HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.728 E Hopkins Ave.A112-99
r".
CASE NUMBER
PARCEL ill #
CASE NAME
PROJECT ADDRESS
PLANNER
CASE TYPE
OWNER/APPLICANT
REPRESENTATIVE
DATE OF FINAL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
PZ ACTION
ADMIN ACTION
BOA ACTION
DATE CLOSED
BY
.--,
A112-99
2737 -073-33004
Hopkins 728
728 E. Hopkins Ave.
Nick Lelack
Special Review
Dopkin Development LLC. (Buzz Dopkin)
same
3/17/00
Approved Reso #9-00
Insub. Amend Approve
3/20/00
J. Lindt
-.
.-,
. ..,::;;,,:i ':. . ',' ;".;',; :i;~;:' .,,;":"'i.', " . .:.....': ::: ::')!':! :'::. '. .." .. "",'! : ,,' I:, ' ,"
. , ., , i' '~, :~",. i,;'j::: ';!:',:. ~ "-: i :'; .
lfl~!~~~c':ii'~'l'~'.;~~~.~
!mi, '1728 E Hopkins Ave~';;~T0~:I~peCiaiReView ' "i~1:~p~t
:i~i;;;~;:i;D~~~ln:"~:~e;~:~~j~t:,'"~I~:~oxj4~_i6j ';"'~i~l~s~e~/co/~1'611 j . "~1~;5-7488 .
',i.,')~~:!)O~J,1110D'160H . ... ....,. .f;g~"~~~1~;6""'" ., ...." .....,.... j......,~~:\<~r*!,C '.
'~~~LSI. c .............
.').; .,..' ,. '..'.' ,... ... "r.: ,. ..... ..,.....:..:1:.,..;".,.,..,.""',.....',.,...,'..,".:.. ...... i.'...'.:......B....y,.....1 . ...:..,.....',D,....,.,.',l:I....~..,..:...I.
",;:,:, :'-:::;(i':,'.'<:;i1~', ", :<":i.('i,"'" ::'!::(:';'ih ()'I;.'r:~{ J
. : : i ::M~G'DAiE ':,RI?V;:~PY:' ~H-, ,.' 'NOTICED'i,i" """, "
'i,',~\ .Cr==: ......,. ....,
t==L br-----: ",'
, " " ,,' :-';:<";:'!"
::~~~~~,~?'r- ";";';;;':"!:"" .... ..'. "
.:$1~:~~e;I,..........,',.,'i....,.' :'~Y,l.... .....
:ri~}7~~~~f;~t;I.'.
.";'
"".'"
,.,.',,;'....::.,,:,:;:..:..
.:- "~',' ,~, ," '.'.
", .":.'..
. ::;.::}L:':, '.<
,.' ....,,,.
~,;::; ': ,:~,"". .
.....~~I~Or~~~~~i~~;~ )
"":enY~O,U~S,It.::
:.i:.:",: ''''." PZ"
...,;,',~p~;: "4$0,.- .0.
,..:....i........~~9:
. '. .'. .'i.:~i,i~I~,I::t".yb ~c:A
.""::.:"::,',,:
. ". , ,.~ ,: ,
-::,;'.(.,;:>.'.
..'.,,":
.:;;;.,:;':
,";~,::;>;~:::-;;.:,,::;,,/'i":':
.i,.',.',..,..,,:..,
.', ".::'ii:'::":.'
~~"&,l,~~~~j:l
:..::::~.;.:.:.'.::...:~~...:..:
.,', .,'".."'...
..----"---.......-
.,:..,:_----_...;..
.....__.~.,...:.
'~',. '...' , ..' " ':. , . .
"..'.... ,,'.",. . .
.... :.::.'i.":~~..{~.:..;_~::;.....
'~V~6Il~
.'.
<.ii"',;.
...."
< ,.'::"-:::,';:-:'><: :".
".,,',
,
':;.
., ,::',',!.,..".,'....:
.-.-.........
. i.'
,"""'"
r-,.
MEMORANDUM
RE:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Nick Lelack, Planne~~
Insubstantial Amendment of Development Order for Planning and Zoning
Commission Resolution No.9, Series of 2000
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
March 13, 2000
SUMMARY:
Land Use Code Section 26.430.090 authorizes the Community Development Director to approve ~
an insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for special review provided that it
relates to a technical or engineering consideration. This insubstantial amendment is a technical
amendment to Planning and Zoning Resolution 9, Series of 2000.
On February 15,2000 the Planning and Zoning Commission passed Resolution No.9,
Series of2000, approving an application submitted by Buzz Dopkin for Special Review
to increase the floor area ratio to I: I, Special Review for parking, and Residential Design
Standard variances for 728 E. Hopkins A venue. During the public hearing on February
15, 2000, the Commission, Staff, and Buzz Dopkin (Applicant) agreed not to discuss the
deed restrictions for the affordable housing units because the nature of that decision is
housing policy and not land use; instead it was determined that the Housing Board was
the appropriate entity to make the decisions on the deed restrictions. The resolution
contained the following conditions of approval recommended by the Housing Office:
10. The final deed restriction be brought to the Housing Board for final input and approval. The
deed restrictions for the two (2) affordable housing units shall comply with the Housing
Board's final recommendation.
11. The two (2) bedroom affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted to Category 4, and the
one (1) bedroom affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted to Category 2.
However, when the deed restrictions were brought to the Board for final input and approval on
March 1, 2000, the Board approved Mr. Dopkin's request to deed restrict the unit to Category 3.
Consequently, the Board's decision conflicts with the Housing Office's recommended Category
2 deed restriction contained in Condition 11. Assistant City Attorney David Hoeffer determined
that an amendment was necessary to correct the Condition so that it reflects the Board's final
recommendation.
Community Development Staff recommends amending Condition 11. to read as follows:
11. The two (2) bedroom affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted to Category 4,. and the
one (1) bedroom affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted to Category 3.
r-,
r-
RECOMMENDATION
Community Development staff rec9mmends approval of the Insubstantial Amendment to the
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No.9, Series of2000.
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
26.430.090 Amendment of development order.
A. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved
development order for special review may be authorized by the Community
Development Department Director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to
technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development
which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process. An
insubstantial amendment shall include a change to the design of approved off-street
parking or to the configuration of a trash/utility service area. An insubstantial
amendment shall not include:
1. Any increase in a dimensional requirement established by special
review.
2. Any decrease in the number of off-street parking spaces established
by special review.
3. Any decrease in the size of a utility/trash service area established by
special review.
4. Elimination of any represented feature, such as provision of a trash
compactor or the number of trash bins, which was approved by special
review.
Staff Finding
The Community Development Director finds that the proposal qualifies as an
Insubstantial Amendment because it is limited to technical considerations concerning the
deed restriction for the one (1) bedroom affordable housing unit at 728 E. Hopkins
Avenue.
Staff believes that changing the conditions of approval contained in Resolution 9, Series
of 2000, to reflect the Housing Board's decision to deed restrict the unit to Category 3 is
consistent with Condition II. Condition II. states that the final deed restriction be
brought to the Housing Board for final input and approval, and that the deed restrictions
shall comply with the Housing Board's final recommendation.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, Community Development Staff, and Buzz
Dopkin (Applicant) agreed at the Public Hearing on February 15, 2000, to not discuss the
deed restrictions for the affordable housing units because the nature of that decision is
housing policy and not land use. Instead, the Commission, Staff, and the Applicant
decided to allow the Housing Board to make the decisions on the deed restrictions. This
amendment incorporates the Housing Board's final recommendation into the approved
resolution.
2
r--.
.~
I
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval ofthe Insubstantial Amendment
to Resolution 9, Series of 2000, Condition 11. to read as follows with one condition of
approval:
11. The two (2) bedroom affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted to Category 4, and the
one (1) bedroom affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted to Category 3.
Condition of Approval:
The one (I) bedroom deed restricted affordable housing unit shall meet the then current
Affordable Housing Guidelines for dimensional requirements.
EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Resolution No.9, Series of2000
Exhibit B - Housing Board Minutes, March I, 2000
APPROVED BY:
DATE:
'e Ann Woods
mmunity Development Director
..?j)/ov-'
, t
APPROVED
M/i.R 1 7 ZOOO
GOMMUN\1Y 08lELO?MENl OIRt:Cl00
C\1Y Of ASPEN
tl,P'PRO\}E.O
, ,.'
'7 '2.t\OO
. "EC101'
-'P
('IJN\\\.lI'J\\\\ \ " .,j'\
J. C\\\-..J'
3
MAR. 9.2000 8:03AM ASPEN HOUSING ore
,~
r--
NO. 835 P.l
GIi'&'l ~
Housing Office
C'ty of ASJ)en/Pltkln County
530 Eat Main slreet, Lower Level
Aspen, CClIClradCl 81611
(970) 920-5050
Fax: (970) 920-5580
FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM
Date:
1Y77
To:
From:
Fax#:
Telephone #:
Fax consisting of
legal and/or ~ letter size pages (inoludlng this cover page).
Brief Description or Addltionallnstructlo.ns:
,~ ~ ~ fYJ Il1vt~
If you have any problems receiving thlll transmission, please call
at 970..920-5050.
,-"
.,-"
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
of the
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to
Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010,
"Vested Property Rights", ofthe City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order
shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of the
Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075,
or unless an exemption from expiration, extension or reinstatement is
granted or a revocation is issued by the City Council pursuant to Section
26.308.010.
This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the
site specific development plan as described below.
Dopkin Development LLC., Box 4696, Aspen, CO 81611
Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number
728 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611
Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property
Special Review for FAR and Parking, and Design Review Appeals Committee Variances
for Residential Design Standards
Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan
Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 9-2000, 2/15/00
. Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions)
February 25, 2000
Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.)
February 26, 2003
Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration
and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen
Municipal Code.)
Issued this 25th day of February, 2000, by the City of Aspen Community
v opment Directtjr.
.V(,-..)...
un Woods, Community e opment Director
,-'
.-".
PUBLIC NOTICE
Of
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the
City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the
following described property: 728 East Hopkins Avenue of the City and Townsite of
Aspen, by Resolution No.9, Series of 2000 of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
For further information contact Julie Ann Woods, at the Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Dept., 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920-5090.
City of Aspen Account
Publish in The Aspen Times on February 25, 2000.
1"""\
,~
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Sy Kelly * Chairman
, Paul Smith * Treas
Michael Kelly * Secy
January 21, 1996
p.~ef.N~0
j~\-\ 1 a ~Q~\)
\1\<,IH
1>-$"''''' I" I<.\.OI''''E~\"(
CO\A\A\ll'l\"('(D~ ,
John Keleher
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr
Nick Lelack
Community Development
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 728 E. Hopkins redevelopment
Dear Nick:
The existing residential improvements located 728 E. Hopkins are currently served by the District.
The proposed demolition and redevelopment will require either two new service lines or a single
service line (ora capacity approved by our line superintendent). A shared service line agreement
will be required to be completed. The plans show a driveway from the alley coming into the
garage. The surface elevation of the alley cannot be changed due to the fact that we ,have minimal
cover over the public .sewer line in this area.
There ,are downstream collection system constraints that will be eliminated through a system of
additional proportionate fees. A tap permit can be completed as soon as detailed final plans are
available. Fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. As usual service is
contingent upon compliance with the District's roles, regulations, and specifications which are on
file at the District office.
, ,Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
'~~~~
Broce Matherly
District Manager
565 N. Mill St.,Aspen, CO 81611 /(970)925-3601 / FAX (970)925-2537
,'-"
rf1l""""""
728 HOPKINS PROJECT
~
Revised Drawings (1/6/00)
For: Community Development
Department
,
~
~
15
~
5
!1
"ii Q)
~ ~
r"~~g
E 'CO.....;
qd~~
L<D_
O~<f)
:r::W::J
ZIDO
3:<:r::
o G! .
t-~~
--1 W
W--1--1
>WW
W>>
--1WW
t---1--1
<f)t-t-
G!<f)<f)
IT:~G!
. lL IT:
+> .
.... +> .
ci- 4.- +>
to ri-~
-., "'0-
.0 ..
"N_
or-a
_rI\_
,--
r"
b
~
0::> 'uadsy
I
'aAY sUPldoH ':3: 9Z.!.
S:3:WOHN.M.OJ. A1IWVd-IiI.1nw
IP
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ ~
! :.=:
.o-~
I
~
~
11 ~
~
.
~
'"
,
:'!:
-,
:'!:
"-
Z
~
W
I
~I/~
- 0
,
I -
..
"
-,
1!:
4'
K I
P
.9-.9
.r,9l
-"1b!
III
I /,
.n-,lil
Ii
997L-9Z6 (0.1.6)
Z1919 0;:) 'uadsy
9697 xOEl
sas!J'dJ:alu~ up[q:oa zzna
.0-,"
.'10'-,1
.o-~
.o-~
I
I
I
I
!W
=
I ~ il
~
-,
~
-,
~
~'VV
Z/l 01-& .xiI 01-.$
// ~ ~ ~
1 I.
.'CIJ L-.z;f
11
lr
;l,
I
I
.5-,91
I
.o-~I
=!~.
:)"~..
ur!=
,~-~ \:
!
'/f.--
'J
ZlI"L":",?,:1
"
~
~
~
'-
1
I
I-b
,.
-I
1-
_0;-,91
I
"-.~
,1;)-,91
,.o-,9'r
;-,91
T
gQgtG '0:) 'uonounr pUI1.I:J
OOa: II h J:Q ss{/dtuo.:) fr91.Z
&Zl)S-litZ (01.6)
'OUI 'Sd'fBT;)OSSY ~
)fWr
"
-?
"O-,E
OU
~~\Jl~))
~o
J ~
Q:",- -< ;: L/ G
~ ~c:11~" "~p~ L -!
,'-,11 ~ 'XIfgi '\~[>( ~ ~-.II
n
DO IC~
llr ~~ d
O~
m
t:9=; .,.!.
i
'"
,
:'!:
kv
OJ
I
~~
i rl-
..:l
~
~
I
'"~
I II \J
I..::
.9-,9
~ 11;
~
.
..
"
'I'
,.
-,
"
~
-,
:'!:
..
"
-,
1!:
cr- ..--
.g: y 'd -=
~ ~L. I ~
N _ --,
~ . \ ,<(
8..~ .
OZ
OQ)
,-
\0<0
,w
-0
o}-
w~
<0<
>z
w-
~2:
---'
w
~
0-
~
z
-<(
-1
0...
lY
o
o
-1-
LL'?
,
I-~
to:
lY':l
-<
LLlll
~
~
in
~
rl
, in
o
.3
~~I!)
Og:JZ
IOili
zI:J
3: . ~
00-
I-Lo.:
....JIUL
IU....JIU
>IU....J
IU>W
....JIU>
O....JIU
ZO....J
OZO
UOO!
!WV-
u, IU I
. If} I-
....
"- . -
..... ...
0-.... ....
<ll . .
0-0-
o <ll III
0--
0"''''
_l'-l'-
OJ 'uadsy
'aAY SUPldoH ':3: 9t:1.
S:!lWOHN.M.O.1 A1IWy,j-liL1nW
99t~-9a6 (O~6)
al9l9 0:> 'uadsy
969t xog
sas!-ldzalu:![ UPrdoa zzng
'::>UI 'S<3'reIJOSSV ~
)lWr
Ca:99-1f>? (OL6) IJ'
cr-
,
'"
,
r!
_" >L N,
~ ~ 11
;l ~ ! f<(.
OZ
OQ)
,-
~(1)
,UJ
-0
O}-
UJO!:
(1)<
>Z
UJ-
O!:L
.-J
UJ
O!:
{L
z
<(
....J
n...
0{
o
o
....J
LL_
02
Z.D
o~
Uili
~~
......<1 .r/I 0-,91 Z
,
b <(
b I , ....J
;I, " n...
I
! I t (t
r- " !~: '< 0
'< ;;; " ~ 0
~ i ~ " ~ Q
, ~~ ....Jb
0 " ~ ~ ,
-, " ~
" "
0 " "
k I O~
b I n " (till
n ;;;
4 ~ -..J
.0-" I .. j!:~
J--" "'- .;!.II'""",!;; .ohb .11-$
.11-,6 .JJI-,'i ;<:II'
.o-,vr
90..~g "00 'uol'punr pue.l:)
003' H "ora S$9d:ruOJ t9,lZ
00-P<
.o-,9V
J-
.U! 9-,' \ PI 'fl-~
,p-P<
, ,
"
,
"
.....
l!:
~
~
.'
~
,
I~,
~ ~ ~
"' ~ l
~
~~II I I r
~I
.["",tit'
,I-,Et'
'" I ~ ~ I '" S
i! -' ~
~ ID '" ~
f
~ ~
T ]'
/I II
;.:::. J ."I-.e .9-,9 ~
r( < 1 I. ) ~
o ~~ I~ ~I ()
.I 'f '" T
j, , "
.. ..
,\A ."'''' ..-~ .~-,' ",-s ~hv P-'JJ
"
.r/r 0-& I """'__ If, r --jl! *-7...-1 ~ ...It<-. .v/lo-,S
."/lt-,E iI\qliiQ' .~
;: I I
-, .vlli !'ii-PI I I ,.vIE !;-,oJ
~ : I [;h~I@~i~ I ' l;:
'" ,
~ " ~
t ~I~ j is
I f~ '-1- rT --IMjJ
.v/ll--Z1 11- II lit) ~ II '-fI ..vII L-zr
1J:8J1 1J:8J1
.'6-,e . -f of3- --, r ILLII /I "e-.sr b ~
'-r- ~ ~ , I--
,,-pJ I ~I '<
II :1 II I! I l--I-
~ I II ~H=
~ " " I"~ s ~
~ " ~~
" " r l' d... ~;!: ~
~ -; ]'
'" ,. '" r i I
~I -f-
I!l 'T I b
b - '" " !t -
- !l- { is I ~
) L
'VV I r .9-,~ 'VV -;
~ I '<
b
~
j
"'1'"
~ OJ 'uadsy 99'VL.-926 (0.1.6) ca99-IYG (OLe) cr- I'f) ,
cr- ~
21919 0:) 'uadSV 9mne '0:) 'uollounr ptrq.l~ :0 ;" ')L ,
~ 'aAY SUPIdoH ':!J: sh 002' # ".ICl sSliIdwoo t9L,.Z "- '" L I ~
~ 969'V XOII '" ::, -,
ili A 1IWY d - IJ.'lnW 'our 'S;l"fBPOSSY ':? .<(
5 S:!J:WOHNA\O.L saSl.ld.la+u:!I UP'ldoa zzna I
1ii ~ .
)!Wr . . j 5
r-
.0-,__
.L
.<;-$' .Ul 'E-~ ;cJ\~!a ...-..,
I
I
I
I
n ~ 3; il
. .
-;I, -;I,
~ b
0 I I -.
.. ~ ~U '01 C) :0: ~
'"
~ ~
'" .. .. '"
, i~~ ~L-;I,
"
'==
.0-.. .0-.' 'I
l:!\;> ~~ ~ J ~:J I l? ~
-;n ~'J. ;n ~
~ ! J
"
\;> ~~ I~ I b
.v-,vl ,.v-.\I'I ,
;n ! ;n
<c--
~ i ;1 n I ~
~ ~ ~
ib ill -----" ,-
f \ ,
V ~ ~ V
1- ~b -, .9-," ...... '"1 r
1'V .;G/llh9 Z./l ll-R V
" /.~ ., ~ "
, ~ ~ t5 :;= -;I,
'" ..
'b 'b
, ,,~ ~
~
" ~
~ " I I " ~
-! , ~
}' :0:
~
.H-,iZ .II-;a:
"'- is ( ~) is LJ
- -
is ~ - ~ ;.;
~ .. ~ "- J-- ~ 3; ~
'"
N ~ ~ ~ ~ ...
~ ,
~ !!
~11-,91 ~ .9-(-1 ~ .. .9.,9 ~ ..t:Il l-,91
1\ ;;;
f1=@ 0 ~) @==I\
~~ rn [I] ~L
~ 'b I ~ \;> ~
,
~ ,. ,. ~
,
,.
r I
I
1
I
.Z/l fl-,L .Zll r.L .VI to-,'il' PIE-,i' VI Si-,t.. ,VllhL
.L
.0-,9'1'
-,
oz
o~
...........-
~(1)
...........w
-0
o}-
W{t
(1)<
>z
w-
{t2:
-I
W
{t
0...
z
-<
...J
(L
Ol
o
o
...J
1L
~
z'"
ill_'
L:J1
ill~
<Ow
-<~
roen
,
.
OJ 'uadsy
.aAY SUPldoH .:3: 9ZL.
S:3:WOHN.M.OJ. -^.1IWYJ-IJ.1hW
99frL-SZ6 (OL6)
Zl91B 0;) 'uadsy
969fr Keg
sasJ.Id.zalu:!! up{deQ zzng
t:aw-ll>Z (OL6) 0' _ ....q-
9oo;m .0::1 'tzOnoune ItUl;tJt) .!t ji' ')./, i
002 11 ...ta 8s~dtuo::J f>9tZ ~ ~ ~ I.~
.0ul '8;;1'''1008811 'f! _ <(
){Wf i j .I 1 .
OZ
O~
"-(I)
\OUJ
~Q
Q>-
UJ~
(1)<(
-Z
>-
WI:
~-
-J
W
~
D-
1""",
z
O-
f-
<(
>
ill
-J"
ill~
_"
~lg
<(..
ill~
~~
li
g
;;;
~
.
OZ
p~
.to
\,,\.)w
'D
D)-
wet
<0<(
-z
>-
WI:
(t-
-1
W
(t
Q...
t"""
0::> 'uadsv
"gAV sUPldoH .3: HZl.
S:JlWOHN.M.O.L A1IWVcI-I.L1ilW
ggtl.-9Z6 (O1.6)
,H919 OD 'uadsv
969t xog
saS!.ld.IalU:!I trp{do(I zzng
~ ); "- L()i
~~i: I~
r:! :::::. ,
j j ! f<C.
z
o
I-
-<
>
lU
-1
lU
lU
Cl
<0:1
I- _Ii
~
I-::
I.!)~
-<
lt~
-
-
..
11IIII
.LH913H ::IOOlS c!:r IW
uo- .'="C
sagg-rn (Ol6)
90.;;;rs 'OJ 't!o{punr p(le...~
0003' # ".l:a ssedmo;) t9LZ
'OUJ 'S"1B(00SS'i 'iI
)IWf
-
11III
-
IIIIIIII
z
o
I-
-<
>
~
ill
ill
Clb
-,
<OJi
I-~
u...iU
ill~
-1<1>
.LH013H ::lOOlS OlIN
"O-,C;;C::
~
0::> 'uadsv
'aAV sup[dOH ':!{ g~i.
S:!IWOHN.M.OJ. A 1IWV.i - m:l11W
I
99v.ldlZ6 (0.1..6)
Zl9l9 O:J 'uadsy
969v xog
saspd.IalU:![ up(doa zzng
_ SZ99-It2 (0J.6) @ ~
9Q9tS .00 'f,tQ"",unr ptn.t{) ~ ~ ~ .....- i
ooc:H'\taS$fldUlQ:>t9l.6 ~ <fi r::. I'
!::! 0 ..
'OU! '8"1'''10088'' 'i/ ":. i\ U
)lWr & l . ~ ,
~
~
~
'3A"1 9ND1dOH "3
\
x ~ H91H.tv .-~ . ~l.i
~ x . "-=
~i mJlGCl'.'iLN
. i,
101
u.o t :x'
~~ 0:,
.......1 ,i
:t\- I) ~i::
~~
k I
0 0 0 0 1
i
I Ii
~ 11
\ \
i
I[
I'
x I
i t s ~ lw
-'
111 [] -' 0
[] 111 .z
G 3 Ill'
~ j II & 1'6
~ Z I'"
)' :3 >
I :Il III l'li'
t- :t I m I~
UJ ~ j t'l j~
~
;., -..
to wi
-1 ~~~
-<.{ ~ ?i !:,
~ ~~ .. i i
M
"', ~ z.
0 lL I I
~ ~ ~ .!!!
;.,
"r.'3 I.
,9-,9 ,I
i
i
l 1\
II
1
> I
j
1\ ~
II '"
I:
L_- Q ~
~ I]
,.
r- \ --~
I lK4(1q J
" ,llW:sJ. 9 ,
I
.
..1.311"1
~~
~I-I
.........U)
~Ul
-0
O}-
mOC
1-1-<(
>z
~r
1-1
-1
~
(l
~Q
on
IL~
Iii
I-<t
d)~
w
~
:Zd)
\I:~
d)~\.'}
-<.{o:z
u..::t~
o ,~
)--UJN
I-COL
~"',--
Ur-....l
CO d) I:~
--<.{'<(
- u..
r-:Z~
-31-
I-O....l
OZ::)
-1~I:
I
I
I
I
I
:1
FEB. 4.210100 2:14PM AS. ,i HOUSING OFC
'-
-- ,~ ----r-lO.336...........".1----
Housing Office
City of Aspen/Pitkin CountY
sao East MaIn Street, Low., Level
Aspen. Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5050
Fax: (970) 920-5580
FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM
Date;
02- ~-OO
fhd Md-
.
t2/nAf. '{ -b'!'f)'S
To:
From:
Fax#:
Telephone #:
Fax consisting of legal and/or ~ letter size pages (Including thIs cover page);
Brief Desorlptlon or Additional Instructions: ~ t... .:s~'
,(.eOOt>\~,,~ ,---rk ~ "'c3 ' re~--..f
~~~~. ..
J{h OW I
~~
If you have any problems receiving this transmission, please call
at 970-920-5050.
fl.- ~. ~
~
,-.,
MEMORANDUM
To: Nick Lelack, Planner
From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer ~ I .
Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator II'
Date: February 3, 2000
Re: 728 E. Hopkins
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the 728 E. Hopkins application at
their January 19, 2000 meeting, and has compiled the following comments:
General
1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe
that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is
feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is
received from the, Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems related to
approvals tied to "issuance of building permit."
2. R.O.W.lmpacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights-of-way,
the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment
license requirements.
Site Review
1. Improvement Survey - Requirement - The building permit application needs to
include a revised improvement survey that references a title commitment dated within
the past 12 months. The improvement survey must also include the Right of Way lines,
curbs, and sidewalks. All current easements need
2. Site Drainage - Requirement - The drainage report submitted with the
application is insufficient. The site development approvals must include the requirement
. meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and a
requirement that, prior to the building permit application, a drainage mitigation plan
(24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the requirements of the
Engineering Department Interim Design Standards and must be submitted for review
and approval by the Engineering Department. The mitigation plan must also address the
temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells
are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with a
percolation test to verify the feasibility of this type of system. Drywells have depths well
below depth of frost (10' minimum) to function in cold weather. The drainage plan must
contain a statement specifying the routine maintenance required by property owner(s) to
ensure continued and proper performance. Drywells may not be placed within public
right of way or utility easements. The foundation drainage system should be separate
from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on site, and must be shown on
..,. ,-,lo,
.,-..,
,-..,
Page 2 of3
02/03/00
728 East Hopkins
drainage plans prior to application for building permit. The drainage may be conveyed to
existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate
and the detention volume meet the design storm.
Information - The City drainage criteria needs to implemented. This
includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation
disturbance. Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow and
what adverse affects may arise from potential mud and debris flow.
3. Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter - Requirement- As of the request of the
Engineering Department revisions need to be made, if urban design features are
proposed, as follows:
a. All streets and access roads need to have curb and gutter upgrades that
comply with City of Aspen standards.
b. All streets and access roads need to have sidewalks that comply with City of
Aspen standards.
4. Utilities (General) - Information - All use of City utilities must be planned
accordingly.
5. Streets Department - Requirement- As of the request of the Engineering
Department revisions need to be made as follows:
a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A
washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction.
6. Parks - Information - The following information has been provided by the parks
department:
We have the reviewed the application and offer the following comments. The survey
does not show any existing vegetation. However, after a site inspection ,Of the property,
there are a few existing Cottonwoods that may be impacted by the redevelopment of the
property. The application indicates that the existing structure will be demolished,
however, it is unclear whether that includes the existing basement. If the basement will
be reconstructed also, then the large cottonwood at the southwest comer of the lot must
be protected during construction with construction fencing placed at the dripline of the
tree. If other trees are impacted by development then a tree removal permit may be
required prior to applying for a building permit. The applicant should also include
landscaping in the right-of-way as part of the development.
,~
/""""'\
Page 3 00
02/03/00
728 East Hopkins
7. Utilities:
Water:
City Water Department
Requirement -
a. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water
System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8
(Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen
Municipal code as they pertain to utilities
Construction:
Work in the Public Right of Way
Requirement - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the
applicant as follows:
Approvals
1. Engineering:
The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering
Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including
landscaping, within public rights of way.
2. Parks:
The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920-
5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance.
3. Streets:
The applicant receives approval from the Streets department
(920-5130) for mailboxes, streets, and alley.
4. Permits:
Obtain permits for any work or development, including street cuts,
landscaping, within the public rights of way from the city
community development department.
DRC Attendees
Staff: Nick Adeh
Tom Bracewell
Ben Ludlow
Applicant's Representative: Nick Lelack
FEB.4.2000 2:14PM RSPEN'HOUSING OFC
r".
NO. 336 P.2
,-..
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
Nick Lelack. Community Ilevelopment Depertment
Cindy Christensen, Housing Operations Manager
February 1. 2000
728 EAST HOPKINS HOUSING REPLACEMENT & SPECIAL REVIEW
PareellC No.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
ISSUI: The applicant is proposing to construct a residential development of four units on the
comer of Eeat Hopkins Avenue. The development Is proposed to consist of two free mari<et units
(eaCh containing four badrooms) and two deed reetricted units (8 one-bedroom and a two-
bedroom).
The Planning & ZOning Commission will be meeting on this issue on February 15 and the Housing
Board will not have time to review the project until February 16, 2000. Any recommendations in
thle memo are made by staff without recommendations from the Housing Board. Those
recommendations will be forwarded to the Community Development Department on February 17.
therefore. any approval by Planning & Zoning should take into consideration any concerns or
recommendatlona by the Housing Board.
BACl(~AOUNfl: The property Is a 6.000 llqullre foot parcel and currenUy contains a single
structure with a two-etory detached garage and Shop, as well as a bandit dwelling unit. According
to a City of Allpen ZOning Offieef. the property is considered to Include a single. multi-family
structure with three units. and was legally built In 1964. The fourth unit (classified as the bandit
unit) existed within the structure for some time. The applicant plans on demOlishing the enUre
struoture and redevelop the site.
For purposes of Section 28-530..050. Housing replacement requirements, in the event of a
demolition of resident multl..famlly housing, the owner shail be required to conatruct replacement
housing oonslstlng of no less than 50% of tha square footage of net residential area demolished
or converted. The replacement housing must also be configured In a way to 1'lIplace 50% of the
bedrooms that are lost as working resident housing by the demolltfon. A minimum of 50% of the
replacement housing shall be above naturalllrade. The replacement housing shalf. also be deed
restricted as affordable housing In accordance with Section 26.1530.060, which states:
"Repltcem.nr unJt8 aII.1I lit dI.d I'NfIfolld in I form Ind .ulmence .ccepteble to
the CIty COlInoll. 81lOh dI9tI restrlottd units may only be /'IntId or nld CO "",nts or
Ou)/t/* WIla meet th. cily'l qu"ificltioM In .1IKt .f th. Um. of lUll. or ronfl/, anti at
I'" prl_ or /'IIIftl ,..llts which .111 .Iso In aomplllnce wltlJ tII. oily" Oll"",t
regu/atJgns. The owner shall be entitled to ae/ect tenents or purohnetS su~.ot to
the atbl'llllllllltJgnfl(# quallftoaflans. The mlK of atfarll.b,. holNlhJf1l11llfa. a. 1ItlWeen
oafllgGl)f affordable howlng and ,...'d"'t ar;cuplld, may be dlltwmlnld by the
owner. provided thet 110 Ie$s th.n 20" of the bedrooms ql./"It'y .. celilgory 1 ,lnd ,
unItS end no mare tIIen 20" of the units .111 'Vl/llab/e u l'I!lSident aocupied uni.."
FEB. 4.2000 2:15PM AS,~ HOUSING OFe
NO. 336 P.3
,.-",
The applicant Is required to comply with the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program and the
Residential Design Standards, and to establish the off-street parking requirements associated with
the two proposed affordable housing units. The applicant is asking for a waiver of the off-street
parking requirements aSSociated with the two deed restricllcl units.
CUlTQntly, the parcel containlapproxlmately'3.335 square feet of net residential square footage
and fiVe ~rooms, requiring replacement housing consisting of 1.887 squa,.. felt of net
m;ldentlal square footage and 2.8 bedrooms. The applicant is propoelng to provlde one two-
bedroom deed restricted unit of 1,000 square feet, and one o",,-bedroom deed restricted unit of
667 square feel. The applicant is requesting approval to deed restrict the two-bedroom to
Category 4 limitations, and the one-bedroom to Category 3 limitations. The minimum square
footages, stated In the Guidelines, are aa follows:
Category 3 one-bedroom
Category 4 two-bedroom
700 square feet
9150 square feet
Therefore. the one-bedroom unit Is smaller by 33 square feet The two-bedroom, however, is
larger by 50 square feet. 'These units are also proposed to be 100% above natural grade, They
will consist of two stories of living sptlce and will be located above the gal'8Qes, which are for the
fraa market unite. The current maximum salss prlCI!lS for these units would be $122,600 for the
Category 3 om,-bedroom unit. and $211,000 for the Category 4 two-bedroom unit.
The applicant also stales that by providing two separate units, there will be two housing lottery
winners instead of just one, whioh states that the applicant has agreed to placa both units In the
general lottery pool.
'To construct what Is being proposed, the applicant must receive approval for a 1:1 FAR limit IInd a
waiver of on-Site parklng requirements for the two deed restricted units. Given the location of the
Site, each of the owners of thl affordable units will be entitled to ena residential parking permit for
on-street parking, plus each will be entitled to a guest parking permit. '!'he applicant states that he
has talked with the residents of the neighborhood, and that finding a parking space on the
surrounding streets Is usually not a problem. The site is located such that transit is easily
acceased, the grocery store is only two blocks away, and the commercial core Itself Is just a blool<
and a half away.
R!COMMENDATlON:. Staff would recommend approval of this appliCltion with the conditIon that
the one-bedroom unit be restricted 81 . Category 2 unit, which would decrease the maximum
sales price for this unit to $79,500 ($43,000 lesa), due to the lack of any eddltlonalamlnlllee; e.g"
no off-strHt parking, no additional storage space.
\rQferrQl\72B~~.~t
2
,""'"
1"'"',.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director ..jJ(O
FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner \\~
RE: 728 E. Hopkins Special Review for 1:1 FAR, Special Review for Parking,
DRAC Variances from Secondary Mass and Lightwell Standards - Public
Hearing
DATE: February 15,2000
ApPLICANT:
Buzz Dopkin
LOCATION:
728 E. Hopkins
ZONING:
Office
CURRENT LAND USE:
Multi-Family Residential 3 units, 1
bandit unit
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Multi"Family Residential- 2 AH
units, 2 free market units
LOT SIZE:
6,000 sq. ft.
FAR:
Existing: 3,335 sq. ft.
Proposed: 6,000 sq. ft.
Allowed: 4,500 sq. ft (0.75:1);
6,000 sq. ft. with Special Review
(1 :1).
The subj ect property's front facade facing East
Hopkins Avenue.
SUMMARY:
The purpose of this application is to create a 4-unit
multi-family residential building with 2 affordable
housing units and 2 free market units, replacing an
existing 4-dwelling unit building (including I-bandit
unit). The Applicant is requesting an increase in
FAR pursuant to Special Review approval from
0.75:1 to 1:1, Special Review for Parking, and
variances from the Residential Design Standards for
the secondary mass and lightwell on the east facade
S. Original St. (Hwy 82).
1
,,-,,,
~
STAFF COMMENTS:
Buzz Dopkin ("Applicant") plans to demolish an existing multi-family residential
building at the comer ofE. Hopkins Avenue and S. Original Street (Hwy 82). The 1964
building contains 3 legal units and I bandit unit. The Resident Multi-Family Housing
Replacement Program ("Program") requires the Applicant to provide on-site replacement ,
of50% of the existing net residential square footage and 50% of the existing bedrooms as
deed restricted affordable housing (AR).
The existing building contains 3,335 square feet and 5 bedrooms. The Program
requires the Applicant to provide 1,667 square feet of net residential square footage
and 2.5 bedrooms deed restricted to AH, 50% of which must be above natural
grade. The proposal creates a new multi-family residential building containing 2 AH
units and 2 free market units. The AH units would include one 1,000 square foot, 2-
bedroom unit and one 667 square foot, I~bedroom unit. This proposal would meet the
square footage requirement, exceed the bedroom requirement, and be 100% above natural
grade. The proposed deed restrictions for the proposed units would be Category 4 for the
2-bedroom unit and Category 3 for the I-bedroom unit. Approval of the replacement
proposal is an administrative decision.
The Housing Authority recommends a Category 2 for the I-bedroom unit, and agrees
with the Category 4 deed restriction for the 2-bedroom unit. In addition, Section
26.530.060, Rental and resale restrictions, requires that "no less than twenty (20) percent
of the bedrooms qualify as category 1 and 2 units..." The 2 free market units would be a
combined 4,400 square feet with up to a total of 8 bedrooms.
Two land use requests are contained in the application in order for this proposal to
proceed.
First, the Applicant requests special review approval to increase the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) of the proposed building from 0.75:1 to 1:1, which is allowed in the Office Zone
District. This 6,000 square foot lot is permitted 4,500 square feet of FAR under the
0.75:1 calculation; and, increasing the FAR to 1:1, would increase the FAR to 6,000
square feet. Staff supports this request because the provision of affordable housing
satisfies both the Residential Multi-Family Replacement Program requirements and
Office Zone District requirements.
Second, Special Review for
Parking is required. Section
26.515.010(B) Off-Street Parking-
Requirements for Affordable
Housing allows an Applicant to
establish parking requirements for
all affordable housing units pursuant
to special review. The Applicant is
requesting to establish zero on-site
parking spaces for the affordable
housing units, and, instead proposes
;:.
Currently, residents park in the right-of-way on E.
Hopkins and in a 2-car garage on S. Original Street.
,r--..,
-,
that the AH owners obtain resident parking permits to park on the streets. Parking
requirements for the free market units would be accomplished by the provision of two 2-
car garages. Parking requirements for the free market units is established in the Land Use
Code and cannot be varied.
Although Staff has concerns about the lack of parking for AH units, Staff supports this
request because the community will benefit from the new AH units that might not
otherwise be provided. The site and location are ideal for higher density development,
and residents can walk or bike to shopping, parks, downtown, bike paths, several transit
stops, the Aspen Mountain ski area, and more.
The application did not contain the final building designs, and therefore did not request
variances from the Residential Design Standards. However, upon receipt of the
building plans, Community Development Staff determined that the proposal did not meet
two Residential Design Standards. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting approval of two
variances. One variance is from Section 26.41 0.040(B)(I) Building Form - Secondary
Mass. This standard requires, "All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total
square footage above grade in a mass which is completely detached from the building, or
linked to it by a subordinate connecting element." The Applicant has attempted to create
a subordinate connecting element that more effectively addresses this standard. Staff can
support this variance if the connecting element above the first floor is recessed
between the primary and secondary structures. Recessing the connecting element
will break up the building mass, thereby more effectively addressing this standard.
A second variance is from Section 26.41 0.040(D)(3)( 4) Building Elements - Windows,
Lightwells. This standard requires, "All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the
street facingfacade(s) of a building shall be entirely recessed behind the foremost wall of
the building." The proposed
design contains a lightwell on the
east fayade, facing S. Original St.
(Hwy 82). The Applicant plans to
place a fence along the street to
hide the lightwell. Nevertheless,
Staff recommends denial finding
none of the variance standards are
met. At the same time, Staff
recognizes that recessing the
lightwell behind the foremost wall
of the building is a substantial
increase in construction costs, and
that the Applicant does not have
other opportunities to provide
natural light into the basement
levels of the free market units.
":'''''.'~.;J.,:~.,..
View from S. Original St. (Hwy 82) and location of
proposed lightwell.
Finally, it is important to note that the existing building contains several non-conforming
characteristics in the Office Zone District relating to side-yard and rear-yard setbacks, a
3
,1""'\,
,~,
lack of parking, and an encroachment in the public right-of-way. In addition, the site
contains a bandit unit. The proposed application will bring the entire site into
conformance with the Land Use Code and Office Zone District. And, it includes the
construction of a sidewalk, curb and gutter, which will complete the sidewalk along the
700 E. Hopkins Avenue block.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the Special Review to increase FAR, Special
Review for Parking, a DRAC variance from the Secondary Mass standard, and
denial of a DRAC variance from the Windows-Lightwell standard with
conditions.
REVIEW PROCEDURE
. Special Review to Increase FAR and for Parkinf(: The Planning and Zoning Commission
shall by resolution approve, approve with conditions, or deny a development application
for Special Review, after recommendation by the Community Development Department.
. Residential Desif(n Standards. Upon receipt of an application for Residential
Design Standards, the Community Development Director shall determine if the
development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Standards. If an
application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Standards, the
applicant may either amend the application or seek a variance. The Design
Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential Design
Standards at a public hearing ifthe variance is found to be:
a) in greater compliance with the goals of the MCP; or,
b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or,
c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve the Special Review for Increase of Floor Area to I: I, Special Review for
Parking, a Residential Design Standards variances for the secondary mass and lightwells on
the S. Original Street (Hwy 82) street facing fayade for a new multi-family residential
building consisting of 2 affordable housing units and 2 free market units to be located at 728.
E. Hopkins Avenue, with conditions."
Conditions of Approval
I. The building permit application shall include:
a. A copy of the final recorded Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission resolution.
b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set.
c. A current Site Improvement Survey indicating the nature of all easements of record
indicated on the property title commitment.
d. An illustrative site plan of the project showing the proposed improvements,
landscaping, parking, and the dimensional requirements as approved.
4
.r--,
o
e. A drawing representing the project's architectural character.
f. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado
licensed Civil Engineer which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and
after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation
report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 2-year storm frequency
should be used in designing any drainage improvements.
g. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District. The existing residential improvements located on the subject property
are currently serviced by the District. The proposed demolition and
redevelopment will require either two new service lines or a single service line
(of a capacity approved by the District's line superintendent). A shared service
line agreement will be required to be completed. The plans show a driveway
from the alley coming into the garage. The surface elevation of the alley cannot
be changed due to the fact that the District has minimal cover, over the public
sewer line in this area. Fees must be paid prior to the issuance of building
permits. Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules,
regulations, and specifications.
h. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any
approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or
mitigation of removed trees. The survey does not show any existing vegetation.
However, after a site inspection of the property, there are a few existing
Cottonwoods that may be impacted by the redevelopment of the property. If the
basement will be reconstructed also, then the large cottonwood at the southwest
comer of the lot must be protected during construction with construction fencing
placed at the drip line ofthe tree. If other trees are impacted by development then
a tree removal permit may be required prior to applying for a building permit.
The applicant should also include landscaping in the right-of-way as part of the
development.
1. A completed curb, gutter, and sidewalk agreement.
I) All streets and access roads need to have curb and gutter upgrades that comply
with City of Aspen stan,dards.
2) All streets and access roads need to have sidewalks that comply with City of
Aspen standards.
J. A completed agreement to join any future improvement districts formed for the
purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights-of-way.
k. A completed and recorded deed restriction on the affordable housing units on the
property, a form for which may be obtained from the Housing Office. The deed
restriction shall be noted on the building permit plans.
2. The building permit plans shall reflect/indicate:
a. Conformance with all aspects of the City's Residential Design Standards, unless
variances have been granted.
5
,,-..,
~
,
b. All dwelling units will contain a kitchen (having a minimum of a two-bumer stove
with oven, standard sink, and a 6-cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer) and a bathroom
(having a minimum of a shower, sink, and a toilet).
c. All units are provided one (I) off-street parking space in a garage; the building permit
plans shall indicate the designated parking spaces for each unit.
d. The dwelling units meet all applicable DBC requirements for light and air.
e. An overhang shall cover each units' entrance designed to prevent snow and ice from
falling on, or building-up on, the entrance. Snowmelt may also be used to prevent
snow and ice from falling on, or building-up on, the entrance to each unit.
f. Conformance with the City's requirements for driveways. Driveways must be separated
by 25 feet or more (including neighboring driveways), and must be paved from the edge
of the street to the property line. Paving alternatives may be approved by the City
Engineer.
g. A fire suppression system if the gross square footage of the structure exceeds 5,000
square feet.
h. A five (5) foot wide pedestrian usable space with a five (5) foot wide buffer for snow
storage at the edge of the street paving.
3. A kitchen facility or access to a common kitchen shall be provided.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit:
a. The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development
Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood.
b. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative
agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee is fmalized,
those fees shall be payable according to the agreement.
5. No excavation or storage of dirt or material shall occur within tree driplines.
6. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not
within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the
Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their
employees', shall abide by the 2 hour residential parking limitation of the area. The
applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition.
7. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to
the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.
8. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Completion for the
employee units, a member of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall
inspect the units to determine if the units comply with the representations made in
the application.
9. Before issuance ofa building permit, the applicant shall record the Planning and
Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the
Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the
applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution.
6
r-.,
,,-,,
1 O. The final deed restriction be brought to the Housing Board for final input and
approval. The deed restrictions for the two (2) affordable housing units shall comply
with the Housing Board's final recommendation.
11. The two, (2) bedroom affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted to Category 4,
and the one (1) bedroom affordable housing unit shall be deed restricted to Category
2.
12. The applicant shall not track mu~ onto City streets during construction. A washed
rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction.
13. The applicant should provide separate utility taps and meters for each residential unit.
14. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on
the applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be
provided for pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the
site improvement survey. Meter locations must be accessible for reading and may
not be obstructed.
15. The applicant must receive approval for any work within public rights-of-way from
the appropriate City Department. This includes, but is not limited to, approval for a
mailbox and landscaping from the City Streets Department.
16. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C -- Development Application
7
~
(,-."
EXHiBIT A
728 E. HOPKINS SPECIAL REVIEW TO INCREASE FAR, PARKING
DRAC VARIANCES FROM SECONDARY MASS & LIGHTWELL STANDARDS
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
SECTION 26.430.040 SPECIAL REVIEW TO INCREASE FAR TO 1: 1
No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning
Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all
standards and requirements set forth below.
A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a
proposed development are subject to special review, the development application
shall only be approved if the following conditions are met:
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping
and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a manner which is
compatible with or enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is
consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district.
Staff Finding
The Office Zone District allows an increase in FAR to l: 1 for non-detached residential and
duplex uses by special review. This site and location are ideal for higher density
development; and, the site is immediately adjacent to the Resident/Multi-Family Zone
District, and just a few blocks from the downtown core. The multi-family residential use
enhances the character of surrounding land uses and is consistent with the underlying and
adjacent zone districts. Further, the new building's dimensions will be in conformance with
the Land Use Code, eliminating many of the site's existing non-conformities. Staff believes
this criterion has been met.
SECTION 26.515.040 SPECIAL REVIEW STANDARDS FOR PARKING
Whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed development are subject to
establishment and/or mitigation. Section 26.515.010 allows parking to be established for
affordable housing.
A. All zone districts. In all zone districts where the off-street parking
requirements are subject to establishment and/or mitigation by special
review, the applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the
residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met,
taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic
generation of the project, the projected impacts onto the on-street parking of
the neighborhood, its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown
area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests
and employees.
8
,-,.
~
In determining whether to accept the mitigation or whether to require that
the parking be provided on-site, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
take into consideration the practical ability of the applicant to place parking
on-site, whether the parking needs of the development have been adequately
met on-site and whether the city has plans for a parking facility which would
better meet the needs of the development and the community than would
location of the parking on-site.
Staff Finding
The projected impacts on the on-street parking in the neighborhood should be minimal. The
Applicant has discussed on-street parking with surrounding residents and has found that
parking in the area is rarely a problem. The lot size and building configuration do not permit
additional on-site parking spaces without encroachments into the setbacks or public right-of-
way. The location of the proposed development less than 2 blocks from the downtown core,
transit stops, parks, shopping, and more make this site ideal for alternative transportation
usage, reducing the need for car ownership and automobile trips.
SECTION 26.410 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the
Residential Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be:
a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or,
b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or,
c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
Section 26.410.040(B)(1) Building Form -Secondary Mass.
"All new structures shall locate at least 10% of their total square footage above grade in a
mass which is completely detachedfrom the building, or linked to it by a subordinate
connecting element. "
The proposed development does not meet this standard. The Applicant has attempted to
break up the building by creating a design that gives the appearance of a subordinate
connecting element between the free market and affordable UI)its. Instead of actually
constituting a subordinate connecting element, the Applicant has proposed a design that
breaks up the buildings into apparent primary and secondary masses.
In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following
findings:
a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AA CP,. or,
Staff Finding:
The proposal is not in direct conflict with AACP, nor does it further any of its goals.
9
~
('-
b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question;
or,
Staff Finding:
The Applicant has attempted to create a subordinate connecting element that more effectively
addresses this standard. Recessing the connecting element will break up the building mass,
thereby addressing this standard. If the connecting element is not recessed, Staff does not
believe this standard will be met.
c) clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual
site specific constraints.
Staff Finding:
The site is buildable with virtually no unusual physical conditions (i.e., topography,
natural hazards, etc.) where reasons of fairness would relieve the Applicant of
constructing a secondary mass on site.
Section 26.410.040(>>)(3)(4) Building Element- Windows, Lightwells.
"All areaways, lightwells and/or stairwells on the street facingfacade(s) of a building shall
be entirely recessed behind the foremost wall of the building." The proposed design contains
a lightwell on the S. Original St. (Hwy 82) facing facade. The Applicants plans to place a
fence along the street to hide the lightwell. Nevertheless, Staff recommends denial finding
none, of the variance standards are met.
In response to the review criteria for a DRAC variance, Staff makes the following
findings:
a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or,
Staff Finding:
The proposal is not in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; these
standards are a direct outgrowth of the plan.
b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question; or,
Staff Finding:
The Residential Design Standards discourage creating areas of excavation between the street
and building front - or in this case side, since it creates the appearance of a taller building
and creates a barrier between the pedestrian and the building. Although this standard has not
been met, Staff recognizes that recessing the lightwell into the building would substantially
increase the construction costs of this multi-family residential building.
c) clearly necessary for reasons offairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
10
-----.
('
Staff Finding:
This is a completely new structure, therefore the applicant had the flexibility to
design in accordance with the Residential Design Standards. Redesign is possible,
but the construction costs of developing the foundation are apparently very high for
recessing a window well. Staff cannot find the variance review standards are met by
the request.
11
1"""-,
,~
EXHIBIT B
REFERRAL COMMENTS
MEMORANDUM
To: Nick Lelack, Planner
From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer
Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator
Dme: Februmy3,2000
Re: 728 E. Hopkins
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the 728 E. Hopkins application at their
Janumy 19,2000 meeting, and has compiled the following comments:
General
1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments me based on the fact that we believe
that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible.
The wording must be carried forwmd exactly as written unless prior consent is received from.
the Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems related to approvals tied to
"issuance of building permit."
2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there me any encroachments into the public rights-of-way,
the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license
requirements.
Site Review
1. Improvement Survey - Requirement - The building permit application needs to
. include a revised improvement survey that references a title commitment dated within the
past 12 months. The improvement survey must also include the Right of Way lines, curbs,
and sidewalks. All current easements need
2. Site Drainage - Requirement - The drainage report submitted with the
application is insufficient. The site development approvals must include the requirement
meeting runoff design standmds of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and a
requirement that, prior to the building permit application, a drainage mitigation plan
(24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the requirements of the
Engineering Department Interim Design Standmds and must be submitted for review and
approval by the Engineering Department. The mitigation plan must also address the
temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells me
an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with a percolation
12
.1"""\
r--,
test to verify the feasibility of this type of system. Drywells have depths well below depth of
frost (10' minimum) to function in cold weather. The drainage plan must contain a statement
specifying the routine maintenance required by property owner(s) to ensure continued and
proper performance. Drywells may not be placed within public right of way or utility
easements. The foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be
detained and routed on site, and must be shown on drainage plans prior to application for
building permit. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage
report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the design storm.
Information - The City drainage criteria needs to implemented. This
includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation disturbance.
Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow and what adverse affects
may arise from potential mud and debris flow.
3. Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter - Requirement- As of the request of the Engineering
Department revisions need to be made, if urban design features are proposed, as follows:
a. All streets and access roads need to have curb and gutter upgrades that comply
with City of Aspen standards.
b. All streets and access roads need to have sidewalks that comply with City of
Aspen standards.
4. Utilities (General) - Information - All use of City utilities must be planned
accordingly.
5. Streets Department - Requirement- As of the request of the Engineering
Department revisions need to be made as follows: .
a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed
rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction.
6. Parks - Information - The following information has been provided by the parks
department:
We have the reviewed the application and offer the following comments. The survey does
not show any existing vegetation. However, after a site inspection of the property, there are a
few existing Cottonwoods that may be impacted by the redevelopment of the property. The
application indicates that the existing structure will be demolished, however, it is unclear
whether that includes the existing basement. If the basement will be reconstructed also, then
the large cottonwood at the southwest corner of the lot must be protected during construction
with construction fencing placed at the dripline of the tree. If other trees are impacted by
development then a tree removal permit may be required prior to applying for a building
permit. The applicant should also include landscaping in the right-of-way as part of the
development.
13
r",
r--
7. Utilities:
Water:
City Water Department
Requirement -
a. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water
System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water
Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as
they pertain to utilities
Construction:
Work in the Public Right of Way
Requirement - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the
applicant as follows:
Approvals
1. Engineering:
The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department
(920-5080) for design of improvements, including landscaping, within
public rights of way.
2. Parks:
The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920-
5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance.
3. Streets:
The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920-
5130) for mailboxes, streets, and alley.
4. Permits:
Obtain permits for any work or development, including street cuts,
landscaping, within the public rights of way from the city conununity
development department.
14
- ........, 'I
H~~N HOUSING OFC
NO.336 P.2
r.
-,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
R!:
Nick L.elack. Community Oevelopm.nt O.p.r!m.nt
Cindy Christensen. Housing Operations Manager
February 1. 2000
728 EAST HOPKINS HOUSING REPLACEMENT & SPECIAL REVIEW
Parcel 10 No.
FROM:
DATE:
IHUI: The applicant is proposing to cons1Nct a residential development of four units on the
comer of Eilt Hopkins Avenue. The development Is proposed to consist of two free market unlls
(eaCl't containing four bedrooms) and two deed reetricted unItS (a one-bedroom and a two-
bQdroom).
The Planning & zoning Commission win be meeting on this Issue on February 15 and the Housing
Board will not have time to review the project until February 18, 2000. My recommendations In
this memo are made by staff without recommendationS from the Housing bro. Those
recommendatlons will be forwarded to the Community Development Department on February 17.
therefore. any approval by Planning & Zoning should take into consideration any concerns or
recommendations by the Houslng Soard.
BACKGROUNO: The property Is a 8.000 equere foot parcel and currently ccnUllne a elngle
structure with a twcHItory detaCl'ted garage and shop, es well as a bandit dWelling unit. AccordIng
to a City of Aapen Zoning Officer. the property is considered to include a singl', multi-family
structure with three units. and was legally built In 1984. The fourth unit (classified as the bancllt
unit) existed within the structure for some time. The applicant plans on demolishing the enUre
structure and redevelop the site.
For purposes of Sdon 28-530.0s0, Howing replacement lWtIuirementl. in the event of a
demolltlon of resident multi-family hOUSing. the owner shall be requlrad to conatruct replacement
housing consisting of no less than ./JO% of the square footage of net resldentlal aree demolished
or converted. The replacement housing must also be conllgured in a way to replace 50% of the
bedrooms that are lost as working reeident houetng by the demollUon. A minimum of 50% of the
replacement housing shall be above natural grade, ",. .-placement housing shall also be deed
restricted as IIfforoable housing In accordance with Seotlon 28.eaO.060. which etatee:
"Rep~t unlta Sh.n M detd I'NtMItlI in . fOrm and $utm.m:e HCeptlIbIe to
the City C4uf/4/1. Such dMI rNtrloltll unn. mIJI only be ffIIIted or.td to twr.nttl or
bU~ Who 171M'" cHy'1I qW/ilk:ltioM/n ~ .t the tltH of fl'" or N11i11. ami at
$II" prlo. or rem.1 ,.,.. whloh '/w .Ie In _pJ~ whtl the cHy'1I eIIlftIlt
1e/1uhttions. The owner slutn be enfltled to IIeIet:t tensnlS or pul"fJlntftrs ..,~ct to
the afbrwnentJaned quallllOlltlona. TQ mbf of 1tfo1flab,. hOUfllnf1 unIt1I, "II between
~c.go,y .t'for1Jable hoU$/ng and IUldent _pled. m.y !Ill dettrmlned by the
owner, ptOlIided tIl.t 110 ,.. tlntn ZClH of the bedroams qualify .. ca(IegoIy 1 and'
un". anti no moN than 20H of the unltllant .vallllble III tMident occupied una.. "
"'-"'"_,, r1UU;;LNG OFC
NO. 336 P.3
,...",
.
,...",
The appncant Is requil'ld to comply with the Multi-Family Houelng Replacement Program and the
Residential Design Standards, and to establish the off-street perf<lng requirements 8IIodated with
the two proposed affOrdllble housing units. The applicant fs asking for II ~ of the off-elteet
parldngraqulrements assoclated with the two deed restr!~ units. ,
Currently, the parcel contain. llPproxlmateIy3.335 square feet of net residential square footage
and fiVe btdrooms. requiring J'llplacement !lousing consisting of 1,887 square r..t of net
residential &iqUllJ'll footage and 2.! bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to provlde one two-
bedroom deed restrleted unit of 1,000 square feet, and one one-bedroom deed restricted unit of
887 square feet. The applicant is requesting approval to deed resltlct the two-bedroom to
Category 4 limitations, and the one-bedroom to Category 3 limitations. The minimum square
footages, stated In the Guidelines. are ee follows:
Category 3 onMedroom
Category 4 ,twc-bedroom
700 aquare feet
aso square feet
Therefore, the one-bedroom unit Is smaller by 33 square feet The two-beclroom, however. 18
larger by 50 square feel. These unite are also proposed to be 100% above natural gr;de. They
will consist of two stories of 1M"; space and will be located above the garagee, which are for the
free mlll'ket units, The current meximum ules prices for these units would be $122,500 for the
CategOl'y 3 one--bedroom unit, and $211,000 for the Category 4 two-beclroom unit.
The applicant also states that by providing two separate units, there win be two hoUSing lottery
winners instead of just one, which states that the applicant has agreed to place 0011'1 units In the
general lottery pool.
To coljlstruct what Is being proposed, the applicant must receive approval for a 1:1 FAR limit and a
waiver of on-slte parklng requirements for the two deed restricted units. Given the locatJon of the
site. each of the owners of the llffordable units wiD be entitled to one residential parking permit for
on-strnt parking, plus each will be entitled to a guest perking permit. The applicant stal1s that he
has talked with the reeklents of the neighborhood. and that finding a parking space on the
surrounding streets Is usually not a problem, The Site is located such that transit Is easily
accessed, the grocery store is only two blocks W1ay. and the commercial oore Itself Is just a bIocIc.
and a half away.
R~COMMHNDATlON:.sta1fwould recommend appl'OVtll of this application with the condition that
the one-bedroom unit be restricted as I Category 2 unit, which would decrease the maxlmum
sales prlce for this unit to $79,500 ($43.000 leu), due to thaleck of any addltlonal Bmenltles; e.g..
no off-street parI<lng, no additional storage spac:&,
\~fQr~al\'2a~.~t
:2
...
-
...
...
....
t(OPKINS 728
...
-
tlOUSING REPLACElvlENT 6- SPECIAL REVIEW
...
LAND USE APPLICATION
...
-
...
-
...
SU'BlvlITTED 'By
...
..
'BUZZ DOPKIN
'BOX 4696
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
(970) 925 ~7488
DECElvl'BER, 1999
...
....
-
i
...
....
1.
...
n.
"'"
...
....
...
...
-
...
....
-
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
'SUMMARy.... ........ ............ ... .... '" ........... ... ...... ...... ... ...... .......... ....1
EXISTING CONDmONS. ....... .............. ...................... ......... ..... .... ...1
IT!. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS.. .............. ......... ....... ... .......2
IV. PROCEDURAL REQUlREMENTS......................................................3
V. REVIEW STANDARDS.............. ........ .................................. .... ........4
A. Section 26.530.050, Housing Replacement Requirements........... ....4
B.
Section 26.710.180, (0) Office Zone District ...............................6
c.
Section 26.515.040, Special Review Standards (Parking).... .. .. ..... ...8
D. Section 26.430.040, Review Standards for Special Review (FAR)...10
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Land Use Application Form
Exhibit 2: Attachment 2, Dimensional Requirements Form
Exhibit 3: April 22, 1999, letter from Sara Thomas
Exhibit 4: Proof of Ownership (Warranty Deed)
Exhibit 5: Pre-Application Conference Summary
...
....
SUMMARY
...
...
My name is Buzz Dopkin, and I am a long-time local resident of Aspen. I plan to build a
residential development offour (4) units at the northwest comer of East Hopkins Avenue
and South Original Street. The property address is 728 East Hopkins Avenue. In general
terms, my development will include two (2) free market residences as well as two (2) deed
restricted affordable housing units, and two (2) two-car garages. The garages will be
accessed from the alley, The entire development will be configured as one multi-family
structure of 2 - 2.5 stories, with four units. The deed restricted units will each have two
stories of living space and will be located in a side-by-side configuration above the
garages. The side-by-side free market units will each contain two stories above grade as
well as a basement level. The two free market units will have their front doors on East
Hopkins Avenue, while the doors to access the deed restricted units will be located on the
sides of the structure (one facing South Original Street).
....
-
,~
...
As demonstrated in the following application, my proposal exceeds the requirements of
the Resident Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program (also known as Title 20) and
has the endorsement of the Housing Office. Only Special Review approval from the
Planning and Zoning Commission is required in order to: (a) allow the 1: 1 FAR limitation
(as opposed to 0.75:1 by right), and (b) establish the parking requirements associated with
the affordable residences.
-
...
EXISTING CONDITIONS
-
The subject property contains six thousand (6,000) square feet ofland, with no applicable
lot area reductions --- there are no slopes in excess of 20%, no right-of-way easements,
and no high water lines. It is zoned (0) Office, which as of right allows multi-family
residential dwellings as a permitted use.
...
....
The property currently contains a single structure with a two-story detached garage and
shop as well as a bandit dwelling unit. According to the Aspen/Pitkin County Building
Permit fUes and the April 22, 1999, letter (attached as Exhibit 3) from Sara Thomas,
former City of Aspen Zoning Officer, the property is considered to include a single, multi-
family structure with three (3) units, and was legally built in 1964. A fourth unit (the
bandit unit just mentioned) existed within the structure for some time, presumably
illegally, but prior to my acquisition of the property.
....
,...
...
It is my intention to demolish the entire structure and redevelop the site. For purposes of
the Resident Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program, the property is considered to
contain three multi-family units, and I will have to provide on-site replacement offifty (50)
percent of the existing net residential square footage and fifty percent of the existing
bedrooms as deed restricted affordable housing. As pointed out in the attached letter from
Sara Thomas (Exhibit 3), the building presently contains approximately 3,335 square feet
of net residential square footage and five (5) bedrooms, requiring replacement housing
-
-
I
..
1-".8
'1 S
i
.
I
b
I~I
., . ~
Ll2 ~~
i
~
...
~
..
o
~
.
~
. '
ct
"'.....
Ii
.......-'
t;
I?
.
~
~
1iI
I
'"
c
~~
'ill
b~
~~
Bb
I!!' ,~
~3p~I~!
~~illl
m~lll:e
-;;ilS~i ~ I?g
!!I!!lili~
~~i~;iB:11
iil cI!sBf!illJ!~
B
"'~
,i1
.t
t
~~
~.
H
, ~
~~~~II! f I:
~ ~~~Q~~ ~
tZ ~.~g~~~~ ~ ,!1 J
8.!~l~a~ < . J 3
~ ~!ftll
, " II I !> I II 0
", I!!? I
.. .
, "
,'> (;
. .' ,'.
~,~.. ..
:......~!i ,--,
,.- il
.' I ~
, . ~~
'-:~"-.' ~-4 .' i I
.._... ___._. I
-~- -- ,
. ~ .
. I
'-I-
- . !i;'-'
, . :~~<-:
, . .t;W.
. ",.,1D' ,
.~~.
. ~.
. .<C;>
(J.N;lI"l~ ON)
cn.Lv.X>1 ..aN <;:NJ<:T1~ .lI-G:>'>-fl:lY
. , .
'-..
'-..
"-
.......
,-
.... I'"
.
~
.
.
1
. :';'"':"".":--~. ~=:i
Q
..
:1
~f5
..t;
~w
IA
.
"
.
"
i liB ~
m @
ill
11f! .t
!-;i
~il " I;i
ill ..
h~ "'Iii, I
i~~! ~ lei
i- .I~
lig
JI
Ilw ~
.:iw ::;,
"5i ,
.
"
ilia
at ,
H
Uls ~
~p I~
~lli
~~
-.~ ..
I
~ ..,:(.)
" <(.
10; <II ,15
III _"'11;
!i;i~::
C/lU>
1-01-
o~-
_ ...u:au
.
1
~~ 0
wi ~
-a.. t
\l~; ~:
lIcn::l g.
~!15li~
'" !:IlI-_
.. .dlll'!?
allt:J'!>::
r...."..
",i
,,0
~i
i~
'"!!!
II
...
>
ct
'"
z
f ~i
a').
1III
"
a.
o
:>:
Q. i hll
ca i f'
::IE ~ Ii! :in I
Z+-
~ J J I J J Jlli I
CD 02220
Q. ..
e ~ 0
a.. \~
(
~
I
?-
m
~
I-
eD
-!
<(
Z
~
\')
~
OJ 'uadsV
"aAV sup[dOH "a au.
S:!IWOHN.M.OJ. }"1IWV.!i - IJ.1flW
99t.l.-926 (0.1.6)
3l9l9 0:> 'u9dsy
ge9t xoa
1I911}1d.191U:[ U1:l{doa zzna
_M (IliOl ~
"=,;o:..r'-'f")~ I ~ ~ ,I
'1lUi 'SIr\9tOOSSY " J <.J
. Jlwrll11 ,
!
II
~
I
II
~
~
~
-d
~ "
1l l~
CJ "~
~ I~
m rl~
w >
" ",1
~ i~
p
J
~~f
1:\
z~
..~
I.
il
I
II
Ij
~
~
il
ii
~
Ii
Ii
I
.~'V gNDldOH "3
\
.. , ::t:lNa::iHlDIt-! "z". flf/i!1
el~ """ t-- J, _. v . ..", . - "'"
(n )1,E.QJ~'$l. N
~~ -\)
"0 II
'i>-
~~
,-
iQI lQJ I [Q] -m
..I.-
r-
~ ,
\J 11
.. ....
l \\!
i G- - --
i f' r!9
>-
\/ I :l
> m
~ #1 JJ \l
:t J
l!l \
:t
-.. I I
\ I
("
If I ,
~ ' (j
5 ~ ~
~ '"
~l , II
~ UJ
,
~
">9 i!:=jj> = b= ~ lL
.!!]
.. n
n 1'------
..9',,", "v-,'6
~ ~ = ~
.. .... L Cil JEJ
II .....
..
~1ii
fl'~
:t
"0
j'>- ill ~
& - !=
~.., ...J
-\)
.'
i!!
- - - - lR;(P9
3,M~ - - - -
..
" L9
A311'V
~
<(
ZeD
~Z
~~\')
I!,.OZ
u:tz
)-ui2
1-11) \
~",r
Ur--l
11) eD I:~
-<(<(
- lL
t:~~
t)O-l
-!~f
Z
<('!l
'"
"
Iii
1-<1
iD~
w
~
......
U)
Ul
Q
~
<(
Z
1-1
L
t-I
...J
~
lL
r~
-
-
consisting of 1,667 square feet of net residential square footage and 2.5 bedrooms. The
replacement housing must also be a minimum of fifty (50) percent above natural grade.
This replacement housing requirement need only be provided within one, single unit of
deed restricted housing. I intend to exceed these requirements, as explained below.
-
....
The existing property contains many nonconforming situations with regard to the
requirements of the Office zone district, specifically with regard to side yard setbacks, rear
yard setbacks, and parking. For instance, the required side yard setbacks are five feet (5')
and six feet eight inches (6'8") --- 6'8" for the second street-bordering side since on
corner lots, the owner shall have the choice as to which yard shall be considered the front,
with the remaining street-bordering yard allowed to be reduced by one-third (1/3) of the
required front yard setback. The side yard setbacks of the existing structure, however, are
just 2'7" on the side requiring a 5' setback and only 4'2" on the side requiring a 6'8"
setback. Similarly, the required rear yard setback is fifteen feet (15') and the existing
structure is setback just 3' II" from the rear property line. Lastly, the existing
development carries a parking requirement of six (6) off-street spaces (@ 2 per unit), and
only two (2) legal, conforming spaces exist on-site --- in the garage. It is also worth
mentioning that the existing parking for the site encroaches upon the right-of-way,
precluding the installation of sidewalks. My redevelopment of the site will eliminate this
encroachment and provide sidewalks, curbs, and gutters.
-
-
....
-
-
My development plan will eliminate all of the nonconforming setbacks by bringing the
same into compliance with the (0) Office zone district requirements. There will be a light
well within the setback area on both the east and west sides, but since these will be the
minimum necessary to comply with Uniform Building Code Requirements for egress from
,the corresponding bedrooms, a variance is not necessary. My proposal also includes two
(2) off-street parking spaces in garages for each of the free market residences, with
another four parking spaces available in the on-site driveways. This will significantly
reduce the level of nonconformity, and if approved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission pursuant to the provisions of Special Review, will completely eliminate the
nonconforming status of the lot with regard to off-street parking requirements. I am
requesting that no on-site spaces be required for the deed restricted units, as further
explained below.
-
....
-
-
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS
-
-
My property is located in the (0) Office zone district, on the northwest corner of East
Hopkins Avenue and South Original Street. Surrounding uses include both free market and
affordable multi-family residential (see list below), lodges (Buckhorn, former Bell Mt., etc.),
commercial (Aspen Athletic Club, etc.), offices (Hannah Dustin Building, A-frame structure,
etc.), condominiums (see list below), and even single-family residential. Thus, it would be
accurate to say that the surrounding area is made up of a diverse mix of uses. This wide range
of uses reflects the nature of the zoning in the area.
I""
-
2
....
-
-
...
-
...
--
-
-
-
-
...
-
-
--
...
--
,
-
...
-
. "~
t
... .1..
.., iii,!. "
I """!
.. ,,' . .
~ M4//y Sr
- ii,.
I
.... .'
-
d{
I;t;y,.~"
l'!~'~.../~..
'5';,::""\... ..',:~!
. ~..'~?::~~;Y
.
. .',',.' ,
" ...:..;.....~~~ .
/
/
':1
/
, /
/ /
" ./
..,.
~..~
'....~;
, / .
'.'1;;.
! ,~'.
~ ,
.!.'/ ,:',
1IIt"',"',,-' ",/"~,~:., '",
, , , : ~ --~"------.: '
i,/ I
"-, ~
',' '., "'.~
,- ----
'MAN AVE'
200
o
200
Location Map
,...
,....
,..,
Immediately across Original Street, to the east of the subject lot, the zoning changes to
Residential Multi-Family (R/MF), and the same is true just across the alley to the north. One
block to the west of my property, the zoning is (C-l) Commercial, and (CC) Commercial Core
just one more block to the west. Two blocks to the south the zoning is (NC) Neighborhood
Commercial, with a single lot of Commercial Lodge (CL) zoning even closer. Also, the
Benedict Commons Affordable Housing development is one block to the south of the
redevelopment site and is zoned Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AHlPUD).
,....
,..
Therefore, it is fair to say that the proposed redevelopment site represents an opportunity to
transition from the adjacent, quieter R/MF, Residential Multi-Family district (to the east) to
busier (C-l and CC) commercial areas (to the west). The proposed use --- multi-family
residential with a mix of free market and affordable units --- and its proposed design are fully
compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood.
,...
-
,....
In fact, with just a brief walk around the immediate neighborhood, I noticed the following
multi-family developments:
I. The Larkspur (NE comer of Hopkins and Original), directly across the street;
2. 80 I East Hopkins;
3. 830 East Hopkins;
4. 825 East Hopkins;
5. The Mountain House (comer of Hopkins and West End);
6. Mountain River Manor (900 East Hopkins);
7. The Queen Victoria (910 East Hopkins);
8. Hy-West (835 East Hopkins);
9. Chateau Blanc (901 East Hopkins);
10. Benedict Commons (SW comer of Hyman and Cooper);
11. The Bell Mountain Townhomes (NE comer of Cooper and Spring); and,
12. others
,...
,....
,....
,....
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
,..
,....
I had met with Sara Thomas when she was still the City Zoning Officer, Mitch Haas when
he was still one of the City's Planners, and Dave Tolen when he was still the Housing
Director. I also had a work session with the City Planning and Zoning Commission to
generally review my proposal and the potential issues of FAR and parking in June of 1999.
Most recently, I had a pre-application conference with Chris Bendon, Planner, on
September 30, 1999.
-
,....
All of these meetings have confirmed that my proposal must comply with the Multi-Family
,Housing Replacement Program and the Residential Design Standards, and receive Special
Review approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for increasing the allowable
FAR from 0.75:1 to 1:1, as well as to establish the off-street parking requirements
associated with the two proposed affordable dwelling units.
,....
-
3
,....
I'"
-
.
-
In accordance with these requirements, my proposal is to be reviewed against the
following sections of the code: Section 26.530.050, Housing Replacement Requirements;
Section 26.410.040, Residential Design Standards; Section 26.710.180, Office (0) zone
district; and, 26.430.040, Review Standards for Special Review.
-
-
If it is found that any variances will be required from the City's Residential Design
Standards, I would like an opportunity to redesign or respond in writing to the specific
variance criteria prior to the hearing. Also, if a variance( s) is to be requested, I would
prefer that the request be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission concurrently with
the Special Review.
-
-
It is my understanding that Special Review necessitates a public hearing before the
Planning and Zoning Commission, but without any notice requirements. I further
understand that, if any variances are needed from the Residential Design Standards, the
proper sign will have to be posted on the property for at least five (5) days prior to the
hearing, and a signed affidavit with a photograph of the posted sign will need to be
provided to staff prior to the hearing.
-
-
REVIEW STANDARDS:
-
The following section of this application provides each of the applicable review standards,
with each standard followed by my response demonstrating compliance with and/or
satisfaction of the requirement.
-
Section 26.530.050, Housing Replacement Requirements
-
As explained above, it is my intention to demolish the entire existing structure and
redevelop the site, For purposes of the Resident Multi-Family Housing Replacement
Program, the existing property is considered to contain three multi-family units.
-
-
A. Minimum replacement requirement In the event of the demolition of
resident multi-family housing, the owner shall be required to construct
replacement housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the square
footage of net residential area demolished or converted The replacement
housing shall be configured in such a w,;ry as to replace fifty (50) percent of
the bedrooms that are lost as working resident housing by demolition. A
minimum of fifty (50) percent of the replacement housing shall be above
natural grade. The replacement housing shall be deed restricted as
affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of Section
26.530.060, below.
-
-
-
RESPONSE: I will provide on-site replacement of fifty (50) percent of the existing net
residential square footage and fifty percent of the existing bedrooms as deed restricted
affordable housing. As pointed out in the attached letter from Sara Thomas, the building
-
4
-
a;
I
I
.. "OJ
~ "(;
~iI.!
jt~
~ .~
2!ijj
zIH2
~~ .
~~~
~~~
liiJ--
~lQlii
11.-ll!
11._
~ .11.
....~ .
tI" .~
1Illi"
~~:
OJ 'uadsV
"aAV SUPldoH ':!I HZL.
S:!IWOHNM.O.L A1IVW.!i-I.L1ilW
,,-,91
I
OOtL-ga6 (OL6)
at9te 0;) 'uadsv
96et xOII
SaS1-ld.1alu3 upjdoQ zzna
,p-,fIr
Jr,I
.D-~ IJ-~
I
I
I
I
:t
~
~
~ L::<
IIi
/'A.. ,
J
.
~
~
~
.11-,91
-;
;0
~I
V
~IOI-,G
I
~
, I I
~ ~ .D-~ " .xIl L-,tl
, , f" "
~ '<
! (q:; 11 ,
;0
~'"
m.
:)'~'
0
r~ I~~G
" ~
\\ -; "
'0 ,
..
~ ,,- ~ /
O-b Ll\
~
~
i;l ~ i
,. ,
:t '"
,.t-,II
'"
Z
~
~
W
I
~~
v "
~
I ~
,
1
Z/I>-\"
~
_41
,.
~
~
.9-,9
- 1
,.
I~;' ~
:> ~~ IJI','
?>r
r ~
)11" Ii
H- := /
.ol-,~ !:::: f
II C8l
.~,e\
I
V
VI 01-$
I
,,:19
v
M\ :
--...- t - ......
-::'i'li'",,-.'t:: ~ ~ ~ I I
""" 'salQ!OOSSY ,,- <C
XWfIJJJ.
.'r-,91
~
IIi
~.
/V'-...
1 'j J-r- 1:g I~
"K
: X. ,Z.!ll-b
I-b ~. '\ 0
M ~ :.U~<
~
"""\! ~ u<:
\ i8I .DI-,; II
,
.S-,91
-;
;0
,11-,91
q i;l -;
~ ;,
,
;,
~
"
,
..
I
.zit L-,tl '"
,
it '<
0
A
/!l\
"
-; ,
'0 9
,-J
~
.
,&)-,e
~ ~
~
~ ~
~
,
'"
I
~
,
'"
,.t:-,II
I
~
ill
I
['0..1
~~
i r:-
<.n
~
t>
r~
~
I
[
I
I
,a-,Oil .0-,' .o-,fiIl
,o-,'h
"9-,9
~
~
t-
s
-;
'"
':
m
i
z
<.D
<f)
LU
o
)-
~
<(
z
2:
-1.
LU
~
D-
b
~
z
<(
..J
lL
It
o
o
..J.
lL5'
Ii
I-~
to:
1t"J
- <
lL~
Ii
O~ 'uads-V
'aAV sUPldoH 'a HZ'!'
Saf{OHNJAO.L J.. 'lnW d -u:mw
99t~-9Z6 (O~6)
31919 00 'uadsv
969t xog
saspd.1alU:il lIPldoa 2121ug
_no_ t N
W.'Cf.,;~>V;: ~ I ~ I I
'OU! 'sallllOOSSV ,,- 4
)U'{fllll e
,
,J;J-^.~ Z
Jr", ,
p-P< ~ ;' '-.' I pi '-, .o-P< \!)
-1<
"'-' -~ -
'il J U)
"tl ~"- UJ
'iI ,\
j , 0 0 , ~ D
~ "
~~ '< 1 ~
" . ~
~ 'r , , .." }-
~~~ .." ~
~
ZJ:~ ~ ~
3:'
~t . ..>1..--11 r Z
~~i -
.l~~ .\~,EC. L
-
-'
~~~ s , l; ~ , .. ~ ~
l , .
~ '!! .'
t ~ '!! 0-
1llU):E '!! to
. l-
ot;...: .
i....;t: ~ l;
ii -; :;
II II
~o- :P ~
-~j! i;;F ."I-~ ,q.!i
t.~ S " ...J
1 1 IL
r- I'
~ J It
~ 'f ..
. bJ ~ 0
.. .. 0
'r ~d '- l- .' 0
~ ."X,OI-S z-~ ,J:d. .r/F;OI-,!i ~ ...J
lL
-"II '9.,~ ."/1 to-,E = -:-...- T II- -, 1 -{ f ~":-1 ~ .",/1 '(,-ji. .tto'/l'r',E \)
Q~
I I Z'"
,.Ii ...,,, I I ..Ii ,-,01 ------{ 0:>
, \)iU
S " [;1'~~I~*lmJ s lU;i
, l> i' If)al
." .." J
i ~rF1~ ~ ~
~ -1- >-I=- ~i
.9/1 J,.-;r;l It- _ ,I ~ ~ it ' \I
1i8j1 J8l1--i1 .'V/ll--,tl
.'C-~\ rlFi ~ _.~-----,---'-
,-- n 'T L 'I -, r..... 'r - .~h'l 0
-I- :'--''" llit It~i , lH--
,
-H .oI- I
~ ~ ~ ~ .oh
~ I ;:
~ ~ :t' "
" ~"
I' ~ ., - .,
-4-- l!f.. ~
Ii It I ,
'"
--l-
L-. b '" +--
g. i b
? ~ ~
J ::N I VV
, l~-;Z
c..
.---. I ~
,
. '<
[
"\I'~...-,9t [
I .. .../lll-,i\
.ow,i'V
~
99tL-ga6 (OL6)
,n9l9 0;) 'uadllV
969t xOH
BaB101d.1alU:!l up[doQ zzng
--... (alO) ( - I'f)
,,::,,~... .."'--"= ~ ~ ~ I I
'011! 'S3111JQOSSY ,,- <(
>I}UIJIJ e
I
OJ 'uadsv
"aAV SUPldoH ~:!I H21.
S:!lY\OHN.M.OJ. A1IY\V.!I-IJ.1Uy\
, '
.<1-,..
-'-
....~I J:.!lli-,Q J.!lli-g S.-.'i(
I
I
I
, ,
" ~. ,..
U , H
2 0 "
~ T ~
i- ~ ~
N ,
h I , I I ~
~ .".. '1[(- ~ N
N ~r -... " ,
.' ~
~ b .f1-,ii
,q-Ii ,
Tn
S ~ ~/ ~ s
~ ~ ~
I , '- ~
."'-,"'\ ."-,'PI ..
U '\ -
s i 11 I ~
.
. ,
~ t--; ,'-- ~
(" \
V -.--- .'>-~ xX V
:r 1 .'>-~ 1 - ~
l() .vt 11-,9 .'tI1\\-,'iJ ....,
'f /J~ J ~~ "
= ~ = ,
" ~ "
~ 1:>
to ,
~ ~
s " I I ~
"
-; .' "
, ~ ~ -;
!
.Iha ,II-a
fii1j] fii1j]
"'- []]\:JIII~Vrn LJ
~ " (j) (j)
" ~ ~
N ~ fi ~
,
, S N
,
.J:Il1-o91 .9-,9 . ,
fl ~ ~ .9-,9 .;cJ11-,91
0 0 1\
T -;
ITI ~ ~
~ I r I , I ~-
S b - I - I
. i- j j "
,
~ ,
~ ~ . I
,
~
I ----~__c
I
I
I
~tH-.L. .1:/I!Oi-,t.
.z:tl fi-,fJ
-'- XI) ,"-,9 XII '.O-,L.
.Z/III-,L
.0-,9Itr
z
~
(f)
W
o
}-
~
<C
z
L
-.J
LU
~
(L
z
<
~
(l
IY
o
o
~
lL
I---
z-
UJ~
L;'
UJ~
d),u
<,.J
lD~
~
OJ 'uadsV
<
'aAV sUPldoH 'S: 9Zl.
saWOHN.M.O.L J..1IwVd-I.L1flW
99v~-926 (0~6)
21919 0:> 'uadsV
969v ltOB
sas'!.1d.1a'lu:!i 1IP\do(l zznB
_lM (oW a: ~ ...;;t
-::;oe...~-- 'T":' ~ ~ ~ ,1
'0U1 'sa'luposSV 1I - <(
}1J'U'llll ,
I
I
z
Q
~
~
UJ"
-'
\-;
z~
Qu
It~
11-~
z
\!)
-
to
ill
D
)-
~
Z
-
L
-
-1
~
0-
z
Q
~
>
UJ
-I'
UJ~
.'
It~
.(
UJ"1
It~
Ii
I
OJ 'uadsV
"aAV SUPfdoH ':if 82.1.
S:ilWOHN.M.OJ. J..1IWVj-IJ.1ilW
.LH913H ::lOO~ QI~
"O-,~G:
z
o
I-
<
>
ill
-I
ill
lU
a
(f)~
I-~
:c":
m~
(tlil
99701.-926 (001.6)
21919 0:> 'uadsv
9697 xog
SallJ.Id.Jalu:!l 1Ip[doa zzng
___(OM) LI)
"=,,'f,,, . ',,= ~ ~ ~ I I
'''''1 'salll!:)OS~r ~ I I J <(.
.LH91:!H ::lOO~ QI~
llO-I~L
z
~
<f)
ill
o
}-
(t
<(
z
L
~
ill
(t
0-
z
o
I-
<
>
ill
-I
ill
lU
ab
- ,
(f)~
'"
I-~
LL ui
ill I<'
-Ilil
...
....
-
presently contains approximately 3,335 square feet of net residential square footage and
five (5) bedrooms, requiring replacement housing consisting of 1,667 square feet of net
residential square footage and 2.5 bedrooms.
"'"
Notice there is no requirement that the replacement bedrooms and net residential square
footage be provided in more than one unit. Nevertheless, being a long-time local resident
of Aspen and understanding the need for as many units of affordable housing as can
reasonably be provided, it is my intention to meet the minimum requirements by providing
two distinct deed restricted units. Specifically, I am proposing to provide one (1) two-
bedroom deed restricted unit of 1,000 square feet, and one (I) one-bedroom deed
restricted unit of 667 square feet. The two-bedroom unit would be deed restricted to the
Housing Office's Category 4 limitations, while the one-bedroom unit would be deed
restricted to the Category 3 limitations. These units will be, not 50%, but 100% above
natural grade. The two units will each contain two stories of living space, and be located
above the garages.
....
...
-
...
By providing two separate units, both of which will be fully above grade, I am exceeding
the requirements of Title 20. Also, Title 20 allows me to replace only two bedrooms and
pay cash-in-lieu of the fractional bedroom, as provided in the following standard. As we
all know, this cash-in-lieu would never be used to directly provide a bedroom of deed
restricted housing. Instead, I intend to provide three full bedrooms within high-quality,
beautiful units located not on the periphery of town, but right in the downtown area. By
providing two separate units, there will be two housing lottery winners instead of just one,
an immeasurable benefit to some lucky, local resident.
-
-
"'"
-
B. Location of replacement requirement. Multi-family replacement units shall
be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the
owner shall demonstrate that replacement of the units on-site would be
incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be an inappropriate
planning solution due to the. site's physical constraints. When either of the
above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of
units on-site which the City Council determines that the site can accommodate
and may replace the remaining units off-site, within the Aspen Metropolitan
Area. When the owner's housing replacement requirements involves a
fraction of a unit, cash in lieu may be provided to meet the fractional
requirement only. The amount of cash-in-lieu shall be computed using the
formula set forth at Section 26.620.020.
-
-
-
-
RESPONSE: As explained above, I intend to provide the replacement housing on-site and
in excess of the minimum required. There are no applicable adopted neighborhood plans.
I fully believe the proposed development plan is appropriate for the site, specifically, and
for the neighborhood, in general. I believe the above narratives more than adequately
demonstrate this.
-
-
5
....
-
jiia
-
Whether or not the replacement housing I intend to provide is indeed appropriate for the
site, will really be a function of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decisions with
regard to my requests for a 1: 1 FAR limit and a waiver of on-site parking requirements for
the two deed restricted units. In truth, if my proposal is deemed inappropriate by the
Commission (i.e., no increase in FAR allowed, or no waiver of off-street parking
requirements), I have no intention offollowing up with the City Council. Instead, I would
simply provide the minimum on-site and pay the cash-in-lieu for the remaining half-
bedroom. Please understand that this is in no way intended as an ultimatum or threat, I
just want to make sure the facts and ramifications of deeming my proposal inappropriate
are clearly understood.
-
,-
-
-
C Timing and quality of replacement unit. Replacement units shall be
available for occupancy at the same time as the new units or units, regardless
of whether the replacement units are built on-site or off-site, and shall contain
fixtures, finish and amenities required by the housing designee's guidelines.
When replacement units are proposed to be built off-site, the owner shall be
required to obtain a development order approving the off-site development
prior to or in conjunction with obtaining a development order approving
redevelopment on the site on which demolition is proposed to take place.
...
...
RESPONSE: No off-site replacement housing is proposed.
requirements ohhis standard, and agree to comply with them.
I understand the
-
...
Section 26. 710.180, Office (0)
...
The property contains six thousand (6,000) square feet ofland, with no applicable lot area
reductions m there are no slopes in excess of 20%, no right-of-way easements, and no
high water lines --- which meets the minimum lot area requirement of 6, 000 square feet. It
is zoned (0) Office, which as of right allows multi-family residential dwellings as a
permitted use.
....
~
My development plan will eliminate all of the nonconforming setbacks (described above,
under "Existing Conditions") by bringing the same into compliance with the Office zone
district requirements. The lot is 60 feet wide, thereby meeting the minimum lot width
requirement. Under the submitted proposal, the structure will at no point exceed the
twenty-five (25) foot height limitation, as measured pursuant to the City Code.
Nevertheless, I believe and staff may find that the a modest two (2) foot height variance
for the flat-roofed portion of the building would greatly increase the livability of the
affordable units; a twenty-seven (27) foot measured height would actually be the true
height of the flat roof. Only one structure is proposed, so the minimum distance between
buildings on a lot requirement is not applicable. There is no open space requirement in the
Office zone district.
-
.-
,...
....
6
~
-
-
-
My proposal includes two (2) off-street parking spaces in garages for each of the free
market residences, with another four parking spaces available in the on-site driveways.
This will significantly reduce the level of nonconformity, and if approved by the Planning
and Zoning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Special Review, will completely
eliminate the nonconforming status of the lot with regard to off-street parking
requirements. I am requesting that no on-site spaces be required for the deed restricted
units, as further explained below.
.-
""
In terms of density (minimum lot area per dwelling unit), the following requirements
apply, since the lot contains 6,000 square feet and two of the four proposed units would
be restricted as affordable housing:
-
-
e. Multi-jamily dwellings on a lot of 27,000 square feet or less, when at least
fifty percent (50%) of the units built on-site are restricted as affordable
housing:
Studio: 500 [square feet oflot area per].
1 bedroom: 600 [square feet oflot area per],
2 bedroom: 1,000 [square feet oflot area per].
3 bedroom: 1,500 [square feet oflot area per].
3+ bedrooms: One (1) bedroom per 500 square feet of lot area.
...
-
-
With the proposal including one (1) two-bedroom unit and one (1) one-bedroom unit,
1,600 square feet of lot area are consumed for density allowance purposes. This leaves
4,400 square feet oflot area available for determining the number of bedrooms that will be
allowed in the two free market units. Since 4,400 divided by 500 equals 8.8, a total of
eight (8) bedrooms are permitted by right between the two units. Each of the free market
units will, therefore, contain up to four (4) bedrooms.
....
...
With regard to FAR for a multi-family structure in the Office zone, 0.75:1 is permitted by
right. With a 6,000 square foot lot, 0.75:1 results in 4,500 square feet of allowable FAR
floor area. The term "FAR floor area" is intended to indicate that not all floor area counts
toward allowable FAR. The zoning provisions allow the 0.75:1 FAR limitation to be
increased to 1:1 (6,000 square feet) by Special Review. Special Review approval for such
an increase is requested below.
,.
~;
-
!
While the Internal Floor Area Ratio provision does not apply in this case, it is interesting
to note that the same 0.75: 1 limit can also be raised to I: 1 by special review provided 60%
of the additional floor area is to be used for residential use restricted to affordable
housing. This means that 4,500 square feet of FAR is allowed by right, and another 1,500
square feet of FAR can be approved by Special Review provided 900 square feet of this
1,500 square foot increase is to be used for residential use restricted to affordable housing.
My proposal involves the development of just 4,333 square feet of free market residential
FAR, which is 167 square feet below the maximum allowed on the lot by right. Therefore,
since I am also proposing 1,667 square feet of residential uses restricted to affordable
housing, 100% of the additional floor area requested by Special Review will be for
residential use restricted to affordable housing.
-
~
'-c
7
...
-
-
-
Section 26.515.040, Special Review Standards [Parking)
-
Pursuant to Section 26.515.010 ofthe Land Use Code, the off-street parking requirements
for affordable housing must be established by Special Review, Section 26.515.040 of the
Municipal Code states that "whenever the off-street parking requirements of a proposed
development are subject to establishment and/or mitigation via a payment in lieu by
special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following
conditions are met: "
~...
...
....
A. All zone districts. In all zone districts where the off-street parking
requirements are subject to establishment and/or mitigation by special review,
the applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents,
customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into
account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the
project, the projected impacts onto the on-street parking of the neighborhood,
its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special
services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees.
-
-
In determining whether to accept the mitigation or whether to require that the
parking be provided on-site, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall take
into consideration the practical ability of the applicant to place parking on-
site, whether the parking needs of the development have been adequately met
on-site and whether the city has plans for a parking facility which would
better meet the needs of the development and the community than would the
location of the parking on-site.
...
-
,.,.
RESPONSE: There are no set parking requirements for the affordable housing units;
instead, they are to be established as part of this review. Since no requirements exist, the
proposal does not contemplate mitigating this lack of a requirement via a cash in lieu
payment (in lieu of what?). The proposal includes the provision of two (2) off-street
parking spaces for each of the two free market units in their associated garages, with
additional parking in the driveways to said garages.
-
-
The provided parking will only comply with the established minimums for the free market
units. However, this does not leave any room for on-site parking spaces dedicated to the
affordable units, especially since a trash dumpster will be necessary along the alley
frontage. The side yards do not provide any room for parking spaces either, nor would
such spaces be desirable. For instance, one side yard fronts of South Original Street and
provision of parking along this yard would run contrary to the direction and goals of the
Residential Design Standards. The same is true for the front yard facing Hopkins Avenue.
The other side yard is only five feet in width. Therefore, there is no practical ability to
place additional parking on-site.
,-
-
-
,~
There are no City-sponsored or other plans for a parking facility that would better meet
the needs of the development and the community than would the location of parking on-
8
..
-
,.-.
l-'
site. Given the location of the site, each of the owners of the affordable units will be
entitled to one (1) residential parking permit for on-street parking. They will also each be
entitled to a guest parking permit. Having talked with residents of the neighborhood, it is
my understanding that finding parking on the surrounding streets is usually not a problem.
-
--
It has long been a goal of the City's to minimize its residents' dependency on the
automobile and to find disincentives to automobile usage. This site represents a prime
location for acting on these worthwhile goals. The site is located such that transit is easily
accessed, with stops nearby. Grocery shopping is available at the City Market, just two
blocks (the short side of the blocks) to the south. The downtown, commercial core is just
a block and a half to the west.
-
,...
Given the forgoing, it is my wholehearted opinion that there need not be designated
parking spaces on-site for use by the residents of the deed restricted units. All needs in
town are within easy walking distance. Parking is available on the surrounding streets,
and the residents will be entitled to resident and guest parking permits. Transit is close by.
The site cannot practically accommodate additional parking beyond the minimum
necessary to comply with the standards for the two free market units, and allowing for no
parking requirement associated with the deed restricted units will further the City's goals
of minimizing dependencies on the automobile.
!""".
f"'"
--
B. Multi-family dwelling units. Off-street parking provided for multi-family
dwelling units which do not share a common parking area is not required to
have unobstructed access to a street or alley, but may consist of a garage
area, parking strip or apron provided that the applicant demonstrates that
adequate landscaping will be installed to reduce the parking's visual impact.
Developments consisting of three or more dwelling units shall install one (1)
planter buffer per three parking spaces. Planter buffers shall be a minimum
often (10) feet long by two and one-half (2-1/2) feet wide by two (2) feet high
unless otherwise varied by the Commission. The location and dimensions of
the planters may also be varied by the Commission based on site specific
circumstances provided that no fewer than one (1) planter buffer is provided
per three (3) off-street parking spaces. Multi-family projects using this
provision shall access parking from the alley, if available.
~.
7"'"
-
-
...
RESPONSE: All provided parking for the multi-family structure will be access directly
from the alley. There will not be three contiguous open-air parking spaces in any location
on the site. The driveways will be only fifteen (15) feet long and will, therefore, not be
legal head-in parking spaces (18 feet required). Consequently, there will not be three open
spaces contiguous to one another, and therefore, the provision of planter buffers are not
required by this standard.
-
-
Furthermore, even if deemed to be required, the planter buffers would have to be located
between the two driveways, and with the requirement that the planters be only two feet in
height, they would hardly be visible from the existing street grade. Without being clearly
...,
9
...
,...
,...
,-
visible from the existing street grade, not to mention being on an alley, these planter
buffers would serve virtually no purpose whatsoever.
-
Section 26.430.040, Review Standards for Special Review [F ARJ
-,
As explained above with regard to FAR for a multi-family structure in the Office zone,
0.75:1 is permitted by right. With a 6,000 square foot lot, 0.75:1 results in 4,500 square
feet of allowable FAR floor area. The zoning provisions allow the 0.75:1 FAR limitation
to be increased to 1: I (6,000 square feet) by Special Review. Special Review approval for
such an increase is hereby requested.
-
~
Pursuant to Section 26.430.040 of the Land Use Code, "No development subject to
special review shall be permitted unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all the standards and
requirements set forth below."
l'-
-
A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever the dimensional requirements of a
proposed development are subject to special review. the development
application shall only be approved if the following conditions are met:
1. The mass. height. density. configuration. amount of open space.
landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are designed in a
manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of
surrounding land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the
underlying zone district.
-
-
...
RESPONSE: I am requesting that the allowable FAR on my site be increased from 0.75:1
to 1: 1. I am, therefore, not sure that this standard applies, but feel that my proposal more
than satisfies these requirements anyway. The mass is perfectly consistent with that found
throughout the neighborhood (see "Neighborhood Characteristics," above); the height,
density, setbacks, and open space complies with the standards of the Office zone district.
The many existing nonconformities will all be eliminated with the development of the
proposed project. The configuration is consistent not only with the neighborhood, but
also with the goals and directions of the Residential Design Standards. Given the existing
development on the site, my project will substantially enhance the character and
appearance of the surrounding neighborhood.
,...
....
-
-
2. The applicant demonstrates that the proposed development will not have
adverse impacts on surrounding uses or will mitigate those impacts
including. but not limited to. the effects of shading. excess traffic.
availability of parking in the neighborhood or blocking of a designated
view plane.
-
-
10
...
-
-
-
RESPONSE: The lot is on a corner, and thus, would only have the potential to shade the
property to the west. This will not be a problem as the height limit will not be exceeded,
and the building setback from that (easterly) property line will be increased from the
current setback of 4'2" to 5'0". Also, while the existing property contains only three
legal residences, it is known that a fourth, "bandit" unit has existed on the property for
many years. The existing development has only two (2) on-site parking spaces for the
four units thereon. Since my proposal involves the development of four (4) units with at
least four (4) on-site parking spaces, it is clear that my development will not have adverse
impacts on the existing levels of traffic or availability of parking --- there will be the same
amount of units as exist today, but with more on-site parking. There are no designated
view planes affecting the property.
,-
-
,...
,...
Therefore, there will be no adverse impacts to mitigate. Instead, my development will
improve upon the current situation, not only by providing more parking than currently
exists, but also by eliminating the setback encroachments, providing two (2) deed
restricted affordable housing units that are sorely needed in Aspen, and generally
improving and beautifying the site and its structures with new construction and
landscaping. The existing encroachments upon the rights-of-way will be eliminated, and
sidewalks, curbs, and gutters will be installed.
..
~....
B. Reduction in open space requirement in CC or LP zone districts. . . .
\~
RESPONSE: Not applicable.
-
,/iitM;
C Increase in floor area permitted in RlMF zone district. Increases in external
floor area shall only be permitted on sites subject to the requirements of
Chapter 26.530, Resident Multi-Family Replacement Program. To obtain the
increase, the applicant shall demonstrate a minimum of two-thirds (2/3) of the
additional floor area allowed is used to increase the size of the affordable
housing units beyond the minimum size standards of the City's housing
designee and the development complies with the dimensional requirements of
Section 26.430.040(A)(1) and (2) above.
-
-
-
RESPONSE: As already demonstrated, my development complies with the standards of
Section 26.430.040(A)(I) and (2) above. Earlier portions of this application demonstrate
that my proposal exceeds the requirements of the Resident Multi-Family Housing
Replacement Program. The Housing Office has given their endorsement of the
replacement housing as proposed.
-
..
Obviously, this standard was written without consideration of the fact that other zone
districts, besides the R/MF zone, allow for increases in external FAR by Special Review.
For purposes of reviewing my application for an increase in allowable external FAR from
4,500 square feet (@ 0.75:1) to 6,000 square feet (@ 1:1) in the Office zone district, this
is not a fair standard because the allowable external FAR by right in the R/MF zone I: 1
11
....
-
-
-
r-
(exactly what I am requesting), and can be increased to 1.1: I by Special Review. I am not
asking for a 1. I : I FAR (6,600 square feet).
--
In the Office zone district, the FAR permitted by right for a multi-family structure is
0,75: 1. With a 6,000 square foot lot, 0.75: I results in 4,500 square feet of allowable FAR
floor area. The Office zone district provisions allow the 0.75:1 FAR limitation to be
increased to I: I (6,000 square feet) by Special Review.
--
,...
Notwithstanding the fact that this standard is not fair for application in the Office zone
district, my proposal exceeds the requirement that two-thirds of the additional floor area
requested be used for the deed restricted units. That is, with 4,500 square feet of FAR
allowed by right, another 1,500 square feet of FAR can be approved by Special Review
provided 1,000 square feet of this 1,500 square foot increase (1,000 is two-thirds of
, 1,500) is to be used for the affordable housing unites).
,..
-
My proposal involves the development of just 4,333 square feet offree market residential
FAR, which is 167 square feet below the maximum allowed on the lot by right. Therefore,
since I am also proposing 1,667 square feet of residential uses restricted to affordable
housing, 100% of the additional floor area requested by Special Review will be for
residential use restricted to affordable housing deed restricted in accordance with the
Housing Guidelines of the City's housing designee. Not only does this meet the two-
thirds requirement, but it exceeds it by another two-thirds (167%).
...
....
-
Standards D., E., F., and G. of Section 26.430.040 are not applicable to this review.
,-.
--
-,
.~
-
-
-
12
-
,..
"""
!'""
EXHIBITS
-
,....
Exhibit 1: Land Use Application Form
,...
Exhibit 2: Attachment 2, Dimensional Requirements Form
,-
-
Exhibit 3: Apri122, 1999, letter from Sara Thomas
,...
Exhibit 4: Proof of Ownership (Warranty Deed)
....
Exhibit 5: Pre-Application Conference Summary
-
/"""
-
-
-
,...
,....
-
-
-
~
!""
-
....
...
...
,..
-
EXHIBIT 1
-
-
,..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
....
LAND Use APPLICATION
PROJECT:
,...
Name:
5" 17; IB
cit-.. iplion where
'L.DC/< ~B
)
....
APPucANT:
"""
Name:
Address:
Phone #:
....
.... REPREsENTATIVE:
Name: _5:4:A-1 ~
~/AJ
B/t,/~
,...
Address:
Phone #:
,...
TYPE OF APPUCATION: (please check all that ly):
o Conditional Use 0 C~ PUD
- [i'" Special Review 0 Final PUD (& PUD Amendlnent)
o Desip Review Appeal a Conceptual SPA
.... 0 GMQS Allotment 0 Final SPA (& SPA Amendment)
o GMQS Exemption 0 Subdivision
_ 0 ESA - 8040 GreenliDe, S1ream 0 Subdivision Exemption (includes
Margin, Hallam Lab Blutt: condominil1mimon)
Mountain View PIaIIe
,.. 0 Lot Split
Lot Line Adjustment
o
o
Temporary Use
TextIMap Amendment
-
o CoacepIU8I Historic Devt.
o Final Historic: Development
o Minor Historic Devt.
o Historic: Demolition
o Historic: Desipation
o Small Lodge Conversion!
Expansion
o Other:
-
,... PRoPosAL: (description of jXOposed builcti.,V. uses. modifications, etc.)
,"I ff ~~: ~~.;~=-~
Hav,. you attached the following?
.... ~-Application Conference Summary
~ t#l,SignedFeeAgreement
panse to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form
sponse to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents
n"",...-c-,..., t.... >\++......1.-...... ~A S...4...;h,.. C;:'t"'-ll.C'~;""'" r...""tA....+r
..'.oJ;-- 4~"''''' ~"'" ....~._....4404.................,' ..........a...... _..."".... ................ _.................1.;1
_ ij(Respanse to Attachment #3, Review Standards for Your Application
,
....
I
FEES DuE: 5
-
...
-
,...
-
,...
-
...
,...
EXHIBIT 2
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
-
-
,...
c::>.
u:z:.
AI JI/. Co
o ;=: c
c>.x /00
000
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
defmition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: ~~ A- Proposed:
Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed:
Number of bedrooms: Existing: r- 4> Proposed:
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): #1)7'
Existing non-conformities or encroachments: 5;
at=: M 1U6- ~C-
4> I Pc. Jt/ ALl<.. l'
Variations requested: ,.n,;CI~
""'
I
,..
,..
Project:
Applicant:
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
-
...
"'"
-
-
-
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area:
Principal bldg. height:
Access. bldg. height:
On-Site parking:
% Site coverage:
% Open Space:
Front Setback:
Rear Setback:
Combined FIR:
Side Setback:
Side Setback:
Combined Sides:
-
-
-
-
,...
...
-
-
I<'
ATTACHMENT 2
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
6-1.
'/ A/.J'
A/ !:--
II
4ff7OR/c
~ 8y k7t$.#-r:..
'O&lO~Ec::";-~ /?EYIEW
Existing:3335 Allowable: Proposed: t::;DO C
Existing: < ::z S" Allowable: ;:!.~ Proposed: = -!Jf ..D.Q9'.t..JCb
Existing: z..s.;. Allowable: AI /1-3 Proposed: AI j;lJ..
... r
Existing:;z. Required: 7 Proposed: e
&isting, ,vI/}. ......,u"'gt J'rop<M<d ~.4 .
Existing: AI/A- Required: M '/J. Proposed: ~ ~.
. . I I
Existing: /0 Required: / t) Proposed: t:> '
Existing: 3-/1" Required: IS / Proposed: IS I
Existing.-l3:'1/" Required: ,AI J--t Proposed::z.S I
-?' h ... I . "
Existing: p;. -7 Required: 5 Proposed: S-4-
Existing:~;"~'1 Required: t/-83h Proposed: t. -e {I
I II '0 "
Existing: (. - r Required: AI. ~ Proposed: / / - B
.
'Df. -
r t.u.,,/I,
-
-
...
,...
...
...
...
...
,...
...
-
EXHIBIT 3
...
,...
-
,...
-
...
-
~
~
I"'"
--I'j/-1i..L.:,..I.;:,:;t:,
.... 1'lF'R-22--1999
I.
I
,...
....
-
....
....
,...
-'
.-.,'
-
,...
,...
,... .
,...
-
....
....
-
,...
i
i
\
,.
:1
.,
I
..j,
:1
!
i
i
i
I
\
i
:1
, ;
:'0.1."'+1-11'1 ~I..H/"';.Vl.. .vvrr-.J.ll rq;.HL... c.,-. ...'1"--
16:11 r"1'WI"' ~t::N/1""'.a.1".&.1" l...Wl,........:...,.:
IU
-"v.....,;;,.,j. .-
I
,.
'!
,
"
~ '
r ...
:tx'~lB~,.. 3
;
,
.
"
.. '
;
: f
I.
.
, i
, I
; i
, (
!
. ~ l
'. ;
: I
'.,
).:
: I
; l
0; ~
. ;!
, .
,
"
,..
-
-
,..
,...
,..
-
,..
,..
-
-
,...
,..
-
,..
-
-
"
,...
I jM I. .l.;;). .l.JJ";;} JO .L...>/"'11.1 .....,..,t'<,VL.,. .v......r".I.11 r<.l;.""~ ;:.;::.,,..., II;. .1.1'......
~22-1999 16:12 FROM ASPEN/PI1KIN ~UM UCV TO
I
I
, i
f 1
_ I C I
I affordable housldg on". You have indicated that your pl"flaeDCe is to ccillStruct the
l replill:em=t h~ square footage of 1667 square feet within two deed remieted units,
, ! possibly a 1 bedrOom and a 2 bedroom Ullit. The office zone district aIlowsl for a ckasity,
, if at least 50% o.tfthe mmtber of units on the properly are tised re&rricted aJjqffordable
hausing, as folloWs: i
I . '
I bedroom units ~uire 600 square feet oflot area :
2 bedroom units i-equire 1,000 square feet oflat area :
3 bedroom units l-equire 1,500 square feet oClot area !
UDits with more than 3 bedrooms requirC 500 square feet oflat area per be4room. .
CoDStrUCtion of J one-bedroom deed restricted unit andl two-bedroom ~ ICS1rictedi
unit would leq1l~ a tow of. 1600 square feet of lot area. This 6000 square )foot lot would
therefore suppa up to iIU additional 8 bedrooms, dependiag on the configl\ration of the
free market UIlit( ). ,
I . i
Setbacks; I
The required ~ for the office zone c1isuict aIe:
From yard - lO feet
Side yaM - 5 feel: (* 6 feet 8 inches for 2"d street bordering si~)
Rearyard-15 ~ .
Miniinum ~~. between buildings - 10 feet .
· (011 c;orner IJ the owner sha!l have a choice as to which yard sha!l be cJDSidered a$
the front yard. suFh yard to meet. the minimum setbacks for a ftont yard. ~ remlHni"l
yard bordering a isMet may be reduced by one-thiJ'd,of the required front ~ setback
diStance for the _ district. The IelIr yard must coinc;ide wilh the tca1' ali&nment of
neighboring lots regardless of whiM yard is CO!ISidered the froIlt yard by th~ owner_)
=~ <lw I. ........1 _ '" d..w.......;to..... k a J.. I
bedroom. The ~-street parkins requirements for all affordable housing ~ is
established tbrouSh Spec;ial Review by 1M Pl.ft";flll and Zoning Conmlissillln.
B~ once you- Jave a development propos;d,'1 recommend tha~ you s~e a pre-
app1ication ~ wilh one of the City Planners ill Older to determine what land use
approvals will bfl required. If you-need lilY additional iDformaUon r~ the zone
district re~, please feel free to contact me at 920-5104. i
~.o:L~'iC
;:;~
'1
!
:l
:i
.i
,;
-j
I
,
..
"
'I
'.
SUicerely,
~I
Sara,Thomas, ~ Officer
!
i
I
1
I
I
I
I
129
I
TCTAI.. ".l!l2
i
./
i I
i I
11
\1
! l
! I
, I
; i
i i
! !
, .
: !
, i
-
-
!"'"
-
-
,..
-
-
-
EXHIBIT 4
-
-
-
-
-
-
...,
-
,..
o
__ u
""'!!! >-
....
;~ 3
,,- 0
~>(,)
'.'_..JZ
~t;~
, :::lnt=
. .-a..
~~cg
=CCiIJ
---oc;;i
~xz:
, ....
,_t--&
.-6:1
.......t\iGi
~....
..- "
~mc
e~CS1
=......6:1
:O-Q .
~""lS)
-'"
___~a::
~~N
iilri"O
~M
-..."
I""
-
,...
-
;r
'---
,,,,,,,?
I""
-
-
,...
-
-
-
-
-
~ "
~ il
:;!:l .,
- "
:!!: '!
-
~
.,..
co "
...... "
;::; 'I
...... Ij
<..>
...... Ii
"" 1\
=
co
-
-
<X "
~ ,.
~ Ii
N~
~co II
Mffi II
It)l:;
M~
q-~ I'
,
II
I,
I'
Ii
i'
t
I
WARRANTY DEED
THIS DEED, made ehiu 09 day of SEPTEMBER
1999, between JERROLD A. WISH AND RICHARD LAYFX3LO
~~I!
is ~ 0
1; ~~
C;;::iR S !i1
< "1l to l;,
o I!:;ll
Fz
~I
~
~
in ~
,
!
OF THE C01J1lTY OF l--\'D(y\\ :\Urlc ,
GR.JWTOR, AND 'BUZZ tlO:PKIN
STATE OF FI..
GRANTBE
whose legal address is
P.O. BOX 4696
ASPBN. CO 81612
COUNTY OP PItKIN, STATE O~ CO
WITNESSETH, That fo. and in consideraeion of the sum of een 0011ar8
and other gooc and valuable consice.ation, tha receipt and sufficiency of
which i~ hereby acknowledged, the grantor na~ granted, bargained, sold and
conveyed, and by these presents eoee grant. bargain. 5.11 and convey ~nd
oonfirm unto ehe grantee, his heirs and ascigna ,forever. all the real
prop.~ty together wieh 1mprovemenes, if any, situate and lying and ~eing
the couney ot PITKIN, State of COLORADO, de~cribed a8 follows:
LOTS 17 AND 16, IN BLOCK 28, EAST ;.sPIN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITB, SOfomTIMlilS
KNOWN' AS LOTS RANDS, BLOCt<: 2S, EAST ASPEN AmlI'rtoN.
-..\:)
,
~
-t:'
TOGETBBR with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances
thereto belcng1ng, or in anywise appereaining, and the reversion and
reversiona, remainders, rente, issues and profits thereof, and all the
estate, righe, tie~e, intereati c~aim and demand ~hatso.~r of the grantor
l!lither in law or equity, of, in and to the Ilbove bargained premises, with
th. hereditaments and appurtenances.
~
!i1
~
;ll
z
~I
~I
-j
vJ'
;:1
~
!
d:::Il
~!ll
II
[I
1/
II
l:
ii
II
"
Ii
Ii
Ii
II
I
I
.1
I'
I
I
TO HAVE AND TO BOLD eha Qaid premises above bargained an4 described,
with the appurtenances, unto the grant.., hi. heirs and assigns forever.
And the Q.aneor, tor himaelt, his heirs and &esigne. doe. covenant, grant,
bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, his heirs and aa.~gn., ehat at
the time of the en8eal~ng ana delivery ot the presents, he ia well 8l!lized ot
the premises above conveyed, has good, sura, per~.ee, ab.olute and
~nd.teasi~~e estate ot Laharit.nee, in 14w, in fee simple. and haa good
right, full power and lawtul authority to -gr~t, bargain, sell and conVl!ly
the same in manne1:' and :form .1.5 aforesaid, and that the same are free
and clear from all former and other grants, ba~ains, 5.18., li~s, taxes,
aesessments, encumbrance; ~ restrictions of whatevl!lr kind or nature
soever, except thoee matters as ~et forth. on ElXh:i.loit "A" ateached he.reto
and incorporated herein by r.fer~ce.
The grantor .hall and will NaA1ANT AND rORKYKR DKrKHC the above harvained
pr.m1Q.~ in the quiet and pea &bla p088.ceion ot the grant.., his heirs
and aseigns, against all an every person or
whol<< or any' p thereo The singular n
the Pl:re in ul and tne use of ge
SJenderG A
I
I
i
i
,-L",)",...
--..epl" 'I
I
I
I
I
i
STATB OF +\f.>ri do. )
COUNTX' OF ~"'(iClly'i, ~~) 53.
of I-)
/) day of
Th2:, fore.going ilUltrument was ac w1
19 J ~ ' 1;>y J'EUOLD A. WXSH AND RI
W%T.NZSS my hand and official
my commission expires:
PuDlic
om >Ill
NorA~~ FillNANllEZ
COMMlSSI0 STATEOFl'lORIDA
MYCOMM1SS10~~.~:3
I t x'~18rr Y \
...
EXHIBIT llA"
-
1. Taxes for the year 1999 not yet due or payable.
2. Reservations and exceptions as contained in the United States Patent
recorded in Sook 185 at Page 59.
...
3. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in L1cense
Agreement recorded December 14, 1981 in Boak 418 at Page 608.
4. Termst conditions, provisions and obligations as get forth in
Statement of Variance and Deed Restriction recorded April 4, 1966 in
Sook 550 at Page 295.
--
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
43e372 09/10/1999 12,17P ND DRVIS SI~VI
2 of 2 R 10.00 D 170.00 N 0.00 PITKIN CDUNTY CD
--
...
...
...
--
-
-
...
...
-
...
-
...
...
...
...
....
...
....
....
....
....
....
EXHIBIT 5
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
I
,
,
...
i
...
,...
,...
-
IIIIIIIII:
,...
-
,...
-
-
-
,...
-
-
-
-
-
...,
I
I
9.
'i 10.
'i
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER,
Chris Bendon, 920.5072
DATE: 10.5.99
PROJECT,
REPRESENTATIVE:
OWNER:
TYPE OF APPLlCA nON:
DESCRIPTION:
728 East Hopkins Special Review
Buzz Dopkin
Buzz Dopkin
I Step. Special Review for 1: 1 FAR and AH parking, DRAC variance
Housing Replacement Ordinance multi-family project to be developed to 1: 1 FAR and
waive parking for AH. Possible DRAC variances on window wells and secondary mass.
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.430 Special Review for dimension in RMF Zone and AH Parking
26.410 Residential Design Standards (Attached Ordinance)
26.530 Housing Replacement Program (Attached Code Section)
StatT, referral agencies for technical considerations, Housing for referral. Planning and Zoning
Commission for final review.
Yes, Applicant must post property and mail notice at least 10 days prior to hearing, or at least 15
days prior to the public hearing if any federal agency, state, county, municipal government,
school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency owns property
within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application.
Applicant will need to provide proof of posting and mailing with a affidavit at the public hearing.
Engineering, Housing, Parks, Fire Marshall, Water, ACSD
Planning Deposit Minor ($111 0)
Engineering, Minor ($160);
$1,270 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $185/hour)
Review by:
Public Hearing:
Referral Agencies:
Planning Fees:
Referral Agency Fees:
Total Deposit:
To apply, submit the following information:
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Proof of ownership.
Signed fee agreement.
Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name,
address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a
current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing
the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements
affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application.
Total deposit for review of the application
~ Copies of the complete application packet and maps.
HPC = 12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = I/ea.; Planning Staff = I
An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Site improvement survey including tppography.-and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements
and vacated rights of way, of the pa~cel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.
(This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if the project
is determined not to warrant a survey document.)
Additional materials as required by the specific review. Please refer to the application packet for specific
submittal requirements or to the code sections noted above.
A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed
development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing
conditions as well as proposed.
7.
8.
-
-
11.
a.
-
\ b.
-
c.
- d.
e.
-
For Residential Proposals (Ord. 20):
Neighborhood block plan at 1 "=50' (available from City Engineering Department) Graphically show the
front portions of all existing buildings on both sides of the block and their setback from the street in feet.
Identify parking and front entry for each building and locate any accessory dwelling units along the alley.
Indicate whether any portions of the houses immediately adjacent to the subject parcel are one story (only one
living level).
Site plan at I" = 10'. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed, and footprints of
adjacent buildings for a distance of 100' from the side property lines. Show topography of the subject site
with 2' contours.
All building elevations at 1/8" = 1 '-0.
Floor plans, roof plan, and elevations as needed to verify that the project meets or does not meet the
"Secondary Mass" standard.
Photographic panorama. Show elevations of all buildings on both sides of the block, including present
condition of the subject property. Label photos and mount on a presentation board.
Notes:
1. Housing Replacement is an administrative review by the Housing Authority. Submit a letter detailing the number of
units, bedrooms, and square footage of the existing development to the Housing Authority requesting a "Certificate of
Compliance pursuant to Section 26.530.040 of the Aspen Land Use Code." The Housing replacement agreement
must be executed prior to applying for a building permit.
2. Application should include a description of the street parking situation in the immediate area.
-
-
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on currel1l zoning, which is
subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that mayor may not be accurate. The summary does not create a
legal or vested right.
-
-
-
-
-
-
....
....
-
....
~