HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.626 S Galena St.A24-97
CArOAD SUMMARY SHEET. CITY (~\SPEN
DATE RECEIVED: 417197
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID # 2737-182-90-
CASE # A24-97
STAFF Wl.i. A 'u"""
: ~C 4. ...flne:.. n vUW:
~~o~
KirianoffInsubstatial Amendment to the Aspen Mtn. P.U.D.
622 S. GalenaSt,Aspen ~~ ("It.- ~ I
T. Gregory & Patricia Kirianoff q
622 S. Galena St.
PROJECT NAME:
Project Address:
APPLICANT:
AddresslPhone:
OWNER:
AddresslPhone:
REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells
AddresslPhone: , 602 Midland Park Place 925-808 0
same
RESPONSIBLE PARTY:
Applicant
Other Namel Address:
FEES DUE
PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV HEALTH
CLERK
TOTAL
$450
$0
$0
$0
$
$450
FEES RECEIVED'
PLANNING $450
ENGINEER $
HOUSING $
ENVHEALTH $
CLERK $
TOTAL RCVD $450
TYPE OF APPLICATION
Staff Approval
# APPS RECEIVED 1
# PLATS RECEIVED I
GIS DISK RECEIVED:
Review Body Meeting Date Public Hearing?
i & , es No
i CC DYes DNo
i CC (2nd readinl!) DYes DNo
P Z
REFERRALS:
DY D
o City Attorney
o City Engineer (DRC)
o Zoning
o Housing
o Environmental Health
o Parks
o Aspen Fire Marshal
o City Water
o City Electric
o Clean Air Board
o Open Space Board
o Other:
o CDOT
o ACSD
o Holy Cross Electric
o Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
o Aspen School District
o Other:
DATE REFERRED:
INITIALS:
DATE DUE:
APPROVAL:
OrdinancelResolution #
~aff Approva0
at RC<':Uldeo:
Date:
Date:
Book
1lJrv;'l 1- I '997
( ~
, Page
CLOSEDIFILED pATE: PryM'/ '1t>}lqq7 INITIALS: j,A-W
ROUTE TO: Sir"",^" --"fr'.{'rJ..
r'\
,," "
n
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Stan Clauson, ;ity Community DeveloA~f>lf:fO~E 0
Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer
"Pll 211997
Insubstantial Amendment to the Aspen MoRhtaln PUD to allow for
enclosure of the entryway in Unit #t~~'rF;Illli&Ii1"8~omes,
located at 622 S, Galena Street. C\\'IOrASPEN
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
April 17, 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
SPMMARY: The owner of Galena Place Unit #1 wishes to amend the Aspen Mountain
PUD so that the entryway into their unit can be enclosed for safety and privacy purposes.
The existing covered entryway is aT-shaped subgrade space that is enclosed on three
sides. The applicant proposes to move the existing entry door out to the line of the west
facade and enclose the remaining openings on either side of the new door location.
FINDINGS: The Galena Place Townhomes were approved as part of the First Amended
Aspen Mountain PUD in October, 1988. The amended PUD states that Galena Place is
to be comprised of 4 three-bedroom residential units containing an aggregate of not more
than 12,000 square feet of floor area,
Staff has reviewed the building permit file for this project and finds that the entryway
areas for the buildings were included in the original floor area calculations. Therefore,
staff concludes that enclosing the entryway area will not increase the existing floor area
of the structures.
Section 26.84.0.80 of the Aspen Municipal Land Use Code states that:
A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final
development plan may be authorized by the Community Development Director. The
following shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment:
1. A change in the use or character of the development.
2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on
the land.
3, Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed
development, or the demand for public facilities,
4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space,
5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street parking and loading space.
6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights-of-way for streets and easements.
t"'1
~
" ....1
7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of
commercial buildings.
8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the
development.
9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's
original approval or which requires granting of a further variation from the project's
approved use or dimensional requirements.
Staff has reviewed the proposed plans for the entryway enclosure of Galena Place
T ownhome Unit # 1 and finds that the above criteria have been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Community Development Director
approve the insubstantial amendment to the Aspen Mountain PUD for the enclosure of
the entryway of Galena Place Townhomes Unit # 1, finding that the criteria in Section
26.84.070 (A) have been met.
I hereby approve the Insubstantial Amendment for the Aspen Mountain PUD for
the enclosure of the entryway for Unit # 1 of the Galena Place Townhomes as
represented in the attached application documents,
APPROVED
/'-- '-"P21199P I Arvl q~1
ommunity Development Directof'P" Date
OMMUf.\IT'i OEVELO?MENT OikEC\ OK
C C\T'i Or ASPEN
~-~
t'"':
n
Joseph Wells Land Planning, Inc.
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 970.925.8080
Facsimile: 970.925.8275
March 28, 1997
Mr. Stan Clauson, Director
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Stan:
As you know, I recently requested, on behalf of the owner of Unit Four at
Galena Place, an Insubstantial Amendment to the prior PUD approvals for
this project to enclose the lower level entry. You approved the enclosure on
January 21, 1997 (see memo attached as Exhibit A). Following your approval,
the owner of Unit Four began discussions with the Homeowner's Association
to obtain required architectural approvals from the other owners. It quickly
became apparent that the other owners had had security problems similar to
those experienced by the owner of Unit Four which are related to the entry
area of their units. Apparently, there is prior correspondence in your files
from some of these owners regarding these problems.
All of the owners would like to seek approval to enclose their entry areas.
The owners have gotten together and have now retained Larry Yaw, who
designed the project originally, to prepare drawings for a consistent
architectural solution for the enclosure. I am providing the relevant
drawings as a part of each owner's application for review under the
insubstantial amendment procedures (see drawings attached as Exhibit B).
This applica . . filed on behalf of T. Gregory and Patricia Kirianoff, the
owners of nit O~ the northernmost of the four units. The owners of Unit
One previ e granted permission to install windows in the opening
in the north facade of the entry level for safety reasons, because of the height
of the opening above the garage ramp. Therefore, the only opening in any of
the surrounding walls at the entry level of Unit One is the T-shaped opening
of less than 90 sq. ft, in the west facade. The owners' letter consenting to the
application is attached as Exhibit C. A signed Agreement to Pay Form is
attached as Exhibit D.
The four Galena Place residences are three-level units in a duplex
configuration, designed as detached blocks of two units each with few
penetrations in the facades as they extend down to finished grade. The
/""'I
(\
" ')
March 28,1997
Mr. Stan Clauson, Director
Page two
pedestrian entrance for each unit is on the lower level. Unit One and Unit
Two make up the north duplex and Unit Three and Unit Four are located in
the south duplex. The entry level of the north duplex is 6.5 feet below that of
the south duplex and three to nine feet below the elevation of the sloping
sidewalk along the street. As one approaches the two units in the north
duplex from the common entry walk, there are a total of 9 steps down to the
entry level. To enter either unit, one passes underneath an overhanging
balcony through the T-shaped opening into a covered but unenclosed space to
approach the recessed entry wall. Because this exterior entry court has a low
ceiling and because of the proximity of the existing retaining walls along the
stairs leading down to the entry level (a 7 foot high wall separated from the
facade by only 15 ft.), the experience of entering the unit is similar to
descending down to a basement level. The covered entry areas for all of the
units are all very sheltered and therefore encourage mischief.
The owners wish to move the entry door out to the line of the facade and
enclose the remaining openings on either side of the new door location, as
illustrated on the attached drawings. This would have very little effect on the
appearance of the unit, particularly when viewed from the street, because the
depressed entry level is largely hidden from view from the street by the
retaining walls in the foreground.
As we discussed previously during the review of the application for Unit
Four, with the possible exception of the final code standard, which does not
permit the Planning Director to sign off on a change which is "inconsistent
with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or a
further variation from the project's approved dimensional requirements",
the enclosure of the opening in the west facade clearly complies with the
standards for an insubstantial amendment under the provisions of Section
26.84.080 (A) of the Land Use Code, as discussed below.
An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final
development plan may be authorized by the Community Development
Director with the exception of the changes discussed on the following pages:
r'1
~
March 28, 1997
Mr. Stan Clauson, Director
Page three
"1. A change in the use or character of the development."
(No change is proposed).
"2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage
of structures on the land,"
(No change is proposed).
"3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates
of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities,"
(No change is proposed).
"4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open
space."
(No change is proposed).
"5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street parking
and loading space."
(No change is proposed).
"6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights-of-way for
streets and easements."
(No change is proposed).
"7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross
leasable floor area of commercial buildings."
(Not applicable to the proposal).
"8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved
residential density of the development."
(No change is proposed).
1""\
, ,
(\
,(. .4
March 28, 1997
Mr. Stan Clauson, Director
Page five
from FAR calculations and to also define these same areas, once
enclosed, as counting completely in FAR calculations (subject to the
language above regarding partially subgrade space). Therefore, I have
performed the required calculations in this way - first, by treating the
"interior" entry wall as the existing exterior wall of the level ("Existing
FAR Square Footage" in Table One) and secondly, by treating the
perimeter wall of the building as the exterior wall ("Proposed FAR
Square Footage" in Table One).
The existing enclosed mechanical room which is located on the outside
corner of the unit adds some complication to these calculations. For
the sake of discussion, I have calculated the volume of the level at the
entry wall and have added the additional square footage of the exterior
mechanical room to the total square footage of the level to determine
the FAR square footage under the existing square footage alternative.
The conclusion of these calculations is that, under the worst-case
interpretation, the enclosure of the entry area would increase the FAR
square footage of Unit One by 387 sq. ft., as indicated on the attached
Table One. The reason that the "worst-case" increase in FAR square
footage is so slight is because more of the exterior wall is partially
subgrade when the perimeter walls are used for the calculation, so the
percentage of the total square footage counting in FAR is less,
In addition to your conclusion that the space was previously included
in FAR calculations at the time of building permit issuance, other
arguments can be made under the language of the current Code that
the space proposed to be enclosed should already be counted in FAR
calculations and that therefore the enclosure does not increase the FAR
square footage of the unit.
First, the current Code language strongly implies that, when an area is
covered and almost completely enclosed, it should be counted to some
degree in FAR calculations. For instance, covered porches are exempt
from FAR calculations, but the area proposed to be enclosed on Unit
One does not comply with the definition of a "porch" because it is not
"open on at least two sides to the outdoors" ("Porches are defined as
uninsulated, unheated areas under a roof, bounded on at least one side
by the exterior wall of a living space and open on at least two sides to
the outdoors with or without screens."). The entry area is therefore not
exempt from inclusion in FAR calculations because it cannot be
considered a "porch".
f'i
()
March 28, 1997
Mr. Stan Clauson, Director
Page six
Further, the opening in the west facade of the entry area is only
approximately one third of the area of that wall and therefore does not
comply with the definition of a "loggia" because it is not "at least 50%
open to the outdoors on one side" ("Loggias are defined as an unheated
area under a roof, over a living space, and at least 50% open to the
outdoors on one side with or without screens."). Therefore the entry
area is not eligible to be calculated in FAR calculations at the reduced
percentage of 0.5 FAR. It would be difficult to conclude, it seems to me,
that an area which is even more enclosed than a "loggia" should not be
counted in FAR at all.
Finally, I previously argued that the intent of limiting square footage
through FAR restrictions is primarily two-fold. The first is to limit the
mass of the structure as viewed by the public and the second is to limit
the intensity of the use of the structure. I would suggest that, in the
case of the Galena Place project, the enclosure of the covered entry area
will have no effect on either of these two considerations. First, the
existing opening provides no meaningful relief in the existing
perimeter facade to passersby. Secondly, the unit will remain a duplex
dwelling unit, so the intensity of use does not increase.
I am attaching additional photos of the project to illustrate the existing site
conditions relating to Unit One, as well as the new architectural drawings
illustrating the architectural solution approved by the homeowners to better
describe the architectural intent. A check for the filing fee of $450 for review
under the Insubstantial Amendment procedure is also attached.
Please let me know if you need additional information.
f";
~
J
TABLE ONE
EXTERNAL FAR CALCULATIONS,
GALENA PLACE UNIT ONE
Second Floor Elevation:
Basement Elevation:
Floor to Floor Height:
98.13 Ft.
88.83 Ft.
9.30Ft.
Existing FAR Square Footage:
% Above
Natural or
Fin. Grade
Length Flr. Area of
of Wall to FIr. Wall
Area of Wall
Above
Fin. Grade
1. West Facade 100.00% 50.25 9.30 467.33 467.33
2. South Facade 76.60% 38.75 9.30 360.38 276.05
3. East Facade 74.09% 33.00 9.30 306.90 227.38
4. North Facade 100.00% 16.17 9.30 150.38 150.38
1284.99 1121.14 (87.25%)
Existing Floor Area X % of Floor Above Fin Grade = FAR Floor Area
843.48 SF X 87.25% = 735.94 SF
Proposed FAR Square Footage:
% Above Area of Wall
Natural or Length FIr, Area of Above
Fin. Grade of Wall to F1r. Wall Fin. Grade
1. West Facade 79.10% 28.50 9.30 265.05 209.65
2. South Facade 76.60% 48.17 9.30 447.98 343.15
3. East Facade 74.09% 33.00 9.30 306.90 227.38
4. North Facade 100.00% 48.17 9.30 447.98 447.98
1467.91 1228.16 (83.67%)
Proposed Floor Area X % of Floor Above Fin Grade = FAR Floor Area
1342.18 SF X 83.67% = 1123.00 SF
- .. - ~~
f\
'-',
\ ;/
~'--
il.,.,,',',',,'.'.,'~~._,"',,;~jil.., ",'
.'.'~~',~~'"
"'J~
*,' ..
~'~~' , ..,.
""-"'-.
. "
~ .:._.~_.., ~ - - ....",
."",-
, " ----=-~,
-" .....-----
..::.~---- -
--_.----- -'
. -
--','-~
.,
"
'1"4
(
=-' ~ "
,r"
,t'-'"
, '
NORTH FACADE,
LOOKING SOUfH
, i
OPENING IN LOWER LEVEL OF WEST FACADE
VIEWED FROM LOWER WALK
LOOKING NORTHEAST
. !
~
n
EXHIBIT A
MEMORAL'IDUM '
TO:
Stan Clauson, City Community Development Director
FROM:
Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer
RE:
Insubstantial Amendment to the Aspen Mountain PUD to allow for
enclosure of the entryway in Unit #4 of the Galena Place Townhomes,
located at 622 S. Galena Street.
DATE:
January 21, 1997
SUMMARY: The owner of Galena Place Unit #4 wishes to amend the Aspen Mountain
PUD so that the entryway into their unit can be enclosed for safety and privacy purposes.
The existing covered entryway is aT-shaped sub grade space that is enclosed on three
sides. The applicant proposes to move the existing entry door out to the line of the west
facade and enclose the remaining openings on either side of the new door location.
FINDINGS: The Galena Place Townhomes were approved as part of the First Amended
Aspen Mountain PUD in October, 1988. The amended PUD states that Galena Place is
to be comprised of 4 three-bedroom residential units containing an aggregate of not more
than 12,000 square feet of floor area.
Staff has reviewed the building permit file for this project and finds that the entryway
areas for the buildings were included in the original floor area calculations. Therefore,
staff concludes that enclosing the entryway area will not increase the existing floor area
of the structures. -
Section 26.84.080 of the Aspen Municipal Land Use Code states that:
A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final
development plan may be authorized by the Community Development Director. The
following shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment:
1. A change in the use or character of the development.
2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on
the land.
3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed
development, or the demand for public facilities.
4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space.
5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street parking and loading space.
6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights-of-way for streets and easements.
. i
f";
1""'\
\ 1
7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of
commercial buildings.
8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the
development.
9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's
original approval or which requires granting of a further variation from the project's
approved use or dimensional requirements.
Staffhas reviewed the proposed plans for the entryway enclosure of Galena Place
Townhome Unit #4 and finds that the above criteria have been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Community Development Director
approve the insubstantial amendment to the Aspen Mountain PUD for the enclosure of
the entryway of Galena Place Townhomes Unit # 4, finding that the criteria in Section
26.84.070 (A) have been met.
I hereby approve the Insubstantial Amendment for the Aspen Mountain PUD for
the enclosure of the entryway for Unit # 4 of the Galena Place T ownhomes as
represented in the attached application documents.
<'. ..~V--- 1'-??t'O,"",": 'd.\ bAA. I q~'l
Stan auson, eity Community Development Dir(l\:lilr\S~ Cl",Date \c\ \l.\'\ !.: , ~"'\;..~\
.J , ,.\\l
"y~:i\"'\
'" \lelt....~ ~9'i;.\\
r:,Cl~\J~ (:);\'\0<
~ ,t
...--..-.-..-----.--.---.-.-....:...................!_.-
~ ll-';;r~1l!61.l L'J\In;~OlG).l 11m (tJ '~U"Y ~\1UII 1m Ol~
OJ'I
S,LJ:UIl1::WX ~,~~,_
'[V3UA VH:)"=~
31,LJ.O:J .. ,...:J
9V'r ""'.,[ : ""/1
:Aa NAlV1J(] :31V;)S
"ON J.;)~rOlld
:3.LVa
OJ 'N3dSV
13GOW3ll HSllV)!NOW
2~
L..'<:l'l'"..f\31
NOIJ.'I'^:l"1:l J.NO<:l= 'ONIJ.'3IX:l
':n.LI!
J....!I,'vllfIV'1
t"",
t""
I
('\
w
1-
7
III
\)
I...
Z
III
II.
\)
"'-J
B B
z
0
I-
B <(
>
W
..J
W
.-:
en
(-'\ <(
>, Z
IV
I W
7
I I III
\) ..J
I
7 <(
III
II. "
",-y
"
r-. Z
I-
en
8 B ><
w
'K!l>!~;r~lI.!tl~ L1Y7..yt(nttM 1191'1 OJ '~HW S\lUll LWi m~
(]J:t
S.L:):UlIlJHV
M.V)..
lV3U)"V~~
31~~OJ
1,"\11 ,'vrlj lV'.l
t:Q:
f-< '
....
t:Q
....
~
~.
t""
--
-
-.
El'1r
'AU NAlVaU
II<Z)-,l : ,,\:J'/I
':41V:>S
l~
'.ON J.:J~rOad
L'O'<::I'1I...rlOl
:3J.VO
O:J 'N3dSV
laGOWaH HSllV)JNOW
N'1'd <::100'= 'ONI.l.'3IXSl
'31J.lJ.
N'v'ld
HOOl~
ONI1SIX3CD
.lNO:Jl\19 ~O 3Nil--..~
1- ---
I
I
3^O,-~\1
--
---
~
~
-----~
I
I
--
---
~-.
'~----
---
~
'----
---
---
-'~'---
-'~_.-
-'-.,
"'-~'"
----~
---.-
ill
---
~-
------
--
-----
--
~-
--......
--
~-
--.
--
NVl d C100l.:l lSClI.:I "lSIX3
\!1:~;:r,(lll.6H 19'&Z-o;r610l61J 1l91~ OJ \l,ISY ~\l\11l1~1'l Dl~
011 JiII1liIIIl!!!I
'I~J~~~i~ _~
" II ,~V'; I IV'J
1"""\
--.--..-----.---------------.-..-.----.--.... -..---..------.---'....--..
6"V'r 1ItZ'-,l = ,,7/\
:.1.11 N.\lV~a '31\,:)5
OJ . N3dSV
~aaowaa H$aV~NOW
~~"1::1'\1~'9\
:'ON J.:lStOHd ::uva
N'\1'd 1::100'= CJ:l~Od01::ld
'SlJ.lJ.
GaSOd08dCD
N\fld 800l::l
1-----
I
I
~
(",
~
1"""\
I""""
-----1
I
I
SlN3~3~ln03~ 3J'v'dS
C13NMO lvnOIAIONI
I
NVld ClOOl..:! lSClI..:l 'lSIX3
'-
ld
B z
ruwl \ nI II I \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ I \ \ I \ IJ 0
-
I-
<(
>
W
.J
W
.-.;
r'\ CJ)
<(
\ z
j w
0 4",~/// .J
I
<(
CJ
\ \ 0
I
- W
f'""
CJ)
----- ----
0
D-
B B 0
a:
D-
eV'r l\CZ>~\\ = 1\"/\
'AU t-/.\lVMG ::nV:)S
OJ 'NadS~
13GOW3U HSUV~NOW
lin!~ll LIJ,l2-';:rhL~~1 m\~ (l,) 'lil<~1 Ijr~l\1 LWA Gill
011 ....--!!!!~
l3.uIlJUV _ll,1.,II,,''''
loA V}.. ??fifu~
3n}"V<I~)1l ~~
3'].\..1.0;) ~,
\.Q'O:l"V'W~\
:'014. j.:)3fOlld '3.LVa
NOI.l."V'A:l"\:l .l.NOO:l::l O:l<;O~OO:l~
::n.\,\.L
) III
III r:i
/ ,I)
n
I
<t
\y
()
(,)
n
:3
ill
Z
,'vl.II'I']
~
I
==--
~
~
/
/
/
'.
~
t"""\
2d
"
~
n
EXHIBIT C
T. Gregory & Patricia Kirianoff
2664 Hutton Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
February 22,1997
Mr. Stan Clauson
Director of Community Development,
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Clauson:
We are writing to you to confirm that we are the owners of Galena Place
Condominium Unit 1, located at 616 South Galena Street, Aspen. Our letter
is to confirm that we have authorized Joseph Wells Land Planning, Inc. to file
on our behalf the attached application for an Insubstantial Amendment to the
prior PUD approval for Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision, to
permit the enclosure of the openings in the lower level facade as proposed on
the drawings attached to the application.
During the processing of this request, please contact Joe Wells at 925-8080 if
you have any questions or need additional information.
, ,
,
,f"",
("'l
EXHIBIT D
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMNIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
~reement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and ~~ i M'c4~A~#
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOW :
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for'
~t/bsl:~~/id~ 01;;; A&p-~~ .?t'O
(hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
-
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance
No. 53 (Series of 1995) establishes a fee structure for Planning 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 s.ize, nature or
scope of the proposed project, iUs 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 Citv Council to enable the Plannin!!: Commission,
and/or City Council to make legaIly required findings for project approval, unless
current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
. I
,
.}
(""\
J
,')
1"""\
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's
waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of apP-lic~J'
completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 0' ()o
which is for _ hours of Plllnning staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed
the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to
reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above,
including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30
days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such
accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
, ,
CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT
B~fi)~. T2 ~
S . lauson - ~~
Community Development Director Date: I c5? ,,;{ Y . 97
Mailing Address:
%C,-I ~ ~~
~ 1IJu/ C/! ""}oZleJ
,jt
2
, I