HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.RZ.202 Lone Pine Rd.A71-92 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 8 /17/92 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: ' `. 2737-073-00-016 A71-92
STAFF MEMBER: LL
PROJECT NAME: Mocklin Rezoning
Project Address: 0202 Lone Pine Rd, Aspen, CO 81611
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: Peter Mocklin
Applicant Address: PO Box 807, Aspen, CO 81612 925-3668
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann, Vann Associates
Representative Address/Phone: 230 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611 925-6958
FEES: PLANNING $ # APPS RECEIVED 7
ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED 7
HOUSING $
ENV. HEALTH $
TOTAL $
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: X
P&Z Meeting Dat�? k ta PUBLIC HEARING:"-YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date L\ O I PUBLIC HEARING: YES. NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
DRC Meeting Date ce1 V 10
'ql '1
REFERRALS:
City Attorney Parks Dept. School District
City Engineer / Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas
/ Housing Dir. Fire Marshal CDOT
N Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board
City Electric , Mtn. Bell Open Space Board
/ Envir.Hlth. N7 ACSD Other
V Zoning Energy Center Other
DATE REFERRED: _ ). .INITIALS: DUE: III1 ICI Z'
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: l Z/Z r�J`i )-7 INITIAL:
City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Open Space Other: '/- a
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
December 3, 1993
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Mocklin Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
Attached hereto are two (2) copies of the Mocklin Property Rezoning Map and a
copy of the floor area takeoff for the existing Mocklin apartment building. I
would appreciate it if you would obtain the necessary signatures for recordation.
Please note that Jim Reeser has executed both copies of the map. As you know,
the map must be recorded on or before December 10, 1993.
As we discussed, the size of the area to be zoned R/MFA has been calculated
based on the existing floor area of the Mocklin apartment building plus five (5)
percent, as provided for in City Council Ordinance No. 72-93. The relevant
calculations are as follows.
12,299 Sq. Ft. Floor Area x 0.05 = 614 Sq. Ft.
12,299 Sq. Ft. + 614 Sq. Ft. = 12,913 Sq. Ft.
R/MFA Floor Area Ratio = 0.36:1
0.36(x) = 12,913
x = 35,869
Say 35,870 Sq. Ft.
Please have Cathy Strickland in the City Clerk's office call me after you have
obtained the required signatures and I will provide her with the appropriate
recordation fee.
Ms. Leslie Lamont
December 3, 1993
Page 2
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do
not hesitate to call.
Yours truly,
VANN : .SOCIATES
.unny a , AICP
SV:cwv
Attachments
c:\bus\city.Itr\1tr19592.113
j t
City Council Exhibit
Approved , 19 _
r ORDINANCE NO. 72 9y Ordinance
t
(SERIES OF 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING
REZONING OF A CERTAIN METES AND BOUNDS AREA OF LAND CONSISTING OF
50,000 SQUARE FEET FROM MODERATE-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-15A) TO
RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY (R/MFA) , LOCATED AT 0202 LONE PINE ROAD,
ASPEN COLORADO
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code
the applicant, meter Mocklin has submitted an application for a
map amendment for ‘ezoning 504, 0001 square feet of land area at 0202
Lone Pine Road, frXom R-15A to R/MFA;, and
WHEREAS, Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein,
more formally describes the 50, 000 square feet of land area that
shall be rezoned from R-15A to R/MFA; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Municipal Code does not require the
submittal of a site specific development plan for the consideration
of a map amendment; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed Public Hearing held by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on
October 20, 1992 to consider the map amendment, the Commission
reviewed the application and considered the representations and
commitments made by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Commission found that the rezoning complied with
Section 24-7-1102 , in that there have been changed conditions
affecting the subject parcel or surrounding neighborhood which
1
4 ,00N
support the rezoning, the proposed amendment is not in conflict
with any applicable portions of Chapter 24, and the rezoning is
compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses; and
WHEREAS, the Commission recommended approval to the City
Council of the map amendment for 0202 Lone Pine Road from R-15A
Moderate-Density Residential to R/MFA Residential Multi-Family; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, having considered the City Council's
concerns expressed during first reading of the Ordinance, revised
the rezoning request; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning proposal only includes 50, 000 square
feet of land area surrounding the existing multi-family building
in order to eliminate the nonconforming status of the building; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, having considered the
r Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation and the revised
proposal, does wish to grant rezoning, with conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
That it does hereby grant rezoning of the metes and bounds area of
land consisting of 50,000 square feet at 0202 Lone Pine Road from
R-15A (Moderate-Density Residential) to R/MFA (Residential/Multi-
Family) with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall file a survey, to be approved by the
Planning and Engineering Departments. Said survey shall confirm
the floor area of the existing structure, as calculated by Section
24-3-101 Floor Area in the Municipal Code, and size the portion of
land to be rezoned to R/MFA to fit the existing floor area of the
building permitting a 5% or 900 square foot leeway, whichever is
less, for minor alterations to the building.
2 . The survey shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder within 180 days of final approval of the rezoning or the
approval is void.
2
Section 2 :
Issues that relate to the establishment and location of sidewalks,
trails and other public improvements shall await subdivision
approval.
Section 3:
The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen, Colorado,
shall be and is hereby amended to reflect those rezoning actions
as set forth in Section 1 above and such amendments shall be
promptly entered on the Official Map in accordance with Section
24-5-103B of the Municipal Code.
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 pub ' c hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the // �
day o /9q at 5: 00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen
City ll, As en Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing
a pu is 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
'ty Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
199k,
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
-_ '
Kathryn :'0 Roc , City Clerk
3
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 41 day of
, 1993 .
John B nnett, Mayor
Kathryn 1 Koc , City Clerk
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
ry
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager(..
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direct
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: June 14, 1993
RE: Second Reading Ordinance 72, Series of 1992 - Mocklin
Rezoning
SUMMARY: The applicant, Peter Mocklin, requested to continue
second reading of Ordinance 72, Series of 1993 from April 26, 1993
to June 14 , 1993 .
The applicant seeks to rezone approximately 50, 000 square feet of
his 3 . 5 acres parcel from R-15A (Moderate-Density Residential) to
(Residential Multi-Family) R/MFA located at 0202 Lone Pine Road.
The applicant requests the rezoning to eliminate the non-conforming
status of his structure. Mr. Mocklin owns and lives in an eight
unit apartment building and a multi-family structure is not a
permitted use in the R-15A zone district. The Aspen Municipal Code
does not require a site specific development plan in order to
consider a rezoning. However, any future development will require
an application that will include all pertinent material for a site
specific development review.
Please refer to the attached Ordinance 72 , Series of 1992 , Exhibit
A.
BACKGROUND: The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the
initial rezoning request at their October 20, 1992 meeting and
recommended approval of the rezoning to City Council.
City Council approved first reading of Ordinance 72 , Series of 1992
at their November 9, 1992 meeting.
During review of the rezoning application, the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District (ACSD) and the Water Department concluded that
Mr. Mocklin owed water tap and sanitation connection and services
fees.
Council tabled second reading of the Ordinance in order for Mr.
Mocklin to resolve the outstanding fee issue and to properly notice
the rezoning of th parcel and make arrangements to pay water and
sewer tap fees.
1
Mr. Mocklin has arranged to pay the fees owed the City Water
Department and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine
area, approximately 61 acres, was formally annexed into the City
in March of 1989. The annexation area was rezoned in June of 1989 .
As the official zone district map indicates (please see map,
Exhibit B) , several properties were rezoned to R-30 PUD. The Oden
and Cowee properties were rezoned to R-15A. The Community Center
was rezoned to Public and the Centennial, Hunter Creek, Hunter
Longhouse and Lone Pine developments were rezoned to R/MFA (a zone
district designed to reflect existing densities and floor areas) .
In May of 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended to
City Council the rezoning of the Mocklin and Moran properties to
R/MFA. However, the Planning Department found "that the community
may best be served if the zoning of these parcels to R/MFA were
done in the context of a development plan and until then the
appropriate zoning for these parcels is R-15A" . The City Council
concurred with staff ' s position and rezoned the property to R-15A.
CURRENT ISSUES:
Rezoning - Mr. Mocklin originally requested to rezone his entire
3 . 5 acres from R-15A to R/MFA. Council was reluctant to upzone his
entire piece of property to multi-family absent a development
proposal. In addition, the majority of the property is vacant and
has been identified in the AACP as future open space.
Mr. Mocklin has revised his rezoning request to include rezoning
only a portion of his property to R/MF. The R/MF zoning was
proposed instead of R/MFA because a smaller piece of property,
approximately 27, 000 square feet, would be required to make the
building a conforming use. However, a 27, 000 square foot parcel
would not have allowed additional density (number of dwelling
units) but would have enabled additional floor area to be added to
the building.
After lengthy review, Council suggested rezoning only a portion of
the property to R/MFA. The surrounding multi-family zone districts
are R/MFA and the ability to add more floor area was not
acceptable.
Revised Rezoning Request - Mr. Mocklin proposed to rezone
approximately 50, 000 square feet of land from R-15A to R/MFA. The
50, 000 square feet of land area has been sized to the existing
floor area of the building, approximately 18, 000 square feet.
Please see revised site plan, exhibit C.
The proposed rezoning is intended to accomplish the following:
2
* eliminate the non-conforming status of the building;
* create a 50, 000 square foot tract of land that can be
subdivided as a separate, conforming R/MFA parcel;
* leave approximately 2 . 3 acres of land area zoned R-15A that
can be redeveloped pursuant to GMP and subdivision or sold for
open space or affordable housing purposes;
* prevent a significant floor area expansion of the building
(but it does enable a 5-10% leeway additional floor area for
minor alterations such as enclosing a deck, expanding a
bathroom etc. ) ;
* a significant amount of floor area could not be added onto
the building or onto the piece of land zoned R/MFA;
* no additional dwelling units may be added without a Growth
Management allocation.
The applicant has not submitted a site specific development plan
because he does not intend to redevelop his property at this time.
Please see development data for R/MFA zoning, exhibit D.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A. Site Description - The applicant' s property consists of three
separately described parcels. Parcels A and B are located at the
intersection of Gibson Avenue and Lone Pine Road and contain
approximately 3 . 5 acres total and are zoned R-15A. There is an
existing free market, eight unit building located on Parcel A.
These parcels are within the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine
annexation area and are considered merged for development purposes.
Parcel C, a small wedge of land between Spring Street and Gibson
Avenue, is separated from Parcel A and B by Gibson Avenue. It is
zoned R-30 PUD and contains approximately 0. 59 acres and is also
considered part of Parcels A/B.
B. Nonconforming Use - It has been established by staff that
the 8 apartments located on Parcel A are a legal nonconforming use
in the R-15A zone district.
A nonconformity may continue in accordance with the provision of
the land use regulations. Normal maintenance to permit
continuation of the nonconforming use may be performed in any 12
month period and is limited to 10% of the building' s current
replacement cost. Nonconforming uses shall not be extended so as
to prevent the enlargement by additions of the area of the
3
structure in which such nonconforming uses are located or occupancy
of additional lands.
A nonconforming use may be reconstructed if less than 75% of the
building is demolished or destroyed. If the building is destroyed
by "an act of God" the entire building may be restored.
Council asked staff to seek advice from lenders whether or not a
non-conformity can pose a difficulty when seeking financing.
Please see Exhibit E.
C. Applicable Review - In order to eliminate the non-conforming
stature of his building, Mr. Mocklin proposes to rezone 50, 000
square feet of land surrounding his existing building from R-15A
to R/MFA. The remaining land area will maintain the current zoning
of R-15A and R-30 PUD, which is approximately 2 . 9 acres.
The purpose of the Residential/Multi-Family (R/MFA) zone district
is to provide for the use of land for intensive long-term
residential purposes, with customary accessory uses. Recreational
and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to
residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the
Residential/Multi-Family (R/MFA) zone district are typically newly
annexed areas, within walking distance of the center of the city,
or include lands on transit routes, and other lands with existing
concentrations of attached residential dwellings and mixed attached
and detached residential dwellings.
Legitimizing the multi-family structure is compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood. Placement of the R/MFA zone boundary
line will enable subdivision of the property if the land is
purchased for open space or future development is contemplated.
The nonconforming status of the building will be eliminated and
historical rental housing will be preserved on the site.
Please refer to Exhibit F for the applicable review standards for
a map amendment pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 .
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Council may deny the rezoning based on land use considerations.
2 . Council may deny the rezoning request until a site specific
development plans is submitted with the rezoning request. A denial
will continue the nonconforming status of the land use. A
development plan is not required to consider a rezoning request.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 72 , Series
of 1993 with the following conditions:
4
1. Mr. Mocklin shall file a survey, to be approved by the Planning
and Engineering Departments. Said survey shall confirm the floor
area of the existing structure, as calculated by Section 24-3-101
Floor Area in the Municipal Code, and size the portion of land to
be rezoned to R/MFA to fit the existing floor area of the building
permitting a 5-10% leeway for minor alterations to the building.
2. The survey shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder within 180 days of final approval of the rezoning or the
approval is void.
PROPOSE MOTION: "I move to adopt second reading of Ordinance 72,
Series of 1993 . "
CITY MANGER'S COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
A. Ordinance 72 , Series of 1992
B. Annexation/Rezoning Map
C. Revised Site Plan
D. Development Data for R/MFA Zoning
E. Alpine Bank referral
F. Rezoning Review Criteria
G. Referral Comments
H. Proof of Public Notice
5
•
••• ty Council Exhit• 0� •
roved . 19 _ EODA G11• F'au_6O I . • i,.
Ordinance
• LES;• �
/ - T
cfr\ ... ..../...2..---r:-.--1 - .".-•‘7- .." -.''''I. ./ .:N"
• Z W
•
•
•
•
• ii.ii.t 1 O 4 o g •e
-•.0 me \ (cL 8.: Y a
, a '�
...• 0-6 :-• x'3 -..;:, -. - . (., . . ....
ir -. :,•4---- _ _._ _ , -.b E • i �s
°eP `i�� '� fi 1 < •I
_ ` -cam O •- •-' _ W}r 0�
•
Z CJ] h 1T".. • : Pe_: r----1
c� tom.] Y r - zo r- ,
L' (I) r r Q
AY/` �'%`e U:� 'fie::
1 Fes' 4 .-',+J '• , �� .'1•^ •- / �,,/•
. Z UU> 4�' ••••girt. r W O Tit, Z Zr \ _ _ �- .F.3.1(•
• •
•
Z Z 4�" — O .- v..(
• . .....)\ •
. - 0?'" .,...= 0 \) pm=
r-f
t ♦-
. a J •� Kid
t./ r
1= I ass•• 1.
L 1 ° U -. - - t'•. L
i i %L ^r1--, �� 1 i. ; �,' 'aa o:,:,2;., T :•
�o — a - - o s`?5gc; W� :EY �� 1
1 DLRGW ROW— ' ' '.£=...0 J ` ------- �:r 1- �.. :(°.- • .cro.,-_ r
1 .✓� co�- ` T ?6- - a=gtr ' •� Q�t--L�a w.� ^�
_ - oa W i"za t �"sat;+I r� `� •
�� o/ ';�' ` `� li OJT '� r� u'_iaa- � 3 - LS ,. �.� r--■
_ \
.i- i
. •.-
,
{ 4G ti 's 7 r1 0
G%
City
Council Exhibit ='' S F.r, 7
O •
Approved ____._.__ , 19 _
nv Ordinance
0A2
t
N 11
;ttf' �/
� ;
t\� ( rte / .
� i \ ` \
1
/ \\N._ ' `\ / `-
/ ` AV
� \ / '.,'1
` /
• ) i
� � —.
`. i / \�
,--_. -"1:4,:p 0 \\\•••.•
S ile W00E (E1.
' S •
'Fp', • . ..
•
- %TO" Atop V ��i % i�i� sW .
.
�
j I N
/ .1" \ '
N.
(p
/ A ., •t \1\k : 4 A, .... ,,,,
. _,
....„ ., .
--__
'`f-T- •- j
5. 2 , 71 • .+
_ 7q ) l
EXHIBIT D
REZONING R/MFA ZONE DISTRICTS AND REDEVELOPMENT DATA
Mr. Mocklin originally requested a rezoning of his entire parcel
from R-15A to the R/MFA zone district. Mr. Mocklin revised his
rezoning request because of Council's concern whether to rezone a
large piece of land to R/MFA without a development plan.
An approximate 50, 000 square foot area has been delineated by the
applicant which would encompass the building, parking area, access
drive and the landscaped open space immediately surrounding the
existing multi-family structure. The 507, 000 square foot lot is
the smallest parcel for the existing building that still meets the
open space, front and side yard setbacks, land area for existing
density of the building, and parking requirements of the R/MFA zone
district. The rear yard will remain nonconforming because the
building borders the rear property boundary which cannot be altered
without a lot line adjustment with the adjacent property owner.
If a rezoning to R/MFA of the existing building is approved, then
the remaining property (zoned R/15A) owned by Mr. Mocklin is
approximately 2 . 3 acres. The remaining property (zoned R-15) would
be available for future open space purchase or development.
Rezoning to the R/MFA zone district requires the delineation of a
larger parcel to meet the dimensional requirements of the R/MFA
zone district. Mr. Mocklin could not add square footage to the
existing building but he could add additional dwelling units with
a GMQS allocation.
In the R/MFA zone district (minimum lot size is 27, 001 sq. ft. ) the
FAR is . 36: 1. Thirty-five percent open space is required.
Subdivision is not being requested at this time because there are
no development rights available for the remainder of the property.
There is no Code requirement that the area proposed for rezoning
constitute a separate lot. In fact, Section 24-5-508 contemplates
development on parcels of land that have more than one underlying
zone district.
R/MFA -
Minimum Lot Size 27 , 001 sq. ft.
Floor Area Ratio for 27, 001 to 3 acres . 36: 1
Allowable Floor Area for 27 , 001 lot 9, 700 sq. ft.
Existing Floor Area of 8-plex 18, 000 sq. ft.
1
Required Lot Size for Existing Floor Area 50, 000 sq. ft.
Potential number of dwelling units
on 50, 000 sq. ft. parcel 13 3 bedrooms
Remaining Land Area Zoned R-15A 2 . 3 acres
Potential Number of Free Market Single Family
Lots in R-15A (15, 000 sq. ft. lots) 6
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
I. Current Conditions of Mr. Mocklin's property
1. Zoned R-15A - moderate-density residential
2 . 3 . 5 acres of vacant land except for existing multi-family
structure
3 . 8 legal dwelling units: 3 one-bedroom, 3 two-bedroom and
2 three-bedrooms units = 12 , 800 square feet of floor area
Mr. Mocklin has 8 free market residential units. Pursuant to
Section 24-8-104 A. 1. (a) "Exemption by Planning Director" , he may
reconstruct those 8 units on his property, exempt from the GMP
competition. In June of 1992 , staff has determined that Mr.
Mocklin's eight dwelling units were legal units eligible for GMP
reconstruction credit. Reconstruction of dwelling units must
comply with the Housing Replacement Program (Ordinance 1) .
Ordinance 1 requires a minimum 50% replacement of the existing
floor area and a minimum 50% of the bedrooms as fully deed
restricted affordable housing for any dwelling units that are
demolished.
In summary, Mr. Mocklin has 8 free market development rights that
can be reconfigured on the property provided he mitigates for
redevelopment via Ordinance 1.
With that background, staff envisions several potential development
plans that are relevant if the property is redeveloped.
II. Development Scenarios
Scenario A: Maintain Existing Multi-Family Building with
Development on Remaining R-15A Parcel
Mr. Mocklin could rezone the 50, 000 square foot multifamily parcel
to R/MFA or AH and then develop the remaining R-15A parcel as 6
separate lots. The 8 existing dwelling units in the multi-family
structure must be fully deed restricted as affordable housing in
order for Mr. Mocklin to utilize his 6 of his free market
2
reconstruction credits on the R-15A parcel (4, 500 square feet of
floor area per parcel. Fully deed restricted housing is a
conforming use in both the R/MFA and AH zones. However, it is the
City's policy to rezone property to AH when fully deed restricted
dwelling units are contemplated.
A PUD overlay may be desireable to encourage clustering of the 6
homes to help preserve open space (which is private open space) .
However, a PUD designation requires a full rezoning review process.
Total Land Area 152 , 460 sq. ft.
3 . 5 acres
Lot Area Required for Existing 8-Flex 50, 000 sq. ft.
Remaining Lot Area for Development 102 , 460 sq. ft.
R-15A Minimum Lot Area Requirement 15, 000 sq. ft.
Potential Number of Single Family R-15A Lots
(if multifamily land zoned R/MFA) 6
Scenario B: Demolish Existing 8-Plex & Develop Entire R-15A Parcel
This scenario envisions demolishing the existing 8-plex and
developing the entire Mocklin property. A portion of the property
could be rezoned to AH to accommodate the required deed restricted
affordable housing requirements (Ordinance 1) . The remaining
property would be zoned R/15A.
Mr. Mocklin could demolish the existing building and replace 9, 000
sq. ft. as deed restricted housing in accordance with Ordinance 1.
Mr. Mocklin could utilize the 8 free market reconstruction credits
and develop 9 single family lots, one of which would have to
allocated through residential GMP.
Total Land Area 3 5 acres or 152 , 460 sq. ft.
Total Floor Area of Existing 8-Plex 18, 000 sq. ft.
Ordinance 1 Replacement Requirement 9, 000 sq. ft.
7.5 br.
Potential Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Replacement:
Rezone - new parcel for multi-family Affordable
Housing (AH)
3
Possible Unit Configuration 2 3 - br. &
1 2 - br.
Remaining Land Area for R-15A Development 145, 460 sq. ft.
R-15A Minimum Lot Area Requirement 15, 000 sq. ft.
Potential Number of R-15A Lots 9 single
family parcels (one of which
would have to be allocated
through GMP competition)
Allowable Floor Area for Each Parcel 4, 500 sq. ft.
4
JUN 08 '93 03:50PM ALPINE ASPEN P,2
City Council Exhibit
Approved , 19
Alpine Bank By Ordinance
■ ® Aspen, CO 81811 \t
9th \ \
June 8, 1993
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Senior Planner
Aspen-pitkin Planning Department
Aspen, CO 81612
Re: Financing non-conforming real estate
Dear Leslie:
Alpine Bank, Aspen as well as any other local bank, would carefully
review any request for the financing of non-conforming real estate.
considerations would include:
1. The sale of loans to the secondary market could be difficult in
this situation.
2. The amount the bank would be willing to lend could be less than
the standard real estate loan to value percentages to allow for
problems with resale created by the non-conforming status.
If you have any questions regarding this please do not hesitate to
call me.
Sincerely,
Louise Brainard
Vice President
600 East Hopkins Avenue,Suite 001•Aspen,Colorado 81611 •(303)920-4800•Fax(303)920.4274
a recycled Doctor
EXHIBIT F
Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of review for an amendment
to the Official Zone District Map are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The rezoning of the land area immediately surrounding
the existing multi-family building to R/MFA would eliminate the
current nonconforming status of the building. The City would lose
long-term rental housing if the applicant were forced to tear the
building down although Ordinance 1 would require replacement
housing on-site. A rezoning would still be required for multi-
family replacement units.
As previously noted, a rezoning application does not require
submittal of a site specific development plan. This application
is consistent with all portions of this chapter.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Land Use Plan, prepared in 1973 , identified
the Mocklin property in the residential multi-family land use
category. There are no other elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan that specifically address this piece of
property.
However, the adopted Aspen Area Community Plan recommends that the
area around the Mocklin property be considered for purchase for
open space. Rezoning 50, 000 square feet of property around the
existing multi-family building would leave the remaining land area
available for purchase as open space. The land area being rezoned
has been calculated anticipating future subdivision into a separate
parcel. The open space, front and side yard setbacks, and floor
area all meet the underlying zone district requirements for a R/MFA
zoned parcel.
c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: Except for the Williams Addition (zoned R-6) and
Oklahoma Flats (zoned R-30) , the area immediately surrounding the
Mocklin property is zoned R/MFA and comprises approximately 369
dwelling units in Lone Pine, Hunter Creek, Hunter Longhouse and
Hunter Longhouse Addition. In the vicinity of the Mocklin
property, Centennial, Williams Woods and Smuggler Mobile Home Park
offer similar multi-family characteristics.
1
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: The rezoning will not affect the traffic or road safety
of the area. In the event further development is proposed for this
property the GMP and/or subdivision review process ensures that
growth impacts will be mitigated. Those mitigation measures
include improvements to public facilities, drainage improvements,
parking and employee housing mitigation, and site design
considerations.
Additional dwellings units can only be added by obtaining a GMP
allocation. Additional floor area could be added to existing units
however development cannot extend beyond the R/MFA boundary because
multi-family is not an allowed use in the R-15A zone district.
Future subdivision would then require a zone boundary adjustment
because expansion of the building would reduce the open space and
setbacks that have been calculated for this building.
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: As outlined above, any additional dwelling units will
require a GMP allocation and a thorough review such a subdivision.
Future development will be required to provide for additional
demands on public services. Additionally, deficiencies in public
services and facilities would limit the ultimate development on the
property.
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and the Water Department
have discovered that the applicant has not paid service charges or
tap fees for the eight dwelling units.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: This rezoning itself will have no adverse impact on the
natural environment. Future development review will require
compliance with all applicable environmental requirements including
those of the Environmental Protection Agency.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: Long-term rental housing has been eliminated at an
alarming rate in the City of Aspen in the past 5-8 years.
Rezoning the property is compatible with the character of the area
and consistent with surrounding zone districts.
2
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: Annexation of the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine area
required the rezoning of surrounding property to R/MFA. Continued
development and proposals of multi-family development in this area,
i.e. Hunter Longhouse, Co-Housing, Williams Ranch, represents a
consistent philosophy of the City and County that multi-family
housing is appropriate for this neighborhood in such close
proximity to services and the commercial core.
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The rezoning would rectify a nonconforming use
situation. In addition the rezoning is compatible with surrounding
parcels.
The Land Use Code does not require the submittal of a site specific
development plan in order to review a rezoning application.
Therefore the present application is not in conflict with the
intent of the rezoning section of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
3
Council s , _
Aspen 9onsolidated Sanitation •565 North Mill Street By Ordinance
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303)925-3601 FAX #(303)925-2537
Sy Kelly-Chairman Albert Bishop
John J. Snyder- Treas. Frank Loushin
Louis Popish- Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
March 16, 1993
Leslie Lamont
Planning Office
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Mocklin Rezoning
Dear Leslie :
The District and Peter Mocklin have reached agreement on the
repayment of the total connection fees, service charges, and
penalties associated with Mr. Mocklin' s property at 202 Lone Pine
Road. Mr. Mocklin has signed the agreement and has paid the
District $5000 toward the outstanding balance due ($17, 763. 46) ,
paid the current quarter' s service charges ( $202. 26) , and has
delivered six checks to the District which will be deposited
monthly to cover the remaining balance due ($12, 763. 46) . The
final check will be deposited on September 1st of this year. The
outstanding charges represent a perpetual lien against the
property until paid in full .
The District regulations allowed us to charge for the last three
year' s service at the current rate with a ten percent penalty.
The total connection fees were calculated at the current rate
since the connection was unrecorded, which follows District
regulations. The agreement was reached at a hearing that was
requested following delivery of a Shut Off Notice.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce Mather y
District Manager
EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
1976 - 1986 - 1990
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer &e__
Date: March 5, 1993
Re: Mocklin Rezoning
As required by our department's review of the above referenced application, Peter
Mocklin met with me this afternoon concerning obtaining an encroachment license for his
planters that are located within the public right-of-way.
This department's further review of the planters has indicated that an encroachment
license is not applicable in this particular planter situation.
There are a number of planters in the City that are licensed encroachments, however this
situation does not warrant an encroachment license. I explained to Peter that when we
began planning for the Smuggler Area Commuter Sidewalk Project, we examined a
sidewalk alignment on Lone Pine. Gibson Avenue was selected as the higher priority
commuter sidewalk location. I said that if he develops his property, the City will require
that he provide a sidewalk along his frontage.
The City will need a temporary construction easement from Mr. Mocklin in order to build
the Smuggler Area Commuter Sidewalk along Gibson.
He has landscaped and planted the space between his property line and the curb so that
it is not now currently possible for pedestrians to walk in that space. I said that it would
be nice if he provided a pedestrian space in that area now but that there was no
requirement for him to do so at this time.
The planters are only part of the pedestrian space encroachments. There are berms and
other plantings which also encroach into the pedestrian space. Therefore I have
determined that an encroachment license is not appropriate in this instance.
cc: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
Rob Thomson, Special Projects
M93.61
P �
City Council Exhibit_
Approved , 19 _
By Ordinance
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
(Pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Land Use Regulations)
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says
as follows:
I, SUNNY VANN, being or representing an Applicant before
the City of Aspen, personally certify that Public Notice of Monica
and Peter Mocklin's application to rezone Tracts A and B of their
property from R-15A to R/MFA was given by 1) posting of notice
containing the information required in Section 6-205.E. 2. , which
posting occurred on January 15, 1993, in a conspicuous place on the
subject property and 2) mailing Notice of said development applica-
tion to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property, which mailing occurred on Janaury 15, 1993.
Applicant:
MONICA AND PETER MOCKLIN
By ', . 1/ 1:
un7' ann
The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged
and signed before me this /`1r'"1'day of January, 1993 , by Sunny Vann
on behalf of MONICA AND PETER MOCKLIN.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: Li
, i 1/ ,
Notary Public
(i „-;i !77d--
Tilt'''' 11:rzx T:m:: ,
f
Box E
Aspen, Colorado
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss. Copy of Notice
County of Pitkin ) •
ORDINANCE NO.72
(SERIES OF.199
AN ORDINANC OF THE ASPEN CITY COUN- of this Ordinance approving the rezoning by
I, Loren Jenkins do solemnly swear that I am the CIL GRANTING REZONING FROM MODERATE- City Council,the applicant must obtain an
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 15A)TO RESIDEN- encroachment license from the engineering
Publisher of THE ASPEN TIMES:that the same is a week- TIAL MULTI-FAMILY(R/MFA),LOCATED AT department for the existing improvements in
ly newspaper printed,in,whole or in part,and published O WHEREEAS soon ASPEN;ecrCOLORADO 4-7-111002 of Section`h 2right-of-way.
•
in the County of Pitkin,State of Colorado, and has en- the Municipal Code the applicant,Peter Mock- Issues that relate to the establishment and
y an as a gen- has submitted an application for a map location of sidewalks,trails and other public
eral circulation therein; that said newspaper has been amendmentfor rezoning 0202 Lone Pine Road, improvements shall.await subdivision
and
3,5 acres,from R,15A to R/MFA; approval' -
published continuously and uninterruptedly in said WHEREAS,Exhibit A,attached hereto,more The Official Zone District Map for the City of
County of Pitkin,for a period of more than fifty-two con- formally describes Parcels A and B which shall I Aspen,Colorado;shall be and is hereby amend-
secutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the be rezoned from R 15AtoR�M and. ed-to-reflect those rezoning actions as set
1� h WHEREAS,the Aspen Municipal Code does forth In Section 1 above and such amendments
annexed legal notice or advertisement, that said newspa- not require the submittal of a site specific shall be'-promptlyentered on the Official Map
development plan for the consideration of a I in accordance with Section 24-5-103B of the
per has been admitted to the United States mails as sec- map amendment and: Municipal Code. ,
WHEREAS,at a duly noticed Public Hearing Section 4: -
ond class matter under the provisions of the Act of March held by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Com• If any section,subsection,sentence,clause,
3 1879 or any amendments thereof, and that said mission(hereinafter`Commission')on Octo- phrase or portion of this ordinance for any
y news- ber 20,1992 to consider the map amendment, reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any
paper is a a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publish- the Commission reviewed the application and court of competent jurisdiction,such provision
considered the representations and commit- and such holding shall not affect the validity of
ing legal notices and advertisements with the meaning of ments made by the applicant;and the remaining portions thereof.
the laws of the State of Colorado. WHEREAS,the Commission found that the Sections:
rezoning complied with Section 24-7-I102,In This Ordinance shall not effect any existing
that there have been changed conditions affect- litigation and shall not operate as an abatement
ing the subject parcel or surrounding neighbor- of any action or proceeding now pending under-
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was pub- hood which support the rezoning,the pro- or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
posed amendment is not In conflict with any amended as herein provided,and the same
lished in the regular and entire issue of every number of applicable portions of Chapter 24,and the shall be conducted and concluded under such
rezoning is compatible with surrounding zone prior ordinances.
said weekly newspaper for the period of I consecu- districts and land uses;and ( Section 6:
WHEREAS,the Commission recommended,at A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be
tive insertions;and that the first publication of said notice their October 20,1992 meeting,approval to the held on the 1 Ith day of January,1993 at 5:00
was in the issue of said newspaper dated City Council of the map amendment for 0202 P.M.in the City Council Chambers,Aspen City
Lone Pine Road from R-15A Moderate-Density Hail,Aspen Colorado,fifteen(15)days prior to
tut:, /k A.D., 19 9„.: and that the last pub- Residential to R/MFA Residential Multi-Family, which hearing a public notice of the same shall
and be published once in a newspaper of general
lication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper WHEREAS,the Aspen City Council,having circulation within the City of Aspen.
dated , i /6 A.D. 19 C?J aj , considered the Planning and Zoning Commis- INTRODUCED,READ AND ORDERED PUB-
slon's recommendation,does wish to grant LISHED as provided by law,bythe City Council
rezoning,with conditions.- of the City of Aspen on the 9th day of Novem-
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ber,1992. .
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,COL- John Bennett,Mayor
ORADO: Published Mahe Aspen Times December 18,
Section 1: .1992.
That It does hereby grant rezoning of 0202
Lone Pine Road from R-15A(Moderate-Density
��� f Residential)to R/MFA(Residential/Multi-Fami-
ly)with the following conditions: •
1.Prior to second reading and final adoption
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary of this Ordinance approving the rezoning by
City Council,the applicant shall pay sewer ser-
public in and for the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, vice charges and water tap fees for the eight
on this ,.I3 day of r cr-e A.D. 19 y� unit apartment building.
2.Prior to second reading and final adoption
�y /.Jccf( ;(✓�
Notary Public C--/
My commission expires ////,P q-5
O.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direc r
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: February 16, 1993
RE: Mocklin Rezoning
Council has requested a recap of the development potential of Mr.
Mocklin's 3 .5 acres of land. Mr. Mocklin has requested to rezone
27, 000 square feet of land area from R-15A to R/MF.
A. CURRENT CONDITIONS
1. Zoned R-15A - moderate-density residential
2. 3.5 acres of vacant land except for multi-family structure
3. 8 legal dwelling units: 3 one-bedroom, 3 two-bedroom and
2 three-bedrooms units = 12,800 square feet of floor area
B. DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
1. Current R-15A zoning
Mr. Mocklin has 8 free market residential units. Pursuant to
Section 24-8-104 A. 1. (a) "Exemption by Planning Director", he may
reconstruct those 8 units on his property, exempt from the GMP
competition. In the past, applicants have utilized these types of
development credits by demolishing existing dwelling units and
reconstructing those units on the property without having to
mitigate their impacts, primarily employee housing.
Section 24-8-104 A. 1. (a) has been amended to allow the
reconstruction of dwelling units provided redevelopment complies
with the Housing Replacement Program (Ordinance 1) . Ordinance 1
requires a minimum 50% replacement of the existing floor area and
a minimum 50% of the bedrooms as fully deed restricted affordable
housing for any dwelling units that are demolished.
In June of 1992 , the Planning Department and City Attorney
determined that Mr. Mocklin's eight dwelling units were legal units
eligible for GMP reconstruction credit. Staff also determined that
no purpose was served in requiring Mr. Mocklin to demolish a good
building in order to receive 8 reconstruction credits for
redevelopment. In other words, Mr. Mocklin has 8 free market
development rights that can be reconfigured on the property
provided he mitigates for redevelopment via Ordinance 1 and there
A
are no more than 8 free market units (through reconstruction
credit) on the property.
With that background, staff envisions two potential development
scenarios that are relevant if the property is redeveloped. Mr.
Mocklin's request to rezone 27,000 square feet of land to R/MF
would not preclude either of these scenarios.
Scenario A: Maintain Existing Multi-Family Building with
Development on Remaining Lot
Total Land Area: 3 .5 acres or 152,460 sq. ft.
Lot Area Required for Existing 8 Dwelling Units: 27, 000 sq.
ft.
Remaining Lot Area for Development: 125,460 sq. ft.
R-15A Minimum Lot Area Requirement: 15, 000 sq. ft.
Potential Number of R-15A Lots: 8 single family lots
Allowable Floor Area for Each 15,000 sq. ft. Parcel: 4,500
sq. ft.
Applicable Review Processes: subdivision, rezoning to R/MF
or AH for multi-family structure to eliminate non-conforming
status, special review for parking and open space in AH zone,
and GMQS Exemption by Planning Director for reconstruction of
8 residential units.
Note: The 8 existing dwelling units in the multi-family
structure must be fully deed restricted in order for Mr.
Mocklin to utilize his 8 free market reconstruction credits
for the 8 single family homes. Fully deed restricted housing
is a conforming use in both the R/MF and AH zones. However
it is the City's policy to rezone property to AH when fully
deed restricted dwelling units are contemplated.
A PUD overlay may be desireable to encourage clustering of the
8 homes to help preserve open space (which is private open
space) . However, a PUD designation requires a full rezoning
review process.
In summary, Mr. Mocklin could rezone the 27, 000 square
feet to R/MF or AH for the multi-family fully deed
restricted units and redevelop those 8 units on eight
separate parcels, via subdivision, for an allowable floor
area of 4500 square feet.
2
♦y,
A
Scenario B: Demolish Existing Structure and Develop Entire Lot
Total Land Area: 3 . 5 acres or 152,460 sq. ft.
Total Floor Area of Existing Structure: 12,800 sq. ft.
Number of Bedrooms in Existing Structure: 15 bedrooms
Ordinance 1 Replacement Requirement: 6,400 sq. ft. and 7.5
bedrooms
Potential Deed Restricted Multi-family Replacement:
Rezone - new parcel for multi-family to Affordable
Housing
Possible Mitigation - 2 three-bedroom and 1 two-bedroom
units
Land Area for Mitigation Density - 3 , 200 sq. ft. of land
area
Parking - 6 spaces = 2, 142 sq. ft.
Open Space - 24% = 1, 658 sq. ft.
Total AH parcel - 7, 000 sq. ft.
Remaining Land Area for R-15A Development: 145, 460 sq. ft.
R-15A Minimum Lot Area Requirement: 15, 000 sq. ft.
Potential Number of R-15A Lots: 9 single family parcels (one
of which would have to be allocated through GMP competition,
8 are reconstruction credits)
Allowable Floor Area for Each 15,000 sq. ft. Parcel: 4,500
sq. ft.
Applicable Review Processes: GMP for 1 residential
allocation, subdivision, rezoning to AH for multi-family
Ordinance 1 replacement structure, special review for parking
and open space, and GMQS Exemption by Planning Director for
reconstruction of 8 residential units.
In summary, Mr. Mocklin could demolish the existing building,
replace 6,400 sq. ft. as deed restricted housing and develop
9 single family parcels, one of which would have to allocated
through residential GMP.
2. Rezone 27, 000 square feet of land area from R-15A to R/MF
(current Mocklin proposal) and remaining land area zone R-15A.
Total Land Area: 3 . 5 acres or 152,460 sq. ft.
Total Floor Area of Existing Structure: 12 , 800 sq. ft.
Number of Bedrooms in Existing Structure: 15 bedrooms
3
Land Area Required for Density in R/MF Zone: 17, 310 sq. ft.
Land Area for Additional Development Density Purposes: 9, 690
sq. ft.
Development Potential: 2 three-bedroom and 1 two-bedroom units
(9360 sq. ft. of land area required)
or 4 two-bedroom units (8400 sq. ft.
of land area required)
Parking Spaces: 8 additional spaces for new units
Remaining R-15A Land Area: 125,460
Potential Number of R-15A Lots: 8 single family lots
Applicable Review Processes: GMP residential allocation for
additional units and employee mitigation could be provided by
deed restricting existing units in the building.
4
- MEMORANDUM-
TO: Mayor and City Council
•
FROM: Amy Margerum, City Manager
DATE: February 22, 1993
RE: Mocklin Water Tap Fees
SUMMARY
Staff has done an exhaustive review of Peter Mocklin's letter to
City Council dated February 5, 1993 regarding his water and sewer
tap fees. Please find attached memos from Jed Caswall, Bill
Drueding and Larry Ballenger.
In reviewing this material and discussing the matter of the tap
fees owed to the City with Larry, Bob and Sunny Vann I reduced the .
amount owed to the City by over 50% and offered the Mocklin' s a
payment plan. I made my decision based on the fact that he should
be charged at the rates in place at the time we first determined
he had an illegal 8-plex structure (1981). This fee is based on
8.07 ECU's times $3,300 for a total of $26,631.
I have discussed this offer with Sunny Vann and have not yet heard
back from him on Mr. Mocklin's willingness to pay the tap fees.
I continue to recommend that Council not grant the rezoning unless
it is conditioned upon payment of these fees. If Mr. Mocklin
wishes to protest my determination he is able to take the matter
to court.
MEMORANDUM
TO: AMY MARGERUM, CITY MANAGER
TO: BOB GISH, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
THROUGH: JUDY MCKENZIE, CUSTOMER SERVICES SUPERVISOR
FROM: LARRY BALLENGER, WATER SUPERINTENDENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 1993
SUBJECT: MOCKLIN PROPERTY
The Water Department has researched all available information on Mr. Mocklin's property at
200 Lone Pine Road. We have also reviewed Mr. Mocklin's summarization of history
associated with this property.
Mr. Mocklin states that when the land was purchased in 1965, a water line existed to the
property. The property was not developed and no buildings were on site. As stated by Mr.
Mocklin in Paragraph 3 of his letter to the Mayor, dated February 5, 1993, the City, Mr.
Blanning (the land seller) and Mr. Mocklin agreed that the water line went with the land. There
were no service connections to the existing water line because Mr. Mocklin had not constructed
as of yet.
In, or about, 1968, Mr. Mocklin began construction of buildings on the property. The Water
Department has no records of where a tap permit was applied for, nor do we have records
indicating payment of tap fees associated with this construction were made. A water account
was established for 200 Lone Pine Road based upon water service to a duplex apartment. No
tap fees were paid for this connection.
In a 1984 inspection of the property for the mandatory water meter program, the Water
Department found Mr. Mocklin's property to be significantly developed beyond the "Duplex
Apartment" billing rate of 1968. The Water Department has no records of Tap Permits,
Building Permits, or Invoice receipts for the "new" eight housing units on the Mocklin Property.
Apparently, this work was accomplished without obtaining the proper Building/Plumbing Permits
or payment of Tap Fees.
MEMO TO AMY MARGERUM
PAGE TWO
JANUARY 16, 1993
A January 25, 1993, walk-through inspection of Mr. Mocklin's property to update the fixture
count and to establish a proper ECU rating was performed. The inspection established the new
ECU rating at 8.07. The current multiplier for this Service Area is $7,390 per ECU. At 1993
rates, Mr. Mocklin owes the City$59,637.30 in tap fees on his property at 200 Lone Pine Road.
The Water Department does not have sufficient records to show when Mr. Mocklin developed.
his property. All of the work was apparently performed without obtaining the proper permits
or payment of fees. If plans are not submitted to the Water Department, or proper permits are
not obtained, an individual could perform this type of work without City knowledge or payment
of fees.
It is evident that Mr. Mocklin did add water fixtures and service connections to his original
water line. This work was performed without the City invoicing Mr. Mocklin for the
appropriate fee. Why the City failed to bill Mr. Mocklin for these fees is unclear.
It may be due to the lack of plans submittals, lack of proper permits, or, inefficiency of Water
Department staff. This does not relieve Mr. Mocklin of his responsibility to pay those fees due
the City.
In,all fairness to Mr. Mocklin, the Water Department will base the tap fees on 1981 schedules.
This appears to be the last time that the Department had records of the 8-plex units at 200 Lone
Pine Road.
Based on 1981 ECU ratings for tap fees, Mr. Mocklin's invoice will be $26,631. This is
calculated at 8.07 ECUs times $3,300 per ECU at the 1981 rate for a total of $26,631.
LB:11
lab9\mocklin.mem
•
THE CITY OF ASPEN •
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM .
DATE: . February 17, 1993
TO: . Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jed Caswall, City Attorney \t/..,
RE: Mocklin
A review of the records on file in the .City Attorney's -office
indicate as follows with respect to certain allegations contained
in Mr. Mocklin's memo to you dated February 5, 1993 .
•
In 1972 (while Mr. Mocklin's property was still in the county) he
applied for and obtained a rezoning of 'his 3 .7 acres from R-15 to
AR-2, subject to• certain conditions. These conditions were set
forth in a written agreement attached to BOCC Resolution 72-55
and included:
(1) Multi-family unit development would not exceed those
density limits as allowed in the AR-2 zone as of the date of
the agreement regardless. as to any subsequent change in
zoning regulations;
(2) Mr. Mocklin was to pay $2, 500. 00 to improve the bridge
at Mill Street and Red Mountain Road; and
(3) Mr. Mocklin had to convey to the County a 60-foot
right-of-way for Gibson Avenue and a 20-foot trail right-of-
way.
Importantly, Mr. Mocklin was also required to submit a develop-
ment application to be processed in accordance with existing -
regulations prior to proceeding with any multi-family development •
on his property.
•
Prior to the 1972 rezoning approval (in 1969) , Mr. Mocklin
received a building permit to construct a duplex. Sometime
between then and 1980, and without (1) receiving development
approvals from the County or (2) a building permit, Mr. Mocklin
converted the duplex to an 8-unit multi-family complex. In 1974 ,
130 SOUTH GALENA SIR'El • Asrr-y Col oa.ADO 81611 • PHOyr 303 920 5055 • Fnz 103 920 5119
Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
February. 17, 1993
Page 2
the County rezoned the Mocklin property back to R-15 as part of
the overall rezoning of the county by the BOCC.
In September, 1980, the county zoning enforcement officer cited
Mr. Mocklin for having constructed an illegal multi-family
building in an R-15 zone and for conducting an illegal business
on the premises, to wit, a sheet metal business. Mr. Mocklin
defended against the citation by claiming that he built the
structure after the original 1972 rezoning of the property from
R-15 to AR-2 and before the subsequent rezoning of the property
in 1974 back to R-15 . He apparently did not deny that he failed
to obtain the necessary development approvals. The County
Attorney at the time (Sandy Stuller) determined after reviewing
all of the relevant facts that the County would have a difficult
time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Mocklin knowingly
violated the various zoning regulations, hence, she recommended,
and the BOCC accepted, a case disposition whereby Mr. Mocklin
would be allowed to keep his 8-unit building in exchange for his
written agreement to (1) allow an inspection of the building for
life/safety issues and obtain a certificate of occupancy; (2)
cease all non-residential activities on the site; and (3) under-
take no further construction or development on the parcel or ,
structure without first securing all necessary approvals. Hence,
the 8-unit building was allowed to stay as a non-conforming use
and structure subject to the existing abatement regulations.
(The County also agreed to refund Mr. Mocklin the $2,500. 00
previously paid in 1972 for the bridge. ) Throughout this entire
time it appears that: (1) the County building and/or zoning
personnel never notified the City water department of the con-
struction activities on Mr. Mocklin's property when they became
known; and (2) Mr. Mocklin never notified the Water Department
about his expansions of the building and water service system;
and (3) Mr. Mocklin never. paid a tap fee.
In March, 1989, the Mocklin property was annexed into the City.
In September of that year, Mr. Mocklin made an application to the
City to replace and expand the building's roof and enclose an
area for a hot tub. Mr. Mocklin was advised that in that his
building and its use were non-conforming, he could not expand the
building's roof or FAR. He was advised he could seek a variance
if he chose to do so. He was also told he could replace the
existing roof so long as he did not expand it. Mr. Mocklin
apparently chose not to do so. Mr. Mocklin' s memo to you states
that last summer an "official from the City" approached him about
the installation of the Smuggler sidewalk and that he was there-
after able to get a building permit to replace his roof. The two
• o
•
- Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
February 17, 1993
•
Page 3
4
, persons who talked to Mr. Mocklin were Chuck Roth and Bob
Daniels. Mr. Mocklin was told to apply for his building permit
and if there was a problem, to follow up with' Chuck. There was
no problem in securing the permit because, as had been stated to
Mr. Mocklin in 1989, if all he wanted to do was replace the
existing roof, he could get a permit to do so. When he applied
last year, he limited his request to merely replacing, and not
expanding, the roof.
I have numerous documents in my file on this matter, some dating
as far back as October 1972 . You are welcome to stop by and
review them if you so desire.
I hope this information is useful in giving you a more complete
picture of Mr'. Mocklin's situation.
EMC/mc
•
jc218. 1
cc: Robert W. Hughes, Esq.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Amy Margerum, City Manager
FROM: Bill Drueding, City Zoning Officer
•
RE: Response to Letter from Peter Mocklin
DATE: February 17, 1993
•
Item #6: Sandra Stuller, representing the County, did not drop the
1981 criminal action. A stipulated agreement was signed, and we
have a copy of this agreement. To the best of my knowledge there
has never been proof that the eight units were -legally built with
a building permit. The litigation was begun for this reason.
Item #12 : Mr. Mocklin wanted to enlarge a non-conforming structure
by adding enclosed sun rooms. This permit was denied. I gave Mr.
Mocklin a packet of materials for submission to the City Board of
Adjustment. Mr. Mocklin states that I told him a variance would
not be granted for something like that, and that without my support
there was no chance for approval. This is not true. The Board of
Adjustment decides whether to approve or deny a variance request.
I am very careful to advise people that I am not involved in the
decision to approve or deny a variance.
cc: Jed Caswall, City Attorney
February 25, 1993
Peter Mocklin
0202 Lone Pine Road
Aspen, Colorado 81612
To: The Honorable Major John Bennet
To: The Honorable Members of the City Council
To: Amy Margerum, City Manager
To: Bob Gish, Public Works Director
To: Judy McKenzie, Customer Service Supervisor
To: Larry Ballenger, Water Superintendent
To: Leslie Lamont, Director of the Planing Department
To: Edward Caswall, City Attorney
Subject: Answer to Memorandum dated February 16, 1993 and a letter
dated February 22. 1993 , prepared by Mr. Larry Ballenger,
Water Superintendent, regarding tap fees for 0200 Lone
Pine Road.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen.
Mr. Ballenger's letter inclusive a copy of a memorandum to Amy
Margerum the City Manager and Bob Gish Director of Public works,I
received on February 24. for which I thank him.
To me it is very disturbing that Mr. Ballenger believes, as stated
in the memorandum and in his letter, that I owe the Water
Department $26,631 for tap fees. In his memorandum to Miss.
Margerum and Mr. Gish, it said that all of the work was performed
without the City invoicing the proper fee. However it also said
that the city has no records.
At the City Council Meeting on February 8. Mr. Jim Blanning was
present to verify, why I never paid a tap fee for water.
The Midnight Mining Co. installed a 6" water line for mining
purposes. The Midnight Mining Co. paid the City a tap fee for
commercial use. The amount of water used for the process, to wash
ore, far exceeds the water demand for 8 Apartments. This water line
however was never used for it's indented purpose. The water line
was later sold to Mr. Blanning and in turn to me. The fact that Mr.
Blanning testified to this should be enough evidence that a tap fee
for Water was paid at one point. Farther more I have reason to
believe that there are to this day plans and maps in existence that
show this water line in question.
In 1979 when the Lone Pine Housing Development was build my old
water line was eliminated and replaced with a new one to which our
Building was connected by the City's Water Department personnel.
first page out of 4.
• I
In regards to the building permits.
In 1966 and 1968, Plumbing installations where governed by the
State Health Department. Plumbing Permits were filed with the State
Health Department and a pre determined amount, according to a
fixture unit count was paid to that Agency. A permit for all
plumbing fixtures in our building was filed and paid for to this
Agency. Carl Ikle the State Plumbing Inspector at that time
inspected the entire plumbing installation in our building.
In my previous memorandum dated, February 5. 1993 to the Major and
City Council, I listed all the names of the Architect and the
individual contractors that took part in building our 8 Apartments.
Mr. Earl Schennum the Builder lives in Aspen and is willing to
testify that a Building Permit was issued and that in 1968 the
building was constructed according to the plans and as it stands
today and included all plumbing fixtures. If necessary, additional
witnesses, people that are familiar with the building process of
our 8 Apartment Building in 1966 and 1968 and until 1972, will
testify as how and when the building got erected. This will
eliminate your reason to second guess, since for some mysterious
reason no records of Planes and Permits for my Building exists in
the files of the City's Building Department.
Because of difficulties in financing it took until 1972 to complete
the entire Building. Also in 1972 the zoning was changed from
R-15 Residential, to AR-2 Malty Family, under which zoning, 8
Apartment Buildings where allowed, and from which time on I rented
out the Apartments. The plans submitted to the building Department
in 1968 show all the plumbing fixtures as they exist today, and at
no time as I can remember did the Water Department make any
demands to inspect the building as stated by the City Attorney, Mr.
Caswall. It is not understandable to me that he can say, as he did
at the February 8. Council meeting, "I refused the Water Department
to inspect the Building, and I installed illegal pluming fixtures
between the Years of 1968 and 1981". That is absolutely not the
case and I can prove that. I am curious to know, about the source
of this faulty information?.
The zoning was changed again from AR-2 back to R-15.
In 1981 the County Attorney Sandra Staller prepared a Stipulation
for Dismissal,a document designed to dismiss the ongoing lawsuit
against me for owning 8 Apartments in a R-15 Zone District. That
document was not agreeable to me, because the document demanded the
surrender of all rights for the rezoning back to AR-2 and the
surrender to the rights as written in the agreement with the County
Commissioners in 1972.
With the help of my counselor Attorney Ashley Anderson, we made a
counter proposal for Stipulation of Dismissal with a request for
the return of the money and the land for the improvements of the
Red Mountain Bridge and Gibson Ave.
2nd Page of 4
My request for the return of the land only was denied by Miss
Staller because Statue of limitation applied. Miss Staller
supported the return for the money paid for by me for the Bridge
improvements.
Subsequent that denial, I appeared in front of the then present
Board of County Commissioners, who were then in office in the year
1981. At that meeting I was promised, after I present a Development
Plan to which the County Commissioners can agree, a Zoning change
back to AR-2 would be granted.
With that promise I refrained further actions to regain the land
and money to improve Gibson Ave. and the Bridge, since this
promise was within the accordance of the original agreement I had
with the previous Board of County Commissioners back in 1972.
In June of 1989 I appeared in front of the City Council. It was the
meeting at which time the zoning for my property was established
after the annexation to the City.
The approval for a zoning change from R-15 to MF (Multi Family) ,
was requested by me and promised to be granted by Council, by the
City's assistant manager Ron Mitchell. The assistant City manager
made this promise to me in front of my witness and hired counselor
" Brook Peterson", However Mitchell's promise proved to be an empty
promise and was meant only to trick me in to signing the annexation
petition. The attorney Brooks Peterson who at time recommended to
me I sign the petition turned out to be as an unreliable source for
advise.
My request for a zoning change to MF was denied by the Council and
my request for the return of the land to improve Gibson Ave and the
Money for the improvement of the Red Mountain Bridge was bluntly
ignored.
In 1972 I paid $ 2500 for the improvement of the Red Mountain
Bridge. At that time that amount was the price for a new Pick up
Truck. Today that same Truck sells for about $ 20,000.
Approximately 10,000 square feet of land was required by the county
to make the improvements for Gibson Avenue.
The City became the benefactor of that land after the annexation.
At the prize of $ 20 per square foot the City of Aspen has actually
received land from me in the value of $ 200,000.in return for
nothing. Since the City Council is not willing to rezone my entire
property as was promised by the County Commissioners before the
annexation.
At this time again I make the request, for you the City Council, to
return to me, either the land and the money for the improvements of
the Gibson Ave and the Red Mountain Bridge, or pay me a fair price
for the land required that I was asked to give to the county for
the improvement of Gibson Ave. and the money I paid for the
improvement of the Red Mountain Bridge.
3rd page of 4
If Council elects to apply statue of limitations, in all fairness,
lets apply the same rule to the tap fees.
Or if Council is inclined to extend the promise as made by the
County Commissioners in 1981. That if I present the City with a
reasonable Development Plan for a Multi Family Project, Council
then will grant a zoning change to Multi Family Zoning. In that
case I would again refrain my demand to regain the donated land and
the money for the Bridge.
In the second last paragraph in the memo to Amy Margerum and Bob
Gish. Mr. Ballenger writes "In all fairness to Mr. Mocklin the
Water Department will base the tap fees on 1981 schedules.
Realizing that he is not familiar with all the facts concerning
this matter.
I truly believe the Mr. Larry Ballenger's hart is in the right
place. Further more I like to say , that all officials from the
City and the Sanitation District, to whom I have talked to
regarding tap fees, appear to be very professional, polite and
courteous and impressively devoted to defend there policy. I don't
think that anyone deliberately tries to wrong me.
However it appears to me, nobody has all the actual facts straight.
What makes it worst, there are no records to rely on and
assumptions are established on second guessing.
Just for an example, How can anybody build a building two story in
height and 120 feet long in a very visual location and without
obtaining the proper building permits ???.
I hope this letter will shed a new light on some of the forgotten
facts and will help you to reach a decision more in my favor.
If you have any doubts about statements in this letter. Please call
me at 925-6000 where I can be reached at any time and I will make
myself available at your convenience to answer additional question
you may have.
Very truly yo rs.
eter Mocklin
Enclosed: Resolution for Zoning Change
Agreement
Grant of Easement
Deed
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "D"
4th page of 4
•
•
PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION
PETER MOCKLIN ZONE CHANGE,"
WHEREAS , application has been submitted by Peter Mocklin
requesting a zone change from R-15 to AR-2 (PUD) for a parcel
of land approximately 3. 7 acres in size, as shown on maps on
file in the Pitkin County Building Department , and
WHEREAS , a public hearing has been held and all evidence
has been considered by members of the Pitkin County Planning and
Zoning Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners of
Pitkin County, and
WHEREAS , said request for rezoning is recommended by
the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission subject to
specific conditions , and •
WHEREAS , an agreement has been approved by the Board
of County Commissioners and Peter Mocklin, setting forth
specific conditions of said zone change request and is made a
part hereof by reference ,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that requested rezoning
• of the Peter Mocklin property is hereby granted by the Pitkin
County Board of Commissioners subject to the terms and conditions of
above said agreement for the following described property: (see
attached description maricu>d Er_h):.bit. 1)
•
Pitkin County Board of Commissioners
Approved this 2nd day of October 197
•
_ e _
AC;iZ I1E11l11NT
T lllS -..•Milt' ci into this /_ day of Sept-en;her,
and between the Board of County Conirmissioncrs of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado,
and Peter 1v1. ;vlocl lin and ivloilica 1Cechlin (hereinafter referred to as ;\iocklin) of the
County of Pitkin and Stale of Colorado,
WITN'FSSI=TII:
I, 11I C1TALS
1. 1 The lauds desc;i'il,:td in i xicidit "A", atfched hereto and made a part hereof ft
reference, are owned by Mock lin, and said lands will be hereinafter called "Mocklin
Property"
1. 2 It is ci.»nsideted by the C1otint,, that a re-zoning of the 'Mock lin Property to AR
is an appropriate zoning of said property.
1. 3 Ceri;iln work. Is 1',it,Illii'OU to iin rove the public roadway, bridge and intel'si°eti_)
which are, in part, adjacent to the It.locl:iin Property, and in part contained in the property
described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof.
is `, aH to ,its._ or caua' cc ctom 'Hution of the sum 5:1 loci!,
below for t! ,;- td roccdv,'ay, bridge, cud intersection, ;In7.1 is, in
addition, willing to assign to the County all of its right, title and interest to the property
C._;enti might obtain title to lands required to
improve saiu
1, 5 Mock lin owns additional property in the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin,
State of Holor ido, l,cin adHccnt to that described in Exhibit "A" hereto, which additional
property is described in Exhibit "D" thereto, said property to he hereinafter called
"Additional Property,'", and 'AIociclin wishes to grant to the County a right-of-way twenty
(2k 1 :c lii li. l'.,! '? -c. , ,;i ;iOn:i i Pr,-,i. ,rta fer perp(?.`.,i's of a foot
extci?nion cf :";01 c i : !'c el in II;e City of A.spen together with :i foot 1lridge over end
across tic: 1..ouring ,'orl: Itiver „dj;lccni to the Southerly boundary of said .Additional
Prue c,ri.; ,
1 , C In V �t iii : .1 �1 tile.' w;e` I;l`rcni(tcci tic' Ali-2 zoning of the Sllbleet
leak, it i:a con: iticl'c‘tl �'� : ir.l'UIc l hereto that the development be limited to
•
multi-family residential housing permitted AR-2 zoning tied to a planned unit developin
,approved by the Pilkin County Planning and ''Zoning; Committee.
1. 7 The consideration for this Agreement shall he the performance of the respcl
covenants and agreements herein contained.
I1, BASIC ACt11 1111- NT
2, 1 111,_ Co Inf I: .'1'. o .'n, i1 !1 . , 1, -H th,on the execution of ..
Agreement.
2. 2 Mocklin shall be authorized to construct on all or part of the lands, multi-
family residential structures in accordance with the prop, islon:T; 01. AR-2 zoning as set fo
in the County Zoning Resolutions or as set forth in any Planned Unit Development process,.
in accordance with the said County Zoning Resolutions, it being the intent of the parties
e� l + z zoning 11
that the lands will not be developed ,or �t:1�� purpose ,t1 lowed 1,,,° said r,I -2 zorl:n�, other __
multiple-family dwellings tied to a planned unit development to be approved by the Pi thin
-- County Planning and Zoning Commission.
`
.V
2. 3 CoantY her,-
1 :i �' � `� �� 1 l.l' �
: Cn 0QSCSr i. t V';';
I
Cs.
1�H the said Mockiin Property in accordance with the density provisions for Planned Unit fey
went in AP-2 zoned lands as they presently, as of. the date of this agreement, exist in ti
1'1th111 aunt /L'ii: llg sv11i _. .:, ..:lei e ('e. ,.1� , t /"rli:., rC.•UltiilUn, v,'111C1i nloy hu ( ..
in '.he future are not V` ithstanthin:t and not to be :in i cable to the saldlI\loeltlin Propertty,
2. 4 :vlocklin agrees to cause to the paiu to the Co°,lilty' the sun.. of ;i 2, 500, 00 to bL
used by the C')t1H0 for I1aiti''io,'c '.C'!: 'I !a::,:l'... , !-1'1 'u ''. .'tiofl 01 ,,Itll S.
Gibson Avenue and l _d 1lount:lin Road, such payment to be made at the tune the first
building permit is issued to cover construction on the lands or on dune 1, 1073, whicheve
occurs first.
,,2, 5 ,11 ocklin ,l;;rce i to cxecutc and deliver to the County a good and sofficir;nt (Ru,:
I (�t'1/..""\--"--/
r \ C1:.11: D:.'UCI ,n t;:e form of 1.:x1111'i+ ._ 1, at:ac'11l'_. hereto ..nd made pact 11Crcof 'J!,' rCi"r
• , .,) 2. 0 :\i'J 1;.11 ,. . h 11,.!I:,1l - r,'(, ,(J tilh C1iL.., , hh. 1J ,!1.' .,L ,ill ti,l,er hi, Hic.,1 to rAloc-.
11! In , _ , .',u[ (* . . . .-• :1:k1 1,,,q, faI' .,fl,• .::1 ..,m!: .'I1 at ion for pul;lia pt 1'00:_ 'S :ls 1116;
. . . . ' rl .It'. , or .'f ' ' ' 'ii , ,I; . 1111. . ,
....i , ' ,I,, i1 : h of . :a. , !,i . ,. .i. ! , .31: 0 a1)., ) H':.HI' api'lii' WI( ,
j -
Y,,' 'l' C: . !1 . .,]. . .. ,Hi:('0 l , 1 111' r1,, •:0 '(! 1)0, illl),li' .1t1',.'(' . .
,)
•
2. 61 It is understood that Mociclin owns Additional Property ac
i y .ad'� c,nt to Mocklin
Property situate across Gibson Avenue within the boundaries of the City of Aspen (hereinafter:,
called "Additional Property"), a description of which is contained in Exhibit "D", attached k.
hereto and made a part hereof. It is not \Iocklin's intent to develop said Additional Property,
and the County agrees that Mocklin may use the area of said Additional Property for the purpos
•
of calculating density requirements under the applicable zoning regulations. Further Mocklin
agrees to grant unto the City of Aspen and unto the County of Pitkin a right-of-way twenty
(20) feet in width for purposes of a foot path and foot bridge as hereinabove recited. Said
right-of-way to be reasonably located over and upon the said Additional Property by agreement
the parties hereto. i
2. 7 Upon the re-zoning of the subject lands to AR-2, Mocklin agrees that such lands
will not be used for other than mutli-family dwellings, subject however to presentation and
approval of a development plan therefor, or any phase of development thereof by the Board
of County Commissioners following the tender of recommendations relating to such develop-
..;
ment by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission; any other use will require the
express approval of the Board of County Commissioners.
2. 8 The County herewith grants to Mocklin reasonable rights of ingress and egress
•
to.i'Iocklin Property from Lone Pine Road at intersections to be located by mutual agreement
between Mocklin and the County Planning and Zoning Commission, and the County also here-
with grants to 11•Iocklin reasonable rights of ingress and egress to Mocklin Property from
Gibson Avenue at intersections to be located by mutual agreement between Mocklin and the
County Planning and Zoning Commission.
2. 9 For the purpose of the Agreement, all notices which may required to be
given hereunder shall be made in writing and sent by certified mail, postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
To Peter M. Mocklin and
Monica M. Mocklin: Peter M. Mocklin,
Post Office Box 807 •
Aspen, Colorado 81611
To the County: Board of County Commissioners
Pitkin County
Post Office Box I '`
Aspen, Colorado hi ;i i
{ h to " t
y c.,
2. 91 This agreement be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors
and assigns of the parties hereto.
IN WITINTSS WilPHE'L)F, bLen executed as of the day and year
first above mentioned.
PETER M. 1\10CKLIN BOARD OP COUNTY C01\1IISSIONTRS
/ >//' -
v By ,!'7, 44/-7
Chairin
MQ1CA \I. MOCKLIN
•
. .
G 1,, ,,
14' t
' GRANT OF EA EMEPIT
THIS GRANT OF EASEMENT made and entered into this
day of , 1982 , by and between Peter
Mocklin (hereinafter referred to as "Grantor" ) and the Board of
County Commissioners of Pitkin County , Colorado (hereinafter
referred to as "Grantee" ) .
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain real property
within Pitkin County located in the North 1 of the Southwest ; of
Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. , and
being more fully described in Book at Page as recorded
at the Pitkin County Courthouse , and
WHEREAS, the Grantor wishes to convey, and Grantee
to accept, a perpetual easement for roadway , drainage and utility
purposes, over, along, across , under and through the above described
lands of Grantor,, under the terms and conditions hereinafter specified,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Five Thouand,
Four Hundred, Ninety ($5, 490 . 00 ) Dollars , and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowlede
Grantor hereby grants and conveys to Grantee , its successors and assigns
the following described easement (together with the right of access
for equipment and personnel over Grantor ' s lands from the nearest
public right-of-way to said easement reasonably necessary for the
enjoyment of the easement hereby conveyed) :
A PERPETUAL EASEMENT over, under, along, across and through
the following described land (adjacent to the County road at said
place and intended hereafter to be part of said County road) for
public access , together with the rights to install , construct , re-
construct , escavate for, repair, replace , and maintain a roadway , and
appurtenances , drainage ditches and facilities , and overhead and
underground public and private utilities :
• '
�': , 1 , ,ri. ,
•,
//. .
///0 r,
A parcel of land situated in the North 1/2 of the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 , Township 10 ,youth , .Range
84 West of the 6th P .M . , Pitkin County , Colorado ,
being more fully described as follows :
Beginning at a point on the Northerly right-of-way
line of Gibson Avenue as described in document recorded
in Book 267 at Page 697, Pitkin County Records , whence
1 1954 brass cap set for the center 1/4 corner of said
Section 7 , and now marked "S. P .M . " bears N 25°37 ' 16" E
1217 . 78 feet ; thence 40 . 00 feet along the arc of a curve
to the left having a radius of 475 . 00 feet , the chord of
- 'which curve bears N 59 °57 ' 16" W 39 . 99 feet ; thence
N 52°14 ' 29" E 30 . 24 feet ; thence S 15° 31 ' 27" E 40 . 00 feet
to the point of beginning, containing 549 square feet ,
more or less .
GRANTEE AGREES to use reasonable care in the exercise
of the rights herein granted and to take reasonable •steps to avoid
4
damages to Grantor's lands and improvements adjacent to the easement
herein granted. In the event Grantee shall disturb Grantor' s lands
or improvements , it agrees to make reasonable efforts , by appropriate
regrading, revegetation, or otherwise, to restore said lands or
improvements to their approximate condition prior to disturbance .
GRANTEE FURTHER AGREES to indemnify and hold harmless the
Grantor from any claims or loss arising out of the negligent exercise
of the rights herein granted, except those claims or loss arising from
the acts of the Grantor, Ya,is agents , employees , invitees , and licenses .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed and delivered
this Grant of Easement the day and year above first written. . . -'
•
• GRANTOR:
•
Peter Mocklin
•
STATE OF COLORADO)
)ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1982 , by Peter Mocklin .
Witness my hand and official seal .
Notary Public
My Commission expires :
. W
•
\II, ,
— )tecordr'n
' l)i i.i , Made this
•
l'.;
1'IIIS
day of August 1072
between '
PETER N. 11OCJ LINancl ,11n?`'7t'A N. 11OCILIN
of the County of
Colorado, of the first part, and I 11lC•!1 and elate of
. i :,,.:,:t:
7'1IE CCUN1'y OF PI'rjiIN, STATE
OF COLORADO
zfi L210 :G%crot,V.Nrfx
�7ryb;2u'GNof the second part, K 1��lL'it };
1VITNLSS]:1'II, That the said parties
of the first part, for and in consideration of the auto of
Ten Dollars
and other valuable consideration______________
to the said parties of the first part in hand paid by -'--'----
t the said
confessed and acknowledged,e first
have y the said party ------ ipt?I� ; f j
ve remised, released, sold, conveyed find second part, LA receipt whereof
these presents do remis , release s II
these
�i�do
successors and release,
sell, convey
all the CLAIM unto the said part Y CLAIMED,e second d p by
part ICS p` Y of which second paid
of the first part hate � title, interrsl. claim and demand which the said
being a the in and to the following described lot or parcel County of Pi tki n and State of Colorado,f tor1wit:
situate, lying and
(See attached sheet)
r.
fit:
.
.Y
•
•
•
TO lIAVE AND TO liC'I•
U the same, together with all and si ••
belonging or in anywise thereunto a n.,uiar the a ``
appertaining, u Pntere t•and and privileges thereunto o of t l >
said part i�'•S of r and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim wi,xtsocver, of the +j
o. the first part, either in law or r•.
Party of the second part, its oqur.�• to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said I!
ticif^e:il:rid<h' }imvY6rre'i•e'n successors and assigns
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said part i es
and orals of the first e jr forever.d s jI
the day and year first above written.
part ha fry, hereunto s'/their }(and S �r
k
Signed, S caled and Delivered in the Pr '`
,./7"' ;'
Presence of
Peter N. AIoclain '"Z'°•'-••••••••[SI%Al,]
11onica N. lluciclin
STATE I '
OF COLOP,ADO, c� _.............._........[SEAL] I
County of Pltl:in rag.
II
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
1972 ,by• Pelcr N. llocklin anti Monica N. 1Iocklin, day of
AU gust
My coilimicsien expires
19 . Witness my hand and official deal, {'���!
Y°Y'
•
•
Notary Yu Lila
i"!
•ntlon1,'t•fl> 'Ititr/1 a— i r'n 4 h,rr It:.r•
rt r li •,n ,„ . Ir
l ,rr.l' r .. I � r t t ,., r, r, r r•, 1 t I. n
ACI.q••i..�r•afro r,� a 11 ,••,' 1�.f rr r 11. r t ,�r 1 t : ,( !7 rrl,l, '1 tL'IYO Or■
., r 1 i•�•1 l ;i 11110 lief', ..j r,, t rho i' i 1 f i''�r�r,II 1' 0f 1�r.. �tflCirll C:1hM'If
,•Gr(u; r X11, r o,..cr urrlcarA of rl;,oun: Y or an
lip• ���. (WIT l'1.:1'! J:i'Ln. llr ,1 , l:J3. � ouch v,l1wtRClo;r nnf i'> r,ffll•,r r,f rnr•
e.:f 1'• ,i,■,:C. , I i S(,ut. , , n far 16^-r fntutpry
•
EXHIBIT "A"
•r
PARCEL ONE:
A tract of land situate in the NE • of the SWIl of Section 7, Township 10 South,
Range 84 West of the Gth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, more fully
described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence the center 1/4 corner of said Section 7
bears N45°28'51"E 948. 45 feet;
Thence N00°40'00"E 24. 84 feet to a point on the southwesterly right
of way of Lone Pine Road;
Thence along said right of way 105. 56 feet along the arc of a curve
to the right having a radius of 256. 76 feet and whose chord bears S27°18'07"E
104. 82 feet;
Thence S15°31'27"E 127. 21 feet along said right of way;
Thence N89°20'00"W 84. 64 feet; •
Thence N00°40'20"E 189. 89 feet to the point of beginning
PARCEL TWO:
A tract of land situate in the SWI of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84
West of the Gth Principal Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence the center 1/4 corner of Section 7,
Township 10 South, Range 84 Nest of the Gth Principal Meridian bears
N59`57'54"1: 1042. 64 feet;
Thence S17°31'30"E 147. 88 feet;
Thence S89°20'00"E 181. 86 feet;
Thence S00°40'20"W 189. 89 feet;
Thence S89°20'00"E 84. 64 feet;
Thence S15°31 '27"E 277. 34 feet;
Thence NSG°01'18"W 81. 12 feet;
• Thence. NG4°49'45"W 103. 50 feet;
Thence 00'00"W 100. 03 feet;
Thence N79°05'00"W 50. 25 feet;
Thence N81°37'00"W 100. 00 feet;
Thence N70`55100"W 98. 72 feet;
Thence N48°00'23"W 100.12 feet;
Thence N27°51'48"E 404. 46 feet to the point of beginning.
•
•
L`\1llLIT ''A
A public right-of-way for that portion of a road hnown as Gibson Avenue located
in the N'; of the SW,,- of Section 7, Township 10 Sc,utfl, Rance 84 West of the Glh Principal
Meridian, Pitkin County, Colorado, coi•a ri��ht 'u ��,•�.� ;>, m., siyty (GO) feet in width,
thirt . (30) feet on each side of the following dcscriL:,i centerline:
Beginning at a point on the centerl n.• of a rend known as Red Mountain
Road, Pillcin County, w11(.11. ,._ . _ n_r of said Section 7 bears
NO2`05'25''if 1 502. 22 feet;
Thence S45"21'1:: 117. 00 feet;
Thence 68. 01 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius
of 408. 00 feet;
Thence S54°54'E 60.12 feet;
Thence 88. 91 feet along the a.rc of a curve to the right having a radius
of 356. 24 feet;
Thence 187. 74 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius
of 233. 00 feet;
Thence 76. 39 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius
of 506. 00 feet;
Thence 257. 40 feet Poor, t.'ie arc (,1 cc to the right having a radius
of 1133. 00 feet;
Thence 77, 1 feet alonL. !hc' are v; ;i c Lily c to the right having a radius
of 445. 00 feet;
Thence S55°07'29"17 17, 07 1_•ct to a whence the center 1/4 cornet'
of said Section 7 bears N22`•10'2,S"L 1259 20 ie•el,
•
Minn Mow ''.111111
•
ENIIII31T "D"
•
"ADDITIONAL PROPERTY"
A tract of land situate in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the
Sixth Principal Meridian in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, approximately
described as;
Beginning at a point whence the center a corner of said Section 7
bears N38°17'41"T 1302, 96 feet;
Thence N80°46'20"W 108. 10 feet;
Thence N70°49'41"W 101. 63 feet;
Thence N50°05'W 200. 81 feet;
Thence N62°1 7'53"W 69. 42 feet;
Thence S 31°16'E 286. 20 feet;
Thence S66'35'1.1"E 224. 22 feet;
Thence NI 9°15'E 92. 00 feet;
Thence N43°45'E 48. 50 feet to point of beginning; said tract containing
+0. 908 acres.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
(Pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Land Use Regulations)
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says
as follows:
I, SUNNY VANN, being or representing an Applicant before
the City of Aspen, personally certify that Public Notice of Monica
and Peter Mocklin's application to rezone Tracts A and B of their
property from R-15A to R/MFA was given by 1) posting of notice
containing the information required in Section 6-205.E.2 . , which
posting occurred on January 15, 1993, in a conspicuous place on the
subject property and 2) mailing Notice of said development applica-
tion to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the
subject property, which mailing occurred on Janaury 15, 1993 .
Applicant:
MONICA AND PETER MOCKLIN
By A i/ ��i/`i�- ,?1-
Sunn 'ann
The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged
and signed before me this 1? day of January, 1993 , by Sunny Vann
on behalf of MONICA AND PETER MOCKLIN.
WITNESS my hand and offic al seal.
My commission expires: 4! '� l
Kt e,A 1� Y Jr d
J 2
Ndtary Pu lic
January 15, 1993
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Mocklin Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
Please consider this letter a request to amend the Mocklin property rezoning
application. The Applicants, Peter and Monica Mocklin, would like to amend their
application to reduce the physical extent of the requested rezoning, and to revise the
requested zone district category from R/MFA to R/MF.
The Applicants' decision to reduce the extent of the rezoning is based on the
concerns identified by the City Council at first reading regarding the absence of a
specific development proposal for the property, and the proposed rezoning's poten-
tial conflict with the recently adopted Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The revised
request, however, should address both of these concerns.
A rezoning to R/MF as opposed to R/MFA is required to reflect the reduction in
the size of the area to be rezoned. The minimum required lot size in the R/MFA
zone district is twenty-seven thousand and one (27,001) quare feet. The applicable
floor area ratio is 0.36:1, which would result in a maximum allowed floor area of
approximately nine thousand seven hundred (9,700)square feet. As the existing
structure is believed to contain approximately twelve thousand eight hundred
(12,800) square feet, a substantially larger parcel would be required under R/MFA
zoning to eliminate the structure's non-conforming status. There is no difference,
however, between the R/MFA and R/MF zone districts other than allowable floor
area.
As the accompanying improvement survey illustrates, the Applicants propose to limit
the area of the rezoning to the existing multi-family structure. An approximately
twenty-seven thousand (27,000)<aluare foot area has beer delineated which encom-
passes the existing building,its parking areas, the access driveway, and the land-
scaped open space which immediately surrounds the building.
Ms. Leslie Lamont
January 15, 1993
Page 2
Subdivision approval for the rezoned area is not requested, as no development rights
are presently available for the remainder of the property. The area to be rezoned,
however, has been sized as if the area were a separate lot. This approach assures
that the existing structure would remain conforming in the event the property were
subdivided in the future. As you know, there is no requirement that the area
proposed for rezoning constitute a separate lot. In fact, Section 5-506 of the Regula-
tions specifically address lands containing more than one underlying zone district.
Please note that the area to be rezoned and the existing structure comply with all
applicable dimensional requirements of the R/MF zone district with the exception of
rear yard setback. As the survey illustrates, the structure presently abuts the
property's northern boundary. The area to be rezoned, however, meets the R/MF
zone district's minimum lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot
width, and minimum open space requirements. Sufficient land area has also been
provided to insure that the structure is within the district's maximum 1:1 floor area
limitation.
As discussed in our original application, the proposed rezoning would eliminate the
structure's present status as a non-conforming use, thereby permitting the Applicants
to properly maintain the building. The limited nature of the revised application,
however, will not result in the upzoning of the remainder of the property. As a
result, no increase in the property's development potential will occur. In addition,
the rezoning does not preclude the acquisition of the remainder of the property for
park and/or open space purposes as discussed in the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Yours truly,
VANN AS CIATES
Sunny Vann, AICP
SV:cwv
c:\bus\city.Itr\1tr 19592.112
City Council Exhibit_
Approved , 19
Fly Ordinance
MEMORANDUM 1
SEP 2 11992 1 1
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer Ksf
Date: September 17, 1992
Re: Mocklin Rezoning
Having reviewed the above application, and having made a site visit, the engineering
Department has the following comments:
1. Staff has reviewed the application in accordance of the standards of review as
outlined in Section 7-1102 of the Land Use Regulations.
2. As the application has stated the proposed amendment in its current form will
have no adverse impact on traffic generation and road safety. However, the type
of development obtainable from rezoning, potentially will have an adverse
impact on traffic generation and road safety.
3. Staff understands that this property has been considered as a potential site for a
park.
4. Utilities that service the existing property may have to be upgraded for any
additional development.
5. There is an existing 12' County Trail Easement, within the Lone Pine
Subdivision, that borders this property on the western boundary. Recent survey
work shows the actual use of the trail to be on the applicant's property and not
within the easement; it is believed that this is due the topography of the trail
easement.
6. There is a planter at the driveway entrance of the existing development in the
public right-of-way. The engineering department records do not indicate that
this is a licensed encroachment. The applicant must file for an encroachment
license through the engineering department.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. Prior to rezoning approval the applicant must obtain an encroachment license
from the engineering department for the existing improvements in the public
right-of-way.
2. Any new development proposal for this property shall include the trail as it is
currently used and an easement shall be provided.
cc Chuck Roth, City Engineer
CASELOAD92.024
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: MOCKLIN MAP AMENDMENT FOR REZONING TO R/MFA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Monday, January 11, 1993 at a meeting to begin at 5: 00 pm before
the Aspen City Council, City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena,
Aspen, CO to consider an application submitted by Peter Mocklin,
P.O. Box 807 , Aspen, CO, requesting approval of a Map Amendment
application to rezone Tracts A and B of the Mocklin property from
R-15A to R/MFA. The R/MFA Zone District permits detached
residential dwellings, multi-family dwellings, home occupations,
accessory buildings and uses, and dormitories. The property is
located at 0202 Lone Pine Road, more specifically described as a
metes and bounds parcel in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84
West of the 6th P.M. , Pitkin County, CO. For further information,
contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S.
Galena St. , Aspen, CO 920-5090.
s/John Bennett, Mayor
Aspen City Council
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE: Mocklin Property Rezoning - R-15A to R/MFA
DATE: October 20, 1992
SUMMARY: The applicant, Peter Mocklin, proposes to rezone a
portion of his property from R-15A to R/MFA. Subsequent to
rezoning, the applicant may submit a development plan containing
all the pertinent reviews for future development of this parcel.
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning from R-15A to R/MFA.
APPLICANT: Peter Mocklin as represented by Sunny Vann
LOCATION: 0202 Lone Pine Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611
ZONING: R-15A and R-30 PUD
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To amend the Official Zone District map.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached referrals from the
Engineering and Water Departments, and Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District.
STAFF COMMENTS:
A. Site Description - The applicant's property consists of three
separately described parcels. Parcel A and B, which are located
at the intersection of Gibson Avenue and Lone Pine Road, contain
approximately 3 . 26 and 0.24 acres respectively. Parcel C is
separated from Parcel A and B by Gibson Avenue and contains
approximately 0.59 acres.
Parcels A and B are within the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine
annexation area. These parcels are considered merged for
development purposes.
There is an existing free market, eight unit, apartment building
located on Parcel A. The Spring Street right-of-way traverses
Parcel C. It has been established by the City Attorney's office
that the 8 unit apartment building is a legal nonconforming use in
the R-15A zone district. -
B. Background - The Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine area,
approximately 61 acres, was formally annexed into the City of Aspen
in March of 1989. The annexation area was rezoned in June of 1989.
As the official zone district map indicates (please see attached
map) , the Friedberg, Rowland and Scully properties were rezoned to
R-30 PUD. The Oden and Cowee properties were rezoned to R-15A.
The Community Center was rezoned to Public and the Centennial,
Hunter Creek, Hunter Longhouse and Lone Pine were rezoned to R/MFA
a new zone district designed to reflect existing densities and
floor. areas.
In May of 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended to
City Council that the Mocklin and Moran properties be rezoned to
R/MFA. However, the Planning Department found "that the community
may best be served if the zoning of these parcels to R/MFA were
done in the context of a development plan and until then the
appropriate zoning for these parcels is R-15A" . The City Council
concurred with staff's position and rezoned the property to R-15A.
C. Nonconforming Use - The existing eight unit apartments are a
nonconforming use in the R-15A zone district. A nonconformity may
continue in accordance with the provision of the land use
regulations. Normal maintenance to permit continuation of the
nonconforming use may be performed in any 12 month period and is
limited to ten percent of the building's current replacement cost.
Nonconforming uses shall not be extended so as to prevent the
enlargement by additions of the area of the structure in which such
nonconforming uses are located or occupancy of additional lands.
A nonconforming use may be reconstructed if less than 75% of the
building is demolished or destroyed. If the building is destroyed
by "an act of God" the entire building may be restored.
The above description of a nonconforming use poses a significant
hardship on the applicant's ability to maintain his older building
or expand the building despite being located on almost 3 . 5 acres
of land. Improvements have been hampered because only "normal
maintenance" is permitted and the building is beginning to require
significant repairs.
The applicant has not submitted a site specific development plan
because he does not intend to redevelop his property at this time.
The Aspen Municipal Code does not require a site specific
development plan in order to consider a rezoning.
D. Applicable Review - In order to upgrade his building and
consider future development potential for the 3 .5 acres, the
applicant proposes to rezone the merged Parcels A and B from R-
15A to R/MFA. Parcel C will remain zoned R-30 PUD.
The purpose of the Residential/Multi-Family (R/MF) zone district
is to provide for the use of land for intensive long-term
residential purposes, with customary accessory uses. Recreational
and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to
residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in the
Residential/Multi-Family (R/MF(A) ) zone district are typically
newly annexed areas, within walking distance of the center of the
2
city, or include lands on transit routes, and other lands with
existing concentrations of attached residential dwellings and mixed
attached and detached residential dwellings.
Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of review for an amendment
to the Official Zone District Map are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The rezoning to R/MFA would eliminate the current
nonconforming status of the apartment building. The City would
lose long-term rental housing if the applicant were forced to tear
the building down. Although Ordinance 1 would be triggered by a
demolition, a rezoning of the property would still be required for
multiple units. As previously noted, a rezoning application does
not require submittal of a site specific development plan. This
application is consistent with all portions of this chapter.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Land Use Plan, prepared in 1973, identified
the Mocklin property in the residential multi-family land use
category. There are no other elements of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan that specifically address this piece of
property.
However, the draft Aspen Area Community Plan, that is being
reviewed for adoption by both Planning and Zoning Commissions,
recommends that the Mocklin property be purchased for open space.
Although the Plan has not been adopted, rezoning would not prevent
the purchase of the property for future open space.
c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: Except for the Williams Addition zoned R-6 and Oklahoma
Flats zoned R-30, the area immediately surrounding the Mocklin
property is zoned R/MFA and comprises approximately 369 dwelling
units in Lone Pine, Hunter Creek, Hunter Longhouse and Hunter
Longhouse Addition. In the vicinity of the Mocklin property,
Centennial, Williams Woods and Smuggler Mobile Home Park offer
similar multi-family characteristics.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: The rezoning will not affect the traffic or road safety
of the area. In the event further development is proposed for this
property the GMP and/or subdivision review process ensures that
3
growth impacts will be mitigated. Those mitigation measures
include improvements to public facilities, drainage improvements,
parking and employee housing mitigation, and site design
considerations.
It is very difficult at this time to calculate the number of
dwelling units that could be developed on the property with R/MFA
zoning. A rough, worst case scenario, calculation indicates that
there is enough land area to support 42 3-bedroom units. However
slope density reduction, 35% open space requirement, parking
requirements and allowable floor area of .33 : 1 will likely reduce
that number significantly.
To compare the surrounding developments, Hunter Longhouse and the
addition totals 29 dwelling units, on 1 2/3 acres, with a FAR of
.28: 1. Lone Pine totals 40 dwelling units, on almost 3 acres, with
a FAR of . 35: 1.
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: As outlined above, any future development will require
a thorough review. Future development will be required to provide
for additional demands on public services. Additionally,
deficiencies in public services and facilities would limit the
ultimate development on the property.
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and the Water Department
have discovered that the applicant has not paid service charges or
tap fees for the eight dwelling units. Before the City Council may
approve the rezoning, at second reading, the applicant must pay
sewer service charges and water tap fees.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: This rezoning itself will have no adverse impact on the
natural environment. Future development review will require
compliance with all applicable environmental requirements including
those of the Environmental Protection Agency.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: Long-term rental housing has been eliminated at an
alarming rate in the City of Aspen in the past 5-8 years. To deny
the rezoning of this property will lead to the further degradation
of the existing apartment building because repairs and heavy
4
maintenance is precluded. Rezoning the property is compatible with
the character of the area and consistent with surrounding zone
districts.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: Annexation of the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine area
required the rezoning of surrounding property to R/MFA. Continued
development and proposals of multi-family development in this area,
i.e. Hunter Longhouse, Co-Housing, Williams Ranch, represents a
consistent philosophy of the City and County that multi-family
housing is appropriate for this neighborhood of the metro area.
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The rezoning would rectify a nonconforming use
situation. In addition the rezoning is compatible with surrounding
parcels.
The Land Use Code does not require the submittal of a site specific
development plan in order to review a rezoning application.
Therefore the present application is not in conflict with the
intent of the rezoning section of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning of
0202 Lone Pine Road, Tracts A and B as identified on the survey,
amending the Official Zone District map from R-15A to R/MFA with
the following conditions:
1. Prior to rezoning approval by City Council, at second reading,
the applicant shall pay sewer service charges and water tap fees
for the eight unit apartment building.
2. Prior to rezoning approval by the City Council, at second
reading, the applicant must obtain an encroachment license from the
engineering department for the existing improvements in the public
right-of-way.
3 . Any new development proposal for this property shall include
the trail as it is currently used and an easement shall be
provided.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the amendment to the
Official Zone District Map for the rezoning of 0202 Lone Pine Road
from R-15A to R/MFA with the conditions as outlined in Planning
memo dated October 20, 1992. "
ATTACHMENTS: A. Referral Comments B. Site Plan C. Zone Map
5
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: MOCKLIN MAP AMENDMENT FOR REZONING TO R/MFA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, October 20, 1992 at a meeting to begin at 4 : 30 pm before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen to consider an application
submitted by Peter Mocklin, P.O. Box 807 , Aspen, CO, requesting
approval of a Map Amendment application to rezone Tracts A and B
of the Mocklin property from R-15A to R/MFA. The R/MFA Zone
District permits detached residential dwellings, multi-family
dwellings, home occupations, accessory buildings and uses, and
dormitories. The property is located at 0202 Lone Pine Road, more
specifically described as a metes and bounds parcel in Section 7,
Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. , Pitkin County,
CO. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St. , Aspen, CO 920-
5090.
s/Jasmine Tygre, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on October 2, 1992
City of Aspen Account
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
SUMMARY SHEET
Date:/l 97/0/Q A Chairperson:
II
Case Name: MCICAL, J< I fL
Agent/Representative:SOY\,
Case Type i �"' -{1r?---) )11n-
REFERRAL COMMENTS SUMMARY:
City •gin=er: (memo f• the•ming• �y_ no ) JL4 41.(9. AS
County Engineer: (memo : yes no )
Environmental Health (memo: yes no )
Fire Department: (memo: yes no )
Parks Department: (memo: yes no )
Building Department: (memo: yes no )
Housing Authority: (memo: yes no )
Attorney: (memo: yes no )
Other: . :. ..1 •1, k.1...0 :al
a l ( - ' •r ���
Gener• 1 Comme. s: gaL'" ALA
'A .6 IL& - !111 INFOrtia 1.1.111 4
-R151)6 CA-LAkij idon-tri-r) i,t(z) SLL73)(1
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Leslie Lamont
From: Mark Fuller
Postmark: Jan 25, 93 4 : 58 PM
Status: Previously read
Subject: Mocklin Property
Message:
FYI the County Open Space and Trails Board has discussed the Mocklin
Property and included it on their current list of "properties of
interest" . This is both to help implement the Open Space element of
the AACP and in recognition of the property's open space value. The
Open Space Board has assumed in their discussions that the existing
housing on the site would stay in place (or even be expanded) but that
those improvements were not incompatible with substantial open space
value considering the neighborhood and location of the property.There
has been no thought of including the building in a purchase.Call if ?
X
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation T istiric ' e 1 1
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303)925-3601 FAX #(303)925-2537
Sy Kelly- Chairman Albert Bishop
John J. Snyder-Treas. Frank Loushin
Louis Popish - Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
September 9. 1992
Leslie Lamont
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Mocklin Rezoning
Dear Leslie :
Our records do not indicate that the existing development on this
property is connected to our system. Our records show that
connection and service charges have not been paid for this
development. If the existing development is serviced by septic
system then the District would request that the planning
commission require that the applicant commit to connect to our
system within 90 days, since the District collection system is
within 400 feet of the property boundary. If the existing
development has been illegally connected to our system (connected
previously without paying connection and service charges) then
the District would request that the applicant be required to pay
any outstanding connection and service fees to the District prior
to any formal action by the planning commission on the zone
change request.
The proposed rezoning of the Mocklin property does not create any
special concerns for our District. The collection system adjacent
to the Mocklin property does not have any significant constraints
at this time that would be adversely impacted by a zone change
allowing higher density development.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce lyLj
District Manager
EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
1976 - 1986 - 1990
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
MEMORANDUM
City Engineer
Aspen Water Department
Zoning Administration
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
•
Aspen Fire Protection District
46 :" (Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
RE: Mocklin Rezoning
DATE: August 20, 1992
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Peter Mocklin.
Please return your comments to me no later than September 17, 1992.
The Design Review Committee will be meeting on September 10, 1992, at 3:00 p.m.
Thank you.
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920-5197
August 20, 1992
Sunny Vann
Vann & Associates
230 E. Hopkins
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Mocklin Rezoning
Case A71-92
•
Dear Sunny,
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 review by the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission at a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, October 20, 1992
at a meeting to begin at 4: 30 p.m. Should this date be inconvenient for you
please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After
that the agenda date 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 date, 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 on or before October
10, 1992 , which is 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.
All applications are now being scheduled for the Development Review Committee
(DRC) . The DRC is a committee of referral agencies which meet with Planning
and the applicant early in the process to discuss the application. This casE
is scheduled for September 10, 1992 at 3 : 00 p.m. City Council Chambers.
If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner assigned
to your case.
Sincerely,
Suzanne L. Wolff
Administrative Assistant
form:apz.ph
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Engineer
Aspen Water Department
Zoning Administration
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Aspen Fire Protection District
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
RE: Mocklin Rezoning
DATE: August 20, 1992
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Peter Mocklin.
Please return your comments to me no later than September 17, 1992.
The Design Review Committee will be meeting on September 10, 1992, at 3:00 p.m.
Thank you.
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
August 14, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Mocklin Property Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
Please consider this letter an application to rezone a portion of the Mocklin property
from R-15A, Moderate Density Residential, to R/MFA, Residential/Multi-Family
(see Exhibit 1, Pre-Application Conference Summary, attached hereto). The
application is submitted pursuant to Section 7-1103 of the Aspen Land Use Regula-
tions by Peter and Monica Mocklin, the owners of the property (see Exhibit 2, Title
Insurance Policy). Permission for Vann Associates to represent the Applicants is
attached as Exhibit 3.
Existing Conditions
As the accompanying survey illustrates, the Applicants' property consists of three (3)
separately described meets and bounds parcels. Tracts A and B, which are located
adjacent to the intersection of Gibson Avenue and Lone Pine Road, contain approxi-
mately 3.26 and 0.24 acres, respectively. Tract C contains approximately 0.59 acres
and is physically separated from Tracts A and B by Gibson Avenue. Tracts A and B
are located within the so-called Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine annexation area,
and are most likely considered merged for development purposes.
Man-made improvements to the property include an eight (8) unit apartment
building,which is located on Tract A, and the Spring Street right-of-way,which
traverses Tract C. Tracts A and B are zoned R-15A, while Tract C is zoned R-30,
Mandatory Planned Unit Development. The existing free market apartment building
is a legally established non-conforming use in the R-15A zone district.
Background
The Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine annexation area was formally annexed to
the City of Aspen via the adoption of City Council Ordinance No. 15-89 on March
230 East Hopkins Avenue•Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925-6958•Fax 303/920-9310
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 14, 1992
Page 2
29, 1989 (see Exhibit 4, Annexation Map). The annexation area contained approxi-
mately sixty-one (61) acres, and included single-family, multi-family and public land
uses. More specifically, the annexation area consisted of the Mocklin, Moran,
Friedberg, Rowland, Scully, Oden, Cowee and Braden properties, the Community
Center, and the Hunter Long House, Lone Pine, Hunter Creek and Centennial
apartment/condominium complexes.
The annexation area was rezoned pursuant to City Council Ordinance No. 26-89,
which was adopted on June 14, 1989 (see Exhibit 5, Ordinance No. 26-89). At the
time of the annexation, the Centennial and Hunter Creek complexes were zoned
AR-2, Accommodations and Recreation District, a multi-family residential zoning
category. The remainder of the annexation area was zoned R-15, Residential
District, a single-family residential zoning category.
As the official zone district map illustrates, the City Council rezoned the Friedberg,
Rowland and Scully properties to R-30, Low Density Residential, Mandatory
Planned Unit Development. The Oden, Cowee, Mocklin and Moran properties were
rezoned to R-15A, Moderate Density Residential, while the Community Center was
rezoned to PUB, Public. Both the Oden and Cowee properties were also designated
Mandatory Planned Unit Development.
The Centennial, Hunter Long House, Hunter Creek and Lone Pine complexes, and
Ralph Braden's Mountain View project, were rezoned to R/MFA, Residential/Multi-
Family, a new zone district which was created to reflect their existing densities and
floor areas. Apparently, the dimensional requirements of the City's existing R/MF
zone district would have allowed significant increases in these project's buildout
potential. The R/MFA category, therefore, was designed to allow existing multi-
family developments in the annexation area to be conforming, but to preclude or
significantly limit their future expansion.
The Planning Office initially recommended that the Mocklin property also be
rezoned to R/MFA. The staff recommendation was based on the fact that the
property was surrounded by multi-family development, and that a R/MFA designa-
tion was necessary to make the existing multi-family use conforming. The staff,
however, subsequently changed its recommendation to R-15A, based solely on the
argument that "... zoning the property R/MFA in the absence of a development plan may
not be in the best interests of the Community" (see Exhibit 6, Planning Office May 22,
1989, Memorandum). The staff apparently did not object to the R/MFA zone
district category, but rather to the lack of a specific development proposal for the
property.
While the staff did not elaborate on its position, a review of the Planning Office's
files, and the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council minutes, indicates
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 14, 1992
Page 3
that the staff felt that the City would have greater control over the property's future
development if it were rezoned concurrent with the review of a specific development
application. In other words, the Planning Office apparently wished to use the
rezoning process to control any future development of the Applicants' property.
Although the P&Z voted to recommend rezoning to R/MFA, the City Council
concurred with the staff's position and rezoned the property to R-15A.
Proposed Rezoning
As noted previously, the existing apartment building is a non-conforming use in the
R-15A zone district. The Aspen Land Use Regulations define a non-conforming use
as "... any use of land, building or structure which was established pursuant to the zoning
and building laws in effect at the time of its development, but which use is not a
permitted or conditional use under the regulations imposed by this Code for the zone
district in which it is located". Pursuant to Section 9-102 of the Regulations, non-
conforming uses are allowed to continue, but are subject to numerous restrictions.
More specifically, non-conforming uses may not be expanded, and normal mainte-
nance is limited to ten (10) percent of the building's current replacement cost in any
given twelve (12) month period. In addition, such uses must be terminated if
abandoned or discontinued for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months. While
buildings containing such uses may be reconstructed following their demolition or
destruction, the non-conforming uses may only be restored if less than seventy-five
(75) percent of the building is demolished or destroyed. An exception to this rule,
however, exists for uses which are demolished or destroyed by an act of God. In
such cases, the use and building may be restored regardless of the extent demolished,
provided that a building permit is issued within one (1) year of the demolition.
The above limitations impose significant hardships on the Applicants which are not
imposed on neighboring multi-family uses. For example, the Applicants are expressly
precluded from any expansion of their building's floor area, despite the fact that it is
located on approximately three and one-half (3-1/2) acres of land. In addition, the
nature and extent of improvements to the existing units is limited by the requirement
that only normal maintenance be permitted. Finally, the building's non-conforming
status is an impediment to the sale of the property and to the obtainment of
mortgage financing. To alleviate these problems, the Applicants propose to rezone
Tracts A and B from R-15A, Moderate Density Residential, to R/MFA, Residen-
tial/Multi-Family. Tract C, however, will remain R-30 as presently zoned.
Review Requirements
Pursuant to Section 7-1103, a private application for an amendment to the City's
official zone district map may only be submitted on or prior to February 15 and
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 14, 1992
Page 4
August 15 of each year. The applicable review criteria for such applications, and the
proposed rezoning's compliance therewith, are discussed below.
1. "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this chapter."
The proposed rezoning complies with all applicable provisions of Chapter 24
of the Municipal Code, The Aspen Land Use Regulations. As no d emonstrable
benefit would result from terminating the existing multi-family use, the rezoning of
the property to R/MFA would eliminate its present non-conforming status, thereby
bringing the structure into compliance with the use requirements of the Land Use
Regulations. No variation in the dimensional requirements of the R/MFA zone
district, or waiver of any applicable provision of the Regulations, is requested by the
Applicants.
2. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan."
As discussed in the 1991 Phase One Report which was prepared by the
Planning Office in connection with the current Aspen area community planning
effort, there is no single document which constitutes the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan. Instead, the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan consists of a variety of individual
elements and neighborhood plans which have been adopted since the preparation of
the original Aspen Area General Plan in 1966. Although the Planning Office prepared
a neighborhood master plan for the annexation area in 1982, the plan was never
adopted by either the City or the County. A number of the recommendations
contained in the plan, however, have been implemented.
The only adopted element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan which
contains recommendation which specifically address the Applicants' property is The
Aspen Land Use Plan which was prepared in 1973. This plan depicts the Mocklin
property as being within the Residential/Multi-Family land use category. The
proposed rezoning of the Applicants' property to R/MFA, Residential/Multi-Family,
therefore, is consistent with The Aspen Land Use Plan. To the best of the Applicants'
knowledge, no other adopted element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan contains
recommendations which preclude, or otherwise pertain to, the proposed rezoning.
It should be noted that the first draft of the new Aspen Area Community Plan
Action Plan contains a recommendation that the Mocklin property be purchased for
park purposes. This recommendation is apparently intended to either supplement or
supersede the Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Element of the Aspen Area Compre-
hensive Plan, which recommends expansion and improvement of the Mollie Gibson
Park to serve the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine annexation area. The new
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 14, 1992
Page 5
plan, however, has not been formally reviewed or adopted. The Action Plan's
recommendations notwithstanding, the proposed rezoning does not preclude the
purchase of the Mocklin property should the City wish to develop it for park
purposes.
3. "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics."
With the exception of the Williams Addition and the Oklahoma Flats
neighborhood, the majority of the area surrounding the Applicants' property is
presently zoned for multi-family use. As discussed previously, all existing multi-
family development in the area except the Mocklin property was rezoned to R/MFA
in connection with the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine annexation. The
Planning Office has previously acknowledged, however, that R/MFA is an appropri-
ate zone district category for the Applicants' property.
As discussed in the Planning Office's May 22, 1989, memorandum to the City
Council, the annexation area contained approximately six hundred (600) existing
multi-family units. This figure excludes the adjacent Smugger Mobile Home Park
property whose density is obviously multi-family in character, the Hunter Long
House apartment complex expansion, and the new Williams Woods condominiums.
It should also be noted that additional multi-family development is proposed on the
so-called Williams Ranch property, which is located adjacent to Centennial, and on
the nearby Community Center property.
Based on the above, the proposed rezoning of the Applicants' property to
R/MFA is compatible with existing zoning and land uses in the immediate site area.
The surrounding neighborhood is unquestionably multi-family in character, and
additional multi-family development has been proposed and approved in the area.
The appropriateness of the proposed rezoning is further substantiated by the
Planning Office's and P&Z's prior recommendations, and The Aspen Land Use Plan,
which was discussed under the preceding criteria.
4. "The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety."
The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the area's existing
road system. Should further development of the property be proposed, the Land
Use Regulations are designed to ensure that potential impacts are mitigated in
connection with the review and approval of a specific development application.
Similarly, the nature and extent of any future development proposal would obviously
be limited by identified deficiencies in the surrounding road system.
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 14, 1992
Page 6
5. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including
but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks,
drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities."
The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the City's public
facilities. Should further development of the property be proposed, the Land Use
Regulations are designed to ensure that potential impacts are mitigated in connec-
tion with the review and approval of a specific development application. Similarly,
the nature and extent of any future development proposal would obviously be limited
by identified deficiencies in the availability of public facilities and services.
6. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment."
The proposed rezoning will have no adverse impact on the natural environ-
ment. Should further development of the property be proposed, the Land Use
Regulations is designed to ensure that potential environmental impacts are mitigated
in connection with the review and approval of a specific development application.
Any further development would also be required to comply with such additional
regulations as may be promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency which
are applicable to the property.
7. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with
the community character in the City of Aspen."
While compatibility with the City's "community character" is obviously a
subjective criteria, the proposed rezoning is clearly consistent with the property's sur-
rounding zoning and existing land uses.
8. "Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject
parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment."
A basic change in conditions occurred when the Applicants' property was
annexed to the City of Aspen, and the surrounding area was rezoned to R/MFA.
The continued development of multi-family dwelling units in the area, e.g., the
Hunter Long House expansion, Williams Woods condominiums, and the proposed
Williams Ranch and Community Center projects, represents an on-going change
which supports the proposed rezoning.
9. "Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest,and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter."
Ms. Leslie Lamont
August 14, 1992
Page 7
Inasmuch as the proposed rezoning would remove the existing multi-family
structure's non-conforming status, the public interest would appear to be appropri-
ately served by approval of the rezoning request. As discussed previously, the
Applicants' proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose and intent of The Aspen
Land Use Plan's multi-family land use category and complies with all applicable
provisions of the Land Use Regulations.
In summary, we believe that the proposed rezoning complies with all of the review
criteria of Section 7-1102. In addition, both the Planning Office and the Planning
and Zoning Commission have previously supported the R/MFA zone district as being
an appropriate zoning category for the Applicants' property. The only issue appears
to be the belief that the submission of a specific development plan is a necessary
prerequisite to rezoning.
As you know, the City's Land Use Regulations contain no reference to such a
requirement. We believe that to require a specific plan for the Applicants' property
prior to rezoning represents an arbitrary and unreasonable demand that is neither
justified by the Regulations nor supported by any logical argument. The Land Use
Regulations clearly provide sufficient safeguards in the review and approval process
to ensure that any future development proposal complies with all applicable regula-
tions, and that all potential impacts are satisfactorily mitigated.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call.
Yours truly,
VANN A' OCIATES
1
Sunny Vann, /P-
SV:cwv
Attachments
cAbus\city.app\app 19592.rez
CITY OF ASPEN U h
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT:\ 7W- 11-\ j�l X1.1
EXHIBI 1
C
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: C AA.A/N
E-5- c `
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: ) -- � l -;
OWNER'S NAME-T-7 ) -h ,771--) : Q L- (JlM
SUMMARY
1. Type of Application: NY1C 0.-' a' ZC`-'4'Yti 'v 47
2. Describe action/type of development being requested:
• c' .: \
VAST
'3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond,
types of reports requested:
. Policy Area/
Referral Agent Comments
4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC Only) P&Z then to C
5. Public Hearing: r, (YES: (NO)
6. Number of copies of the application to be s witted:
7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: /CrTh ( c 0((
8. Anticipated date of submission: / I
9 COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: c_(- - (T" (U-6? 4<-1
frm.pre_app
ALTA Owner's PolVCy— Form B-- Amendr.d 10-17-70 . EXHIBIT 2
r . .:..? ................. tom.• tr0 :.` t�.S *..i t..: c.. W
t•: '.': ....A..• •V t*? t•r gun: tom• L? • &a., • • ■
r ::a..a:ao• o o•ai:o..o. .1*.wt:o:s ', a:4:: :0 :�%s ...":o:!OE:a:;o:: :o :o.":o.: _ `
c
'it**1 ,
POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY
''.'t S.
,;,Y •.
!!e!, i,, i.
'.`b4+ S T E WA RT TITLE ;�
(4»K3 GUARANTY COMPANY kA':It
J
$'• SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND t,{��
I" 1)' THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREOF, STEWART TITLE GUARANTY x;04
r,�;I COMPANY, a corporation of Galveston, Texas, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in (n; P
�i..�4) Schedule A, against loss or damage, not exceeding the amount of lnsurance stated in Schedule A, and costs, attorneys' I"/,:i
I" • fees and expenses which the Company may become obligated to pay hereunder, sustained or incurred by the insured by ¢
( 1"'i� P P" Y Y 9 l y ` Y Y l:R
reason of:
V.4 1. Title to the estate or interest described in ch dule A being vested otherwise than as stated therein;
T (I ';1),
" 3 2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on suc ti' e;
v' 4 3. Lack of a right of access'to and from the land; K- .l)
y�+V ' 4. Unmarketability of such'title
a ` ' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused this policy to be signed and sealed by its " '
�l'vv duly authorized officers as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A. :,,t,.)�
ti
v, 3 SF T'ENVA1 ,r1` TITLE 41
qq��•�', 0r��\S`Eµwy GUARANTY COMPANY 'V.
': •�� Countersigned: `,�`,�.••'•.*44%y `�L�� 7fj/ �'1
T :-
Vg:.- :4-,• 1 9 0 8 0 Chairman of the Board (G;: '1))
sk•. * ``�.
,i iiu/i/rNM
„1.• 11 k • ti4 * . 'g'Av'1
06,•�n.,1} Authorized Counters: ure President (I•
"
if 4
,': "1, EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE 'fit' "
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy: r 0'E
e,:),, 1. Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning ordinances) restricting or regulating or ;' ',
�� prohibiting the occupancy,use or enjoyment of the land,or regulating the character,dimensions or location of any improvement now or %4
3'•• :i hereafter erected on the land, or prohibiting a separation in ownership or a reduction in the dimensions or area of the land,or the effect (Ie
,•�.,11. of any violation of any such law,ordinance or governmental regulation. ,,.,1
'0:" 2. Rights of eminent domain or governmental rights of police power unless notice of the exercise of such rights appears in the public
3(,y ,Q records at Date of Policy. (t t s)).
3. Defects,liens,encumbrances,adverse claims,or other matters la)created,suffered,assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant, (b) not f'.M�1
�.4.� 1)
•a known to the Company and not shown by the public records but known to the insured claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date �' '�
l#i"W such claimant acquired an estate or interest insured by this policy and not disclosed in writing by the insured claimant to the Company (:�,
1 `r. prior to the date such insured claimant became an insured hereunder; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) +
i !" •a attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (el resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured (;,:1
��" claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy. t�,;"
r*,,-
, . k'1/4.11W
14., ��s:O.. s�C..O►sL� :!O! "! Page 1 of •-• -:!G ±� R7-04 S�I7 \f' ! -: - O � !D' Policy Serial No. $! ! "'� J•
J' -�. slos a-.4 ,,i.►. - ,r5 ss 1
. ALTA OWNEN'S 4'(}LJL=/ - Amen(' 10/17/70 - - - - - - - - •
SCHEDULE A
Order No.: 8942 Policy No.: 0 323184
Date of Policy: AUGUST 10, 1979 AT 8:00 A.M. Amount of Insurance: $ 100,000.00
1. Name of Insured: PETER MOCKLIN AND MONICA M. MOCKLIN, AS TO PARCEL A, AND
) LTER NOChLI", Ar TO PARCELS L AND C
2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is:
IN FEE SIMPLE
3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in:
PETER MOCEU.IN AND MONICA H. 14OCLIN, AS TO PARCEL A, AND
PETER NSOCEI.IN, AS TO PARCELS B AND C
4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows:
See EXHIBIT A
•
\, \
Paget S'1'E K'1"r ITLl
GUARANTY COMPANY
PE 0012
COPY FOR ISSUING OFFICE
SCHEDULE B
Order No. 8942 Policy No.1 323184
This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a
correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the
public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed
by law and not shown by the public records.
5.Taxes for the year 1979 and thereafter, and any special assessment or charges
not yet certified to the office of the County Treasurer.
6.The right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore I
therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises
hereby granted, as provided by law, as reserved in United States Patent recorded
December 24, 1902, in Book 35 at page 116.
7.Right of way for electric line across the S1/223ith and NE30W 1of $ectiono7,2as
granted to James U. Devereux by Deed recorded January 30,
at page 582.
8.Right of way for gas pipeline conveyed to Rocky Mountai G e Company by
Ruth
C. Bisel, recorded August 26, 1968 in Book 236 at page 1 ver the portion
of subject property included with in the fo lowing descri tion: A strip of
land 10 feet wide, West of and adjoining a 1 ne described as follows: Beginning
at a point whence the West k corner of Sec , vp 7 bears North 66'44' West, 2105.44
feet; thence South 89'20' E4 t, 85.59 feet.%,te the True Point of Beginning;
thence on a curve to the rig It with a radius of 127 feet, a distance of 15.07
feet; thence g5nth 17'41' Last, 344.841 feet-
ALSO, from sai True point of\b inning, a line running North 47°57' West,
a distance of 02 feet. \J
s
9.Al1 existing roads, highways , railroads., ditches . pipelines and utilities and
easements and ri'ghts of way therefor.
1O.Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Water line Agreement recorded
December 5, 1966 in Book 224 at page 220.
11.Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Memorandum of Trust Agreement
recorded June 5, 1972 in Book 264 at page 145.
12.Deed of Trust from Peter Mocklin and Monica M. Mocklin to the Public Trustee
of Pitkin County for the use of The Bank of Aspen to secure $120,000.0 affteds
F
November 15, 1972, recorded November 16, 1972 in Book 268 at pa
Parcel A).
13.Deed of Trust from Peter Mocklin to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for
the use of Ruth C. Bisel to secure $27,00.00 dated June 2, 1971, recorded
June 7, 1971 in Book 255 at page 755 (affects Parcel A) .
4nyntiauedseespage 3a)
''I' EWW'A I:T TITLE
Page 3 GUARANTY CI,MPANY
1613 COPY FOR ISSUING C:'FICC
Standard C...rap.Yollty form
CePy^9hl 1963
Attached to and made a part of Stewart Title Guaranty Company Policy No. O 323184
Order No. 8942
Continuation of Schedule
14.iny tax, assessment, fees or charges by reason of the inclusion of subject
property in Aspen Sanitation District, Aspen Street Improvement District,
Aspen Fire Protection District, The City of Aspen and Aspen Valley Hospital
District.
\\\\
(:\\,
\\
Page _3a
COPY FOR ISSUING OFFICE ti'1' l: 1Z'1' '1'I'1'L 1:
GUARANTY COMPANY
1514
EXHIBIT 3
August 12, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Dear Ms. Lamont:
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates,
Planning Consultants, to represent us in the processing of our application to rezone
our property which is located at 0202 Lone Pine Road in the City of Aspen. Mr.
Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters reasonably
pertaining to the aforementioned application.
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please do
not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
(7:/:
Peter Mocklin
P.O. Box 807
Aspen, CO 81612
(303) 925-3668
4
Month M. Mocklin
SV:cwv
. sl
.z■
•
EXHIB '
.? • 0
Y '
uzx
III • 1 't:' ,
w i1O f A` O
1 i QZ _.
Zf „ x
I j 1 ~.
xuo <
-..- rVV t-1
..-- 133a1c... 8 road
St F Z .'n°ftnry =
II g0 3 w
,!1-;..:,!, o M31/1 �fl� I�.3 33N.A
�t a O z 8 °g$ S ; W
•• ^..r.�c.ws r;'la j ' ' k 0 a 8R
• • 2.n GfpON ZII.9.' s 8 W 4
�Ftj \�---,:l >pX acr$id ' „ ° 9 R.g ,N z ---7
\ maw ziA� ..§ 4-/:••7'`''' v , 'a N i
\ Nvz rya , 83 '8— -_ a a
\\ 1 1: ZZ ny;C Z Z r g 66 y.•
\` 11,1 �GWI-N a3�� 8 ..T Q M 3
\ 7vr � 4-
z1° .3
� z v t e�
�;8 s ''8 a i3
ss, -r ds
u
u—
Z
w O ''�',"e? �?
: „:4..,'c
xu A d 1�� 2
,
7 r
--s. a
rT1
td z f•■i
4- •` 4 ',, r
MIN
,;o.''.,,,`7' a` Y 2
m e� o ?4' ---„, 0 a-
ec ,,,,P , \ .i ■ ''f; '''''
, !! I/
r� Y ZO OO r '
0 ti .
_, r � >2,, ®I /tip
t . a> o^a 9\ao I�•
_.,q 7W - OL SLZ 8 1
IMO p■I
tW• U r �n 0000.G ON e!•
�/ N8s .<1.•
'.... LTI--TO ---------'' -,-, x,,
�'' 3
o'e� 3 OOP ti
.±
a a o
<
� s \ ZW� o: 'n zr^ZS� a
ler
II.
S
r---1 B T cI� Q
-- — s t I >� . u
y qDBRGW ROW Y- — C�
`6a Z
a
pQ�•' ��� /i z / \_` OS < z�i'5t Y-'7.‘;'<'?_;'.."` 1c. U^Y ?twi T t 7 i-1 ‘quipe x•+ c7 / O 1 :, % 11 0-ivv,, 04.vc t!r so \\T� -,f. •,
1' llt.
i `C .
US T
7� j ?4?carb..i•
^'.' 0 '. ..337.
�IQ'. r Icy•
070
L �
4 T
BL1O 1311. ray b:i -XHOIT 5
ORDINANCE NO. 26 -rn c )
(Series of 1989)
AN ORDINANCE ZONING THE CENTENNIAL/HUNTER C EK/LONE PINE
ANNEXATION AREA GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE BASE OF SMUGGLER AND RED
MOUNTAINS TO R-30 PUD, R-15A PUD, R-15A, PUBLIC, R/MFA AND R/MFA
PUD.
WHEREAS, the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine area was
annexed to the City of Aspen on March 24 , 1989 ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office held a neighborhood meeting
with residents of the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine area to
receive input regarding zoning of the area; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearings on February 21, 1989 , to consider zoning
of the Lone Pine area and April 25 , 1989 , to consider zoning of
the Centennial/Hunter Creek area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the recommendation
of the Planning and Zoning Commission and has determined the
proposed zoning to be compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land use in the vicinity of the site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
Section 1
That it does hereby zone the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone
Pine annexation area as illustrated on the attached map.
Section 2
That the Zoning District Map be amended to reflect the
zoning described in Section 1 and the Planning Director be
authorized and directed to amend the map to reflect the zoning
1
J
change. BOOK 611- PNuE 6 J6
Section 3
That the City Clerk is directed upon adoption of this
ordinance to record a copy in the office of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder.
Section 4
If any section, sub-section, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional by and court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, district and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 5
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any
right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to
the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be
continued and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 6
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /
day of , 1989 , at 5 : 00 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days
prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once
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
2
eL1ox 611. N4GE6U8
1989 .
t;‹ 40.r:
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Air
Kathryn S( Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this J7` day of
/ , 1989 .
•
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
.14
Kathryn S l Koch, City Clerk
annex.cen.hc. lp. ord. zon
3
EXHIBIT 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr. , City Manager
FROM: Tom Baker, Planning Office \
RE: Zoning: Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine Annexation
DATE: May 22 , 1989
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that
Council zone the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine Annexation
area as follows: create a new zone district called R-30A which
precludes duplex development and zone the Friedberg, Scully and
Rowland properties R-30A PUD; zone the area north of the
Community Center and east of Red Mountain Road R-15 PUD; zone the
Community Center Public; create a new zone district called R/MFA,
which has lower FAR's than the R/MF zone district, and zone Lone
Pine, the Mountain View condominiums parcel, the Mocklin parcel,
Hunter Longhouse, Hunter Creek and the Moran property R/MFA; and
zone Centennial R/MFA PUD.
For the most part staff agrees with P&Z. However, staff suggests
that Council review the recommended zoning for the Moran and
Mocklin parcels. Staff finds that the community may best be
served if the zoning of these parcels to R/MFA were done in the
context of a development plan and until then the appropriate
zoning for these parcels is 1lR-15A. Additionally, staff
recommends that the area north of-the community Center be zoned
R-15A PUD rather than R-15 PUD, this was an oversight on staff's
part in our recommendation to P&Z. Finally, if Council finds
that Ordinance 21 is acceptable, this ordinance requires all
future duplex units to be 50% deed restricted, then the need to
create a new R-30A may be diminished because the Community has
determined that duplex units, based upon Ordinance 21, are
desirable.
For Councils information staff has included seven (7)
attachments.
Attachment 1 - Parcel names
Attachment 2 - County Zoning
Attachment 3 - P&Z Zoning Recommendations
Attachment 4 - Staff Zoning Recommendations with Ord. 21
Attachment 5 - Staff Zoning Recommendation without Ord. 21
Attachment 6 - Ordinance Creating the R-30A Zone
Attachment 7 - Ordinance Creating the R/MFA Zone
Attachment 8 - Ordinance Zoning Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone
Pine
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: There was no previous Council action.
This area was annexed by special election on March 24 , 1989.
BACKGROUND: The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the
zoning for this area on two separate occasions. In February the
P&Z reviewed the Lone Pine annexation area and in April P&Z
reviewed the Hunter Creek/Centennial area. This two meeting
review was brought about by the citizens petition for annexation
which caused the annexation election on March 24, 1989.
According to State law, the City must zone annexed areas within a
90 day period after annexation or development can occur without
limit.
Neighborhood Meetings: The Planning Office held neighborhood
meetings on December 21, 1988 , for the Lone Pine annexation area,
and on April 27, 1989, for the Centennial/Hunter Creek area, in
order to determine the goals of the residents. In the December,
Lone Pine meeting the majority of the residents who attended were
from the Lone Pine multi-family project, however, Mr. Peter
Mocklin, a large parcel owner, also attended. The Lone Pine
residents who attended seemed to agree that the appropriate zone
district for the Lone Pine complex was R/MF. Mr. Mocklin feels
his parcel should also be zoned R/MF.
At the April, Hunter Creek/Centennial meeting, which was attended
by five people, two questions were asked - first, would this
zoning effect Centennial or Hunter Creek in any positive or
negative way? Staff answered that it was. the City's intention to
zone the annexed areas in a manner which made them conforming and
did not effect their development potential. Although the new
R/MFA zone district shows an increase in FAR for the Centennial
project it is not staff's intention that Centennial should
increase in FAR. This was done only to ensure that Hunter Creek
remain conforming. The second question was asked by Mr. James
Moran. Why was staff's recommendation for his parcel R-15A and
not a higher zone? The neighborhood has changed significantly
because of Centennial and the proposed Mountain View
Condominiums. Staff's intention was to zone the Moran parcel in
a manner comparable to what the zoning is in the County, .which is
R-15. The R-15A zone allows duplex units but requires 50% to be
deed restricted. The County's R-15 zone allows only single-
family dwellings. Given the Community's affordable housing
problem staff finds this appropriate. In terms of the upzoning
issue, staff finds that in the absence of a development plan any
upzoning will not be in the City's best interest.
Guidelines: The City Annexation Element of the Comprehensive
Plan outlines guidelines for annexing new areas into the City.
These guidelines are as follows:
1. Guideline
Generally, an adopted Master Plan for an annexed area
2
addressing land use and capital facilities improvements
should be a pre-requisite to annexation.
Explanatory Comments
Most of the areas earmarked for annexation have been
Master Planned. The Master Plans establish guidelines
for zoning decisions and capital facilities
improvements. The Master Plan, in combination with
general wishes of property owners and neighbors, should
be a basic consideration in the land use decision
making process.
2. Guideline
Apply zoning to annexed areas which generally maintains
the same development rights within the City as within
unincorporated areas.
Explanatory Comments
The general idea behind this guideline is that annexa-
tion and subsequent zoning should not create a change
in the character of an annexed area. Instead, the City
land use regulations should be oriented to maintaining
the "character of the neighborhood. "
3. Guideline
Strive to avoid zoning designations which make conform-
ing land uses and structures nonconforming.
4. Guideline
The City should generally try to maintain Floor Area
Ratios comparable to the County's for annexed proper-
ties, unless it is demonstrated during the zoning
process that the Floor Area Ratios are unreasonably
high or low.
County Zoning: The entire annexation area was zoned. R-15
(single-family, 15,000 s. f. lots) except for the Hunter Creek,
Mountain View and Centennial parcels which were zoned AR-2 (high
density, multi-family) .
Description: The Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine Annexation
area consists of 61.092 acres and is made up of single-family,
multi-family and community service uses. Staff will discuss this
annexation area in smaller pieces so that Council can respond to
individual areas.
Rowland, Friedberg, Scully - This area is in the western
3
•
J
portion of the area, (see attachment 1) . These lots are
over 30, 000 s. f. and are single-family in nature. At the
P&Z's public meeting, Marc Friedberg requested that P&Z zone
this area to exclude duplex units. The P&Z agreed and
directed staff to create a new zone called R-30A, which is
identical to the R-30 zone, but does not permit duplex
units. Since this issue was brought to P&Z prior to the
development of Ordinance 21 staff makes the following
suggestion. If Ordinance 21 is acceptable to City Council,
then we recommend that this area be zoned R-30 PUD. Staff
takes this position because the concerns that Marc Friedberg
has, likely revolved around bulk and density. Ordinance 21
will require that 50% of all duplex units developed be deed
restricted. Affordable housing units are much smaller than
free market units, so the bulk concern is eliminated. The
density issue is not resolved, but the Community has
determined that duplex units which are 50% deed restricted
are important to the Community; therefore, the Community
need for affordable housing should override the neighborhood
concern for density. If Ordinance 21 is not acceptable to
Council, then staff recommends R-30A PUD.
Oden, Cowee - This area is directly north of the Community
Center, (see attachment 1) . In December, staff recommended
that this area be zoned R-15 PUD and P&Z agreed. The City
has consistently taken the position that annexed land which
is zoned R-15 in the County should be zoned R-15A in the
City. The County's R-15 zone prohibits duplex units. The
City's R-15A zone allows duplex units provided that 50% of
the units are restricted to affordable housing. Therefore,
this policy provides for an increase in the property's
development potential and at the same time provides the
potential for affordable housing. While the P&Z
recommendation is for R-15 PUD, this recommendation is an
oversight. Staff recommends R-15A PUD.
This is an area which can be effected by Ordinance 21. If
Council approves Ordinance 21, then the R-15A zone is
unnecessary because the R-15 zone will achieve the same end.
Community Center - Staff and P&Z agree that the Community
Center should be zoned Public.
Hunter Longhouse, Lone Pine, Hunter Creek, Mountain View,
Centennial - These are all multi-family developments which
require R/MF zoning. When staff and P&Z compared the
buildout potential in the R/MF zone to what existed in these
developments it was discovered that the City's existing R/MF
zone provided a significant increase in the buildout
potential for all of these developments. Due to this
analysis, it became clear that the City needed another R/MF
zone district which was designed to reduce the density and
4
•
floor area of large developments and to provide a zone
district which matched the buildout potential of the
existing developments.
The R/MFA zone district was designed to allow the existing
developments in the annexed area to be conforming, but not
to allow for significant increases in development potential.
Therefore, the R/MFA zone district (attachment 6) is
identical to the R/MF zone district in all but two areas,
multi-family FAR and minimum lot size. The multi-family FAR
has been reduced for lots greater than 27, 000 s. f. This is
to ensure that the existing developments do not have the
potential to expand inappropriately. The minimum lot size
category has been increased to 27, 001 s. f. to ensure that
parcels are not subdivided to take advantage of higher
FAR's.
For Council 's review staff has included information about
each project.
Centennial
17. 012 AC. (DEVELOPMENT)
240 D.U.
51 STUDIOS
86 1 BR
83 2BR
20 3BR
177,000 s f floor area
. 24:1 FAR
Hunter Creek
18.4 AC.
295 D.U.
• 26 STUDIOS
75 1BR
135 2BR
59 3BR
238,000 sf floor area
.30:1 FAR
Mountain View (Proposed)
1 AC.
8 D.U. Two-family
5
8 3BR
15,010 sf floor area
. 34 :1 FAR
Hunter Longhouse
73,511 s.f.
29 D.U.
14 1BR
14 2BR
5 2BR (PROPOSED)
20,800 sf floor area
.28 FAR
Lone Pine
128, 371 sf
40 D.U.
4 STUDIOS
14 1BR
22 3BR
44,878 sf floor area
.35 FAR
The R/MFA zone district makes all of the existing
developments conforming and provides some buildout potential
for each development. In the case of Centennial, however,
the zone district provides for a large increase in buildout
potential. This is because of the size of Hunter Creek. In
order to make Hunter Creek conforming the FAR . needed to be
such that Centennial would be significantly under its
potential. •
The issue of buildout potential 'for Centennial may be a moot
point. Centennial was developed in the County as a PUD with
an agreed upon square footage limitation of 177,000.
Currently, Centennial is within 2000 square feet of this
number. Therefore, regardless of the zone district's FAR,
Centennial is essentially built out, pursuant to the PUD
agreement, unless this agreement is amended by the P&Z and
Council. Therefore, P&Z and staff recommend that Hunter
Creek, Lone Pine, Hunter Longhouse and Mountain View be
zoned R/MFA and that Centennial be zoned R/MFA PUD.
Mocklin - The Mockiln parcel (attachment 1) consists of
approximately five (5) acres and contains an eight (8) unit
6
•
multi-family structure. The property is zoned R-15 in the
County. Staff's original recommendation was to zone this
area R/MFA because this parcel is surrounded by R/MF typd
development. Further,_to make the parcel conforming, a
multi-family zone district would be required.
After much thought, staff feels that zoning the parcel R/MFA
in the absence of a development plan may not be in the best
interests of the Community. If the City zones the property
R-15A, the non-con ormi y which existed in the County stays
in place in the City. While P&Z recommends R/MFA staff
finds that the Community may best be served if the property
is zoned R-15A and any rezoning to R/MFA be done in
combination with a development plan.
If Ordinance 21 is acceptable to Council, then staff
recommends this area be zoned R-15.
Moran - The Moran parcel is approximately 53, 000 s. f. with
one single-family dwelling. P&Z finds that this property
has been exposed to a significant amount of change, in terms
of neighborhood character, and recommends R/MFA. Staff
agrees that the neighborhood has undergone significant
change, but in the absence of a development plan, staff
finds that the most appropriate zone for this parcel is R-
15A.
If Ordinance 21 is acceptable to Council, then staff
recommends this area be zoned R-15.
RECOMMENDATION: The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends the following zoning for the Centennial/Hunter
Creek/Lone Pine Annexation area. Create two (2) new zone
districts R/MFA (attachment 6) and R-30A (attachment 5) . Zone
the area as follows: the Rowland, Friedberg, Scully area R-30A
PUD; the Oden, Cowee area R-15 PUD; the Community Center Public;
the Hunter Creek, Lone Pine, Hunter Longhouse, Mocklin, Mountain
View and Moran parcels R/MFA and the Centennial parcel R/MFA PUD.
The Planning Office recommends the following. If Ordinance 21 is
acceptable *to Council, then create a new R/MFA zone district and
zone the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine annexation area as
follows: the Rowland, Friedberg, Scully area R-30 PUD; the Oden,
Cowee area R-15 PUD; the Community Center Public; the Hunter
Creek, Lone Pine, Hunter Longhouse and Mountain View parcels
R/MFA, the Centennial parcel R/MFA PUD; and the Mocklin and Moran
parcels R-15.
If Ordinance 21 is not acceptable to Council, then create the R-
30A and R/MFA zone districts and zone the Centennial/Hunter
Creek/Lone Pine annexation area as follows: the Rowland,
Friedberg, Scully area R-30A PUD; the Oden, Cowee area R-15A PUD;
7
the Community Center Public; the Hunter Creek, Lone Pine, Hunter
Longhouse and Mountain View parcels R/MFA, the Centennial parcel
R/MFA PUD; and the Mocklin and Moran parcels R-15A.
PROPOSED MOTION:• I move to adopt the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation and approve on 1st Reading Ordinance
•- No. (Series of 1989) to create the R-30A zone district,
. Ordinance No. (Series of 1989) to create the R/MFA zone
district and Ordinance No.. (Series of 1989) zoning the
Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine Annexation area as follows: the
Rowland, Friedberg, Scully area R-30A; the Oden, Cowee area R-15
PUD; the Community Center Public; the Hunter Creek, Lone Pine,
Hunter Longhouse, Mocklin, Mountain View and Moran parcels R/MFA
and the Centennial parcel R/MFA PUD.
I move to approve on 1st Reading Ordinance No._ (Series of 1989)
to create the R/MFA zone district and Ordinance No._ (Series of
1989) zoning the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine Annexation
area amended to reflect Ordinance 21 being acceptable to the
Council.
I move to approve on 1st Reading Ordinance No._ (Series of 1989)
to create the R-30A zone district, Ordinance No. (Series of
1989) to create the R/MFA zone district and Ordinance No._
(Series of 1989) zoning the Centennial/Hunter Creek/Lone Pine
Annexation area amended to reflect Ordinance 21 not being not
being acceptable to the Council.
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION:
annex.cen.hc.lp.cc
8
•
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
City of Aspen Development Application Fee Policy
The City of Aspen pursuant to Ordinance 44 (Series of 1991), has established a
fee structure for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is
collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted.
Referral fees for other City departments reviewing the application will also be
collected when necessary. One check including the deposit for the Planning
Office and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application,
made payable to the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office. Applications will not be
accepted for processing without the required application fee.
A flat fee is collected by the Planning Office for Staff Approvals which normally
take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. The fee is not
refundable.
A deposit is collected by Planning when more extensive staff review is required,
as hours are likely to vary substantially from one application to another. Actual
staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. After the deposit has been
expended, the applicant will be billed monthly based on actual staff hours.
Current billings must be paid within 30 days or processing of the application will
be suspended. If an applicant has previously failed to pay application fees as
required, no new or additional application will be accepted for processing until the
outstanding fees are paid. In no case will Building Permits be issued until all
costs associated with case processing have been paid. After the final action on
the project, any remaining balance from the deposit will be refunded to the
applicant.
Applications which require a deposit must include an Agreement for Payment of
Development Application Fees. The Agreement establishes the applicant as being
responsible for payment of all costs associated with processing the application.
The Agreement must be signed by the party responsible for payment and
submitted with the application in order for it to be accepted.
The complete fee schedule for land use applications is listed on the reverse side.
.
1992 CITY OF ASPEN
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
Base Fee
Category Hours Deposit
I. GMQS/Subdivision/PUD/SPA
1. Conceptual Submission 25 $3,800.00
2. Final Plat 14 2,128.00
II. Subdivision/PUD/SPA
1. Conceptual Submission 17 2,584.00
2. Final Plat 12 1,824.00
III. All "Two Step" Applications 13 1,976.00
IV. All "One Step" Applications 6 912.00
V. Consent Agenda Items and
All Staff Approvals Flat Fee 200.00
Additional Billing 152.00
Refund Rate 152.00
Referral Agency Fees
Category Flat Fee
I. Environmental Health and Housing
1. Minor Applications 55.00
2. Major Applications 140.00
II. Engineer
1. Minor Applications 90.00
2. Major Applications 225.00
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance
No. 44 (Series of 1991) 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 applicati
completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ �`7G
which is for /47 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 fhb.billing date..' APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay
such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT
• sy: By:
Di e Moore
City Planning Director Date: f*/J ff / /
For Planning Office Use
Case Number
Case Name
Deposit or Flat Fee Amount:
Referral Fees: Engineer: Housing: Environmental Health:
2
June 26, 1992
Mr. Sunny Vann
Vann & Associates
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sunny,
Please forgive this very late response to your April 20, 1992
letter regarding Mr. Mocklin' s property. I have discussed the
letter with the City Attorney, Zoning Officer and Planning staff.
First, staff had to determine whether the eight dwelling units were
legal dwelling units. Based upon the 1982 BOCC Resolution that
resolved the County' s pending litigation with Mr. Mocklin, we have
determined that the Resolution legalized Mr. Mocklin' s eight units
as a legal non-conforming use and structure subject to building
inspections by the building official for health and safety issues.
However, it is our position that before the eight dwelling units
are considered legal units for GMQS replacement credit, the
appropriate building permits, albeit retroactively, must be
obtained. Although, building inspections were a requirement of the
1982 BOCC Resolution, we have no evidence that those inspections
were conducted and any building violations rectified.
In addition, the Zoning Officer is aware that there have been
additions and expansions made to the building without building
permits. These expansions may only be approved pursuant to a
successful rezoning of the property that will remove the building
from a non-conforming status.
Pertaining to your inquiry of Section 24-8-104 A. l . (a) "Exemption
by Planning Director" , staff supports the concept of awarding
replacement credit for dwelling units that do not need to be
demolished for future free market development. A Planning
Director 's interpretation of Section 24-8-104 A. 1. (a) will be
necessary to award credit and will be made when an application is
submitted.
Before credit is awarded, a thorough inspection of the dwelling
units by a building inspector and the Housing Authority will be
required in order to assure the City that the preserved units
comply with UBC and Housing Authority standards. If upgrading is
necessary, the applicant will have to improve the units before deed
restrictions will be accepted for a Planning Director GMQS
Exemption. We followed a similar process with the Smuggler
Mountain Apartments before the Housing Authority would accept those
units for housing mitigation.
I 'm sure that the inspection necessary to legalize the units can
be coordinated with the Housing Authority in order for staff to
determine whether replacement credit is appropriate.
I hope this letter answers your preliminary questions. Of course
the next step for Mr. Mocklin would be a preapplication conference
pending preparation of an application for development review.
Sincerely,
Diane Moore, City Planning Director
cc: Leslie Lamont
Bill Drueding
Jed Caswall