HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.111 W Hyman Ave.A86-9213 ouk)4,r
1?_1W . HYman Res. GMQS & Cond .
M-5-124-69-?� Case# A86-92
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Cslorado 81611
(303)920-5090
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
8�
CITY:
-63250-134
GMP/Conceptual
-63270-136
GMP/Final g�0
-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
-00100- 0000-31070
rAnc;i
Use Tax for Sign Permits
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
-63335-151
Exemption
-63336-152
Minor
-63337-153
Major Devel.
-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
00123-63340-190
Housing SS i
00125-63340-205
Environmental Health
PLANNING OFFICE SALES:
-63080-122 County Code !
-69000-145 Other (Copy Fees)
CTOTAL/�
Name: Sn�RE 195frer4*L, 6 M� Phone: SD �Wf 7�ss
Address: 7d �C Project: -
�' / 1
Check #: _2 Z 1 3 Dab: �` �'1 i� No of Copies: /
rA
/ L -
O
O
00
0
tL
P 281 61a 266
US Postal Service
Receipt for Certified Mail
No Insurance Coverage Provided.
Do not use for Intemahonal Mail See reverse
Sent to
William & Margaret Snare
Street 3 Number
300 Clermont St.
Post Office, State, S ZIP Code
Denver CO 80220
Postage
$
Certified Fee
Special Delivery Fee
Restricted Delivery Fee
zj
Return Receipt Showing to
Whom & Date Delivered
Rehm Receipt Showing to Wham.
Date, d Addressee's Address
TOTAL Postage & Fees
$
Postmark or Date
mailed 8/30/96
#6n3
(eSAa)+Qmm`OEaGSd
`°
f{
§f«
0
-
{\
ci
)#Sffw
k
%■k§
t
,
k7
})_
2\
k\
0-
/j
_
]k4
«+
K/){��
/t
—
�
®t
\
\
\)
�/_
\�{
/~
0z
E`}}
2
®
(D
\
0
®
7iaQ
kc
{Z
L
\f
TEl
§{2
kk
\(�k
2#
�)
=
■
kt
ZI}}
\§
\«
a
2�
iƒ\
�f
a0
{2§f\�cw§§
7
■(06 �
/k
) (
t
77
0 $ §
2 §
({
/\{§
> (CD
DZ
E ■
: £
■Z
m_g�
4m
�■
a
20
�/- §
/$
x
°e
E-
*(
�_
-
\i
0 3:
\�
G2 2 2
(
$
{
_ 2
=E
/7E
$
22
2§I
wf
C6ocm cCc
.§
6§
6
SENDER:
■Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services.
I also wish to receive the
■Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b.
following services (for an
■ Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this
extra fee):
card to you.
•Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not
1. ❑ Addressee's Address
•5
permit.
■ Write'Return Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the article number.
2. ❑ Restricted Delivery
■The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date
delivered.
Consult postmaster for fee.
2-
4)
rticle Addressed to:
William & Margaret
300 Clermont StreE
Denver CO 80220 i(
1P
5.
VI-e" C, r
6. Signature: (Addressee or
4a. Article Number
d
jXfar
P 281 613 266
4b. Service Type
❑ Registered Certified
¢
C. *�i; ,
❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured
rn
S
c
❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD
8
7. Date of Delivery
_ r
�
°>
8. Addressee's Address (Only if requested
and fee is paid)
r
PS Form 3811, December 1994 Domestic Return
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE'57
�� P to,
First -Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
• Print your art�`ddr s, and ZIoJ_thi��1lB.Y
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
vr--
CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTME. T
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
DATE Oct. 18 19 96 CASE # Bldg. permit #6-3
APPLICANT William D. Snare 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 III W. Hyman Street, Aspen, Colorado
(Streer, 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 41iD.
Snare
REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMaT, BASED ON THE ASPEN CITY
CODE, CHAPTER 24. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE WILL BE
PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DEPARTMENT STAFF.
DATE PERMIT DENIED OFFICIAL
DATE OF APPLICATION HEARING DATE
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.
A
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:
• 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."
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
WHEREAS, 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
\ WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on January 5, 1993 the
i
1
647 Peauot Avenue
Few London, CT n(3?0
City of Aspen Board of Adjustment
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Case #QF-12
Dear Board members:
I wish to register my strong objection to the application submitted by 1,nlli.am D.
Snare (r,nresentFd by william M. Gri"ith) `or a variance on r.rorf•rty at 1.11 W. Hyman.
I submit to you that granting an 8' variance sn that the arrlicant 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! -This neighborhood -
or any other for that matter - should not be reduced to homogeneous structures for
the convenience of a 'builder/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 "Parcr_
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 Land 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'dir
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???
It is hardly accidental that this hearing is set for 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 country -completely unaware of this develoT)nent ani therefor unable to rSspond.
Off-season seems to be open season for zoning variance requests. I'm sure you know
that there's a saving in Aspen that "if ,you wait long enough you can get whatever you
-giant 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 resronsible zonin7 beck they
I submit that it was a wise decision then and reouest that the present Board adhere to
the original decision.
I sincerely regret that I am unable to be present rersonally to submit my very strong
objection, but hone that the present zoning board will consider this reouest in a
thoughtful, responsible manner. As a lone time Asnenite, I can only hone for fairness
quality of life in Aspen has certainly changed in recent .years, as it has i_n many Puce
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 Ire clearly not in the best intere�
of the coriimunity and to take responsibility for seeing that everyones rights are
protected. Please help to protect the integrity of our neighborhood by enying this
variance. Sincerely your r
rlizabeth G. Traggis
cymond J. Koenig
ottonwoods -2F 124 W. Hyman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission scored the proposal pursuant
1 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
j 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
The conditions of approval which apply to this GMQS Exemption
are:
1. The owner shall submit the appropriate deed restriction to
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office for approval. Upon
approval by the Housing Office, the Owner shall record the
deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
Office.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits for the property,
copies of the recorded deed restriction for the dwelling unit
must be forwarded to the Planning Office.
3. The final design must incorporate a roof/dormer above the
entry to the deed restricted housing unit to shed snow away
from the doorway.
1 4. If condominiumized, the unit's annual management/maintenance
J 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.
5. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions.
Section 4•
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of� 1993 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
3
a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
Section 5•
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 � day of
1993. J n
Jdhn Bennett, Mayor
Kathryn S.. oc ,- City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this tea' day of
1993.
` John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn SVlloc-E, City Clerk
4
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 11 02 92 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: I 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 355-8022
REPRESENTATIVE: William Griffith, Attorney
Representative Address/Phone: 1700 Broadway, Suite 720
Denver, CO 80290 861-7055
(FAX 861-7056)
FEES: PLANNING $ 3,800 # APPS RECEIVED 21
ENGINEER $ 90 # PLATS RECEIVED 21
HOUSING $ 55
ENV. HEALTH $
TOTAL $ 3,945
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: x
P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date ZS 3 PUBLIC HEARING: YES NNOO C
VESTED RIGHTS: YES r NO
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
X _ Energy Center
DATE REFERRED: ! A -: INITIALS
•
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
CDOT
Clean Air Board
Open Space Board
Other
Other
DUE:
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL:
City Atty City Engineer XZoning Env. Health
Housing Open Space Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
• PROJECT:
Z7
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Azz
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: ��� �) �?�o 17 5S
r7
OWNER'S NAME:
1.
SUMMARY /�U0 f-P,
Type of Application: ��4Y - 07SAPp lii
Describe action/type of development being requested:
Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond,
types of reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent Comments
• vi2 ��,av,d -
ALL -
u5r C�
4. Review 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:, 3. 800 6) tSS=
8. Anticipated date of submission:
• 9. COMMENTS/UNIQ E CONC RNS:rz
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
IW `)1tj ov.ti _ ,� M c>�9
William D. Snare
c/
•
0
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
•
ASPENTITKIN 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 $3945
which is for 2 5 hours 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 APPLICANT
By: By:
Di a Moore
City Planning Director Date: 11 / 1 / 9 2
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
For Planning Office Use
Case Number
Case Na
Deposit or Flat Fee Amount:
Referral Fees: Engineer: Housing: Environmental Health:
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
2
•
•
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 Residential GMQS and Conditional Use Review for an
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Case A86-92
Dear Mr. Griffith,
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,
I
�j��✓��I�V
} 7 VVV
Suz9nne L. Wolff
Administrative Assistant
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
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.
William D. :-)riare
300 Clermont Street
Denver, Colorado 80220
1t ► w. Njr
(� h, � um ko'-� ".
H
w.s�,l. IU.a w�A.l
11 � F P. '' n r? 1
WILLIAM M. GRIFFITH
ATTORNEY AT LAW -1
1700 BROADWAY • SUITE ao]$aC 720
DENVER, COLORADO
80290
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.
NOV 2 5 1992
TELEPHONE (303) 861.7055
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.
t
Mr. Chuck Roth
November 23, 1992
page two
putting three parking spaces in the rear of the unit,
Since we are p ace for the fourth parking space would be in
the only feasible space
the garage with access from the street.
Engineer to approve this vari-
We respectfully request you as City you on any necessary details
ance. We would be happy to work with Y if this vari-
or architectural improvements to improve the property
ance is granted.
very truly yours,
William M. Griffith
WMG/cm
enclosure
• • - — /7.
WILLIAM M. GRIFFITH
ATTORNEY AT LAW ? V
1700 BROADWAY - SUITE zoxoc 720
DENVER. COLORADO
80290
TELEPHONE (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 meeting, it was our under-
standing that only three parking units would be required. At that
conference we had the impression that it was not necessary to pro-
vide a parking space for the employee unit. However, the City Engi-
neer indicated it would be necessary to have four parking spaces -
ie. one for each bedroom. We are correcting our drawings to indi-
cate a space for four vehicles on the lot.
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
4
0,�A 4m-,�
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer G%! -P
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 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 GMP COMPETITION
Project- Date- 2 g2
I. Availability of Public Facilities and Service 'm
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.
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.
P.ATING:
COMMENTS:
'Ji
6
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: 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 firefighting flows; and the
commitment of the applicant to provide any fire
protection facilities which may be necessary to serve
the project. )
RATING:
!`
COMMENTS: 4 Irr AA44,44 1.
J
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:
COMMENTS: Fes'✓��l �Y�
f. ROADS (maximum 2 points): Considering the capacity of
major roads to serve the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns,
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: '
n
COMMENTS:
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: .'K
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:
COMMENTS:
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—, ZS
t ! COMMENTS:
orh, 4exi�
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:
�Li��!r,JV,FjW,0_-V7_WW,tlrlli mk�
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
� � r
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:
b. WATER AND WASTEWATER (maximum 2
the extent to which the proposed
water conservation techniques su
plumbing fixtures or wastewater
conserve surface water resource
sprinkling, ponding and similar
considering whether the appli
rights to the City of Aspen.
COMMENTS:
PP-1
c
points): Considering
development will use
ch as water conserving
reuse systems or will
s through irrigation,
site enhancements, and
ant dedicates water
RATING:
EM
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.
COMMENTS:
J
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 w�p_lking 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
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.
F f�T I K (
s- -
•
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.
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;
�r7J
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
0
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.
i
a.
Low Income Housing Provided (One (1) point for each
five (5) percent housed.
RATING:/
COMMENTS:
a
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 MINIMUM THRESHOLD
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
2. QUALITY OF DESIGN ,
e
PROXIMITY OF SUPPORT SERVICES
4- PROVISION OF LOW, MODERATE OR
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
5. BONUS POINTS: PLANNING OFFICE DOES NOT
AWARD BONUS POINTS
TOTAL POINTS:
Name of P&Z Commission Member:
POINTS
•
•
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
income employee housing anc
sale price terms within
occupancy limitations wit
guidelines established by t2
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
-he 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.
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
2
111 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 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 Housing Bonus Overlay Re -zoning to corn-
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 Fryman 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'
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 deviling 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 Lr,&4 ), '1!AJe.
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 Tygre, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on December 18, 1992
City of Aspen Account
•
•
November 1, 1992
T0: 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 1960-81, construction was completed
other duplex. These units were sold at
desires to complete the final stage of
other 1/2 of the duplex.
III. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT:
on one duplex and 1/2 of the
that time. The applicant now
the project by constructing the
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 closet i`s ralso loca,�jed in t e ba �n�ate
�N,t��%►� f. Hyman Street and all intersecting streets are paved and include
vJcurbs 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:
B.
C.
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.
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.
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 x,L,L.171 ), S:lilt'lQ.
William D. Snare
-5-
s
William D. Snare
300 Clermont Street
Denver, Colorado 80220
ask�m ko'.. •.
• 'W,ay, 1 IS'1Z
CAM *J-lr\ so LAN041
APVA w...0
C-K� krth\ w
a4� a-3 e.dd�'w...A
A�k 0,1 �M,-J
WILLIAM M. GRIFFITH
ATTORNEY AT LAW ^. !
1700 BROADWAY - SUITE zoRoQ 720
DENVER. COLORADO
80290
TELEPHONE (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 meeting, it was our under-
standing that only three parking units would be required. At that
conference we had the impression that it was not necessary to pro-
vide a parking space for the employee unit. However, the City Engi-
neer indicated it would be necessary to have four parking spaces -
ie. one for each bedroom. We are correcting our drawings to indi-
cate a space for four vehicles on the lot.
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
WILLIAM M. GRIFFITH
ATTORNEY AT LAW -7
1700 BROADWAY - SUITE xmx 120
DENVER. COLORADO
80290
TELEPHONE (303) 861.7055
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:
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. Griffith
WMG/cm
enclosure
CC: William D. Snare
! } 'i3z 4A. !♦! } %Kti
i.... tip
UP =
r ,�
t
CITY OF ASPEN
,9 V , � • APPR(WAL & AC
�nl �. f�. �. 5ughomIAC K 'cmrD
�rrrarr i
/ .• of �+� . , -
64
:mm cm or
C;[TY ` E1�C�INEEA
R
4TAM Ur CCILO ID
}_ PLAT r+yT 7
COMMISSIM Al
VA
Y f J • r' n / ` �/ f /� / PARKS' APPROV
Jil
' TH9 �lIEOINlKaI r6m Or MTr
71
CLERK & REGX
Ar-CEPTANC F
TNrf r11 tuwv?Ncm Irs
rr ALc[rrw PM r7Ur
cLr atoor<vrcr a
1
N IIJCt ec17_tK_._
OlJbblvld
AT PAC! . ..
C;':IMFIC;ATE C
I FD15EIrT M. KkNULA,, tMUt
.� LkENSM TITLE INSVR�v
Or COLOR.-DO.-DO.0.GO
Or PITKIH COUNTY ,Aiow
HEREOti A7 NYrYN '5T%U
FREE AIV CLEAR Or ALL
ANO IH FEE 71MPLL, DY
r ACrrT T}tA7 MORTC.N&C C
AT PAGG '"7.
�TAlE Or COLO AL1O y�
COLMTY OF PITKIrl )
TI! FOREclagw, TITLE CE
ecFop-E ME-mt-j..../.l fN . _P
o
i
MA.
i
h i I l
��q::.._ _'��J�_-Lof��lr141 -- "T6D"i�i• '{���'�, -- .
- 1Sy�GT - - -- - •
Site W
-]---�C.+DL�.K �ori.yt�CT10N /�tLrl-L GGMPi.-`(
WAIT --
- zJ. 3 • p�Fh-f�!b"( �6crx�r+�, fiQo.GIG�S y'i�m/Ipt`-O _
p
.y
.ald
man
mm■w
l�9w
- IDl"E�L'�C�"i�i�� ��• ti
2 Lai
AM
RAN
,.
i2 • •� .��� 3 '� �' ��. ate['• �• •..� �..i
�iF" 9%-fin, ?' ! 2 {•1. - . ,-.c:.. _ ii - b.7� �.� . .oil
-
r: ��" � is _` f_.rri�: :�.fr •�•��IC�►����E�i�Ell�
G•
li�i�7�1 yi• �..•_q pi•..
1 _,• r,
• �r 1
ray �r � !" � V'� 4g. � L r •"; '1 t 'A s r ` � �
r S,
•K��4 s - - "r s"�tif. r �.a.� T ^LS t �- f- ;'g` � ,+�r� r.,
• _ .�- �' ._ - _ ; .�" _ •art— .'c. � y, -
' •.f `• 7 r' i;; �!w ,. •4i ,r4._ �C�'-%'.°i:t� �A�'ir �.r7WA; +�1� '°� T^ -
t t. i (� s +�Y4•yl�Y t.J � c
ll=-7
• — _ �
i s
M:i• �k• .r 7 A k • ~ t..,. a *,•' w�Lta�. `nec r r* a a
� rs r, ? i " •'na ih`>r * - ^ 7 j,: �'. t...'?.er �+7'w.K�ftp� ;'7� •-s 7 1•�♦ ••.4.
- }y+r,-,�-�i4., r .�^� .r ta'� i'�' ti'T k � +iXY, 7 •"C.'1 7-..: a� •+i `" ..f ('.:
,c° {� .t � -+ � �•Jr �%%�G�, � C, 14.E i a ly`, �t['k.�, r s r:.1'�� s3' �-�Z�.
k, 'i_S' • - a., >� .a•�''" ,gig_ ti r. s � s ^,fc , � i ''` .-y:
• tr r� �. , `� '� ;fit t i .: .` .• ii -- ,t ..,�
�� �Xr ,r t , , • � 3
i. x `�•�"�, �, �` �,/• 1a^• �, l R• ..fit �f�� .c�0,,�'r(2y y�.(.•'�07 .xt. 2 r r'.,.
Ft
�• iis - L f— E OCDimw1 r r, ,
{ ar' ,
• I • , r f' 1�1 a hi
"A-e
-'rh! y a'.pyyi-uFy�
1 SR-F.C_ .- �r ��ii ..•+�--i—.�7-Z:.!'� t • - L
PK
Apr
_ 7 } '`r :.•C`d i� `t.�,"..�'.,1•t€4Y'"!•n J ♦ it1. ^,".''�j+�F i
t y L�Sy.p. 4 y }r, .cam• w
!t'V4TRe`K.� A. - i ! •" rL. 4Jli\. Y y�� p
`� • -} i�, + -�f----j-.-.-:.[ ( ' +'sue o- '� "C� v;Z Fy'-c y � e - � �t "�; ' e �y �:�
1{ �• 1, •• - •
`. �i 4Y
40
LI
• It a TT 7 _y1 1; 1� r�• } -a%' '
4 aftab
r 'tqt}fryq t, sK F� -1'-J1.�7.,f .Nl:nj r• ,i' *+3 }Y.l .i`;➢y C Yl
"� {., `' t r 04 . i� ` t�+aw. �_� � r t 3 •. t yt���� �ry�� r �j'��} � r
� •sr it�r i , ;i,,� � ri }� :r.. � , - Y.. t� ,.r (iCP .�� t.� ,• �., ' x�"°ir_.4 }��1 '!"'�'}'$i�` �tix�*.c;-....t 7
_ -.' f.G �i�!• !t �J e - i •�♦•. f �,i... �; .d � ,� T�.•C�� �-a. �3�'"�,r
_ - _'"�"' k f,,"" - s -T - . F'r +? ;} t l t H - `��' 4+` �f•Y"yl� K? �I: `
r'St Y � ' � � i �'� ,�. �:��` � ;'e f r `' y 'x ; � + t��• k ".irx''�r"�*X+ �'�'{' "' q �MK��
•?sY�;"' 4a. : ?Y.+, Sa �}tf' t �' 7 r ),. +>.� °'vtyiSYP%" �i'"
r F `2 i - � v5 s Z� �4t b•_ 'r��x�' � '� �? � � - t T, � 1J ��� 7 Y��tN„S,-.8 �'Ct� Ate�1..'- �'.aj•
SrOil
\ Y 1.
? �� .r ,. - ` �� S.fi � F � 3Fr - � �:,.� �.'/•,'+VK { +'. .4\ 1ji+�,e y. � a,� ,.�j � Ft�
' y.,ye ,e S'� {u�.F�� g k Kr n'ivr';. F w- 7- Q%1 �i'•�'.-. � fi
;ft S t r . , :w t " .,i , F c .; . -. • t � i, r�s �� ��?i�l 'A��7•,� �.� T.-tt�',` �` � •1
1 4y 77
>.. t �`�F �r�{I to ~,��{r �}�' �. 1' 1 t. tr i.l .,b •� r},.y'•'ir 1+.
;t+{'rr.�•�.'+a��: �o :,." r 4 ; i Y � ' r . 1� -. t Y � � � P � a'' „sc '��'f s-+7-i , `
`
tt yf. �'�'rt4•Tp . -. � � e YA.•+X +It" ' r+,-' 3 _ ,}..,t w � i',t, r.'d �!�-. r. .. - .+
�L � �+E( _ .,,.. ' gat � r ae' fib '�� _ , � 7.i {,I �� .♦''t `' `, 'a +2 _'�.r -_ !•C
#R > >,} „� i� �a N j r r• Z is, -[ �.F ji r
� ;t .j . i •Fad �s�•'��� S �•'X` :,. ( .. f • ` +� r f _I-' } t } i � � � r(+ i Mist '-. to ; _ - t
.4' ri: •Ap�� y� .' . ; � L} v _. # {.. ' t• j } ! t 1 � .. t t ,. � n :± i
ti'w- ` *•"�'- !�.- �r � c . t'* iit '�'{ l4 � t ``{` - �.1 i J. y� �._i� ' .
t i31
rt `�•f s _a,e�t�eY.; �.-�� �.'Sw.v.�e � , ��� 1 ;'`�} '{oi. �� rx �r`F,t��.� _ } }:
'f�t�C�`+�• r t. t • i � s .; ,' S , ' �K Zt •� t `Y ti ;�.�a �� �.pY.
1 r�.�i� � rrP''�► iT r . � _„ �Y a ic�rL •E?fit � Y..¢�
_ �, "Y wy(y �,F,et.r f `•. j`l L„► .X_e`
�n�[i`y,� •ir, n
1�t',yF
' S }'! %�d `�� � y.: -� � t :_ �M '.'.i�f'N•� 1 i,i�.�. kj�_hJ4'�`�A1 �a^.5, �.�.'�•YMs..
u.."1_I"' �► ope,o�� uadse uew�iy M £l4 ? '
swniuiwopuOO
Ll 44
uadse
41
a3 i' t
i. `'r - ._� .- ,r„� ,.a'� ;1•+1 �� .:.. `� b� F . �'{ �i til �� r L,�'1'�Fy.i.?' '''t'i, r. •'� -.•.
Z�f � �� .i k •i f '` f ��j• v�,.r � .. r. .. .� .r, ��µ+�, ➢` T^ � R nN � i� ��_-'I !•
,r+ �q'� }i._4�-� I•+r j! ` ,'..t:� Y A?` 4 c' at '� �•t tt "vSf �'�• ,�•• i Yam( py -.:
+"L'+�e-,� Y. �..K i � y`+d !,r +` 'k•y^ .. .?� ,r '�`r �1 {nf .T_" .fry �- k '�. c` .
tiTI
7Wk,
??�sw„�h7-f��+j � ;,t -w .rY7 � L•}'��F1., y:.�, Rh,�C; �1,s :�` tt�,� �-
,......:;L.
•�y� - _ F'YK}A �,- 1 r i � r{�'"sF'"J�� � �, ��1, \�Gz..
Y u 1
t i _
r I t k S
1
••-"'Tt
,
CL
1 Y ( 4.0r(t�(
t �tt1 1�Iij� r
1.
401
.s r: .' , ,�•. ti }' l ! i 1 r. �i � - .1: tSc ''1i,�1 � cL � _ 7 r• 'a .. �,?r I. }t� .
40 F ( , 1 - q 7 -s• .1 5 .- 1 ,,'y„ +: j • + � ,' �i'�i' ►.:" �..
•Ii;' Cx•,�, s'Z` `•V -.;a ti,�'n' �. - t` F _ }- �! I,, .,. r t '3. ;s•C` ° •�•r�i%,,,,
1.. _-,�rr �- ,r.� -.�: '.•...na..c �' t t'Tt� r .�. -i J Y �-� �l . 4, _ • t,; ;t K "�a4'� "rK.';fr •b,.
p
�- ^� a�ar \ . S � 4 f":T� �. f •` •1. c, . � � I ;1 4 a -r . —'��: ��}r.'+•�'��
iYuf+x.i C�?$'u
3�7"7GA
�`,,s•R�+a'�ei�r���iKg���. :� ,'Yc" b {� � � v'i „ ����7;�:�' j;• '�.
i + 7'1 ` r ti' x ' ► ' } r f ti, ' +c5 f k` ` i �k�+
't{��'' E•h. ���ri �-' '� i t71 .L„•.�r �� jt�� ,1.�i a �...+fR sf.' C r. '+<'ei _:�'' �� .'y A �A�' .jh.
-'+��y •%+'��..'"� y� y t �7�,:`"'4'.S: ;�' r s -•a f1*� _:,•i � .,,y t�,,, �. c � 4 �1 J'1�. ��� ..jr.i
ttiG21,"M„x'.r," +Yr ah f t t- try._ `c �,'+'r�iti: i,' •Gn _ �. .� t w`-, �5'e- `t•�c.,ti. 41' R ��g
t L..::.3',yt{t:; +E.�'r F� ++Tz�'!4s�C...'.,5.' 2 .,1 N ►✓ - . i'. -Mt i a's "'" i, •� , '•:m+r'i'
Fit
T S: 77777.
of v
r 3Syt�X�i Y t
f�Y�r4+t>l Y
oe
Ci./'4� • V ����4J v�, L yh `l�ii".b� �a � ; t 4 ' 7 - ,},i .k n1 �j...
yi .w4. F
tYI�2:..4'<�3f�4�.-•,','aCwh:t�' �-.'••j'�•.t l r. �`n ��L. \_ _. � ... ... .-
WHIM=I
�Y �4 I •�
r
tp
��y �`�.�) ^ �rtc?tw� +a i...Yt.� tt4 , •.'phi •.•r ~ SEi•�1�..y,•r3: �te_ "�3'1:'7tl_1...R<r.,
•
•
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
2
0
0
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
0
•
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
Date
Notary Public
3
r '-
//-.� 4;4-9L-
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
25- FRBA+f: 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. _ _
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Judy McKenzie, Customer Servi Ce
RE: 111 West Hyman Avenue
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
53
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer
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 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 IAMS2
• ASPEN46PITKIN •
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
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 303/920-5070
•
•
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.
9
•
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
565 North Mill Street L
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
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
12-04-1992 04:21PM FS SOLAR TECHNOLOGY INST. T� 9205197 P.01
1.
r
v~�
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311
December 4, 1992
TO: Rim Johnson - Aspen/Pitkin Planning
FR: Steve Standiford - Director
RE: Comments on GMQS Application
Resource Conservation Comments
Office
west Hyman
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 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,Enexgy 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 Q - 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 it a R value of 25.1 (i.e., Q = 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
valual�lu for revaluating the relative resource r.nnservation
potential of this project.
On a positive notie, 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.
TnTCGI P . fa 1
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION EVALUATION
RESIDENTIAL GMP COMPETITION
Project: Ill 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.
RATING: 1
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:
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
LS
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
OFF ALLEY
f. ROADS (maximum 2 points): Considering the capacity of
major roads to serve the proposed development without
substantially altering existing traffic patterns,
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: 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
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
YARD
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
REQUIREMENTS
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)
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 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.
RATING: 7.4
COMMENTS:
b. Moderate Income Housing provided (One point for each ten
(10%) percent housed.
R
RATING: 0
COMMENTS:
c. Middle Income Housing Provided (One point for each twenty
(20%) percent housed.
COMMENTS:
RATING: 0
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)exoe 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:
r
JAN 191993 111
Ai �!
TELEP140ME (303) 861.7055
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,
/' r'ZI
9L
William M. Griffith
WMG/cm
enclosure
January 12, 1993
Tm.. CITY OF ASPEN
Mr. William Griffith
1700 Broadway, Suite 720
Denver, Colorado 80290
Dear Bill:
I im writing per your rcLluest to f011OW-111) on our meetings of January 5, 1993.
As provided for in Section 19-102 of the Aspen Municipal• Code, Bill Snare is herehy
,ranted 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/xp/1-93.5
Sincerely,
(Y�
Chuck Roth, P.E.
City Engineer
13O SOUTH GALENA STREET . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHONE 303.920.5000 . FAx 303.920.5197
I'nnnd.n n vchd Fuper
TO:
THRU:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council
Amy Margerum, City Manager
Diane Moore, City Planning
Kim Johnson, Planner
January 25, 1993
Direct r
" 4
15 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 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
voted 6-0 for its approval. The Commission adopted the Planning
staff's recommended score of 33.65 points. Please refer to Exhibit
0
"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
E
0
nCn.
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."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Exhibits:
Ordinance , Series 1993
"A" - Application Package and Amendments
"B" - P&Z Score Summary
"C" - Referral Comments
9
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.
1
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:
l) 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.
•
r�
U
7) Prior to the issuance of any
must provide:
- a storm run-off plan prepared by
- an erosion control plan
building permits, the applicant
a Colorado registered engineer
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 scor
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
4
•
•
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
been 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
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direct r
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 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 neighbcrhood 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
sell the unit separately from the principal dwelling.
Referral comments from various agencies are attached as Exhibit
nCn.
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."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Exhibits:
Ordinance 5, Series 1993
"A" - Application Package and Amendments
"B" - P&Z Score Summary
"C" - Referral Comments
"D" - Planning Commission Resolution #
3
FI.ANNING*ZONING COMMISSION-`
EXHIBIT ,' , APPROVED
19 -ION O WION
November 1, 1992 City Council Bzbibit
Approved , 19 _
By Ordinance
T0: 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
Ill 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 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 Fryman 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'
lock storage closet is also
ld in the basem ndt.CtF/.
b,,e,ClKl ,
j1
11;VSIT)
t�y�Nls ' Hyman Street and all intersecting streets are paved and include
5 /IJ4,r- curbs and gutters. All are in excellent condition. Buses pass
in front of the property with stops on each corner. Additional
routes are on Blain 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.
LIM
C.
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.
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 an(, 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 500 of the land area providing adequate area for !Dot'-,
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.
Concerning resource conservation:
1) Energy will be conserved whenever possible. Gas heatinc_
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/ c�, La.r►l ), S I.A1e.
William D. Snare
M
-5-
William D. Snare
300 Clermont Street
Denver, Colorado 80220
I& h, � jw�x ko'-� ft.
• ' KtT , 1 1' d%Z
�.y;a..t. cc% WnaL.:..
W J�.:� 1.•SM«.�
jc
WILLIAM M. GRIFFITH
ATTORNEY AT LAW -
1700 BROADWAY - SUITE ia�^7� / 20
DENVER. COLORADO
80290
TELEPHONE (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 meeting, it was our under-
standing that only three parking units would be required. At that
conference we had the impression that it was not necessary to pro-
vide a parking space for the employee unit. However, the City Engi-
neer indicated it would be necessary to have four parking spaces -
ie. one for each bedroom. We are correcting our drawings to indi-
cate a space for four vehicles on the lot.
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 N. Griffith
WMG/cm
I-
•
•
WILLIAM M. GRIFFITH
ATTORNEY AT LAW 1700 BROADWAY - SUITE mibx / ^7
20
DENVER. COLORADO
80290
TELEr IIONE (303) 861.7055
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:
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,
X/r,
William M. frizl
t
WMG/cm
enclosure
CC: William D. Snare
13
f • -s 1 t '
�P xl w
t,f 1. f 1? t �� r :"av'ra��r"�,✓�;
I ~ ly
4! r1 in
lwF f r. 1 Ir
-t f� �1 ♦ '� .rr
r-ru1
16
YIGIxNx1=Yr.KAr
CITY OF ASPEN
APPROVAL & AC
�r+l�uu.'vrv�s�rvrw + rticcmr�
THM Cm or k- eri TWvo:
CITYt�pENGINEEEP
��i►d�i�OVC7 �rX T�i�e crtY�i
4TA-M Cr CCUX M, 'RY
PLANNING & Z
COMMISSION Al
T►� �vleai+ v�ra
MPiO'7.� ar TfC a
ipf� r�s , G0►4�Y WIOH
r4
PARKS' APPROR
TF" 1)"W"CH r6XT CF M`
LAITY Or A'SOLt1fl+t;f.
CLERK & RF:CC
AC'CEF I A1'T CE
TH riwa. x�ea..rsKx+
n cc 4 szz `�Car� r cr
,c�turA� xLcxn'
AT Rine
C.,'lkT'Fi Jr_'ATE C
I IC�DUCT M r'.�MAJ , C7V�MM
LIC EfiSiD TiTLC PtSUR.�
OF COLORti'0. CC rfCREP
Cr PITKIn C.OVH��' 9+10�.
HEKCON M KrY ,*4 S7�'
Yu
FREE AMP CLEAR ALL
^No W FEE ar
AT PIA TYtn
a vac e r,-.
6T^-T E Q C_-_ov. ') y�
COLMTY (7 v1 TK;.^.
TK FOg5GCkrA 7171.0 L
I �I
I
I
0
-f
h
ev
Site Ian
--1- CK ao�t-GT�oN h1•ttrl-l- GA�Pt-l�
rr4 E ;z�4 Y GGPC ezCs2 i 7r A.,
-
_ 1NI5Yt tiVitz`.ttAi ,� r 6— 17i'iAri'�L+--
—
?i. 3-p�Fht>t�-; v�.axir+�, �5•{'aG�i }�trovtvCo .
� ',��. t fit -' �. r _ .�,�` :rN1 : � t; r +�F s ' � s - f = r p. v _-•ti•---�--��
Ail
\\ w ry c:V j
It
--
�y i a� y�,•vvrr' � ;Z � r r � a A 1- .-� ., ? !' � � is• _
e `t. -s .�'�.,_ •rr�;fF F :jz�al rt' �.�; :a ._�.�: •��� ' +'a z s; r'
LMdTiPc tr/aa..1 I • , r
r• ,
' lb,
Id
�• - ~.. �� � - gar; .�•
i r.,� a U.. 'y".k
• -� � - �' .. + � ., .1 c 1�•,rt ,},,i . AteA,,
.. - •� I' �<{:lei' !" � -W
r" � , - / •.�s - ate.-:=::�;r ; � � } 'r
v
• i . t �,�1'i;����. � rtT}}rr `'�l �� { � r.' i l.t. "ref I{ I *'���}r l- -
r
! I
P �f�J ��N � - `i tF�" � •i�' ��.h �' � �i'� + l[%f Y' y' f.. T� _ .•
� �+ �.�1•r . #� .ri: �� }a- a � ii }r; a .�• � r.. i 1 i : a•
���.0 t .'Y -U - �' �x ,y3.r h- y 4@-_* 'i J�r�-4' r£•'i ': + a - r i � - 7.t i� -.� �jP ! - '
�.`•� � r:�����.i ���-«�'"�`�i. �� � ^ + ..s �''`C".C. sj �� r- �;j l�t t1•,-nf} � �*,.��tt ~�_ ,
it -
� �: a' � 1+8'�� tiAr�t—�"Mt .+' ±�hhc,� ti � i i � .ti x fil ! ,=ty •�•r -f � �'�� r r o �� '�:� �
AV
4C • 'cyt��y,�} 6t. i ���J�4-'�y,t•
77
. tk '�'• '' 1 y.'„�'�"�'Sf'�'y�, Wit`. f.T - � t �+,+4,- .- 1 y�{.3` ' +�I�ly���t�'`1�;.
• tr .4'r+J+. ...;e I,. ^'i..('irni'� ,..� w u►� ��- 'l` :.•�. �.. - � �,�4�'t:.i�R?`�f 'r1'i� .�, rk,�
3 � ut 4•E //� �. .r it i` 4 , _
-` lti. t r ♦ * A�( 4':.i fr ..a.r; fM. �. ♦ i f �'1'f'r r
j-
�
. - T - •f .�, ,� bait a � y _, �+ r r a.L` .�} � �♦
�. � t 't• i` r r � ;.2 :�� _. `,:,.�; —:_' R'FAf-- � f'a;'f� ��/+ it��j - � `
T
Ai.
^17-,,
-V
oh
M7
77� -1
-�A
F
ej
OMMA
gg-
" Oil
i I I
I�� el �� �'ti ' I i •
I 1
1
I
�Y l�nii.'n' - �.�+• O _ar r �-..r� , •'� Ss ••7G -
ii !.. t � a eta .t- +t !.i { .1 : � ♦ - i"'� L r iS Y�E1„y
?�.��� ` - � �.^S' al '� S`< .�: 5.+ (Y , ry+♦� ���1�'1�. �rS`� v ;.y`f s.t
«`#� d�xy �'S `" � i r • I f- Ir(j 't +� � t a`r... � �-..'r�` .SiSt. ���yr�.,,
�. ? ti S�4' �` wt ��-.>,e�t- ?' +t '.1 � t .�.; . '� • i g 1;))�t t; . �k � � �,� ��'S�'�••� •>tf�J'"'.i
j , ` -} •x 1 :i 1 I%�,� Y , � I a,.+ '� . v �'ii.04i
q�' vS-F'r � I Iii t.}i, t >S�_ t i� .. • � �} rl•'' 1 f ` �[ ri 1�� '.'}yy��.�ii ��, 'f
lit
te
c v • t.�' r a yr ` I N b �.�+*' ! r � • 1 ;?' ! �� Y *X+,i -+�{ � �„E��;, � ."SA , � c;
:�� � .l� r�1y 1,. �t i't.. , r;7 -��� � .y !.�.,... r ,.t` J--0rY i�i ♦�`',f.%.,
;r` �' I 7 f.l t ,f t f i r ( _Y "a h �',�• � �'P'� - •rti:
1 i� : i� @. f4 f � + F I � �e+r � � i � `3 . - r i�•r -f ��:. � �ty ate' ':
• ��+7.- .v� �' ,�,•,,,.-��.. + i f � � i I j 3 +• , � T .f i,)r -+ v fi= r 'aa .�. �P�!`'''��'.
�� yFyL . v v �_; ti � �.' r � +; •�1t.� ��_�� cA �r;�t9'�.ty�l�,
r �-�,�,xk'���,,1 *[�,,� � . � � -1 {� j { � ,' •++i�i.. , , 1, f. � '. • i i ` �, `�' f✓h:,afy r�' r'= `fit,.♦,-..
'r n: �r-r .� • r., ,f 1 L ; 5. i7a."�2 .`,��?yi.
� ' i{: - ` {t � ~ �+af�-sh- fir' ,•Mifi:�
+ f� L Yft,. � y .r /r a. t � � � � � � "-, t . ''rt"i'7' xc�• � � ri�,tr�a;
_ � � dF ,yW - " * �. � a S . 'r ,. r lJ , k 17J{ IS,S.� •i:
- 1 :. 1_ 1# y,. t +ra,•. r 1 �\ y,,,..y r i r.
!. �+a• S j a :+ � �• � + ti l ,���;t �• �-O. a : 1 +:' 1.1- � f j .' � N: �hv.y u . .'t,�r 1
'j , r.'rt''9" - iir,�';y',"„".t�1'(z 'r' ?•'a
't T �fJr� 1 ti *, w k e. � r• � �tI Cr •s
V i Ch ,i, '7 ,� f '. i , 5 r F 1 17 ' � i '{ t�} •t F 1 ) i
.a•.\t. ^ IL4 1)�� ;• i. / ,. l [ j, , 4 7� tiJ. 1'�^•5 =`)Ii * ..+.�� CJI
4 +� -�f 1t it f y9)s•'�: [ i -fi., it{J. � yy.. y� .. r f I + . �•t•y�•rf'} 7}" IG•rr} 'i i/r�
d.;•: ^, � s ' * ,,�w c� .}�y�' y ��`Ni1x.i�•, Tr ,1 r� ��9!+ti,) ✓ X,-,r rKyj �ss''i
�'• ._ -•� i +.�. ..x _ n .��r��ii �.'s�x✓� cWi .� .a��11�.M}�l'. ,%'�'•X:�=r: _ �': •C.r 'i.rL���1 ��.,. iri . a4,.:. -,'.tea ..i +
City Council Exhibit
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 600 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
Approved • 19 _
By Ordinance
iii ���r .ram
/. � � � �,,- e, �
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.
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
P51
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\ordt.dr
Date
Notary Public
3
ex
2
T
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
`Aspen Fire Protection District
Roaring Fork Energy Center
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.
•
0
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Judy McKenzie, Customer Service,
RE: 111 West Hyman Avenue
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
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.
�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 se-rvices.
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
31
•
•
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 ti92-2s2
D
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVI NMENTAL HEALTH DEPA MENT
MEMORANDUM
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 downtcwn 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.
3'l
h
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
565 North Mill Street LL<_�,
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 N(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
1976 - 1986 - 1990
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
12-04-1992 04:21PM FROM SOLAR TECHNOLOGY INST. TO 9205197 P.01
4'
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 -9 (303)963-0311
December 4, 1992
TO: Kim Johnson - Aspen/Pitkin Planning
FR: Steve Standiford - Director
RE: Comments on GMQS Application
Resource Conservation Comments
office
west Hyman
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 windows
are constructed with very high-performance glazing (i.e.,
Low-E argon fill or Heat Mirror), it is unlikely that the
aggregate U value of walls will meet the Model,Enexgy Coda
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 II - 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., 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 8.
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 conservation
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 preview at this time, we
are concerned that the application will not meet the
requirements of the Model Energy Code.
TOTS'_ P.01
-tom/
Oty Council 93ddbit�
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
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on January 5,
1993.
Jasmine Tygre, Chair Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
�^ �y ~?;.t�..�����;p Nam'•
tllill Y �� •
w
�''mnm!�
I-L1—L
O ? fa p
9CALe 1' - ID'
91}O CF E'CARMC FM" MD*f1e 1:'
At ,OWN.
lMP pRCPARGfl ew,
AITINE SURVEYS
PO bm 17,}O
A,PEN, CCLCP N
91•S bb 8C
UCm NO. 79 -Of -1
OR
i/
VICINITY MAP
xxe r.4m
�/ 7C4tJh� h' �!
��1 Q�r
L11uc
r �
g
J aa
w� 2
1 � i1yE� �dl
U
�( CIE
K.+a
-K G� c
9 %!
I-nr
g3i � — I 1 ^ / ` l 11 i�d p
I.op ,
William D. Snare
300 Clermont Street
Denver, Colorado 80220
IE UTA L PLAT
HYMAN STREET DUPLEX
- SUBDIVISION
CITY (aF ASPEN SURDIVISIU14
APPRQVA,,L & ACCEPTANCE
TM15 5MVIVI5ICN PLAT OF TM HYMAN ,'TFtE•C T�DUQ�PLU(
9HM CITY C W-A ACCCPTED��fY� I1E CfTL1A��:��'�M
THL clTr GT' A�3.1
MAYOR
JLL� cnr>�/
ATTEST
cYTM y c.Lu
1-7TY 1EUGINEER'S APPROVAL
TH15 5L119DIV1510H PLAT Cr WM1W wmR T PURgt 5tJ3V w"
APFIPZNW MY THE CITY 6NNQQ�L�11EE[[��tt CITY A:;5
n �
/ BTATE M CCLORAPO, THIS../I.__A'Ll CT_.... _...�,MT�.
� D.4ilrL A M.ARTHLK
CITY ENCe1NEM
PLA1'TNI1'TC & ZONII'TC
C®MMISSIIUPT APPROVAL
THM 5UBDIV15t k,4 PLAT Cr 1tlM1P1 771itCT PU'LE1 W'l5
AGPF4'4 � eW THC CITY Cr A-VM ►LANNIWO ^NO
Y0 ZONUCOMM1551OW TH10.11. CYW Cr Ai- -. _.1974
.L^..a
" CMAIRMKIJ
PARKS' APPRCZAL
TI" nI7pIVII(CH PLAT Cr H714+I4 'JTZMT DUPLEX 'A W
WMi APPROVED Er 7i1C ,%ARTMENT�Zy/y�y
CITY OP ASPEN, TH L. t. ry,Y CF pi'�5,. p7q.
c , f $t�1�
DIRECTOR
''LE K Ap RECORDER"'
AICCEI'''I'A1T-F
THI III'W- SUDpIVYiK7N MAP CT HYPL41 5TR`_ET DUPLEX
Ib EITCD I'M FILJNG IN THE CFFK.0 Or TM}_
CUF ,. -A RZCORDCR� Q PfTKIN CCLORAVO,
��'T . r-. " CXCLO-y L, -pl. TH15 t,..lC1�.a r...
14 IN PLAT &=- 1k . AT PAIM . {.-f APO
6L w(513 fiGREE1-LEJfT RECJORO iK EOC'1C
AT PAGE v._.
PI4N axlq TY
QERK 4 RECORRr7ER
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
L015 'C' b','E','F', Yo 6LOC.K GI
ORIGINAL At -WEN TOWNISITE MKIPI G7lRCTY, COLCR/1CCI
CC"TAIHIW- ^00A 1GUJ^RE �ME.T (0b44�. Ac Y)
OWNER - SUBIDIVIIDER
EDWIN W CAKER, M-
400 --OUTH CHERRY, DeNIVER, CCLARAM, 110-54GL7
DESIGNER
OHLSON-LAVCNE CCRPO"TfON, AWHITECTUM AND
PLANNING_
II.ICEFdSEID SURVEYOR
-a-3 • 7131.
JAMES F RF5ER L 5 91E4
56 ALPINE 7URVEY7, IMN 1730. ASPEt'L, C.OLO. '195.1495
S'URTFYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I JAI+IE'! F REeCR A PFGI3TERM CCLORAW '7uRVEX7R
CRFfiIggTR^TION N(Z 9194). HERE15! CERTIFY AS
FGLLOWJ A SL.RYE.Y Wj
MAriE LTOER MY l7II?ECT1oN AND -ii t V151C>N CF THE
AMX't M is-RIMW REAL PROPEJZTY IN ACCOIZPNJCE
WITT1 CCLORAVO REVMfD 6TATUTP5 1'173, 71TLF 'S&
ARTICLE 51 AND THAT T111J MAP ACCURATELY AND
JI-I5MANTIXLLY f7E71CT'., 5Ajf7 5Lf4N4r-Y.
JAME7 F, RHCR
mo t. 6. 9154
ALPINE COWEYD
STATE OF CGl17RAtA COUNTY OF nTKIH 355
THE FOIZGp01NG 9URVEYOQS CE%f�7I FIEWr M�V� A�!C
NOWLGT76CD BGFORC ME THlS...U`.131Y �..N}VCMID4C
1979, BY JAME5 F Re5E%Z
IVITNE55 W F WV Ai D CFPICIAL• MAL•,
MY COM-IM1551CN I-cPIRra' ..f0/to. i$.w.. ....... ...... _.
NOTARY PVBLIG
VWNER'S C]EIInFlICATE &
STATEMENT OF SUBDIVISION
EDWIH W 0AKER . JR , AS OWNER OF THAT REAL PRor-
ERTY AS DESCRIBED HERECW, ME-5 HEt2GBY SUB-
DIVIDE SAID PY--,L PROPERTY INTO LOTS I i 1, TO
pE KNOWN A5 THE HYMAN 7TREE7 DUPLEX SLA5-
DIVI-iICMV.
cam"".. -J (ii/
CV,AN W 6AKMK, A<V
STATE CF CCLORALI7 yy
T,, . �1 C'OLNTY CP PITKJH 3
* ;H I ��A:I E O Y✓ F : 7f Il ;7L TPe FMrc-oM(n Ck?CR9 CZRTIFIC/TC . TA EMENT
IOOOCItt N HANULA,. CXANINER , A` EN TITLE COMPANY OF IVI'S1ON WA AC CY�EIJ 1
LK:E Ec TITLe INSUMNCE COM►ANY W THE STATE THIS 5_�� p/L'{ OF. NgL�R �n1?4.!'..,_, 1`174, .
`� OF PITKI CC f7 HEREBY CET- I R THE RECORDS IlY
V� k L'V^ " Or PITKIN �NTY •DHOW ALL CrOP THE PROPERTJ0N' )'vll
IHEREON M NYPYN STREET DWLEX SLJBDIVI510N' 17 WITW'i� MY fLW7 .11-92 OFFICUIL xAL_,
FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL LI" AHD ENCLMDRAW-5.
ANT IN FEE SIMPLE, aY EDWIN W DA ER., JR., MY COI- 1`1t' 5kOJ EXPIFZE7� _ _...., {p�(q�.�. .... _ ......
1111 THAT 111, 11 11 IN 1374 --
AT PACE 9137. ..... M
/ \ � ilib T W t- W / M0KTGAGCE 5 9TATEMC� 4 CONSCAfT
L'XAMF
INCR �""°"_ A'�PEN TITLG COMPANY . �
STATE Cr COLORI.F
T COUNTY OPITKINPI)��—
/ / THC FORrJS<AH6 TITLE CERTIFICATE Wyy", ACKNOWLEDGED ,^'e
BEFORE ME THIJ-OrH _CK-Y CF_..... J, EG[.na(Lk!C._. M79, -
/ PJY Rb6EKT W. FWAA.A +rn.c w ccyva.
'I WITNHS h1Y P61ND AND OFFICIAL ,EAT„,
Fly COMMISSION EXPIR ,_.._..8.��18�.
os.�.� X•a
El.y 7bf,' ::✓!//%f/rUUUA.aalryvvv .n ra.+raov ov,a> ,(yCC....o,1411
4
wimiam D. Snara
30®c;ermont �� orad®Street
r80220
Denver,
i'
Yr
2
ih
fx:
40
r
="1 IHP15H ti�fA=1Z14Ii.� �
.r.
144..
r
AI
AS
A<t
r �_`t7E RYA ti 6..�fS �i%s 7
Wili�l® Clermont �®et
le
300
Denver, Colorado 80220
x
t
t
��b f
I
N
I
cY
1
�
ayt
I
y
i
L dx f y
I 1
I
►« N 4
1
iff
f
i
r z.
Al,
I -
tl
p.
I
I � I I a �'.�[i �• '
! .-cz,40-4
� 1 --
0
Of coz
a STLKRT A OHLSBH
m
William D. Snare
300 Clermont Street
Denver, Colorado 80220
Now.
V"A
SEGTIC"ti AA
Fri
F,7=
A 1-
. J=1
9
w-
STAtiK tEZT-'7Q
It
44_
F
4�4
�44
711
U Colo
TURT AL. ON f)
cc
—5 co
I
04
co
0
cu
LI
LI
r A��
'0-0— L
T
F
I 'b
11P
lop
A
41,
L
t-rja
41'
i ZZZ�•!ex=* 14 =V*t44 -&,2 � r a, i
eAL "VA
6-L' -eer Prwr- -Tu
Pe.D&C To eO A.&' *--4 CIPA-Ce COO
William D. Snare
300 Clermont Street
Denver, Colorado 80220
sy L*1
Of Cclq
A
ck!
oz
foundation plan & basement flow plan
4
William D. Snare
300 Clermont Street
Denver, Colorado 80220
7-
J_j
1-4 4
�P�
Y-I
1 4,
A
Of C014
ao
STL14RT A OHMN
u
0
r
LI
LI
017111-
c
0 E -6
CL
cn
M
c
0 E
.1
1 ,
i
t
r
r
WET
or LCUATi i
r�4 rr
-_-_-1-_
J
William D. Snare
300 Clermont Street
Denver, Colorado 80220
x
J
��P1E OF Cotp�'oo\ I.
T--
cp'.
-r STUART 0. ORSON
SfD ARCH���v~
au
L
V �r
iV
LI
rLI
J
iy. cwcnL �e.�
i-
r
elevations
AL
r
I77
OL40 D 1 i . ,I 1
AIP p �, I I m►1 Al T.
war c - �ai9" 4cl lCfrwOi r -J - �. p jf�
-10
IF
717
S�. .•s�}�' ` _ _ __ {�-�� - - .c. .h .t _ �. 'ice --' - ` i
Iz
c 1 .
r r
� M `
I � �, �,. - k: >�` _i ",-tom. _.{.• •.N� - '�F - .3-K. � '_ �.A �,'�; :�i• }•
a
Y a
K
t
'3
t
>ktow IA.' r
nt
—-.•,'M 15
. ., C ...• .-Y •- < .. - •* - - S Y-•hy�l+� {. n _ ��� . '_.S 'a M1. - .. '� .. MIS
�M'^r,:�rk,31F •� -..t. - �: - xyc fy� .;. _t _ .P 'pL. -. Y!R'P-�•• r': �, 4�
` "*'+ � ��f�;,'I ., . - S - > ' t;S'• a�'�1ca+•+rc �tsyeea., "�'�'"�- _ ��: s �-�' r ~ . � � - - � _ 5
''t„ ° `t `~ „rY S k.. z _ - -,�'.' •i - i •`�' - � 4r°�, ••+Mt. `r. i •- �:: . i _ ! 6 1 ii _ r Ie '�: r
y
•
:' dr.z '•r--. '.'. .- ... ._. _. _ - ,,, T�. :+. 4 �. �,. .r..,. _ ...- .......,�r, Q'� �'4`•r• ,�,�t�.t, !" � may..
:, .♦.-....^, � .. : - � ,,. • •::. b y}Y y: •r � G�br'N• - - '� IyR. t>tfis+f'-i;,
} I •a- wrir @ '..: rat {,
z
rr ► -
n _
I
f
i�. Ga6oEt - 1 r 4 JL
X. =:A^ . r.}h. ,�. +t.k i. '.1'• . � •j, ..,� - • �+,. - trY' -
Y.)' '�' i �.i, 4- ,' 1.:�„ . �1 '�. 4: t. �; ^j,.�w' :�' ..+." ,rti y'♦-''�,�, `4fr r. - a. v'��.
26
U, ,,)i � h �- � �_„(fi� `�!-. •� i —mow_ �—^
♦{ •RC: '.jf /� •`" t►� ,c ''' e*�T'+'*� I .�4.'• �� _ d,lP � j��" ,i ti �•
Y — s
— 4 I a
�y 1
Ah
v 9hpe
i'
ii
J
iA- 51�- _ 6r ` t • .c� " 5 -__:t' _emu _ '� GI �Y - -
! "' � — - - -- � 'art _ -� I _ %• �,- - � � � ,�,� � re.1 _� r
Ilk
_ T
• 1 �
r?� ~� • - 1 - . s iwf s�ycrvra +a.�r6 i
zJl
Liz
I.
!It A61}-t 4r.�o� C.0 ^ '
- ,) '�'+ rtisi fir! b1Ce►igT1i Tb MC � ♦ 6 �. 1 ..-
a
LL
goo
-)er
a flW-, plan
fOUrKlatm.. obn, &,--b �'%v
1
+ -
�Z,
r7 ,
i�
T - .
-5- oq
-PI-pn-
r
-rli'4 �H A
-x- tcz
FA,Z54-
A7
At,,
i
/v d