Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Land Use Case.257 Park Ave.SU-1979-1
151 @/AJ Q- fjV€ ~4 9 #, *d _ ir 1 -1 0 - INDEPENDENCE-METCALF SUBDIVISIOU1 4--REZONING 7 <5£ 6.-47 lu (1 1 )1 Jel j MU lk__t_ t'• r I li A - -4.1,ardifi~2//*Iw~'Ait-"'-*m1~"~~~ -.0 ~ E- -4 4 i . , 19.4 44/ 2 " I// 4 th, A £ th-4 t ' 4 ...-9. 4 1 4 ·79.2 , 1 .y-~ 1-10~- ty; ,-t ~ 2« 40 1 ...lit,h.*12- FU/COV·99.KESLS-f-'- ' 11:0,py- i 4UU N. 9% 't-0\ 4/ MEMORANDUM - ' A-hi\ TO: KAREN SMITH, PLANNING DIRECTOR <-Ar\P,- FROM: DANIEL A. McARTHUR, ASST. CITY ENGINEER < DATE: May 11, 1979 RE: Independence Subdivision Final Plat - Lots 4A & 5A After reviewing the subdivision plat for the above project and having made a site inspection, the engineering department finds that there are several items which need correction. They are as follows: 1) The owner shall install a new water meter and remote meter reading register for the existing one-story frame house located·on Lot 4A. 2) The owner shall install a new water meter and remote meter reading register for the existing two-story frame house located on Lot 5A. 3) Relocate existing wooden fence located-on Park Avenue back within the property boundaries of Lots 4A and 5A or remove existing wooden fence completely. 4) Revise the grant of public electric and communication ease- ment as follows: a. On the fifth line, delete'above grade ". b. Line 7, add poles, and a@rial lines. The engineering department recommends approval for the above subdivision final plat subject to the applicaht correcting the above conditions. E , -4.. 1 W i 1 " 6 -0 - -·n A /4. .1 , · jk 9 . 6/'t# f 04'j t./ 44 ---- . 'Mv PP ;fp C.1 2 : ./ /2 t 1.7 , A ~ iA)&/At £48- t 4. 4, l.33«5 f , .d J 'O - MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office RE: Independence Rezoning and Subdivision Approval DATE: May 10, 1979 There are two parts of this application. The first is a followup of the request for rezoning of Lots 4, 5 and 6 within the Independence Subdivision on Park Avenue. This matter was before you at a meeting on November 14, 1977, in the form of Ordinance 59, Series of 1977. The rezoning request was to change the zoning from R-15 to R-6, a more dense zone. It was brought by Mead Metcalf and was for the purpose of providing housing to accommodate his employees. The second part of this application involves a request for subdivision approval (given successful adoption of the rezoning). Under the subdivision request, Lots 4, 5 and 6 would be consoli- dated and reconfigured into two lots, Lot 4A and Lot 5A. The subdivision request is a simpler matter and therefore I will address it first, remembering, however, that the rezoning should be approved first. The Planning and Zoning Commission, at their meeting on April 17, recommended approval of an exception from the full subdivision procedure and that a final plat be prepared incorporating the City Engineer's concerns and that that plat be forwarded to Council for final review. We anticipate comment from the City Engineer who is still reviewing the sufficiency of the final plat requirements. His preliminary comment has been that he has worked closely with the applicant and believes that the plat will be certified ready for approval on Monday. The rezoning request has a much longer history which I will sum- marize briefly. On November 14, 1977, the City Council tabled the ordinance accomplishing the rezoning from R-15 to R-6. As back- ground, the Planning Office had originally recommended against the rezoning on the grounds that additional density in the area would aggravate the deficient circulation pattern in the Midland/Park Avenue area and that it would motivate adjacent property owners, particularly along the river. It was generally thought that that . area was unsuitable for higher density because of flood potential and because of the number of ponds located within that block. The Planning Office had argued that, although the surrounding zoning was R-6, that tin is particular block had been zoned to R-15 because it had been platted with larger lots and because of the unique natural characteristics previously mentioned. The Planning and Zoning Commission, however, responded to testimony by the applicant regarding his intent to provide employee housing and his record of having done so in the past. The P&Z felt that the impacts that would result on the neighborhood were minimal when contrasted with the social benefit of providing additional housing for employees in the high quality tradition as has been character- istic of Mr. Metcalf's projects. Therefore, they recommended ap- proval to the City Council. They also felt that even if the adja- cent properties were zoned to R-6, that the effect of the floodplain and land under water provisions of the code would result in there not being substantial additional density anyway. Council was also sympathetic to the employee housing aspect of the program, but felt there was a need to ensure the employee housing characteristics would remain. At that time, the City was first exploring employee housing price and resale restrictions but had not settled on a definitive policy. In voting on the motion to table, the mayor commented that what Council was really trying to do was to define a PMH R-6, not a simple R-6. Aspen City Council Independence Rezoning and Subdivision Approval May 10, 1979 The attached letter, dated February 28, 1979, from Bob Hughes, along with the draft agreement, is the result of considerable discussion among the applicant, the City Attorney, and myself. The agreement proposes restrictions on a new duplex to be built on Lot 4A. That duplex would involve three bedrooms and three baths per unit for a total of 1544 square feet of floor area per unit. Occupancy is limited to persons of Low, Moderate and Middle Income as defined by the City's now defined housing income-eligi- bility guidelines provided that Metcalf's employees have first right of refusal to occupy the duplex. A unique proposal is then made that second right to use is reserved for faculty and/or students of the Aspen Music School. The rents are limited as well. They are limited to $270/month/tenancy with the tenancies being 1 limited in number to six (or one per bedroom). Therefore, the , maximum rental per unit will be $810 or $1620 for the entire duplex. This is consistent with the Middle Income Housing price guidelines. The applicant will also be able to raise the rents = in accordance with the adopted housing price guidelines. : The duration of time during which these price and occupancy : restrictions shall apply is for a period of no less than ten years or for as long as the applicant shall own the land, which ever is longer. The period of effect, therefore, is longer than that period of five years for which we have been typically conditioning approval of condominium conversions. These provisions have been reviewed and recommended for approval by the City Attorney. The Planning Office has worked with the applicant to reduce the size of the duplex from the previous proposal of four bedrooms and four.baths per unit, which we felt was too dense for the neighborhood and too luxurious for the ultimate date when the units would become free market units. We also thought that the rental provisions in the previous proposal were too high having been proposed at a higher rate per tenancy with more tenancies allowed. While this proposal does not comply with the housing restrictions that would pertain if this were approved under the proposed new housing overlay zone, we do think that it goes a long- way toward meeting the concerns that Council originally stated in November of 1977 and which the applicant has been working on since then. While this unit will eventually become a free market unit, it will not do so for the duration of the Metcalf's ownership and at a minimum for ten years, regardless of ownership. We recommend approval. KS/ss MEMORANDUM 1 11 4 lic,A ..1 2.43 TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ./ \ 04 ..46 FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office RE: Lot 4, 5 and 6, Independence Subdivision - Subdivision Exception DATE: April 13, 1979 As the attached letter from Bob Hughes describes, this is a request for subdivision exception for the replatting of three lots in the Independence Subdivision to two lots which are larger in size. Actually their request is for subdivision exemption, however, we feel it is more appropriate that it not be exempted from definition of subdivision, but rather that the P and Z recommend it be excepted from the full review procedures. Since the plat amendments may be accomplished fairly easily and do not require the three stage review with full public hearings. This is concomitant with a request to amend the zoning on these lots from the current R-15 zone to R-6. That proposal was submitted over a year ago and went all the way to City Council which tabled the request pending the applicant's showing that indeed the units would serve an employee housing purpose as was mentioned as justification for the request. The Council specifically mentioned that there should be some controls similar to a PMH type zone. Needless to say, our regulations and guidelines for these matters have evolved substantially since the time of the original request and the agreement which is attached attempts to set forth stipulations which the applicant is willing to enter into in order to satisfy Council's concerns that this remain employee housing over the longer term. The Planning Office has worked with the applicant and expressed reservations over an earlier draft. This draft gets closer to what we think is a realistic rental rate and time period for duration of the employee housing restrictions. It does not, however, comply with the type of restrictions that we would impose if, for example, this were to be an employee housing overlay zone. The time period would be longer for the restrictions and the per tenancy rental rate would be a per square foot rental rate instead. We remain somewhat concerned that this is a rather plush duplex that is being proposed and that while it serves Meed Metcalf's employees very well, it will become a luxury unit once it is no longer in the employee housing market (no longer owned by Mr. Metcalf). 1 D *zea This, however, is all by way of background and is not the matter that is now up for review before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The review of P and Z is rather on the subject of the subdivision platting requirements. We note that the new lots would meet the minimum square footages for duplex lots if the property is rezoned to R-6 and any approval of the subdivision plat should be conditioned on the rezoning taking place. I have also attached the comments of Dan McArthur, Assistant City Engineer. The requested plat corrections, we understand, are underway and should be prepared for your Tuesday night meeting. With those qualifications, we would recommend that the application be excepted from the full subdivision review procedures, that it proceed to City Council for final plat review. (21&.1 -O-.i.. q 1 1.94 k £- UL \ c ... 1 r\,4.-~1 22 '1 0,7 1 ... , / 1 , r O- c 4,77,(74 1 \:isr X.7 .ly /\A i , // 4- R y-+ 4- 4(.31,06*12.21 -664,~4 Jk- 409.u_ *f -- C<1(14 ( (/ ( 5 1 <rn /40 1 4(~ Uck h«f- 01»~clf 12.- gul-uc 0- Abul 1 . L*j- 4 t·14 3.04-„LL< 66 h j, 4 1 £ -6 ~ brk€M- ~ f-fl,«_ r *, A MEMORANDUM TO: KAREN SMITH, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: DANIEL A. McARTHUR, ASST. CITY ENGINEER DATE: April 4, 1979 RE: Independence Subdivision, Lots 4, 5&6- Subdivision Exemption Request After reviewing the improvement survey for the above project and having made a site inspection, the engineering department finds that there are several items which need correction. They are as follows: 1) The owner shall revise and resubmit a new recent improvement survey which shall include the following: a. Description of survey monuments found in set. b. Show existing fire hydrants. c. Call-out type of fence. d. Show parking spaces for Lot 4A. e. Signature and seal of surveyor. f. A ten-foot wide power line easement running north and south over the existing two-story frame house. 2) The owner shall install a new water meter and remote meter reading register for the existing one-story frame house located on Lot 4A. 3) The owner shall install a new water meter and remote meter reading register for the existing two-story frame house located on Lot 5A. 4) The owner shall provide a ten-foot wide power line easement for existing overhead power line running north and south over existing two-story frame house. 5) Relocate existing wooden face fence located on Park Avenue back to within the property boundaries of Lots 4A and 5A. 6) The owner must record the new subdivision exemption plat showing the new lot boundaries for Lot 4A and 5A. 7) Provide a certificate for dedication of power line easements with certificates for the Mayor and the City Engineer. The Engineering Department's recommendation will be for approval for the above subdivision exemption request subject to the applicant correcting the above conditions. 7--h cITY.othSPEN 130 solith gale**ajtreet aspen~¢~2~81611 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 27, 1979 TO: Karen Smikh---1 FROM: Ron $tock '~ID RE: Independence Subdivision Exemption and Rezoning of Lots 4, 5 and 6 I recommend approval of the above-entitled request to rezone this property to R-6, Residential. I have no objection to granting subdivision approval of the replatting of these three lots. However, I believe that the project should go through the full subdivision approval process rather than by exception. RWS:mc MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Ellis, City Engineer Ron Stock, City Attorney FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office RE: Independence Subdivision Exemption DATE: March 21, 1979 Attached please find application for subdivision exemption submitted by the Crystal Palace Corporation. This item is tentatively scheduled for consideration before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a special meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 10, 1979. Therefore, may I please have your comments no later than Tuesday, April 3, 1979. If you cannot meet this deadline, please advise me immediately. Thank you. LAW OFFICES f DATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JoRDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN, COLORADO 8I6II RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS Mc GRATH, JR. February 28, 1979 WILLIAM R. JORDAN m AREA CODE 303 ROBERT W. HUGHES TELEPHONE 92S-2600 RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH HAND DELIVERED Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lots 4, 5 and 6, Independence Subdivision; Subdivision Exemption Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent the Crystal Palace Corporation, which is the owner of Lots 4, 5 and 6 of the Independence Subdivision. The property, which contains approximately 21,913 square feet, is bounded by Dale, East Hopkins and Park Avenues. At the present time, it contains one three-bedroom duplex and a single- family residence. It is zoned R-15. The surrounding area is zoned R-6, which requires minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit of 4,500 square feet. The applicant seeks by this application an exemption from the definition of a subdivision [Section 20-19, Aspen Municipal Code] in order to permit the replatting of the three lots into two larger lots. This is necessary in order to accommodate zoning code area and bulk requirements in connection with the removal of the single-family residence and its replace- ment with a new duplex. Survey drawings indicating both the present three lot configuration of the property and the proposed change to two larger lots accompany this application. Lots 4, 5 and 6 presently contain 8,220, 5,511 and 8,182 square feet respectively. When replatted the area of the property that presently contains the duplex will be 12,913 square feet and the area where the proposed duplex will be built will contain 9,000 square feet. Some of you may recall that a little over a year ago the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved the Crystal Palace's request to change the zoning of the property from R-15 to R-6. The purpose of the request was to permit the replacement of the single-family residence with a new duplex in order that the Crystal Palace might house a greater number of its OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN Planning and Zoning Commission February 28, 1979 Page Two employees. Following the Commission's approval the matter was then tabled by the City Council to enable the applicant and the Planning Office an opportunity to work out the details of this commitment to the Crystal Palace's employee housing. Since that time we and the applicant's architect, Jack Walls, have met on several occasions with the Planning Office, the City Attorney and the Housing Director, and our discussions have resulted in an agreement proposed to be entered into between the applicant and the City and recorded in connection with both the rezoning of the property and a subdivision exemption. Essentially, the agreement provides for a minimum ten year restriction upon the use and occupancy of the duplex to low, moderate and middle income residents, employees of the applicant and faculty and students of the music school. For the period of minimum restriction it cannot be used as short term tourist housing. A copy of the agree- ment also accompanies this application. It has been reviewed and found satisfactory by the City Attorney and the Planning Office. At this juncture, because the construction season rapidly is drawing near, we thought it best further to process the rezoning request and a subdivision exemption application simultaneously. The current three lot configuration will not accommodate the construction of a duplex in the northerly portion of the property, as planned, under the area and bulk requirements of the R-6 zone. These require a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet for this purpose. The division of the property into two larger lots, along the lines shown in the subdivision exemption plat, would however meet the minimum lot size requirements. Although we recognize that any change to a recorded plat tech- nically is a subdivision, given that the property is within an existing subdivision, typical subdivsion concerns related to a new division of land, such as growth patterns, extensions of public services, geologic hazzards, subdivision design standards and the like obviously are not involved. The applicant believes that the replatting of its property, construed in the light of the use restrictions that will be imposed upon the property in connec- tion with its rezoning, is not within the intent and purpose of the subdivision ordinance. We ought also to add that the applicant's intent is and always has been not one of profit, but rather to make a positive OATES, Au STIN, McGRATH & JORDAN Planning and Zoning Commission February 28, 1979 Page Three contribution to the otherwise inadequate supply of employee housing, and to assist its large staff in finding such housing. Its established track record, which includes five residences-- some eight separate living units that it has acquired and maintains at low rent solely for its employees and which have housed upwards of twenty individuals--clearly bears this out. The new duplex would accommodate an additional eight individuals. Its positive effect on the competition for the limited supply of employee housing is obvious. This application and the rezoning of the applicant's property is merely the logical extension of that track record. We will be happy to supply you with and further infor- mation you may require and to answer any questions you may have. We would appreciate an early setting on your agenda. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerel~, OATES, ,~USTIN~ ~GR*H, & JORDAN (.1 1 1 BY Y i ~147 \,l, 1 \11*2 &93 Roj6er€ W. Hughes RWH/jms Enclosures CC: Mr. Mead Metcalf Mr. Jack Walls CIT¥) ASPEN 130 s€Wth galeWS©street aspenN¢~j:~:~!l#*81611 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 30, 1979 TO: Karen Smith FROM: Ron Stock -7- RE: Metcalf Rezoning I have reviewed the letter of Robert W. Nughes dated January 25, 1979, together with the enclosed agreement relating to Lots 4, 5 and 6 of the Independence Subdivision. First let me clearly emphasize that this is not a matter of conditional zoning. Legislative bodiesbmust rezone in accordance with a comprehensive plan, and a** amending the ordinance so as to confer upon a particular parcel a particular district designation, it may not curtail or limit the uses and structures placed or to be placed upon the lands so rezoned differently from those permitted upon other lands in the same district. Consequently, where there has been a contemporaneous zoning and filing of a declaration of restrictions the general view is that both the zoning amend- ment and the restrictive covenant are valid. Mr. Metcalf, through his attorney, has provided what I consider to be sufficient grounds upon which the Council may act to rezone the property considering our comprehensive plan. The declaration of restrictions was intended as a requirement for development of the property considering the Growth Management Plan and the subdivision regulations. It is only appropriate in this context and the applicant should be aware that subdivision exemption must be applied for and approved. In reviewing the declaration of restrictions, I find the language to be in accordance with our agreement and I am prepared to recommend approval to the City Council, however, I recommend that Paragraph 1(a) be redrafted to read: (a) Use and Occupancy. The duplex shall be used and occupied solely by low, moderate and middle income individuals as defined by Housing Income-Eligibility Guidelines established by the City Council of the City of Aspen within the provisions of Section 24-10.4 (b)(3) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen; Memo to Karen Smith January 30, 1979 Page 2 PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that employees of the applicant shall have the right first to use and occupy the duplex and faculty members and/or students of the Aspen Music School shall have the right second to use and occupy the duplex. RWS:mc CC: Robert W. Hughes MEMORANDUM TO: Ron Stock, Aspen City Attorney Mark Danielsen, Housing Director FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office RE: Metcalf Rezoning DATE: January 29, 1979 Attached is a letter from Oates, Austin, McGrath and Jordan, together with an agreement with respect to the conditional rezoning request of Mr. Metcalf and the Crystal Palace Corp. This item has been tentatively scheduled for the February 12, 1979 meeting of City Council. I, therefore, would appreciate receiving your comments on the attachments as soon as possible. Thank you. LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JoRDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 RONALD D·AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS Mc GRATH, JR. January 25, 1979 WILLIAM R. JORDAN m AREA CODE 303 ROBERT W. HUGHES TELEPHONE 925-2600 RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH Ms. Karen Smith Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Office 130 Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Metcalf Rezone Dear Karen: I am enclosing a copy of the agreement that Mead is proposing in connection with his conditional rezoning request. I believe that the revisions that have been made conform to the discussions that transpired last week between you, myself, Ron Stock, Mark Danielson and Jack Walls. I should think that the matter might now be placed on the counsel's agenda at the earliest available opportunity. Naturally, I would appreciate any further comments that you might wish to make as well as copies of any planning staff memorandum that might be prepared in connection with the matter. Thank you for all of your cooperation and patience. Sincerely, OATES, AUSTIN, MeGRATH & JORDAN By ~ 6 Rob8rt W. Hughes RWH/jms Enclosure CC: Mr. Jack Walls LAW OFFJCES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN, COLORADO 8I6Il RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS MIGRATH, JR. December 26, 1978 WILLIAM R. JORDAN m AREA CODE 303 ROBERT W. HUGHES TELEPHONE 925-2600 RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH Ms. Karen Smith Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Office 130 Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Metcalf Rezone Dear Karen: Following the meeting held some time ago between you, mvself, Ron Stock and Mark Danielson concernina the above- referenced project, I had asked Jack Walls, Mead Metcalf's architect, to canvass construction costs in the area to determine the feasibility of Mead's project in light of the various approaches we had discussed. As you may recall, it was felt that the project would be more favorably received and would have administrative staff support if the proposed duplex were tailored to moderate income housing guidelines (i.e., 1,400 square feet € r/4 15 per unit--$658.00 monthly rental per unit), and for ten years, ' 394 1 restricted in terms of occupancy and use to Mead's employees and available space permitting, faculty and students of the , music school. Jack has estimated construction costs, excluding from his calculation any land acquisition cost, at being in , excess of $228,000. I am enclosing a copy of his letter to me 1\ which contains his cost breakdown. Given the maximum rental ~- figure applicable to moderate income housing and a reasonable amortization of construction financing the figures translate roughly to a negative cost-revenue differential of $1,000 per month. Because the modified cost of living rental increases permitted for PMH housing are not likely to keep pace with escalating construction costs, I think we can expect the situation to become worse rather than improve. As you know, Mead's project is not the typical multi- unit project where deficits resulting from the PMH phase might more than be recouped on the so-called free market phase of the project. The plain fact of the matter is that Mead is not a developer and his motive in the project has never been profit. DATES, Aus-1-IN, MeGRATH & JORDAN Ms. Karen Smith December 26, 1978 Page Two His interest from the outset has been simply to house his employees, and others similary caught in the housing shortage seasonally, such as music school students and faculty, at a controlled reasonable rent. To this extent he is merely trying to make a positive contribution to the employee housing shortage, given the Crystal Palace's 48 winter and 28 summer employees. His established track record, which includes 5 residences--some 8 separate living units that he has acquired and maintains at low rent for his employees--bears this out. Clearly, Mead's motive is substantially more public spirited than that of a developer who because of the scale of his project can freely pledge greater rental restrictions than Mead here can, knowing that the profit potential nonetheless exists because of the unrestricted units he gets in the bargain. Economic realities, however, call for line drawing, and in light of Jack Walls' projected cost figures and the comparatively small scale of the project, the assumption that the proposed duplex must adhere rigidly to moderate housing guidelines is unrealistic. Rather than Mead's having to abandon the project we wish to suggest an alternative approach. Doubtless it would be better from your standpoint if the proposed duplex could be made to fit precisely within the City's rental and sales price guidelines. Feasibly, however, it cannot. Given the rather unique attributes of this project, Mead does not believe it is entirely fair to assume that it must, thereby in effect equating it qualitatively with a larger project. As you know, the Planning Office in earlier memoranda has conceded that the impact on density of Mead's proposal would be rather minor. Since Mead and Jack are willing to work closely with the City on the design of the project, if need be in a PUD context, reasonable assurances can be made that any impact will indeed remain minor. More importantly, however, all Mead has sought to do here is rezone his property from what appears to be a classic example of spot zoning. We have enclosed a sketch map and indicated the presence of the several duplex units in the immediate area, many of which were constructed after the 1975 amendment. The map indicates approximately a one and one-half block radius from Mead's property and duplexes (some twenty-one OATES, Au STI N, Me GRATH & JORDAN Ms. Karen Smith December 26, 1978 Page Three of them) existing on roughly one of every two lots. The duplex development on neighboring lots of significantly less area subse- quent to the development on Mead's lots, certainly questions the "zone to use" rationale that in the past has been used as justi- fication for the situation. In the light of this duplex prolifer- ation and the lack of any meaningful distinguishing physical characteristics between Mead's property and the neighborhood, the present zoning of Mead's property clearly appears, at this time, wanting in terms of a rationale. If his property were rezoned, Mead would then be entitled to construct the duplex by virtue of Section 24-10.2(c) of the City Code, which exempts from the Growth Management Plan allotment procedures the construction of one duplex on previously subdivided lots, although admittedly a subdivision exemption would be required in order to re-draw lot lines. Thus, it does not appear to be appropriate to treat this proposal as a competitive bid for development allotments under the GMP. It is too small for that and cannot be made competitive in the circumstances. Rather, the application in its appropriate context is a simple rezoning request, outside the scope o f the GMP, pursuant to which the applicant is willing to accept fair, reasonable and meaningful conditions. Mead feasibly cannot build "moderate income" housing per se. He can and is willing to build controlled housing for his employees at a rental they can afford and to restrict the duplex to such controls for a significant period of time at a minimum. Mead's motive in this essentially is first to house his employees and secondly, to house music school faculty and students. The rent he would be charging would be tailored equitably to these tenants. Naturally, if space were to be available during off-season times, the duplex in all likelihood could be offered for rent at an even lower rent than required by moderate housing guidelines since his principal and secondary tenants would not then require space. In short, Mead is as flexible as can, in the circumstances, reasonably be expected of him. However, neither the City nor the County nor an employer will achieve any success in solving the employee housing problems unless a flexible approach is used and a variety of alternatives considered. CATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN Ms. Karen Smith December 26, 1978 Page Four Given the foregoing, it occurred to us that the City might be somewhat more flexible than we all had first assumed and I believe that one more informal meeting would be bene f icial. Kindly let me know when this can be arranged. Sincerely, OATES, AUSTIN, MeGRATH & ~ORDAN 4 ) j d. ro (lt (1./ 1. \ By < ( \L' 144 v, 4/V <*6berE W. Hl~ghds RWH/jms Enclosure CC: Mr. Mead Metcalf Mr. Jack Walls ... ,_-Ub...Lr~... . <2 - ' . 1 l Fff jack na. Tivalls architect aspen, colorado p o. box 29 / zip code 81611 / phone 303-925-3218 December 4, 1978 Robert W. Hughes Oates, Austin, McGrath & Jordan 600 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Bob: As a result of our conversation on the telephone Friday, I am writing you this letter to confirm my findings on updating of the March 28, 1978, estimates for Mead Metcalf's employee housing duplex. I have interviewed a number of general contractors in an effort to try and tie down construction cost estimates for next year so that my estimate will be realistic. The figures below cover only construction costs, and since Mead would not charge his employees the higher rental that would pay back his investment, it seemed pointless at this time to update this area. However, this aspect will have to be reviewed, in the end, to see how much Mead will lose financially each month, or per year, by meeting the city's rental guide lines. The construction cost update in as follows: CITY OF ASPEN EMPLOYEE HOUSING DUPLEX HOUSING GUIDELINES CONSTRUCTION COST UPDATE 1. Project addresses low and 1. Two 3-bedroom apartment units @ moderate income housing. 1400 square feet each. (2800 sq. ft. total) @ $55/sq.ft. = $154,000.00 2. Three(3) bedroom maximum for each side of duplex. 2. Two basement storage areas, (mechanical, etc.) 0 890 ea. (1780 3. Maximum of 1400 square feet sq.ft. total) @ $25/sq.ft. = $44,500. apartment size for each side of duplex. 3. Solar domestic hot water equipment installed = $ 4,000 4. Maximum monthly rental income of $1,316.00 for both apartments. 4. Appliances (both apartments) - = $ 3,000 5. The right of first refusal with maximum sales price of 5. Carpet (both Apartments) = $5,000. $74,200 per apartment or a total of $148,400. TOTAL construction cost (not including tap fees, etc.) = $ 210.500 6. Architects fees = 17,900 TOTAL COST = $ 228,400 - 6 2. 1 C The above total does not reflect any land costs. If a reasonable and realistic land cost of $90,000 were added to the above figure the Grand Total would be $318,400. If Mead agreed to follow the city guidelines, and at some later date had to sell this building, he would not be able to recover his costs in doing the project. Construction costs ....... ....$ 318,400.00 City max. sale price ......... 148,000.00 (right of first refusal according to the guidelines) Total loss on investment.....$ 170,000.00 This approach by the city is unrealistic. I don't know how they arrived at their guideline figures for rental and sales, but it is obvious that they do not reflect current construction and land costs. As I said before, I haven't taken the time to go into the rental aspect in depth, but a quick calculation shows that Mead would have to pay out on a 10 year mortgage the approximate amount of $2,322.48 per month, plus insurance, taxes, maintenance, etc. With this figure in mind, and with the maximum rental figure per month of $1,316.00, Mead would lose approximately $1,006.45 plus per month. In the light of these figures, I think that Mead's employee housing duplex project is unfeasible from his standpoint unless some other arrangement can be reached with the city. At this point two thoughts come to mind: 1. The city does not want private individuals to help in solving the employee housing problem. re In order to drastically reduce costs to meet city guidelines, it fppears, that they are encouraging sub-standard construction for employee 'loug.ir16>®at will eventually deteriorate into slums. 1 001 A JaER M. Wa 1ls 'f' J MW/cw ec: Mead Metcalf "OTE: U.. THIS MAP IS A D'AGRAMAT %714 .' - - AND IS NOT TO BE CONSC; // 1 I 95% 103-353-~ 3 1 4 KEY * - DUPLEX UU / T 1-,9/Ty SMUOOLER TE<„%1'._LA R - s- - i --4- 41/ 7-~s COURT E r 5 f 1 b 4 # 6, 49 , U ALPiNE (-2 - 21t- -lit- 3 V Awr<tb 1 -~- 57 - --»5% / 4 13' - / A/1 12-\ , ,, - Ci r. -- )11\1 2 .i.1 1 i 6,4 /4€vlf, 1 -«1.t·, 4 /1 1 Ji /to -1 1 /3 r , r ../ ~ ~ 1 ti ,4 6 4 f~HERRON ': 1 F l--ize.-01# .<-rn_ 7'J---4 24-* C '_ 4 t 1- -- 72 t.; r 'f': 1 , 1 / 1 1// 6 -1/ 8 IT 6 4--0\11 b.. h A --1 1%.11 T\ \ ' f b I , . , 4 -26743 4-V .4-f / t \ 1 ~ 24,/ 6 -- -L 42 - ,t 7 c 1 46 0 7 ,«4. 18»21- .-I , ./7 - I - 3 r 1 ~ ,\Ilf\11<Ull.r' 4-41.41, .1 - Rk: 3-1 ./144 , E , 0 4 , 9/ f - r + pu & *s /- 0 -7-7\ 4 %. J\ , -J.c F , 1 --7 , 1,T,91 \ .\~ / .2uu~- t-->066*24: 46' . 1 - lie- , ,\' ; \ < ll...„ r * 9 r -- r ... 2- 12* 1 6 ; 4 0%> >f/. 7\fil>·1,4.-,-\1 4,·944,-I ,-fi/TP--· - . ..-< 4 52 -1, 0 - - 3 7~~ 1 -- . .t . I . i - % 4 . \ ~ lia - . AT 11\T, 1 El i : ' 9- I '\ , It, \3 '4 - - Ft# 1 vi ~,rT '1 1 '1, ,-1, 32¢4«I...19) 0 ~ 9/h\. ~ -. ~-C 'b~t<i- 4<tgfrf -,-~ f \ . \ h, -r - -4 -- r , = \11 ..7. -1,r r.. \ .j Cil iti te '25 17 Le . .1 -lk t - N. 1 - C. / 1 , 0/ 10-, .\ / \1 ?f +1 -fl FT\\\\1\ 3 \-,2- -1 \4Vfil \ \ \jj_i-L 3-1- *13(\gj \1-~3\-rf: BWUt-0 --4.019-1-1434*r , 1- I L+,, *, 1 32 -6 1:Uf \\2' ZA' l / Glor,i l ~ '~Lijjlill i Err 17<-1 i W 0 i \01:Ft HOLE Cj pARK \ A 1 -44 1- ,<5 s d€b.j 4,404:©fff \«404** 7,\ 60./ D. R_y . 40 1 1 F-ki Sul. / fq 1 i, 49 i~~*4*j)~57<7441+- 9. -",",8,;,r ,1 P¥24-/ /// 1 It l F.. A,-1- 1 I 3,1 *44 6-lpf /0 - »»4 -f»«~-1 -aIll, 7~: 7 1 2»N ~\ [227 h 4 6 5. '2,1 \ L TE \ \6 -143/7 \0••,2.3.RiN,\ / \ g 1 UTE . ,, ir - lili -. - I .0 \7 i -- A»a~ Al€- 0 f 1,1 6*11 r 701/ Aspen/Pitkinz40 1-2>nning Office 130 soithfgkl€*a.%treet th». 1 . i aspen Re-46%414981611 r, 7.ic= L.,351.6, 1 0, f 44 9- V August 23, 1978 t , 1\: .. : A U Ul>.>UJ} c ;14 1 l - 91 Jack M. Walls Post Office Box 29 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Robert Hughes, Esq. Oates, Austin, McGrath & Jordan 600 East Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gentlemen: I received today, August 22, the packet of materials that you submitted in support of the Metcalf rezoning. As I discussed with both of you on separate occasions, I was attempting to place this on the City Council agenda, at your request, for the August 28th meeting. However, after reading the material and specifically the proposed agreement for employee housing commitment, I am more convinced of the concern that I raised with Bob Hughes that the material should be reviewed by the Housing Director prior to its forwarding to the City Council. I would also like to refer the agreement to the new City Attorney, Ron Stock, for his approval of the format of the agreement. After reading the agreement, I recognized that the issues are more complex and cannot be resolved in the next couple of days. Therefore, I am taking the matter off the agenda for August 28th and will refer copies of your proposal to the above- mentioned parties in anticipation of scheduling this for the September 11th City Council meeting. The matters that I wish to review in further detail include the following: 1. The provisions for use and occupancy appear to be appropriate in the sense that they reserve the use of the structures for - the employees of Meade Metcalf, primarily, and secondarily for - other bona fide employees of the City of Aspen. The Housing Director, however, may wish to further define "employee". 2. Rental structure. The proposal to limit rents to $300 per month excluding utilities for each tenancy does not neatly fit into the housing price guidelines which have recently been proposed to the Council by the Housing Director. As I understand the proposal, there will be four bedrooms and 4 € C Jack M. Walls Robert Hughes, Esq. August 23, 1978 Page 2 and four baths for each side of the duplex. In other words, there will be a total of four tenancies per dwelling unit or per side of the' duplex. This would mean a rent of $1,200 per month per dwelling unit or $2,400 per month for each duplex structure. In view of the fact that this does not comply with the current housing guidelines proposal, and also on recognition of the unique attributes of this proposal, I would like the Housing Director to review the appropriateness of this particular rental structure. 3. Right of first refusal upon sale. The proposal offers to give the City the first right of refusal upon written notice of the applicant to sell the duplex. The purchase price of such sale to the City is presumably to be set at the fair market value of the duplex. Given the proposed construction of this duplex, it appears that the fair market value would not be within the reach of low and moderate income persons and that the City's purchase at fair market value would be meaningless in terms of keeping the unit within the low and moderate income range. The effect of any exempt transfers and future survival rights of the City to purchase the units thereafter would be to raise the prices even higher and constitute an even more unacceptable price for low and moderate income housing purposes. 4. Approval of rezoning. I would like to have the City Attorney review paragraph 7 of the proposed agreement for its format With respect to a commitment to rezoning based on certain contract conditions. The legal implications of such should also be reviewed by Ron. In general, I believe the City's concerns were twofold at the time of the public hearing on this rezoning: that the commitment to employee housing remain over a long-term period and that the rezoning not constitute an unacceptable level of congestion and land use impact in the Park Avenue area. I do wish to work with the two of you toward an acceptable proposal and agreement, but I did not anticipate the complexity of the issues that are raised by the agreement you proposed. I will want to thoroughly review the past planning office memoranda as well as the City Council minutes pertaining to the consideration of this matter and I will be happy to meet with the two of you upon my return next week. Sincerely, . kitic B -RA KBS:mc Karen B. Smith Enc. Planning Director CC: Mark Danielsen Ron Stock i 919 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 14, 1977 ORDINANCE #58, SERIES OF 1977 - Coffee Shop as condition use in C-1 zone 1 Ord. #58 9 Coffee Shop Mayor Standley explained that what planning wants is an expansion of the C-1 district use to include coffee shops. This was to be for a specific project; that project has been ~ scrapped. Kane told Council that the planning office still thinks coffee shops are an appropriate use in the C-1 district. :1 1 -9 Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #58, Series of 1977; seconded by Councilman , Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried. i ORDINANCE #58 (Series of 1977) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SEC. 24-3.2 OF THE. MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ~ ASPEN ADDING AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE C-1 DISTRICT, CERTAIN LIMITED FOOD SERVICES was read by the city clerk. Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #58, Series of 1977, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Hershey. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, aye; Hershey, aye; Johnston, aye; Wishart, aye; Van Ness, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried. 11 ORDINANCE #59, SERIES OF 1977 - Independence Subdivision Rezoning 1 Ord. #59 Independence Kane told Council this request is to rezone lots 4, 5, and 6 of Independence subdivision. Subdv. In April 1975 when the entire City was rezoned, the property on the east side of the river was all zoned R-6, with the exception of Independence subdivision, which was held out as. R-15. The reasoning for the 1975 downzoning was that most areas were zoned to use. The three lots are owned by Mead Metcalf. The planning office recommended against this before P&Z because they felt that this was not a suitable area for increased density due to the fact that there will never be vehicular access across Hopkins. The street network is very inadequate with basically no ability to improve the street network. Also, this would precipitate a rezoning request by Walter Mueller who owns land also in · • the Independence subdivision. t At the second hearing, Bob Hughes and Jack Walls, representing Metcalf, made a lengthy presentation of what they wanted to do. The proposal is to remove one single family house and replace it with a duplex to be used for the Crystal Palace for employee housing. Another mitigating fact was when the planning office analyzed Mueller's land, discovered two large ponds. The zoning code does not permit a density calculation for land under water. Even if Mueller's land is rezoned R-6, much of it is subject to the flood plain or is subject to land under the ponds, and therefore, would not be creditable towards f density anyway. P & Z's recommendation is to rezone the property R-6. Before Metcalf can construct he will have to come back under PUD. Council can then enter into any . kind of an agreement to deed restrict those units to long term leases for employee housing. Councilman Behrendt said the Council had seen this happen two years ago, where the only way to get something through is to call it employee housing. Metcalf does have a fine record of housing his people. The problem is he does not have to continue to own this. The City is rezoning so that Metcalf can put another house on the site, but then he is entitled to sell it. The City has added density under the name of employee housing. Councilman Parry stated the City and County are trying to do employee housing, yet when ever the private sector tries to do employee housing, it is killed. _ Councilman Behrendt asked if Metcalf would be willing to stipulate that this property ihall eternally remain- employee housing at controlled, prescribed ratesi_or does-he- just want a windfall profit. Councilwoman Johnston pointed out they could give a right of first refusal to the City. Bob Hughes told Council they were amenable to a lot of latitude. There is a basis for exploring what can be done. Metcalf is trying to accommo- date employee housing and as long as he is in Pitkin County that is what he will do. Councilwoman Johnston moved to table this until the City Attorney is back and Council can get a better handle on what the situation is; seconded by Councilman Wishart. , Mayor Standley said Council is really defining a PMH R-6, not a simple R-6. Mayor Standley said given some constraints, he is willing to make density bonuses. Without those constraints, he is not interested. Kane said he would meet with Metcalf and explain the right of first refusal and the program Goodheim set up, and find out if Metcalf is willing ato agree with this. I All in favor, motion carried. ,1 ORDINANCE #60, SERIES OF 1977 - Anti-discrimination Ord #60 Anti discrimin. • Mayor Standley pointed out that the City Attorney had submitted a memorandum. This , ordinance is being drafted at the request of Ralph Brendes. Councilwoman Johnston moved to read Ordinance #60, Series of 1977; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #60 (Series of 1977) . AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION 13-98 TO CHAPTER 13 OF SAID CODE PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES ; RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT, HOUSING, AND PUBLIC SERVICES AND ACCOMMODATIONS AND PROVIDING FOR CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF was read by the city clerk. i #- , 'U -r.4 ~ jack rn. walls architect aspen, colorado p.o box ae / zip code 81811 / phone 303-925-3218 August 21, 1978 The Mayor And The City Council City of Aspen, City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Metcalf Rezoning Independence Sub-Division Dear Ladies & Gentlemen: In November of last year the application to rezone Mr. Metcalf's three lots (lots 4,5, & 6) in Independence Sub-Division from R-15 to R-6 was approved by the City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission. However, during that same month, at our appearance before the City Council for the Rezoning Public Hearing, the application was tabled in order that we might present to council reasonable assurances that our project was designed to accommodate employee housing. Since that time, and after a number of meetings with Planning Directors Bill Kane and Karen Smith, we have managed to work out all the details so that we could accommodate council's concerns about the project being housing for Mr. Metcalf's employees. After much work, including the design of the duplex itself, we are now ready to appear before the Aspen City Council for approval of - the rezoning. I am enclosing with this letter prints of the pro- posed duplex design, copies of the proposed agreement between the City and Mr. Metcalf, and copies of the proposed plot changes that we will later propose to council in a subdivision exemption hearing. We would greatly appreciate being included in the next City Council ~~Agenda. 1 __00.9~J~Walls JMW:bd Enclosure jack In. -uralls architect aspen, colorado p.O box 29 / zip code 81811/ phone 303-925-3218 METCALF DUPLEX March 28, 1978 (EMPLOYEE HOUSING) "A '1 "B" BUILDING AREA: 4 Bdrms - 2 Bath 4 Bdrms - 4 Baths Structure above ground 3,320 Sq. Ft. 3,848 Sq. Ft. (1,660 x2= 3,320) (1,924 x2= 3,848) Basement 1,994 Sq. Ft. 1,574 Sq. Ft. (997 x2= 1,994) (787 x2= 1,574) ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST: Above Ground 3,320 x $45 = $149,400.00 3,848 x $45 = $173,160.00 Basement 1,994 x $20 = 39,880.00 1,574 x $20 = 31,480.00 Solar Dom. HW. 4,000.00 4,000.00 TOTAL $193,280.00 $208,640.00 APPLIANCES: 2,000.00 2,000.00 CARPET: 5,000.00 5,000.00 TOTAL $200,280.00 $215,640.00 ARCHITECTS FEES: 84% x $195,280 16,428.80 84% x $208,640 17,734.40 PROPERTY TAXES: Building - $193,280 x 20% = $38,656.00 Land = 5,480.00 $44,136.00 44.14 x 50.03 = $2,208.32/yr. 2,208.32 Building - $208,640 x 20% = $41,728.00 Land = 5,480.00 $47,208.00 47.21 x 50.03 = $2,361.92/yr. 2,361.92 INSURANCE: Estimated/yr. 400.00 400.00 FINANCING: , Construction Cost 193,280.00 208,640.00 Architectural Fee 16,428.80 17,734.40 Property Value 80,000.00 80,000.00 TOTAL VALUE $289,708.80 $306,374.40 PAGE 1 : METCALF DUPLEX March 28, 1978 (EMPLOYEE HOUSING) PAGE TWO "A" "B" Finance 70% of Value: $202,796.16 $214,462.08 (200,280.00) (215,640.00) 500.70 (CASH) 539.10 (CASH) 10 years @ 94% + 34 pt. 2,573.48/mo. 2,765.52/mo. 15 years @ 10% 2,159.98/mo. 2,321.16/mo. 20 years @ 10% 1,939.71/mo. 2,084.46/mo. RENT STRUCTURE: (Duplex) CITY RENTAL GUIDE LOW MODERATE MIDDLE 2 Bedroom (800 sq. ft.) 300.00/mo. 450.00/mo. 600.00/mo. Per Side 600.00/mo. 900.00/mo. 1,200.00/mo. Both Sides PROPOSED RENTAL GUIDE 4 Bedroom 600.00/mo. 900.00/mo. 1,200.00/mo. Per Side (1,660 sq. ft. or 1,200.00/mo. 1,800.00/mo. 2,400.00/mo. Both Sides 1,900 sq. ft.) $1,200/mo. = $1,800/mo. = $2,400/mo. = 8 8 8 $150/mo./Bedroom $225/mo./Bedroom $300/mo./Bedroom RENTAL PER BEDROOM WITH COMMON USE OF LIVING ROOM, DINING ROOM, KITCHEN, ETC. - 'L- C; . / A . 2'trh-,1. Aspen/PitkiI¥33131-ining Office 4.-413 £13 - 4%*%* 13 0 s oii-1.hrif&'164'1 treat aspen &4-41 8143*=81611 April 6, 1978 Mr. Jack M. Walls P.O. Box 29 Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Jack, As a result of our meeting on April 3, 1978, in discussing the proposed duplex for Mead Metcalf at Park and Hopkins in the City of Aspen, I believe that an agreement that will preserve_..the housincy as loncr term -emplovNZ-*Mme»ng will be Ilessm..iluy before rezoning approval €6 R-6 by the-EITS:'-Coun- cil. Such an agreement should include two. major elements. 'The first would be ,a_.nrovision that would ~I€,7.-the L.ditk t-0--9821922.- the tenants for the building to ensure that housing .wau.21.153 Dreserved ove-f"the" loharun .ITUP-7<Yetimate . 1-6-cal empi'AY€124 - 1-22-cond element would include an 91529 - IWEiL··aa. to a a-pecific annual.limitation on th.e rent -hEE£223 which '€11111 bear some re:asonable rel.ationshin to the,=gat for maintenance and operation of .the huil.d,jag. This can be general-lv worded and the elements that would go into consid- eration for -increasing rent can be. eBumerat.ad- I 53*ITE-ve that if an agreement were clearly worded and presented to the Council that your application would be in a position for approval to rezoning from R-15 to R-6. With respect to the subdivision exemption that will be necessary to complete this, I think it would be appropriate to present this and mention to the Council and make it clear to them that they should anticipate a subdivision exemption to be forthcoming in order to amend the property lines so as to provide 9,000 square feet to cover the minimurri lot area needed for..·the new duplex. Sincerelv, 8111>Yo»U William G. Kane Planning Director WGK/ SS cc: Karen Smith a1 . C A I MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Bill Kane, Planning Director RE: Rezoning Application for Lots 4, 5 and 6 of the Independence Subdivision DATE: November 9, 1977 Please find attached a memorandum presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the rezoning request for Lots 4,5 and 6 of the Independence Subdivision, currently owned by Mr. Mead Metcalf. Jack Walls, representing Mead, is applying for rezoning from R-15 to R-6 with the stated intention of adding one additional unit in the Independence Subdivision area. As you can see from our original memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Commission, we recommend against this rezoning due to deficient circulation, the preservation of the '75 zoning rationale and generally the fear that this rezoning would precipitate additional , applications in the area and that, in general, the area is unsuitable for higher density. At the P&Z meeting, Mr. Walls and Bob Hughes made a detailed presentation on precisely how the land would be used. They reviewed Mr. Metcalf's track record with respect to providing employee housing and how the existing units are used for employees of the Crystal Palace. It was the Board's judgement that the imoacts that would result on the neighborhood were minimal when contraste767?h the sijal benefit of providing additionaf housing for employees in a high quality tradition as has been characteristic of Mr. Metcalf's projects. One of our considerations for maintaining the R-15 zoning in the area was that it would be hard for us to justify rezoning the Metcalf land without looking at the balance of the Independence Subdivision in and that the entire subdivision sits as an island of R-15 in a broader area of R-6 zoning. Again, the Board felt that several factors mitigated the potential damage to the area. First of all, that on the adjacent Mueller property, much of the land is subject to either flogdo_lain or land under water as a result of two ponds being on the site. Even with R-6 zoning on the balance of the land, it was felt that the development potential of the adjacent property would be substantially less in and that t}Te lands under water would have to be subtracted from the balance of the property in determining density for the area. Conclusion In this applicatian--You are presented with a balancing of values: 1) an incremental and~33117377177 somewhat minor impact on the neighborhood vs. the benefit of provid-ing sbme additional permanent housing for local employees; given the fact that only one additional unit would be per- mitted oil Metcalf's land. This change does not represent a major impact ' in the neighborhood. Of course, in reviewing any further developiiient in the area, it would be desirable to secure commitinents to long-term housing; however, of course these cannot be appropriately obtained at this phase which is simply rezoning. Before an additional unit may be constructed on the Metcalf property, a request for exemption from PUD procedures will have to be made and that would be a more appropriate time to secure commitments to long-term housing, i.e. lease restrictions, etc. Given the Ueview and ,detailed consideration by PAZ, we feel that we can 5224UJ,Ullcir recollille ndation in this mattUr and therefore recommend that the application be aifproved. J €- C MEMORAHDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commi ssion FROM: Planning Office (BK) RE: Rezoning Application for Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Independence Subdivision DATE: October 14, 1977 A request is being made for rezoning from R-15 to R-6 for three lots within thepIndependence Subdivision. The land is zoned by Mir. Mead Metcalf and application is being made by Mr. Jack Walls. The land consists of some 21,913 square feet and is located south of Hopkins, west of Park Avenue and north of Dale. Three dwelling units currently exist on the property, two within a duplex and another single family house. The existing duplex spans the existing lots 5 and 6 and the single family is on lot 4. Should the rezoning be granted, then four dwellings in total would be allowed on the property in that the R-6 zoning district, if done in the P.U.D., would permit one dwelling per 4,500 square feet. The application mistakingly states that under a P.U.D. within the R-6 zoning district one dwelling would be allowed on 3,000 square feet and this is not the case. In looking at this application, we have taken a look at the entire Inde- pendence Subdivision because we-feel that it would be an untenable propo- sition to rezone these three lots without zoning the balance of the Independence Subdivision which is an area which had been set aside for R-15 zoning as the result of the 1975 downzoning. A review of the zoning map points out that this area has been set aside and zoned differently than the surrounding area. Upon a cursory review and without some digging into the rationale for the zoning in 1975, the zoning pattern would look as though this area were selectively zoned for lower density zoning than the surrouding area. In reviewing this rezoning request, we have sought to determine: 1) What the considerations were in 1975 when the area was zoned; 2) To report to you on our finding as to the suitability of those conditions, that is; whether the conditions or rationale for the zoning which took place in 1975 are still legitinient today. John Stanford, who was on the planning staff at the time, has pointed out that much discussion of this property took place during the discussion of the rezoning and felt that the principle of zoning which underly the entire zoning at the time was a zone de-use principle. That is, within the residential areas within the City, zoning was applied so as to make the current residential land use pattern legal within the City Zoning Code so that modification could be carried out in a legal way with a minimum of Government involvement. But at the same time, the zoning applied was carefully adjusted to existing development and existing lot sizes. It is perhaps unfortunate that, as of April 1975, this property was surrounded by already existing development on lot sizes ranging anywhere from 3 to 6 thousand square feet. And that this property, by virtue of having been developed with larger lot sizes, was retained as R-15 zoning which is the zone district which most closely approxiniated the existing development within the area. Aside from the general zoning principles which were applied in 1975, this area is unique from several standpoints. Number One is Circulation and from a circulation standpoint, additional density in the area would be undesirable due to: 1) Hopkins Street having been closed as a vehicular through street and thereby requiring all traffic movement from this property to take place on Park Avenue. Park Avenue itself is an inadequate street in and that no right of way exists, it is a prescriptive easement and any improvements in width or paving surface would have to be accomplished through condemnation of adjacent property. And given the fact that homes immediately adjoin •r'· . t.6.17 4 % I . . . . Aspen Planning and Zoning Pezoning Indel;endence Subdivision Page Two October 14, 1977 the street, this would be rather expensive and highly unlikely prospect. 2) Much of the 'land within this block resides within the 100 year floodplain of t[ie Rcaring Fork River. To establish this generally for you, the two ponds which exist on Walter Mueller's land, constitute roughly the eastern boundary of the 100 year floodplain. This and the ponds constitute two additional constraints and unique characteristics of the site. Even if done in a P.U.D. under R-6 zoning, it is unlikely that substantial density could be added to the area because of the City's regulation of Section 24-2.6 wirich prohibits the calculation for density purposes of any land under water. Conclusion and Recommendation We have reviewed the rationale and justification for the R-15. zoning that was applied to this block and subdivision in 1975 and find the reasoning and rationale to be still valid today. The block is unique from the standpoint of: 1. A deficient circulation pattern within the area due to already overcrowded street network. 2. Much land within the block are devoted to existing ponds. 3. A substantial portion of the site which resides within the 100 year floodplain. 4. The large lotting, which took place previous to 1975 for the area, which is separate and distinct from the surrounding area. These considerations, in our mind, make the area suitable for R-15 and we recommend that the existing zoning stand for the area. 1mk - ... J 440 - HOPKINS m O PARKING 1 \\ \ om \ 0 - \ F 0 3 lii - -- - 2-1.1.In.#2'27=-8 /-4<g-*1:*I' *b m r --m 1 m O TL a- [33 r y -~ 2 2 N O I EC)3 r W b m 6...1- 1* ®ildp Z , 1- 0 1 -01 2 -fi O I U---7 E th 1 ~ 1 1 : L.. j 1 1 1 4 . 411/l 0/ ti, ibull , 1 ri *- -2~ -=\ 7/intwmw4,r 1 '. i m m m FC · 1 - --- -- m 0 0 11 .! 1 0 E g /"'-T~ r-1--r ' 1 li 0 Jr : il I , r 4 / 449 1/i,il'/ b - mm m - / 0 0 9 N tx 1 4\ W \ N i\,1 A -r-*. - Z G) W ' 1 D \ \ , 1 ----1\ V 11,1 - \ \ 00 \ m 1 -- O \ 33 L_ Z i iii , I m mbm 4 i:- 0 Z 2 0 Z i 1 . 0 --- r 0 9 0 r 0 n o 0 t eL-ge-9 .0,0 0 - U - -&*f -i.....N7073.4~··.p··.·.*...*.t.~..~~4$4.„t, •S•frwm~.4&4~...2.,tio>*-I&4..4.+44- - - -4....==W;J J L ........1.--1...14.,-,--,4.-----.f,„..4----.-W -- --- - 1 . . ....I--9- ---- I.- -- ----- , .-<Et-FlA;13 · - - - - I - I - - € 1 - 'i-7 ' ?3-« === 1 in·.trm 11/2/ 1==22 .... I .... 1 1. I . 1 :' ./ 1. 04' - 11 . - *: V '.' *14.-·*Ll££,fw' . r'w'rf> iv' ti~.i'"- 1 1 . / 4 .. 22"99/li P -- ./ 4' 44 M ·,4. , r.p ., . 1-41 rp. 1 · 4 r , 4 . z. Gd/91£421» Al&~ 'fl .-'1 1. 19£ , r.:.1, , =~11 :4*~~4> 24:2, 4 : 995·05' , 3/:.1,lidt., ~ . 4 6 :/ , 1 Dy ·14. . 1. +47/4 .... V ... - 11.1.11.1 ' n 11'll/'ll ''432>tt..4 -I./.A e<*Wil'*'Aillillillillillillilialliz. · I 4, .~*fil ~ 46& I. . 1 ' . .4 -=' , , .. *W+01,/22 4 I. r 41 >812¥, 4 ·_f U.L. r .......1 . #,5:. -,fji'.0 ..... 74* . 3 4:·=mt . .i,-IMM!0 +109. '...M,6 'I .ye¥% 11 . I ,=5, -~1·472 ..i- ..f ~ ,i'~ 4f)ze. ,.. tyl#y..· ;64"7 1,1104, .Aldt. . · '' I .7 .1.r•ype,~ . ..%*P ..., t - - /648,/a-7.11/ . '< I .44954- ty· ' =i@Fr00, =01,1 .1/lillillit#(:illilililllillillilillillitellililiRii;lill'Illi .Lit 1 / r,A*· .Cy . ... 'IT· - t. 1.1 fy Adi.NE,lit#&44 1.--3 E A t ./, r ./ - '19 ..h · ·01 .. + -m +B 5, 2...'L .. - k . , 1 4 0':P:j-~,L ./IllillillillillillillillillillillillillilimillililliMmilllli~ - , ..1 I . 76. 4-22& A ' t/424 -+ p - ~34. 9„: -tr.-1 4 4 , 1 63'...tf'*«..,;.*0:.i" .1/'ll'll. .ilillietillillielilll* 4, <lk 1....4 .4"m.-,, 1- --4......... \ 1. ..ir - ,.· A·i,;.trA,M*ib;14}i®.i,·:685*ifill.;,~ . · FV A 41./ i- ' 1 .. 7/all -' 2(14~ .1- t. *2 7 : 64. VE,4 , ;7.7/14[Fl~ . 1 A//'mr i 2- - I - IT... d,tte. 1¢'4;~ * 11· '*e. . le· · ¥19*r°. ~ ··· -Ill- 7 i :fli~~ 4, 9424*:QE.4.. *C t.- 'f'144,~ ;:6' ./3/Al.'/..3-i: it .9 - 1. ..t - - f 6 .. 7./.Ekfuljo k re 2„111.22. h • ~r~ :~~t., 4.1).2 , .:4.- 44:.... r - · Iee. ;PL'l~.4.~•4Nk'~14®ur, · - I '11% 1.6 + 1 A. . $ . 4 :. I.* .0 .,lili ... 4 I J. .. bl" .%¥ .93=2 - -4 1 -4 1 - k - 1 ... f 4,0 I k. 7.t:= *' . 1 . ..1 't. .4 . ~, ... I.Q ..1.3 4& -- . I .4 +.92-42*~u--· N · ,4 1£69*3w3Rlifamai-,5/~i,+ 9.. <* .... ' I It i. r. 1 I 431 . 11 06'00' INDEPENDENCE NO. 2 SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT S 750 2 44.70' 0 -1 0- LOT 4-A , l . b 43 1 71- 31 - r. ---UL:26'00" ·· Cd 1 - 76»\L-- r O -c/-0 1 2/2/ j 0 .1.. 1 0 '9/ 1 ~ - Jil 1 - --4 2 6.56 t N 75*06'00"W ~ L\%--i\JJ~~ 2/. 37' 4,4 0 5 it· v 9 40 'AN -%·AE HOUSE- ~ SCALE. 1"=20' P S, nA - t.; l.gr. LOT 5-A ZI 0* 2 al 01 0 u'l OI -,5 0 01-,0 0,1 w DALE 112.43' AVE. . -r. f A 11\ ili k f ( 12, Mt 1 3 „00 1,9 01, 1 N 126.8 6 PA R K AVE· S 19394 249 8 8- 123.02' NO 5 REBAR 8 CAP SET NO.5 REBAR 8 CAP HOPKINS AVENUE 975006'n„1, i 95.6, 629'dZ SET O 24.5' N ' . I 95.45' 2 ONE STORY FRAME HOUSE § 0975' 6 95.46' 0 8 24 9 2 e 1 CD 6, LOT 4 22.00' U') 4.00 --- WCSETN05REBAR Ll N E 0 96 8 POWER , 86 - 0, TOPOFFENCE POST 98.5' m N 750 06'00"W CV 40 9824 253 Li SET NA/l ~ 23.00, PAT/O 20.3' L,Or 5 20.6, A- (0 S E 32' 8 mx 0 96 7' TWO STORY FRAME HOUSE 974/, 237, 98.07' /9.0, X WOOD DECK SET NAIL 17009' 1 203 X %O 9, 0 96,91 -0 --- 4* r - 0 -- X F C 1 j / SM 1 // 1 / M W / X I' DRIVEWAY / LOT 6 W.C. SET NO5 REBAR 8CAP 1 1 1 99.3' / 99.7, 400' 545 9820' NORTH SCALE A 2000' W OFIRE HYDRANT TOPNUT 100.0' S 750- , B OSET~Q54€8448 CAP U€ 00,2/1/2.43' . /2243' - 6 1 1 DALE AVENUE ( NORTHERLY /0.00' HALF) 1 . . OCTOBER 7,1974: ADD ELEVATIONS 1>HAROLDW JOHNSON,( JOHNSON-LONGFELLOW 8 ASSOCIATES,INC.), A REGISTERED SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF COLORADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THATTHIS SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND A ONE STORY FRAMEHOUSE,AND A TWO IMPROVEMENT SURVEY ' STORY FRAME HOUSE WAS FOUND TO BE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE LDT UNES. ALL EASEMENTS AND ENCROACHMENTS IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME ARE SHOWN. SAID SURVEY IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. 4. 14. Gk INDEPENDENCE SUBDIVISION JOHNSON -LONGFELLOW 8 ASSOCIATES,INC. 4-7 ..8-40·~.*, ~- 7 r 4,44&*1'ed 1 2 31. , - LOTS 4,586 ef 41-'- 4 00 .Gj -7:47 I ANU.4-9-0/ I.9 f , 90 0 0 . A HAROLD w. JOAN»1 1 ' ~.4 C L/ JOHNSON- LONGFELLOW 8 ASSOCIATES, ING. RO BOX 5547 WEST VILLAGE COLORADO 81615 22...9599 1 c . 7 2 '. b SEPTEMBER 26, I974 SCALE : 1"= 41 4. M 962 N 31 00"E /30 , 33.00 N 10051'00"W 12.0' , 6.,F 17.7 WOOD RAI L FENCE - ~N 03013'00"W 4000' 25.6' 0 ..,7,» F#A 06 00"E INDEPENDENCE NO. 2 SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT G 9 750 1 \ guyl \ ~/0 . N LOT 4-A 0 2 RAME H(OUSE- -4 - ~;5076'01, bl I -O/b / -7 76-«W 0/0 / 4-1/ 0 1 1 i 61 k. 1 13 27 -0.59.' , S. (21 750 t»*af -lwo 514:29 F ------F + 2 \ 0 5 16 21 3- 40 N sitilifil//5 01,» ----- --r\-0~ 1 SCALE. I" 1 20' Al *- 4 1 06 00" W H2.43' z' LOT 5-A 0 to 3 C) 2-\ - N 750 ., DALE . AVE. C) 1 f A \1/ t t2€86 S 10004' 00" E PARK AVE- l.3Z1i'O"E& O, A do V 00 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 Z 0 2 ! 0 - . Ill 4 n \ 0 1. 1 1 00 16 -3 Z - £ M r - C 14 -- . 1 1 W 1 - - H 1 N M \ 4 Z X '- £ 1 0 0 0 2 - w --- ' 111 111 B .1/ - i f -7- > /7 + 1 Il . -1 t 9 #f\.i, 4 u j-7-* / . 1 0 h ----- 1 'BI e i U 11 a-- 1 1 J ID 0 . 111 \ 04 9 w; i i'.11 - S.- ~- ~ • r Ii'bi "Nt i®11 L -1 Fil';14 %13 1%1 1 7 Lj 4 \ 'i \ 1 ! 1 .1 0 --, ij<A )1! 0 k 4.- --_ 1, L.= tb-· / 4 \ 2 J 14 ' \ 9; *ft.11 9 , I ¢ i 4 11 J N J 0 213 _5 , 1 a J 4 1 0 LAI U --M-- tu 4 3 1 0 t 1- g ' 1 \ t \\< SNIMWVd 0 SNI>IdOH I. 4 4 . *- . I 1- '07 00 ' NadS V ovr . I '31 |lillii 1, . It;,ill 41--- !,3'~/0-1/ ~i:7 4':! 14 .1 1;: :1:; ''' 4:'." . 11 .;11"''4[ 1 (1 ;:*ti•tr 1, [1 1111 1. ,-Trt. 1 -11-11- 01--: 3-' I.# 4··te If 11 I. K - , LIA 1 LTIE , .All,1./1 i 1/Wri lilli 11 li, '1 '1 - . t.: 'fi/; .' I j!.,6,/:' |L ':=-!11!f' r 1.,1 111 ' u 11 11 1 IIi, 11 1 111 11,1 1 '15 41 1. 1 1 .I . It It lilli :, , ...,i .f .,til .,1 ,> -1. Billijk ./ .1 4.11. 11 : lili!.11 .1 4 '.r, . i•# 47 't'. '1' 2 .,e r r !'. t. 1/ , '11 ..i.t , , *1,. i I { '1 . 1 111 1 1 " ' 4,1 . , ..41*, . ft.'.') /(#, t i „ £49;t 11 1 111 1, 11 ' f . JL a 1 h 4 4 111 M 411 111 1 r 14 11 11 11 1[ 441 -: . , ' tt , f : Irl< i. 1 . I , 1 li -1.11 1 |il i| 1 li it i i iliti• 1 21 1 :if'/, . -"if j 11 iiI • 12 1 9 1,111 V . P * · 3 ,!' 1 i' ' t tia.·,1 1 1 1 , R.: 4 lilli : f ' ·· ' t' i' ' ' i t I * t. 1 11 . -r J I' ilt' ; III' r ' 1 04 r.,/ it.• , 3 1.2411,7 1 11 . 1 , , '' '' It ~1 - , ' a ir; i e . '. . - '1 &}il ilit:! 1,•t 11 ' 11 1 .If I , 1, i F 11;1 .1 t 1 1 '1 11¥ I ¢ itl ,& , .4,1, 11 43 4},1 ., i . 6. tt 1 11 r , i i,1 1 • Iii. i,!i ; ... . 4 1 .1 1'' ' *.sil t. 1411:14 < , If t• , i ilil ri!''I .'~h i J. 1 :3 .' / t:, W i I i . 1,;} ..l , lili 11 11111111 lili 111 6 1; 'lill 1 ' -~r'< . . 21'ti, .1 '1 '1 It , i 11, 11 11 , 1 11 1 .:1}§1 1 tal. b 4,1 1 1 It 1% 1 lita It- , i I k I 1 ~01'i , ~·~~44< ~1042 ,4 , a , 1 1 1 111 111 1 ~11 1 1 4 9 BB< u d- 4 i %1.rd*U,91· 41 1! 1 1!.111! 111'ti, 11~ i; iiit 1 ;{4;~il! f :1~111 ... 111,11111't 111~11 ,B, .'t• Al"t' ' 4- , :i" ' , tp,1 ,·,1 Li 1., 1;~~'<~ M |~~ 12, I~ < 'I ; 5 t~ ,/ Irr;! if lif.' · 1 1 1,1 h i i 1 1/1 . ¢ 1,1 ... 1 11.. 1.1% , t.i: :11 : ; li;#1 1 4. F 1,11' 1 1 .,f, ; ·' ' ' 2 ' ' | P ,+ .li''t ~ tri 'f.t t' P ';ili,t''i.j . It J,t : 5 'll'. ' 2 ,} ¢ 51! ' - , 1 a. 4 t) ' 1 11 I t ;.-$''. ..'14 1,1 ; 2 ' 1 4- I }41 .ti,~i~ i 1 4, 11 4*911' 6 -1 , , 4 1 4 4 . 11:. 'I:, . i. 1'.Iti 11 / lili- - 11 1 . .1. 4 1 .1 lili" ; ·'i, Al is': ' i g 13 V ;j.4.; 1. 2 .,1 11 111 11 11 I 11 1 ., , plt, 1 11111 1 1. - "1 '' 114 4 It , 11 111 ; . , 1 11 1 11 11 .. 1 1 lilli i t:, .li * ' .' ~ il'; :4 . ' 6 ''4 1''liq , '' 1.41: 11 ., .i 'tt.i il I ti 1/ -Iit F ilill}l Ii" 5 -rer f'111111 11 ~1 j 11-IIi*~1~1 . .1::1.r 6}!2 , irt lili ' 1 11 A.„ P Ip iIi 1 -11 : Dll 1 lili Ill 11 III 1 1 i!11 :84': : 2 , :St 'i} ; 4, 4 1.4 '1. 11 lili .it . ; 1:, 1,1 1,1 1 !11, 1 4. : e & r 2 .2,1 (<# 9114*4Bw·Ii'~1,111, 11;.11 . , 1 1 11; t ..f- 1 1.1 L lilli 9 p }11 1. , 1. . 1 I , I ,- 4 1. . 1 1 1 E. 5 - 1 .t '' 'I . ../1 -6 1 -1 1 ; Iii i // 11 11 1 111 1 11 1 1 lilli 11 1 11 4 loilli- :. 1, 11 1 / ·11 . 11. IlL 13 41 1 1 IL | 1 ILL ; i *15<#1 , 1 ,/ , ; 1, 14, 1 + b 14 t; 1 lilli1p 11 11 If 11 1 11 11 ir 1 2 lit' 11 It I .1 £ 03 .:, 1''lle'~:1~,111111 1;l 4 1H4 ~111~~~11i i~~ w' ll]!~tt'~4 F, 64 '" r e 1, 11 I i lit 11$< It. 11'l : 4 f U. ir' ilif I I'/ Fl | 1 1'|i ln,| till ill id li 'i , i Ill '1 .1 , 2.,n Me f ' Kilf' A ':6 d 4 1 1. 11 r 11 11 1'.1[.1111,11 lilli 1,17 111 k 1 11 Ilt lili 11 111 14 ~11.1 . . ' it,''i Wi. f i. ' a~; ~Ft'l .Ii,Ii?1& -11 1 . t. 11 1% 11 1 # 1 i , 9 1„3 ! 1 , 11' i 9 ,/41 If. 2 14 1 , tt t.r I T ' 4 i .1 . 1 '4 11111:,i q,]' 4 lili /441,1, 111111211[ - 4%. : 1 ..h:. 3. F :til"ti ~1' 4, p'i~~,0 1' 1. A ,~I'lll'-'l' , ',11 2,F„LY. f' ; I, 1 W¢41% ,%: , k 11.1 1 n. :$ t lili l; 1 141 1-111'T'+ Ul b 1 421' mi ist'. 11 4, 1 fill 1 Ellie , 1 .1 1 4 ,.4 , ' jp</p,4.11 1 i 1, 4 I 'lf , 0 51; ,=U C ! .t ••¥- i ' 11 '11 / 11 11 ' 11 1.'lir, 1. ... 1. &11 1 litti, L, !1 . , '1,1,1, D- frit 1 ... 11 11 lili 1 1 1 4 :i: 16'11!411'11.'15! !.I;G i " ' "° 41, 11 10'P 11,491:12' 411'1' 1 1.11 '11 111 ;'Et .ti4*;iwk;c# 11, , 1 . i ea• i i ~91'l,R ,„ 111: 11,1111 11 41 1 hi ., 11 1. 4 111 9 141 , , Wit,·Ai N 32 1 J Ill 1 '11,1.,11*.11('Al ¥ 1 4. 1. 1,4. 9 / 1-4 111~ 1 ?111 . ... J 1 21: 1 - 741 1 „./6 ' ": t; ",t1,Bti 5/,4../:1 - '1 1; 1611,4 111,114-1 11 11 «' .t ; 11 1 , 111111 1,b 1 1 1, Iii i'TI!,24,1,41 1 :If.11, It 1,1 1. 1 1, 14 91. 41 1. 1 ,7 1 1 '1 I :1 1 1., . 1 1,1 li t 1 i /1 11 "1 1 1.41 lili 1 - 11-4:"/ 1 1. 17 . .1 P ':E i i ,1 lit 'f'' P;'UP - 'b' triuM , 11 4" ¢ 1 :1 F...1,01.41 44 1 1 1 1 -'. , 1 1 1 |ill 8 1 1 ' 1.44 , I I i' ' i. r 10 )*evt 1, 1 i 3,1 r ~ i., Fe - ..11.,t;, * 1.1 h.17 * L £11'11~!1'111~.4.i,:ri~ Y! lit; i}11 11~l;li!1&44:i~, 4 F£Fzi~Qt!,1,-! , #1;~~'~1'i~;1}1!;1~11~~;ti}li.{itt ! 1 ' 1~~ E H :~*NJM ~'1~ h mi i 1, 1 11. ip|, , ,|~1[4!ili ": ' 1iiv 1, 1, 11'1 '~ + 1 -,1 'lt. , 1*. J 19 1 -0?11 1 1 1 it - 11 1 , , 0, ...i·., 0 ). . -, k '7 0 "'lili. , 'I , i r..0.- 1 7 i,43 1 1 . 1~ Il ~F . I 111-37 w mi; i 1 11 1 111 1 -Ii .t>1„,1114.:.1 : III; 1 ~ ' 4~82, '1 F '; ,,-J' 4 , 11 1 1 1. /1 R':11 IHI! I 1 11 1 1 1/ 1 4.2, 11 2 illf '11 1 11 , .16,1, 11 1 ~ di '11'1' 1 12 -r z il 1 411 1 : 11,1, 111 11 1 illili .2,1 it r 414 · 1 Elk'j.,11 1 ~; 11~1~1!1111* III' 4' ,/ ., "| .' ~ 7~ '~9 /0,11·~ ::,1 P i , Ir ..... ,!!11 1 0, 19 1/9·,ft 1 L 1 *:5 i ,| 4 1 K K i A Will i 1 1 01111 4,4 1 . 1841 1 1!0;. Il ·R lui|1!11: ' ,·--e, 4 - . t} rt , ' 1 ~ : i lit (,11*~~'i||| 1 ' 4 . 'i U i *~44 1 4 iii 1 1 &1 r : ,#1* _.. .- --4- ,®ill[' I~;~4 lii,ie 111 , 11 lift 'linl.·Ii I ~,i, ;, . 8 -1 , lili at !1 4(; 1 4 , 411 i' 1 C.-14" ' , 1 - 1 , , C I * 11 11 1.111 -11 11 lili 1 i " , 32 drLI pr'j " 11- , D 1.,t .1 1 111,3 ' 1 '(lti . lili 1 1,4 1 1/p : il -015; 47 f,4 ' : : -91 1 ~. l#1 1 Il ~ 1 1 ~ Il, t flwt 1,:fffilt-k i zr: :4 . (f¥ 3 i fl. ./ - 1 " 11!'1,1141 ro MI , 1 . ./24 4 i liti· c. ,·..·r.i-Tit,Jij/6. 62*31;.~t :2-72.:t , ,3 . a '.~ T"I 1 1~ 11 . *. i #- - ·· 7. '-·1.:5 im *.i' fll'~Filli'11; irRIi· *iditi' f :Jib ' 1,il'll , ' d : 4411 11' 11'91'li 7, , , 1%##I .- . 1.-- r.. , ' 1. I - . -, I. #9* 16 4, 14.Que.vt"" 1.u»*#mitf '7 1} 1-711 ' . f ~ ~ ~1 :ft, al't 1 1 kb t i I '41' I : .1 +6 41 /1 4/. - 1.1 ./ 4- * 16 1 i B /L 1 411 H i . '' -1.1 - .14 ' '· :CE':111'i,1 I i i ~il|'63 0, '11 2%:11 9/5232 ' - 't . . , , .42334% 2 -- ~ 1 .6 1 .1 E 1 Ze. ,- ( .· ·r; 440.t·,1 21 lita;'lili -dlilli 1,1 ....31!!,1,=mMI,1.11"4'111 ME#11 111 E lli 11 -,4 - .e '. .. - /me'Haack liliti .42 . /4 R ...7 ' ' 9.4- ' 1, litkiw- 4 , th=242*+I. J . P..Ut,LJ.#1 1 ..,a- .31 01 1 . 762- 2122 - 4 --291,8,101, h jii .i - V. .... , .1 -~ . 1.-- ..5.4. - ..14, 1 '. ,. . ... . . 4 6.!? I -I . . ..«iF€1 , - 1 . .. r ~ % , 6 . , . 1 5 1 . - 1.0 4 le'. . -- ' . 4 'Air -P - . , '1. 1- . . ~. 1 - ~ , , I ,-/ ...9.55 .1 - -4-- ..15 13 --:- 4.- -.,- ~ ~~ 1-~.:-I,t~.-.'4'#t)*~,~.~~~&P~tb*,-4~~- -Lai -1 I ' 4, .1 ' 44..c-, / - ---r-'.-- 2. - ... ... - ..1-11 0 I - 1 . , 2 54» .'ht. -4 . ' < . r.... 7,= I I I V .. ir f · iii! lili . D 1. .' 1 t:,tk C 7% . > r: ..1.,9.144.5.... C ,-1,/ t< ' 6-4 '.,, r, .,7 . · .::.?t , t.. 4: i . : .0, 1 r- 4 k.\ . 1- L~| i ~' 1 1/J h - 1 6,§ :; 6 11 - 1. , ...»:33,2- 2-52,4:43 --I-:. 1. - · h - i ' 4 . '1 . f, 1 i '11: 2 2 # 7 11 i lili '1 "' ~ 1 11 49 1,1 5, 1 - 1 L I - t tr ,-, . 36\ 1 .A . :~hir -51214YAL: ./ 41 1 11It 11 1 1 - lili Ill- , . i 2 1 118 J 1 1 : i U 1 1 r. : - r, , , - 9919 .3 1 '. . 77--4 ../1 0 I 4 i lic: U I 11. -- - ' Ail'.R#42':. 3,\ :' . .: s .' A'S".T·Ii·.2./ 1\ ~. 1.~613.4. Ar -- 42* 11 11, : I - 79#'74>#4.- ,/ 1 8 9 -, - ,-4.-3 1 ,?'A. -0- - Mh - +P! .*1 2 · t 2 -- p . <,y ·3 i.'. 1 . ., 71 , . ' -- I - . P A .,. 4 i -14 Le \Z:. 1.~-iii, - 4.- 4 , eJ' L. l .1 4 1 1, - - I . t 9 H .1 1 , 44..r L i .In; ·,f ...: '?ago 14.p : f 1 lili 11 I - 4 -- -- 10 - 2 '1,1· b d i lili 4 - $ f · 47- - e - LA- i V¥, 1 . +767 ·, - r.3.- l. 1 13 ; '.k~.f . -94':ht 1 2 k . . . e - . -1 - , 7 A .0,»4.· Ak. LAE #f:f' :~~~~ i- i lilili , .1 . 1.11 1 Itt e .1 - . I ..j¢ 7 4, f , )~ il}i !! .11\{ , . 9, 1 14.1 f /1- ' 1 1- . I ' I f J . 4. 4 iii: r m , / 48 -- 2 T 4/MAY- ....... , It .1, 16 11 4 0 . . 1, Eli ty , A. #. I. 1 i I t. ... . /4 .. . it_ . r. i 4 9 1. \\1 x .. ~":14,- I t C ,/L fl. VI= # ' 7 I , ' f ' ~ 1 - - i r , 1-' i ORZ "41,6*'44 . 7 k. . I I. - 4 ., 96 . 311\3\ 1,& - - w. 41.f ' 1. i 1 4 1 1- liM , - - .- 31 NK ' 4 I -- ... U !1,3 1 1 1 4 1 4 + . 1 vi -v .1 4 rl 2 . .L.-, , 1-4, 1 f . 14!it 0 f F: , \\\\\\\\ /4 / 1 . .4: 1 I i · t.... -4.'. 1 pr A :3.5 it- r Ii. 11£ 1,1 45.1 . t., 1 % . . d 3 -.g\'f,, *WL 1' 4 f E. 4 , , I ... . ' ...6. , 46. 13% .JJ ix -u , 4 - I. ir~f ' . . I / 1 , A . . ft . . *91 .%- - - 5 1 1, .... . r 1144 L It -7 it 1-4.1 1.* 4 ..,, $ ..i/ . % .- it i k , /1 11 -- - .. i ll. .5.1 , $ - r 4 • A - 1 ki A. 17 :, 1 .. 0 - r?.:· , k . ..% i\, 8, · 2 % 0,-,64 F . 4 .4 , 1 - . /. . . 4 + I „ y .Cil .1!F-A· 1.- ,i 1 - I '0,4 :. . 1. - - - lf\\ }~Rft : i ' . I '' I I .' fl - , : T - = -' L 1 11: 11.7.j - 2 , 6 , '.6 . \\ 1 4 q 111* 4 . I .' I . % + -4. ' I .44 -1 -,r, 441 4. '1 ?1111 L j 41 i i .Jil l > ' d 1 , 1, /*... r t~ - i I 0. 44 1 , 4 /b,/6-31 - 4, .. i}imillitt!}111111#]15.-4,i. itill;/1:; . til; 4 -:t · .IW 18--0 - . .... I ..46 ... 2,1/4 1,~691,1. ~ ~~A I. 2 1.1 , T , 4 . . 0 4 -14 l .. I. , ' - '-pi i :4 .t. ilt I lilli i Y . '11 r r 15 -61 . 4 .C* 1, 1 . ' 4 . . /\ . .0-1 - 4 rill#j'Itill 411.~iltll!,il.Ilhly'£ . .L-U--1~2i=',Ji if ?fir-22.k 4 - Ar'Ttlt . «4' / : .0,~ I -·1 24 ,~ 4 -- \90\4- - -. r \ ' .- M. 4 f 21 4. I d. r ,/ -2.-I. . 1 4 - -\06 i 1 -9 1- f . ... a fk .r. . r - I,1 'P~:1 1, ....t .,/.r,:41 ' . r.. . , . 0 PSIK: . b -1 v ..... . - . 1 4 · 4:.Al!.6/1 .11 li..fi'.Fi, \\\\- .* . I - *Mt PGLL!1 : 1 , 1,/,.: ,- -: M ) ,•*,2 t I , 4, ' .ipg- i .* 4 -1..' r1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fi ,#1 , 'h~#utift 1 114 i *11 1 r H 111 41¥7. 0 3 17. F ./ 1 - I 4 1 1 49 I , '1 '11 '14/9 1 i, ~i#,4, 1 , , 1 1 tit :t ;1!1 f.1 . :: 2 th, 6 lei a , 2 -. 3 *imititi f i 1 4 1;, .$ rlf, .ta J k . 41 6 l ti -- 1, L ·1· A .c B: i. . lit iti{ 3 19. i Ul , i: ~15.1 ' P# 4 *11 3811:i; ' ., 7 1117. k , 2 4 ill' - - .. I . 1 2- 111; .- -23.41 2,0 .0 . - 41 'r 1...., IC- # 1 i 0 -6, 1 , 1 ' 1. . 7 . . /El :-' - 0 0,-2411-4 6 ibr!#ull 1 ; 1 1 41 5 i ' ..f .1*1 , .>* ..1 1 1.1 -- 13 - . 'I, 1 V ./ : 1 . ..' ) : ' - ' ' :; I J '.t, ~.- Re , - - 9 - ' 1/1, I r I ¥ . ' 2 idif¥ W, ~· 0 -0 - LY ¥ -a .3 I I , 1 -= . '2 - 4 14' 1 :;'r .... 1 - it' -74.. . PA~ '.41 " #11% i /1,2 1 ,-/ 11.", t. ' · ' - 41, 1 '.lf;tit'U 1141 2 )117 t#:9. $ Ill r. 9.: , i '. 7, .- 1 4- 5 ti i .<1 5 . 1 1 %44%1 1 4 4 r ax' f- 9 - - 5 IT #01 , 1914 9, - 4 7.-1 - . ,/ I. ./.' .';' ' . ti . <1' :*L . 4~* 1 ' I 4 . I 1 ir: i li 7%, 6 4 1% /1 04 * '-O - 4., f ir:i :, #4 -#i{ 6 MI 1~ jt r .C i ?· 7 14 ..12.. i I ' 1 i j! 4 f I ir 0 « 4 - c a :El , - 'll•N~jgp# t.:4 'd q! ' j., I I /5 , E Iii , . li, , ,.. . '...r -* - -. 1 --· . , · 'A - * : 'Witlf,1.111 fr' .t 11 h ·rd WN'14 '* ir ' 44., lili 111 i,U: 1 '€11/6 R ./.'.f *9 . '1 M.01 ../ , /4 J i 1 4- 1 t".1\11 4 r i ; fl i f il ill i li 41 1 ;C 1/' ewit i :Ii", i :tii hili i '2:i i St.,f , i !1 R 1 I ' //6 1 4- 1 - ' ·411 puii·41!i!,ittlliftil..pipri 1 ; ff i li I iii ji 1 1; ill i; .l *J 111 1 'ti 4% r - 4 1 IiI I i' ' 1 11 11 !" it i -- 40 1 «Illifit[:i ki€ 21-i £ - f iqq E r I i ti ./ li £ «, .La,EA) ;|](• •It ,_ 4/Alill ·41 1 "11, <£;i f: i li 1.1 - 1,3 114 1 4 1 :4~1424,?tr,Petul U~ 1 ' AA lilli ; . 4| 7.-t:*uNA<k ti ; T t!~4:0 .11 li f NE i - I. i lili /111 1 1 ,/ %411!fi ziji:ictinufi i f zillitill lili H i Ii{!i j / I r M , ti 1 6 1 11 / 1/ ill t 't /- -p i i 5 , f yi}1. .4**114»/, - \ t~ ' 'F~.. jit~99:ifii{ 1{flimt,~".11'111 iii E!!1 ill? P i ilif; ~ p in ./fifil,11 1 y rytl. 4, 4 i i ./•it•' 1 A 4" fir "'Hi , Ybilt,41,-11 1,1 itir.:ri! 5:i' ;i .ti &* i:':,bil':,1" 1 6'E .Fli;..1 2 4 t i t"k.1 f.}~., 1 ·'iIi i. 1 >f N : u + * .: 112:Innimgli,i UNilll hiv# !i pflb'~ ·'a it , le:'. P 4"A; , 1.,t . , /1 I ':' 1 1 r , P fi! 11::f t J .2, Tiniq"Ind,UNT~Vil© il~Ii "4 ;:i i~NE Lit, P qf,t.! ili t• 'i, 0 1- t»-f bit· 9 ' i; iii .2, 1! iIi, :,tl .,{ c. ...,.,,.dE lij 1 it , 4,ilil;:~4/Wil/=1,SP).4.1 !!f i I i 3 1 \41# F -- 'fI~,4.'3*J~VAL :!,fi:':2~1111~!l i *k:,ij'! il; i 2 6- Ptit•ve. ....C· *L .. . 1 :14. %6. id· · ill :1 1 .{ 11:lilli{ it i- ibil i. - , ~in:~.I'!,Ei~.~r4,14*it!'1!1111124;',~:rz'; 11{tilh;H i}.71::t:, '™19-kiht® 1 1" * /*i It. 1 *11.1. 11 , ·44+'.44.-,1 'iw-:i :.12 ~C# 101,:11,$011 11f.,411;ttifi~13}11£ Bllii!! 9!nit :1 51!i.:9 ... 41.1...€.11 vt &4111,1., .kil, 1.,6 i ./·,j':„i:'1: ., v :11,$,1,31;„i:.in! 6:i 1.1 ri.in,u. 71, :t,,1/ :·,0!i,~ 1. t . , . , hi 1 INDEPENDENCE Na 2 1 SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION PLAT p S 750 06'00"E 4\ 7 44.70' \ glbs ecu=,e I 1-0 1 N 4 1 0/ 91? ( M 4 31 LOT 4-A Ch , 2 rk U 3 61 P I g 0 b \90 4~ / 9 .il ~75&16,n-.2 m w 21 - 7633*LE im 0 (/0 / 0 rF, 23/2 / 1 .1 51 to# 05€ N 75°06bdw AVO SPDRYS 1 & 1 2/.37' ~~d\ME , . ij • 74. 5// 2 £ 3 r 40 le 40056- I ~ 04· 7 + SCALE: 1"= 20' 1 ·· · N ~· I I 00 LOT 5-A e Z & 0. 0 04 0 0 £ -4 g N 75006'00"W DALE 2Ii'-- AVE. i Ch A /6. . 4- f . L 44=k It 7,50' 6 OOIN N 130