HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sr.KSNO.1980
~
.~
,
.1'0:
Fred.Crowley,Bui1ding. Insp$ctor
\:-'
Jim Reents, Housing Direc r
. FROM:
DATE:
November 17, 1980
SUBJECT:
KSNO project
I have spoken with Tim Hagman about the possibility of getting a
partial CO on the radio station portion of this p~0ject.
I have no problem with that as long as it isclear.that the radio
station cannot expand into any unfinished space; the four studio
units are next to .be completed and must be deed restricted; the two
bedroom unit will be finished off last and must be deed restricted
and any use other than the above require new special or GMP review.
JR:ds
cc: Tim Hagman @ .CHY
L;;'/;;;"" ;;,,<,,-.:
,c>,,;~i":
""'-'"
t<\:>;'~~;~~,<;;;;,',:
~::!;:::',!"''''
~::\.,::_:",;'\,.
"?'",':';,,'-'.,' ,. ';""'<.:;"":;<~,,,,;.
--''';
"'.,,~ ;".,t),-._
""-""';;
~,
~
-
APPEAL TO .BOARD OF. ZONING ADJUSn1BIT"~~
.:.,^~'l\~.: "..'.'..<1~
CITY OF ASPEN~~'v .,'"
'~r~'~~~~"i~::,~:~ ..,
OAT( 10130/80
CASE. NO.
APPELLANT
Tim Hagman
ADDRESS Post Office Box 2736. Asoen 81612
Copland Hagman Yaw LtdPHONE
(303) 925-2867
. OWNER
. Albert W. 'yontz
ADDRESS . 925 Dalton Street.. .
---
Cincinnati; Ohio 45203
LOCATION OF PROPERTY East 1/2 Lot 0 and Lot P. Block!l8
... _.~.,
Cit of.As en Colora 0
. ." S t r E! E! t & N u m b E! r 0 f . Sub d i vis ion B 1 k. & 1. 0 t No.)
Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent
data must accompany thiS application, and will be made'part of
CASE NO.
THE BOARD WILL 'RETURN THIS APP(ICATION'IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN
ALt THE FACTS IN QUESTION.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOHING JUSTIFICATImIS:
REFER ATTAcHED
.
Will you be represented by counsel
\
':::.ED'~W
~q.
j:Z
.'$'
PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'
TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE 80ARD OF. ADJUSTMENT AND REASON
FOR NOT GRANTING:
.'
Signed '.,
Status
PERMIT REJECTED. DATE
APPLICATION FILED
HAILED
.. ....
DECISION
DATE IF HEARING
SECRETARY
DATE
.,
.
/""'...
^
t4EMORANDUM
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen City Council
Jim Reents, Planning Office
TO:
KSNO Employee Housing Project
June 18, 1979
Larry Yaw first contacted this office in December of 1978 representing
KSNO to discover what could be done in response to current codes to provide
employee housing on the KSNO Radio Station site.
The property is currently zoned C-l. Within the zone, the permitted
buildout is 1 to 1. As an incentive to provide employee housing, one can apply
for an FAR bonus of .5 to 1 for deed restricted low, moderate or middle income
housing. (A Code amendment in the spring of 1979 amended this bonus to .2 to 1
additi ona 1 commerci a 1 space and .3 to 1 employee housi ng). The subject property
is also within the commercial Growth Management area.
8y only replacing the existing square footage and building out to the allow-
able FAR plus bonus in employee housing the project was perceived to be exempt
from Growth Management (Section 24-10.2 a and g).
.r~
In March of 1979, a Special Review application was ~reeessed by this office
for the approval of the use of the density bonus for employee housing. This
application for special review went before both the Planning and Zoning Commission
and the Aspen City Council.
At the time KSNO's proposal was processed, to my knowledge no one had taken
advantage of the FAR bonus for employee housing before. In more detailed analysis,
it was discovered that there were conflicting requirements within the code as
it was applied to this project.
Off street parking was required for residences within the C-l zone. The
code currently requires one off street parking space per bedroom. It became
apparent that in meeting this requirement, the number of parking spaces that a
particular building site could accommodate would dictate the number of units
actually built (it was not a viable alternative because of the cost when compared
to income on a deed restricted unit). On the recommendation of both the Planning
and Zoning Commission as well as the City Council, the Planning Office processed
a code amendment which was adopted on final reading June 11,1979 which allows
the off-street parking requirement to be varied by City Council for low, moderate
and middle income deed restricted housing units.
Under the applicable code at the time of special review approval, a trash
storage area was required on the back of the building (30' x 10' x 10'). This
trash storage area is required in the same area as the logical location for off-
street parking. There was a code amendment in process at the time of approval.
This code amendment was changed in process, rejected, and then approved in an
amended form on June 11, 1979. Under this new trash area requirement there is
still a conflict with parking and trash storage both located off the alley.
In addition, the project was caught under both th~AR l~endment and th~
~~ of approval of the employee housing overlay zone.~ ~ 1M>
~der the currently considered FAR definition, overhangs are counted as
useable square footage. Under this definition, the total FAR of the project is
1.67 to 1 where the code allows 1.5 to 1. This discrepancy is equal to the
area under overhangs on the project. If the employee housing overlay was adopted
in its current form, a variance of this type could be allowed by special review.
Unfortunately, what we have is an applicant willing to do a project which
the City is supportive of, however, the need to amend the code to facilitate
some problems or conflicts with the proposal is at best, a slow process.
There has developed a conflict between the need to amend the code and the need
to proceed with the project within this building season.
~
A
Memo to City Council
Re: KSNO
June 18, 1979
Page Two
The applicant is therefore appealing directly to City Council for help in
resolving the conflicts within his proposal as well as facilitating the project.
The Planning Office is supportive of the intent of the project and would
recommend any action which wouldn't put the current code into a legally
indefensible position.
.'
v
r" ~""!~"~"
.:"..... ,. -;';) .
~ ;t.""
. " ,,: .
i'.'
,.,:-<-~..' ,
:.;"~;i;Z
'.'.';:
Copland Hagman Ya~d Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen COlorado,A611 303 925 2867
11rYJ
15 June 1979
Mr. Herman Edel, Mayor
P.O. Box 3929
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: KSNO Studio/Employee Housing Project
Dear Herman:
Thank you for taking time to discuss the issues affecting
the proposed KSNO project. As per your request this
letter will recapitulate those issues in the form we
will discuss before City Council on 24 June at Special
Review Approval.
In simple terms the overall issue frustrating the
project is that certain detail 'of the zoning regulations
are in conflict with city policy which encourages the
inclusion of new employee housing such as this project
proposes. Because this is the first project to identify
these issues which are prototypical rather than of
special circumstance I hope subsequent similar projects
may also benefit from you consideration.
The project was initiated in December of 1978 with the
encouragement and approval of the Planning Office. Its
concept was simple: To construct a new broadcasting
facility for KSNO, which is allowed to replace the
existing space by right and withou~ approval other than
building permit review, and to construct a maximum number
of low and moderate rental employee units, which are both
needed and encouraged by the City.
,>
Through what may be described as unfortunate project
timing with regard to the City's reconciliation of intent
and appropriate employee housing legislation this project
has been bounced around new approvals, changed laws and
pending legislation ever since a p'3riod of over six months
in approvals will have lapsed when this project comes before
Council for its second Special Review Approval.
. :~,~~.::: '.~.'~", ',,~l'<"""';';~''''~~~~'-;1.....t);~~.ry\': .,,-,~~,t:~~~7~~---:~"'~"':'f-' -,' -,,~,",,":,......'w~~tr:".,,~,~..; . =1.T'!'''!!f.F:'7.~:"l;'~':~",,~ "', IJ'
._-~-_. -, ,- '.....-.-..--.... ~"
.
---
t
,..'< ,',) ,", ":.,;-:'. ',\",'\
Copland Hagrflan Yaw Ltd Architects
.A
^
Letter to Herman Edel
15 June 1979
Page 2
For the purpose of specific footnote( the
of approvals which have not yet permitted
of' this project are included:
following listing
implementation
a. Approval of non conforming lot (l~ lots)
b. Special Review P & Z
c. Special Review City Council
d. Conformance to proposed employee housing overlay
ordinance.
e. Board of Adjustment hearing
f. Special Review (24 June) City Council
The building project for which Special Review approval is
requested is a 4 story structure of which one story would
include a 1500 square foot broadcasting facility with the
remaining 3 levels to include low and moderate income
housing comprised of 4 studio units and 1 two bedroom unit
for the station owner. (Total enclosed square footage of
employee housing approximately 5200 sq. ft.). It must be ,>
emphasized here that the ownership of KSNOis providing
the employee housing not b~ reason of bonus GMP paints
or any' other form of legislative coercement, but because
it recognizes the need to provide housing for its own
employees to maintain a quality of personnel in Aspen.
The building as designed: exceeds the .25% open space
requirement; meets th~ building setback requirements;
is within the height limit; is within the bulk requirement
and meets the letter of all buildinq code regulations.
The recent adoption of .ordinance 24 (Trash access require-
ments) and ordinance 29 (Employee housing parking require-
ment) certainly mitigate the circumstances of conflict
prior to their adoption but do require council 'approval
of the following:
(a) Trash and Utility Access
Ordinance 24 requires an area 15 ft (alley frontage)
x 10 ft high x 10 ft deep. In order to include a funtion-
ally appropriate amount of parking off the alley (total
45 ft. available) we wish approval to provide an area 10 ft.
wide (alley frontage) x 18 ft. deep x 10 ft. high. This
provision is approved by the Planning Office and would
be more than adequate to handle (2) two yard dumpsters, a
box bin and adequate space for transformer and other utility
metering requirements.
. -r""~'
; .~. .....
<'>::;"..\~.><. ...:.::.,',.'.'!........... ,"', ~,~~:;,;>"'" ~,,,......,,,,.,:~,
~ ;.-
;:-.,..<-i':ir-" J"7:' . -r-
.,., -
''I' ,.
....- '
,~,,' ""1-'" ~" ~."" ".
.
Copland Hagman Yaw LId Architects
r,
~
r'
Letter to Herman Edel
15 June'1979
Page 3
(b) Parking
Ordinance 29 specifies that provision of off street
parking for employee housing shall be established by Special
Review of City Council. .' The KSNO occupancy does. not require
parking. We wish council approval to provide 3 parking
stalls (9'x18') for the 5 housing units provided in the
project. This parking provision is approved by the Planning
Office and by the previous council which specifically
expressed the opinion "For the KSNO project alternative
off street parking should be the responsibility of the
individual employee!"
Located in the C:-l zone the housing units are in close
proximity to necessary support services such as daily
shopping needs and transportation.
(c), Floor Area Ratio
-
The Housing Overlay District ordianance which was
initiated by the previous council, but which has not yet
been adopted into ordinance form offers a method by which
City Council can increase F.A.R. to allow more employee
housing units (sect. 2.4-9 J.,.3). Because this ordinance
will likely take some time to refi:.le and adopt, a time
frame which would in all likelihood cause abandonment of
this project, we request that City Council delete the
inclusion of projected overhang ar'2las on the building
from the F.A.R. calculation method. This would have the
effect of increasing the allowed F.A.R. from 1.5/1 to
1.7/1 (approximately 850 sq.ft.). In terms of employee
units this would permit the inclusion of. approximately
1200 sq. ft. (2 studio units) of low income employee units
which would not be possible under the present F.A.R.
calculation method. '
t~
The actual enclosed space in the building does not exceed
the F.A.R. 1.5/1 (F.A.R. 1.5x4500 sq;ft.=6750 sq.ft.).
It is the inclusion of area under overhangs which penalize
the enclosed space devoted to employee housing. Justi-
fiably the overhang area in this project, as in any project
on a small site, is used for covering the parking areas,
refuse and utility areas, protection of entry areas,
exterior decks for employee units, for visual relief of
building walls exposed as elements 'of the street scape
and for sun control.
,,1 'i:; ..:.':': ,j. .i;;':~, zA.:" ,l.,'. >1;.':~>';:,:;...,?,-,.i,~~.,,"~'Z"' /".,' ;,"'i!~7"'~~""-':,>.-"f1"",':'f ..,...._,~...':,.,~,.... ""i--:,~=:W''''-; ,,- <, '. . .~"""!'.::'.:~:~"r;-:.~.w&'~,"" !---C;"'!"]J~"' '-"'-r-:-
~
.
"rffl.
Copl~nd Hagman Yaw Ltd Architects
r,.
-,
Letter to Herman Edel
15 JUne 1979
Page 4
Again it must be pointed out that the situation of KSNO
is prototypical of projects on small sites that wish to
include employee housing rather than circumstantially
special. We request of approval of this concept so that
we may construct this project without further delay but
ask that council consider.incentive planning measures
such as bonus F.A.R. for subsequent. building projects
that wish to include employee housing without the penalties
incurred under present law.
I personally, as does the ownership of KSNO, wish to
thank you for considering our request and taking the effort
to specifically involve youself in the details surrounding
its reconciliation with the issue of employee housing.
Please feel free to call me if you have questions or require
any further.clarification.
Very truly yours
COf~and Hagmjf Yaw
~ U\i,
Larry Y w
JLY:cs
'!'"..~"
.~,':':.~^-(,~ir~' .
1f~ '." '"'F"
,.~..t..:r
..."...."Il'"
^'.,' ~;..~ ~,.~e...,-,
'0"-' ...., :t;:.-......
"
,;,-~.",,"'"
, ~",.,,..,......... };~
. ',,,.-.'
,','..,
.*". " 'l".~."",,",'
.,t
c'
,.
,
,
'.
,
~
l\
'~,
II
;1
"
Ii
;>1\\
I',
..~
,
"'
ff
]~':.;; ~'
. .,,,y../~
1
Copland Hagman ~\Ltd Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen CP!O:iat'ol'i1'611 303 925 2867
, ,. ..\ ."
7 May 1979
Mr. Jim Reents
City of Aspen
Planning Department
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: KSNO Project
Special Review
Dear Jim:
Based on owner approved schematic architectural plans
(enclosed for your review) we wish to slightly modify
the employee housing portion of the approved special
review appl.ication. The modification request is based
on serving the specifically identified housing needs
of KSNO employees and would of course, remain subject
to the rental guidelines by legal covenant.
The following table identifies both the approved unit
mix and the requested modification.
Unit
Group
Approved
Special
Review
Modification
. Re:que:s't
Low Income
(3) studios at
500 sf = 1500 sf
(2) studios at
480 sf = 960. sf
Moderate Income (3)studios at
500 sf = 1500 sf
(2) studios at
510 sf = 1020 sf
(l)lBR at 980 sf =
980 sf
Middle Income
(l)2BRat
17.00 sf = 1700 sf
(1) 2 BR at
2300 sf = 2300 sf
Totals
7 units = 4700 sf
6 units = 5260 sf
Copland Hagman -r'""Ud Architects
r-"
Letter to Jim Reents
7 May 1979
Page 2
Special Review -Floor Area Ratio
Further, we request special review approval to vary the
area requirements as provided in the pending Housing
Overlay District ordinance. The F.A.R. granted by
right (with employee housing) for this project is,
6750 sq. ft. The actual plan area of enclosed space,
not including mechanical equipment space, is 6625 sq.ft.
Using the zoning ordinance F.A.R. calculation method
which requires the inClusion of area under architectural
projections the calculated F.A.R for the project is
7605 s.f. (1115 s.f. over the allowed F.A.R.). The
additional F.A.R. requested is primarily a function of
the building overhang over the required parking spaces
adjacent the alley and does not add to the actual height
or bulk of the building. Our request for Special Review
approval is based on the fact that we would have to
delete 2 low income studio units from the 6 units provided
in order to comply with the specifics of the F.A.R.
calculation method. In addition to being specifically
needed for KSNO employees the project would provide 6
needed units to the employee housing inventory without
change to the actual area and bulk requirements provided
for in the zoning ordinance.
Special Review - Parking
As previously approved by special review the project
will provide off street parking for 4 vehicles. We
request that three of the parking stalls be 9 ft. wide
and the 4th stall be a somewhat irregular size to acco-
modate a small car. This is a necessary result of the
structural system required to configure a mixed use
building. Additionally stalls are completely covered
and will remain snow free and accessible during winter
months.
Special Review - Utility & Trash Area
In order to provide the required off street parking
(4 vehiCles) across the dimension of the site (45 ft)
parallel to the alley a resulting dimension of 10 ft.
remains to accomodate trash access and electric trans-
former. Section 24 - 3.7 (h)(4) requires a minimum
Copland Hagman V""'\Ltd Architects
~
Letter to Jim Reents
7 May HJ79
Page 3
length measured parallel to the alley of 15 ft., a
minimum verticle clearance of 10 ft. and a minimum depth
of 10 ft. We request special review approval to utilize
a space 10 ft. wide (parallel to the alley, 10 ft. high
and 19 ft. deep to accomodate the trash and utility
requirements of this project.
Please call if you have any questions or require further
clarification.
Very truly yours
Co land Ha
Ltd
JLY: cs
encl.
,-.
^
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jim Reents, Planning Office~
RE: KSNO Employee Housing Project
DATE: March 21, 1979
This application is for a growth management. exempt employee
housing project at 620 East Hopkins, the current site of the
KSNO Broadcasting Studio.
Under the new employee housing exemption .to Growth Management,
projects bf this nature become special review items under the
Code. Within the scope of the special review, the following
determinations were made by the Planning and Zoning Commission:
1. That there is, in fact, a need for this type of
housing within the community,
2. That the project constitutes employee housing,
3. That the project qualifies for the FAR bonus
within the zone district,
4. A reduction of required parking should be
made.
The P&Z also. endorsed the proposed income mix for the project.
Under th.e definition of subdivision (Section 20-3) within the
City's Code, multifamily projects are defined as subdivision.
This is primarily to facilitate the condominiumization ordi-
nance. This application is also requesting exemption from
the subdivision requirement primarily to facilitate the con-
struction of eniployeehousing within the next calendar year.
A recommended requirement for granting this exemption would
be full subdivision review if at any time in the future the
project is proposed to be condominiumized.
The planning Office has worked closely with the applicant on
this project and feels that it warrants the City's support
as the type of project the Code amendment exempting employee
housing was trying to encoura.ge.
ss
1""\
.t""\
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jim Reents, Planning Office
RE: KSNO Employee Housing Project
DATE: March 9, 1979
This application is for a growth management exempt employee housing
project at 620 East Hopkins, the current site of the KSNO Broadcasting Studio.
Under the new employee .housing exemption to Growth Management, projects
of this nature become special review items under the Code. Within the scope
of the special review, the following determinations need to be made by the
Planning and Zoning Commission:
1. That there is, in fact, a need for this tyPe of housing within
the commun i ty .
2. That the project constitutes employee housing.
3. That the project qualifies for the FAR bonus within the zone
district.
In addition, a recommendation as to the mix of low, moderate and middle
income units should be made to Council.
Under the definition of subdivision (Section 20-3) within the City's
Code, multifamily projects are defined as subdivision. This is primarily
to facilitate the condominiumization ordinance. This application is also
requesting exemption from the subdivision requirement primarily to facilitate
the construction of employee housing within the next calendar year. A
recommended requirement for granting this exemption would be full subdivision
review if at any time in the future the project is proposed to be condominiumized.
The Planning Office has worked closely with the applicant on this project
and feels that it warrants the City's support as the type of project the
Code amendment exempting employee housing was trying to encourage.
~-~::'?PiA-l~.~.,.~ . ~L.~ r;;e;/!.t._t.J<l;. ~~~. '0/'...
6?"' ~.--:e::~1 Si-"--
~~--.." .----..,---,.-_.:.-_~-..,..7-."~~,-~-,__.-..,.-"..~7~_"-=__,;:.-'"--,.,-,._""-<"""",,",-,"C'''.--''''''-'''-;;;;--:';;-",,''''''''',"'''C'''''---'~~__,__,,_-''.=',,""",__""".",.~__,,-~,,.", ..
f"""\
."....".
Ks/Vo
r?'<fC'~#J ~O~~.L. I
l:Z 5 /'5T3 7-1
/: I r:=-A.~. (oy 4G;'K /t!:~:/ f!ir'7l!!?') =... ~oo G.F
k>NO - ~>77N~ 6'e'6"" - . /,g-/po ~n
/~/~q~.
~/V~~/~ 0W/T A-r-..
/IYC~ /~ q~
:z: 'f77VO/C' ~ ~ 5"00 -6.Fe;4c:H =-
q~~770/V ~Ace" =
-
-
/~
'!5,~
/ ~oo "5-,t=!
300 ~~
15-ve!$r C/ kJt...
~oo ~.F
O. G : I FA ~. (j;:-#fI":'( /Sl!j'. ~N"S) =
7' ~7DOIO APT:- @ 500 S.t=:' a~eH
C/RCV4471olY' ~
7v/"","
22"$'0 ~.F.
= ZCl:7o 5..p::
= 'Z!f;:'o
-- ~260 ~.~
.
= pr~p ~.p:
~~7",,~,.,..t,..
~ P~/1)6. ~'lS
( ~!!EH ~~g
25'% ~~~
=- 7z.o. -P.r:-
;\I IIZ.~ ~r=:
7 UJI/"'l't5 I"'~ 5 tpylT'5 n'7o ~,y6
CehG~ ~Hef7"'C.e
.~ or GA. "SrI€:'
~TC!'"
~~/~~~Ce:>' fV1p ~~77/Y~
- ~ UYVel:. q i:::;)1,~ /: f
_ _ _.. ___.......""_.""'........"',~.,;>,-'.., . ..'., ..,......,,,,,...:... ,''<J...~'W''lIII-~.".......''''''R!1l!<.....ll'.3^~~~'........._._....._......-'1''......._""....___............~
~. r'~
~SNO
~O~ t"'~.:7~4- .z
:zg- ~~ 71?
/ : / ~~. (~I\I ~/ )(' /170' ~)
. ....... -- ............ .--. ..."
. .k~o - ~~/YG 61.1!!!!$
~/Ye~ /~ (/Vir ~
/ G70ao /7PT ~ 6~O -G.F:
.c:r-~L.A77oN
=
=-
==
-
-
'E
~~7CJ7?194
.5":/ rA.~. (~~hlSt!7.,~V!€)_e
"2 "57VO~o A-~.@. ~o s.r;
Q~cv~?7l:YY
46170
/500
/?z70
600
*0
~o
';;;;'EL__
~.~
5.F!t
_.,-.._._._..~_.
$:-r::=
.tS.r;
4.p;
= _._Z~!?C' .~~_
';;:::: ./~c:o SF:
=- ~ 'G-..1'7
. 'M' ,...," .~.~~ ,",,,...A...._.."...... .._""._+. ,,,-..... _ ,,_.~,_.._._,__._.~____.+_..,.~._..
..,_ __ L7pO__3'12______
.... __ _~t99.e _~:~_..
.. GuSlo/~_
....7P/Ale. e'_ ..
-
-
. Z~ _~.!'=f
4 tJNrr:;. - 4- F~ttY$..
~61Y~~EF (
~% ~IV~
= I/z~ .~.t=;
...._..._.-"..'1--'-'....~._--.,.......
..
506 E, MAIN STREET
. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
P
I
T
K
I
N
C
o
U
N
T
Y
JWv1
~ cail ltV\e. ~:
1'tPe' ~+t:lft~ for
~o V1?~of- '
Alsot Pa~ ~ (I)?~b 13~
'UM>>t +- b ~lP.s
we wJ 0 ~~~)- ll?J2.+
47 ~i~ -/eJ ~~
~ ~ elM '/If('d(~
!Of K~ - af'V'oM"'iJ T7/J
~~.$ ? rIVC/V~
~
~
.....-,. '.'
"
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
~-'----,;-'"",-,,,,,,-",,,,;,:",:,,,"~^~.;,.-.,,.:.~;:.,,~,
-~" '-'-" --_...-..-
.,......--.."'..-
APPENDIX
LOW MODERATE
INCOME INCOME
Rental Price $.36 $.47
Studio 144-216 188-282
1 Bedroom 216-288 282-376
2 Bedroom 270-360 352.50-470
3 Bedroom+ 342-504 446.50-658
Sale Price $45 $53
Studio 18,000-27,000 21,200-31,800
1 Bedroom 27,000-36,000 31,800-42,400
2 Bedroom 33,750-45,000 39,750-53,000
3 Bedroom+ 42,750-63,000 50,350-74,200
MIDDLE
INCOME
$.58
232-348
348-464
435-580
551-812
$61
24,400-36,600
36,600-48,800
45,750-61,000
57,950-85,400
~
,-,
f
The own.er.s of KSNO, the'ocally bas.ed AM Radio Station. are currently
building anew facility. It will be comprised of office/broadca.stingspace
for the station and five rent-controlledemproyee units; four studios and
One two-bedrOl)m,The project location is th~ site Of the old KSNO station,
eastioftheProfessiona, Building.on HCP/(ins,and on the South side of
Hopkins C1 i city lots).' '.
To take advantage of the views of Aspen Moun.tainand to allow the public
to be able to view the broadcasting studios, the design has incorporated
a Certain amount..of South",facing glazing. . However, to control the potentially
harmful heat gain,-we are asking thatbron:zed glazing be allowed instead
of the required clear glazing.
The heat gain realiZed through creas glass imposes excessive cooling require-
ments and consequent energy consumption, a situation not consistent with
energy policies of the county and a hardShip to. the owner.
It is demonstratablethat by incorpOrating bronzed glass, We will be able.
to reduce Cooling. loads and still maintain comfortability and some passive
gain. . .
Thank you for your consideration. .
,-.,
.~
KSNO Project
Special Review Submission
Submitted to:
City of Aspen Planning & Zoning
Commission
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Applicant:
KSNO
Mr. Leon Lowenthal
620 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Architect:
Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd
P.O. Box 2736
210 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
r"'.
~,
KSNO Project
Special Review Submission
INTRODUCTORY
1. Project Name
2. Location
3. Lot Size
4. Zoning District
5. External Floor Area Ratios
6. Permitted Uses in C-1
Zoning District
7. Minimum Lot Area
8. Minimum Lot Area per
Dwelling Unit
9. Open Space Requirement
10. Parking Requirements
n. Size of Existing
KSNO Facility
12. Surrounding Zoning
KSNO PROJECT
620 E. Hopkins
City of Aspen
45 x 100, 4500 sq.ft.
C-1
1:1
.5: 1 bonus for employee housing
Multi-family Units
Broadcasting Stations
3000 sq.ft. Commercial
6000 sq. ft. Residential
1000 sq.ft./Studio
1250 sq.ft.IOne Bedroom
2100 sq.ft./Two Bedroom
25%/1125 sq.ft.
Commercial - None
Residential - l/Dwelling Unit
1500 s.f.
C-l
Surrounding uses are primarily
office and commercial shop space.
with limited single-family residential
mixed in.
13. Historic Designation
None
/""'.
/""'.
KSNO Project
Special Review Submission
14. Program Proposal
It is allowed, by exception, to reconstruct the existing KSNO facility
provided there is no expansion in the existing gross floor area of
1500 sq.ft., which size is planned for the new broadcasting station
facility.
Within the remammg 3000 sq. ft ,allm'led within a 1: 1 external F.A. R.,
one two-bedroom unit (1700 sq.ft,) & two studio units (500 sq.ft, each)
are planned.
The .5:1 external F.A.R. :;Ulowed for employee housing permits four
studio units (500 sq. ft. each).
From the foregoing, the following program is constructed:
101 F.A.R. (on 45' x 100' site)
KSNO Broadcasting Station
(I) Two bedroom employee apartment
(2) Studio apartments @ 500 sq,ft.
Circulation Space
4500 sq.ft.
1500 sq.ft.
1700 sq.ft.
1000 sq.ft.
300 sq.ft.
Subtotal
Subtotal
4500 sq. ft.
2250 sq.ft.
2000 sq.ft.
250 sq. ft.
2250 sq.ft.
6750 sq.ft.
0.5:1 F,A.R. Bonus
(4) Studio apartments @ 500 sq,ft.
Circulation Space
TOTAL
4 Parking Spaces
Trash Area
Mechanical/Storage /Utility
15. Program Rationale
The acknowledged need to provide affordable/desirable housing in the
Aspen area is a goal readily accepted by the present owners of KSNO.
Within the zoning parameters as outlined, it is requested to construct
seven employee housing units, one of which would be owner~occupied
(ultimately more than 85% of the time).
A certain number of these units would be occupied by KSNO employees.
Once offered to and occupied by KSNO employees, the remaining un-
occupied units would be offered to other qualified occupants. Since
there are 6-10 employees, however. it is conceivable that all units will
be occupied by KSNO employees. All units, including the owner two
bedroom, would come under employee housing restrictions, i.e. rent
controls, lease controls etc.
~
1"""\
KSNO. Project
Special Review Submission
15. Program Rationale - cont'd
Parking spaces are limited to four down from the seven required.
Several factors support this; . The site, being only H lots wide,
simply cannot physically accommodate seven cars and yet allow,
after open space as well, sufficient room for a building at ground
level. Three quarters of grade level would be autos. Additionally,
within a 45" width, an underground parking scheme is impossible
due to insufficient turning radius (60' required). . Also close proximity
to all downtown conveniences and services and public transit only
one-half block north on Main Street further diminishes the need for
cars.
Since this program form does not create detailed and remote employee
housing, it potentially helps create a high quality of housing through
close proximity to place of employment. The entire project would be
constructed in one phase, thereby insuring the inclusion of the pro-
posed housing.
Since this project proposes a partial solution to lower income housing to
the maximum allowed by zoning, its approval as outlined is requested.
Additionally it is requested that the project be exempted from sub-
division exemption due to several factors. The primary objective is
for provision of employee housing; none of the units have been intended
for condominization. Consistent with current policy to provide economical
and desirable housing, it is anticipated that initiation of construction
could begin within the coming building season. Should the project ever
be considered for sale as condominiums, the project would be processed
through subdivision. Also, all utilities and services have been accounted
for, as subsequently outlined in this report, and offer no obstacles
relative to the need to expand any services futilities for proper serving
of the project.
r'\
~
Services
1. . Water System
A 6" main presently exists on Hopkins Street, directly adjacent to the
project site. This would allow a maximum H" water service to the
project. A preliminary review by Mr. James Markalunas indicated a
1" water service line as likely being adequate to provide service with-
out creating unmanagable impact upon the treatment plant, currently
operating at about 75% capacity.
2. Sewer System
The site is presently served by an 8" sewer line in serviceable condition
located in the alley to the north between Main Street and Hopkins directly
adjacent to the site.
A preliminary review of the proposal by Mr. Heiko Kuhn of the Aspen
Sanitation District indicated no unmanagable impact upon the treatment
plant, which presently is operating at 75-80% of capacity. By 1980, with
50% expansion (1 million gallons per day) the plant will be operating at
slightly more than 50% capacity.
3. Power
Electricity is presently supplied to the existing facility through single-
phase transmission underground from the adjacent alley to the north.
Should it become necessary due to increased building size, to provide
three-phase transmission, it would be provided with underground lines.
Only a new transformer would be required, according to Mr. Stogie
Madallone, which imposes no substantive impact on existing facilities.
4. Telephbrte/Television
Adjacent to the power line in the north alley is . sufficient capacity for
fifty service lines, fourteen of which are presently in use. Review
by Leon Peach of Mountain Bell indicated ample capacity for providing
service. Cable television is available from the north alley of sufficient
capability to serve the project, according to Haus Yon de Kaup of
Canyon Cable. '
t"'""\.
.~
5. Natural Gas
A 4" gas main presently exists in the north alley directly adjacent to
the property. There presently are. no moratoriums and, according to
Mr. Willward Clapper. none are foreseeable. Natural gas is available
through a H" line, should it be decided upon as an energy source.
6. Fire Protection
The project is located approximately two blocks from the fire station
which would enable an appropriate maximum response time. A fire
hydrant located within 200' at the corner of Hunter and Hopkins
would serve the project site. According to Mr. Willard Clapper
adequate static pressure exists and there are no identifiable problems
with regard to fire protection.
Access is possible, in an emergency, from both Hopkins and the north
alley. As well, sufficient room to pass around the building on the east
or west sides from Hopkins to the alley would be provided.
7 . Storm Drainage
To avoid expansion of any public drainage systems, the drainage control
for this project would collect, retain, and disperse all surface runoff
through sufficiently sized on-site dry wells.
8. Public Transportation
The project site presently is being served by both the Aspen Free Transit
and Pitkin County Transit. All four city routes and the county route
presently are no further away from the project site than t block. The
close pro.ximity to publ~c transp~rtatio~ is a significant factor in requesting
the deletron of 3 reqUIred parkmg umts. As well, many other conveniences
and services are within five minutes maximum walking time.
1"""'..
I"""'.
o
STUDIO
1>
-=I
I=='
EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT PLAN
KSNO PROJECT
SIZE 500 S.F.
I'"L...J I I
o 2 4 8 16
~
!>ROFESSIONAL
BUILDING
r-,
~
ALLEY
..
.
,
.:i.
.. :: ~
ii ,.::,:.: ;;:.'~:~~
, "
! .
.
.
.; .
. ! II
:! .n"
.... i
. ,
:, .'
. "
I
I
.
I
S'PAc.E
.,'-..-
HOPKINS
SITE PLAN
~
KSNO PROJECT
r--1-...f
o 5 10
I
20
I
40
RESIDENCE
rl.
%
o
'1l
~
Z
III
'1l
~
::ill
~
~
...
...
m
<
r-.
'"
o
c::-
~
,!
~
",""
~
'"
~
I"""'.
I"""'.
Employee Housing
The request for employee housing is comprised of six studio apartments
(500 sq.ft.) and one two-bedroom apartment (1700 sq.ft. and owner-
occupied) .
As shown on the typical studio unit floor plan, each apartment is ap-
proximately 500 sq.ft. and will be augmented by common laundry, storage,
and work-room facilities. All units will be constructed concurrently with
the remainder of the project to provide for occupancy as soon as possible.
Pending approval of the proposal, occupancy is scheduled for December,
1979.
The employee unit mix presently is projected as follows:
No. of Unit Income Rental Monthly
Units Ty e T e Price Rental
3 Studio Low $.36 sq.ft. $180.00
3 Studio Moderate $.47 sq.ft. $235.00
1 2-bdr. Middle $.58 sq.ft. $580.00
Rental structures are per recently adopted housing price guidelines.