HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1000 E Hopkins Ave.A61-94A
Valley -Hi Apartments Ex,_ension
Of Vested Rights
A61-94 2737-182-01-003
,,�7�� 154bZ-
0
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
CITY:
-63250-134 GMP/Conceptual
-63270-136 GMP/Final
-63280-137 SUB/Conceptual
-63300-139 SUB/Final
-63310-140 All-2 Step Applications
-63320-141 All i Step Applications57
-63330-150 Staff Approval
-63432-157 Zoning Plan Check _
-63432-157 Sign Permit
-MR011 Use Tax for Sign Permits
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
-63335-151 Exemption
-63336-152 Minor
-63337-153 Major Devel.
-63338-154 Signif. Devel.
-63339-155 Demolition
COUNTY:
-63160-126 GMP/General
-63170-127 GMP/Detailed
-63180-128 GMP/Final
-63190-129 SUB/General
-63200-130 SUB/Detailed
-63210-131 SUB/Final
-63220-132 All 2 Step Applications
-63230-133 All 1 Step Applications
-63240-149 Staff Approval
-53450-146 Board of Adjustment
-63235-148 Zoning Plan Check
REFERRAL FEES:
-63360-143 Engineering - County
00115-63340-163 Engineering - City
00123-63340-190 Housing
00125-63340-205 Environmental Health
PLANNING OFFICE SALES:
-63080-122 County Code
-69000-145 Other (Copy Fees)
TOTAL � 6
Name: -i'" Phone:
Address: - Project:
Check #: ��� Date: No of Copies:
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 08/12/94 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 2737-182-01-003 A61-94
STAFF MEMBER: .L io
PROJECT NAME: Valley -Hi Apartments Extension of Vested Rights
Project Address: 1000 East Hopkins
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: Vallev-Hi Development Trust
Applicant Address: 215 S. Monarch, Aspen,
REPRESENTATIVE: Rick Neiley 925-9393
Representative Address/Phone: 201 N. Mill, #102
Aspen, CO 81611
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING $ 978 # APPS RECEIVED 7
ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED 7
HOUSING $
ENV. HEALTH $
TOTAL $ 978
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: X 2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES J
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date DJ/Jz"e)V Aq PUBLIC HEARING: NO I,Z,3
VESTED RIGHTS: r�E5S NO
DRC Meeting Date
-------------------
-------------------
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir.Hlth.
Zoning
DATE REFERRED:
-----------------
-----------------
FINAL ROUTING:
City Atty
Housing
Parks Dept.
Bldg Inspector
Fire Marshal
Holy Cross
Mtn. Bell
ACSD
Energy Center
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
CDOT
Clean Air Board
Open Space Board
Other
Other
INITIALS: J DUE:
------------------------------------
DATE ROUTED: 1% INITIAL:`
City Engineer Zoning
Open Space Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
Env. Health
•
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Stan Clauson�, 6,,o=unity Development Director
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE: November 14, 1994
RE: Valley Hi Vested Rights Extension - Second Reading
Ordinance 60, Series of 1994
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The owners of the Valley Hi apartments, 1000 East Hopkins
Avenue, have requested an extension of vested rights status.
Vested Rights will expire June 15, 1995 and the applicants have
requested a two year extension through June 15, 1997.
Staff recommends denial of the vested rights extension. Council
approved Ordinance 60, Series of 1994 at first reading to advance
the applicant's request to second reading and the public hearing.
At first reading, Council requested a report from the Chief
Building Official regarding building improvements and the condition
of the building.
Council also requested staff to provide development scenarios if
the property is developed pursuant to the site specific development
plan or pursuant to current code requirements.
In addition, the Fire Marshal has prepared a response to the
request for a vested rights extension.
Please find staff's summary to these reports and the development
analysis under Staff Comments (1) & (2).
The reports from the Building Official and Fire Marshal are
attached as Exhibit A. Staff's development analysis is attached
as Exhibit B.
APPLICANT: Valley -Hi Development Trust, represented by Rick
Neiley, Jr.
LOCATION: 1000 East Hopkins, Aspen
ZONING: Residential Multi -Family (R/MF)
BACKGROUND: The Valley Hi is a nineteen unit, free market,
apartment building housing approximately 60 working residents.
In June of 1991, the Trust was granted subdivision approval for a
site specific development plan. The property was to be demolished
and rebuilt as a multi -family building containing four free-market
units and four deed restricted units, a twelve car garage and
$45,000 cash -in -lieu payment for 3 deed restricted bedrooms that
were not to be built on -site. This redevelopment plan was created
and approved as part of a lawsuit settlement between the City and
the Valley Hi Trust. The site specific development plan was
adopted in June, 1991, pursuant to Ordinance 8, Series of 1991.
The Ordinance also granted vested rights for a period of three
years. Please see Ordinance 8 approving the subdivision, Exhibit
C.
Vested rights status was to expire on June 15, 1994. However, in
1992, the applicants requested an extension for an additional 2
years to June 15, 1996. Council, however, became concerned as to
the condition of the building and alleged unsafe living conditions.
As a condition for a vested rights extension, the applicant agreed
to remodel and repair substantial portions of the building.
Council only extended the vested rights for one additional year (to
June 15, 1995) suggesting that the applicant should seek an
additional one-year extension from Council the following year.
Having to reapply for an extension would enable the applicant to
confirm for Council the implementation of a management and
maintenance plan for the building and that the required repairs
were in fact completed as per the condition of the vested rights
extension. Please see Ordinance 57 extending the vested rights and
the minutes of the Council meeting, Exhibit D.
Based upon the Building Department's inspection and recommendations
for upgrades of the building, the applicant states that they spent
approximately $120,000 toward improvements on the property between
1992 and 1993.
Please see attached application for a detailed history of Council's
review of the project, Exhibit E. Please note that the applicant
was compelled to improve the building in 1992 and 1993 as a
condition of the extension of vested rights to June 15, 1995.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Valley Hi Trust requests an extension of
vested rights status for the site specific development plan that
was approved in 1991. The extension request is for 2 additional
years. Currently vested rights will expire June 15, 1995. The
extension request will preserve the vested rights until June 15,
1997.
STAFF COMMENTS: There are many issues surrounding the current
apartment complex and the vested rights extension request.
Although this memo and recommendation will focus primarily on the
Land Use Code aspects of the application, staff will also briefly
outline the other issues.
2
1) Maintenance of Building
The current maintenance of the building is also a concern expressed
by neighbors and in fact was an item of discussion at Council
during the last vested rights extension hearings.
When Council granted vested rights extension in 1992, Council
required the upgrades on the building and the implementation of a
building maintenance and management plan. In addition, Council
only granted a one year extension inviting the applicants to seek
another extension once the upgrades were completed and, according
to the minutes, Councilman Peters wanted a performance record
established. Councilwoman Pendleton agreed that she would rather
wait and look at another extension in another year.
According to the applicants, approximately $120,000 was spent
between 1992 and 1993 to make improvements and repairs on the
building. The applicant has also indicated that a management
company has been hired to maintain the building on an on -going
basis and to enforce occupancy guidelines.
Both the Building Official and Fire Marshal have recently submitted
reports about the Valley Hi apartment complex. Mr. Lyman has
inspected the site and found that all the improvements that were
required in 1992 were completed and are still intact. There are
some minor repairs that need to be made and Mr. Lyman expected
those to be done shortly.
Mr. Van Walraven had worked with the Valley Hi two years ago with
regard to the installation of a fire alarm system. Two years ago
the Fire Marshal was under the impression that the buildings were
going to be demolished and the system requirement was waived. Mr.
Van Walraven is now concerned that the buildings have been occupied
for two years without an alarm system. He has informed the
applicants that if the buildings are going to remain occupied
beyond June 1995 (the date vested rights expires) an alarm system
shall be installed. Staff would add a recommended condition that
if Council grants an extension of vested rights status beyond June
1995, then an alarm system shall be installed in the Valley Hi
within 60 days of extension approval, unless amended by the Fire
Marshal.
2) Development Analysis
The applicants have claimed that if an extension is denied,
redevelopment will occur in June, 1995 and the 60 residents will
be displaced with the redevelopment. The applicants have also
indicated that if the vested rights are extended, then
redevelopment may be delayed until 1997. There are many
circumstances that are considered before redevelopment is to occur.
3
If the vested rights are not extended and redevelopment were to
occur after the vested rights have lapsed, then any new development
would be required to comply with the current zone district
regulations in effect at the time of redevelopment. Staff is in
the process of developing numerous changes to the Land Use Code
based upon the Temporary Overlay and the outcome of the Aspen
Design Symposium.
The Aspen Area Community Plan was adopted after site specific
development plan approval in 1991. The Plan has many
recommendations that could be applied to the redevelopment of the
Valley Hi such as:
* encourage infill development so more employees will live
near their work;
* develop small scale resident housing which fits the
character of the community and is interspersed with free
market housing throughout the Aspen Area;
* encourage purchase of existing structures to preserve them
for resident housing to discourage displacement; and
* ensure the development of single-family style housing.
The site specific development plan approved four free market
dwellings units and four fully deed restricted units. The deed
restricted units are two bedroom, 750 square foot units totaling
3,000 square feet on the river's side of the parcel. One of the
deed restricted units will be category 3 and three of the units
will be category 4. A cash -in -lieu payment of $45,000 was also
approved to mitigate 3 deed restricted bedrooms that could not fit
on -site.
According to the applicant, the approved site plan was attempting
to approximate the draft Ordinance 1 guidelines for replacement
housing on site. The primary difference between the approved plan
and the adopted Ordinance 1 is replacement housing for multi-
family development. Ordinance 1 does not allow an applicant to
"cash out" of the housing requirement. All replacement housing,
which must equal 50% of the existing square footage and 50% of the
bedrooms, must be rebuilt on -site. Thus, if the property were to
be redeveloped based upon current Housing Replacement requirements,
an additional three bedrooms would have to be built on -site for a
total area of approximately 4750 square feet of deed restricted
living space.
In addition, the cash -in -lieu payment schedule has significantly
increased since 1991. If Council were to approve cash -in -lieu for
the three bedrooms that could not be accommodated on -site, $102,000
would be the 1994 cash -in -lieu payment for three employees at
category 3 guidelines.
4
3) Criminal Activity
In anticipation of the request to extend vested rights, several
neighbors of the Valley Hi parcel have called to express concern
with regard to criminal activity and the condition of the building.
Staff has fielded several phone calls but no letters have been
submitted for staff's file. Staff understands that letters have
been received by Council regarding this matter.
In any event, staff does not believe that the issue of criminal
activity on the Valley Hi parcel is an appropriate land use
consideration for this extension request.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request to extend
the vested rights status of the Valley Hi site specific development
plan. This recommendation is based on the finding that new
development should comply with changes in the Aspen Land Use Code
in order for new development to be consistent with new land use
regulations, polices, and visions of the community. For example,
the Housing Replacement Program, which affects the demolition of
multi -family development, has been adopted since the Valley Hi
settlement/subdivision approval, the cash -in -lieu fee for
affordable housing has been substantially revised since June of
1991, the Aspen Area Community Plan has been adopted which
recommends significant changes to the general housing programs for
the community, and the Aspen Design Symposium recommendations
suggest several changes to the Land Use Code including a reduction
in allowed floor area ratios.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Council may find that the applicant has complied with the
conditions of the approval granted in the 1992 extension request
and may consider an additional one-year extension as was suggested
by Council during their 1992 extension review.
If Council votes to extend the vested rights status for the Valley
Hi, staff would recommend the following conditions:
1. The extension of vested rights shall be for one year to June
15, 1996.
2. The applicant shall install a fire alarm system, as per the
requirements of the Fire Marshal, within 60 days of the adoption
of Ordinance 60, Series of 1994.
3. The applicant shall maintain the property in an orderly fashion
and all rubbish and refuse shall be removed in a timely manner.
4. The applicant shall complete the minor building repairs
identified by the Chief Building Official on October 10, 1994, to
5
•
•
the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official, within 20 days of
adoption of Ordinance 60, Series of 1994.
5. Failure to abide by any of the above conditions of approval
shall be cause for City Council to review vested rights status and
revoke the extension granted by Ordinance 60, Series of 1994.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the request for an extension
of vested rights for 1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Ordinance 60, Series of 1994
EXHIBITS:
A. Chief Building Official and Fire Marshall Reports
B. Staff Development Analysis
C. Ordinance 8, Series of 1991
D. Ordinance 57, Series of 1992
Council Minutes November 9, 1992
E. 1994 Application
F. Applicant Follow-up Letters
51
ORDINANCE 60
(SERIES OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A ONE YEAR
EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 8, SERIES OF 1991
FOR THE SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR THE 1000 EAST
HOPKINS PARCEL, THE VALLEY -HI APARTMENTS, LOTS A, H, I, K, & S
BLOCKS 25 AND 26 PLUS THE REMAINDER OF VACATED CLEVELAND STREET,
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City Council may grant an extension of vested rights status
for a site specific development plan; and
WHEREAS, in June of 1991, City Council adopted Ordinance 8,
Series of 1991, approving the redevelopment of the Valley -Hi
property and granting vested rights status for three years from the
approved date of said Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, in November of 1992, City Council granted a one year
extension of the vested rights status for the Valley -Hi site
specific development plan thereby extending the vested rights to
June 15, 1995 (Ordinance No. 57, Series of 1992); and
WHEREAS, as a condition of granting the vested rights
extension, City Council required the applicant to make specific
repairs and upgrades of the building and implement a management and
maintenance plan for the building; and
WHEREAS, Council also recommended that the applicant seek
another extension when those upgrades are completed and the
applicant can demonstrate to Council that proper management of the
building is occurring; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested another vested rights
extension for two additional years extending the vested rights to
1
June 15, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, having considered the request for
an extension of vested rights and having considered the applicant's
upgrades on the building and their implementation of a maintenance
and management plan does wish to grant the requested extension of
vested rights for one year beyond the approval granted in Ordinance
No. 57, Series of 1992, for the 1000 E. Hopkins parcel, finding
community benefit in the improvements and maintenance of nineteen
units of employee housing until said property is redeveloped.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, City Council
does hereby grant the applicant an additional one (1) year
extension for the vested rights approved by Ordinance No. 8, Series
of 1991, for the 1000 East Hopkins parcel, with the following
conditions:
1. The extension of vested rights shall be for one year to June
15, 1996.
2. The applicant shall install a fire alarm system, as per the
requirements of the Fire Marshal, within 60 days of the
adoption of Ordinance 60, Series of 1994.
3. The applicant shall maintain the property in an orderly
fashion and all rubbish and refuse shall be removed in a
timely manner.
4. The applicant shall complete the minor building repairs
identified by the Chief Building Official on October 10, 1994,
to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official, within 20
days of adoption of Ordinance 60, Series of 1994.
5. The Valley -Hi Apartments shall be maintained in a clean and
orderly condition until such time as they are demolished prior
2
L`
•
to redevelopment pursuant to Ordinance 8, 1991.
6. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for a total of
five (5) years from June 15, 1991, the date of publication of
Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991. However, any failure to
abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval
shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights.
7. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
8. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided
that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the
approvals granted and vested herein.
9. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which
are general in nature and are applicable to all property
subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including,
but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any and
all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 2:
The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published
in a newspaper of general circulations within the City of Aspen no
later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof.
Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following -
described property:
111000 East Hopkins, Lots A,H,I,K, and s, Blocks 25 and 26"
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
3
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 3:
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption
of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office
of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
Section 5•
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending
under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 6:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen
City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing
a public notice of the same shall be published one in a newspaper
of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the
City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
1994.
4
•
•
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
John Bennett, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
. 1994.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
5
John Bennett, Mayor
•
0 EXHIBIT A
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and Council
Thru: Amy Margerum, City Manager
Thru: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
From: Gary Lyman, Chief Building Official C-)-'Z-
Date: November 14, 1994
Re: Valley Hi
In September of 1992 Valley Hi obtained permits to upgrade their building to more
acceptable life safety and health standards. Their application included work such as new
carpet, paint, drywall repair, installing 16 egress windows, smoke detectors and
reroofing.
By December all work had been completed and I issued a letter of completion December
9th 1992. In my opinion the buildings were improved to an acceptable standard for
existing buildings of this vintage.
On Monday October 10, 1994 I was asked by Rick Neiley to do a walk through
inspection. During the inspection I found the buildings still at that acceptable standard
for buildings of this vintage with the following exceptions: no batteries in any of the
smoke detectors except one unit, some plumbing problems in the way of minor leaks and
valves that would not shut off, and minor drywall repair needed in a few of the units.
In general the buildings showed symptoms of its age and heavy occupancy. For example
the plumbing problems are probably due to being worn out by age and high usage. In
my opinion a good maintenance effort could easily have effected repairs within a few
days of their discovery and therefore should already be done.
C� ��i/z�n ���re �cle�o�n 92vle'wl
420 E. HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-2690
Date: November 7, 1994
To: Leslie Lamont, Community Development
From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal
Subject: Valley -Hi Apartments
Leslie,
Two years ago (please see attached) Carl Lennecke of the Valley -Hi
apartment complex was given a Notice of Order to install an
approved fire alarm system.
At that time we were informed that the existing structures were
being scheduled for demolition shortly.
As was our policy at that time remains the same today that when a
property is due to be demolished within a short time frame the
system requirement is waved. However, in this case the time frame
has long since expired and before any approval for extension is
given, two criteria must be met. Firstly the installation of an
approved fire alarm system. Secondly the property shall be
maintained in an orderly fashion and all rubbish and refuse be
removed in a timely manner.
Both of these requirements are paramount for the life safety of the
residents and visitors of the Valley -Hi.
On Monday November 7, 1994 I had a conversation with Mr. Lenneke
and apprised him of this situation, in the course of our
conversation he acknowledged our communication of two years ago and
implied that both of these conditions will be rectified.
A letter from Mr. Lennecke stating this is forthcoming.
If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Thank You,
•
•
ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
NOTICE OF INSPECTION
DATE:9/16/92 BLOCK:L OCCUPANT LOAD:
ADDRESS:1000 E. HOPKINS BUS. NAME:VALLEY-HI APTS. /PHONE:925-1040
CITY:ASPEN STATE:CO. ZIP:81611
OWNER OF BUSINESS :PETER COVENTRY /PHONE:925-8363
OWNERS'S ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP:
OWNER OF BUILDING: /PHONE:
OWNER'S ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP:
EMERGENCY CONTACT PERSONS:
1. NAME:CARL LENNECKE PHONE:927-3661
2. NAME:PETER COVENTRY PHONE:925-8363
TYPE OF OCCUPANCY:DWELLING:
OBSTRUCTED EXIT:
EXIT LIGHTING:
FLAMMABLE LIQUID:
BUILDING NUMBERS:
PUBLIC BLDG.:X SCHOOL:
RUBBISH:
FIRE ESCAPES:
EXTINGUISHERS:X
ELECTRICAL:
FACTORY: MISC:
FIRE ALARM SYS:
PRI. FIRE PROT.:
FIRE SYS. CHECKED:
OTHER:
NARRATIVE OF NOTICE: 10.302A UFC. ALL FIRE EXTINGUISHERS SHALL BE
MAINTAINED IN AN OPERATIVE CONDITION AT ALL TIMES.
CARL LENNECKE AND DOUG BOYLES HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT
OF A FIRE ALARM SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED. 9/16/92
COMPLIANCE TIMES: 30 DAYS
NOTICE GIVEN TO:PETER & CARL
ED VAN WALRAVEN
FIRE MARSHAL
COMPLIANCE MONTH:SEPT
WHEN COMPLIED CALL:925-2690
FIRE INSPECTIOR
•
•
Vested Site Plan
4 Free Market DUs
4 Deed Restricted DUs
31% existing FAR Replaced
3 add. Bedrooms cash -in -lieu
$45,000 in -lieu for 3 BR
EXHIBIT B
Current Regulations
50% Replacement Required
3 add. BR must be on -site
$102,000 in -lieu for 3 BR
• EXHIBIT C
ORDINANCE NO.8
(SERIES OF 1991)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL SUBDIVISION/POD
DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, GMQS EXEMPTION,
AND VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR FOUR FREE MARKET UNITS AND
FOUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 1000 EAST HOPKINS (LOTS A AND K
OF BLOCK 25 AND LOTS H,I, AND S BLOCK 26, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN)
WAS, the Valley Hi Development Trust ("Applicant")
submitted to the Planning Office an application for a Final
Subdivision/PUD Development Plan, Stream Margin review,
Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing and
vesting of development rights to reconstruct eight units at 1000
East Hopkins Ave. The plan was designed in accordance with an
April 1990 legal settlement ("Settlement") between the City of
Aspen and the Applicant; and
WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Engineering
Department, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Fire
Marshal, the Water Department, the Housing Authority, and the
Planning Office and those agencies submitted referral comments;
and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 1990, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission approved Stream Margin Review with conditions and
forwarded a recommendation to City Council to approve Final
Subdivision/PUD review with conditions, including variances to
height and rear setback; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 24-7-1004 D.2.b., 24-7-
903, 24-7-1007, and 24-8-104 C.l.c. of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the City Council may grant approval to Final Subdivision, PUD
1
} Development Plans, Condominiumization, and GMQS Exemption for
Affordable Housing; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the
Planning and Zoning Commission's and Planning Office's
recommendations, does wish to grant the Final Subdivision/PUD
Development Plan approval with conditions as well as
Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing, and
Vesting of Development Rights for three years for the development
of four free market units and four deed restricted units at 1000
East Hopkins.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1•
That it does hereby grant Final Subdivision/PUD Approval
with the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Planning Office and amended by City Council
for four free market units and four deed restricted affordable
housing units.
Section 2.
In order to accommodate the affordable housing units, in
accordance with Section 7-903 of the Land Use Code, the City
Council approves a PUD variance to allow a zero (0) foot rear
setback for the portion of the structure containing affordable
housing, and a height variance of two (2) feet to the R-MF height
limit restricted to the rear two-thirds (2/3) of the building.
Section 3:
2
The City Council also approves Condominiumization for all
eight units and Growth Management Exemption for the four
affordable housing units.
Section 4•
The conditions of approval which apply to this project are:
1. A Subdivision Agreement shall be recorded concurrently with
the Final Plat.
2. The garage entry drive must not exceed 12% grade for a 20'
distance from the property line.
3. Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter and
sidewalk improvements and for any other work in the public right-
of-way.
4. The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement
1 District if one is ever formed.
5. The Applicant shall pay for sewer line improvements as
determined by the Sanitation District.
6. Heavy vehicle access must be provided for sewer line
maintenance.
7. The drainage plan for the. site shall include oil and sand
interceptors for the garage. Surface run-off shall not enter the
sanitary sewer.
8. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be designed and
installed as per the Fire Marshal's requirements.
9. The Planning Director shall sign off on a GMQS Exemption for
the replacement of four free market dwelling units.
10. No demolition shall occur prior to issuance of a building
K
permit.
�. 11. The four affordable housing units shall be indexed to the
Housing Guidelines for category #3 (one unit) and category #4
three units) for sale purposes. For rental purposes, all four
unit shall be indexed at category #2.
12. Twelve (12) underground parking spaces shall be provided
according to the Settlement and parking variance allowed by the
PUD review process. Four (4) of these spaces shall be allotted
to the affordable housing units.
13. A two (2) foot variance to the RMF zone height restriction is
limited to the rear 2/3 of the building to accommodate the
affordable housing units.
14. A variance to allow a zero (0) foot setback shall be limited
(/ to the building area containing the affordable housing units.
15. Prior to recordation, a fifteen (15) foot trail easement
shall be dedicated on the plat subject to approval by Engineering
and Planning.
16. Condominium plat and condominium declarations shall be
approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to
recordation.
17. A $45,000.00 cash -in -lieu payment for affordable housing
shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits for the
property.
Within 180 days of City Council's approval of this Final Plat and
Final PUD Plan the following must occur:
18. A Subdivision Plat, "Notice of PUD Designation", Final PUD
4
Plan and Subdivision/PUD Agreement must be filed with the County
Clerk as required by Sections 7-1005 E., 7-905 and 7-907 of the
Land Use Code.
19. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission, City Council and Historic Preservation
Committee shall be adhered to and considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise amended in the conditions.
Section 5•
That it does hereby grant Vested Rights for the 1000 East
Hopkins Stream Margin review and Final Subdivision/PUD
Development Plan. The rights granted by the site specific
development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3)
Cyears from the effective date hereof. However, any failure to
abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of .said vested property
rights. Failure to properly record all plats and agreements
required to be recorded by the Land Use Code shall also result in
the forfeiture of said vested property rights.
Section 6-
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the
adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 7•
A ublic hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /3
day of 1991 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chamber
Y C s,
5
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
�. a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
1991.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
A ST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
F NALLY, adopted, passed and approved this //0 day of
1991.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S�t Koch, City Clerk
jtkvj/1000hop.ord
N.
#350764 016/9� 08: 42 Rec $--, pcj EtF:::•
^c 694 FG 467
Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk:. Doc
_ ORDINANCE NO. 57 EXHIBIT
(SERIES OF 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A ONE YEAR
EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 1991 FOR
THE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR THE 1000 E. HOPKINS
PARCEL (A.K.A. THE VALLEY HI APARTMENTS), LOTS A,H,I,K,AND S,
BLOCKS 25 AND 26, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code,
the City Council may grant vested rights status for a site specific
development plan; and
WHEREAS, upon the adoption of Ordinance 8, Series 1991, the
Applicant received approval for the redevelopment of the subject
property as well as vested rights extending for three years from
the approval date of said ordinance; and
WHEREAS, due to the deteriorated condition of the existing
apartments on the site, the owners must make numerous repairs to
continue the livability of the units which are occupied by
employees of the community, until such time that the project is
demolished and replaced by the development approved in 1991; and
WHEREAS, because of the cost of such repairs the Applicant
requested a one year extension to the vested rights approved by
Ordinance 8, Series 1991 in order to allow a greater timeframe to
recover the costs through rents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having reviewed the application
recommends approval of the extension of vested rights for a period
of one year beyond the vested rights approved in Ordinance 8,
Series 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning
Office's recommendations for the extension of vested rights does
r
`� 1
#350764 1 1 / 16/92 V8: 42 Rec $25. coca BK 694 PG 46e
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
wish to grant the requested extension of vested rights for one year
beyond the approval granted in Ordinance 8, Series 1991 for the
1000 E. Hopkins parcel, finding community benefit in the
improvements to the employee housing until said property is
redeveloped. \
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, City
Council does hereby grant the applicant a one year extension for
the vested rights approved by Ordinance 8, Series 1991 for the
1000 E. Hopkins parcel as follows:
1. The Valley Hi Apartments shall be maintained in a clean
/ and orderly condition until such time as they are
demolished prior to redevelopment pursuant to Ordinance
8, 1991.
2. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for a
total of four (4) years from June 10, 1991, the date of
final adoption of Ordinance 8, Series 1991. However, any
failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant
to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly
record all plats and agreements as specified herein and
or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the
forfeiture of said vested rights.
ka
#350 64 11/16/92 08:42 Rec $25.00 BK 694 PG 469
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $,ch(-)
3. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all
rights of referendum and judicial review.
4. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
r
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or
the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City
provided that such reviews or approvals are not
inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested
herein.
5. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall
not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations
which are general in nature and are applicable to all
property subject to land use regulation by the City of
Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire,
plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this
regard, as a condition of this site development approval,
the developer shall abide by any and all such building,
fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless
an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 2:
The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
3
#350764 11/16/92 08:42 Rec $25.00 9K 694 PG 470
Silvia Davis, Pitk.in Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
1 vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following -
described property:
i
111000 E..,Hopkins, Lots A,H,I,K,and S, Blocks 25 and 26"
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 3•
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the
adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 5:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and
shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now
pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
Section 6:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of ts1992 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
4
#350764 1 1 / 16/92 OE3: 42 Rec $25. 00 BK 694 PG 471
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a
' newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
1
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
1
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
1992.
John tennett, Mayor
AZKTSV:4S
Rath, City Clerk
4y,
C�( �015fi'Lt,Y, adopted, passed and approved this day of
1992.
Joh Bennett, Mayor
A "�
KaSh]i : Rach, City Clerk
5
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9, 1992
4 MODINANCE #57. SERIES OF 1992 - 1000 E.-Hopkins Vested Rights,
Kim Johnson, planning office, reminded Council this ordinance will
extend the vested rights for one year from the original approval to
June 1995. Originally Council expressed concern that the property
needed substantial repairs before they approved the extended vested
rights. Ms. Johnson told Council staff inspected the premises in
the last 10 days. The repairs are complete. The memorandum
details the upgrade to the property. A maintenance agreement
contract has been established with local company.
Rick Neiley, representing the applicant, told Council the property
has received a temporary c/o. There are some issues that have to
be cleared up before a final c/o. The applicants have committed to
the creation of a parking plan. Neiley requested the ordinance be
amended to create a period effective 4 years from June loth. The
project has been delayed several months, and a large amount of
money has been invested in it.
Councilman Peters said his inclination is to approve it as written.
It would be in the public's interest to grant another extension if
applied for next year. A one year extension is appropriate given
the history of this project. There should be some performance
before the vested rights is extended more. Councilwoman Pendleton
agreed she would rather wait and look at another extension next
June. Councilwoman Richards agreed.
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Pendleton moved to adopt Ordinance #57, Series of
1992, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Peters. Roll call
vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes. Motion carried.
0
0 EXHIBIT F:
VALLEY -HI APARTMENTS
1000 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
SECOND APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS
Valley -Hi Development Trust
c/o Carl B. Linnecke, CPA
215 South Monarch Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Representative:
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr.
Neiley & Alder
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-9393
INTRODUCTION
Valley -Hi Development Trust is the owner of the Valley -Hi
Apartments located at 1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado
81611. On June 10, 1991, the Trust was granted subdivision ap-
proval for the demolition of existing improvements on the real
property and the construction of four free-market and four deed -
restricted affordable housing units.
The owners now seek a two-year extension of vested
rights, through June 15, 1997.
The original development approvals were granted pursuant
to Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, a copy of which is attached
hereto as Appendix I. That Ordinance also granted vested rights
pursuant to §6-207 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City
of Aspen and applicable state statutes. Vesting of rights was
granted for a period of three years from the effective date of
Ordinance No. 8. The original date of expiration of the
development approvals was June 15, 1994.
In 1992, the owners submitted an Application for
Extension of Vested Rights, seeking a two-year extension through
June 15, 1996. The basis for this application was two -fold:
first, market conditions did not warrant demolition and recon-
struction at the time, and second, in order to maintain a safe and
habitable property, substantial sums were required to upgrade the
nineteen rental apartment units.
Following public hearing, the City granted an extension
of vested rights for a period of one year. Presently, the owners'
development approvals will expire on June 15, 1995. The extension
of vested rights was processed as an ordinance. A copy of the
extension Ordinance is attached hereto as Appendix II.
The Trust has again determined that it does not at the
present time wish to demolish the improvements on the real prop-
erty. When seeking extension of vested rights in 1992, the owners
determined that approximately $65,000.00 in improvements were
necessary to upgrade the units to an acceptable level. However,
following inspections by the Building Department and the need to
address health/safety issues, the extent of remodel was substan-
tially increased. Between 1992 and 1993, improvements to the real
property totalled approximately $120,000.00.
In 1992, when an extension of vested rights was approved,
the City Council indicated a willingness to consider further
extensions of vested rights following completion of the remodel and
implementation of a new maintenance and management program at the
property. Both such programs have been implemented. The owners
have contracted with Mike's Maintenance, a contracting business
owned by Michael Adams of Aspen, Colorado, which provides regular
inspections, repairs and maintenance services. The present condi-
1
tion of the building is substantially better than at any time since
the owners acquired the property in 1988.
A new leasing program has been implemented and is managed
by Carl B. Linnecke, CPA. The owners have diligently attempted to
control the number of occupants in the units and, over the past
year, have served notice on several tenants to vacate the premises
for violation of occupancy limitations. Inspections are done on a
regular basis, and in general, greater control over the number of
tenants in each unit has been achieved. The property remains an
apartment complex occupied by working people, and it unquestionably
fulfills a very real and important need in the community. The two
buildings on site contain a total of nineteen units housing
approximately sixty local, working people. It is one of only
several buildings of its type remaining in Aspen. The immediate
demolition of the structure would result in displacement of workers
with virtually no present alternative living options. Thus,
extension of vested rights insures the continued availability of
this necessary housing.
HISTORY
The Trust acquired the property on August 25, 1988.
Prior to the acquisition, a variety of preliminary efforts had been
undertaken in conjunction with the Planning Office and City Council
which would have resulted in the demolition of the two buildings on
the property. The buildings contain nineteen rental apartment
units. The buildings were constructed in the early-1960Is and were
in 1988 in a decrepit condition.
In August of 1988, the Aspen City Council imposed a mora-
torium prohibiting demolition of the improvements on the property.
Subsequent to the imposition of the moratorium, the Trust sought
exemption on the grounds that it had been involved in the planning
process. The request for exemption was denied.
After several extensions to the demolition moratorium,
the Planning Office and City Council, with the input of the public
including representatives of the Trust, adopted Ordinance No. 47,
Series of 1988, in February of 1989. In April of 1989, the Trust
submitted its redevelopment application in accordance with Ordi-
nance No. 47. On May 5, 1989, the Planning Department notified the
Trust that its application was complete; a public hearing before
the Planning & Zoning Commission was set for June 20, 1989.
Following the May 1989 election of new council members,
City Council adopted Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1989, imposing a
new administrative delay in the processing of development applica-
tions effective May 8, 1989. Again, the Trust was caught in a
moratorium, and again, exemption from the moratorium was requested
and denied. The new moratorium was extended several times, and for
many months, the Planning Office and Council worked on the adoption
of a new replacement housing ordinance.
K
During this time, the City and representatives of the
Trust examined various ways of resolving the Trust's claim of a
right to proceed with its development application.
Finally, in the spring of 1991, a resolution of the dis-
pute between the Trust and the City of Aspen was reached pursuant
to which demolition would be permitted and reconstruction of the
project could go forward. This was formalized by Ordinance No. 8,
Series of 1991, on June 10, 1991.
Because of changes in market conditions, by the summer of
1991, it was no longer desirable to proceed with the redevelopment
of the Valley -Hi property. Because the buildings will ultimately
be demolished, the Trust has been reluctant to expend funds for the
extensive repairs necessary. However, in 1992, because deteriora-
tion of the buildings had reached a point where several units were
uninhabitable, the Trust was faced with a dilemma of closing down
units or performing repairs for which there was little likelihood
of recovering the costs thereof. The Trust proceeded with the
improvements but has been unable to recoup the costs incorporated
into the building at the present time.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS
The Trust was granted vested rights for a three-year
period pursuant to §6-207 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen. Vested rights are currently available through
June 15, 1994. Vested rights have now been extended through June
15, 1995.
The Aspen Municipal Code does not provide a specific
mechanism for requests for extension of vested rights.
The Trust is willing to commit to defer demolition of the
building for a minimum of twelve months. The Trust requests that
a new ordinance be adopted granting a new period of vested rights
for the improvements identified in the Subdivision Agreement and
recorded Plat for 1000 East Hopkins Avenue through June 15, 1997.
This request for extension of vested rights complies with
the requirements of §6-207(E) of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen as a site specific development plan has been approved and the
Trust has complied with all conditions attendant to its original
development approval. It further complies with the conditions of
the state vested rights statute, §24-68-101, et seq., C.R.S.
Specifically, §24-68-104(2), C.R.S. provides that vested rights in
excess of three years may be permitted after consideration of all
relevant circumstances. A copy of that statutory authority is
attached hereto as Appendix III.
Economic circumstances justify an extension of the vested
rights previously granted the Trust. The Trust spent approximately
twice what was originally projected for the repairs to the
property. It is reasonable to grant additional time to allow the
Trust to recoup some of those costs. No violation of any public
purpose would result from the extension, and some of the least
expensive free-market housing in the City will continue to be
available in the rental market while the Aspen/Pitkin County
Housing Authority continues its efforts to provide affordable
housing for the working people of Aspen.
4
NEILEY & ALDER
• ATTORNEYS •
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., P.C.
Eugene M. Alder, P.C.
HAND DELIVERY
Tom Stevenson, Chief
Aspen Police Department
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Tom:
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 EXHIBIT'F
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-9393 FAX Number
(303)925.9396
October 11, 1994
Re: Valley -Hi Apartments
1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen
This office represents the owners of the Valley -Hi
Apartments. I am processing an application for extension of vested
rights for my clients, and in connection therewith, a referral
request was issued to your department. On August 18, 1994, Officer
Beth Ufkes submitted a response, a copy of which I enclose.
We take strong issue with Ms. Ufkes' response. As you
can see, this response cites many criminal complaints that are on-
going at the property. It also indicates that the owners of the
property have been informed of the problems and have failed to take
any action.
First, I have been in direct communication with the
owners and the local managing agent, Carl B. Linnecke, CPA. None
of the owners has ever received any contact from the Aspen Police
Department. Mr. Linnecke has been contacted on one occasion,
approximately two weeks ago regarding a theft investigation. This
contact was with Ed Piccolo. Mr. Linnecke was entirely coopera-
tive, and we have heard nothing further on this matter. Both Mr.
Linnecke and I are the local agents for the property and are the
registered agent and officers for the corporate general partner.
Neither of us has ever been apprised by any member of your
department of any problems with criminal activities at the
property.
The suggestion in Ms. Ufkes' referral response is that
the owners of the property do not care about criminal activity and
have actually ignored on -going problems. This creates real dif-
ficulties for the property owners in connection with their land use
T,,etter to Mr. Steven •
October 6, 1994
Page 2
application and is not an accurate depiction. Quite to opposite is
true.
In the fall of 1992 after completing a substantial
remodel of the project, Mr. Linnecke contacted your department and
requested that he be apprised of criminal activities and complaints
at the project so that appropriate action could be taken by the
owner in the form of evictions. Mr. Linnecke was advised that such
information was not available for public dissemination because of
privacy concerns.
On March 24, 1994, I personally filed a criminal com-
plaint with your department in connection with what we believed was
an active drug dealing situation at the complex. The drug dealing
had been brought to my attention by Mr. Linnecke and our on -site
management company. When I filed the complaint, I provided the
apartment number and names of the tenants and the names of three
witnesses who could be contacted. We requested that an investi-
gation be undertaken and that we receive a response to our
concerns. After the expiration of approximately three months
without either a return call or any other communication from your
department, we evicted the tenants and solved the problem
ourselves.
We believe Ms. Ufkes' communication with the Planning
Office grossly mis characterizes the actual circumstances at the
Valley -Hi Apartments and should be retracted.
As to the alleged "many criminal complaints that are on-
going," we have no direct knowledge of this information. However,
since this has a direct bearing on both our land use application
and my clients' concerns regarding management and liability at the
property, we want to be brought up to date regarding the situation.
In this regard,'please consider this letter my formal request for
the following information:
1. An itemization of all criminal complaints received
related to the Valley -Hi Apartments from November 1992 to the
present;
2. A detailed list of all criminal charges brought
against individuals at the Valley -Hi Apartments from November 1992
to the present;
3. A detailed list of all arrests made at the Valley -Hi
Apartments from November 1992 to the present;
Letter to mr. Steven •
October 6, 1994
Page 3
4. Any other information maintained by your department
which substantiates the statement that there are "many criminal
complaints that are on -going at this location."
We feel that this information is essential to both
explain the content and recommendation of your department's
response to the Planning Office's referral request and to an
effective management of the property. It is our impression that
virtually all of the occupants of the Valley -Hi Apartments are
hard-working, honest members of the community. We have compiled a
list of the employers of our tenants which I enclose. While we can
obviously not guarantee that otherwise hard-working persons are not
involved in criminal activities, we do not believe that there are
extensive criminal activities at the property. Your assistance in
clarifying this issue would be greatly appreciated.
Ve�t truly yours,
& ALDER
chard Y. Neiley, Jr.
RYN/agk
Enclosures
�.___�:, �.GlL6ltCLL iLfVli(.ISWV�1/aLu/c6
-- = Carl B. Linnecke, PA, P.C.
2.15 South Monarch Street • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • TEL 303/92-5-1040 • FAX 303/92-5-4468
October 5, 1994
Rick Neilsy
201 N. Mill St., Ste 102
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Valley Hi Tenants
Dear Rick,
Sent Via FAX
Following is a list of the places the tenants in the Valley Hi work:
La Cccina
Little Annie's
Planet Hollywood
Hard Rock
Aspen Club Lodge
Aspen Grove Restaurant
Explorer Bookseller
Kenichi
Friedl's
Smuggler Land Office
dour de Fete
Mountain House
Durgin Electric
ChaninIs
Hickory House
Carnivale
Mirabella
Renaissance Restaurant
Shadow Mountain Lodge
Aspen Square
Lima Light Lodga
Little Nell
Ritz Carlton
Hotel Jerome
Woody Creek Roofing
Please be advised that the natural tendency to say these people are all
dishwashers or transient is not true. Many are. prep cooks at the
restaurants. The women are house keepers for the most part. The guy
who works at Explorer told me he has been there six years.
Let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
Car B. Linnecke, CPA
• NEILEY & ALDER
ATTORNEYS
•
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., P.C.
Eugene ?Vt. Alder, P.C. (303) 925.9393
October 11, 1994
John S. Bennett, Mayor
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear John:
Re: Valley -Hi Apartments, 1000 E. Hopkins Avenue,
Aspen, CO
FAX Number
(303)925-9396
I represent Valley -Hi Development Trust, the owner of
Valley -Hi Apartments at 1000 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen. As I
believe you are aware, we are currently processing an application
for extension of vested rights in connection with land use
approvals originally granted in June of 1991. At present, those
approvals expire on June 15, 1995.
The Planning Office has advised me that you are
scheduling a meeting with certain neighborhood residents for
Friday, October 14, 1994. I understand the purpose of this meeting
is to discuss concerns of the neighbors regarding the management of
the apartment complex. I believe it would be appropriate for a
Valley -Hi Apartments representative to attend this meeting. While
I will be out of town on that day, the local manager, Carl B.
Linnecke, C.P.A., will make time for the meeting. He can be
reached at 925-1040. If you could have someone contact him
regarding the time of the meeting, we would appreciate it.
Since certain people in the neighborhood are lobbying for
a denial of our extension application, I think it is appropriate to
provide you with some information regarding the current status of
the property. I have received a copy of the September 30, 1994,
letter from the East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents
Association, which I understand has also been provided to the
Planning Office and Members of the City Council.
Enclosed herewith you will find a copy of my recent
letter to Police Chief Tom Stephenson. The allegation that the
Valley -Hi Apartments is a warren of criminal activity is to our
knowledge simply untrue. As you can see from my letter to Tom, we
have never been advised of criminal activity at the property and in
fact, have been pro -active in attempting to eliminate undesirable
tenants. I have asked for details regarding any criminal activity
over the past two years. I do want to emphasize that none of
•
John S. Bennett, Mayor
October 11, 1994
Page 2
the owners, the management or local representatives of the property
have ever been confronted by any law enforcement or City
representative with complaints of criminal activity at the
property. If these allegations are true, we will take prompt steps
to rectify the problem.
Ralph Braden, who recently purchased the property
immediately next door to the Valley -Hi Apartments, this summer
complained about the condition of and the tenants at the complex.
Inasmuch as Ralph purchased the property for speculative
development purposes, it is understandable that he would like to
see the apartment building removed and redeveloped as soon as
possible. We understand that Ralph is the head of the East Hopkins
Property Owners and Residents Association and is responsible for
the September 30, 1994, letter. That letter grossly
mischaracterizes the situation at the Valley -Hi Apartments. We
have contacted Lenny Oates, the association attorney, and have
advised him of our willingness to discuss the perceived problems.
The true picture of the Valley -Hi Apartments is one of a
worker oriented residential complex including singles, families and
small children. Attached to my letter to Tom Stephenson is a list
of the employers of many of the people at the Valley -Hi Apartments.
Our tenants are hard working, integral members of the Aspen
community. We feel the real problem that underlies the neighbors'
complaints is the fact that 18 of the 19 apartments at the complex
are occupied by individuals of Hispanic origin. As more and more
of these people join our resident and work force, we see a greater
and greater level of prejudice and distrust develop in our
community. In a very real sense, the concept of Aspen as an open
minded, diverse community is challenged by the recent changes in
our demographics.
I enclose a copy of an article from the October 5, 1994,
Aspen Times which deals with the difficulty of worker displacement
and specifically refers to the Valley -Hi Apartments. Our proposal
would defer this displacement for an additional year and thus
provide the community more time to address this problem.
The local manager, Carl Linnecke, and I met with Gary
Lyman, Chief Building Inspector, on the site yesterday. In
visiting all the units except for one, it was determined that the
building remains in reasonably good condition, considering its age,
and that building and safety upgrades, which were implemented two
years ago, remain in place. Gary will be providing a report to the
Planning Office. Only a few minor repair needs were identified.
These include the need to replace batteries in smoke detectors, the
repair of a couple of faucets and some minor drywall repair.
John S. Bennett, Ma� •
October 11, 1994
Page 3
Contrary to allegations of the neighbors, the complex has not been
ignored or neglected. In fact, the owners spend in excess of
$1,000.00 a month on maintenance and repair. The buildings are
old, having been constructed in the late 1960's, and thus require
a higher level of care than newer properties and have a less
desirable appearance.
Recent inspections of the property establish that there
are no junk cars or accumulations of trash on the property. Loose
trash is picked up at least once a week by our maintenance
contractor and we have regular dumpster service. I did notice when
I was at the property last week two large rolls of carpet sticking
out of the dumpster. These were courtesy of one of the neighbors.
This is a high occupancy building and the maintenance requirements
are constant. We try to address those requirements as effectively
as possible.
We are willing to discuss the perceived problems with the
neighborhood association and the City. We feel that our request
for extension of vested rights is appropriate for a variety of
reasons expressed in our application including the fact that the
displacement of the occupants of 19 units in the next six months
does not seem desirable in light of the current housing crunch.
When we last sought an extension of vested rights we sought two
additional years because of the substantial amount of money being
invested to upgrade the property. We were granted a one year
extension and were requested to return after the expiration of a
year to seek additional time to recoup the capital expenditure.
Please let me know if a representative of the Valley -Hi
Apartments will be allowed to attend your meeting on October 14.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Vgry truly yours,
& ALDER
idhard Y. Neiley, Jr.
RYN/dd
Enclosures
cc: Carl B. Linnecke
Valley -Hi Development Trust
Leslie Lamont
Lenny Oates/East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents
Association
Bennett.1tr
.Asp..
--PlWht
® 1
_ lac .
��°
By'G.,
il 1.'Rudawsky l ke -
t housing have approvals i6 redevelop: Aspen Times staff Writer : the property and there is some concern'.
The _Aspen City:,Council .started the .:..that the current residents would be left
wheels ;iollin� on a policy;that:could ::`without a place to live.:': c.':
require developers to provide housing for �'- "There was also'soriie talk'about the' residents displaced by new construction. :::free-inarket•Park Meadows building, for-
If developers' displace- an employee, °merly- located 'off Highway 82, across .V
they should be responsible to find them a `-from Tiehack:�The Iow=income rental
new placeto stay,"•city council member-'='-apartn'ent house -was torn down to make4
Terry'Panlson -said -during "an informal way for the upscale Maroon- Creek Golf
meeting this week.:=::f:.':Club.
The city currently does not have a poli- =•About 48 Park lvleadows residents r
Cy to -directly help displaced workers', -were -evicted from their units in June
kicked out 'of -low -rent, free-market hous- `.:--1993. -Developers said they will replace a , ,
ing, but there seemed to be interest by ' portion of the hnits,-but the new units are
some city council members to look at not intended to accommodate the former.`
passing an ordinance to address this issue..,:- residents. 1 • _:j::.: :, •'
The city currently has' numerous free -•'.}::.;':Paulson said that he is particularly con-'
market housing units around town that cerned about displacement since he -was
provide an inexpensive place to stay for :' kicked out of his rental home five years
area workers. Over •the _ years, these units-;; ago and left without.a place to live. He
have become more and more scarce: � :also said that working at City IVlarket, '=
City council specifically had some con- -- 'where he'is assistant manager, he sees
cerns about residents-at.theValley-Hi =`many employees who are displaced by
rental apartments,'located on East Hop --•;developers.
kins Avenue. -The owners of the free -mar-: �1%0 See Displaced on page 8
. r• s+t .y .•>%:. ,`�. ..�.:' ems+ � _�• •. _, y ' � _ _ _ •]:�' ..
■ contin orri page:',..'.. = ;
he city again tried to stop -the trend in M
:. "This is an issue that 'selose to me," Paulson said. when it passed an impact mitigation ordinance aim
Council member Rachel Richards was against �a --:.at new construction. For instance, if an existing frc
.
displacement proposal. since she said it.would only 'market striic,ture is demolished to 'make way for
discourage people from building rental housing. .'larger.home, the builder is.required to mitigate th
-: •'� "Why would they build a rental housing project if impact. -
•they know they will have•to. take care of the res- _
idents forever?" Richards -said..- Y Manager' -
Aspen -city er Am Mar • ;�: �: = _
• - g y gerum said • ' = _ _ -
�that other communities with tight housing -mar=:.v
kets Have ordiniinces`fhat require developers ' "If developers displace an -�
tearing down rental housing fo provide the resi
.-dents displaced a. new .place'to live.- Margerum'..--employee, thi6y should �De
_ said, for instance, that Santa Barbara currently _ . L-
ha_s adisplacement ordinance. "''�-:.: :,;:. responsible* onsible to find thei>r1 a new
e city'council will direct••the Aspen/Pttl.rn--,p
_ � ounty Housing Board io look at developing a ;place to Stay.' -
'displacement ordinan
a.:1='�;:'_:-
dations io the elected officials. ;.`_ -r. Te»y Paulson, Aspen city councrl me�nbE
According to`housing officials",'the fearing _ -
r.: _:. i
idowri of existing free-market projects and build- .
' frig• million -dollar: homes :has-been .going 'on -
;since the early1980s.:; �, 1::F. /.�_.•;: _ . ..
During that time, the employee population of -:
i.the city dropped from 60 percent to 40 percent, " :.• a� -
_ ;,; '
..largely because of second -home• construction,"
according to housing officials. _'..:...;; _ Builders get credit for the square footage of t);
In 1989, the housing office built 89 units at old home,' but have to pay an additional $14 pe
'..Truscott Place to stop the displacement, but•while the square foot if the new structure is larger than the on
project was under construction, housing officials said 'demolished. Or, a developer could build a larg
an equal numhcr of employees were displaced by . home with an employee unit attached to the structur
second -home construction.` _ or deed -restrict the home. '
AU
v"e"
I
e,7
.7
F 01
r
IN -
Valley HI Apartments'are h6me to folks like two -year -old Tony Mendes *(above),
taking a break from wheeling up and down the hallways of the building, which
offers basic accommodations for moderate .'rents.
,.--
Ramon Medrano (left), Is another Valley HI resident.
He Is shown spending his day off from Kenichi Restaurant,
_preparing a. meal common to his El Salvadoran homeland -.boiled
0 '
.c 4-tongue tacos. The owners of Valley Hi, Which Is alree-market
operation, already have the necessary approvals to redevelop the property.
If that happens, the city council is concerned about whether
''Tony and Ramon could find other affordable housing. Travis Caperto n photos.
•
C.
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., P.C.
Eugene M. Alder, P.C.
NEILEY & ALDER
ATTORNEYS
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303)925-9393
October 12, 1994
Leonard M. Oates
Oates, Hughes & Rnezevich, P.C.
533 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Valley -Hi Apartments
1000 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen
Dear Lennie:
FAX Number
(303) 925.9396
This letter is a follow-up to our telephone conversation
of yesterday regarding the above property and your representation
of East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents Association.
As you know, my clients, the Valley -Hi Development Trust,
take issue with the September 30, 1994, letter put out by your
clients. You indicated that you would provide me with a copy of
the "crime list for East Hopkins" which your clients obtained from
the police department. Please fax this to me at 925-9396. As you
can see from my enclosed letter to Police Chief Tom Stephenson, we
were attempting to independently determine the extent of the crime
problem at the Valley -Hi Apartments.
I also enclose a copy of my letter of yesterday to Mayor
John Bennett. As that letter suggests and as we discussed, my
clients feel strongly that a substantial reason for the neighbor-
hood opposition to the requested extension of vested rights is
prejudice against the Hispanic occupants of the building.
In our conversation yesterday I requested a list of the
members of the East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents
Association. I hope you will provide this to us in the near
future. It is difficult for us to effectively address the concerns
of a faceless "association". We would be willing to meet with the
members of the association and you at any mutually convenient time.
If there are specific issues which can be addressed, we would be
happy to explore means of alleviating the neighborhood concerns.
The generic complaints in the September 30, 1994, letter, however,
do not provide much by way of real identifiable issues. Perhaps a
review of your "crime list" and any information the police
department makes available will provide one area of focus. If
Letter to Mr. Oates
October 12, 1994
Page 2
there are other concerns that your clients would like to discuss,
please let me know.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Ve truly yours,
N Y & ALDER
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr.
RYN/dd
Enclosures
Oates.ltr
�*
Publ�i` �t',. 4of1ce�
ry t.te
•
ORDINANCE. 60 (SERIES OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUN-
CIL GRANTING A TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF
VESTED RIGIrrS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 8,
SERIES OF 1991 FOR THE SITE SPECIFIC DF-VEI:
OPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR THE 1000 FAST
HOPKINS PARCEL, THE VALLEY -HI APART-
MENTS, LOTS A, H, I, K. h S BLOCKS 25 AND 26
PLUS THE REMAINDER OF VACATED CLEVE-
IAND STREET, CITY OF ASPEN. COLORADO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24$207 of the
Aspen Municipal Code, City Council may grant
an extension of vested rights status for a site
specific development plan; and
WHEREAS, In June of 1991, City Council
adopted Ordinance 8, Series of 1991, approving
the redevelopment of the Valley -HI property
and granting vested rights status for three
years from the approved date of said Ordi-
nance; and
WHEREAS, in November of 1992, City Council
granted a one year extension of the vested
rights status for the Valley -HI site specific
development plan thereby extending the vested
rights to June 15, 1995 (Ordinance No. 57,
Series of 1992); and
WHEREAS, as a condition of granting the vest-
ed rights extension, City Council required the
applicant to make speclli, repairs and
upgrades of the building and Implement a man-
agement and maintenance plan for the building;
and
WHEREAS, Council also recommended that
the applicant seek another extension when
those upgrades are completed and the appli-
cant can demonstrate to Council that proper
management of the building Is occurring; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested
another vested rights extension for two addi-
tional years extending the vested rights to June
is. 1997; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, having consid-
ered the request for an extension of vested
rightsandhaving considered the applicant's
upgrades on the building and their Implemenlr,
tlon of a maintenance aid management plan.
'does wish to grant the requested extension of,
vested rights for two years beyond'lhe
approval granted In Ordinance No. 57, Series of
1992. for the 1000 E. Hopkins parcel, finding
community benefit In the Improvements and
maintenance of nineteen units of employee
housing until said property Is redeveloped.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE:
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COI:
ORADO:
Section 1: Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the
Municipal Code, City Council does hereby grant
the applicant an additional two (2) year exten-
sion for the vested rights approved by Ordi-
nance No. 8, Series of 1991, for the 1000 East
Hopkins parcel as follows:
1. The Valley -HI Apartments shall be main-
talned In a clean and orderly condition until
such time as they are demolished prior to rede-
velopment pursuant to Ordinance 8, 1991.
2. The rights granted by the site specific
development plan approved by this Ordinance
shall remain vested for a total of six (6) years
from June 15. 1991. the date of publication of
Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991. However, any
failure to abide by the terms and conditions
attendant to this approval shall result In forfei-
ture of said vested property rights.
3. The approval granted hereby shall be sub,
ject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review.
4. Nothing In the approvals provided In this
Ordinance shall exempt the site specific devel-
opment plan from subsequent reviews and or
approvals required by this Ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances or the
City provided that such reviews or approvals
are not Inconsistent with the approvals granted
and vested herein.
5. The establishment herein of a vested prop-
erty right shall not preclude the application of
ordinances or regulations which are general In
nature and are applicable to all property sub-
ject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen
Including, but not limited to, building, fire,
plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In
this regard, as a condition of this site develop-
ment approval, the developer shall abide by
any and all such building, fire, plumbing, elec-
trical and mechanical codes, unless an exemp-
tion therefrom Is granted In writing.
Section 2:
The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordi-
nance to be published In a newspaper of gener-
al circulations within the City of Aspen no later
than fourteen (14) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given In the follow-
Ing form:
Notice Is hereby given to the general public of
the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested property
right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following
described property:
'1000 East Hopkins, Lots A,II,I,K, and S.
Blocks 25 and 26.' The property shall be
described In the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such
approval.
Section 3:
That the City Clerk be and hereby Is directed,
upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record
a copy of this ordinance In the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 4: It any section, subsection, sen-
tence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordi-
nance Is for any reason held Invalid or uncon-
stitutlonaJ by any court of competent jurisdic-
tion, such provision and such holding shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
Section 5: This Ordinance shall not affect any
existing litigation and shall not operate as an
abatement of any action or proceeding now
pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and
the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
Section 6: A public hearing on the Ordinance
shall be held on the 14th day of November.
1994 at 5.00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall. Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15)
clays prior to which hearing a public notice of
the same shall be published one in a newspaper
of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUB-
LISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 24th day of October,
1994.
John Bennett, Mayor
Arusr: Kathryn S. Ruch. City Clerk
FINALLY. adopted, passed and approved this
—day of—, 1994.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch. City Clerk
Published In The Aspen Times October 28, 1994.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: BENEDICT STILLWATER RANCH PARCEL
NI SCENIC OVER[AY REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hear-
ing will be held on Tuesday. November 29, 1994
at a regular meeting to begin at 4:00 pm before
the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion, Commissioners Meeting Room, 506 E-
Main St., Aspen to consider an application sub-
mitted by Fabienne Benedict requesting Scenic
Overlay approval for Parcel NI of the Benedict
Stillwater Ranch. The applicant is also request-
ing Detailed Submission and Final Plat approval
to subdivide the parcel Into five lots. The prop-
erty Is located east of Aspen, adjacent to the
City limits on the south side of Highway 82. For
further information contact Francis Krizmanlch
at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning 011ice, 920-5103.
s/Robert W. Child. Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Published In The Aspen Times on October 28.
1994
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 610 WEST HALLAM STREET LANDMARK
DESIGNATION
NOTICE. IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hear-
Ing will be held on Monday, November 14, 1994.
at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the
Aspen City Council In the City Council Cham-
bers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street. Aspen, Col-
orado, to consider an application submitted by
Jim Igleharl requesting Landmark Designation
of 610 West Hallam Street; 22.5 feet of Lot P and
all of Lot Q, Block 22. City and Townslte of
Aspen. For further Information, contact Amy
Amidon at the Aspen/ Pilkln Planning Office,
130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO. 920-50%.
s/John Bennett. Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published In The Aspen Times October 28,
1994.
•
MEMORANDUM *Vill a.
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, C;ty Manager��
THRU: Stan Clauso munity Development Director
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE: October 24, 1994
RE: Valley -Hi Vested Rights Extension - First Reading
Ordinance�l, Series of 1994
SUMMARY: The owners of the Valley -Hi apartments, 1000 East Hopkins
Avenue, have requested an extension of vested rights status.
Vested Rights will expire June 15, 1995 and the applicants have
requested a two year extension through June 15, 1997.
Staff recommends denial of the vested rights extension. Staff has
prepared an Ordinance for Council's adoption if Council elects to
approve the extension of vested rights.
Although staff is recommending denial of the extension request,
staff recommend that Council pass Ordinance on first reading in
order to advance the discussion to the p_ublic hearing. Many
members of the public are planning to attend the public hearing
November 14, 1994.
APPLICANT: Valley -Hi Development Trust, represented by Rick
Neiley, Jr.
LOCATION: 1000 East Hopkins, Aspen
ZONING: Residential Multi -Family (R/MF)
BACKGROUND: The Valley -Hi is a nineteen unit, free market,
apartment building housing approximately 60 working residents.
In June of 1991, the Trust was granted subdivision approval for a
site specific development plan. The property was to be demolished
and rebuilt as a multi -family building containing four free-market
units and four deed restricted units, a twelve car garage and
$45,000 cash -in -lieu payment. This redevelopment plan was created
and approved as part of a lawsuit settlement between the City and
the Valley -Hi Trust. The site specific development plan was
adopted in June, 1991 pursuant to Ordinance 8, Series of 1991. The
Ordinance also granted vested rights for a period of three years.
Please see Ordinance 8 approving the subdivision, Exhibit A.
Vested rights approvals were to expire on June 15, 1994, however,
in 1992, the applicants requested an extension. The extension
requested an additional 2 years to June 15, 1996. Council however
became concerned as to the condition of the building and perceived
unsafe living conditions. As a condition for a vested rights
extension, the applicant agreed to remodel and repair substantial
portions of the building. However, Council only extended the
vested rights for one additional year (to June 15, 1995) suggesting
that the applicant should seek another extension from Council the
following year. Having to reapply for an extension would enable
the applicant to confirm for Council their implementation of a
management and maintenance plan for the building and that the
required repairs were in fact completed as per the condition of the
vested rights extension. Please see Ordinance 57 extending the
vested rights and the minutes of the Council meeting, Exhibit B.
Based upon the Building Department's inspection and recommendations
for upgrades of the building, the applicant states that they spent
approximately $120,000 toward improvements on the property between
1992 and 1993.
Please see attached application for a detailed history of Council's
review of the project, Exhibit C. Please note that the applicant
was compelled to improve the building in 1992 and 1993 as a
condition of the extension of vested rights to June 15, 1995.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Valley -Hi Trust requests an extension of
vested rights status for the site specific development plan that
was approved in 1991. The extension request is for 2 additional
years. Currently vested rights will expire June 15, 1995. The
extension request will preserve the vested rights until June 15,
1997.
STAFF COMMENTS: There are many issues surrounding the current
apartment complex and the vested rights extension request.
Although this memo and recommendation will focus primarily on the
Land Use Code aspects of the application, staff will also briefly
outline the other issues.
1) Allegations of Criminal Activity
In anticipation of the request to extend vested rights, several
neighbors of the Valley -Hi parcel have called to express concern
with regard to alleged criminal activity and the condition of the
building. Staff has fielded several phone calls but no letters
have been submitted for staff's file. Staff understands that
letters have been received by Council regarding this matter. In
addition, there has been no official correspondence from the Police
Department to staff with regard to the alleged criminal activity
on the premises.
E
•
•
The applicant's representative has attempted to follow-up on
neighborhood allegations. Please find attached letters from Rick
Neiley's office, Exhibit D.
In any event, staff does not believe that the issue of criminal
activity on the Valley -Hi parcel is an appropriate land use
consideration for this extension request.
2) Maintenance of Building
The current maintenance of the building is also a concern expressed
by neighbors and in fact was an item of discussion at Council
during the last vested rights extension hearings.
When Council granted vested rights extension in 1992, Council
required the upgrades on the building and the implementation of a
building maintenance and management plan. In addition, Council
only granted a one year extension inviting the applicants to seek
another extension once the upgrades were completed and, according
to the minutes, Councilman Peters wanted a performance record
established. Councilwoman Pendleton agreed that she would rather
wait and look at another extension in another year.
According to the applicants, approximately $120,000 was spent
between 1992 and 1993 to make improvements and repairs on the
building. The applicant has also indicated that a management
company has been hired to maintain the building on an on -going
basis and to enforce occupancy guidelines.
The Chief Building Inspector, Gary Lyman, recently inspected the
building. According to the applicant (Mr. Lyman's report is still
pending) only minor upgrades are necessary such as batteries in
smoke detectors, minor drywall repair, and faucet repair. Mr.
Lyman found that the upgrades that were required in 1992 were
completed and the building was in a reasonably good condition,
given its age.
3) Redevelopment and Vested Rights
The applicants have claimed that if an extension is denied,
redevelopment will occur in June, 1995 and the 60 residents will
be displaced with the redevelopment. The applicants have also
indicated that if the vested rights are extended, then
redevelopment may be delayed until 1997. There are many
circumstances that are considered before redevelopment is to occur.
If the vested rights are not extended and redevelopment were to
occur after the vested rights have lapsed, then any new development
would be required to comply with the current zone district
regulations in effect at the time of redevelopment. Staff has not
analyzed what changes to the site specific development plan would
be required if vested rights were to expire. It is believed that
for the applicants to comply with the Housing Replacement Program
identified in Ordinance 1 of 1990 that more deed restricted,
3
affordable housing, would be required during redevelopment. The
project may be affected by recommendations from the Aspen Area
Community Plan which was adopted after the settlement. In
addition, staff is in the process of developing numerous changes
to the Land Use Code based upon the Temporary Overlay and the
outcome of the Aspen Design Symposium.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request to extend
the vested rights status of the Valley -Hi site specific development
plan. This recommendation is based on the finding that new
development should comply with changes in the Aspen Land Use Code
in order for new development to be consistent with new land use
regulations, polices and visions of the community. For example,
the Housing Replacement Program which affects the demolition of
multi -family development has been adopted since the Valley -Hi
settlement/subdivision approval, the cash -in -lieu fee for
affordable housing has been substantially revised since June of
1991, the Aspen Area Community Plan has been adopted which
recommends significant changes to the general housing programs for
the community, and the Aspen Design Symposium recommendations
suggest several changes to the Land Use Code including a reduction
in allowed floor area ratios.
However, staff recommends Council advance the extension Ordinance
to the public hearing November 14, 1994.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Council may find that the applicant has complied with the
conditions of an approval granted in the 1992 extension request and
may consider an additional one-year extension as was suggested by
Council during their 1992 extension review.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to read Ordinance GO, Series of 1994."
"I move to adopt Ordinance Lc� Series of 1994 on first reading to
advance the vested rights extension request to the public hearing
November 14, 1994."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Ordinance � Series of 1994
EXHIBITS:
A. Ordinance 8, Series of 1991
B. Ordinance 57, Series of 1992
Council Minutes November 9, 1992
C. 1994 Application
D. Applicant Follow-up Letters
4
ORDINANCE _
(SERIES OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A TWO YEAR
EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 8, SERIES OF 1991
FOR THE SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR THE 1000 EAST
HOPKINS PARCEL, THE VALLEY -HI APARTMENTS, LOTS A, H, I, K, & S
BLOCKS 25 AND 26 PLUS THE REMAINDER OF VACATED CLEVELAND STREET,
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City Council may grant an extension of vested rights status
for a site specific development plan; and
WHEREAS, in June of 1991, City Council adopted Ordinance 8,
Series of 1991, approving the redevelopment of the Valley -Hi
property and granting vested rights status for three years from the
approved date of said Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, in November of 1992, City Council granted a one year
extension of the vested rights status for the Valley -Hi site
specific development plan thereby extending the vested rights to
June 15, 1995 (Ordinance No. 57, Series of 1992); and
WHEREAS, as a condition of granting the vested rights
extension, City Council required the applicant to make specific
repairs and upgrades of the building and implement a management and
maintenance plan for the building; and
WHEREAS, Council also recommended that the applicant seek
another extension when those upgrades are completed and the
applicant can demonstrate to Council that proper management of the
building is occurring; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested another vested rights
extension for two additional years extending the vested rights to
1
June 15, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, having considered the request for
an extension of vested rights and having considered the applicant's
upgrades on the building and their implementation of a maintenance
and management plan does wish to grant the requested extension of
vested rights for two years beyond the approval granted in
Ordinance No. 57, Series of 1992, for the 1000 E. Hopkins parcel,
finding community benefit in the improvements and maintenance of
nineteen units of employee housing until said property is
redeveloped.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
section 1:
Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, City Council
does hereby grant the applicant an additional two (2) year
extension for the vested rights approved by Ordinance No. 8, Series
of 1991, for the 1000 East Hopkins parcel as follows:
1. The Valley -Hi Apartments shall be maintained in a clean and
orderly condition until such time as they are demolished prior
to redevelopment pursuant to Ordinance 8, 1991.
2. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for a total of
six (6) years from June 15, 1991, the date of publication of
Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991. However, any failure to
abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval
shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights.
2
3. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
4. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided
that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the
approvals granted and vested herein.
5. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which
are general in nature and are applicable to all property
subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including,
but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and
mechanical codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site
development approval, the developer shall abide by any and
all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 2:
The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published
in a newspaper of general circulations within the City of Aspen no
later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof.
Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following-
3
described property:
111000 East Hopkins, Lots A,H,I,K, and s, Blocks 25 and 26"
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 3•
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption
of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office
of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
Section 5:
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending
under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 6:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
/ ,I
/ day of , 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen
City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing
a public notice of the same shall be published one in a newspaper
of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
4
E
•
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the
City Council of the City of Aspen on the ,-)- C: day of
I; , 1994.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
. 1994.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
5
John Bennett, Mayor
• • EXHIBIT A
�.
ORDINANCE NO.8
(SERIES OF 1991)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL SUBDIVISION/PUD
DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, GMQS EXEMPTION,
AND VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR FOUR FREE MARKET UNITS AND
FOUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 1000 EAST HOPKINS (LOTS A AND K
OF BLOCK 25 AND LOTS H,I, AND S BLOCK 26, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN)
WHEREAS, the Valley Hi Development Trust ("Applicant")
submitted to the Planning Office an application for a Final
Subdivision/PUD Development Plan, Stream Margin review,
Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing and
vesting of development rights to reconstruct eight units at 1000
East Hopkins Ave. The plan was designed in accordance with an
April 1990 legal settlement ("Settlement") between the City of
Aspen and the Applicant; and
1`
WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Engineering
Department, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Fire
Marshal, the Water Department, the Housing Authority, and the
Planning Office and those agencies submitted referral comments;
and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 1990, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission approved Stream Margin Review with conditions and
forwarded a recommendation to City Council to approve Final
Subdivision/PUD review with conditions, including variances to
height and rear setback; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 24-7-1004 D.2.b., 24-7-
' 903, 24-7-1007, and 24-8-104 C.l.c. of the Aspen Municipal Code,
J' the City Council may grant approval to Final Subdivision, PUD
1 1
Development Plans, Condominiumization, and GMQS Exemption for
Affordable Housing; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the
Planning and Zoning Commission's and Planning Office's
recommendations, does wish to grant the Final Subdivision/PUD
Development Plan approval with conditions as well as
Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing, and
Vesting of Development Rights for three years for the development
of four free market units and four deed restricted units at 1000
East Hopkins.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1•
1 That it does hereby grant Final Subdivision/PUD Approval
with the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Planning Office and amended by City Council
for four free market units and four deed restricted affordable
housing units.
Section 2.
In order to accommodate the affordable housing units, in
accordance with Section 7-903 of the Land Use Code, the City
Council approves a PUD variance to allow a zero (0) foot rear
setback for the portion of the structure containing affordable
housing, and a height variance of two (2) feet to the R-MF height
limit restricted to the rear two-thirds (2/3) of the building.
Section 3:
2
The City Council also approves Condominiumization for all
eight units and Growth Management Exemption for the four
affordable housing units.
Section 4:
The conditions of approval which apply to this project are:
1. A Subdivision Agreement shall be recorded concurrently with
the Final Plat.
2. The garage entry drive must not exceed 12% grade for a 20'
distance from the property line.
3. Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter and
sidewalk improvements and for any other work in the public right-
of-way.
4. The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement
District if one is ever formed.
5. The Applicant shall pay for sewer line improvements as
determined by the Sanitation District.
6. Heavy vehicle access must be provided for sewer line
maintenance.
7. The drainage plan for the site shall include oil and sand
interceptors for the garage. Surface run-off shall not enter the
sanitary sewer.
8. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be designed and
installed as per the Fire Marshal's requirements.
9. The Planning Director shall sign off on a GMQS Exemption for
the replacement of four free market dwelling units.
10. No demolition shall occur prior to issuance of a building
3
C permit.
11. The four affordable housing units shall be indexed to the
Housing Guidelines for category #3 (one unit) and category #4
three units) for sale purposes. For rental purposes, all four
unit shall be indexed at category #2.
12. Twelve (12) underground parking spaces shall be provided
according to the Settlement and parking variance allowed by the
PUD review process. Four (4) of these spaces shall be allotted
to the affordable housing units.
13. A two (2) foot variance to the RMF zone height restriction is
limited to the rear 2/3 of the building to accommodate the
affordable housing units.
14. A variance to allow a zero (0) foot setback shall be limited
to the building area containing the affordable housing units.
15. Prior to recordation, a fifteen (15) foot trail easement
shall be dedicated on the plat subject to approval by Engineering
and Planning.
16. Condominium plat and condominium declarations shall be
approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to
recordation.
17. A $45,000.00 cash -in -lieu payment for affordable housing
shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits for the
property.
Within 180 days of City Council's approval of this Final Plat and
Final PUD Plan the following must occur:
18. A Subdivision Plat, "Notice of PUD Designation", Final PUD
4
i
Plan and Subdivision/PUD Agreement must be filed with the County
Clerk as required by Sections 7-1005 E., 7-905 and 7-907 of the
Land Use Code.
19. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission, City Council and Historic Preservation
Committee shall be adhered to and considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise amended in the conditions.
Section 5•
That it does hereby grant Vested Rights for the 1000 East
Hopkins Stream Margin review and Final Subdivision/PUD
Development Plan. The rights granted by the site specific
development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3)
( years from the effective date hereof. However, any failure to
abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of .said vested property
rights. Failure to properly record all plats and agreements
required to be recorded by the Land Use Code shall also result in
the forfeiture of said vested property rights.
Section 6•
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the
adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 7:
A �ulbl'
chearing on th'e Ordinance shall be held on the
Y da of1991 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers
� Y
5
•
•
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the O VA` day of
1991.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
A ST:
Kathrryn VI. -Koch, City Clerk
F NALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
1991.
William L. tirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S%l Koch, City Clerk
jtkvj/1000hop.ord
L
#350764 1016/92 08. 42 Rec $25. GU BF::04 PG 467
Silvia Davis, Pit[. -.in Cnty Clerk:. Doc $.on
ORDINANCE NO. 57 EXHIBIT B
(SERIES OF 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A ONE YEAR
EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 1991 FOR
THE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR THE 1000 E. HOPKINS
PARCEL (A.K.A. THE VALLEY HI APARTMENTS), LOTS A,H,I,K,AND S,
BLOCKS 25 AND 26, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code,
the City Council may grant vested rights status for a site specific
development plan; and
WHEREAS, upon the adoption of Ordinance 8, Series 1991, the
Applicant received approval for the redevelopment of the subject
property as well as vested rights extending for three years from
the approval date of said ordinance; and
WHEREAS, due to the deteriorated condition of the existing
apartments on the site, the owners must make numerous repairs to
continue the livability of the units which are occupied by
employees of the community, until such time that the project is
demolished and replaced by the development approved in 1991; and
WHEREAS, because of the cost of such repairs the Applicant
requested a one year extension to the vested rights approved by
Ordinance 8, Series 1991 in order to allow a greater timeframe to
recover the costs through rents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having reviewed the application
recommends approval of the extension of vested rights for a period
of one year beyond the vested rights approved in Ordinance 8,
Series 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning
Office's recommendations for the extension of vested rights does
1
#350764 11/16/92 o8:42 Rec $25.00 LtK 694 PG 468
Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty C1erF::, Doc $.(-)(-)
wish to grant the requested extension of vested rights for one year
i
beyond the approval granted in Ordinance 8, Series 1991 for the
1000 E. Hopkins parcel, finding community benefit in the
improvements to the employee housing until said property is
redeveloped.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, City
Council does hereby grant the applicant a one year extension for
the vested rights approved by Ordinance 8, Series 1991 for the
1000 E. Hopkins parcel as follows:
1. The Valley Hi Apartments shall be maintained in a clean
1 and orderly condition until such time as they are
/ demolished prior to redevelopment pursuant to Ordinance
8, 1991.
2. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for a
total of four (4) years from June 10, 1991, the date of
final adoption of Ordinance 8, Series 1991. However, any
failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant
to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly
record all plats and agreements as specified herein and
or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the
forfeiture of said vested rights.
2
#350764 11/16/92 08:42 Rec $25.00 BK 694 PG 469
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.0(-)
3. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all
rights of referendum and judicial review.
4. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or
the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City
provided that such reviews or approvals are not
inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested
herein.
5. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall
not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations
which are general in nature and are applicable to all
property subject to land use regulation by the City of
Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire,
plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this
regard, as a condition of this site development approval,
the developer shall abide by any and all such building,
fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless
an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 2•
The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
3
#350 7 64 1 1 / 16 / 9C 08 : 42 Sec $25 . 00 BK: 694 PG 470
Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk:, Doc $-0(-)
1 vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following -
described property:
r
111000 E.,,Hopkins, Lots A,H,I,K,and S, Blocks 25 and 26"
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 3•
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the
adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
section 5•
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and
shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now
pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
Section 6:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of " ,ti1992 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
}
4
#350 7 64 1 1 / 16/92 i 0: 42 Rec $25. )0 Bk:: 694 PG 471
Silvia Davis, PitkAn Cnty Clerk:, Doc $.(-)4
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
r
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the �3 day of
1104*"44/ 1992.
John kennett, Mayor
AT�9Z�SY• 4J
Rach, City Clerk
OPfRALi,Y, adopted, passed and approved this A day of
1992.
JoW Bennett, Mayor
RaShEy : Rdch, City Clerk
Cot 6•R
�1
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9, 1992
WEDINANCE #57, SERIES OF 1992 - 1000 E. Hopkins Vested Rights
Kim Johnson, planning office, reminded Council this ordinance will
extend the vested rights for one year from the original approval to
June 1995. Originally Council expressed concern that the property
needed substantial repairs before they approved the extended vested
rights. Ms. Johnson told Council staff inspected the premises in
the last 10 days. The repairs are complete. The memorandum
details the upgrade to the property. A maintenance agreement
contract has been established with local company.
Rick Neiley, representing the applicant, told Council the property
has received a temporary c/o. There are some issues that have to
be cleared up before a final c/o. The applicants have committed to
the creation of a parking plan. Neiley requested the ordinance be
amended to create a period effective 4 years from June loth. The
project has been delayed several months, and a large amount of
money has been invested in it.
Councilman Peters said his inclination is to approve it as written.
It would be in the public's interest to grant another extension if
applied for next year. A one year extension is appropriate given
the history of this project. There should be some performance
before the vested rights is extended more. Councilwoman Pendleton
agreed she would rather wait and look at another extension next
June. Councilwoman Richards agreed.
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Pendleton moved to adopt Ordinance #57, Series of
1992, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Peters. Roll call
vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes. Motion carried.
•
• EXHIBIT C
VALLEY -HI APARTMENTS
1000 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
SECOND APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS
Valley -Hi Development Trust
c/o Carl B. Linnecke, CPA
215 South Monarch Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Representative:
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr.
Neiley & Alder
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-9393
INTRODUCTION
Valley -Hi Development Trust is the owner of the Valley -Hi
Apartments located at 1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado
81611. On June 10, 1991, the Trust was granted subdivision ap-
proval for the demolition of existing improvements on the real
property and the construction of four free-market and four deed -
restricted affordable housing units.
The owners now seek a two-year extension of vested
rights, through June 15, 1997.
The original development approvals were granted pursuant
to Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, a copy of which is attached
hereto as Appendix I. That Ordinance also granted vested rights
pursuant to 96-207 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City
of Aspen and applicable state statutes. Vesting of rights was
granted for a period of three years from the effective date of
Ordinance No. 8. The original date of expiration of the
development approvals was June 15, 1994.
In 1992, the owners submitted an Application for
Extension of Vested Rights, seeking a two-year extension through
June 15, 1996. The basis for this application was two -fold:
first, market conditions did not warrant demolition and recon-
struction at the time, and second, in order to maintain a safe and
habitable property, substantial sums were required to upgrade the
nineteen rental apartment units.
Following public hearing, the City granted an extension
of vested rights for a period of one year. Presently, the owners'
development approvals will expire on June 15, 1995. The extension
of vested rights was processed as an ordinance. A copy of the
extension Ordinance is attached hereto as Appendix II.
The Trust has again determined that it does not at the
present time wish to demolish the improvements on the real prop-
erty. When seeking extension of vested rights in 1992, the owners
determined that approximately $65,000.00 in improvements were
necessary to upgrade the units to an acceptable level. However,
following inspections by the Building Department and the need to
address health/safety issues, the extent of remodel was substan-
tially increased. Between 1992 and 1993, improvements to the real
property totalled approximately $120,000.00.
In 1992, when an extension of vested rights was approved,
the City Council indicated a willingness to consider further
extensions of vested rights following completion of the remodel and
implementation of a new maintenance and management program at the
property. Both such programs have been implemented. The owners
have contracted with Mike's Maintenance, a contracting business
owned by Michael Adams of Aspen, Colorado, which provides regular
inspections, repairs and maintenance services. The present condi-
1
tion of the building is substantially better than at any time since
the owners acquired the property in 1988.
A new leasing program has been implemented and is managed
by Carl B. Linnecke, CPA. The owners have diligently attempted to
control the number of occupants in the units and, over the past
year, have served notice on several tenants to vacate the premises
for violation of occupancy limitations. Inspections are done on a
regular basis, and in general, greater control over the number of
tenants in each unit has been achieved. The property remains an
apartment complex occupied by working people, and it unquestionably
fulfills a very real and important need in the community. The two
buildings on site contain a total of nineteen units housing
approximately sixty local, working people. It is one of only
several buildings of its type remaining in Aspen. The immediate
demolition of the structure would result in displacement of workers
with virtually no present alternative living options. Thus,
extension of vested rights insures the continued availability of
this necessary housing.
HISTORY
The Trust acquired the property on August 25, 1988.
Prior to the acquisition, a variety of preliminary efforts had been
undertaken in conjunction with the Planning Office and City Council
which would have resulted in the demolition of the two buildings on
the property. The buildings contain nineteen rental apartment
units. The buildings were constructed in the early- 1960's and were
in 1988 in a decrepit condition.
In August of 1988, the Aspen City Council imposed a mora-
torium prohibiting demolition of the improvements on the property.
Subsequent to the imposition of the moratorium, the Trust sought
exemption on the grounds that it had been involved in the planning
process. The request for exemption was denied.
After several extensions to the demolition moratorium,
the Planning Office and City Council, with the input of the public
including representatives of the Trust, adopted Ordinance No. 47,
Series of 1988, in February of 1989. In April of 1989, the Trust
submitted its redevelopment application in accordance with Ordi-
nance No. 47. On May 5, 1989, the Planning Department notified the
Trust that its application was complete; a public hearing before
the Planning & Zoning Commission was set for June 20, 1989.
Following the May 1989 election of new council members,
City Council adopted Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1989, imposing a
new administrative delay in the processing of development applica-
tions effective May 8, 1989. Again, the Trust was caught in a
moratorium, and again, exemption from the moratorium was requested
and denied. The new moratorium was extended several times, and for
many months, the Planning Office and Council worked on the adoption
of a new replacement housing ordinance.
E
�J
•
During this time, the City and representatives of the
Trust examined various ways of resolving the Trust's claim of a
right to proceed with its development application.
Finally, in the spring of 1991, a resolution of the dis-
pute between the Trust and the City of Aspen was reached pursuant
to which demolition would be permitted and reconstruction of the
project could go forward. This was formalized by Ordinance No. 8,
Series of 1991, on June 10, 1991.
Because of changes in market conditions, by the summer of
1991, it was no longer desirable to proceed with the redevelopment
of the Valley -Hi property. Because the buildings will ultimately
be demolished, the Trust has been reluctant to expend funds for the
extensive repairs necessary. However, in 1992, because deteriora-
tion of the buildings had reached a point where several units were
uninhabitable, the Trust was faced with a dilemma of closing down
units or performing repairs for which there was little likelihood
of recovering the costs thereof. The Trust proceeded with the
improvements but has been unable to recoup the costs incorporated
into the building at the present time.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS
The Trust was granted vested rights for a three-year
period pursuant to §6-207 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen. Vested rights are currently available through
June 15, 1994. Vested rights have now been extended through June
15, 1995.
The Aspen Municipal Code does not provide a specific
mechanism for requests for extension of vested rights.
The Trust is willing to commit to defer demolition of the
building for a minimum of twelve months. The Trust requests that
a new ordinance be adopted granting a new period of vested rights
for the improvements identified in the Subdivision Agreement and
recorded Plat for 1000 East Hopkins Avenue through June 15, 1997.
This request for extension of vested rights complies with
the requirements of §6-207(E) of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen as a site specific development plan has been approved and the
Trust has complied with all conditions attendant to its original
development approval. It further complies with the conditions of
the state vested rights statute, §24-68-101, et seci., C.R.S.
Specifically, §24-68-104(2), C.R.S. provides that vested rights in
excess of three years may be permitted after consideration of all
relevant circumstances. A copy of that statutory authority is
attached hereto as Appendix III.
Economic circumstances justify an extension of the vested
rights previously granted the Trust. The Trust spent approximately
twice what was originally projected for the repairs to the
3
property. It is reasonable to grant additional time to allow the
Trust to recoup some of those costs. No violation of any public
purpose would result from the extension, and some of the least
expensive free-market housing in the City
available in the rental market while the
Housing Authority continues its efforts t
housing for the working people of Aspen.
4
will continue to be
Aspen/Pitkin County
o provide affordable
NEILEY & ALDER
• ATTORNEYS •
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., P.C.
Eugene N1. Alder, P.C.
HAND DELIVERY
Tom Stevenson, Chief
Aspen Police Department
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Tom:
(303) 925-9393
October 11, 1994
Re: Valley -Hi Apartments
1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen
EXHIBIT D
FAX Dumber
(303)925.9396
This office represents the owners of the Valley -Hi
Apartments. I am processing an application for extension of vested
rights for my clients, and in connection therewith, a referral
request was issued to your department. On August 18, 1994, Officer
Beth Ufkes submitted a response, a copy of which I enclose.
We take strong issue with Ms. Ufkes' response. As you
can see, this response cites many criminal complaints that are on-
going at the property. It also indicates that the owners of the
property have been informed of the problems and have failed to take
any action.
First, I have been in direct communication with the
owners and the local managing agent, Carl B. Linnecke, CPA. None
of the owners has ever received any contact from the Aspen Police
Department. Mr. Linnecke has been contacted on one occasion,
approximately two weeks ago regarding a theft investigation. This
contact was with Ed Piccolo. Mr. Linnecke was entirely coopera-
tive, and we have heard nothing further on this matter. Both Mr.
Linnecke and I are the local agents for the property and are the
registered agent and officers for the corporate general partner.
Neither of us has ever been apprised by any member of your
department of any problems with criminal activities at the
property.
The suggestion in Ms. Ufkes' referral response is that
the owners of the property do not care about criminal activity and
have actually ignored on -going problems. This creates real dif-
f iculties for the property owners in connection with their land use
Letter to Mr. Steven
October 6, 1994
Page 2
application and is not an accurate depiction. Quite to opposite is
true.
In the fall of 1992 after completing a substantial
remodel of the project, Mr. Linnecke contacted your department and
requested that he be apprised of criminal activities and complaints
at the project so that appropriate action could be taken by the
owner in the form of evictions. Mr. Linnecke was advised that such
information was not available for public dissemination because of
privacy concerns.
On March 24, 1994, I personally filed a criminal com-
plaint with your department in connection with what we believed was
an active drug dealing situation at the complex. The drug dealing
had been brought to my attention by Mr. Linnecke and our on -site
management company. When I filed the complaint, I provided the
apartment number and names of the tenants and the names of three
witnesses who could be contacted. We requested that an investi-
gation be undertaken and that we receive a response to our
concerns. After the expiration of approximately three months
without either a return call or any other communication from your
department, we evicted the tenants and solved the problem
ourselves.
We believe Ms. Ufkes' communication with the Planning
Office grossly mis characterizes the actual circumstances at the
Valley -Hi Apartments and should be retracted.
As to the alleged "many criminal complaints that are on-
going," we have no direct knowledge of this information. However,
since this has a direct bearing on both our land use application
and my clients' concerns regarding management and liability at the
property, we want to be brought up to date regarding the situation.
In this regard,'please consider this letter my formal request for
the following information:
1. An itemization of all criminal complaints received
related to the Valley -Hi Apartments from November 1992 to the
present;
2. A detailed list of all criminal charges brought
against individuals at the Valley -Hi Apartments from November 1992
to the present;
3. A detailed list of all arrests made at the Valley -Hi
Apartments from November 1992 to the present;
Letter to Mr. Steven
October 6, 1994
Page 3
•
4. Any other information maintained by your department
which substantiates the statement that there are "many criminal
complaints that are on -going at this location."
We feel that this information is essential to both
explain the content and recommendation of your department's
response to the Planning Office's referral request and to an
effective management of the property. It is our impression that
virtually all of the occupants of the Valley -Hi Apartments are
hard-working, honest members of the community. We have compiled a
list of the employers of our tenants which I enclose. While we can
obviously not guarantee that otherwise hard-working persons are not
involved in criminal activities, we do not believe that there are
extensive criminal activities at the property. Your assistance in
clarifying this issue would be greatly appreciated.
Ve,i-� truly yours,
NULEY & ALDER
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr.
RYN/agk
Enclosures
• MESSAGE DISPLAY •
TO
AMY MARGERUM CC 101
CC BILL EFTING CC MARY LACKNER
CC 102 CC LESLIE LAMONT
From: Beth Ufkes
Postmark: Aug 18,94 2:55 PM
Status: Certified Previously read
Subject: EXTENSION FOR VALLEY HIGH APARTMENTS, 1000 EAST HOPKINS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS LEARNED THAT THE EXTENTION FOR 1000 EAST
HOPKINS MAY BE ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA IN OCTOBER. WE ARE AGAINST ANY
EXTENSION FOR THIS PROPERTY DUE TO THE MANY CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS THAT
ARE ON GOING AT THIS LOCATION. THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN
INFORMED AND HAVE FAILED TO TAKE ANY ACTION. SHOULD WE HAVE A MEETING
TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE FURTHER?
vV1 v61 wµ ♦ "Ll 0#4 t avvv YPI f-I .v
Carl B. Linneckel.,PPA, P.C.
azs South Monarch Street • Aspen, Colorado 81611 • TEL 303/925-1040 • FAX 3o;IGzj-4468
October 5, 1994
Rick Neiley
201 N. Mill St., sto 102
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Valley Hi Tenants
Dear Rick,
Sent Via FAX
Following is a list of the places the tenants in the Valley Hi work:
La Cocina
Little Annie's
Planet Hollywood
Hard Rock
Aspen Club Lodge
Aspen Grove Restaurant
Explorer Bookseller
Kenichi
Friedl's
Smuggler Land Office
Jour de Fete
Mountain House
Durgin Electric
ChaninIs
Hickory House
Carnivale
Mirabelli
Renaissance Restaurant
Shadow Mountain Lodge
Aspen Square
Lime Light Lodge
Little Nell
Ritz Carlton
Hotel Jerome
Woody Creek Roofing
Please be advised that the natural tendency to say these people are all
dishwashers or transient is not true. Many are. prep cooks at the
restaurants. The women are house keepers for the most part. The guy
who works at Explorer told me he has been there six years.
Let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
Car-CB.'
ar B. Linnecke, CPA
NEILEY & ALDER
0 ATTORNEYS
•
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., P.C.
Eugene M. Alder, P.C. (303) 925-9393
October 11, 1994
John S. Bennett, Mayor
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear John:
Re: Valley -Hi Apartments, 1000 E. Hopkins Avenue,
Aspen, CO
FAX Number
(303) 925-9396
I represent Valley -Hi Development Trust, the owner of
Valley -Hi Apartments at 1000 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen. As I
believe you are aware, we are currently processing an application
for extension of vested rights in connection with land use
approvals originally granted in June of 1991. At present, those
approvals expire on June 15, 1995.
The Planning Office has advised me that you are
scheduling a meeting with certain neighborhood residents for
Friday, October 14, 1994. I understand the purpose of this meeting
is to discuss concerns of the neighbors regarding the management of
the apartment complex. I believe it would be appropriate for a
Valley -Hi Apartments representative to attend this meeting. While
I will be out of town on that day, the local manager, Carl B.
Linnecke, C.P.A., will make time for the meeting. He can be
reached at 925-1040. If you could have someone contact him
regarding the time of the meeting, we would appreciate it.
Since certain people in the neighborhood are lobbying for
a denial of our extension application, I think it is appropriate to
provide you with some information regarding the current status of
the property. I have received a copy of the September 30, 1994,
letter from the East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents
Association, which I understand has also been provided to the
Planning Office and Members of the City Council.
Enclosed herewith you will find a copy of my recent
letter to Police Chief Tom Stephenson. The allegation that the
Valley -Hi Apartments is a warren of criminal activity is to our
knowledge simply untrue. As you can see from my letter to Tom, we
have never been advised of criminal activity at the property and in
fact, have been pro -active in attempting to eliminate undesirable
tenants. I have asked for details regarding any criminal activity
over the past two years. I do want to emphasize that none of
• •
John S. Bennett, Mayor
October 11, 1994
Page 2
the owners, the management or local representatives of the property
have ever been confronted by any law enforcement or City
representative with complaints of criminal activity at the
property. If these allegations are true, we will take prompt steps
to rectify the problem.
Ralph Braden, who recently purchased the property
immediately next door to the Valley -Hi Apartments, this summer
complained about the condition of and the tenants at the complex.
Inasmuch as Ralph purchased the property for speculative
development purposes, it is understandable that he would like to
see the apartment building removed and redeveloped as soon as
possible. We understand that Ralph is the head of the East Hopkins
Property Owners and Residents Association and is responsible for
the September 30, 1994, letter. That letter grossly
mischaracterizes the situation at the Valley -Hi Apartments. We
have contacted Lenny Oates, the association attorney, and have
advised him of our willingness to discuss the perceived problems.
The true picture of the Valley -Hi Apartments is one of a
worker oriented residential complex including singles, families and
small children. Attached to my letter to Tom Stephenson is a list
of the employers of many of the people at the Valley -Hi Apartments.
Our tenants are hard working, integral members of the Aspen
community. We feel the real problem that underlies the neighbors'
complaints is the fact that 18 of the 19 apartments at the complex
are occupied by individuals of Hispanic origin. As more and more
of these people join our resident and work force, we see a greater
and greater level of prejudice and distrust develop in our
community. In a very real sense, the concept of Aspen as an open
minded, diverse community is challenged by the recent changes in
our demographics.
I enclose a copy of an article from the October 5, 1994,
Aspen Times which deals with the difficulty of worker displacement
and specifically refers to the Valley -Hi Apartments. Our proposal
would defer this displacement for an additional year and thus
provide the community more time to address this problem.
The local manager, Carl Linnecke, and I met with Gary
Lyman, Chief Building Inspector, on the site yesterday. In
visiting all the units except for one, it was determined that the
building remains in reasonably good condition, considering its age,
and that building and safety upgrades, which were implemented two
years ago, remain in place. Gary will be providing a report to the
Planning Office. Only a few minor repair needs were identified.
These include the need to replace batteries in smoke detectors, the
repair of a couple of faucets and some minor drywall repair.
John S. Bennett, Ma •
October 11, 1994
Page 3
Contrary to allegations of the neighbors, the complex has not been
ignored or neglected. In fact, the owners spend in excess of
$1,000.00 a month on maintenance and repair. The buildings are
old, having been constructed in the late 1960's, and thus require
a higher level of care than newer properties and have a less
desirable appearance.
Recent inspections of the property establish that there
are no junk cars or accumulations of trash on the property. Loose
trash is picked up at least once a week by our maintenance
contractor and we have regular dumpster service. I did notice when
I was at the property last week two large rolls of carpet sticking
out of the dumpster. These were courtesy of one of the neighbors.
This is a high occupancy building and the maintenance requirements
are constant. We try to address those requirements as effectively
as possible.
We are willing to discuss the perceived problems with the
neighborhood association and the City. We feel that our request
for extension of vested rights is appropriate for a variety of
reasons expressed in our application including the fact that the
displacement of the occupants of 19 units in the next six months
does not seem desirable in light of the current housing crunch.
When we last sought an extension of vested rights we sought two
additional years because of the substantial amount of money being
invested to upgrade the property. We were granted a one year
extension and were requested to return after the expiration of a
year to seek additional time to recoup the capital expenditure.
Please let me know if a representative of the Valley -Hi
Apartments will be allowed to attend your meeting on October 14.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
V r truly yours,
Y & ALDER
J r
1
r i hard Y. Neiley, Jr.
RYN/dd
Enclosures
cc: Carl B. Linnecke
Valley -Hi Development Trust
Leslie Lamont
Lenny Oates/East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents
Association
Bennett.1tr
ASD*n.. onues .
P1
®
acea:xe
By Gil L'Rudawsky'"ket ., . -T
Aspen Times Staff Writer ".. housing have approvals to redevelop
the property and there is some concern'.
The Aspen City;Council.starfed the._;..that the current residents wquld.be:left
wheels,`rollinb on a policy;that:could ,.!without a place to live.`; - ; <_ - Z-.
require`iievelopers'to provide housing "for "'There was also''some� talk'about the
residents displaced by new construction. = ::free-market' Park Meadows building, for- 3.
"If.developers- displace an employee, °rrierly located off Highway .82, across
they should be responsible:to'find them a ='from Tiehack:=The' Iow-income rental t,
new place"to stay,"•city council member *apartment house was torn down to make',
Terry'Paulson 'said during 'aninformal : way for the upscale Maroon' Creek Golf. k
meeting this week. _,_ :Club.: -..
-'The city currently does not have'a poli _.About 48 Park Meadows residents -1
cy to -directly help'displaced workers '`'were -evicted from their units in June
kicked out of'low-rent, free-market hous- `.1993. Developers said they will replace a
ing, but there seemed to be interest by portion of the units, -but the new units are
some city council members to look at .'not intended to accommodate the former.,
passing an ordinance to address this issue.-, .'- residents. = r •'
The city currently has* numerous free-''- •_:r "Paulson said that he is particularly con-4
market housing units around town that cerned about displacement since he'was
provide an Inexpensive place"to stay for ---!kicked out of his rental home five years
area workers., Over, the years, these units.;; ago and left without.a place to live. He ,
have become'more and more scarcer *.'also "said that working at City Market,
City council specifically had some con- where he 'is assistant manager, he sees
cerns about residents -at theValley Hi`'many employees who are displaced by
rental apartments,' located on East Hop-"--' developers.
kins Avenue. The owners of the free-mar-:"� ® See Displaced on page 8
■ contin om page 3 e city again tried to stop the trend 'id 19S
This is art issue that's close to me, Paulson said. • .,'when it passed an impact mitigation ordinance aimi
Council member Rachel Richards was against a g
• ' � � , ._ g . at new construction. For instance, if an existing free
displacement proposal, since she said it would only market structure is demolished to make way for`
discourage people from building rental housing..'larger-home, the builder is required to mitigate the
—: �. "Why would They build a rental housing project if impact.: - a
..they know they will have to take care of the res- - ,5
idents forever?".Richards said.
` Aspen City Manager Amy-Margerum said
that other communities with tight housing mar -
kets have ordinances -t6i'require developers "If developers displace an
L4 \ v
tearing down rental housing fo provrde fhe•resi
:dents displaced a new .place 'to live. Margerum employee, they should be
'said, for instance, that Santa Barbara currently
has a displacement ordinance r� _ responseble to find them a newAl
t, The city council will direct the Aspen/Pitkrn
ounty Housing Board to look at developing a ! place t0 stay/.' `
displacement ordinance and'offcr its fecommen-�`
;dations to the elected officials*._ ;S l . Te»y Paulson, Aspen city council memN
According to housing officals; the tearing :
down of existing free-market projects and build
ing'million-dollar. homes has been.
going on:
since the early 1980s ' - f
t-
' -During that time, 'the employee population•of
-the city dropped from 60 percent 'to 40 percent,
largely because of second-horrie construction,"
according to housing officials. _: /._; -M' Builders *get credit'for the 1. square footage of th
In 1989, the housing office built 89 units at old home' but have to pay an additional $14 pe
'-Tniscott Place to stop the displacement, butwhile the square foot if the new structure is larger than the on
project was under construction, housing officials said -demolished. Or, a developer could build a larg
An equal number of employees were displaced by . home with an employee unit attached to the structur
-:second -home construction:'' or deed -restrict the home.
+ r:� .L• , S,. ..� , - "`s �a;�-�s n15 t
.. 'f[.di --� � . -S+� � y "a..'►: r l t.r ��1. C.x �� ��1�-[� <•�%y'�-`"- �"�►.41 .s�_ � ���rlY .� 1, �5 �C •{s��`-i'� _4 [v�rlL rS'���ifli_c�i�'-'"ykR' •� �.� y,.�
Valley Hi Apartments are home to folks like two -year -old Tony Mendes'(above),
taking a break from wheeling up and down the hallways of the building, which
offers basic accommodations for moderate rents. '
Ramon Medrano (left), Is another Valley Hi resident.
• He is shown spending his day off from Kenichi Restaurant,
- preparing a meal common to his El Salvadoran homeland - boiled
cow -tongue tacos. The owners of Valley Hi, which Is a -free-market ' • .
operation, already have the necessary approvals to redevelop the property.
If that happens, the city council is concerned about whether _
Tony and Ramon could find other affordable housing. Travis Caperton -photos.
•
•
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., P.C.
Eugene M. Alder, P.C.
NEILEY & ALDER
ATTORNEYS
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303)925-9393
October 12, 1994
Leonard M. Oates
Oates, Hughes & Knezevich, P.C.
533 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Valley -Hi Apartments
1000 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen
Dear Lennie:
FAX Number
(303) 925.9396
This letter is a follow-up to our telephone conversation
of yesterday regarding the above property and your representation
of East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents Association.
As you know, my clients, the Valley -Hi Development Trust,
take issue with the September 30, 1994, letter put out by your
clients. You indicated that you would provide me with a copy of
the "crime list for East Hopkins" which your clients obtained from
the police department. Please fax this to me at 925-9396. As you
can see from my enclosed letter to Police Chief Tom Stephenson, we
were attempting to independently determine the extent of the crime
problem at the Valley -Hi Apartments.
I also enclose a copy of my letter of yesterday to Mayor
John Bennett. As that letter suggests and as we discussed, my
clients feel strongly that a substantial reason for the neighbor-
hood opposition to the requested extension of vested rights is
prejudice against the Hispanic occupants of the building.
In our conversation yesterday I requested a list of the
members of the East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents
Association. I hope you will provide this to us in the near
future. It is difficult for us to effectively address the concerns
of a faceless "association". We would be willing to meet with the
members of the association and you at any mutually convenient time.
If there are specific issues which can be addressed, we would be
happy to explore means of alleviating the neighborhood concerns.
The generic complaints in the September 30, 1994, letter, however,
do not provide much by way of real identifiable issues. Perhaps a
review of your "crime list" and any information the police
department makes available will provide one area of focus. If
Letter to Mr. Oates
October 12, 1994
Page 2
there are other concerns that your clients would like to discuss,
please let me know.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Ve jEY
ruly yours,
N & ALDER
1
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr.
RYN/dd
Enclosures
Oates.Itr
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
FROM: Stan Clauson, City C.D. Director, y'
L
DATE: 1 November 1994
RE: Valley -Hi Site Tour
Gary Lyman has suggested that a tour of the building may assist Council in
understanding the quality of construction and current condition of the Valley -
Hi complex. Staff would be pleased to schedule a visit for any Council members
interested in visiting the site. Gary will be preparing a more detailed report on
improvements required and installed at Valley -Hi during the past year, along with
any current issues with the structure.
Please contact me (920-5099) or Leslie Lamont (920-5101) if you wish to
arrange for a tour of the site.
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., P.C.
Eugene M. Alder, P.C.
HAND DELIVERY
NEILEY & ALDER 09200
ATTORNEYS
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Aspen, Colorado 81611
FAX Number
(303)925-9393 (303)925-9396
October 20, 1994
Leslie Lamont
Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Valley -Hi Apartments, 1000 East Hopkins Avenue
Dear Leslie:
Enclosed herewith you will find the following:
1. Copy of Tom Stephenson's letter to me dated October
12, 1994; and
2. Copy of my letter of today's date to Lennie Oates.
Once I have had an opportunity to review your memo to
City Council, I will provide any additional information that we
feel is appropriate in light of your recommendation of denial. In
the meantime, if you need any information from me, please call.
Yry truly yours,
NE EY & ALDER
is and Y. Neiley, Jr.
RYN:aja
encl.
ti
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., P.C.
Eugene M. Alder, P.C.
HAND DELIVERY
Thomas J. Stephenson
Chief of Police
The City of Aspen
506 East Main Street
Suite 102
Aspen, Colorado 81611
NEILEY & ALDER
ATTORNEYS
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-9393
October 20, 1994
Re: Valley -Hi Apartments, 1000 East Hopkins Avenue
Dear Chief Stephenson:
FAX Number
(303) 925-9396
Thank for your letter of October 12, 1994. I was aware
that several neighbors of the Valley -Hi Apartments planned to
oppose our extension of vested rights application and that one had
raised the issue of criminal activity at the apartment building.
As I mentioned in my previous letter, reports of drug
dealing had reached us and were passed on to your department. As
recently as this week, we advised one of your officers that we did
not intend to renew leases on a number of units where we suspected
criminal drug activities might be occurring. I understand that
today a number of arrests were made at the complex.
The owners and management of the Valley -Hi Apartments
have always been open to discussion of ways to improve the
condition of the complex. In the past, we have offered to
cooperate and have cooperated with police investigations.
I do want to emphasize that my client adamantly disagrees
that any neighbor's concerns were "callously rebuffed." In fact,
we have offered to meet with representatives of the neighborhood
association but have received no response.
Thomas J. Stephenson
Chief of Police
October 20, 1994
Page Two
I agree that the time is ripe for productive dialogue
regarding the property. I think it would be useful to have a
representative of the police department at a meeting with the
neighborhood representatives. If I receive a response to our
proposal for a meeting with the neighbors, I will contact your
office to coordinate our schedules.
Very truly yours,
NEY & ALDER
idhard Y. Neiley, Jr.
RYN:aja
cc: vl�,eslie Lamont
Aspen Planning Department
Valley -Hi Development Trust
•
•
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., P.C.
Eugene M. Alder, P.C.
By: Hand Delivery
NEILEY & ALDER
ATTORNEYS
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303)925-9393
October 12, 1994
Leslie Lamont
Aspen Planning Department
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Valley -Hi Apartments
1000 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen
Dear Leslie:
Enclosed herewith you will find the following:
FAX Number
(303) 925-9396
1. Copy of my letter of October 11, 1994, to Police
Chief Tom Stephenson, with attachments.
2. Copy of my letter of October 11, 1994, to Mayor John
Bennett, with attachment (excluding copy of letter to Chief
Stephenson).
3. Copy of my letter of October 12, 1994, to Lennie
Oases, attorney for East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents
Association.
In accordance with our conversation of last week, the
first reading of our Ordinance extending vested rights is set for
October 24, 1994; the second reading and public hearing is set for
November 14, 1994. Since numerous witnesses will be attending the
November 14, 1994, hearing date, it is critical that this date not
change.
As we obtain additional information which bears upon our
application, I will provide additional supplements. I believe the
enclosed letters should be included in your memorandum to City
Council. If and when we receive the information we have requested
from the Police Department, I will provide you with a copy. On
October 10, 1994, we conducted a site visit with Gary Lyman, Chief
Building Inspector. You should have his report shortly and I would
appreciate receiving a copy.
Letter to Ms. Lamont
October 12, 1994
Page 2
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Ve truly you
Lrs,
NE & ALDER
�I
ichard Y. Neiley, Jr.
RYN/dd
Enclosures
Lamont.ltr
J6ROME C,0Lat1A1A
P. o. sox 249
ASP�6N, COLO"bO 81612
Oct. 14 ,' 1'9 4RiB D
To members of the City Council Augie Reno, Terry
Paulson, Rachel Richards, Georgeanne Waggaman;
Mayor John Bennett and City Manager Amy Marc arum: kti;
As a long-time homeowner on East Hopkins, it has come to
my attention that there is an issue coming before the
Council that I feel strongly about. The Council will
shortly consider an extension of a building permit on the
site of the Valley Hi apartments at 1000 E. Hopkins.
The last couple of years have seen a deterioration of the
physical appearance of the building. The front is
generally strewn and piled with refuse and litter. The
appearance gives our neighborhood a run-dowri'ap'peararice.'
The building is obviously poorly maintained and managed.
There has been an increase of crime in our neighborhood.
We feel that our security overall has been compromised.
My wife does not feel comfortable walking past the building,
as there have been occassions whereby the residents there
have stood on their balconies and made derisive remarks
in her direction.
THIS IS NOT WHY WE MOVED TO ASPEN!!
THIS IS NOT WHAT SO-CALLED EMPLOYEE HOUSING IN ASPEN IS
MEANT TO BE.
The building permit granted in June of 1991 is now outdated
in regard to current land use and zoning. I strongly
urge you NOT to grant another 2 year extension of their
building permit so that units that enhance the neighborhood
instead of detract from it can be built.
I will be closely observing how you vote on this issue.
Y ur Consti uent,
Jerome Goldman
830 East Hopkins
Aspen
RF(;1=1VED
OCT 17 ;Ecf
Gity ManjeriPrayor's Cfficl
RECF!\/ D
+� Karen Goldman 1 I p1¢
830 East Hopki s SUTER ��,d
Aspen,. Colo.. 8 `" —.City MaFliiespo1'3p Qv_ _ {Cif
NOV 3 1994 �v ���,
I am writing you regarding an issue of utmost importance
to me. The owner's or the Valley Hi apartments at 1000
East Hopkins have requested a 2 year extension of their
building permit. I strongly urge you NOT to grant this
extension.
I am a woman living in the East end. Periodically I am
subjected to catcalls and obscene gestures by residents
of that building as I jog by the apartment..I am afraid
to jog by at night unless I am with some other people..
Sometimes autos driven by residents of the Valley Hi have
come uncomfortably close to me while riding my bicycle
in the East end. A lady I know iho lives across the E..
Hopkins bridge had the side of her home spray painted
I have heard from numerous residents in the area about
increased thefts..
Now I moved from a big city to Asper_ some time ago to
escape what is currently happening in the East end..
Judging from what has happened in other parts of the
country, these things just don't get better. The opposite
occurs..
I have heard frequent phrases like multi -ethnic tolerance,
cultuxall diversity and the like bandied about.. Let's face
it.. I don't particularly care whether the population
of the Valley Hi are Latino.'s,Albanians or a bunch of
rednecks from Georgia: This is what is happening NOW in
the East end.. There is indeed a fear --not of people of
another skin color, but a fear of what is actually taking
place here..
Those of you who do not live in the East end do not know
and cannot experience what those of us who live there do..
Remember -'Judge us not until you walk a mile in our moccasins.'
Therefore, I feel a wake-up call is in order..
This is not what employee housing is all about or meant to
be like in Aspen..It's time to remove the slum and get some
decent units built at 1000 E..Hopkins, instead of continuing
to fatten the wallets of the out -of -the -country owners of
the Valley Hi at our expense.
I will be closely following. your vote on this issue.
Your Constituent,
Karen Goldman
•
Dear Mayor Bennett v
Karen Goldman • RECEIVED
830 East Hopkins NOV } MA
Aspen,. Colo.. 81611
I am writing ,you regarding an issue
to me. The owner's oi' the Valley Hi
East Hopkins have requested a 2 year
building permit. I strongly urge you
extension.
ity Pllanz�arlMayo�s ottice
T1----..—
i
of utmost importan��:�o:�st ry„
apartments at 1000'%k !Nate:
extension of thei�;r--"-----
NOT to grant this --"
I am a woman living in the East end. Periodically I am
subjected to catcalls and obscene gestures by residents
of that building as I jog by the apartment..I am afraid
to jog by at night unless I am with some other people..
Sometimes autos driven by residents of the Valley Hi have
come uncomfortably close to me while riding my bicycle
in the East end. A lady I know iho lives across the E..
Hopkins bridge had the side of her home spray painted
I have heard from numerous residents in the area about
increased thefts..
Now I moved from a big city to Asper_ some time ago to
escape what is currently happening in the East end..
Judging from what has happened in other parts of the
country, these things just don't get better. The opposite
occurs..
I have heard frequent phrases like multi -ethnic tolerance,
cultural diversity and the like bandied about.. Let's face
it..I don't particularly care whether the population
of the Valley Hi are Latino.'s,Albanians or a bunch of
rednecks from Georgia. This is what is happening NOW in
the East end.. There is indeed a fear --not of people of
another skin color, but a fear of what is actually taking
place here..
Those of you who do not live in the East end do not know
and cannot experience what those of us who live there do..
Remember -'Judge us not until you walk a mile in our moccasins.'
Therefore, I feel a wake-up call is in order..
This is not what employee housing is all about or meant, to
be like in Aspen..It's time to remove the slum and get some
decent units built at 1000 E..Hopkins, instead of continuing
to fatten the wallets of the out -of -the -country owners of
the Valley Hi at our expense,.
I will be closely following, your vote on this issue.
Your Constituent,
Karen Gol an
• C(-k AP -(-ES hkfloi�l
9%0 6
A-see?,j c-Q� !&ILOtt
9,v Oafs:
="V.
,;.,rj - g
o _I-qy
NOV 3 M4
-'Mayor'$ offiv
r Wiz, r4 +2s off. ;n� A. 6 N ilk-
_PCs
October 31, 1994
Mr. John Bennett
Mayor
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
ASPEN, CO 81611
U.S.A.
Dear Mr. Bennett,
Harry C. Moore NOV I
G,ty IV!aH.ver;;::aaar's 0!fice
DIS:... BUTED� n
f�es,:jnse By:
U:ate:
My wife and I are owners of a duplex condominium at 1018 East
Hopkins Ave. For some years we have been shocked at the dangerous
conditions at the Valley Hi apartment complex several doors down
the street from us. As you well know, the latest reason for our
concern is the recent arrest of 19 individuals in a drug raid by
the police. This comes as no surprise to us as we were well aware
of such a possibility.
The purpose of this letter is to register a complaint to the City
of the existence of such a disreputable establishment within the
city limits. We are not clear as to whether the City is enforcing
the building and zoning restriction there. It would certainly
appear to us that they are not. We have been led to believe in the
past that certain requirements had been made for them to clean up
their act but are rather of the opinion that this has not been
done. We would be most grateful if we could have some reassurance
from you as to what you plan to do to remedy this very unpleasant
and dangerous situation.
Sincerely,
Harry C. oore
cc: Gary M. Feldman
Showcase Properties
P.O. Box N-7776 • Lyford Cay • Nassau, Bahamas • (809) 362-4655 • FAX: (809) 362-4346
? TRIBUTED TO:
By:
ev Date:
0-
*PIVFD
OCT Zq
City Mangeii?::dic - . " tice OCT 2 '� 1994
October 15, 1994
To City Manager Amy Margarum, Councilmen Augie Reno,
Terry Paulson, Councilwomen Rachel Richards, Georgeanne
Waggaman and Mayor John Bennett.
Dea�r. Mayor, Councilmen, Councilwomen, Ms. Margarum:
It has come to my attention that the owners of the
Valley Hi apartments at 1000 East Hopkins have requested
a two-year extension of their building permit granted
in 1991.
The appearance of the building is in a continuing state of
decay. This tends to depress property values in our neigh-
borhood.
I no longer have the same feeling of safety in my building
as I used to have before the Valley Hi was occupied by it's
present inhabitants.
The Valley Hi does not represent employee housing in town
as it was meant -to be. We need employee housing whereby the
occupants have a vested interest in living and working in
Aspen, thereby striving to maintain desirable surroundings
in which to live.
By your not granting an extension, the owners will likely
be induced to erect units that would be an asset to Aspen's
East end, instead of leaving the building in it's present
state which is a blight on the neighborhood.
I do not believe that it was ever the intention of the
people in Aspen to provide employee housing that would be
detremental to the area in which it is located. Kindly be
sensitive to us, the people who live in the `East "I4opkins area',
and are directly affected by your decision.
I will be closely watching how you vote on this issue.
Y r C n tuent,
Sam Chester
935 E. Hopkins
P.O. Box 4161
Aspen
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., P.C.
Eugene M. Alder, P.C.
John S. Bennett,
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear John:
NEILEY & ALDER
ATTORNEYS
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303)925-9393
October 11, 1994
Mayor
Street
Re: Valley -Hi Apartments,
Aspen, CO
r. RECEIVED
OCT 11 1M,
City Manager/Uayol: C%ce
DISTRIBUTED TO:
Respalse By:
By Oat ��
Foy
1000 E. Hopkins Avenue,
FAX Number
7TM5-9396
I represent Valley -Hi Development Trust, the owner of
Valley -Hi Apartments at 1000 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen. As I
believe you are aware, we are currently processing an application
for extension of vested rights in connection with land use
approvals originally granted in June of 1991. At present, those
approvals expire on June 15, 1995.
The Planning Office has advised me that you are
scheduling a meeting with certain neighborhood residents for
Friday, October 14, 1994. I understand the purpose of this meeting
is to discuss concerns of the neighbors regarding the management of
the apartment complex. I believe it would be appropriate for a S
Valley -Hi Apartments representative to attend this meeting. While
I will be out of town on that day, the local manager, Carl B.
Linnecke, C.P.A., will make time for the meeting. He can be lip
reached at 925-1040. If you could have someone contact him
regarding the time of the meeting, we would appreciate it.
Since certain people in the neighborhood are lobbying for
a denial of our extension application, I think it is appropriate to
provide you with some information regarding the current status of
the property. I have received a copy of the September 30, 1994,
letter from the East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents
Association, which I understand has also been provided to the
Planning Office and Members of the City Council.
Enclosed herewith you will find a copy of my recent
letter to Police Chief Tom Stephenson. The allegation that the
Valley -Hi Apartments is a warren of criminal activity is to our
knowledge simply untrue. As you can see from my letter to Tom, we
have never been advised of criminal activity at the property and in
�
fact, have been pro -active in attempting to eliminate undesirable
tenants. I have asked for details regarding any criminal activity
over the past two years. I do want to emphasize that none of
John S. Bennett, Mayor
October 11, 1994
Page 2
the owners, the management or local representatives of the property
have ever been confronted by any law enforcement or City
-
representative with complaints of criminal activity at the
property. If these allegations are true, we will take prompt steps
to rectify the problem.
Ralph Braden, who recently purchased the property
immediately next door to the Valley -Hi Apartments, this summer
complained about the condition of and the tenants at the complex.
Inasmuch as Ralph purchased the property for speculative
development purposes, it is understandable that he would like to
see the apartment building removed and redeveloped as soon as
possible. We understand that Ralph is the head of the East Hopkins
Property Owners and Residents Association and is responsible for
the September 30, 1994, letter. That letter grossly
mischaracterizes the situation at the Valley -Hi Apartments. We
have contacted Lenny Oates, the association attorney, and have
advised him of our willingness to discuss the perceived problems.
The true picture of the Valley -Hi Apartments is one of a
worker oriented residential complex including singles, families and
small children. Attached to my letter to Tom Stephenson is a list
of the employers of many of the people at the Valley -Hi Apartments.
Our tenants are hard working, integral members of the Aspen
community. We feel the real problem that underlies the neighbors,
complaints is the fact that 18 of the 19 apartments at the complex
are occupied by individuals of Hispanic origin. As more and more
of these people join our resident and work force, we see a greater
and greater level of prejudice and distrust develop in our
community. In a very real sense, the concept of Aspen as an open
minded, diverse community is challenged by the recent changes in
our demographics.
I enclose a copy of an article from the October 5, 1994,
Aspen Times which deals with the difficulty of worker displacement
and specifically refers to the Valley -Hi Apartments. Our proposal
would defer this displacement for an additional year and thus
provide the community more time to address this problem.
The local manager, Carl Linnecke, and I met with Gary
Lyman, Chief Building Inspector, on the site yesterday. In
visiting all the units except for one, it was determined that the
building remains in reasonably good condition, considering its age,
and that building and safety upgrades, which were implemented two
years ago, remain in place. Gary will be providing a report to the
Planning Office. Only a few minor repair needs were identified.
These include the need to replace batteries in smoke detectors, the
repair of a couple of faucets and some minor drywall repair.
•
C]
John S. Bennett, Mayor
October 11, 1994
Page 3
Contrary to allegations of the neighbors, the complex has not been
ignored or neglected. In fact, the owners spend in excess of
$1,000.00 a month on maintenance and repair. The buildings are
old, having been constructed in the late 1960's, and thus require
a higher level of care than newer properties and have a less
desirable appearance.
Recent inspections of the property establish that there
are no junk cars or accumulations of trash on the property. Loose
trash is picked up at least once a week by our maintenance
contractor and we have regular dumpster service. I did notice when
I was at the property last week two large rolls of carpet sticking
out of the dumpster. These were courtesy of one of the neighbors.
This is a high occupancy building and the maintenance requirements
are constant. We try to address those requirements as effectively
as possible.
We are willing to discuss the perceived problems with the
neighborhood association and the City. We feel that our request
for extension of vested rights is appropriate for a variety of
reasons expressed in our application including the fact that the
displacement of the occupants of 19 units in the next six months
does not seem desirable in light of the current housing crunch.
When we last sought an extension of vested rights we sought two
additional years because of the substantial amount of money being
invested to upgrade the property. We were granted a one year
extension and were requested to return after the expiration of a
year to seek additional time to recoup the capital expenditure.
Please let me know if a representative of the Valley -Hi
Apartments will be allowed to attend your meeting on October 14.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
truly yours,
& ALDER
RYN/dd iLhard Y. Neiley, Jr.
Enclosures
cc: Carl B. Linnecke
Valley -Hi Development Trust
Leslie Lamont
Lenny Oates/East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents
Association
Bennett.1tr
ASP ei�
®n ers .:... _ wnt
py�
®f IN di aced
woi ers.,A
By Gil I Rudawsky ket housing haveapprovals to redevelop'a
Aspen Times Staff Writer 7the property and there is some concern
The Aspen .City ;Council,started the.. -;..that the current residents .would beaeft F
wheels;iolling on a policy;that.could ;:'without a place to7ive ,
require developers to provide housing"for ',There was also
"some talk'about the
residents displaced by new construction. - :..-'free-market Park Meadows building, for-
"If.developers displace. an employee, ' merly located off Highway _82, across
they should be responsible to -find them a "='from Tiehack:=The low=income rental
new place- to stay," -city council member-'=� apartment house -was torn down to make
Terry'Paulson'said -during 'an -informal way for the upscale Maroon Creek Golf..'
meeting this week. '::.:r, �.. Club.
`='The city currently does not have a poh -:About 48 Park Meadows residents p.
cy to -directly' help *displaced workers '`�vere'evicted from their units in June
kicked out of -low -rent, free-market hous- * 1993.-Developers said they will replace a ;h
ing, but there seemed to be interest by portion of the units, -but the new units are
some city council members to look at .'not intended to accommodate the former
passing an ordinance to address this issue., 'residents. :: s_ ; .::_: '•
The city currently has- numerous free-", r+;'Taulson said that he is particularly con-
market housing units around town that derned about displacement since he was :
provide an inexpensive'placeio stay for kicked out of his rental -home five years
area workers. Over. the years, these units ; ago and left without.a place to live. He
have become more and more scarce: -;' also'said that working at City Market,
City council specifically had some con- where he is assistant manager; he sees x
cerns about residents-at.the"Valley Hi`many employees''who are displaced by;
rental apartments,' located on East Hop- developers.
kins Avenue. 'The owners of the free -mar-'.- ■ See Displaced on page 8 4
Wednesday, (Xtober S, 1YW a .The Aspen I umes s
Valley HI Apartments are home to folks like two -year -old Tony Mendes (above),
taking a break from wheeling up and down the hallways of the building, which
offers basic accommodations for moderate rents.
Ramon Medrano (left), is another Valley Hi resident.
He is shown spending his day off from Kenichi Restaurant,
preparing a meal common to his El Salvadoran homeland -.boiled
-' c6V-tongue tacos. The owners of Valley H1, which Is a free-market '
operation, already have the necessary approvals to redevefop the property.
If that happens, the city council is concerned about whether
Tony and Ramon could find other affordable housing. Travis Caperton photos.
laced
�fcontinued hom page 3 .. ` i''' The city again tried to 'stop the trend in 199
"This is an issue that's close to me," Paulson said. .,'when it passed an impact mitigation ordinance aime
J ;;Council member Rachel Richards yeas against�a at new construction. For instance, if an existing frei
displacement. pro posak.since. she said it.would onl '
y : market structure_ is. demolished to "make way for
discourage people from building rental housing. - . larger -home, the builder is required to mitigate thi
C. u
Why would they build. a rental,housing project if - impact. -
tihey know they will have'to take can of the res-
idents forever?" Richards said.
Aspen. City Manager'Amy Margerum said ;
that other communities y-th tight housing mar = : A
-kets have ordinances`_t�tatgiequ)ire: developers "if developers. displace an
tearing down rental housing to provide the resi-
dents -displaced anew .place to live-. Margerum`'" etilpl0�/ee� 'tlt@j/ should be
said, for'instance,',that Santa Barbara currently
ihas a displacement ordinance_ resp011slble t0 find them 1 new' .
The'city"council will direct the Aspen/Pitkiq
ounty Housing Board to look at developing a place t0 stly r -� -
displacement an and offer its recommen-
;lotions "to the elected officials. : i :�. -Terry Paulson, Aspen city council mem
According to;"housing officials,'the tearing ;;
=down of existing free market projects and build-
irig" million -dollar homes has been ,going on
;,since the early 1980s
During that time, thecmployee population.of
:;the city drooped from 60 percent to 40 percent, :
(;largely because of second; -home construction,` i
according to housing officials. �- i r -; Builders get credit for the square footage of th
;.. In 1989, the .housing office built 89 :units at old .home; but have to pay an additional $14 pe
`Truscott Place to stop the displacement; but while the square foot if the new structure is larger than the on
project was under construction, housing officials said demolished. Or, a developer could build a lark
an equal number of employees were displaced by 'homewith an employee unit attached to the structul
second -home construction:" or deed -restrict the home.
. NEILEY & ALDER •
ATTORNEYS
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., P.C.
Eugene M. Alder, P.C. (303) 925-9393
October 11, 1994
HAND DELIVERY
Tom Stevenson, Chief
Aspen Police Department
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Valley -Hi Apartments
1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen
Dear Tom:
FAX Number
(303) 925-9396
This office represents the owners of the Valley -Hi
Apartments. I am processing an application for extension of vested
rights for my clients, and in connection therewith, a referral
request was issued to your department. On August 18, 1994, Officer
Beth Ufkes submitted a response, a copy of which I enclose.
We take strong issue with Ms. Ufkes' response. As you
can see, this response cites many criminal complaints that are on-
going at the property. It also indicates that the owners of the
property have been informed of the problems and have failed to take
any action.
First, I have been in direct communication with the
owners and the local managing agent, Carl B. Linnecke, CPA. None
of. the owners has ever received any contact from the Aspen Police
Department. Mr. Linnecke has been contacted on one occasion,
approximately two weeks ago regarding a theft investigation. This
contact was with Ed Piccolo. Mr. Linnecke was entirely coopera-
tive, and we have heard nothing further on this matter. Both Mr.
Linnecke and I are the local agents for the property and are the
registered agent and officers for the corporate general partner.
Neither of us has ever been apprised by any member of your
department of any problems with criminal activities at the
property.
The suggestion in Ms. Ufkes' referral response is that
thp, owners of the property do not care about criminal activity and
have actually ignored on -going problems. This creates real dif-
ficulties for the property owners in connection with their land use
better to Mr. Steven •
October 6, 1994
Page 2
application and is not an accurate depiction. Quite to opposite is
true.
In the fall of 1992 after completing a substantial
remodel of the project, Mr. Linnecke .contacted your department and
requested that he be apprised of criminal activities and complaints
at the project so that appropriate action could be taken by the
owner in the form of evictions. Mr. Linnecke was advised that such
information was not available for public dissemination because of
privacy concerns.
On March 24, 1994, I personally filed a criminal com-
plaint with your department in connection with what we believed was
an active drug dealing situation at the complex. The drug dealing
had been brought to my attention by Mr. Linnecke and our on -site
management company. When I filed the complaint, I provided the
apartment number and names of the tenants and the names of three
witnesses who could be contacted. We requested that an investi-
gation be undertaken and that we receive a response to our
concerns. After the expiration of approximately three months
without either a return call or any other communication from your
department, we evicted the tenants and solved the problem
ourselves.
We believe Ms. Ufkes' communication with the Planning
Office grossly mischaracterizes the actual circumstances at the
Valley -Hi Apartments and should be retracted.
As to the alleged "many criminal complaints that are on-
going," we have no direct knowledge of this information. However,
since this has a direct bearing on both our land use application
and my clients' concerns regarding management and liability at the
property, we want to be brought up to date regarding the situation.
In this regard, please consider this letter my formal request for
the following information:
1. An itemization of all criminal complaints received
related to the Valley -Hi Apartments from November 1992 to the
present;
2. A detailed list of all criminal charges brought
against individuals at the Valley -Hi Apartments from November 1992
to the present;
3. A detailed list of all arrests made at the Valley -Hi
Apartments from November 1992 to the present;
Letter to Mr. Stev*on •
October 6, 1994
Page 3
4. Any other information maintained by your department
which substantiates the statement that there are "many criminal
complaints that are on -going at this location."
We feel that this information is essential to both
explain the content and recommendation of your department's
response to the Planning Office's referral request and to an
effective management of the property. It is our impression that
virtually all of the occupants of the Valley -Hi Apartments are
hard-working, honest members of the community. We have compiled a
list of the employers of our tenants which I enclose. While we can
obviously not guarantee that otherwise hard-working persons are not
involved in criminal activities, we do not believe that there are
extensive criminal activities at the property. Your assistance in
clarifying this issue would be greatly appreciated.
Ven truly yours,
Y & ALDER
hard Y. Neiley, Jr.
RYN/agk
Enclosures
` • MESSAGE DISPLAY •
TO AMY MARGERUM CC 101
CC BILL EFTING CC MARY LACKNER
CC 102 CC LESLIE LAMONT
From: Beth Ufkes
Postmark: Aug 18,94 2:55 PM
Status: Certified Previously read
Subject: EXTENSION FOR VALLEY HIGH APARTMENTS, 1000 EAST HOPKINS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS LEARNED THAT THE EXTENTION FOR 1000 EAST
HOPKINS MAY BE ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA IN OCTOBER. WE ARE AGAINST ANY
EXTENSION FOR THIS PROPERTY DUE TO THE MANY CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS THAT
ARE ON GOING AT THIS LOCATION. THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN
INFORMED AND HAVE FAILED TO TAKE ANY ACTION. SHOULD WE HAVE A MEETING
TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE FURTHER?
Cer0ed Public Account t
Carl B. Linnecke, CPA, P.C.
2.15 South Monarch Street • Aspen, Colorado 8x611 , TEL 303/925-1040 • FIX 303/91v5-4468
October 5, 1994
Rick Neiley
201 N. Mill St., Ste 102
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Valley Hi Tenants
Dear Rick,
Sent Via FAX
Following is a list of the places the tenants in the Valley Hi work:
La Cocina
Little Annie's
Planet Hollywood
Hard Rock
Aspen Club Lodge
Aspen Grove, Restaurant
Explorer Bookseller
Kenichi
Friedl's
Smuggler Land Office
Jour de Fete
Mountain House
Durgin Electric
Chanin's
Hickory House
Carnivale
Mirabella
Renaissance Restaurant
Shadow Mountain Lodge
Aspen Square
Lima Light Lodge
Little Nell
Ritz Carlton
Hotel Jerome
Woody Creek Roofing
Please be advised that the natural tendency to say these people are all
dishwashers or transient is not true. Many are prep cooks at the
restaurants. The women are house keepers for the most part. The guy
who works at Explorer told me he has been there six years.
Let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
Car B. Linnecke, CPA
C:
•
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
Housing Director
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
RE: Valley -Hi Apartments Extension of Vested Rights
Parcel ID No. 2737-182-01-003
DATE: August 24, 1994
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Valley -Hi Development
Trust.
Please return your comments to me no later than September 16.
Thank you.
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
MEMORANDUM
TO: Building Inspector
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
RE: Valley -Hi Apartments Extension of Vested Rights
Parcel ID No. 2737-182-01-003
DATE: September 13, 1994
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Valley -Hi Development
Trust.
Please return your comments to me no later than September 23.
Thank you.
SEP 20 '94 12:3BPt9 AS4HOUSING OFC: 0 P.1
XWORANDtH
TO: Mary Lackner, Planning Office
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
DATE: September 20, 1894
RE: VALLEY -HI A.pARTMENTS EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS
parcel ID No. 2737-182-01-003
Ygg The owner of Valrights, through June 15,r1997gting a two-yeaz
extension of vested rig g
Gg This property now Consists of 19 rental apartment
osed is to
units. n anitahedevelcpar has and construct fouropfree-market and demolition
n the
ourdeed
apartment
restricted affordable housing units.
The developer otated that a remodel of the
extension unitstal vested
cost
$120,0o4 between 1992 and 1993. In 1992,
rights was approved by the City Council, indicating a willingness
to consider further extensions of vested rights following
completion of the remodel and implementation
of a new owner hasintenance
and management program at the property.
The complied
with this request.
RBCOI�NDA ZD�s Staff recommends approval of this request but does
have a concern pertaining to Ordinance No. 8, page 4, number 17,
with regard to the $45,,000 cash -in -lieu payment for affordable
housing to be paid prior to issuance of any building permits for
the property. Staff has no background as to how the $45,000 caoh-
in-li.eu payment was decided, but the $45,000 was worth a lot more
in 1991 than it will be in 1997. Therefore, staff recommends this
issue be readdressed.
�reforrallyaly hi.—
•
•
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920-5197
August 24, 1994
Rick Neiley
201 N. Mill, #102
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Valley -Hi Apartments Extension of Vested Rights
Case A61-94
Dear Rick,
The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We
have determined that this application is complete.
We have scheduled this application for 1st Reading before the Aspen City Council on Monday,
October 11, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. Second Reading and Public Hearing will
be on November 14, 1994. Should these dates be inconvenient for you, please contact me
within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda dates will be considered
final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for
unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting dates, we will call to inform
you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office.
Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to property owners within 300' and to
post the subject property with a sign at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Please
submit a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing
prior to the public hearing.
If you have any questions, please call Mary Lackner, the planner assigned to your case, at 920-
5106.
Sincerely,
Su �ne�ff
Administrative Assistant
INDEX TO APPENDICES
I. Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991
II. Ordinance Granting Extension of Rights, 1992
III. §24-68-104, C.R.S.
IV. Certificate of Ownership with Attachment
V. Subdivision Agreement for 1000 East Hopkins Avenue
VI. Authorization for Representation
VII. Preapplication Conference Summary
APPENDIX I
Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991
ORDINANCE N0.8
(SERIES OF 1991)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL SUBDIVISION/PUD
DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, GMQS EXEMPTION,
AND VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR FOUR FREE MARKET UNITS AND
FOUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 1000 EAST HOPKINS (LOTS A AND K
OF BLOCK 25 AND LOTS H,I, AND S BLOCK 26, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN)
WHEREAS, the Valley Hi Development Trust ("Applicant")
submitted to the Planning Office an application for a Final
Subdivision/PUD Development Plan, Stream Margin review,
Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing and
vesting of development rights to reconstruct eight units at 1000
East Hopkins Ave. The plan was designed in accordance with an
April 1990 legal settlement ("Settlement") between the City of
Aspen and the Applicant; and
WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Engineering
Department, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Fire
Marshal, the Water Department, the Housing Authority, and the
Planning Office and those agencies submitted referral comments;
and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 1990, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission approved Stream Margin Review with conditions and
forwarded a recommendation to City Council to approve Final
Subdivision/PUD review with conditions, including variances to
height and rear setback; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 24-7-1004 D.2.b., 24-7-
903, 24-7-1007, and 24-8-104 C.l.c. of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the City Council may grant approval to Final Subdivision, PUD
1
Development Plans, Condominiumization, and GMQS Exemption for
Affordable Housing; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the
Planning and Zoning Commission's and Planning office's
recommendations, does wish to grant the Final Subdivision/PUD
Development Plan approval with conditions as well as
Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing, and
Vesting of Development Rights for three years for the development
of four free market units and four deed restricted units at 1000
East Hopkins.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1•
That it does hereby grant Final Subdivision/PUD Approval
with the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Planning Office and amended by City Council
for four free market units and four deed restricted affordable
housing units.
Section 2.
In order to accommodate the affordable housing units, in
accordance with Section 7-903 of the Land Use Code, the City
Council approves a PUD variance to allow a zero (0) foot rear
setback for the portion of the structure containing affordable
housing, and a height variance of two (2) feet to the R-MF height
limit restricted to the rear two-thirds (2/3) of the building.
Section 3:
2
The City Council also approves Condominiumization for all
eight units and Growth Management Exemption for the four
affordable housing units.
Section 4•
The conditions of approval which apply to this project are:
1. A Subdivision Agreement shall be recorded concurrently with
the Final Plat.
2. The garage entry drive must not exceed 12% grade for a 20'
distance from the property line.
3. Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter and
sidewalk improvements and for any other work in the public right-
of-way.
4. The applicant shall agree to join a. Special Improvement
District if one is ever formed.
5. The Applicant shall pay for sewer line improvements as
determined by the Sanitation District.
6. Heavy vehicle access must be provided for sewer line
maintenance.
7. The drainage plan for the site shall include oil and sand
interceptors for the garage. Surface run-off shall not enter the
sanitary sewer.
8. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be designed and
installed as per the Fire Marshal's requirements.
9. The Planning Director shall sign off on a GMQS Exemption for
the replacement of four free market dwelling units.
10. No demolition shall occur prior to issuance of a building
3
permit.
11. The four affordable housing units shall be indexed to the
Housing Guidelines for category #3 (one unit) and category #4
three units) for sale purposes. For rental purposes, all four
unit shall be indexed at category #2.
12. Twelve (12) underground parking spaces shall be provided
according to the Settlement and parking variance allowed by the
PUD review process. Four (4) of these spaces shall be allotted
to the affordable housing units.
13. A two (2) foot variance to the RMF zone height restriction is
limited to the rear 2/3 of the building to accommodate the
affordable housing units.
14. A variance to allow a zero (0) foot setback shall be limited
to the building area containing the affordable housing units.
15. Prior to recordation, a fifteen (15) foot trail easement
shall be dedicated on the plat subject to approval by Engineering
and Planning.
16. Condominium plat and condominium declarations shall be
approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to
recordation.
17. A $45,000.00 cash -in -lieu payment for affordable housing
shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits for the
property.
Within 180 days of City Council's approval of this Final Plat and
Final PUD Plan the following must occur:
18. A Subdivision Plat, "Notice of PUD Designation", Final PUD
4
I :, I '' 0 0
Plan and Subdivision/PUD Agreement must be filed with the County
Clerk as required by Sections 7-1005 E., 7-905 and 7-907 of the
Land Use Code.
19. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission, City Council and Historic Preservation
Committee shall be adhered to and considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise amended in the conditions.
Section 5•
That it does hereby grant Vested Rights for the 1000 East
Hopkins Stream Margin review and Final Subdivision/PUD
Development Plan. The rights granted by the site specific
development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3)
years from the effective date hereof. However, any failure to
abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property
rights. Failure to properly record all plats and agreements
required to be recorded by the Land Use Code shall also result in
the forfeiture of said vested property rights.
Section 6:
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the
adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 7:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /3
J7
day of," , 1991 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
k,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHID as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the o day of
1991.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
A ST:
Kathryn V. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
1991.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATT'E ST :
Kathryn S Koch, City Clerk
jtkvj/1000hop.ord
L
APPENDIX II
Ordinance Granting Extension of Rights, 1992
0 •
#350764 1 1 / 16/9C 08; 42 Rec $25. G(_) Bt ::: 694 PG 467
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk. Doc s.o(:)
ORDINANCE NO. 57
(SERIES OF 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A ONE YEAR
EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 1991 FOR
THE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR THE 1000 E. HOPKINS
PARCEL (A.K.A. THE VALLEY HI APARTMENTS), LOTS A,H,I,K,AND S,
BLOCKS 25 AND 26, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code,
the City Council may grant vested rights status for a site specific
development plan; and
WHEREAS, upon the adoption of Ordinance 8, Series 1991, the
Applicant received approval for the redevelopment of the subject
property as well as vested rights extending for three years from
the approval date of said ordinance; and
WHEREAS, due to the deteriorated condition of the existing
apartments on the site, the owners must make numerous repairs to
continue the livability of the units which are occupied by
employees of the community, until such time that the project is
demolished and replaced by the development approved in 1991; and
WHEREAS, because of the cost of such repairs the Applicant
requested a one year extension to the vested rights approved by
Ordinance 8, Series 1991 in order to allow a greater timeframe to
recover the costs through rents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having reviewed the application
recommends approval of the extension of vested rights for a period
of one year beyond the vested rights approved in Ordinance 8,
Series 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning
\ Office's recommendations for the extension of vested rights does
") 1
#350 7 64 1 1 / 16/92 08: 42 Fec $25. 00 ELF::: 694 PG 468
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.(-)(-)
wish to grant the requested extension of vested rights for one year
beyond the approval granted in Ordinance 8, Series 1991 for the
1000 E. Hopkins parcel, finding community benefit in the
improvements to the employee housing until said, property is
redeveloped.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1•
Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, City
Council does hereby grant the applicant a one year extension for
the vested rights approved by Ordinance 8, Series 1991 for the
1000 E. Hopkins parcel as follows:
1. The Valley Hi Apartments shall be maintained in a clean
and orderly condition until such time as they are
demolished prior to redevelopment pursuant to Ordinance
8, 1991.
2. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for a
total of four (4) years from June 10, 1991, the date of
final adoption of Ordinance 8, Series 1991. However, any
failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant
to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly
record all plats and agreements as specified herein and
or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the
forfeiture of said vested rights.
2
#350 7 64 1 1 / 16/92 08: 42 Rec $25. 00 BF*:: 694 PG 469
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.(-)(-)
3. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all
rights of referendum and judicial review.
4. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or
the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City
provided that such reviews or approvals are not
inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested
herein.
5. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall
not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations
which are general in nature and are applicable to all
property subject to land use regulation by the City of
Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire,
plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this
regard, as a condition of this site development approval,
the developer shall abide by any and all such building,
fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless
an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 2•
The City Clerk shall cause notice 'of this Ordinance to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
3
#350764 1 1 / 16/92 08: 42 Bec $25. 00 BK 694 PG 470
Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk., Doc ` -00
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following -
described property:
'11000 E. Hopkins, Lots A,H,I,K,and S, Blocks 25 and 26"
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 3•
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the
adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
} unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 5•
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and
shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now
pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
Section 6:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of 992 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
4
#3507 64 1 1 / 16/92 08: 42 Rec $- 5. ELF.": 694 PG 471
Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk, Doc $.(i(-)
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 13 day of
1992.
John bennett, Mayor
ATS: 45,'%,
t.Kk h)W :RoCh, City Clerk
0#fRALI;Y, adopted, passed and approved this A day of
1992.
Joh Bennett, Mayor AXA '$ 3�i':'�Sro'o
Ra5h1gy :Bach, City Clerk
5
APPENDIX III
§24-68-104, C.R.S.
APPENDIX IV
Certificate of Ownership with Attachment
•
•
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
The undersigned licensed attorney at law hereby certifies
the following facts:
1. Property Description. The property which is the
subject of this application is known as 1000 East Hopkins Avenue,
Aspen, Colorado, and is more fully described in the General War-
ranty Deed attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
2. Ownership. The subject property is owned by Valley -
Hi Development Trust, a Colorado general partnership, whose address
is c/o Carl B. Linnecke, CPA, 215 South Monarch Street, Aspen,
Colorado 81611.
3. Access. The subject property is adjacent to a
public right-of-way and has legal apcess.
NEIL�Y�' & ALDER
By,
7ichard Y. Neiley, Jr., No. 9878
01 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-9393
11
569 PAGE 34I
Recorded at
Reception No.
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr.
600 East Hopkins, Suite 3
Aspen, Colorado 81611
o'clock .m.
c
r
Recorder
'_`
w
CD
c, ,=
z<
m
Cn
�
GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
1000 EAST HOPKINS PARTNERSHIP, a Colorado general
partnership, Grantor, for Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and
valuable considerations, in hand paid, hereby sells and conveys
to VALLEY -HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST, a Colorado general partnership,
Grantee, whose address is c/o Richard Y. Neiley, 600 East
Hopkins, Suite 3, Aspen, Colorado 81611 the following real
property in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado to wit:
LOTS H AND I, IN BLOCK 26, LYING WITHIN THE
EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE
OF ASPEN, according to the Plat thereof
recorded as Document No. 108453 in Ditch Book
2A at Page 252 of the records for Pitkin
County, together with a tract of land
situated in East Aspen Townsite described as
follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of LOT S,
BLOCK 26, EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE, as
shown on the recorded Plat thereof; thence
JUL 2 5 1983
th 1405014911 East 100 feet along the West
Me
of Lot S to the Northwest corner of Lot
thence South 75109111" East 135.32 feet;
%
hence South 14°50'49" West 100 feet, thence
North 75109'11" West 135.30 feet to the point
of beginning.
with all its appurtenances and warrants title to the same,
SUBJECT TO AND EXCEPTING: General taxes for 1988 payable January
1, 1989; right of way for Ditches or Canals constructed by the
authority of the United States as reserved in United States
Patent recorded in Book 185 at Page 69; Deed of Trust from 1000
East Hopkins Partnership, a Colorado general partnership to the
Public Trustee of Pitkin county for the use of Pitkin County Bank
and Trust Company to secure $472,500.00 dated April 15, 1988
recorded April 15, 1988 in Book 561 at Page 316 as reception no.
299209; Extension of Deed of Trust dated , 1988
recorded in Book at Page ; Assignment of Rents recorded
April 15, 1988 in Book 561 at Page 316 and security interest
under the Uniform Commercial Code notice of which is given by
Financing Statement from 1000 East Hopkins Partnership, a
e00#6 PAGE348
Colorado general partnership, Debtor to Pitkin County Bank and
Trust Company, Secured Party, recorded April 15, 1988 as Filing
No. 11546, recorded in Book 561 at Page 322; and in the event of
any default by Grantor under the Deed of Trust from 1000 East
Hopkins Partnership to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for
the use of Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company to secure
$472,500.00 dated April 15, 1988, recorded April 15, 1988 in Book
561 at Page 316, as Reception No. 299209, Grantee shall have the
right to cure such default by making any and all necessary
payments or by taking any and all action necessary in connection
therewith, in which case, Grantee shall be entitled to set off
such amounts as may reasonably be incurred as a consequence of
such default against any monies it owes or may owe Grantor.
Signed this day of 1988.
1000 EAST HOPKINS PARTNERSHIP,
a Colorado general partnership
BY: CITY CAPITAL CORPORATION,
a California corporation and
General Partner of 1000 East
Hopkins Partnership
BY:
Morton A. H ler, President
BY: SYNERGY PARTNERS, a
Colorado general partnership
and General Partner of 1000
East Hopkins Partnership
BY:
Roberta Allen,
General Partner
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing General Warranty Deed was acknowledged
before me this � day of 1988 by MORTON A.
HELLER, President of City Capital Corporation, a California
corporation and General Partner of 1000 East Hopkins Partnership,
a Colorado general partnership.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Vincent J. Hipons/Notary Public
My Commission sxpkos 12126190.
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Cokxa4o 81611
•
ACKNOWLEDGMENT PAGE TO
GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
sou 569 P�GE349
The forwing General Warranty Deed was acknowledged
before me this day of Tu k 19-E& by ROBERTA
ALLEN, General Partner of Synerg, Partners, a Colorado general
partnership and General Partner of 1000 East Hopkins Partnership,
a Colorado general partnership.
WITNESS my hand and official seal. +�5-%03 �o,�
My commission expires: ;r+f:, ,e:od
r _
jW
N tary MjViNotafy
VincPublic
My Commission�� 12/28/90•
Aspen, Colorado 81e11
•
•
APPENDIX V
Subdivision Agreement for 1000 East Hopkins Avenue
F,rF, i 4
390 663 F& 663
�. - - .. c•:: �r, fin-
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR 1000 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO
THIS SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT is made and entered into by
and between VALLEY -HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST, a Colorado general
partnership ("Owner"), and THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ("the City
of Aspen") pursuant to §7-1005 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen.
WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted to the City of Aspen for
approval, execution and recordation the final Plat of the 1000 East
Hopkins Townhouse Condominiums for a tract of land situated within
the City of Aspen, more fully described as follows:
Lots K and S, Blocks 25 and 26, Lots
H, I and A, Blocks 25 and 26, plus
remainder of vacated Cleveland
Street,
County of Pitkin,
State of Colorado,
with a street address of 1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado
81611 (the "Plat"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has fully considered and
reviewed the Plat and has determined that it is consistent with the
provisions, terms and conditions of that certain Ordinance granting
subdivision approval with conditions, which Ordinance was approved
by the Aspen City Council on June 10, 1991 (hereinafter "Ordinance
No. 8, Series of 199111); and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has imposed certain conditions
and requirements in connection with its approval, execution and
recordation of the Plat and the granting of approval pursuant to
Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, such matters being deemed neces-
sary to promote, protect and enhance the public welfare; and
TKHEREAS, Owner is willing to acknowledge, acceot, abide
by and faithfully perform the conditions and requirements imposed
by the Citv of Aspen in approving the Plat; and
WHEREAS, under the authority of Chapter 24, Article 7,
Section 7-1005(C) and (D) of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, the City of Aspen is entitled to security and assurance that
the matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully performed by
Owner.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing
premises, the mutual covenants contained herein, and the approval,
execution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City of
Aspen, it is mutually agreed as follows:
1
)6!91 15: Rec $45. C" Bf:��3 F'G 864
G^ r; F'_tE:in Cnty 1erE Do
iV7.c. L
I. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
By Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, the City of Aspen has
granted the Owner approval for the demolition of existing improve-
ments on the subject Property and for the construction of four
free-market condominium units with a permissible floor area ratio
totalling approximately 13,380 square feet for the free market
units, and for four deed restricted affordable housing units
containing not less than 750 square feet each (50% of which shall
be above grade). The total permissible floor area ratio for the
subject property shall not exceed 1.1:1 on parcel 1 of the subject
Property. Two-thirds of the additional .1 floor area ratio shall
be used for affordable housing. All improvements shall be
constructed in accordance with the Plat submitted to and approved
by the City of Aspen.
II. STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AND DEDICATION OF TRAILS
1. Stream Margin Review. No development shall be
permitted within one hundred feet, measured horizontally, from the
high water line of the Roaring Fork River, such high water line as
depicted on the Plat. All approved development shall take place
entirely within parcel 1.
2. Dedication of Trails.
(a) Fisherman's Easement. Owner hereby dedicates
a fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River including the land
measured five feet horizontally from the edge of the river as
depicted on the Plat.
(b) Trail Easement. Owner hereby dedicates a
fifteen foot wide trail easement within the one hundred year flood
plain as depicted on the Plat.
III. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND VARIANCES
1. Rear Yard Set -Back Variance. Owner shall be
permitted to construct improvements on the subject Property with a
zero rear vard set -back between parcel 1 and the City of Aspen
alleyway, limited to the building footprint necessary to accommo-
date the affordable housing units as depicted on the Plat.
2. Heicht Variance. Owner shall be permitted to
increase the permissible height for the north two-thirds of the
improvements on the subject Property by two feet.
3. Parking Reauirements. Owner shall be required to
construct twelve parking spaces in the underground parking area.
Parking spaces shall be assigned one to each affordable housing
unit and two to each free market housing unit. No other parking
shall be required. Affordable housing unit owners shall not be
precluded from using free market unit parking spaces on a space
available basis and so long as such use does not interfere with
free market unit owners' use of the parking spaces.
2
/CjL/91 15:-�1 Rec T4-5. �663 PG 865
D_.v_= Fitkim Cmty Clerk Doc
4. Limitation on Development of Parcel 2. No further
development shall be permitted on parcel 2 of the subject Property.
Iv. CONDOMINIUMIZATION AND DEED RESTRICTIONS
1. Condominiumization. Owner shall be permitted to
condominiumize the free-market and the affordable housing units in
the configurations depicted on the PUD plan. Owner shall cause to
be recorded a Condominium Declaration and Condominium Plat covering
all of the condominium units.
2. Minimum Lease Terms. All residential units shall be
restricted to six month minimum leases, with no more than two
shorter tenancies per year in accordance with §7-1007A.1(b) of
Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
3. Affordable Housing Impact Fee. Because Owner shall
construct four affordable housing units on the subject Property,
the obligation which would otherwise exist pursuant to §7-
1007A.l(c) of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code is hereby waived.
4. Deed Restriction of Affordable Housing Units. The
affordable housing units shall be deed restricted, and Owner shall
enter into resale agreements with the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority providing for the following:
(a) Each of the affordable housing units shall be
separately condominiumized, with the Condominium Plat depicting
each unit as containing at least 750 square feet, two bedrooms,
with at least 50% of the square footage being above grade.
(b) The affordable housing units, with the
exception of the initial sale by Owner to purchasers, shall be
listed through the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
(c) For purposes of sale, three of the units shall
be deed restricted to middle income (that is, the highest income
category, or category four) price guidelines. One unit shall be
deed restricted to moderate income, category three price guide-
lines.
(d) For rental purposes, all of the affordable
housing units shall be deed restricted to moderate income, category
two price guidelines, but in no evert shall the square footage
rental be less than $0.89.
(e) For purposes of qualifying purchasers and/or
renters of the affordable housing units, Owner shall rely upon any
of the qualification guidelines for any income category as such are
established from time to time by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority.
(f) Owner shall be entitled to sell an affordable
housing unit in conjunction with the sale of a free-market unit
regardless of whether or not the purchaser qualifies under afford-
3
#k = 7925c 1 %S' 1 i 5 : 51 R e c: 45. ni, F,t : F'S 866
F'.T_F'.ln Cnty `'ietE:.. DOc
able housing guidelines; provided, however, the affordable housing
units shall be occupied by a qualified employee.
(g) Upon, issuance of a building permit for
improvements to the subject property, Owner shall pay to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority a cash -in -lieu amount of
$45,000.00.
V. CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS
1. Water. Owner shall extend the existing service
water line to service the building sites. Domestic water shall be
obtained through the City of Aspen Water Department.
2. Sewer Line. Owner shall extend the existing sewer
line to service the building sites. Sewer service shall be
provided through the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
3. Improvement District. Owner shall join an improve-
ment district if such district is formed. .
4. Fire Alarm System. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems
shall be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements
of the Fire Marshall.
5. Vegetation/Erosion. Vegetation protection and
erosion control methods shall be installed at the northern
perimeter of parcel 1 prior to excavation and clearing and shall
remain in place throughout construction.
6. Demolition. Demolition of the existing apartment
building on the subject Property shall not occur prior to issuance
of a building permit for new construction, unless deterioration or
casualty to the existing structure requires demolition for health
and/or safety purposes.
VI. NON-COMPLIANCE AND REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS
OR EXTENSIONS BY OWNER
In the event that the City of Aspen determines that Owner
is not acting in substantial compliance with the terms of this
Agreement, the City of Aspen shall notify the Owner in writing
asking that the Owner remedy the alleged non-compliance within such
reasonable time as the City of Aspen may determine, but not less
than forty-five days. If the City of Aspen determines that Owner
has not complied within such time, the City of Aspen may issue and
serve upon Owner a written order specifying the alleged non-
compliance and requiring the Owner to remedy the same within thirty
days. Within twenty days of the receipt of such order, Owner may
file with the City of Aspen either a notice advising the City of
Aspen that he is in compliance or a written petition requesting a
hearing to determine one or both of the following matters:
(a) Whether the alleged non-compliance exists or
did exist, or
4
q�� ': ii.�,'�i1 1C: �1 Rec `1,4c5.' � 663 F',= 867
_Y �
i c�. :i o. V ]. c: F' 1 } .: i rCn �- � i. � r' �, r`-"'� -
,
(b) Whether a variance, extension of time or
amendment to this Agreement should be granted with respect to any
such non-compliance which is determined to exist.
Upon receipt of such petition, the City of Aspen shall
promptly schedule a hearing to consider the matters set forth in
the order and in the petition. The hearing shall be convened and
conducted pursuant to the procedures normally established by the
City of Aspen for other hearings. If the City of Aspen determines
by a preponderance of the evidence that a non-compliance exists
which has not been remedied, it may issue such orders as may be ap-
propriate; provided, however, no order terminating any approval
granted herein shall be issued without a finding of the City of
Aspen that substantial evidence warrants such action and affording
the Owner a reasonable time to remedy such non-compliance. A final
determination of non-compliance which has not been remedied or for
which no variance has been granted may, at the option of the City
of Aspen, and upon written notice to the Owner, terminate any of
the approvals contained herein which are reasonably related to the
requirement(s) with which Owner has failed to comply. Alternative-
ly, the City of Aspen may grant such variances, extensions of time
or amendments to this Agreement as it may deem appropriate under
the circumstances.
In addition to the foregoing, the Owner or his successors
or assigns may, on his own initiative, petition the City of Aspen
for a variance, an amendment to this Agreement or an extension of
one or more of the time periods required for performance under the
Construction Schedules or otherwise. the City of Aspen may grant
such variances, amendments to this Agreement, or extensions of time
as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances.
VII. EASEMENTS OF RIGHTS -OF -WAY
The Plat sets forth certain easements and rights -of -way
for the use of the owners of the improvements on the Property and
the general public and which are dedicated to the perpetual use of
all utility companies and providers for the purpose of installing,
constructing, replacing, repairing and maintaining underground
utilities and drainage facilities, as more fully set forth on the
Plat.
VIII. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
At the time Owner proposes to construct improvements on
the subject Property, a letter of credit or other financial secur-
ity in a form and amount reasonably satisfactory to the City of
Aspen shall be provided as security for the completion of such
improvements, which amount shall be based upon the estimated costs
of constructing said improvements as reflected on the engineer's
estimates attached hereto as Exhibit "A," unless such financial
security is waived by the appropriate administrative body. Such
restrictions as appear on the Plat and as are contained in this
Agreement shall be fully enforceable by the City of Aspen in
accordance with the terms hereof and applicable law, and Owner's
5
Rec $_45. 0C.) 0663 FG 868
F'it1:_r Crty C.Ier.b:, Doc . C:
entitlement to development of the subject Property reflected on the
Plat shall be dependent upon its performance of the obligations and
conditions set forth herein.
IX. G.M. .S. EXERTION
Pursuant to §8-107 (A) of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code
of the City of Aspen, Owner has been granted Growth Management
Quota System exemption for the replacement of four free-market
units and the construction of four affordable housing units on the
subject Property.
X. VESTING OF RIGHTS
In accordance with §6-207 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Aspen, applicable state statutes, and Ordinance
No. 8, Series of 1991, Owner is hereby granted vested property
rights for the purpose of constructing the improvements on the
subject Real Property for a period of three years from the
effective date of said Ordinance.
XII. MISCELLANEOUS
1. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of Owner and the City of Aspen and their
respective successors and assigns.
2. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado.
3. If any of the provisions of this Agreement or any
paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section of the
application thereof in any circumstances is invalidated, such
invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this
Agreement, and the application cf any such provision, paragraph,
sentence, clause, phrase, word or section in any other circumstance
shall not be affected thereby.
4. This Subdivision Acreement contains the entire
understanding between the parties with respect to the transactions
contemplated hereunder and may be altered or amended from time to
time only by written instruments executed by all parties hereto.
5. Numerical and title headings contained in this
Agreement are for convenience only, and shall not be deemed
determinative of the substance contained herein. As used herein,
where the context requires, the use of the singular shall include
the plural and the use of any gender shall include all genders.
6. Notices to be given to the parties to this Agreement
shall be considered to be given if delivered or if deposited in the
United States mail to the parties by registered or certified mail
at the addresses indicated below, or such other addresses as may be
substituted upon written notice by the parties or their successors
or assigns:
N.
0S 12i'D6/ 91 51 F:ec $4- 663 FS 869
r'oc
F
'�+F �� �n,_✓ erg:,
The City of Aspen Valley -Hi Development Trust
130 South Galena Street c/o Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., P.C.
Aspen, Colorado 81611 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Attn: Planning Director Aspen, Colorado 81611
7. The terms, conditions, provisions and obligations
herein contained shall be deemed covenants that run with and burden
the real property more particularly described herein hereto and any
and all owners thereof, their successors, grantees or assigns and
further shall inure to the benefit of and be specifically enforce-
able by or against he parties hereto, their successors, grantees or
assigns.
8. Owner represents and warrants that he is the fee
title owner of the subject parcel with full authority to enter into
this Agreement, and that any and all persons, firms or entities
having any lien, encumbrance or interest in the property have
consented to the dedications, restrictions and conditions of
approval set forth herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto
executed their hands and seals on the dates and years respectively
indicated, in full understanding agreement to the terms and
conditions herein contained.
Date: j G,
i
Date:
C4
Owner:
VALLEY HI -DEVELOPMENT TRUST
BY:,iAUSTRALIAN INVESTMENT CORP.,
r
a�_lge;aeral, partner
By
Richard Y.-Neiley, Jr., Secretary
The City of Aspen:
THE CITY OF ASPEN
By
7
l: i�•i c
Rec $45. (-, is 663 F-G 870
�.vi - F t
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing Subdivision Agreement was acknowledged and
signed before me this /r day of / /� 7-,, ` c- . , 1991, by Richard
Y..-Neiley, Jr. as Secretary of Australian Investment Corp., a
'general partner of VALLEY -HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST.
,1 •
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: S;
�—C—
Notary Public
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing Subdivision &greement was acknowledged and
�ig�ed before me this i� day of (�� ht�cC� 1991, by
'� �?C .<-c-�-i on behalf of the City Council of the City of
Aspen.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
'r
c:\act\cvntry.dnn\subdivis.agr
srn -
9 1�/c:6/91 :�: 51 F'e= $4� c_� �_: 663
r Z vi Zvi F'i t ki n Cnty C. er
NOTICE OF PUD DESIGNATION
PLEASE TAKE NOTE that on the loth day of June, 1991, the
City Council of Aspen, Colorado, approved development on the
following described tract as a Planned Unit Development pursuant to
the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. No
development shall occur on the tract except in accordance with such
development order and under any conditions that may be imposed
thereby. The above referred to land is located within the City of
Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, and is more fully described as
follows:
Parcel One
A parcel of land situated in E.A.A.T. and more fully described as
follows: Beginning at the SW Cor. of Lot S, Elk. 26, E.A.A.T.,
thence N 14050'49" E 100.0 Ft.; thence S 75009,11" E 135.32 Ft.;
thence S 14°50149" W 100.0 Ft.; thence N 75°09'11" 135.32 Ft.
Parcel Two
A parcel of land situated in E.A.A.T. and more fully described as
follows: Beginning at the SW Cor. of Lot H, Elk. 26, E.A.A.T.,
thence N 14050,49" E 29.11 Ft. ± to the point of intersection with
Line 9-10 of said E.A.A.T.; thence along said line S 74°12' E
165.34 Ft. ±; thence S 14050,49" W 26.36 Ft. ±; thence N 75009'11"
E 165.32 Ft. to the Point of Beginning,
County of Pitkin,
State of Colorado.
A copy of the Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan is of
record in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing
before me this �- day
Koch, City Clerk.
City Cleric"
inst.--ument was acknowledged and signed
of L 1991, by Kathryn S.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:._';/'_;7/ J))/" _
Notary Public
•
•
APPENDIX VI
Authorization for Representation
VALLEY -HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST
c/o Carl B. Linnecke, CPA, P.C.
215 South Monarch Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
June 9, 1994
City of Aspen
Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Valley -Hi Apartments, 1000 East Hopkins Avenue
Dear Sir/Madam:
The purpose of this letter is to advise you that Richard
Y. Neiley, Jr. is authorized to submit and process a land use
application seeking an extension of vested rights on behalf of
Valley -Hi Development Trust, the owner of the above -referenced
property. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
VALLEY -HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST
i
Carl B. Linnecke, Manager
•
•
APPENDIX VII
Preapplication Conference Summary
. 00 �, �, 31 3
CITY OF ASPEN
1PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT. 7 I.
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE:
REPRESENTATIVE'S P ONE:_ Z
OWNER' S NAME •
SUMMARY
1. Type of Application: '
2. Describe action/type of development being requested:
3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types
of reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent Comments
4. Review is: ( &Z Orally) CC Onl (P&Z then to CC)
5. Public Hearing: c ( YES (NO) I
6. Number of copies of the application to be isbmitte
/
7. What fee was applicant requested to s
8. Payment form Attached for signature (YES NO)
9. Anticipated date of submission:
10. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS:
frm.pre_app
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and VALLEY -HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
Extension of Vested Rights
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance
No. 77 (Series of 1992) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications
and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination
of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or
scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and
CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT
to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to
be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be
benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments
upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred.
CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full
costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for
CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the
Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission
and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless
current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's
waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application
completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $
which is for hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs
exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to
CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned
above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made
within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay
such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
CITY OF ASPEN
By: 1��a &'&�
Diane Moore
City Planning Director
2
APPLICANT
If
By:
Lltt
Mailing Address"./
Z , S S. rn o n►I�P-C�t io �
4-5'w" , C.b site l l
Date: si"t��q