, shall reside therein and all rental terms shall be fore a period of not less than six (6) consecutive months. Coventor shall maintain the right to select the qualified resident of its own choosing when renting the Unit. An executed copy of all leases for the Unit shall be submitted to the Authority within ten (10) days of the approval of a qualified resident. 3. The covenants and limitations of this deed restriction shall run with and be binding on the land for the benefit of the City of Aspen and the Authority, either of whom may enforce the provisions thereof through any proceedings at law or in equity, including eviction of non - complying tenants. 4. The maximum rental rate shall not exceed the Category 1 rental rate as set forth in the Rental Guidelines established by the Authority and may be adjusted annually as set forth by the Guidelines. The maximum permitted rent for the unit on the date of execution of this deed restriction is $379. Rent shall be verified and approved by the Authority upon submission and approval of the lease. 5. It is understood and agreed by the Coventor that no waiver of a breach of any term or condition as contained in this deed restriction shall be construed to be a waiver of any breach of the same or other term or condition, nor shall failure to enforce any one of the terms or conditions, either by forfeiture or otherwise, be construed as a waiver of any term or condition. IN WITNESS HEREOF, Coventor has placed its duly authorized signature hereto on the date as described above. COVENTOR: By: (Name of Coventor) Mailing Address: STATE OF ) ss. COUNTY ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19_, by (Name of Coventor) WITNESS MY hand and official seal. My Commission expires: Date Notary Public 2 ACCEPTANCE BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY The foregoing agreement and its terms are accepted by the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority. THE ASPEN /PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY By: James L. Curtis, Chairman Mailing Address: 39551 Highway 82 Aspen, CO 81611 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19_, by James L. Curtis. WITNESS MY hand and official seal. My Commission expires: WorkVor \ordlAr Date Notary Public 3 le- I /ten //-- 75471?-' rda 2 ia�G ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920 -5090 FAX 920 -5197 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Department Electric Department Parks Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Aspen Fire Protection District Roaring Fork Energy Center T FRO?&. Kim Johnson, Planning Office !� RE: 111 West Hyman Residential GMQS and Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit DATE: November 10, 1992 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by William D. Snare. Please return your comments to me no later than December 4, 1992. The Design Review Committee will be meeting on November 19, 1992 at 3:00 p.m., lst floor City Council Chambers. Please return the application to the Planning Office if you have no further need of it. Thank you. _ r TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office/) FROM: Judy McKenzie, Customer Servid$�f RE: 111 West Hyman Avenue �VI DATE: November 10, 1992 The City of Aspen does have sufficient supplies of potable water to serve the proposed project being submitted for the above address. All design, materials, and construction shall be in accordance with the established standards of the City of Aspen. The Developer shall be responsible for all tap fees and all other applicable provision of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. A new tap and seperate shut off will have to be provided for the new half of the duplex. cc: Larry Ballenger, Water Department MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer 6-P Date: December 6, 1992 r 1 l7 -_ Re: One Eleven (111) West Hyman Residential GMQS and Conditional Use Review for an Affordable Housing Unit Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: DRC Meeting and Site Visit 1. Snow conditions on the street precluded inspection to determine if sections of the curb and gutter need repair or replacement. 2. Snow removal is not being performed on existing sidewalks as required by Section 19- 180 et seq of the municipal code. 3. A site improvement survey is not required and was not submitted, therefore we cannot tell if fences or trash facilities encroach into the public right -of -way. 4. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights - of -way, we would advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920 -5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920 -5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920 - 5130). Scorint* 1. Availability of public facilities and services (a) Water - 1 The proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services. No improvements have been provided. (b) Sanitary sewer - 1 The proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services. No improvements have been provided. (c) Storm drainage - 1 The proposed development offers to mitigate its storm runoff without broader improvements. (d) Fire protection - 1 The proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services. No improvements have been provided. (e) Parking design - 1 The application provided one fewer parking space than required. This appears to have been due to a procedural error, and the applicant has agreed to provide the four required number parking spaces. (f) Roads - 1 The proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services. No improvements have been provided. 2. Quality of design (a) Neighborhood compatibility - 2 (b) Site design - 1 The site plan indicates a driveway curb cut on Hyman Avenue which is not permitted by code and which results in the loss of on- street parking. There is an alley available at this site for providing access to the property. The applicant has submitted a request for a curb cut variation as permitted by Section 19 -102, however the request was not approved. An on -site trash location is not designated. A site improvement survey was not provided to verify, but it appears that existing trash facilities encroach into the alley. There are two vehicles currently stored in the public right -of -way which are not legal parking spaces. No snow storage areas, such as for parking areas, were indicated. The application does not offer to construct sidewalk as an enhancement although minimal sidewalk construction is required by the municipal code. goo (c) Trails - 2 No improvements have been offered. (d) Green space - The engineering department does not evaluate FAR and green space as necessary to suggest scoring in this category. The comment on page 4 of the application, item B. 4), suggests that no more than minimum green space is being provided. The project could provide more subgrade parking and /or living spaces which could improve the site design. 3. Resource Conservation Techniques (a) Energy - 1 It is not clear or specific that the application provides "a net conservation of resources." Gas heating is referred to on page 4 of the application, at item C. 1), but it is not a clear commitment. The space air heating versus water heating versus cooking heat provisions are not clearly committed to using natural gas instead of electricity. No electric load saving devices are offered which would exceed code requirements. No reference is made to solar considerations. (b) Water and wastewater - 1 The application does not present design features that exceed code requirements. (c) Air - 1 This suggested scoring is based solely upon the application contents concerning dust prevention on unpaved areas. The detail where an additional point could have been considered is if the applicant had planned to pave the parking spaces. This scoring is not intended to represent a full evaluation of air issues. This scoring does not address wood burning versus gas fireplaces. 4. Proximity to Support Services (a) Public transportation - 3 This department's copy of the application is lacking the vicinity map required by Sec. 6 -202. The free shuttle stops at Cooper & Garmisch, which is less than two blocks from the proposed development. (b) Community commercial facilities - 2 Project site is located about four and a half blocks from center of commercial core. 5. Provisions for affordable housing. No comment. 6. Bonus points - 0 There are no design presentations for which the engineering department would recommend bonus points Recommended Conditions for Development 1. If there are any encroachments into the public right -of -way, they must be removed at the time of development. The applicant may request an encroachment license by filing an encroachment application with the City Engineer. 2. Any work in the public right -of -way (R.O.W.) must be properly designed and permitted. 3. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the Building Department, the applicant must submit a construction plan to the Engineering Department to include, but not be limited to the following: (a) A storm run -off plan meeting the requirements of Section 24- 7- 1004.C.4.f and prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado must be provided to the Engineering Department. (b) Erosion control such that no storm runoff carries soil onto the R.O.W.. 4. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: (a) The storm run -off design construction must be certified in a letter by the design engineer; and (b) Any curb and gutter requiring repair or replacement must be repaired or replaced. 5. A condominium plat amendment must be filed which meets the requirements of Section 24- 7- 1004.1) of the municipal code prior to the conveyance of the unit. 6. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right -of -way. cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director M91 I'll ASPEN *PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM i To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Environmental Health Department _ - -_ Date: December 9, 1992 Re: 111 West Hyman Residential GMQS and Conditional Use Review Parcel I. D. #2735- 124 -69 -001 The Aspen /Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above - mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The authority for this review is granted to this office by the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: The application indicates that the project with public sewer as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. There is a sanitary sewer line in the alley directly behind the site and there is sufficient capacity to serve the unit at the anticipated flows. This plan conforms with Section 1 -2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not feasible for public sewers ". ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: The application indicates that the project with water provided by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. There is a six - inch cast water line in the street directly in front of the site and there is sufficient capacity to serve the unit at the anticipated flows. This plan conforms with Section 23 -55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system ". AIR QUALITY: Provision of two accessory dwelling units (if deed restricted for employees) will have a beneficial potential air quality benefit by providing employee housing so close to the downtown area. Provision of employee housing so close to downtown is one of the 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920 -6070 111 West Hyman Residential GMQS and Conditional Use Review December 9, 1992 Page 2 best air quality measures that can be employed, by making it unnecessary to use a car. There is one concern with the details of the application regarding fireplaces. What is specified in the application is that the upper unit is to have one woodburning fireplace with the gas brought to the fireplace and capped. This fails to conform to the proposed ordinance changes which will probably become effective January 1, 1993. Even if not adopted, any woodburning fireplace installed in new construction within the city limits is now prohibited by Ordinance 86 -5 - "Aspen Woodburning". The other side of the duplex, already constructed failed to meet the registration of existing units of Ordinance 88 -20 - "Registration, gas log in place of certified stove and gas logs /certified stove in new construction." Since this is viewed as a single building when completed, the number of existing wood or gas- burning units may also affect what is permitted under the current or proposed regulations. It is our interpretation that each side of the duplex will be allowed and is currently allowed one gas log fireplaces (or one gas log fireplace and one certified woodstove) and unlimited numbers of natural gas fireplace appliances. The applicant should adjust his planning on the construction to conform to the ordinance in place. NOISE: Noise generated during construction will have an impact on the immediate neighborhood. However, long term impacts are not anticipated given the residential use of the property. Should this office receive complaints, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code - Noise Abatement, will be the document used in the investigation. W Aspen C'onsohdated Sanitation (District ! � 565 North Mill Street Li_ Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925 -3601 Sy Kelly - Chairman John J. Snyder - Treas. Louis Popish - Secy. November 30. 1992 Kim Johnson Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 111 W. Hyman Residential GMQS Dear Kim: FAX #(303) 925 -2537 Albert Bishop Frank Loushin Bruce Matherly, Mgr. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve the above proposed project, at the present time. A shared service line agreement will be required if the units are serviced by a common service line and not deed restricted to common ownership. Shared service line agreements are available at our District office. Once detailed plans are available, our office can estimate the total connection charges for the project and issue a tap permit. There is a downstream line constraint in need of repair that the applicant will surcharged a prorated fee for. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE 1976 - 1986 - 1990 RR(3TTINAT, ANTI NATTONAT. 12 -04 -1992 04:21PM FPQM SOLAR TECHNOLOGY INST T� � 9205197 P.01 ROARING PORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARRONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963 -0311 December 4, 1992 TO: Kim Johnson - Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office FR: Steve Standiford - Director RS: ion _ 111 West Hyman Comments on GMQs Applicat Resource Conservation Comments. The application states that "energy will be, conserved,, whenever possible• but there are not specific details to back up this statement. .They indicate that the project will meet or exceed the Model Energy Code but do not indicate how this will be accomplished. For example,-looking at the drawings we see that a fireplace section indicated exterior 2•x 4 wall construction with R -13 batt insulation. Unless the i ndows are constructed with very high - performance glating Low -E argon fill or Heat Mirror), it is unlikely that the aggregate U value of walls will meet the Model.Energy Code requirement in Article 502.2.1.1 and Figure 1, chapter 7 of u - 0.11. 'Further, building sections indicate there will be no insulation.of basement walls while the Code requires a value of u - 0.07. an uninsulated concrete wall has a U value of only 0.81 and does not come close to meeting Code. The roof construction would appear to be wood beam with.wood decking topped by a 2 x 6 insulation cavity with plywood and a cold roof above it. The probable insulating value of this configuration is a R value of 25.1 (i.e., V = 0.040). Once again using the details we have, the application falls short of the Code required R value of 41.67, as stated in Article 502.3.1.2 and Figure 2, Chapter 6. In regards to other resource conservation components, we would like to see plumbing fixtures specified as to their water consumption rates (i.e., gallons per minute rate for showerheads, gallons per flush for toilets, etc.). Another component to evaluate would be the proposed use of energy efficient lighting. Having this information would be valuable for evaluating the relative resource ennservation potential of this project. On a positive note, the building design places the majority of the windows on the south and east exposures Which is a good beginning for effective passive solar design. Based on the information we have to-review at this time, we are concerned that the application will not meet the requirements of the Model Energy Code. 0 le ° CITY OF PLANNING AND ZONING CC RESIDENTIAL GMP .-. ASPEN MISSION EVALUATION COMPETITION Project: 111 W. HYMAN Date: 12/28/92 1. Availability of Public Facilities and Services (maximum 12 points) Each Development Application shall be rated as follows with respect to its impact upon public facilities and services, by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development requires the provision of new public facilities and services at increased public expense. 1 -- Proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services, or any public facility service improvement made by the applicant benefits the proposed development only, and not the area in general. 2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of public facilities and services in the area. a. WATER SERVICE (maximum 2 points): Considering the ability of the water supply system to serve the proposed development as well as the applicant's commitment to install any potable water facility extensions or treatment plant, or other facility upgrading required to serve the proposed development. VgamlwC ] COMMENTS: b. SANITARY SEWER (maximum 2 points): Considering the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed development as well as the applicant's commitment to install any sanitary sewer extensions or treatment plant, or other facility upgrading required to serve the development. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: .0". C. STORM DRAINAGE (maximum 2 points) : Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic drainage patterns on the development site. If the proposed development requires use of the City's drainage system, consideration of the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the long -term shall be made. RATING: 1. 5 COMMENTS: HISTORIC DRAINAGE MAINTAINED ON -SITE WITH DRY WELLS d. FIRE PROTECTION (maximum 2 points): Considering the ability of the fire department to provide fire protection according to its established response standards without the necessity of upgrading available facilities; the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the applicant to provide any fire protection facilities which may be necessary to serve the project. RATING: 2 COMMENTS: OFFER TO REPLACE EXISTING HYDRANT e. PARKING DESIGN (maximum 2 points): Considering the provision of adequate off - street parking spaces to meet the needs of the proposed development, pursuant to the requirements of Art. 5, Div. 2, and considering their visual impact, the amount of paved surface, and the convenience and safety of the spaces provided. RATING: 1.25 COMMENTS: PER AMENDMENT - ONE SPACE PER BEDROOM PARKING FOR CARS OFF ALLEY f. ROADS (maximum 2 points): major roads to serve the substantially altering creating safety hazards overloading the existing s to extend the existing rc Considering the capacity of proposed development without existing traffic patterns, or maintenance problems, treet system or causing a need ad network. Considering the 1-° applicant's commitment to install the necessary road system improvements to serve the increased usage attributable to the development. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: ONE UNIT - NO APPRECIABLE IMPACTS 2. Quality of Design (maximum 12 points) Each Development Application shall be rated based upon its site design and amenities by the assigning of points for neighborhood compatibility, site design, trails, and green space, according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- A totally deficient design 1 -- A major design flaw 2 -- An acceptable (but standard) design 3 -- An excellent design a. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY (maximum 3 points): Considering the compatibility of the proposed development (including its scale, siting, massing, height and building materials) with the land uses in the surrounding neighborhood. RATING: 2.75 COMMENTS: MATCHES OTHER 3 UNITS IN PROJECT MATERIALS IN HARMONY WITH RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD b. SITE DESIGN (maximum 3 points): Considering the quality and character of the following components of the proposed development: landscaping and open space areas; the amount of site coverage by buildings; the extent to which clustering of development is used to preserve key features of the site; the amenities provided for residents such as bike racks, recreation facilities, bus shelters and similar improvements; the extent of underground utilities; and the arrangement of improvements for efficient circulation, including access A" .• a for service, increased safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage areas. RATING: 2.5 COMMENTS: DESIGN "LOCKED IN" BY PREVIOUS SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURE CLUSTERING /BIKE RACK C. TRAILS (maximum 3 points): Considering the provision of pedestrian and bicycle ways and the provision of links to existing parks and trail systems, whenever feasible. RATING: 2.25 COMMENTS: WILL LINK FRONT SIDEWALK NEARBY TO ON ROAD AND OFF ROAD TRAILS /BIKEWAY d. GREEN SPACE (maximum 3 points) : Considering the amount of vegetated open space in the proposed development which is usable by the residents of the proposed development, and offers relief from the densities of surrounding development. RATING: 2.5 COMMENTS: REMOVAL OF FRONT FENCE WILL INCREASE GREEN SPACE VIEW FROM STREET FRONTAGE, REAR YARD FACES SOUTH WITH DECK AND 3. Resource Conservation Techniques (maximum 6 points) Each Development Application shall be rated based on the resource conservation techniques for energy, water and wastewater, and air, by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations. 0 -- Proposed development fails to meet the standards of the Municipal Code or does not result in a net conservation of resources 1 -- Proposed development meets the standards of the Municipal Code or results in a standard level of resource conservation 2 -- Proposed development exceeds the standards of the Municipal Code or results in an exceptional level of resource conservation a. ENERGY (maximum 2 points) : Considering the extent to which the proposed development will use passive and /or active energy conservation techniques in its construction, including but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and solar energy devices; the extent to which the proposed development avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and inefficient woodburning devices; and the location of the proposed development, relative to whether solar gain can be expected to reasonably result in energy conservation. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: VAGUE. SOLAR GAIN; VAGUE OTHERWISE b. WATER AND WASTEWATER (maximum 2 points) : Considering the extent to which the proposed development will use water conservation techniques such as water conserving plumbing fixtures or wastewater reuse systems or will conserve surface water resources through irrigation, sprinkling, ponding and similar site enhancements, and considering whether the applicant dedicates water rights to the City of Aspen. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: VAGUE/ NO INFO TO JUDGE - MUST MEET MINIMUM CODE REOUIREMENTS C. AIR (maximum 2 points): Considering the effect of the proposed development on the City's air quality, including but not limited to whether fewer or cleaner woodburning devices than allowed by law will be installed; whether existing dirty burning devices will be removed or replaced by cleaner burning devices; whether dust prevention measures are employed on the unpaved areas; and whether any special emission control devices are used. RATING: 1 COMMENTS: MUST MEET ASPEN CLEAN AIR STANDARDS 4. Proximity to Support Services (maximum 6 points) Each Development Application shall be rated based on its proximity to public transportation and community commercial facilities by the assigning of points according to the following standards and considerations: a. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (maximum 3 points): 1 -- Proposed development is located further than six (6) blocks walking distance from an existing bus route 2 -- Proposed development is located within six (6) blocks walking distance of an existing bus route 3 -- Proposed development is located within two (2) City blocks walking distance of an existing bus route RATING: 3 b. COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FACILITIES (maximum 3 points): 1 -- Proposed development is located further than six (6) blocks walking distance from the commercial facilities in the City. 2 -- Proposed development is located within six (6) blocks walking distance of the commercial facilities in the City. 3 -- Proposed development is located within two (2) blocks walking distance of commercial facilities in the City. RATING: 2.5 For purposes of this section, one block shall be equivalent to two hundred fifty (250) feet in linear distance. The Planning Agency office shall make available a map depicting the commercial facilities in the City to permit the evaluation of the distance of the project from these areas. 5. PROVISION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (maximum 20 points) t provision of affordable housing which complies with the housing size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City, and with the provisions of Sec. 8 -109. ASSIGNMENT OF POINTS: Points shall be assigned as follows: i) One (1) point shall be assigned for every five (5 %) percent of the proposed development that is restricted to use by occupants meeting the low income price guidelines and low income occupancy limitations; ii) one (1) point shall be assigned for every ten (10 %) percent of the proposed development that is restricted to use by occupants meeting the moderate income price guidelines, and moderate income occupancy limitations; iii) One (1) point shall be assigned for every twenty (20 %) percent of the proposed development that is restricted to use by occupants meeting the middle income price guidelines and middle income occupancy limitations. In order to determine what percent of the proposed development is restricted to affordable housing, the Commission shall compare the number of persons to be housed by the proposed development with the number or persons to be provided with low, moderate and middle income housing using the following criteria: Studio: 1.25 residents; One- bedroom: 1.75 residents; Two - bedroom: 2.25 residents; Three - bedroom or larger: 3.00 Dormitory: 1.00 residents per space residents; 150 square feet of For the purposes of this section, the proposed development shall be considered to include the number of persons in the free market units plus those in the employee units, regardless of whether employee housing is provided on -site, off -site or via cash -in -lieu of housing. a. Low Income Housing Provided (One (1) point for each five (5) percent housed. RATING: 7.4 COMMENTS: b. Moderate Income Housing provided (One point for each ten (10 %) percent housed. RATING: 0 COMMENTS: C. Middle Income Housing Provided (One point for each twenty (20 %) percent housed. RATING: 0 COMMENTS: SUBTOTAL: 6. BONUS POINTS (maximum 5 points) RATING: SCORING CATEGORIES MINIMUM THRESHOLD 1. PUBLIC FACILITIES 2. QUALITY OF DESIGN 3. ENERGY CONSERVATION 3. PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES 4. PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING 5. BONUS POINTS: 0 TOTAL POINTS: Name of P &Z Commission Member: POINTS 7.75 10 3 5.5 7.4 WILLIAM M. GRIFFITH ATTORNEY AT LAW 1700 BROADWAY - SUITE)exw 720 DENVER. COLORADO 80290 January 11, 1993 Mr. Robert F. Gish Public Works Director City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Bob: JAN 19 Ig93 AI TEL[MMNE (303) 861.7068 On behalf of Bill Snare and myself we want to thank you for making a personal inspection of the project with Chuck Roth. We appreciate your re- consideration of our application for a vari- ance. Could you please drop us a note saying that the variance is approved. We go before City Council on January 25th for the first reading. For your information, enclosed is a copy of my letter of November 23, 1992 to Chuck Roth requesting the variance. Very truly yours, William M. Griffith WMG /cm enclosure JM119 January 12, 1993 t TIIF CITY OF ASPEN Mr. William Griffith 1700 Broadway, Suite 720 Denver, Colorado 50290 Dear Bill: 1 dill writing per your rcLluest 11 follow up un our meetings of JiulMu'y 5, 1993. As provided for in Section 19 -102 of the Aspen Municipal. Code, Bill Snare is hereby granted permission for a second driveway at his duplex at 111 West Hyman Avenue. This is granted due to the plat on file and other existing conditions. . Thank you for taking the time to meet with Bob Gish and me in the field. CR/spIL93.5 Sincerely, Chuck Roth, P.E. City Engineer 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • AsPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHONE 303.920.5000 • FAX 303.920.5197 TO: THRU: THRU: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Amy Margerum, City Manager Diane Moore, City Planning Kim Johnson, Planner January 25, 1993 DirectcV 5 , 0 RE: 111 W. Hyman Ave. Residential Growth Management Allocation and GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing - First Reading of Ordinance ' , Series 1993 SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission has scored this project and finds that it meets the minimum thresholds established in the residential growth management section of the land use regulations. It is recommended that the one residential unit be granted an allocation from the available six units. This is the only residential Growth Management submission for 1992. Growth Management Exemption for the one bedroom deed restricted unit (Category 1) is also recommended by the P &Z. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In the early 1980's, this proposal competed in a GMP competition but lost to other higher scoring applications. BACKGROUND: The applicant /owner is William D. Snare. 111 W. Hyman Avenue is legally described as Lot G and 1/2 of Lot F, Block 61, Townsite of Aspen. It is zoned R -MF (Residential /Multi - Family). The neighborhood is predominately single family and duplex residences, with some multi - family development. This one unit is the last of four units constructed as two duplexes. The other three units were constructed in 1981 as growth management exemptions resulting from the lot split of the original parcel. The proposed free market unit contains a garden -level one bedroom deed restricted apartment, as does the existing residence on the site. Please refer to application information in Exhibit "A" which includes amendments the original submission. CURRENT ISSUES: This is the only residential growth management submission for 1992. At an minimum, after other GMP exemptions are excluded, 30% of the 20 total allowable units must be available for competition. This minimum is 6 units, so the proposal does not exceed the available allocation. The Planning Commission reviewed this item on January 5, 1993 and voted 6 -0 for its approval. The Commission adopted the Planning staff's recommended score of 33.65 points. Please refer to Exhibit "B" for a score summary. The Commission forwarded a recommendation that two conditions be placed on the project: 1. The final design must incorporate a roof /dormer above the entry to the deed restricted housing unit to shed snow away from the doorway. 2. If condominiumized, the units' annual management /maintenance assessments shall be on a pro rata valuation basis. Language to this effect shall be in the condominium documents and shall be approved by the Housing Office prior to recordation. Growth Management Exemption for Affordable Housing: Pursuant to Section 24 -8 -104 C.l.c. the City Council must approve deed restricted housing that is provided in accordance with the housing guidelines. The Commission has forwarded a recommendation that Council accept this housing proposal. The review of any request per this code section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of bedrooms in the units, their size, the rental /sales mix, and the price categories to which the dwellings will be deed restricted. Response: This application is providing deed restricted housing for 37% of the persons generated by the project (1.75 out of 4.75 persons). The 800 s.f. one bedroom apartment is proposed to be deed restricted as low- income Category 1 housing. According to the Housing Office comments, the maximum monthly rental is $379.00. The unit can be condominiumized and sold off separately because multi - family structures (tri- plexes) are allowed in the R -MF zone district. The project is providing one parking space for the unit. Access is through a separate outside entrance as well as an internal entry if the apartment is used by a caretaker. The apartment is limited to six month minimum lease periods. The owner of the principal dwelling has the right to place a tenant of their choice as long as said tenant is qualified through the Housing Office. A copy of all leases shall be forwarded to the Housing Office. The deed restriction must be approved by the Housing Office and recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk prior to the issuance of any building permits. The Housing Office has provided a copy of a deed restriction for this unit within referral memo. However, the language is specific to accessory dwelling units rather than a fully deed restricted unit. Appropriate language must be obtained from the Housing Office prior to finalizing the restriction for approval. The most important changes are specific to the deed restriction to Category 1, and the ability to condominiumize and sell the unit separately from the principal dwelling. Referral comments from various agencies are attached as Exhibit oil uC" FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None are anticipated. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommend allocation of one residential GMP allotment and GMQS Exemption for the Category 1 housing unit with this following conditions: 1. The final design must incorporate a roof /dormer above the entry to the deed restricted housing unit to shed snow away from the doorway. 2. If condominiumized, the units' annual management /maintenance assessments shall be on a pro rata valuation basis. Language to this effect shall be in the condominium documents and shall be approved by the Housing Office prior to recordation. ALTERNATIVES: The Council could choose not to accept the affordable housing as proposed. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve first reading of Ordinance , Series 1993 granting Residential Growth Management Allocation for one unit at 111 W. Hyman Ave., and Growth Management Exemption for the one bedroom Category 1 deed restricted unit at the same address." Exhibits: Ordinance , Series 1993 "A" - Application Package "B" - P &Z Score Summary "C" - Referral Comments and Amendments i 2 fV MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning RE: 111 W. Hyman Avenue - 1992 Residential Growth Management Scoring for One Unit (public hearing) , Growth Management Exemption for One Affordable Housing Unit DATE: January 5, 1993 SUMMARY: The Planning Office has scored this project and finds that it meets the minimum thresholds established in the residential growth management section of the land use regulations. The Commission may choose to either adopt staff's score or score the project itself. This is the only residential Growth Management submission for 1992. A minimum of 6 units are available for allocation. APPLICANT: William D. Snare, represented by William Griffith LOCATION /ZONING: 111 W. Hyman Avenue (Lot G and 1/2 Lot F, Block 61) R -MF (Residential /Multi - Family) PROCESS: The Commission shall arrive at a score for this project, review the GMQS Exemption for the affordable housing unit, and the forward the findings to City Council. Council grants the growth management allocation and the exemption through ordinance adoption procedures. BACKGROUND: This one unit is the last of four units to be configured as two duplexes. The other three units were constructed in 1981 as growth management exemptions resulting from the lot split of the parcel. The proposed free market unit contains a garden -level one bedroom deed restricted apartment, as does the existing residence on the site. Please refer to application package, and Exhibit "A" which amends the original submission. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit "B ". A summary of highlights are as follows: Water: 1) Sufficient supplies exist for this project. 2) A new tap fee will be required for the new half of the duplex prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3) Design, materials and construction shall be in accordance with the standards of the City of Aspen. 11 Electric: 1) The single phase transformer adjacent to this property may have to be upgraded upon review of the load profile of this building. Fire Marshal: 1) No comments at this time. Housing office: 1) Category 1 deed restriction is acceptable. 2) Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant must file a deed restriction with the county clerk /recorder. 3) The mechanical room for the principal dwelling cannot be accessed through the employee unit as the unit has to be a completely private unit. sanitation District: 1) sufficient capacity is available for this project. 2) A shared service line agreement may be required if the duplex shares a common service line. 3) A pro -rated surcharge will be applied for downstream constraints. Environmental Health: 1) The provision of employee housing close to the employment center of town will have potential benefits for air quality. 2) The proposed wood burning fireplace does not conform to Aspen's fireplace regulations. The duplex as a whole will be evaluated for allowed number of gas fireplaces /appliances prior to issuance of a building permit. Engineering: 1) Storm drainage is mitigated on -site. 2) The applicant has agreed to provide four parking spaces as required by code. 3) Existing roads may handle the proposed development. 4) The proposed Hyman Ave. curb cut is not approved. Alley access must be used for this project. 5) on -site trash and snow storage locations are not designated. 6) Any encroachments into the public right -of way must obtain license from the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. 2 7) Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant must provide: - a storm run -off plan prepared by a Colorado registered engineer - an erosion control plan 8) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant must provide: - certification of the storm run -off design by the design engineer - any curb and gutter repair 9) A condominium plat must be filed which meets land use code requirements prior to the conveyance of the unit. 10) The applicant shall agree to join any improvement districts which may be formed for construction in the public r.o.w. Roaring Fork Energy Center: The application lacks specific details on many aspects of energy conservation. The project takes advantage of solar orientation and solar gain. STAFF COMMENTS: This is the only residential growth management submission for 1992. At an minimum, after other GMP exemptions are excluded, 30% of the 20 total allowable units must be available for competition. This minimum is 6 units, so the proposal does not exceed the available allocation. Growth Management Scoring: Staff has scored the project and finds that the minimum thresholds required by the land use code have been met. The Commission may elect to accept staff's score and forward this project to City Council for allocation of the dwelling unit. The staff's score summary is as follows: category public facilities quality of design energy conservation prox. of support services min. threshold staff score 4.8 7.75 4.8 10 2.4 3 2.4 5.5 provision of housing 7 7.4 In addition to minimum point thresholds in individual categories, the project must attain a minimum of 60% of the sum of available points in the first four categories, or 33.6 points. This project 3 was scored at 33.65 points by staff. Attached as Exhibit "C" is staff's score sheet and comments. Score sheets will be available to the Commission at the public hearing if it is determined that Commission scoring is desired. Bonus points may be awarded by the Planning Commission for exceptional projects. Staff does not believe that this project warrants bonus points. Growth Management Exemption for Affordable Housing: Pursuant to Section 24 -8 -104 C.l.c. the City Council must approve deed restricted housing that is provided in accordance with the housing guidelines. However, the Commission shall review and forward a recommendation to Council regarding the housing proposal. The review of any request per this code section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of bedrooms in the units, their size, the rental /sales mix, and the price categories to which the dwellings will be deed restricted. Response: This application is providing deed restricted housing for 37% of the persons generated by the project (1.75 out of 4.75 persons). The 800 s.f. one bedroom apartment is proposed to be deed restricted as low- income Category 1 housing. According to the Housing Office comments, the maximum monthly rental is $379.00. The unit can be condominiumized and sold off separately because multi - family structures (tri- plexes) are allowed in the R -MF zone district. The project is providing one parking space for the unit. Access is through a separate outside entrance as well as an internal entry if the apartment is used by a caretaker. The apartment is limited to six month minimum lease periods. The owner of the principal dwelling has the right to place a tenant of their choice as long as said tenant is qualified through the Housing office. A copy of all leases shall be forwarded to the Housing Office. The deed restriction must be approved by the Housing Office and recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk prior to the issuance of any building permits. The Housing Office has provided a copy of a deed restriction for this unit within referral memo. However, the language is specific to accessory dwelling units rather than a fully deed restricted unit. Appropriate language must be obtained from the Housing Office prior to finalizing the restriction for approval. The most critical changes are specific to the deed restriction to Category 1, and the ability to condominiumize and sell the unit separately from the principal dwelling. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the 111 E. Hyman Growth Management allocation for one free market unit 0 r-* and Growth Management Exemption for one Category 1 deed restricted unit. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to score the 111 E. Hyman project at total points and find that the minimum point thresholds have Seen met." "I move to recommend to City Council approval of GMQS Exemption for the Category 1 deed restricted apartment as proposed within the 111 E. Hyman application and amendments." Exhibits: Application Package "A" - Amendments to the Application "B" - Referral Comments "C" - Staff Score Sheets 5 ,'s V118 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council (y� THRU: Amy Margerum, City Managerl9f�/ THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direct�ry�jW FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: February 22, 1993 RE: 111 W. Hyman Ave. Residential Growth Management Allocation and GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing Second Reading of Ordinance 5, Series 1993 SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission has scored this project and finds that it meets the minimum thresholds established in the residential growth management section of the land use regulations. Please refer to Exhibit "D ", the Planning Commission's resolution documenting the project's score. It is recommended that the one residential unit be granted an allocation from the available six units. This is the only residential Growth Management submission for 1992. Growth Management Exemption for the one bedroom deed restricted unit (Category 1) is also recommended by the P &Z. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In the early 19801s, this proposal competed in a GMP competition but lost to other higher scoring applications. BACKGROUND: The applicant /owner is William D. Snare. 111 W. Hyman Avenue is legally described as Lot G and 1/2 of Lot F, Block 61, Townsite of Aspen. It is zoned R -MF (Residential /Multi - Family). The neighborhood is predominately single family and duplex residences, with some multi - family development. This one unit is the last of four units constructed as two duplexes. The other three units were constructed in 1981 as growth management exemptions resulting from the lot split of the original parcel. The proposed free market unit contains a garden -level one bedroom deed restricted apartment, as does the existing residence on the site. Please refer to application information in Exhibit "A" which includes amendments the original submission. CURRENT ISSUES: This is the only residential growth management submission for 1992. At an minimum, after other GMP exemptions are excluded, 30% of the 20 total allowable units must be available for competition. This minimum is 6 units, so the proposal does not exceed the available allocation. The Planning Commission reviewed this item on January 5, 1993 and -� .-. The Planning Commission reviewed this item on January 5, 1993 and voted 6 -0 for its approval. The Commission adopted the Planning staff's recommended score of 33.65 points. Please refer to Exhibit "B" for a score summary. The Commission forwarded a recommendation that two conditions be placed on the project: 1. The final design must incorporate a roof /dormer above the entry to the deed restricted housing unit to shed snow away from the doorway. 2. If condominiumized, the units' annual management /maintenance assessments shall be on a pro rata valuation basis. Language to this effect shall be in the condominium documents and shall be approved by the Housing Office prior to recordation. Growth Management Exemption for Affordable Housing_ Pursuant to Section 24 -8 -104 C.l.c. the City Council must approve deed restricted housing that is provided in accordance with the housing guidelines. The Commission has forwarded a recommendation that Council accept this housing proposal. The review of any request per this code section shall include a determination of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of bedrooms in the units, their size, the rental /sales mix, and the price categories to which the dwellings will be deed restricted. Response: This application is providing deed restricted housing for 37% of the persons generated by the project (1.75 out of 4.75 persons). The 800 s.f. one bedroom apartment is proposed to be deed restricted as low- income Category 1 housing. According to the Housing Office comments, the maximum monthly rental is $379.00. The unit can be condominiumized and sold off separately because multi - family structures (tri- plexes) are allowed in the R -MF zone district. The project is providing one parking space for the unit. Access is through a separate outside entrance as well as an internal entry if the apartment is used by a caretaker. The apartment is limited to six month minimum lease periods. The owner of the principal dwelling has the right to place a tenant of their choice as long as said tenant is qualified through the Housing Office. A copy of all leases shall be forwarded to the Housing Office. The deed restriction must be approved by the Housing Office and recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk prior to the issuance of any building permits. The Housing Office has provided a copy of a deed restriction for this unit within referral memo. However, the language is specific to accessory dwelling units rather than a fully deed restricted unit. Appropriate language must be obtained from the Housing Office prior to finalizing the restriction for approval. The most important changes are specific to the deed restriction to Category 1, and the ability to condominiumize and 2 .N sell the unit separately from the principal dwelling. Referral comments from various agencies are attached as Exhibit "C" FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None are anticipated. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommend allocation of one residential GMP allotment and GMQS Exemption for the Category 1 housing unit with this following conditions: 1. The final design must incorporate a roof /dormer above the entry to the deed restricted housing unit to shed snow away from the doorway. 2. If condominiumized, the units' annual management /maintenance assessments shall be on a pro rata valuation basis. Language to this effect shall be in the condominium documents and shall be approved by the Housing Office prior to recordation. ALTERNATIVES: The Council could choose not to accept the affordable housing as proposed. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve on second reading Ordinance 5, Series 1993 granting Residential Growth Management Allocation for one unit at 111 W. Hyman Ave., and Growth Management Exemption for the one bedroom Category 1 deed restricted unit at the same address." Exhibits: Ordinance 5, Series 1993 "A" - Application Package and Amendments "B" - P &Z Score Summary "C" - Referral Comments "D" - Planning Commission Resolution #_ 3 PLANNING ZONING COMISSION^ EXHIBIT , PROVED /�. 19 SY OL ION \ November 1, 1992 City council1bit APPS By Ordinance TO: Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 GROWTH MANAGEMENT APPLICATION I. LOCATION: Lot G and East 1/3 Lot F, Block 61 City of Aspen; Also to be 111 West Iiyman Street II. PROPOSAL: This proposal is being submitted on behalf of William D. Snare. We are proposing to duplex the house at 113 West Hyman by adding an identical unit to the East side of the house. If approval is obtained, we would also ask for Employee Lousing Bonus Overlay Re- zoning to com- plete one deed restricted affordable housing unit. Approval was ob- tained for re- zoning of 113 West Hyman for construction of a similar employee unit. The Hyman Street duplex subdivision was formed in 1979. It consisted of 5 lots fronting on West Hyman Street between First Street and Gar - misch Street. These lots have been owned by the applicant since 1958 and are a part of applicants house and lots he has owned since 1953. In 1980 -81, construction was completed on one duplex and 1/2 of the other duplex. These units were sold at that time. The applicant now desires to complete the final stage of the project by constructing the other 1/2 of the duplex. III. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT: a. A 6" cast iron Aspen City water main is located in the street, directly in front of the proposed duplex with sufficient capa- city to serve all of the proposed development, including the employee unit if approved. The estimated daily demand for the one -half duplex and employee unit would be 180 gallons. b. A City of Aspen sanitary sewer main is located in the alley dir- ectly behind the proposed site with sufficient capacity to serve the proposed unit. The estimated sewer demand for the one -half duplex and potential employee unit would be approximately 180 gallons per day. C. Surface water will be drained into dry wells constructed on the site. This will alleviate any drainage into the existing storm drainage system. `� -1- d. Fire protection with the Aspen fire station is six blocks away and the nearest fire hydrant is 100 feet from the unit. The fire department can provide fire protection well within its established response standard. In addition, applicant has offered to provide additional fire protection facilities by replacing the existing fire hydrant if deemed necessary or desirable by the fire department. e. The total development area is 3,750 square feet (one -half of the existing house site of 7,500 square feet). The one -half duplex would be two stories with garden level basement, con- sisting of approximately 2,000 square feet of living space on the upper two floors, including three bedrooms, three full baths, living room, dining room, kitchen, wet bar and utility room. There will be an attached, enclosed, one car garage. An owners' ylockk storage closet is isalso located in the base pnt. A a b ixo � I 4c0 � A rn asm ,e4 , J Grv't VitJ%SJ'yS�NG� Hyman Street and all intersecting streets are paved and include / - curbs and gutters. All are in excellent condition. Buses pass in front of the property with stops on each corner. Additional routes are on Main Street two blocks north. Proximity to town (3 blocks), availability of buses and good roads for bicycles provide an excellent disincentive to automobile use. The proposed development will have little or no impact on the excisting roads, streets, or traffic pattern in the neighborhood. off- street parking will be provided for three cars including one in the garage. It is estimated that no more than two cars will be used in conjunction with the one -half duplex, including guest parking. This would permit one parking space for the employee unit. There will be little visual impact as parking space is being allocated off the alley. One space would be in a parking garage. It is anticipated, except for seasonal use, the employee space would be the only one occupied. g. The garden level unit would be dedicated to deed restricted em- ployee affordable housing for one or two persons in conformance with the provisions of Sec. 8 -109. h. There will be one fireplace installed in the upper unit. The fireplace in the living room will be a wood burning fireplace. However, gas will be brought to the fireplace and capped. This will allow for easy conversion to gas. This is a substantial fireplace reduction in the project. The three other units have two wood burning fireplaces in each unit. Nor was there any ar- rangements provided for conversion to gas in the other units. 1 -2- i. Parks are located one block away at Main and Garmisch (Paepke) with Wagner Park only two blocks East. A new volleyball park has been added one block away. The skating rink is on the cor- ner. The hospital is two miles West, while the airport is five miles West. We foresee a minimal impact on these facilities caused by this development. The nearest elementary school is approximately three blocks, while the middle school and high school are approximately three miles West. School buses run on Main Street, two blocks North. It is doubtful that there would be any impact on schools caused by this development. j. Retail and commercial activities in the central business district are three blocks East. The development impact would assist, but not significantly burden, existing establishments. It is antici- pated that no more than six to eight persons would occupy both units at any time (one to two in the employee unit, four to six in the one -half duplex.) k. There would be little impact on adjacent properties. There is a duplex at 117 -119 West Hyman, adjacent to this proposed duplex, which represented Phase I of this project. This proposal would be the final phase of the development which would be comprised of four free market units in the two duplexes plus four controlled one bedroom employee units. On the West end of the block is a duplex across from the Cottonwoods condominiums. On the East end of the block adjacent to the proposed unit is a duplex completed on two lots. Across the alley is a lodge (The Fireside Lodge) and another condominium /office combination. 1. The proposed construction would begin in the summer of 1993 with projected completion of the unit in 1993. There would be no phas- ing as this would represent the final phase of the development. As stated above, these units would complete development of the site. it will also assist in solving Aspen's critical housing shortage for employees by developing an additional employee housing unit. q -3- REVIEW STANDARDS: �I A. Concerning the availability of public facilities and services, applicant would like to emphasize the following points: 1) Storm drainage facilities being installed on the site would not require use of the city drainage system and main- tains historic drainage patterns. 2) Applicant's offer to replace the established hydrant,if necessary,aids the fire department in providing fire pro- tection. 3) The parking plan with little visual impact also will al- low employee parking for the employee unit. 4) The proximity of the project to the center of the city, parks, skating and recreational facilities promotes pedes- trian and bicycle travel without any effect on traffic pat- terns or street maintenance. B. Concerning the quality of design, the applicant would like to emphasize the following: 1) The proposed building would complete the duplex which is unfinished. It would be identical to the duplex completed at 117 -119 West Hyman and would present a completed subdivision. As mentioned earlier this would be compatable with the other buildings in the block and neighborhood. 2) As to site design on the 3,750 square feet of the balance of the site remaining, the footprint of the building will take less than 50% of the land area providing adequate area for both lawn and other landscaping as has been done with the balance of the development. 3) Trails in and around the site are accessible from the side- walk in front of the duplex. A bike rack will also be instal- led to encourage use of the parks and trails without using an auto. 4) The green space as set forth in "2" provides a yard for the occupants and is the maximum under the available space left in the project. C. Concerning resource conservation: 1) Energy will be conserved whenever possible. Gas heating offers little pollution. The building will meet or exceed the standards in the model energy code, including all "R" factors. 2) The water and waste water will be no burden to the city's existing facilities. 3) This project has cut back by 508 the planned fireplaces to aid the quality of air in Aspen. In addition a gas line will be brought to the fireplace for subsequent conversion at a small cost. D. Concerning Proximity to Support Services: 1) The proposed development is located within two city blocks walking distance of an existing bus route. 2) The proposed development is no more than two blocks to the first commercial building and four blocks to the main commer- cial mall. E. Concerning Provision for Affordable Housing: 1) The project will provide one unit of employee housing against one unit of free market housing. The ratio of square footage will be approximately 800 square feet for the employee unit against 2,000 square feet for the free market unit. There will be one bedroom provided for employee use against three bedrooms provided for free market use. It would be low income employee housing and will be deed restricted to rental and sale price terms within the housing price guidelines and to occupancy limitations within the housing income eligibility guidelines established by the City Council. (Catagory 1) F. Concerning Bonus Points: 1) The completion of this project which was started in 1980, would totally complete the development in the 100 block of West Hyman. It removes a large blank wall which is meant to be the deviding wall of the duplex but is currently the outside wall of 113 West Hyman and converts the last vacant lot in the block into a completed project which should be of benefit to the neighbors and, in fact, to anyone going down Hyman Street. Respectfully submitted, (k) &4,/1Y1 J, S,,1Ptf4Q, William D. Snare I -5- William u. Snare 300 Clermont Street Denver, Colorado 80220 u, ksw, �... 0. . u. ,ti. b N ' ? *-z. \U-, I I I w. � twww' tt'� Lma� j'/-.JjUULV%A^� . 1. w q w C.tTV�tW1$t�eti. � C�o-� I s' lr� s a-K.O_ Kris,.\ W..%. vj�l e: &A, A — 3 &A A 2�� "0 ✓O�azoX. i ,I WILLIAM M. GRIFFITH ATTORNEY AT LAW 1700 BROADWAY SUITE 4oxo@ 720 DENVER, COLORADO 80290 TELEPHONE (303) 661~7056 November 23, 1992 Aspen Planning & Zoning 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Kim Johnson Re: Growth Management Application of William D. Snare 111 West Hyman Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Kim: At the development review meeting I mentioned that inadvertently a sentence describing the employee unit had been omitted. In paragraph III e, the following sentence should be added: The garden level basement will include approxi- mately 800 square feet of living space with one bedroom, bath, kitchen, living /dining room and storage space. Also as we discussed at the initial review m standing that only three parking units would conference we had the impression that it was vide a parking space for the employee unit. neer indicated it would be necessary to have ie. one for each bedroom. We are correcting cate a space for four vehicles on the lot. aeting, it was our under - be required. At that not necessary to pro - However, the City Engi- four parking spaces - our drawings to indi- In addition, we will have the architect draw in the location of the bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, and living /dining area in the employee unit. If it is necessary, I can mail these revised drawings to you or we could bring them to the hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion on January 5, 1993. Kim Johnson November 23, 1992 Page two Also, I would appreciate it if you could accelerate the prepara- tion of the notice to be sent to adjoining land owners. We will mail these notices from Denver and would like to post them ahead of the deadline. Very truly yours, � �10� William M. Griffith WMG /cm 1)_ WILLIAM M. GRIFFITH ATTORNEY AT LAW 1700 BROADWAY - SUITE X3015 720 DENVER. COLORADO 80290 TELEi`IIONE (303) 8617055 December 16, 1992 1 - Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attn: Kim Johnson Re: William D. Snare Residential GMQS Allotment Dear Kim: Enclosed are three copies of the revised site plans showing the additional parking at the rear of the property. Also enclosed are three copies of the revised foundation plan and basement floor plan. The revisions show the following: a) Separate utilities for the main unit and the employee housing unit - ie. hot water and electrical panel. b) The layout for the employee housing unit, showing kitchen, bath, bedroom, and living room. c) Location of dry wells in lower unit utility room and in the yard. When we reduced the foundation and basement floor plan it is a little difficult to read. We will bring the larger original plan to the hearing. If you desire I can reproduce the original plan (24 inches by 42 inches) and send you three copies of the larger size. Please let me know. Very truly yours, 7 William M. Griffit WMG /cm enclosure CC: William D. Snare 13 s ' in- I ' _s._ Moon Y / --r- I (MIN CITY OF ASPEN APPROVAL 6 AC tlz utt v .�+w1 TNI� c PARKS' APPROV TM riEaNfcN II.Tt a CITY z CLERK & RECC ACCEPIA14 E T FIWL 9l eoi 1 n crTCV roR rnxr, n,eA+tid aecaaooy ar r AT FM6 C;::1kTF.FICATE C 1 I r W .wnM... cY A' COLD .O TITLC m GI// LEY OF CAdN4�. W 1f 2 Of PIT KIN AV TV 11 HE0.ECJN M'NYMT1 ST0.� fRCC AfD ClU0. � ALl AHO W FE6 yIMI.L pY CKCPf TW.: MOR'laYiC 97^7C a CCtOn " CLIMTT P rtT .r% i M FOSGPHS TrTLt L a o CAW - i- I - - - — •x y,: I �• � _— mob. � _`91\ :. i�c . - l�` - 711.E pkn r n Ell— �pu�a.ax ct vH sxs iA. Kam. �/i�sx� crls�4Y - ceu.0 — .- WAL1fi 1t -M - �= �NI�iIi hV.7L�TZI6ifi .{ 1°Xr- DC•(biL�I� ., .)r I a�oell WAR 'Ia ei�rl /1 ov :� �� I� _ ® ►`''131 ��.. " fl IE.atC how LNm 1; 1 l�4yj`/�,c.. yygg�� a, � � rs�. :it. �_f_.'lr+i!! UCIf•f _ ((lalif+t7i7:�lGi�p —� i' •� __ S�. rlr��l�f�/ i• —ss—e�pp��.,� � - - t's0' i t' • 1 !r /J e lil,� 11 �, �a — y1�1n'�• e. I i R - - i i 4 N FIr� ...4 Y Paz 1 r �a'�i i � t �3 yP+ S f'. • J .. + +{+k 5 Li�R F Fad �aY 4d�{ Y T iy y � t 7° R - - i 4 N FIr� Y Paz 1 r �a'�i i � t �3 yP+ S f'. • + +{+k 5 Li�R F Fad �aY 4d�{ ..>L r J � % l �l fi 'bicai1Y76�i('' •`v t'i Ft i'ri iy�, tA%l"ra q 1I i l f ri it djywA h�'1L "�ti; -'45 �tiF} �� `1' 1i r�; � +�1 :• � r'°� {.QC.a �laTl �r a r' >" .. .,. Ala >•-�. .�,� t a:1. .,34� i,��t _i�!� .?, � u }oSWnJ = ue ' Opelog03 uadSe uiRy M £tl X11 swniuiu.wopuOO ! 4 I e� Y < r d. }} Y I Y / I Jig i lz 1 J y It 14% h - ` ifl - r t i ' pit I, •It) ,Itf•I7 %i}jI G. � �. ptl,1 s l 11 •.S �,.. — Ink! fg -•gtt r'�g C .r!•;' , t j�•.�rf, 5 < .. S ;yU6�' lls a ayt b: �.{`.f yl�(� '/MW1 _`Y I I .m—na ' P�'i y< M1i•4 4 MA r �Y IN YA �rj a�L a'y `� " L .'�'°•`y.Q e S.j Y;+•i,4) 5. .`..y i^,+ a,.S '.rt, � is � yir G4 � _- ��'��1 �11 I L ��• )Z, �r �q�.�c ��A. �`4 - 7 j�jl�l� 11 i 1�'kiRJy -� etc" f , � � tic t�1: S•' 'T+1•Fn Y'• t i�. 1l�j ( { .unw.' h,X,HS.f_C+,+:,. N'� t, 1 ; r ' S- y { i "S`2", i Y}5it + k`�q fir*' *,� ..•L � � a � � : j � � ` l i � � I 1 '.. f �? ✓��,ju'1�, + � �` � �FF� �Yy _ � '.�i f'� �k' �• t ,n'S', ti T {r}(�{f'�i a 9 }dl,i,�i' j 54 rlo 1 w 5. �� '%4a k`'�6`r �5:`i. i,Sf�'�tl l�'fJ }' II a��'d71: •�+ .r'�' r: c r� i r kj U :. '�• �-� _ � t' � i I � it Ili I o City Council Rwhiblt Y-' Approved , 19 _ By Ordinance 111 W Hyman Ave. 1993 GMP Scoring Growth Management Scoring: The Planning and Zoning Commission scored the project and finds that the minimum thresholds required by the land use code have been met. The Commission's score summary is as follows: category public facilities quality of design energy conservation prox. of support services min. threshold Comm. score 4.8 7.75 4.8 10 2.4 3 2.4 5.5 provision of housing 7 7.4 33.65 In addition to minimum point thresholds in individual categories, the project must attain a minimum of 60% of the sum of available points in the first four categories, or 33.6 points. This project was scored at 33.65 points. City Council Exhibit G Approved , 19 — By Ordinance W re-,M-- /i_.74,4 NL A ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTION APPROVED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 60 (COTTAGE INFILL), ORDINANCE ONE (HOUSING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM), AND SECTION 5 -510 OF THE ASPEN CITY LAND USE CODE, AND RESOLUTION NO. 92- THIS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT DEED RESTRICTION is made and entered into this day of , 19_, by William D. Snare, ( "Coventor ") for itself, its successors and assigns, for the benefit of the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation, and the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority, a multi - jurisdictional housing authority established pursuant to the AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT recorded in Book 605 at Page 751 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office ( "Authority "). WHEREAS, Coventor owns that parcel of real property located at 111 West Hyman, in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, Colorado, more specifically described as Lot G and East 1/3 of Lot F, Block 61, City of Aspen, upon which is situate a duplex to contain an attached 800 net liveable square foot one bedroom accessory dwelling unit ( "Unit "); and WHEREAS, Coventor agrees to accept and impose certain conditions on its use and occupancy of the Unit as an accessory dwelling unit under the Aspen Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations contained where, the Coventor hereby covenants and agrees as follows: 1. The Unit as identified hereinabove shall not be condominiumized and, if rented, shall be rented only in accordance with the guidelines as adopted and as may be amended from time to time by the Authority governing "resident- occupied" dwelling units. 2. Coventor need not rent the Unit; however, when rented, only qualified residents, as defined in the Housing Guidelines, shall reside therein and all rental terms shall be fore a period of not less than six (6) consecutive months. Coventor shall maintain the right to select the qualified resident of its own choosing when renting the Unit. An executed copy of all leases for the Unit shall be submitted to the Authority within ten (10) days of the approval of a qualified resident. 3. The covenants and limitations of this deed restriction shall run with and be binding on the land for the benefit of the City of Aspen and the Authority, either of whom may enforce the provisions thereof through any proceedings at law or in equity, including eviction of non - complying tenants. )1� 4. The maximum rental rate shall not exceed the Category 1 rental rate as set forth in the Rental Guidelines established by the Authority and may be adjusted annually as set forth by the Guidelines. The maximum permitted rent for the unit on the date of execution of this deed restriction is $379. Rent shall be verified and approved by the Authority upon submission and approval of the lease. 5. It is understood and agreed by the Coventor that no waiver of a breach of any term or condition as contained in this deed restriction shall be construed to be a waiver of any breach of the same or other term or condition, nor shall failure to enforce any one of the terms or conditions, either by forfeiture or otherwise, be construed as a waiver of any term or condition. IN WITNESS HEREOF, Coventor has placed its duly authorized signature hereto on the date as described above. COVENTOR: By: (Name of Coventor) Mailing Address: STATE OF ss. COUNTY The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19_, by (Name of Coventor) WITNESS MY hand and official seal. My Commission expires: V Date Notary Public 2 ACCEPTANCE BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY The foregoing agreement and its terms are accepted by the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority. THE ASPEN /PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY By: James L. Curtis, Chairman Mailing Address: 39551 Highway 82 Aspen, CO 81611 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19_, by James L. Curtis. WITNESS MY hand and official seal. My Commission expires: \work \forms \ord1.dr FKq %14j Date Notary Public 3 30 21992 ASPENTITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920 -5090 FAX 920 -5197 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Environmental Health Department Electric Department Parks Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District *seen Fire Protection District Roaring Fork Energy Center 4410hE Kim Johnson, Planning Office RE: 111 West Hyman Residential GMQS and Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit DATE: November 10, 1992 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by William D. Snare. Please return your comments to me no later than December 4, 1992. The Design Review Committee will be meeting on November 19, 1992 at 3:00 p.m., 1st floor City Council Chambers. Please return the application to the Planning Office if you have no further need of it. Thank you. _ (-e- 41/7' h i5' fa7 7f/ /S TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office ►�✓J FROM: Judy McKenzie, Customer Servid$aT RE: 111 West Hyman Avenue �VI DATE: November 10, 1992 The City of Aspen does have sufficient supplies of potable water to serve the proposed project being submitted for the above address. All design, materials, and construction shall be in accordance with the established standards of the City of Aspen. The Developer shall be responsible for all tap fees and all other applicable provision of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. A new tap and seperate shut off will have to be provided for the new half of the duplex. cc: Larry Ballenger, Water Department -�I MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office r^ From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer GI[ Date: December 6, 1992 Re: One Eleven (111) West Hyman Residential GMQS and Conditional Use Review for an Affordable Housing Unit Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: DRC Meetinjand Site Visit 1. Snow conditions on the street precluded inspection to determine if sections of the curb and gutter need repair or replacement. 2. Snow removal is not being performed on existing sidewalks as required by Section 19- 180 et seq of the municipal code. 3. A site improvement survey is not required and was not submitted, therefore we cannot tell if fences or trash facilities encroach into the public right -of -way. 4. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights - of -way, we would advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920 -5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way, parks department (920 -5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920 - 5130). Scoring 1. Availability of public facilities and services (a) Water - 1 The proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services. No improvements have been provided. k (b) Sanitary sewer - 1 The proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services. No improvements have been provided. (c) Storm drainage - 1 The proposed development offers to mitigate its storm runoff without broader improvements. (d) Fire protection - 1 The proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services. No improvements have been provided. (e) Parking design - 1 The application provided one fewer parking space than required. This appears to have been due to a procedural error, and the applicant has agreed to provide the four required number parking spaces. (f) Roads - 1 The proposed development may be handled by existing public facilities and services. No improvements have been provided. 2. Quality of design (a) Neighborhood compatibility - 2 (b) Site design - 1 The site plan indicates a driveway curb cut on Hyman Avenue which is not permitted by code and which results in the loss of on- street parking. There is an alley available at this site for providing access to the property. The applicant has submitted a request for a curb cut variation as permitted by Section 19 -102, however the request was not approved. An on -site trash location is not designated. A site improvement survey was not provided to verify, but it appears that existing trash facilities encroach into the alley. There are two vehicles currently stored in the public right -of -way which are not legal parking spaces. No snow storage areas, such as for parking areas, were indicated. The application does not offer to construct sidewalk as an enhancement although minimal sidewalk construction is required by the municipal code. 33 (c) Trails - 2 No improvements have been offered. (d) Green space - The engineering department does not evaluate FAR and green space as necessary to suggest scoring in this category. The comment on page 4 of the application, item B. 4), suggests that no more than minimum green space is being provided. The project could provide more subgrade parking and /or living spaces which could improve the site design. 3. Resource Conservation Techniques (a) Energy - 1 It is not clear or specific that the application provides "a net conservation of resources." Gas heating is referred to on page 4 of the application, at item C. 1), but it is not a clear commitment. The space air heating versus water heating versus cooking heat provisions are not clearly committed to using natural gas instead of electricity. No electric load saving devices are offered which would exceed code requirements. No reference is made to solar considerations. (b) Water and wastewater - 1 The application does not present design features that exceed code requirements. (c) Air - 1 This suggested scoring is based solely upon the application contents concerning dust prevention on unpaved areas. The detail where an additional point could have been considered is if the applicant had planned to pave the parking spaces. This scoring is not intended to represent a full evaluation of air issues. This scoring does not address wood burning versus gas fireplaces. 4. Proximity to Support Services (a) Public transportation - 3 This department's copy of the application is lacking the vicinity map required by Sec. 6 -202. The free shuttle stops at Cooper & Garmisch, which is less than two blocks from the proposed development. (b) Community commercial facilities - 2 �I Project site is located about four and a half blocks from center of commercial core. 5. Provisions for affordable housing. No comment. 6. Bonus points - 0 There are no design presentations for which the engineering department would recommend bonus points Recommended Conditions for Development 1. If there are any encroachments into the public right -of -way, they must be removed at the time of development. The applicant may request an encroachment license by filing an encroachment application with the City Engineer. 2. Any work in the public right -of -way (R.O.W.) must be properly designed and permitted. 3. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the Building Department, the applicant must submit a construction plan to the Engineering Department to include, but not be limited to the following: (a) A storm run -off plan meeting the requirements of Section 24- 7- 1004.C.4.f and prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado must be provided to the Engineering Department. (b) Erosion control such that no storm runoff carries soil onto the R.O.W.. 4. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: (a) The storm run -off design construction must be certified in a letter by the design engineer; and (b) Any curb and gutter requiring repair or replacement must be repaired or replaced. 5. A condominium plat amendment must be filed which meets the requirements of Section 24- 7- 1004.D of the municipal code prior to the conveyance of the unit. 6. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in the public right -of -way. cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director M91 I'll i 35 ASPEN &PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPAR i MENT To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Environmental Health Department Date: December 9, 1992 Re: 111 West Hyman Residential GMQS and Conditional Use Review Parcel I. D. #2735- 124 -69 -001 The Aspen /Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above - mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns. The authority for this review is granted to this office by the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: The application indicates that the project with public seater as provided by the Aspen Consolidated sanitation District. There is a sanitary sewer line in the alley directly behind the site and there is sufficient capacity to serve the unit at the anticipated flows. This plan conforms with Section 1 -2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not feasible for public sewers ". ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: The application indicates that the project with water provided by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. There is a six - inch cast water line in the street directly in front of the site and there is sufficient capacity to serve the unit at the anticipated flows. This plan conforms with Section 23 -55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system ". AIR QUALITY: Provision of two accessory dwelling units (if deed restricted for employees) will have a beneficial potential air quality benefit by providing employee housing so close to the downtown area. Provision of employee housing so close to downtown is one of the 3 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920 -5070 111 West Hyman Residential GMQS and Conditional Use Review December 9, 1992 Page 2 best air quality measures that can be employed, by making it unnecessary to use a car. There is one concern with the details of the application regarding fireplaces. What is specified in the application is that the upper unit is to have one woodburning fireplace with the gas brought to the fireplace and capped. This fails to conform to the proposed ordinance changes which will probably become effective January 1, 1993. Even if not adopted, any woodburning fireplace installed in new construction within the city limits is now prohibited by Ordinance 86 -5 - "Aspen Woodburning ". The other side of the duplex, already constructed failed to meet the registration of existing units of Ordinance 88 -20 - "Registration, gas log in place of certified stove and gas logs /certified stove in new construction." Since this is viewed as a single building when completed, the number of existing wood or gas- burning units may also affect what is permitted under the current or proposed regulations. It is our interpretation that each side of the duplex will be allowed and is currently allowed one gas log fireplaces (or one gas log fireplace and one certified woodstove) and unlimited numbers of natural gas fireplace appliances. The applicant should adjust his planning on the construction to conform to the ordinance in place. NOISE: Noise generated during construction will have an impact on the immediate neighborhood. However, long term impacts are not anticipated given the residential use of the property. Should this office receive complaints, Chapter 16 of the Aspen Municipal Code - Noise Abatement, will be the document used in the investigation. �7 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925 -3601 Sy Kelly - Chairman John J. Snyder -Treas. Louis Popish - Secy. November 30, 1992 Kim Johnson Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 111 W. Hyman Residential GMQS Dear Kim: FAX #(303) 925 -M37 Albert Bishop Frank Loushin Bruce Matherly, Mgr. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve the above proposed project, at the present time. A shared service line agreement will be required if the units are serviced by a common service line and not deed restricted to common ownership. Shared service line agreements are available at our District office. Once detailed plans are available. our office can estimate the total connection charges for the project and issue a tap permit. There is a downstream line constraint in need of repair that the applicant will surcharged a prorated fee for. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE 3 1976 - 1986 - 1990 REGIONAL AND NATIONAL 12 -04 -1992 04:21PM FROM SOLAR TECHNOLOGY INST. TO 9205197 P.01 ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • GAF BONOALE, CO 81623 • (303)963 -0311 December 4, 1992 TO: Kim Johnson - Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office l' FR: Steve Standiford - Director RE. Comments on GMQS Application _ 111 West Hyman Resource Conservation comments. The application states that "energy will be,couserved.' whenever possible" but there are not specific details to back up this statement. They indidate that the project will meet or exceed the Model Energy Code but do not indicate how this will be accomplished. For example,`lookinq at the drawings we see that a fireplace section indicated exterior 2-x 4 wall construction with R -13 batt insulation. Unless the windows are constructed with very high - performance glazing ('• Low -E argon fill or Heat Mirror), it is unlikely that the aggregate U value of walls will meet the Model.Energy Code requirement in Article 502.2.1.1 and Figure 1, chapter 7 of U - 0.11. Further, building sections indicate there will be no insulation of basement walls while the Code requires a U value of U - 0.07. An uninaulated concrete wall has a U value of only 0.81 and does not come close to meeting Code. The roof construction would appear to be wood beam with wood decking topped by a 2 x 6 insulation cavity with plywood and a cold roof above it. The probable.insulating value of this configuration is a R value of 25.1 (i.e., U = 0.040)• Once again using the details we have, the application falls short of the Code required R value of 41.67, as stated in Article 502.3.1.2 and Figure 2, Chapter S. In regards to other resource conservation components, we would like to see plumbing fixtures specified as to their water consumption rates (i.e., gallons per minute rate for showerheads, gallons per flush for toilets, etc.). Another component to evaluate would be the proposed use of energy efficient lighting. Having this information would be valuable for evaluating the relative resource renservation potential of this project. On a positive note, the building design places the majority of the windows on the south and east exposures which is a good beginning for effective passive solar design. Based on the information we have to review at this time, we are concerned that the application will not meet the requirements of the Model Energy Code. 3� -y 2 TOTAL P.01 qty COnncil Wdbit Approved ♦ 19 _ 9v Ordinance A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SCORING THE 111 W. HYMAN AVENUE RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL FOR ONE FREE MARKET UNIT AND ONE DEED RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT LOCATED AT LOT G AND 1/2 OF LOT F, BLOCK 61, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. Resolution # WHEREAS, William D. Snare submitted an application for one free market residence in the 1992 Residential Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) competition; and WHEREAS, this application was the only submission for the minimum 6 residential units available in the 1992 competition; and WHEREAS, the proposal included a Category 1 deed restricted unit within the free market unit; and WHEREAS, referral comments were received from the Engineering Department, Housing Office, Water Department, Electric Department, Fire Marshal, Environmental Health Department, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, and the Roaring Fork Energy Center; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office, in consideration of these referral comments, submitted a staff score of 33.65 points to the Commission; and WHEREAS, at a public hearing on January 5, 1993, by a 6 -0 vote, the Planning and Zoning Commission accepted the Planning staff's score for the 111 W. Hyman project, finding that the 33.65 points meets the minimum point thresholds established within Article 8 of the Land Use Code (Growth Management Quota System); and WHEREAS, the Commission also recommends approval of GMQS Exemption for the deed restricted unit with conditions pursuant to Section 8 -104 C.l.c. of the Land Use Code. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION that it scores the 111 W. Hyman Avenue GMQS proposal at 33.65 points and recommends to City Council an allocation of one free market residential GMP allotment and GMQS Exemption for the Category 1 housing unit with this following conditions: 1. The final design must incorporate a roof /dormer above the entry to the deed restricted housing unit to shed snow away from the doorway. 2. If condominiumized, the units' annual management /maintenance assessments shall be on a pro rata valuation basis. Language to this effect shall be in the condominium documents and shall be approved by the Housing Office prior to recordation. 1 f "I APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on January 5, 1993. Jasmine Tygre, Chair Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk 647 Penuot. Avenue Few London, CT n6320 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 110 S. Galena Street Asnen, CO 81611 Re: Case W-12 Dear Board members: I wish to register my strong objection to the arnlication submitted by William D. Snare (renresent(,d by William M. Gri "it.h) Por a va+-s^nce on rrorerty at 111 W. Wrap. I submit to you that granting an 8' variance so that the arpijcant can "conform with the three existing duplexes located on the parcel" is definitely NOT a legitimate reason for doing so. It's time to stop the insidious attack on zoning regulations in residential neighborhoods in Aspen. The existence of three duplexes not conforming with zoning regulations certainly does not translate into a reasonable excuse to create a fourth such structure. Three wrongs do not make a right! Thia neighborhood - or any other for that matter - should not be reduced to homogeneous structures for the convenience of a buildeP owner. If you will go back in time to when Cottonwoods was built (124 W. Hyman) all three floors were in place before a height discrepancy was challenged and the builder was required to have each floor physically lifted -one foot was cut off between each floor to bring the building under compliance with zoning regulations. I ask you now for the same rigid enforcement of zoning regulations - please do NOT grant this variance. It's time the zoning regulations were enforced as written and not treated as a joke by People who find creative ways or "readons" to justify bending the law. Incidentall� it's interesting to note that the builder of the three existing duplexes on the "parer- in question was also the builder of Cottonwoods some years earlier. Please examine city records - you will find that a permit for further development of the 1 -and in question was denied a number of years ago - on more grounds than just height alone. Among other things the FAR would he well over the allowable limit for the "Parcel" in question. It was deemed wrong then - -and it is wrong now. This hui'dil would Present a solid wall of housing with hardly a blade of grass or piece of sky to be seen. Has anyone checked the FAR of this application M It is hardly accidental that this hearing is set fnr the off- season when I Personally know that several of the people most affected are not only out of town but are out of the ecuntrv- completely unaware of this development and Cher =for unable to respond. Off- season seems to be open season for zoning variance requests. I'm sure you know that there's a saying in Aspen that "if you wait long enough you can get whatever you want through zoning" - I hone that this is not going to be the result in this case. This neighborhood has been impacted enough - a permit for a similar building at this location on this "Parcel" of land was rightfully denied by responsible zoning W ck they I submit that it was a wise decision then and request that the Present Board adhere to the original decision. I sincerely regret that T am unable to be present cersonally to submit my very strong objection, but hone that the Present zoning board will consider this request in a thoughtful, responsible manner. As a long time Asnenite, I can only hone for fairness quality of life in Aspen has certainly changed in recent years, as it has in many rl�ce but Aspen has always been a very special place. It is up to those who choose to make it their home to take a stand against projects that are clearly not in the best interee of the community and to take responsibility for seeing that everyones rights are Protected. Please help to protect the integrity of our neighborhood by envine this variance. Sincerely A r r Elizabeth G. Trargis ymond J. Koenig cottonwoods -2F 10 W. Hvman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission scored the proposal pursuant )) to the standards contained in Section 24- 8- 106.E. and found that the Commission's score of 33.65 points met or exceeded minimum scoring thresholds; and WHEREAS, the Commission also voted 6 -0 to approve with conditions the proposed deed restricted one - bedroom unit pursuant to the review criteria for GMQS Exemption within Section 24 -8- 104.C.1.c.; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the proposal and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, does wish to allocate one free market unit from the 1992 Residential Growth Management competition and grant GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing for one Category 1 deed restricted unit at 111 W. Hyman Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: That it does hereby allocate one residential unit from the 1992 Residential Growth Management competition to the 111 W. Hyman Avenue project pursuant to Section 24, Article 8 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Section 2: That, subject to the conditions set forth in Section 3 below, it does hereby grant GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing for the development of one Category 1 deed restricted one bedroom unit pursuant to Section 24- 8- 104.C.1.c. of the Aspen Municipal Code. Section 3. 2 a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. section S• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6• This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the o75� day of 1993. / 0 A 7� � >%� FUZ Jbhn Be inett, Mayor At,TEST�; / Kathryn S. toc ; City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and 1993. ATTEST: Kathryn S. och, City Clerk approved this "` day of -f -1�� Sohn Bennett, Mayor rd ORDINANCE NO. 5 (SERIES OF 1993) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING A RESIDENTIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ALLOCATION FOR ONE FREE MARKET UNIT AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR ONE DEED RESTRICTED UNIT LOCATED AT 111 W. HYMAN AVENUE (LOT G AND 1/2 OF LOT F, BLOCK 61, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN) WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24, Article 8 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council may grant allocations from the Growth Management quotas contained therein upon scoring determined by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24 -8 -104 C.l.c. of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council may exempt deed restricted affordable housing units from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) competition; and fWHEREAS, William D. Snare, owner, submitted to the Planning Office an application for a Growth Management allotment for one unit and GMQS Exemption for one affordable housing unit; and WHEREAS, the 111 W. Hyman Avenue proposal was the only submission competing for the six available units (as established as a minimum by Section 24- 8- 103.F.1. of the Aspen Municipal Code); and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Engineering Department, the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Office, Environmental Health Department, Fire Marshal, Water Department, Electrical Department, and the Roaring Fork Energy Center and those agencies submitted referral comments to the Planning Office; and 1 WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on January 5, 1993 the 1 • Approve the variance as requested. Approve the variance with conditions. • Table action to request further information be provided by the applicant or interested parties. Deny the variance finding that the review standards are not met. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the three foot height variance request. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the request for a three foot height variance to allow for construction of a structure with a height of twenty eight feet at 111 W. Hyman Avenue, finding that the review standards are not met." Response: While a stated goal of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan is to promote buildings which maintain neighborhood compatibility, staff feels that a structure could be designed in a manner that still blends with the neighboring buildings, yet conforms with the existing height limit of 25 feet. 2. Standard: The grant of the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building, or structure. Response: The structure could be designed and built at the required height limit, without requiring a variance at all. 3. Standard: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. In determining whether an applicant's right would be deprived, the board shall consider whether either of the following conditions apply: a. There are special conditions and circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and which do not result from the actions of the applicant; or b. Granting the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege denied by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan the terms of this title to other parcels, buildings or structures, in the same zone district. Response: The proposed building does have a special condition of trying to complete the remaining half of an existing structure and to attempt to duplicate that structure as closely as possible in order to maintain the design of the duplex. However, staff feels that granting this variance would confer a special privilege upon the applicant in that all other new construction in the same zone district would have to comply with current height requirements. As stated above, staff feels that the issue of compatibility with the neighboring structures can be remedied in the design stage, and that a structure could be designed so that it conforms with both the neighboring buildings and with the current height requirements. ALTERNATIVES: The Board of Adjustment may consider any of the following alternatives: MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Adjustment THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director FROM: Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer RE: 111 W. Hyman Street - William Snare DATE: December 3. 1996 SUMMARY: The applicant requests a variance from the required height limit of 25 feet in order to complete a duplex project, located at 111 W. Hyman Avenue. The property is located in the R -MF zone district. The height of the existing structure is 28 feet, as measured to the mid -point of the roof, with a ridge height of 33 feet. The applicant is requesting a 3 foot height variance in order to conform with the height of the existing structure. The proposed building plans are in conformance with FAR requirements and with setback requirements. The applicant was granted an allocation from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) in January, 1993 for one free market unit and a GMQS exemption for one deed restricted unit.(See attached Ordinance No. 5). The growth management process granted a development order, but was not a review of building plans and therefore did not grant approval to any specific designs or drawings. Please refer to the attached drawings and written information provided by the applicant for a complete presentation of the proposed variance. APPLICANT: William D. Snare, represented by William Griffith LOCATION: 111 W. Hyman Avenue REVIEW STANDARDS AND STAFF EVALUATION: Pursuant to Section 26.108.040 of the Municipal Code, in order to authorize a variance from the dimensional requirements of Title 26, the board of adjustment shall make a finding that the following three (3) circumstances exist: 1. Standard: The grant of the variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and this title. DATE Oct. 18 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 1996 APPLICANT William D. Snare CASE # Bldg, permit #6 -3 PHONE (303) 355 -8022 MAILING ADDRESS 300 Clermont St., Denver, Colorado 80220 OWNER William D. Snare MAILING ADDRESS same PHONE (303) 355 -8022 LOCATION OF PROPERTY 111 W. Hyman Street, Aspen, Colorado (Street, Block Number and Lot Number) WILL YOU BE REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL? YES x NO Below, describe clearly the proposed variance, including all dimensions and justification for the variance. (Additional paper may be used if necessary.) The building permit application and any other information you feel is pertinent should accompany this application, and will be made part of this case. The GMQS approved the plans and building in Ordinance 5, by the City Council, in 1993. At that time the height of the proposed building was 33 feet. Present restrictions on height are a maximum of 25 feet. This project completes 4 duplex apartments on the subject and adjacent property. For uniformity in appearance, all should be the same height. Therefore, the applicant requests a variance to permit the original height of 33 feet. Applicant's Signature Q A �\ 0 Wll iam D. Snare �- REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMIT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY CODE, CHAPTER 24. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF. .L1 � DATE PERMIT DENIED OFFICIAL DATE OF APPLICATION HEARING DATE Is your RETURN ADDRESS completed on the reverse side? v m u, W .. a.• `�t v a > U 1714 J' m U171 o Xm £ a g . 'w M o io n a. cS111m ao F =.m.9 m.w.. s m _ � a a 3 $$ Z W ::$ r1 i$ 3 �Sro C' M gat s 2. rt s �¢ Ay 4o M 3 m eln`m to ro ie a 0 y 0 m m m Z 3 w Q QD O 0 n6 W C �5 m Pr ❑ ❑ m ra �. m a n ffi w 3 g 11 aS am w m w O a m m = m Thank you for using Return Receipt Service. P 281 613 266 US Postal Service Receipt for Certified Mail No Insurance Coverage Provided. Do not use for International Mail (Sae reversal Sant to William & Margaret Snare S(Ae<A flwaber 300 Clermont St. Post gfice, Slate, A ZIP Code Denver CO 80220 postage a fied Certr Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee r Return Receipt Showing to IF Whoat d Date Delivered F RaWm RecegtShwvng to Wham, Date, 6 Addessee4 Address TOTAL Postage A Fees Is Postmark or Date mailed 8/30/96 #6D3 XIIT / i Y71L a mr,"I ti m lea z MW t. ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920 -5090 / LAND USE APPLICATION FEES SN CITY: - 63250 -134 GMP /Conceptual - - 63270 -136 GMP /Final - 63280 -137 SUB /Conceptual - 63300 -139 SUB /Final - 63310 -140 All -2 Step Applications - 63320 -141 All 1 Step Applications - 63330 -150 Staff Approval -63432 -157 Zoning Plan Check -63432 -157 Sign Permit - 0 01 007p000 -31 070 1"1.1Y' Use Tax for Sign Permits o I I HISTORIC PRESERVATION: - 63335 -151 Exemption _ - 63336 -152 Minor - 63337 -153 Major Dove]. - 63338 -154 Signif. Devel. - 63339 -155 Demolition COUNTY: - 63160 -126 GMP /General - 63170 -127 GMP /Detailed - 63180 -128 GMP /Final - 63190 -129 SUB /General - 63200 -130 SUB /Detailed - 63210 -131 SUB /Final _ - 63220 -132 All 2 Step Applications _ - 63230 -133 All 1 Step Applications - 63240 -149 Staff Approval - 63450 -146 Board of Adjustment - 63235 -148 Zoning Plan Check REFERRAL FEES: - 63360 -143 Engineering - County 00115 - 63340 -163 Engineering - City Qb 00123 - 63340 -190 Housing 00125 - 63340 -205 Environmental Health PLANNING OFFICE SALES: - 63080 -122 County Code - 69000 -145 Other (Copy Fees) �WINIRrASNARE TOTAL 71 -�T9 y Name: Sn E r$tMO li (. (f Mf : Phone: 30 3 E61 7055 Address: 700 N sw�: Wo Project: T�)'qmtrn Zc6. 6290 Check #: 02-13 Dab: 1%, OJ. v i ! % No of Copies: I