HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.257 Park Ave.SU-1979-1
~.
)........
,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
KAREN SMITH, PLANNING DIRECTOR ~
DANIEL A. McARTHUR, ASST. CITY ENGINEERY~
FROM:
DATE:
May 11, 1979
RE:
Independence Subdivision Final Plat -
Lots 4A & SA
After reviewing the subdivision plat for the above project and
having made a site inspection, the engineering department finds
that there are several items which need correction. They are as
follows:
1) The owner shall install a new water meter and remote meter
reading register for the existing one-story frame house
located on Lot 4A.
2) The owner shall install a new water meter and remote meter
reading register for the existing two-story frame house
located on Lot SA.
3) Relocate existing wooden fence located on Park Avenue back
within the property boundaries of Lots 4A and SA or remove
existing wooden fence completely.
4) Revise the grant of public electric and communication ease-
ment as follows:
a. On the fifth line, delete 'above grade".
b. Line 7, add poles, and aerial lines.
The engineering department recommends approval for the above
subdivision final plat subject to the applicant correcting the
above conditions.
"
jk
"j
j\
I',
O'hi"" ,.n ,
.~. ~", ~
),rJ:.,jv
f.t"
,{
";'
) -
"l~'"
,-..
~
;,0,'
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office
RE: Independence Rezoning and Subdivision Approval
DATE: May 10, 1979
There are two parts of this application. The first is a followup
of the request for rezoning of Lots 4, Sand 6 within the
Independence Subdivision on Park Avenue. This matter was before
you at a meeting on November 14, 1977, in the form of Ordinance S9,
Series of 1977. The rezoning request was to change the zoning
from R-IS to R-6, a more dense zone. It was brought by Mead Metcalf
and was for the purpose of providing housing to accommodate his
employees. The second part of this application involves a request
for subdivision approval (given successful adoption of the rezoning).
Under the subdivision request, Lots 4, Sand 6 would be consoli-
dated and reconfigured into two lots, Lot 4A and Lot SA.
The subdivision request is a simpler matter and therefore I will
address it first, remembering, however, that the rezoning should
be approved first. The Planning and Zoning Commission, at their
meeting on April 17, recommended approval of an exception from the
full subdivision procedure and that a final plat be prepared
incorporating the City Engineer's concerns and that that plat be
forwarded to Council for final review. We anticipate comment from
the City Engineer who is still reviewing the sufficiency of the final
plat requirements. His preliminary comment has been that he has
worked closely with the applicant and believes that the plat will be
certified ready for approval on Monday.
The rezoning request has a much longer history which I will sum-
marize briefly. On November 14, 1977, the City Council tabled the
ordinance accomplishing the rezoning from R-IS to R-6. As back-
ground, the Planning Office had originally recommended against the
rezoning on the grounds that additional density in the area would
aggr~vate the deficient circulation pattern in the Midland/Park
Avenue area and that it would motivate adjacent property owners,
particularly along the river. It was generally thought that that
area was .unsuitable for higher density because of flood potential
and because of the number of ponds located within that block. The
Planning Office had. argued that, although the surrounding zoning
was R-6, that this par!icular block had been zoned to R-IS because
it had been platted with larger lots and because of the unique
natural characteristics previously mentioned.
The Planning and. Zoning Commission, however, responded to testimony
by the applicant. regarding his intent to provide employee housing
and his record of having done so in the past. The P&Z felt that
the impacts that would result on the neighborhood were minimal when
contrasted with the social benefit of providing additional housin~J
fOr employees in the high quality tradition as has been character-
istic of Mr. Metcalf's projects. Therefore, they recommended ap-
proval to the City Council. They also felt that even if the adja-
cent properties were zoned to R-6, that the effect of the floodplain
and land under water provisions of the code would result in there
not being substantial additional density anyway.
Council was also sympathetic to the employee housing aspect of the
program, but fert there was a need to ensure the employee housing
characteristics would remain. At that time, the City was first
exploring employee housing price and resale restrictions but had
not settled on il definitive policy. In voting on the motion to
table, the mayor commented that what Council was really trying to
do was to define a PMH R-6, not a simple R-6.
,-. ',.
f""'..
~.
~~' ~
"/'
Aspen City Council
Independence Rezoning and Subdivision Approval
May 10, 1979
The attached letter, dated February 28, 1979, from Bob Hughes,
along with the draft agreement, is the result of considerable
discussion among the applicant, the City Attorney, and myself.
~he agreement proposes restrictions on a new duplex to be built
on Lot 4A. That duplex would involve three bedrooms and three
baths per unit for a total of IS44 square feet of floor area per
unit. Occupancy is limited to persons of Low, Moderate and Middle
Income as defined by the City's now defined housing income-eligi-
bility guidelines provided that Metcalf's employees have first
xight of refusal to occupy the duplex. A unique proposal is then
made that second right to use is reserved for faculty and/or
students of the Aspen Music School. The rents are limited as well.
They are limited to $270/month/tenancy with the tenancies being
limited in number to six (or one per bedroom). Therefore, the
maximum rental per unit will be $810 or $1620 for the entire
duplex. This is consistent with the Middle Income Housing price
guidelines. The applicant will also be able to raise the rents
in accordance with the adopted housing price guidelines.
The duration of time during which these price and occupancy
restrictions shall apply is for a period of no less than ten years
or for as long as the applicant shall own the land, which ever
is longer. The period of effect, therefore, is longer than that
period of five years for which we have been typically conditioning
approval of condominium conversions.
These provisions have been reviewed and recommended for approval
by the City Attorney. The Planning Office has worked with the
applicant to reduce the size of the duplex from the previous
proposal of four bedrooms and four. baths per unit, which we felt
was too dense for the neighborhood and too luxurious for the
ultimate date when the units would become free market units. We
also thought that the rental provisions in the previous proposal
we~e too high having been proposed at a higher rate per tenancy
with more tenancies allowed. While this proposal does not comply
with the housing restrictions that would pertain if this were
approved under the proposed new housing overlay zone, we do think
that it goes a lon~way toward meeting the concerns that Council
originally stated in November of 1977 and which the applicant has
been working on since then. while this unit will eventually become
a free market unit, it will not do so for the duration of the
Metcalf's ownership and at a minimum for ten years, regardless
of ownership. We recommend approval.
,KS/ss
/"",
,.......,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
\_i,i-
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office
RE: Lot 4, 5 and 6, Independence Subdivision - Subdivision Exception
DATE: April 13, 1979
As the attached letter from Bob Hughes describes, this is a request for
subdivision exception for the replatting of three lots in the Independence
Subdivision to two lots which are larger in size. Actually their request is
for subdivision exemption, however, we feel it is more appropriate that it
not be exempted from definition of subdivision, but rather that the P and Z
recommend it be excepted from the full review procedures. Since the plat
amendments may be accomplished fairly easily and do not require the three stage
review with full public hearings.
This is concomitant with a request to amend the zoning on these lots
from the current R~15 zone to R-6. That proposal was submitted over a year
ago and went all the way to City Council which tabled the request pending
the applicant's showing that indeed the units would serve an employee housing
purpose as wasmenti onedas j usti fi cati on for the request. The Counci 1
specifically mentioned that there should be some controls similar to a PMH
type zone. Needless to say, our regulations and guidelines for these matters
have evolved substantially since the time of the original request and the
agreement which is attached attempts to set forth stipulations which the
applicant is willing to enter into in order to satisfy Council's concerns
that this remain employee housing over the longer term. The Planning Office
has worked with the applicant and expressed reservations over an earlier draft.
This draft gets closer to what we think is a realistic rental rate and time
period for duration of the employee housing restrictions. It does not, however,
comply with the type of restrictions that we would impose if, for example, this
were to be an employee housing overlay zone. The time period would be longer
for the restrictions and the per tenancy rental rate would be a per square foot
rental rate instead. We remain somewhat concerned that this is a rather plush
duplex that is being proposed and that while it serves Meed Metcalf's employees
very well, it will become a luxury unit once it is no longer in the employee
housing market (no longer owned by Mr. Metcalf).
!6VL6'..A<-;~ \V-':( 1;\.,
This, howev~r, is all by way of background and is not the matter that is
now up for review before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The review of
P and Z is rather on the subject of the subdivision platting requirements.
We note that the new lots would meet the minimum square footages for duplex
lots if the property is rezoned to R-6 and any approval of the subdivision plat
should be conditioned on the rezoning taking place.
I have also attached the comments of Dan McArthur, Assistant City Engineer.
The requested plat corrections, we understand, are underway and should be
prepared for your Tuesday night meeting. With those qualifications, we would
recommend that the application be excepted from the full subdivision review
procedures, that it proceed to City Council for final plat review.
. rflll',
17' I. vi.
/:
1(:(( p~t ~ ~d7A;;dULM ~(~(Si~
)fNrM iUJ.A hwf ~UJ Q"K~ O-~
~ eu-tfL, ~tGh~ h 4JIt'0 5~.
11I11QB.&!iQ.lU1.
TO: KAREN SMITH, PLANNING DIRECTOR
FROM: DANIEL A. McARTHUR, ASST. CITY ENGINEER
DATE: April 4, 1979
RE: Independence Subdivision, Lots 4, 5 & 6 - Subdivision Exemption Request
After reviewing the improvement survey for the above project and having made
a site inspection, the engineering department finds that there are several items
which need correction. They are as follows:
1) The owner shall revi se and resubmi t a new recent improvement survey
which shall include the fOllowing:
a. Description of survey monuments found in set.
b. Show existing fire hydrants.
c. Call-out type of fence.
d. Show parking spaces for Lot 4A.
e. Signature and seal of surveyor.
f. A ten-foot wide power line easement running north and south over the
existing two-story frame house.
2) The owner shall install a new water meter and remote meter reading register
for the existing one-story frame house located on Lot 4A.
3) The owner shall install a new water meter and remote meter reading register
for the existing two-story frame house located on Lot 5A.
4) The owner shall provide a ten-foot wide power line easement for existing
overhead power line running north and south over existing two-story frame
house.
5) Relocate existing wooden face fence located on Park Avenue back to within
the property boundaries of Lots 4A and 5A.
6) The owner must record the new subdivision exemption plat showing the new
lot boundaries for Lot 4A and 5A.
7) Provide a certificate for dedication of power line easements with
certificates for the Mayor and the City Engineer.
The Engineering Department's recommendation will be for approval for the above
subdivision exemption request subject to the applicant correcting the above
conditions.
~
~"
efT
PEN
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 27, 1979
TO, Karen::- ~
FR0!1: Ron (tock
RE: Independence Subdivision Exemption and
Rezoning of Lots 4, Sand 6
I recommend approval of the above-entitled request to rezone
this property to R-5, Residential. I have no objection to
granting subdivision approval of the replatting of these three
lots. However, I believe that the project should go through
the full subdivision approval process rather than by exception.
RWS:mc
~.
~\
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dave Ellis, City Engineer
Ron Stock, City Attorney
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office
RE: Independence Subdivision Exemption
DATE: March 21, 1979
Attached please find application for subdivision exemption submitted by
the Crystal Palace Corporation. This item is tentatively scheduled for
consideration before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a special
meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 10, 1979. Therefore, may I please have
your comments no later than Tuesday, April 3, 1979. If you cannot meet this
deadline, please advise me immediately. Thank you.
!,.'
~.
-
LAW OFFICES
f
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH a .JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKIN$ AVENUE
LEONARD M. OATES
RONALD D. AUSTIN
,J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, .JR.
WILLIAM .R. ,JOROAN m
ASPEN, COI..ORAOO 81611
February 28, 1979
ROBERT W. HUGHES
RICHARO A. KNEZe:.VICH
ARe:.A COOe:. 303
TELe:.PHONE 92S-2eoO
HAND DELIVERED
Planning and Zoning Commission
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Lots 4, S ~nd 6, Independence Subdivision;
Subdivision Exemption
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We represent the Crystal Palace Corporation, which is
the owner of Lots 4, Sand 6 of the Independence Subdivision.
The property, which contains approximately 21,913 square feet,
is bounded by Dale, East Hopkins and Park Avenues. At the
present time, it contains one three-bedroom duplex and a single-
family residence. It is zoned R-IS. The surrounding area is
zoned R-6, which requires minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit of
4,SOO square feet. The applicant seeks by this application an
exemption from the definition of a subdivision [Section 20-19,
Aspen Municipal Code] in order to permit the replatting of the
three lots into two larger lots. This is necessary in order to
accommodate zoning code area and bulk requirements in connection
with the removal of the single-family residence and its replace-
ment with a new duplex. Survey drawings indicating both the
present three lot configuration of the property and the proposed
change to two larger lots accompany this application. Lots 4, S
and 6 presently contain 8,220, S,Sll and 8,182 square feet
respectively. When replatted the area of the property that presently
contains the duplex will be 12,913 square feet and the area where
the proposed duplex will be built will contain 9,000 square feet.
Some of you may recall that a little over a year ago
the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved the
Crystal Palace's request to change the zoning of the property
from R-IS to R-6. The purpose of the request was to permit the
replacement of the single-family residence with a new duplex in
order that the Crystal Palace might house a greater number of its
'.
,
~.
~
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH a .JORDAN
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 28, 1979
Page Two
employees. Following the Commission's approval the matter was
then tabled by the City Council to enable the applicant and the
Planning Office an opportunity to work out the details of this
commitment to the Crystal Palace's employee housing. Since that
time we and the applicant's architect, Jack Walls, have met on
several occasions with the planning Office, the City Attorney and
the Housing Director, and our discussions have resulted in an
agreement proposed to be entered into between the applicant and
the City and recorded in connection with both the rezoning of
the property and a subdivision exemption. Essentially, the
agreement provides for a minimum ten year restriction upon the
use and occupancy of the duplex to low, moderate and middle income
residents, employees of the applicant and faculty and students
of the music school. For the period of minimum restriction it
cannot be used as short term tourist housing. A copy of the agree-
ment also accompanies this application. It has been reviewed and
found satisfactory by the City Attorney and the Planning Office.
At this juncture, because the construction season rapidly
is drawing near, we thought it best further to process the rezoning
request and a subdivision exemption application simultaneously.
The current three lot configuration will not accommodate
the construction of a duplex in the northerly portion of the
property, as planned, under the area and bulk requirements of
the R-G zone. These require a minimum lot size of 9,000 square
feet for this purpose. The division of the property into two
larger lots, along the lines shown in the subdivision exemption
plat, would however meet the minimum lot size requirements.
Although we recognize that any change to a recorded plat tech-
nically is a subdivision, given that the property is within an
existing subdivision, typicaFsubdivsionconcerns related to a
new division of land, such as growth patterns, extensions of
public services, geologic hazzards, subdivision design standards
and the like obviously are not involved. The applicant believes
that the replatting of its property, construed in the light of the
use restrictions that will be imposed upon the property in connec-
tion with its rezoning, is not within the intent and purpose of
the subdivision ordinance.
We ought also to add that the applicant's intent is and
always has been not one of profit, but rather to make a positive
"
.
~
.~.
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH a .JORDAN
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 28, 1979
Page Three
contribution to the otherwise inadequate supply of employee
housing, and to assist its large staff in finding such housing.
Its established track record, which includes five residences--
some eight separate living units that it has acquired and
maintains at low rent solely for its employees and which have
housed upwards of twenty individuals--clearly bears this out.
The new duplex would accommodate an additional eight individuals.
Its positive effect on the competition for the limited supply of
employee housing is obvious. This application and the rezoning
of the applicant's property is merely the logical extension of
that track record.
We will be happy to supply you with and further infor-
mation you may require and to answer any questions you may have.
We would appreciate an early setting on your agenda.
Thank you for your consideration.
OATES,
By
RWHhms
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Mead Metcalf
Mr. Jack Walls
-
.~
.~
efT
130 s
PEN
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 30, 1979
TO: Karen Smith
FROM: Ron s-(~::-3?
'-...-../
RE: Metcalf Rezoning
I have reviewed the letter of Robert W. :iIughesdll.ted
January 25, 1979, together with the enclosed agreement
relating to Lots 4, 5 and 6 of the Independence Subdivision.
First let me clearly emphasize that this is not a matter
of conditional zoning. Legislative bodiesbmust rezone in
accordance with a comprehensive plan, and ~ amending the
ordinance so as to confer upon a particular parcel a particular
district designation, it may not curtail or limit the uses
and structures placed or to be placed upon the lands so
rezoned differently from those permitted upon other lands
in the same district. Consequently, where there has been
a contemporaneous zoning and filing of a declaration of
restrictions the general view is that both the zoning amend-
ment and the restrictive covenant are valid. Mr. Metcalf,
through his attorney, has provided what I consider to be
sufficient grounds upon which the Council may act to rezone
the property considering our comprehensive plan.
The declaration of restrictions was intended as a requirement
for development of the property considering the Growth Management
Plan and the subdivision regulations. It is only appropriate
in this context and the applicant should be aware that subdivision
exemption must be applied for and approved.
In reviewing the declaration of restrictions, I find the
language to be in accordance with our agreement and I am
prepared to recommend approval to the City Council, however,
I recommend that Paragraph lea) be redrafted to read:
(a) Use and Occupancy. The duplex shall be used and
occupied solely by low, moderate and middle income
individuals as defined by Housing Income-Eligibility
Guidelines established by the City Council of the
City of Aspen within the provisions of Section 24-10.4
(b)(3) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen;
,-,
f""'.
Memo to Karen Smith
January 30, 1979
Page 2
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that employees of the applicant
shall have the right first to use and occupy the
duplex and faculty members and/or students of the
Aspen Music School shall have the right second to use
and occupy the duplex.
RWS:mc
cc: Robert W. Hughes
-..
~\
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron Stock, Aspen City Attorney
Mark Danielsen, Housing Director
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office
RE: Metcalf Rezoning
DATE: January 29, 1979
Attached is a letter from Oates, Austin, McGrath and Jordan, together with
an agreement with respect to the conditional rezoning request of Mr. Metcalf
and the Crystal Palace Corp. This item has been tentatively scheduled for the
February 12, 1979 meeting of City Council. I, therefore, would appreciate
receiving your comments on the attachments as soon as possible. Thank you.
.~.
~.
LAW OFFICES
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH a .JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
LEONARO M. OATES
RONALD D. AUSTIN
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR.
WILLIAM R. JORDAN m
ASPEN, COLORADO 816/1
January 2S, 1979
Rose;RT w. I-!UGHES
RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 92:5-2:600
Ms. Karen Smith
Pitkin County Planning
and Zoning Office
130 Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81Gll
Re: Metcalf Rezone
Dear Karen:
I am enclosing a copy of the agreement that Mead is
proposing in connection with his conditional rezoning request.
I believe that the revisions that have been made conform to the
discussions that transpired last week between you, myself, Ron
Stock, Mark Danielson and Jack Walls. I should think that
the matter might now be placed on the counsel's agenda at the
earliest available opportunity. Naturally, I would appreciate
any further comments. that you might wish to make as well as
copies of any planning staff memorandum that might be prepared
in connection with the matter.
Thank you for all of your cooperation and patience.
Sincerely,
OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
~';'---'
By
Ro rt W. Hughes
RWH/jms
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Jack Walls
../.
~
r-.
LAW OFF'ICE.S
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH a .JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
LEONARD M. OATES
RONAL.D Q. AUSTIN
..I. NICHOLAS McGRATH, .JR,
WILLIAM .R. JOROAN m
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
December 26, 1978
ROBERT W. HUGHES
RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH
AREA CODE: 303
TEL-EF'HONE 925.2600
Ms. Karen Smith
Pitkin County Planning
and Zoning Office
130 Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81Gl1
Re: Metcalf Rezone
Dear Karen:
Following the meeting held some time ago between you,
myself, Ron Stock and Mark Danielson concerning the above-
referenced project, I had asked Jack Walls, Mead Metcalf's
architect, to canvass construction costs in the area to determine
the feasibility of Mead's project in light of the various
approaches we had discussed. As you may recall, it was felt
that the project would be more favorably received and would have
administrative staff support if the proposed duplex were tailored
to moderate income housing guidelines (i.e., 1,400 square feet
~ per unit--$GS8.00 monthly rental per unit), and for ten years,
restricted in terms of occupancy and use to Mead's employees
and available space permitting, faculty and students of the
,,(imQsic school. Jack has estimated construction costs, excluding
'from his calculation any land acquisition cost, at being in
excess of $228,000. I am enclosing a copy of his letter to me
which contains his cost breakdown. Given the maximum rental
figure applicable to moderate income housing and a reasonable
amortization of construction financing the figures translate
roughly to a negative cost-revenue differential of $1,000 per
month. Because the modified cost of living rental increases
permitted for PMH housing are not likely to keep pace with
escalating construction costs, I think we can expect the
situation to become worse rather than improve.
'/;
"(.'.'".,:,II)"
J"I_
,( !
j\,\
As you know, Mead's project is not the typical multi-
unit project where deficits resulting from the PMH phase might
more than be recouped on the so-called free market phase of the
project. The plain fact of the matter is that Mead is not a
developer and his motive in the project has never been profit.
,
,-..,
-.
. ,
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH a .JORDAN
Ms. Karen Smith
December 26, 1978
Page Two
His interest from the outset has been simply to house his
employees, and others similary caught in the housing shortage
seasonally, such as music school students and faculty, at a
controlled reasonable rent. To this extent he is merely trying
to make a positive contribution to the employee housing shortage,
given the Crystal Palace's 48 winter and 28 summer employees.
His established track record, which includes S residences--some
8 separate living units that he has acquired and maintains at
low rent for his employees--bears this out. Clearly, Mead's
motive is substantially more public spirited than that of a
developer who because of the scale of his project can freely
pledge greater rental restrictions than Mead here can, knowing
that the profit potential nonetheless exists because of the
unrestricted units he gets in the bargain. Economic realities,
however, call for line drawing, and in light of Jack Walls'
projected cost figures and the comparatively small scale of the
project, the assumption that the proposed duplex must adhere
rigidly to moderate housing guidelines is unrealistic. Rather
than Mead's having to abandon the project we wish to suggest an
alternative approach.
Doubtless it would be better from your standpoint if
the proposed duplex could be made to fit precisely within the
City's rental and sales price guidelines. Feasibly, however,
it cannot. Given the rather unique attributes of this project,
Mead does not believe it is entirely fair to assume that it must,
thereby in effect equating it qualitatively with a larger project.
As you know, the Planning Office in earlier memoranda has conceded
that the impact on density of Mead's proposal would be rather
minor. Since Mead and Jack are willing to work closely with the
City on the design of the project, if need be in a PUD context,
reasonable assurances can be made that any impact will indeed
remain minor.
Moreimportantly, however, all Mead has sought to do
here is rezone his property from what appears to be a classic
example of spot zoning. We have enclosed a sketch map and
indicated the presence of the several duplex units in the
immediate area, many of which were constructed after the 1975
amendment. The map indicates approximately a one and one-half
block radius from Mead's property and duplexes (some twenty-one
,-..
~.
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH a .JORDAN
Ms. Karen Smith
December 26, 1978
Page Three
of them) existing on roughly one of every two lots. The duplex
development on neighboring lots of significantly less area subse-
quent to the development on Mead's lots, certainly questions the
"zone to use" rationale that in the past has been used as justi-
fication for the situation. In the light of this duplex prolifer-
ation and the lack of any meaningful distinguishing physical
characteristics between Mead's property and the neighborhood, the
present zoning of Mead's property clearly appears, at this time,
wanting in terms of a rationale. If his property were rezoned,
Mead would then be entitled to construct the duplex by virtue of
Section 24-10.2(c) of the City Code, which exempts from the
Growth Management Plan allotment procedures the construction
of one duplex on previously subdivided lots, although admittedly
a subdivision exemption would be required in order to re-draw
lot lines. Thus, it does not appear to be appropriate to treat
this proposal as a competitive bid for development allotments
under the GMP. It is too small for that and cannot be made
competitive in the circumstances. Rather, the application in
its appropriate context is a simple rezoning request, outside
the scope of the GMP, pursuant to which the applicant is willing
to accept fair, reasonable and meaningful conditions. Mead
feasibly cannot build "moderate income" housing per~. He can
and is willing to build controlled housing for his employees at a
rental they can afford and to restrict the duplex to such controls
for a significant period of time at a minimum.
Mead's motive in this essentially is first to house
his employees and secondly, to house music school faculty and
students. The rent he would be charging would be tailored
equitably to these tenants. Naturally, if space were to be
available during off-season times, the duplex in all likelihood
could be offered for rent at an even lower rent than required by
moderate housing guidelines since his principal and secondary
tenants would not then require space. In short, Mead is as
flexible as can, in the circumstances, reasonably be expected of
him. However, neither the City nor the County nor an employer
will achieve any success in solving the employee housing problems
unless a flexible approach is used and a variety of alternatives
considered.
r-..
r-..
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH a .JORDAN
.Ms . Karen Smi th
December 26, 1978
Page Four
Given the foregoing, it occurred to us that the City
might be somewhat more flexible than we all had first assumed
and I believe that one more informal meeting would be beneficial.
Kindly let me know when this can be arranged.
Sincerely,
OATES,
AUSTIN,
/
By i
RWH/jms
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Mead Metcalf
Mr. Jack Walls
.
~
I
." ~
~
I
1
i
~. I
'(,".,
,,"'t.
,~
'5';/
,
,- ".,' ."
, """_""'."':"".-,'._','M """"'.,~.." '.;"~. .ce. .c_"~':_"_"'''''''';:"'''''';';'''''O
.~
,lie
( "
jack m, vvalls architect aspen, colorado
p.O. 'box ael zipCOCle 816nl phon~ 80s-eBB-salS
December 4, 1978
Robert W. Hughes
Oates, Austin, McGrath & Jordan
600 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Bob:
As a result of our conversation on the telephone Friday, I am writing
you this letter to confirm my findings on updating of the March 28,
1978, estimates for Mead Metcalf's employee housing duplex. I have
interviewed a number of general contractors in an effort to try and
tie down construction cost estimates for next year so that my estimate
will be realistic. The figures below cover only construction costs,
and since Mead would not charge his employees the higher rental that
would pay back his investment, it seemed pointless at this time to
update this area. However, this aspect will have to be reviewed, in
the end, to see how much Mead will lose financially each month, or
per year, by meeting the ci ty I S renta I gui de 1 i nes.
The construction cost update in as follows:
CITY OF ASPEN
HOUSING GUIDELINES
1. Project addresses low and
moderate i.ncome housing.
2. Three(3) bedroom maximum for
each side of duplex.
3. Maximum of 1400 square feet
apartment size for each side of
duplex.
4. Maximum monthly rental income
of $1,316.00 for both apartments.
5. The ri ght of first refusal
with maximum sales price of
$74,200 per apartment or a total
of $148,400.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING DUPLEX
. CONSTRUCTION COST UPDATE
1. Two 3-bedroom apartment units @
1400 square feet each. (2800 sq. ft.
total) @ $55/sq.ft. = $154,000.00
2. Two basement. storage areas,
(mechanical, etc.) @ 890 ea. (1780
sq. ft. total) @ $25/sq.ft. = $44,500.
3. Solar domestic hot water equipment
installed = $ 4,000
4. Appliances (both apartments)
= $ 3,000
5. Carpet (both Apartments) = $5,000.
TOTAL construction cost (not including
tap fees, etc.) = $ 210.500
6. Architects fees
=
17,900
TOTAL COST
= $ 228,400
,
~
(
2.
,~
c
, _:c-;
'-4, .
..
The above total does not reflect any land
costs. If a reasonable and realistic land
cost of $90,000 were added to the above
figure the Grand Total would be $318,400.
If Mead agreed to.follow the city guidelines, and at some later date had to
sell this building, he would not be able to recover his costs in doing the
project.
Construction costs...........$ 318,400.00
Ci ty max. sale pri ce.. .... .. . 148,000.00
(right of first refusal according to the guidelines)
Total loss on investment.....$ 170,000.00
Thts, approach by the city is unrealistic. I don't know how they arrived
at thetr guideltne ftgures for rental and sales, but it is obvious that
they do not reflect current construction and land costs.
As I said before, I haven't taken the time to go into the rental aspect in
depth, but a qui ck ca 1 cul ati on shows that Mead woul d have to payout on a
10 year mortgage the approximate amount of $2,322.48 per month, plus
tnsurance, taxes, maintenance, etc. With this figure in mind, and with the
maximum rental figure per month of $1,316.00, Mead would lose approximately
$I,006.45 plus per month.
In the light of these figures, I toink that Mead's employee housing duplex
project is unfeasible from his standpoint unless some other arrangement
can be reached with the city.
At this point two thoughts come to mind:
1. The city does not want private individuals to help in solving the
employee housing problem.
In order to drastically reduce costs to meet city guidelines, it
that they are encouraging sub-standard construction for employee
at wtll eventually deteriorate into slums.
cc: Mead Metcalf
!
i
'-
.
,~E:
THiS MAP IS A
.!JND is NOT T DIAGRM,rIA
, 0 BE CONS(
,
- ~.~
M. -:?--,;,('~fi
. ,~.",..::;:;~----
( "
'~ I
;r~~~- ~
'..:..~
,0-. ~
~(
(~ c" ~Q .,,' \.n l!~J7'V
" Sl,^u00\-C.n ,,,,.v-~,,' "''-",.!'', 1...
(Ou,," " 6 T'<,,,,,,~!4/'To
1-' '$
~ r-J,. 5 ''''~;,
.:,> ) (,r::Pi;:~'-~o?":Cf~'~Jgt~yf I
-~~i- L ~ Z!-X,----.
, -//1 ~'r~:.~"'- ACRES r~),~ I '.
':::'- : I I ~, '00&5 .......'1
1 ~ i 1'''"4''"'' .'l(:lc;S>i[r) ,
! ~J); ~Hf f~@-.-)l'~.:J' N~J ~ \ ~ [:;- ~~~~:- - t-
lir/ '. ~I h 19 I ,,<,.~\-..~...c:<>~ ' ~
_ fI, {l' " /" r ,,:./ '
, ( '<e '" ;, c,",.,'>;' ~<.(7-'- ~ ,. .. ,~,,' ,1..0' -'(1" r' ,.~ '
,"" ,irr- .~ .,r~~""'."" ,.Vc> , ./' /' "',, \'
\_, it/-.- \ ,/'_ .: .~/ \\~",~;;(,'N~' ,,,'~\:: C-t-<'''-' \ crt /y ~\
'0:-'-=c-Jtl...:.>""~':'" . ,',.'3r ,,", ;'f\';-'\i ..-fIl-V,-.0-,." ~ c ~-l' ~
,~ L"';::~j.,> . --10 ,1' , \ .. /,",j \1\ \0 ~" /', '~\ \ '--~ ,4- \0
'~~ '~\\"'J.\n 1"""';-" ".;__"~,,,',,-',V__\, ,,', '" i'<: ' ----'~'" .
-'-' 'l' .'." ." .'~' ,,.n" ." " y\ ", ' ' " .,'"
n\ z) \ \ Lf(uJ \1 _tlc.---~' /(J \. I ); \~" "" ." ' ,\ ".1.J1",'::-"': y/<P . \ II I
\\\1- ....\..J-' "..,-f( 3 ,_~,\~~i\' \'r""-~:\ 'J,:> 8 ! '. ,!W ,1
:'.J ... t, \ I-1J\\\\~:,~b ~~"",,,;,,, \6~j~,:~ .: \1 ~,/ \ eJ" ~~,. ' 6P-'oV':':'
<. \I," ~, '" cc--"":O~} "\ ~ ~~) V ~ /" 4-' p....S~\"'_..... <,\;' b '
,~~ \lLU ''-'', lift', , In ~ ~lG~\'\\ '1'\ ~ o.,~.. ~".. 9' I >t~~ i _ .; \ \;: >~' 7 /...~ '-''-2I; " /~ ~---
,\\\,,<"\l.\ "0'" jlJ< ,~ .""" .. .h- ~-;c- " , ,. ,
0:@5:''<':~ fu?'7o~~~II\f\ ,lli~ ~~\~_ '.frtE" ,f.~i/l-~~' ~ '- ",,<,~'''' \ 7.- "" J
WI' \ r-: \ \ \\"'~~.~ ..JlDJ:ry: ;J:;' >\ I "'r";'\ "I . . -~ ~ 'c."b-... '-... -...:z ~ ,\
,~ ", 0' 'v", .:-" """m ' . ,~,,,,,,:- .,' ,,--. J ,,,,:~" ",l"<' Z' " ' ,.0'
",,~~, ," ,"'~ ,"'.~ II' "-, . ." ,J' - _ .. ,0<""/""" " c"
.~~ ,,\'i-'( \,.1 Ji\".\.C--'.l-l-ii\ ~'-" l-r---' ,,', '~'J~t.!5 \eo { ", '" . ,;-'-" ",,? '
,'''''e'' UJJ.l,c.,' --... . .I.'~ ,,->C ,"':i A ,,'~ ~ ,,'\ ;::--.i" " , ' ~
, ' 'T' ,_ :,l, \ \.'. .'"".. ,C'- ,j,O; ; =v.' 1/17,>.' d" ''''I
~. @\\1\\\.D,\Wi A\"i' "11~" 'J r'" \ '\: v::::' ,\\ /\:'j.; l>)~""-~~ :~3\/""\ ../
J.\~~~~U".l~' >i\'W~;\\\.. I'0JilU11- "1,,. ~/~j~\ '\'\.. _v~:;\\\ ~,\,-::::'l....>--i\ '<~ ":;lkf::..-:., " ~~
,1'\ II \l1.c'V~ - . ",,",'(T<i'" /0 ' c\~, I <,' .c"""
UJ-- I.: ~t-'\)E- rt"'~ [\' . , . .' / \}..'~:'I \ '1' -;, --.....: '-, " L5 ~1 '
D'p,fS'l' ?" \\.-10\ '~\\I'\\L\.\' ':A:~-''''' _",,1,- .,..6G~c..\Q2 \"''1-''>1, ;,!.,..c\/ L."'..
--1\\ ,\' ~ \.y.;, rT\\ItJC' I' \, · / .- ~'KI",,\"< ;'?"~;' , , ' " ,.',,,,0. ,i
~~ " , lW'- ,<"" < '- '.on ..-,,\';A, ,,7"'~'. ,'~-
: iD. """"€-qp.;~ ~;-c; \ .... ,\': \ \ \0 \:;/,,'< "\ ,-' 'f.. It! ,.,'. '. "6' 'h
\ mm \\ II}: , /\~'~':<; .... ~:.\ 1;[ '-,,,,~0..! 1 'b
, ; 4- ' :I. '\ ,-0' /.... ill;;; \~ p.. 5ii~"o--.. .
,- :..J ,'^..... . 1 - ~,
r \5, 19 \ ;:-0- I S.'A"-'.
___" . k'~ ! '..~'
, 1 Co \ <:J "II ,\,?-" ;~
. \0 '
0P'-~ _\ .""~ ~
"'-\,,~ .
'<J.e?' \"
S0<O ,'b
KEY
..,......._.~J..EX
01..111"'
/"
/-----~'
\":
p.R-
~tJ -
"'"
UTE:
C E~.1:;...,.._, ..,~,
....,..}
"
---_..--~
/"1
h{4'
fAl.i.
e Z?(p-, .~
7;J
-
..."',
. f""'.(' .'
.' e"'\
i",,"',':t;;h
As n e n /P i tk i nt~;}~
. .<';~ '1 ;",i,cory'"'"
~,:\':"'~? ~",~ ~r~~'
13 0 s o:tl~~:lj~ia"r
~'~J"'~i,;.,'(~~;t
asp e n ;;*,C{~I:O'[ill' .~. "
'~~;:;~}f ;.~.~;-:". . ~ ~,'
;r"'~,~,._.....~ "-:;:.~~.
.'~ . ~t.4r-'
!?1
fUell, ..'
[.t,./--
--
~(
ning Office
Jack M. Walls
Post Office Box 29
Aspen, Colorado 81611
k
\
August 23, 1978
Robert Hughes, Esq.
Oates, Austin, McGrath & Jordan
600 East Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gentlemen:
I received today, August 22, the packet of materials that you
submitted in support of the Metcalf rezoning.' As I discussed
with both of you on separate occasions, I was attempting to
place this on the City Council agenda, at your request, for
the August 28th meeting. However, after reading the material
and specifically the proposed agreement for employee housing
commitment, I am more convinced of the concern that I raised
~'lith Bob Hughes that the material should be revie\~ed by the
Housing Director prior to its forwarding to the City Council.
I would also like. to refer the agreement to the new City
Attorney, Ron Stock, for his approval .of the format of the
agreement. After reading the agreement, I recognized that the
issues are more complex and cannot be resolved in the next couple
of days. Therefore, I am taking the matter off the agenda for
August 28th and will refer copies of your proposal to the above-
mentioned parties in anticipation of scheduling this for the
September 11th City Council meeting.
The matters that I wish .to review in further detail include the
following:
~..
1. The provisions for use and occupancy appear to be appropriate
in the sense that they reserve the use of the structures for
the employees of Meade Metcalf, primarily, and secondarily for
--
other bona fide employees .of the City of Aspen. The Housing
Director, however, may wish to further define "employee".
2. Rental structure. The propOsal to limit rents to $300
per month excluding uti:p.ties for each tenancy does not
neatly fit into the housing price guidelines which have
recently been proposed ~o the Council by the Housing Director.
As I understand the proposal, there will be four bedrooms and.
f
.;:
(
(
Jack M. ,>Jalls
Robert Hughes, Esq.
August 23, 1973
Page 2
and four baths for each side of the duplex. In other words,
there will be a total of four tenancies per dwelling unit
or per side of the'duplex. This would mean a rent of $1,200
per month per dwelling unit or $2,400 per month for each
duplex structure. In view of the fact that this does not
comply with the current housing guidelines proposal, and also
on recognition of the unique attributes of this proposal, I
would like the Housing Director to review the appropriateness
of this particular rental structure. '
3. Right of first refusal upon sale. ,The proposal offers to give
the City the first right of refusal upon written notice of the
applicant to sell the duplex. The purchase price of such sale
to the City is presumably to be set at the fair market value '
of the duplex. Given the proposed construction of this duplex,
it appears that the fair market value would not be within the
reach of low and moderate income persons and that the City's
purchase at fair market value would be meaningless in terms
of keeping the unit within the low and moderate income range.
The effect of any exempt transfers and future survival rights
of the City to purchase the units thereafter would be to raise
the prices even higher and constitute an even more unacceptable
price for low and moderate income housing purposes.
4. Approval of rezoning. I would like to have the City Attorney
review paragraph 70f the proposed agreement for its format
with respect to a commitment to rezoning based On certain
contract conditions. ?he legal implications of such should
also be reviewed by Ron. '
In general, I believe the City's concerns were twofold at the
time of the public hearing on this rezoning: that the commitment
to employee housing remain over a long-term period and that the
rezoning not constitute an unacceptable level of congestion and
land use impact in the Park Avenue area. I do wish to work with
the two of you toward an acceptable proposal and agreement, but
I did not anticipate the complexity of the issues that are raised
by the agreement you proposed. I will want to thoroughly review
the past planning office memoranda as well as the City Council
minutes pertaining ,to the consideration of this matter and I
will be happy to meet with the two of you upon my return next
week.
KBS:mc
Enc.
Sincerely, '
JiUtL :B-&uCk
Karen B. Smith'
Planning Director
cc: Mark Danielsen
Ron Stock
i
,
!
312
r'-.
..-..,
Regular Meeting
Aspen CityCauncil
November 14, 1977
,ORDINANCE #58, SERIES OF 1977 - Coffee Shop as condition use inC-l zOne
Mayor Standley explained that what planning wants ,is an expansion of the c'-l district use
to include coffee shops. This was to be for a specific project; that project has been
scrapped. Kane told Council that the planning office still think~ coffee shops are an
appropriate use in the C~l district.
Councilman -Parry moved to read Ordinance #58, Series of 1977; ,seconded by Councilman.
Van ,Ness. Allin favor, motion.c.arr~ed.
ORDINANCE #S8
(Series of 1977)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SEC. 24-3.2 OF THaMUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN ADDING AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE C-l DISTRICT, CERTAIN LIMITED
FOOD SERVICES was read by the city clerk.
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #58, Series of 1977, on first reading; seconded
by Councilman Hershey. Roll call vote: . Councilmembers Behrendt, ayei Hershey., 'aye:
Johnston, aye; Wishart, .aye; Van Ness, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Standley, aye,. Motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #59, SERIES OF 1977 - Independence Subdivision, Rezoning
Kane told Council this request is to rezone lots 4, S,and.6of Independence subdivision..
In April 1975 when the entire City was rezoned,-.theproperty.onthe east side of the
river was all zoned R-6,wi,th the exception of Independence subdivision, which was held
out as. R-IS. The reasoning for the 1975 down zoning was that ~ost areas were zoned 'to
use. The three lots are owned by Mead Metcalf. -The planning office recommended against
this before P& Z because they felt that this was not a suitable area for increased
denSity due to the fact that there will never be vehicular access across Hopkins. The
street network is very inadequate with basically no ability to improve the street network.
Also, this would 'precipitate a rezoning request by Walter Mueller who owns land also in
the Independence subdivision.
At the second hearing, Bob Hughes and Jack Walls, representing Metcalf, made a lengthy
presentation of what they wanted to do. The proposal is to remove one single family
house and replace it with a duplex to be used for the Crystal Palace for employee ,housing.
Another mitigating fact was when the planning 'office analyzed Mueller's land, discovered
two large ponds. The zoning code does not ~rmit a density calculation for land under
water. Even if Mueller's land is, rezoned R-6;, much of it is sUbjectto.the,flood plain
~r is subject to land under the ponds, and therefore, would not be creditable towards
density anyway. P & Z's recommendation ,is to rezone the property R-6. Before Metcalf
can construct he 'will have to comeback under PUD. Council can then enter into any
kind of an agreement to deed restrict those units to long term, leases for employee housing.
Councilman Behrendt said the Councilhad,seen this, happen two years ago, where the only
way to get something through is tc eall it employee housing. Metcalf does have a fine
record of housing his people. The problem is he does not have to continue' to own this.
The City is rezoning so that Metcalf can put another house on the site, but then he is
entitled to sell it. The City has added density under the name of employee housing.
Councilman Parry stated the City and County are trying to do employee housing, yet ,when
ever the private sector tries to do employee hou,sing, it is killed.
..." ouncg,'!''!Il ,B"eh!=..e,n""dt ,g,,.K,,~,_,,_1,:L!1~lJ~, .sL'..~H*n~~~~}~&;~,;;tiP"'l~e. thatt!lis...p~t:(,
" " .-.._" ,'" .. '.-_'ll_ ,,_us..J,--::""""'<>1::~~ nt""-:-~oes-'l>e JE..~t
!a~r ~ .Y1-iEd.fal-1-~~~; Councilwoman Johnston pointed out ,they could g~ve. a -rr-9lfE()f
_first refusal to the City. Bob Hughes told Council ,they were amenable to a lot ,of
.~atitude. There is a basis-for exploring what c.an'be done. Metcalf is trying to accommo-
date employee housing and as long as he is in,Pitkin cou~ty that is, what he will do~
'i
Councilwoman Johnston moved to table this until the City Attorney is back and Council can
get a better handle on_what the situation is; seconded by Councilman Wishart.
Mayor Standley said Council is really defining a PMHR-6, not a simple R-6. Mayor
Standley said given some constraints, he is willing to make density bonuses. Without
those constraints, he is not interested. Kane said he would meet with Metcalf and
explain the ri~htof,first refusal and-the program Goodheim setup," and find out if
Metcalf is willing ato agree with this.
,_"':'All in favor, motion carried..
,..DRDINANCE #60, SERIES OF 1977
Anti-discrimination
~,:Mayor Standley pointed 'out that . the, City Attorney had submitted a mem.orandwn. This
,__.ordinance is beingdr-afted at the-request of Ralph Brendes.
_,~Councilwoman Johnston moved to _:read Ordinance.fl:60" Series of 1977: seconded by
Parry. All in favor, motion carried~
ORDINANCE #60
(Series of 1977)
Councilman.,
,
"
;1
]
!
,
>
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL, CODE BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION
13-98 TO CHAPTER 13 OF SAID CODE PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES
RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT, HOUSING, AND PUBLIC SERVICES AND ACCOMMODATIONS AND
PROVIDING'FOR CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF, was. read by
the city clerk.
.
. Ord. #58
4 Coffee Shop
:J;
\. '
.-:
:i
II
'i Ord. *59
! Independence
Subdv.
n
"
J
I,
ii
;1 Ord *60
!i. Anti diserimin.
;!
;]
~i
i
~ j
!
I
1
j~ ~
~
...-,
.'~
jack m. vvalls archi tect aspen, colorado
p.o. 'cox ae / zip oode 816J.1( pnon.e SOS-ealS-SalS
August 21, 1978
The Mayor And The City Council
City of Aspen, City Hall
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Metcalf Rezoning
Independence Sub-Division
Dear Ladies & Gentlemen:
In November of last year the application to rezone Mr. Metcalf's
three lots (lots 4,5, ,& 6) in Independence Sub-Division from R-15
to R-6 was approved by the City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission.
However, during that same month, at our appearance before the City
Council for the Rezoning Public Hearing, the application was tabled
in order that we might present to council reasonable assurances that
our project was designed to accommodate employee housing. Since
that time, and after a number of meetings with Planning Directors
Bill Kane and Karen Smith, we have managed to work out all the
details so that we could accommodate council's concerns about the
project being housing for Mr. Metcalf's employees.
After much work, including the design of the duplex itself, we are
now ready to appear before the Aspen City Council for approval of
the rezoning. I am enclosing with this letter prints of the pro-
posed duplex design, copies of the proposed agreement between the
City and Mr. Metcalf, and copies of the proposed plot changes that
we will later propose to council in a subdivision exemption hearing.
greatly appreciate being included in the next City Council
JMW:bd
Enclosure
,""',.-,
~,
~
,-\
jack. m. 'VValls architect aspen, colorado
p.o. box aa / zip COde 81611 / phone Sos-SSe-salS
METCALF DUPLEX
(EMPLOYEE HOUSING)
BUILDING AREA:
Structure above ground
Basement,
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST:
Above Ground
Basement
Solar Dom. HW.
TOTAL
APPLIANCES:
CARPET:
IIA'!
4 Bdrms - 2 Bath
3,320 Sq. Ft.
(1,660 x 2 = 3,320)
1,994 Sq. Ft.
(997 x 2 = 1,994)
3,320 x $45 = $149,400.00
1,994 x $20 = 39,880.00
4,000.00
$193,280.00
2,000.00
5,000.00
$200,280.00
TOTAL
ARCHITECTS FEES:
8>,% x $195,280
8>,% x $208,640
PROPERTY TAXES:
Building - $193,280 x 20% = $38,656.00
Land = 5;480.00
$44,136.00
44. 14 x 50.03 = $2,208.32/yr.
Building - $208,640 x 20% = $41,728.00
Land = 5,480.00
$47,208.00
47.21 x 50.03 = $2,361.92/yr.
INSURANCE:
Estimated/yr.
FINANCING:
Construction Cost
Architectural Fee
Property Value
TOTAL VALUE
PAGE I
16,428.80
2,208.32
400.00
193,280.00
16,428.80
80,000.00
$289,708.80
March 28, 1978
IIBll
4 Bdrms - 4 Baths
3,848 Sq. Ft.
(1,924 x 2 = 3,848)
1,574 Sq. Ft.
(787 x 2 = 1,574)
3,848 x $45 = $173,'160.00
1,574 x $20 = 31,480.00
4,000.00
$208,640.00
2,000.00
5,000.00
$215,640.00
17,734.40
2,361.92
400.00
208,640.00
17,734.40
80,000.00
$306,374.40
,...,. .
METCALF DUPLEX
(EMPLOYEE HOUSING)
PAGE TWO
Finance 70% of Value:
10 years @ 9~% + ~ Pt.
15 years @ 10%
20 years @ 10%
RENT STRUCTURE: (Duplex)
2 Bedroom (800 sq. ft.)
4 Bedroom
(1,660 sq. ft. or
1,900 sq. ft.)
f"""""
LOW
300.00/mo.
600.00/mo.
r-1
lIAII
$202,796.16
(200,280.00)
500.70 (CASH)
2,573.48/mo.
2, 159. 98/mo.
1,939.71/mo.
CITY RENTAL GUIDE
MODERATE
450.00/mo.
900.00/mo.
PROPOSED RENTAL GUIDE
600.00/mo.
1,200.00/mo.
$1,200/mo. =
8
$150/mo./Bedroom
900.00/mo.
1,800.00/mo.
$1,800/mo. =
8
$225/mo./Bedroom
RENTAL PER BEDROOM WITH COMMON USE OF
LIVING ROOM, DINING ROOM, KITCHEN, ETC.
March 28, 1978
IIB"
$214,462.08
(215,640.00)
539.10 (CASH)
2,765.52/mo.
2,321.16/mo.
2,084.46/mo.
MIDDLE
600.00/mo. Per Side
1,200.00/mo. Both Sides
1,200.00/mo. Per Side
2,400.00/mo. Both Sides
$2,400/mo. =
8
$300/mo./Bedroom
~":.;.,.~.:;.;.-..-..,,~.,"".._..,--.
____........;4
,;jj.~'
April 6, 1978
"
Mr. Jack M. Walls
P.o. 30x 29
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Jack,
As a result of our meeting on April 3, 1978, in discussing
the proposed duplex for Mead Metcalf at Park and Hopkins
in the City of Aspen, I believe that an agreement that will
reserv. rn 10 ee !lU~'::;';.ll will be
necess$lJ;"Y before rezoning approval to R-6'bythe C~ty oun-
eil. Such an agreement should include two major elements.
The first would be ~ D~9vi~~~n that wourJ ~Ilow the c~ty
toa rov tenants for the building to ensure that
hous~n wo run,:I imate
local emp~ovpp". econd element would inclu e an a ree-
Inent as to ' p ~ncrease
wh1chwoulsj hprlr SOInP rpa~gnrlhl~.. rplrlt-1pn~'hip" TO +-h~ cost
. for maintenan~e and ODF>rnr;pii of+-hp hllilding. This can be
enerall worded and 'the elements that would 0 into consid-
'era . J..on or increas~ nd r~n+- ~anQ~ enllTU.erated." I e .l.eve
that if an agreement were clearly worded and presented to
the Council that your application would be in a position
for approval to rezoning from R-lS to R-6. With respect to
the subdivision exemption that will be necessary to complete
this, I think it would be appropriate to present this and
mention to the Council and make it clear to them that they
should anticipate a subdivision exemption to be forthcoming
in order to amend the property lines so as to provide 9;000
square feet to cover the minimum lot are;3.needed for,,:the new
duplex.
Si~;;J~
~villiam G. K~ne
Planning Director
WGK/ss
cc: Karen Smith
"
II
;-"'~I
':\
~,(,
i
'i M EM OR A N DUM
TO:
As.pen Ci ty
I
I
Councill
,
,
FROM: Bill Kane, Plannihg Director
,
RE: Rezoning Application for Lots 4, 5 and 6 of the Independence
Subdivision I
DATE: November 9, 1977
,
i
i
P~ease find attached a me~orandum presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission regarding the r~zoning request for Lots 4, 5 and 6 of the
Independence Subdivision, Furrently owned by Mr. Nead Metcalf. Jack
Walls, representing Mead, ~s applYing for rezoning from R-15 to R-6
with the stated intention pf adding one additional unit in the ,Independence
Subdivision area. As you fan see from our original memorandum to the
Planning and Zoning Commistion, we recommend against this rezoning due
to deficient circulation, the preservation of the '75 zoning rationale
and generally the fear that this rezoning would precipitate additional .
applications inthe area anq that; in general, the area is unsuitable
for higher density. 'At th~ P&Z meeting, Mr. Walls and Bob Hughes made
a detailed presentation on ,precisely how the land would be used. They
reviewed Mr. Metcalf's traclk record with respect to providing employee
housing and how the existin~ units are used for employees of the Crystal
Palace. It was the Board's' jUdgement that the jmpacts that would result
on the neighborhood were mi imal when contraste with the social bp.nefit
of providing additional ou 1ng for employees in a high-quality
traditi on as has been chararteri s ti c of Mr. Metca lf 's proj ects.
i ... .
One of our considerations f~l" maintaining the R-15 zoning in the area
was that it would be hard for us to justify rezoning the Metcalf land
~tithout looking at the balance of the Independence Subdivision in and
that the entire subdivision Isits as an iSland of R-15 in a broader area
of R-6 zoning. Again, the 90ard felt that several factors mitigatp.d '
the potential damage to the ,area. First of all, that on the adjacent
Mueller property, much of th1e land is subject to eithel' fl0odolnin or
land under water as a resultl of two ponds being on the site. Even with
R-6 zoning on the balance of~the 'land, it was felt that the development
~otential of the adjacent pr perty ~lOuld be sUbstantially less in ana
nat tne lands under water \'1 uld have to be subtracted from the balance
of the property in determinilflg denSity for the area.
I
I
Conclusion
i"
!
In this applicat' are Rresented with a balancing of values: 1) an
incremental and a e s Ime at inor impact on the neighborhood vs.
the benefit of POl lng om all na permanent housing for local
employees; given the fact thait only one additional unit would be per-
mitted 011 Metca I f I S I and, Thli s change does not, represent a majol' impact
. in the neighborhood. Of cour~e, in reviewing any further development
in the area, it would be deSirable to secure commitments to long-term
hOUSing; however, of course t ese cannot be appl'oi:Jriately obtained at
this phase which is simply re onirig. Before an additional unit may be
cons tl'ucted on th~ Metcalf pr perty, a reques t for exempti on from PUD
procedures wi 11 have to be ma' e and that \'Iould be a more apPI'opriate time
to secure commitments to Ion ,term housing, i.e. lease restrictions, etc.
Given the Leview and et 'led considel'ation by P&Z, we feel that we can
' , 0 on ndatio in t 1S ma er and therefore recom:J15ind
that the application be appro ed.
"
Ii
, i
_.. .,
,
~'
.;,....
""'" ' J
I
i
,
,
!
,)
^(
V,
._",;::n
11 E f1 0 R ^ N D U 11
TO:
Aspen Planning ard ZOning Comission
!
Planning Office (BK)
Rezoning APP1ica~ion for Lots 4, 5, and 6 of Independence Subdivision
i
, October 14, 1977 I
i
FRO!,):
RE:
DATE:
i
A request is being made fo} rezoning from R-15 to R-6 for three lots within
the'Independence Subdivisi~n. The land is zoned bY'Mr. Mead Metcalf and
application is being made Hy Mr. Jack I'falls. The land consists of Some
21,913 square feet and is llocated south of Hopkins, l'/est of Park Avenue and
north of Da Ie. Three dwellling units currently exist on the property, t~/O
within a duplex and anothe~ single family house. The eXisting duplex
spans the existing lots 5 and 6 and the single family is on lot 4. Should
the rezoning be granted, th~n four dwellings in total would be allm'/ed on
the property in that the R-~ zoning district, if done in the P.U.D., would
permit one dwelling per 4,5qO square feet. The application mistakingly
states that under a P.U.D. ~fithinthe R-6 zoning district one dwelling
would be allowed on 3,000 square feet and this is not the case.
i
i . .
In lOoking at this app1icatibn, we have ta,ken a, look at the entire Inde-
pendence Subdivision becausei we 'feel ,that it would bean untenable, propo-
sition to rezone these three'lots without zoning the balance of th,e
Independence Subdivision ~/hi~h is an area which had been set aside for
R-J:; zoning as the result of It he 1975 downzoning. A review of the zoning
map points out that this are" has been set aside and Zoned differently
than the surrounding area. ,U1Pon, a cursory review and l'/ithout some digging
into the rationale for the zo~ing in 1975, the zoning pattern would look
as though th i s area were se l,epti vely zoned for 1 o~/er dens ityzon i ng than
the surrouding area. In reViewing this rezoning request, we have sought
to determi ne: 1) Hha t the coms i derati ons were in 1975 when the area \vas
zoned; 2) To report to YOU onlour finding as to the SUitability of those
conditions, that is; whethe~ the conditions or rationale for the zoning
which took place in 1975 are Qtill legitiment today. John Stanford, who
was on the planning staff attJhe time, has pointed out that much diScussion
of this property took place duhng the diSCUSsion of the rezoning and felt
that the pdncip1e of zoning WfiCh undel'ly the entire zoning at the time
was a Zone de~use principle. hat is, within the residential areas within
the City, zoning was applied s as to make the current residential land use
pattern legal Ivithin the City oning Code so that modification coul d
be carried out in a legal way with a minimum of Government involvement. But
at the same time, the zoning a~plied \'/as carefully adjusted to existing
development and existing lot siizes.It is perhaps unfortunate that, as of
April 1975, this property was sr!JrrOUnded by already existing development
on lot sizes ranging anywhere f om 3 to 6 thousand squal'e feet. And that
thi,s property, by virtue of hav,'ngbeen developed with largel' lot sizes,
was retained as R-15 zoning Whifh is the Zone distr'ict l'lhich mOst closely
apPI'oximated the existing devel pment within the area. Aside from the
genel'al zoning prinCiples IVhich,were applied in 1975, this area is unique
from several standpoints, /lumbEjr One is Circulation and from a circulation
standpoint, additional density iln the area Ivould be undesirable due to:
1) Hopkins Street having been cllosed as a vehiculal' tl1l'ough street and
thel'eby requi I'i ng all traffi c movement from th i s propel'ty to take place on
Park Avenue. Pal'k Avenue itselfl is an inadequate street in ,and that no
right of Ivay exists, it is a pref' criptive easement and any imfll'ovements
in ltidth or paving surface would have to be accomplished through condemnatiOn
of adjacent property. And given ithe fact that hOllies immediately adjoin
,
i
I
!
i
,
'1
~
.
rd
!
';',
r(
--./
.
i
Aspen Planninq and Zoninq!
Rezoning Independence Sub~ivision
Page T,IO ! '
October 14, 1977 !
I
i
i
!
,
the street, this would be irather expensive tind highly unlikely prospect.'
2) Much of the 'land withi~ this block resides within the lOa year floodplain
of the Roaring Fork River., To establish this generally for you, the tvlO
ponds which exist on flalte!r l1ueller's land, constitute roughly the eastern
boundary of the 100 year filoodplain. This and the ponds constitute tviO
additional constraints andt! un ique charac teristl',CS of the site. Even if done
in a P.U.D. under R-6 zoni g, it is unlikely that substantial density could
be added to the area becau e of the City's regulation of Section 24-2.6
which prohibits the calcul tion for density purposes of any land under
water. I
!
; !
Conclusion and Recommendation
i
,
He have reviewed the ratio~ale and justification for the R-l5. zoning that
was applied to this block a;nd subdivision in 1975 and find the,reasoning
and rationale to be still ~alid today. The block is unique from the
standpoint of: i
,
,
1. A deficient ci~culation pattern within the area due to
a 1 ready overcrp'lded street network .
i
2. Much land withjn the block are devoted to eXisting ponds.
I
i
3. A substantial ~ortion of the site which resides within
the 100 year floodplain.
!
4. The large lotti!ng, Y1hich took place previous .to 1975 for
the area, whi,c~ is separate and distinct from the surrounding
area. !"
i
These considerations, in our! mind,
recommend that the eXisting lzoning
I
i
i
make the area suitable for R-15 and we
stand for the area.
lmk
",
,
.i
I
,
!
i
!
~