HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.409 E HopkinsAve.A54-90
---
...,; /
,......
'-'-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Amy Margerum, city Manager
Diane Moore, city Planning Directo~
Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
THRU:
THRU:
DATE:
June 28, 1993
Consent Agenda - Resolution~, Series of 1993, Amending
Resolution 14, Series of 1991
RE:
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Because of recent negotiations with the property owners
of 409 East Hopkins regarding permanent vested rights of the
employee housing mitigation, errors in the original Resolution
approving the mitigation have been discovered. Langua~e in the
conditions of approval of the signed Resolution do not accurately
reflect the changes that Council approved when Resolution 14,
Series of 1991, was adopted. Please see Resolution 14, Series of
1991 attached for your review.
Staff has reviewed the errors with the applicant. The applicant
agrees with staff that Council should amend Resolution 14, Series
of 1991. The corrections will be made by Resolution and Resolution
__, Series of 1993 is attached for your review and adoption.
BACKGROUND: Council approved Resolution 14 in March of 1991. The
Resolution approved the housing mitigation proposal for the 409
East Hopkins commercial growth management allocation that was
awarded in January of 1991. Included in the Resolution was a
condition of approval that a deed restriction was to be filed by
the applicant prohibiting the use of any commercial net leasable
square footage for a food service establishment or restaurant.
This condition was volunteered by the applicant in order to reduce
the original requirement of 4 employees per 1000 square feet of net
leasable space to 3.7 employees per 1000 square feet of net
leasable space thus reducing the overall employee mitigation by 1.7
employees.
STAFF COMMENTS: It has come to the attention of staff that the
language, specifically conditions #5 and #6, are incorrect in the
adopted resolution. It is necessary for Council to correct these
errors by Resolution. The applicant has agreed with staff that
the errors should be corrected.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that conditions #5 and #6 of
Resolution 14, Series of 1991, be amended to read as follows:
Condition #5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the
applicant shall execute a deed restriction in a form satisfactory
r:
.-'
-.
........
to the City Attorney and the Aspen/Pitkin county Housing Authority
restricting the 409 East Hopkins development in favor of the city
so as to prohibit the utilization of any net leasable square
footage for use as a food service establishment or restaurant. The
deed restriction shall reduce the original requirement of 4
employees per a 1000 square feet to 3.7 employees per 1000 square
feet thus reducing the applicant's total housing mitigation by 1.7
employees.
Condition #6. The deed restriction, as specified in condition 5
above, will be removed by the City Council of the City of Aspen if
a restaurant or food service establishment is proposed and approved
for the premises, at which time the applicant shall be required to
mitigate for affordable housing in accordance with the Aspen/pitkin
County Housing guidelines then in effect.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution , Series of 1993,
amending Resolution 14, Series of 1991." --
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
A. Resolution 14, Series of 1991
B. Resolution , Series of 1993
2
o
\,.'6'"
. '~
~
c.Q. Council
Approved
By Ordinance
"--:.:
Exhibi t...fr..- . :;
,1lI_
~
..:'~.,
RESOLUTION NO. 14
(Series of 1991)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING HOUSING MITIGATION FOR THE 1990 GMP APPLICATION FOR 409
EAST HOPKINS, THE NORTH 80 FEET OF LOTS D AND E AND LOT F, BLOCK
88.
WHEREAS, on December 17, 1990, the city Council of the City
of Aspen awarded commercial/office development allotments for
1990. pursuant to Resolution No. 58 (Series of 1990) under the
growth management quota system as set forth in Article 8 of
Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code; and
.. WHEREAS, the development project known as 409 East Hopkins
was awarded 1990 commercial/office development allotments in
addition to an excess ailotment from the 1991 commercial/office
i
growth management development quota; and
WHEREAS, the development applicant for 409 East Hopkins must
, '''ff.~';'
mitigate affordable housing for 20.4 employees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council initially rejected the affordable
housing mitigation proposal as offered by the developer of the
409 East Hopkins project and was provided direction by the City
Council as to other preferred methods of mitigation as authorized
under Section 8-109(J) of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has now requested that the city
Council approve an affordable housing mitigation method by which
it shall deliver to Pitkin county, on behalf of the Aspen Pitkin
County Housing Authority, an existing apartment building at 414
Park Circle known as the Smuggler Mountain Apartments, mitigating
17.5 employees and further requesting that it not be required to
mitigate for the remaining 2.9 employees; and
('
--
"'"
--
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority, at their March 13, 1991
(
Board meeting, voted to recommend to city council the acceptance
of the applicants mitigation proposal _ conditioned upon the
payment by the applicant of $25,000 to the Aspen Pitkin Housing
Authority for improvements to the -Smuggler Mountain Apartments
and the County's acceptance of ownership of same; and
WHEREAS, the Pitkin county Board of Commissioners have
entered into a contract whereby the County shall accept _ and
obtain ownership of the Smuggler Mountain Apartment building;
and
WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners have
entered into a Management Agreement with the Aspen Pitkin County
Housing Authority for the management of the Smuggler Mountain
Apartments; and
WHEREAS, the development applicant has also proposed to deed
restrict 409 East Hopkins in favor of the City and, thus reduce
its affordable housing mitigation requirements by prohibiting the
use of or establishment on the premises of any food service or
restaurant operation; and
WHEREAS, the city Council has determined the development
applicant's housing mitigation proposal to be fair and equitable
and consistent with - the mitigation requirements contained in
section 8-109 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
NOW,_ THEREFORE, -BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, that in accordance with section 8-
109(J) of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, the following afford-
able housing mitigation method as proposed by the development
o
o
i
applicant for 409 East Hopkins is hereby approved and adopted as
follows:
1. The applica~t shall conveyor cause to be conveyed the
Smuggler Mountain Apartment building located at 414 Park Circle,
Aspen Colorac;io, to Pitkin County by April 29, 1991, thereby
mitigating 17.5 employees.
2. If the County does not take title of 414 Park Circle
(Smuggler Mountain Apartments) by April 29, 1991, then this
housing mitigation approval is null and void.
3. The applicant shall pay $25,000 to the Housing
Authority for improvements to the Smuggler Mountain Apartments on
or before April 29, 1991.
4. The County shall execute deed restrictions,
satisfactory to the Housing Authority, for the apartments thereby
deed restricting them to the APCHA low income, Category 1 housing
guidelines.
5. The applicant shall execute a deed restriction in a
form .satisfactory to the city Attorney and the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority restricting the 409 East Hopkins devel-
opment in favor of the city so as to permanently prohibit the
utilization of any net leasable square footage for use as a food
service establishment or restaurant. The deed restriction shall
reduces the application's original requirement of 4 employees per
a 1000 square feet to 3.7 employees per 1000 square feet thus
reducing the applicant's total housing mitigation by 1.7
employees.
6. The deed restriction, as specified in paragraph 5
o
i""\
'-"
paragraph 5 above, is removed with the consent of the city council
\ of the city of Aspen and a restaurant or food service establishment
is proposed and approved for the premises, the applicant shall be
required to mitigate for affordable housing in according with the
Affordable Housing mitigation guidelines then in effect.
7. The deed restrictions as identified herein shall be
executed prior to and as a condition of the issuance of any
building permit(s) for the 409 East Hopkins development
Dated: , 1991.
william L. irl~ng, M
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting city Clerk do
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that
resolution adopted by the
city council of the
~e.V o1~
City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held
, 1991.
I
\
c
""'-.
'-
MEMORANDUM
XIl b
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
Amy Margerum, City Manager .~
Diane Moore, City Planning Direc~
Leslie Lamont, senior Planner .
TO:
THRU:
THRU:
DATE:
June 14, 1993
409 East Hopkins Vested Rights for Employee Housing
Mitigation - First Reading Ordinance~, Series of 1993
RE:
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicants, Kandycom Inc., have requested to
perpetually vest the employee housing mitigation that was provided
for the 409 East Hopkins Growth Management development plan.
Staff recommends approval of ordinance~, Series of 1993 (Exhibit
A) .
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council granted a growth management
development allotment of 5,760 square feet of commerical space for
409 East Hopkins on December 17, 1990. On January 24, 1991 Council
granted an excess development allotment of 1,063 square feet of
commerical space for 409 East Hopkins.
See Resolutions 58 and 61, Series of 1990, Exhibit B.
As a condition of the GMP allocation, the applicant was required
to mitigate for 20.4 employees. In accordance with Resolution 14,
Series of 1991 (Exhibit C), Council accepted the applicant's
mitigation package which included the conveyance to Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority of the Smuggler Mountain Apartment
building and $25,000 for upgrading the apartments. The applicant
was required to fully deed restrict the building to Category 1
guidelines.
BACKGROUND: The employee housing requirement for the 409 East
Hopkins GMP approval was mitigated with the purchase and conveyance
of the Smuggler Mountain Apartments. The purchase and deed
restriction of the existing dwelling units in the community is an
option that applicant's may pursue when fulfilling the employee
housing requirement. Although employee mitigation and other forms
of mitigation are not required until a building permit is being
applied for, the City wanted to secure the dwelling units.
Therefore, immediate conveyance of the apartments was required by
Council before the employee mitigation was approved.
A Growth Management allocation is valid for three years. If a
building permit is not secured and development has not commenced,
o
--
'--"
the allocations expire unless an extension has been granted by
Council. section 24-8-108 of the Municipal Code provides that
development allotments and all other development approvals are
eligible for an extension from the standard three (3) year vesting
period upon application. An extension is only valid for 6 months
but Council may grant any number of extensions.
The GMP allocation for 409 East Hopkins will expire January 24,
1994. The current owner, Kandycom Inc., would like to ensure that
if the GMP allocation expires in January of 1994, or if a new GMP
application is submitted, the employee mitigation that has been
supplied remains with the parcel. An important distinction to note
is that the applicant is not requesting permanent vesting of the
development allocation; permanent vesting of the employee
mitigation is being sought.
The applicant is in agreement that if a future development proposal
generates more than 20.4 employees, the applicant will be required
to provide the additional employee mitigation. However, if future
development generates less than 20.4 employees, the City shall not
be required to reimburse the applicant. In the absence of a change
in the project approval or in the absence of an increase in the
employee housing mitigation requirement based on a new proposal,
mitigation for 20.4 employees would be perpetually recognized.
CURRENT ISSUES:
Vesting Request - Pursuant to section 24-6-207 of the Municipal
Code, (Vested Property Rights) the applicant (Thomas smith
representing Kandycom Inc.) seeks to perpetually vest the
mitigation of 20.4 employees for future development of 409 East
Hopkins. Although the code provides for the vesting of property
rights for a period of three (3) years from the effective date of
approval, the applicant requests permanent vesting for the employee
mitigation.
Permanent vesting is being requested because this fulfillment of
the employee housing mitigation requirements associated with 409
East Hopkins project was made prior to application for a building
permit and the apartment building has been indefinitely preserved
as employee housing.
In order to protect the previously mitigated status of this parcel,
staff recommends perpetual vesting of the employee mitigation
provided for 20.4 employees for the 409 East Hopkins Parcel for
the following reasons:
1. Prior to 1991, the Smuggler Mountain Apartments were free
market dwelling units but served as de-facto employee housing. The
building was on the market and if sold, redevelopment (because of
Ordinance 1) of the property would have required replacement of 50%
2
o
""""
'-"
of the floor area and bedrooms on-site as deed restricted employee
housing (8 bedrooms and 2,812 square feet).
Because the applicant purchased and deed restricted the apartments,
11 dwelling units were preserved (8 studios, 1 two-bedroom, and 2
three bedrooms). The units were deed restricted to Category 1
guidelines which is lower than what is required for Ordinance 1
deed restricted units.
2. In addition to deed restricting the Smuggler Mountain
Apartments, the applicant also provided $25,000 to upgrade the
apartments.
3. The City has accepted the transfer of the Smuggler Mountain
Apartments to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority as full and
complete satisfaction of the housing mitigation requirement for the
409 East Hopkins development project.
4. The Smuggler Mountain Apartments were added to the affordable
housing inventory in 1991, well before any commercial growth has
occurred on the property, and the City has already received
substantial benefit in the provision of the employee housing.
5. Council did not accept the original employee mitigation
proposal which was cash-in-lieu. Council encouraged the applicant
to be creative and supply actual housing units through either new
construction or the "buy-down" of existing units. The applicant
diligently sought out existing housing to provide to the city for
employee mitigation. The concept of "buying down" existing units
is consistent with recommendations contained within the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
6. The Council would not approve the housing mitigation proposal
until the building was conveyed to APCHA and the units were deed
restricted.
7. There is precedent for granting vested rights in perpetuity.
Council granted vesting in perpetuity for the Moses Aspen View
Homesite Inc. for the construction of a 5,000 square foot home
adjacent to the Aspen Alps. Council considered preservation of
5 acres of open space within the Aspen Alps property as
justification for granting vested rights in perpetuity.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of perpetual vested
rights status for the employee mitigation of 20.4 employees for the
409 East Hopkins parcel with the following conditions:
1. If future development on this parcel generates more than 20.4
employees, additional mitigation shall be required in accordance
with those mitigation standards then in effect.
3
o
-'1
-
2. If future development generates less than 20.4 employees, the
City shall not be required to reimburse or transfer any excess
mitigation credits as vested hereunder.
PROPOSED MOTION: II I move to read ordinance~, Series of 1993."
"I move to approve ordinance~, Series of 1993 on first reading."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
A. ordinance~, Series of 1993
B. Resolutions 58 and 61, Series of 1990
C. Resolution 14, Series of 1991
4
c
~
City Council
Approved
By Ordinance
Rwhthit
.B
...
, 19
<;
c
d
.'\;..>
)
RESOLUTION NO. 5"8
(Series of 1990)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
GRANTING COMMERCIAL/OFFICE DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENTS FOR 1990 UNDER
THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM.
WHEREAS, Article 8 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code sets
forth a growth management quota system governing new development
within the city of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 8-l03(A) (3) (a) of Chapter 24 of
the Municipal Code, eight thousand (8,000) square feet of net
leasable space is available for development allotment within the
Commercial Core (CC) and Commercial (Cl) zone districts of the
City on an annual basis; and
)
WHEREAS, development applications were received and reviewed
by the Planning Director for 1990 development allotments in the
commercial zone districts and forwarded to the Planning and
Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did evaluate and
score the development allotment applications at a duly noticed
public hearing on November 6, 1990, as requi~ed by Section 8-
106(D) of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission determined that
the Pitkin County Bank project and the 409 East Hopkins project
successfully met the minimum threshold for individual and com-
bined score categories and scored the Pitkin County Bank project
\
I
o
~
) at 3l.48 points and the 409 East Hopkins project at 28.73
points; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance
with Section 8-l06(H), ranked the Pitkin County Bank project
ahead of the 409 East Hopkins project and forwarded its recommen-
dations and scoring to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning commission has recommended
that the Pitkin County Bank project be allocated a development
allotment of 2,240 square feet with the 409 East Hopkins project
receiving an allotment of 5,760 square feet, thus, exhausting the
available 1990 commercial development allotment of 8,000 square
feet; and
WHEREAS, no challenges to the Planning and Zoning commis-
) sion's scoring and/or rankings have been submitted to the City
Council as allowed under section 8-l06(I) of Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1
In accordance with section 8-l06(J) of Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen does hereby
grant to the Pitkin County Bank project a development allotment
of 2,240 square feet of net leasable space from the 1990 commer-
cial growth management quota.
\
2
o
"""
...,;
I.
)
section 2
In accordance with section 8-l06(J) of Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code, the City Council of the city of Aspen does hereby
grant to the 409 East Hopkins project a development allotment of
5,760 square feet of net leasable space from the 1990 commercial
growth management quota.
section 3
In accordance with Section 8-l08 of Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code, the development allotments as awarded herein
shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the date
of approval of a site specific development plan for the projects
as identified herein, unless a building permit is obtained and
the project is developed, or unless an exemption from or exten-
) sion to the approval is obtained.
Dated:
~, ~." _.L" ,.'"
?L~n'C-<- ~'f
j
/I _, 199;.
~~
William L. Stfrling, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that
resolution adopted by the City Council of the city of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held ~~le~/Y~~>~ //7
, 1990.
/
4/;U/lk<- J
Kathryn -. Koch,
'C-A-
City Clerk
)
3
(
)
o
,
~ty Council
Approved
By Ordinance
.
EXhibit~
, 19
~~~oo. ~
(Series of 1990)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AWARDING AN EXCESS DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT FROM THE 1991 COMMERCIAL
AND OFFICE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT QUOTA FOR THE 409 EAST
HOPKINS PROJECT.
WHEREAS, an application for development allotments from the
1990 commercial and office growth management development quota
was received and scored pursuant to section 8-l06 of Chapter 24
of the Municipal Code by the Planning and Zoning commission in
regard to a proposed development project known as 409 East
Hopkins; and
WHEREAS, the 409 East Hopkins project sought an allotment of
6,823 square feet of net leasable space from the total available
\
.J
1990 quota of commercial and office space of 8,000 square feet;
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with its ranking for 1990 allotments
as determined by the Planning and Zoning commission, the 409 East
Hopkins project was awarded a 1990 development allotment of 5,760
square feet of new leasable space out of the 6,823 square feet
requested; and
WHEREAS, the 409 East Hopkins project has requested an
excess development allotment of l,063 square feet of net leasable
space from the 1991 commercial and office growth management
development quota; and
WHEREAS, the 1990 commercial and office growth management
development quota has been exhausted; and
\
o
"'"'
.....,;
)
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning commission has recommended
to city council that an excess development allotment as permitted
under section 8-103(B) of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code be
granted to the 409 East Hopkins project in the amount of l,063
square feet of net leasable space; and
WHEREAS, the city Council has determined that the excess
development allotment as recommended by the Planning and Zoning
commission complies with section 8-l03(B) (1) of Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1
An excess development allotment as permitted under Section
8-l06(B) of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code is hereby awarded to
the 409 East Hopkins project for l,063 square feet of net leas-
able commercial space from the 1991 commercial and office growth
management quota.
Section 2
The excess development allotment as provided herein shall be
subject to all conditions of development approval for the 409
East Hopkins project as imposed by the Planning and Zoning
commission pursuant to the project's 1990 commercial space
allotment.
)
2
c
o
)
Section 3
In accordance with Section 8-l08 of Chapter 24 of the
Municipal Code, the excess development allotment as awarded
herein shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the
date of approval of a site specific development plan for the 409
East Hopkins project, unless a building permit is obtained and
the project is developed, or unless an exemption from or exten-
sion to the approval is obtained.
Dated:
~dh?/~.~~
William L. Stirling, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting city Clerk do
\ certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that
)
resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held
&-t'f~) /-?
, 1990.
~~, ~~~
\
(
>
3
)
/
''')
}
/ )
o
,~
J. )
<" city ColUlCil
Appr098d
By Ordinance
B1rhfhlt
C-
',,",
.
,It
RESOLUTION NO. 14:
. -
(Ser:J.es of 1991)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING HOUSING MITIGATION FOR THE 1990 GMP APPLICATION FOR 409
EAST HOPKINS, THE NORTH 80 FEET OF LOTS D AND E AND LOT F, BLOCK
88.
11
I.:~;
WHEREAS, on December 17, 1990, the city council of the city
of Aspen awarded commercial/office development allotments for
1990 pursuant to Resolution No. 58 (Series of 1-990) under the
growth management quota system as set forth in Article 8 of
Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code; and
.. WHEREAS, the development project known as 409 East Hopkins
was awarded 1990 commercial/office development allotments in
addition to an excess ailotment from the 1991 commercial/office
growth management development quota; and
WHEREAS, the development applicant for 409 East Hopkins must
mitigate affordable housing for 20.4 employees; and
WHEREAS, the city Council initially rejected the affordable
housing mitigation proposal as offered by the developer of the
409 East Hopkins project and was provided direction by the city
Council as to other preferred methods of mitigation as authorized
under Section 8-109(J) of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has now requested that the city
Council approve an affordable housing mitigation method by which
it shall deliver to Pitkin County, on behalf of the Aspen Pitkin
County Housing Authority, an existing apartment building at 414
Park Circle known as the Smuggler Mountain Apartments, mitigating
17.5 employees and further requesting that it not be required to
mitigate for the remaining 2.9 employees; and
\
I
/
/
)
o
.-'
'-.../
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority, at their March 13, 1991
Board meeting, voted to recommend to city council the acceptance
of the applicants mitigation proposal. conditioned upon the
payment by the applicant of $25,000 to the Aspen Pitkin Housing
Authority for improvements to the .Smuggler Mountain Apartments
and the county's acceptance of ownership of same; and
WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Board of commissioners have
entered into a contract whereby the county shall accept. and
obtain ownership of the Smuggler !olountain Apartment building;
and
WHEREAS, the pitkin County Board of commissioners have
entered into a Management Agreement with the Aspen Pitkin County
Housing Authority for the management of the Smuggler Mountain
Apartments; and
WHEREAS, the development applicant has also proposed to deed
restrict 409 East Hopkins in favor of the city and, thus reduce
its affordable housing mitigation requirements by prohibiting the
use of or establishment on the premises of any food service or
restaurant operation; and
WHEREAS, the city council has determined the development
applicant's housing mitigation proposal to be fair and equitable
and consistent with the mitigation requirements contained in
section 8-109 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
NOW,. THEREFORE, .BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, that in accordance with Section 8-
109(J) of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code, the following afford-
able housing mitigation method as proposed by the development
c
o
applicant for 409 East Hopkins is hereby approved and adopted as
follows:
1. The applica~t shall conveyor cause to be conveyed the
Smuggler Mountain Apartment building located at 414 Park Circle,
Aspen colorac;io, to Pitkin County by April 29, 1991, thereby
mitigating 17.5 employees.
2. If the County does not take title of 414 Park Circle
(Smuggler Mountain Apartments) by April 29, 1991, then this
housing mitigation approval is null and void.
3. The applicant shall pay $25,000 to the Housing
Authority for improvements to the Smuggler Mountain Apartments on
or before April 29, 1991.
4. The County shall execute deed restrictions,
)
} satisfactory to the Housing Authority, for the apartments thereby
./ deed restricting them to the APCHA low income, Category 1 housing
guidelines.
5. The applicant shall execute a deed restriction in a
form .satisfactory to the city Attorney and the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority restricting the 409 East Hopkins devel-
opment in favor of the city so as to permanently prohibit the
utilization of any net leasable square footage for use as a food
service establishment or restaurant.
The deed restriction shall
reduces the application's original requirement of 4 employees per
a 1000 square feet to 3.7 employees per 1000 square feet thus
reducing the applicant's total housing mitigation by 1.7
employees.
)
6.
The deed restriction, as specified in paragraph 5
j
c
A
'-"
)
paragraph 5 above, is removed with the consent of the City council
of the City of Aspen and a restaurant or food service establishment
is proposed and approved for the premises, the applicant shall be
required to mitigate for affordable housing in according with the
Affordable Housing mitigation guidelines then in effect.
7. The deed restrictions as identified herein shall be
e)Cecuted prior to and as a condition of the issuance of any
building permit(s) for the 409 East Hopkins development
Dated:
, 1991.
william L.
irl:Lng, M
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do
) certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that
resolution adopted by the
City Council of the
~e.V o1~
city of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held
, 1991.
)
c
"""\
_/ 11
j Counc
]roved
ordil1llDOe
-IlWl.*~
.;oJf", 11
-t!.. .
ORDINANCE ~
(SERIES OF 1993)
,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING PERPETUAL VESTED
RIGHTS FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION PROVIDED FOR THE 409
EAST HOPKINS GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BLOCK 88, LOTS D,
E, AND F ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City Council may grant vested rights status for a site
specific development plan for an initial period of three years; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 1990 and again on January 24, 1991,
city Council granted a GMP commercial allocation on the behalf of
applicant, Laura Donnelley, for the 409 East Hopkins development
proposal; and
WHEREAS, the development proposal was found to generate 20.4
employees that required affordable housing mitigation; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, Laura Donnelley, elected to purchase
an existing apartment building; the Smuggler Mountain Apartments,
and fully deed restrict the 11 dwelling units to Category 1
affordable housing guidelines and provide $25,000 for upgrade of
the apartments as the affordable housing mitigation for the 409
East Hopkins development; and
WHEREAS, a Growth Management allocation is valid for three
years and if development has not commenced within the three years
the allocation becomes void; and
WHEREAS, the current owner of 409 East Hopkins, and successors
in interest to the original developer, Kandycom Inc., requests to
permanently vest the affordable housing mitigation for 20.4
employees that was provided in 1991; and
1
o
"'"
'-'"
WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having reviewed the application
recommends approval of perpetual vested rights for the affordable
housing mitigation for 20.4 employees provided for commercial
development on the 409 East Hopkins parcel; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning
Office's recommendations for perpetual vested rights does wish to
grant the requested vested rights finding that 11 dwelling units
have been added to the affordable housing inventory, a substantial
amount of money was also provided for the upgrade of the units, the
original applicant diligently worked with the Council to provide
a positive housing solution for anticipated commercial growth, and
the city has already received substantial benefit in actual
affordable housing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
section 1:
Pursuant to section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code, City Council
does hereby acknowledge that affordable housing mitigation for the
409 East Hopkins development project as previously approved via
Resolution No. 14, Series of 1991, has been satisfactorily provided
by the purchase and deed restriction of the Smuggler Mountain
Apartments as described above and that such mitigation shall now
hereby be permanently vested and credited to the future commercial
development on the 409 East Hopkins parcel, subject to the
following conditions:
1. If future development generates more than 20.4 employees,
additional mitigation shall be required in accordance with those
mitigation standards then in effect.
2. If future development generates less than 20.4 employees, the
city shall not be required to reimburse or transfer any excess
mitigation credits as vested hereunder.
3. Any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to
this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property
2
c
"'"'.
,--"
rights.
4. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
5. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent reviews
and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the general rules,
regulations or ordinances of the city provided that such reviews
or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and
vested herein.
6. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are
general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to
land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited
to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In
this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the
developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing,
electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is
granted in writing.
section 2:
The city Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be published
in a newspaper of general circulations within the City of Aspen no
later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof.
Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following-
described property:
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
section 3:
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 4:
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 virt~e of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
3
c
,-.,
-....I
prior ordinances.
section 5:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1993 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen city Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published one in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the
City Council of the City of Aspen on the
day of
, 1993.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this
day of
, 1993.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
4
c
:J
,
iF"
,.-.,
.....,,,/
. "
lX. ~
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
Mayor and Council
Carol O'Dowd, city Manager
TO:
THRU:
Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Planning
Housing Mitigation Proposal for 409 E. Hopkins-
Resolution # ~
\-.
'March 26, 1991
RE:
DATE:
=================================================================
SUMMARY: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution #~ approving
the GMQS housing mitigation proposal for 409 East Hopk~ns.
The applicant will convey an existing building, the Smuggler
Mountain Apartments, to Pitkin County who will hold the property
on behalf of the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA).
The Smuggler Mountain Apartments will provide deed restricted
housing for 17.5 employees.
The Housing Authority has recommended to Council the acceptance
of the apartment building. The Board of County Commissioners, in
Resolution 91-7, granted approval of the contract to acquire the
apartment for the benefit of the citizens of Pitkin County.
Attached for your review is Resolution ~.
BACKGROUND: Pursuant to the GMQS applicant for the development
of 409 E. Hopkins, the applicant was required to mitigate 22.1
employees within the low income guidelines. Council denied the
applicant's cash-in-lieu proposal and directed the applicant to
provide an alternative solution. The applicant met with Council
several times during January and February to review their
proposal. The applicant has also been working with the Housing
Authority and the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners to develop
a feasible housing solution.
PROPOSAL: The original GMQS application was required to provide
housing mitigation for 22.1 employees. The applicant has agreed
to deed restrict the 409 E. Hopkins parcel to prevent the
establishment of a food service or restaurant business which
reduces the employee requirement to 20.4 employees. The
applicant has secured the purchase of the Smuggler Mountain
Apartments which provides housing for 17.5 employees and has
requested that Council waive the requirement to provide
mitigation for the remaining 2.9 employees.
Council has conceptually ap applicants including wa~v~ng
mitigation of 2.9 employees, deed restricting 409 E. Hopkins to
"
"",
--
prohibit a restaurant, and the transfer of the Smuggler Mountain
Apartments to the County.
ISSUES: The County will accept title of the Smuggler Mountain
Apartments on March 29, 1991. At that time the applicant will
also provide $25,000 to the Housing Authority for necessary
improvements to the apartments. If this transaction does not
occur by March 29, 1991 this housing mitigation proposal is null
and void. Thus requiring the applicant to renew efforts to
mitigate employee impacts.
The County and the Housing Authority are negotiating a management
contract to which APCHA will assume responsibility for operation
and maintenance of the property. The Housing Authority Board
expressed concern that aluminum wiring exists within the
building.
The County shall deed restrict the units to low income guidelines
and work with the Housing Authority to file those deed
restrictions.
Although the applicant has .requested a deed restriction on the
409 E. Hopkins parcel, language has been included within the
Resolution to the effect that if a future owner mitigates for
additional employees that the deed restriction preventing a
restaurant may be lifted. Pursuant to the Land Use Code,
proposed housing mitigation must be accepted by Council. The
applicant's representative has requested that the Resolution
specify that a cash-in-lieu alternative will be acceptable.
However, staff has not included that language within the
Resolution at the risk of locking a future Council into a
decision that may not be appropriate at that time of review.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #~
County Resolut1on 91-7
2
-:
",,;',
~-'
'.
MAY I 4
May 13, 1992
B. Joseph Krabacher, Esq.
Krabacher, Hill & Edwards
201 North Mill street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 409 East Hopkins Employee Mitigation.
Dear Joe:
I am forwarding you this letter in response to a couple of
questions you posed in your correspondence of April 24th perti-
nent to the above-noted matter.
1. You first ask whether City Council has accepted the
transfer of the Smuggler Mountain Apartments to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority as full and complete satisfaction of the
housing mitigation requirement for the 409 East Hopkins develop-
ment project. The answer to this question is yes.
Resolution No. 14 (Series of 1991), adopted by Council
on March 25, 1991, indicates that the project developer proposed
a housing mitigation plan under which it would have the Smuggler
Mountain Apartments conveyed to the Housing Authority on the
condition that the City accept same as full satisfaction of the
housing mitigation requirement. In that the employee mitigation
figure for the project was calculated at 20.4 employees, and the
apartment building could only house 17.5 employees, there ini-
tially was a question of whether the apartment building would be
enough to satisfy the mitigation requirement. Given all the
relevant factors, city council determined that the developer's
proposal was fair and reasonable and, therefore, accepted the
apartment building in complete satisfaction of the employee
housing mitigation requirement. (The developer also agreed to
pay $25,000.00 to offset building improvement costs.)
2. You have also asked whether the accepted housing
mitigation plan "runs with the land". In a true legal and
technical sense, the answer to that question in my opinion is no.
However, section 24-8-108(A) (2) of the Municipal Code provides
that development allotments and all other development approvals
are eligible for an extension in the standard three (3) year
@ recycled paper
,
-.
....
'.,,~. i
Letter to B. Joseph Krabacher, Esq.
May 13, 1992
Page 2
year vesting period upon application. While extensions may only
be granted for six (6) month periods, there is no limit on the
number of extensions that may be granted. See, section 24-8-
108(A) (3). Of course, the project owner must remain diligent and
file for all extensions in a timely fashion. If the owner fails
to seek or obtain a necessary extension then all previously
awarded approvals could be lost. While I believe that as a
practical matter the previously provided housing mitigation would
be credited to the project developer should he allow the develop-
ment approvals to lapse, it is possible that a new city council
or new intervening regulations could dictate otherwise. Hence,
it would be prudent for the developer to remain diligent in
pursing completion of the project or, alternatively, secure
extensions in the development approvals.
I hope this information is responsive to your questions.
Very truly yours,
2-..~
Edward M. Caswall
City Attorney
EMC/mc
jc513.2
cc: Diane Moore
(-
(
~
,
LIMITED APPRAISAL ASSIGNMENT
of the
r.aNNELLy PROPERlY
North 80 Feet of Lots 0 and E
Plus All of Lot F, Block 88
Aspen, Colorado
January 30, 1990
FOR: Mr. Steven Briggs
Alpine Bank of Aspen
409 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
PREPARED BY: Rarrly Gold, MAl
Appraiser-<:onsultant
Scctt M. Bowie, MAl
. Appraiser-<:onsul tant
James J.' lollica & Associates. Inc.
Real Esw:e Appraisers and Consulu.nu
(
-'-''''"'''''.
c
, ..,
1
ABOUl' THE 1.PPRAISAL
Function of the Report:
The function of this appraisal is to assist Alpine Bank Aspen in
negotiations with !.aura Connelly, the 0I0II1er of the subject property.
Should a contract for sale be COnstlIml'ated between the parties, we
assume that this repJrt will also function in securiIB financiIB to
be used in the purchase of the property.
Scone of the APPraisal:
'!his repJrt is a "Limited Appraisal Assignment" conformirq to our
understarrling of the Unifonn St.ardar1:ls of Professional Appraisal
Practice. It has also been prepare:! to rreet the Ethics ani
StaOOards Req.rirements of the American Institute of Real Estate
Appraisers. The methodology ~loyed in arriviIB at our value
conclusion utilizes elements fran all three traditional approaches
to value: the Cost, Market D3.ta ani Ina:xre Approaches. Because the
subject property is greatly underutilized ani does not represent the
highest ani best use of the site, we have not approached its
valuation through utilization of each of the three approaches on its
own. Rather, as we n;""",,C'!5 below, our approach has been to blerx:l
various parameters established by the three approaches into our
valuation.
In the course of verifying the c:anparable sales data in our
analysis, we have n;"""''S''''''''" the transactions with either the seller,
buyer, or seller's agent (the real estate broker or salesperson),
ani have also verified closiIB data with the records of the pitkin
County Clerk & Recorder's Office. We have personally inspected the
cornparable sales in our analysis. Camparable income ani expense
data considered in our analysis has been derived through
conversationS ani valuation assignments canq;lleted for Aspen's
largest larx:llords. Much of the infonnation recapitulated here has
been obscured in order to respect the confidentiality in which it
was given. However, additional data has been retained in our files
ani can be reviewed if ~cS3J:Y.
APProach to the Valuation Problem:
As we n;"",,'s'S in the P:t:q:erty Identification section of this repJrt,
the subject property is arrrently greatly undeJ:Utilized ani will
require additional development in order to maximize its highest ani
, . best use. Because of this, a traditional Market D3.ta analysis is
Jallll'sJ. ~lllllil'a &l'''lll'ia((~.lll\'.
Rt'...1 Estate Appraiset1 and Consultants
"
(
...
2
complicated. In our approach to the valuation problem, we have
analyzed the subject property in two ways:
1. First, we have analyzed the exi.stirq building for its
contribution to value ard have also tried to quantify the
. . "excess . lard value." Tcward that erd, the value of the
existing building has been analyzed a=rciirq to its
incorne-<3"enera~ potential in the current market ard
a=rciirq to recent sales of generally similar improved
==ial buildings. 0..Ir excess lard value canponent has
been bas€d upon sales of vacant lard in the ==ial
core, although we ackncwledge that IraI1Y of these are dated
or require qualification. '!his is rli="l,csed in nore detail
in the Valuation section of this report.
2. 0..Ir secon:l approach has. been to analyze the subject
property by abstraction. Tcward that erd, we have
hypothesized what we view as a likely development scenario
for the subject property. We have tried to est.:ilrate the
Market Value of that project upon a:xrpletion. Appropriate
to this analysis are the costs of the development:
the hard costs of construction, miscellaneous soft costs
such as architectural fees, E!n9'ineering, pla.nnin; ard
consultation, financing during construction, etc. as well
as extraoroinary soft costs which result from the ~
pr=ess. 'These include our approximations for the cost of
employee housing, parking ard open space. We have also
considered an appropriate all=ation for developer's
profit. When these development costs are deducted from the
estilnated Market Value of the project upon completion, the
result or "residual to the lard" is that price which a
developer in theo:ty could afforo. to pay for the subject
property "as is."
We r~e that there are numerous problems associated
with this approach. First, we do not have actual.
development plans on which to base our analysis. We are
neither architects nor lard planners. However, from our
general experience we have tried to arrive at a development
scenario which seems likely, not only with respect to
current zoning requi.rem2nts but also with respect to the
physical constraints of the site. We have also en:;aged Mr.
Glenn Horn, fonrer Assistant Director of the pitkin County
Zoning Department (ard ro.I an irrleperdent pla.nnin;
consultant). Included in the aclderrlum to this report is
Jallll'S J.' lullit'a &\''ll('ia(l-.,Iur,
R~al Estate Appraise" and ConsulL1nu
(
"..... ......
(
i"'C--'''',,",
3
his letter which outlines four different scenarics for the
development of the subject. However, we have concentrated
our analysis on that approach which we feel is nost likely
ani which appears to us to result in the highest value for
the property.
Jallll'S J. ~ Inlli('a &.\.__udatl",llIf.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
/
(
( ,.. "'
4
proPERTY IDENTIFIC1d'ION
. Sales Historv:
Title to the subject property is =tly held by laura D:Jnnelly.
The property last sold from aresnitz to D:Jnnelly in Septe.'!1ber, 1987
for $l,250,000, cash to the seller. '!hat transfer is recorded in
Deed Book 546, Page 47 of the pitkin County Records. Since the time
of sale, a sculpture garden has been added on a p:lrtion of Lot E
although essentially the property is ~ed since that sale.
About the ProPertY:
The subject property is located at 409 East Hopkins Avenue, 1 block
north of the Hyman Avenue pedestrian trall. '!his location is between
South Mill street ani South Galena street. The subject's
location is considered an 80% commercial location =tly as
there is little pedestrian traffic between Galena an:i Mill on
Hopkins. However, with the renovation of the OJllins Block arl1ding
located directly adjacent to the subject to the west, we anticipate
that the pedestrian flow in this area will increase an:i the
subject's location as a commercial altemative will become oore
viable.
The subject is legally described as the North 80 feet of Lots D and
E and all of Lot F in Block 88, city an:i Townsite of Aspen.
Although typically city lots neasure 30 by lOa feet, suggesting a
size of the subject parcel of 7800 square feet, a SUIVey provided to
us suggests that the sites are slightly irregular in size an:i that .
the actual parcel size is 7823 square feet.
Lot D is =rently improved with a one-story brick/masonry I::cilding
over a full base1rent. '!he building is sibJated partially above
street grade. ConstrUction details consist of slump brick over
concrete blcx:k exterior, poured concrete foundation, theooopane
wirrlows an:i builtup roof. Heat for the 1::cildin;J is from a gas-fire
hot water ba=...board system.
The buildin;J includes two separate levels. The upper level,
sibJated slightly above street grade, features I"";=<'l ceilin:Js,
painted drywall an:i brick walls an:i cazpeted flooring. 'lhis level
of the buildin;J includes a snall entry airlcx:k area one private
office an:i the rest of the level is essentially open. 'lhis level of
the buildin:J totals 1435 square feet.
Jallll'sJ. ~1(llIka ~l''tlri;lh~.IIIl'.
R~al Enate Aflpr.li~" and Consultants
(
/' .....
(
I
/.,."""".
5
'lhe lCMer level of the builclin;J is entirely belCM grade ani totals
l36J square feet.' 'lhe basement area includes one office, a small
kitchen area, three small mechanical roans, a storage roam ani mens
ani womens half baths. Also located on this level is a steel vault.
At the t::llre of our inspection the builclin;J was foun:l to be in good
corrlition, generally well naintained. 'lhe buildi..rq is set back from
East Hopkins Avenue with concrete ani brick walkways ani
planters along access to the ent:l:y. 'lhe builclin;J has little in the
way of view. CUrrently, a one-story concrete blcx:k builclin;J is
located on the south 20 feet of rats 0 ani E. We urrlerstarrl that a
SIl'all eIl'Ployee housing project will be proces~ in this area ani
its eventual construction has been considered in our analysis. Lots
E ani F are essentially open in character. Lot E includes a
sculpture garden with small fountain area ani Lot F provides seating
for the Smuggler Iarxi Office Restaurant.
As we have note:i, we are aware that Lot 0 with the existing
improvements is a=ently urrler lease to Alpine Bank with the
tennination on Cctober 31, 1993. 'lhe a=ent rental is structured
at $57,240, payable in equal quarterly payrrents. 'lhe rental
increases each year of the remaining lease term on November 1 bc=rl
upon an annual increase of 6%. We are also aware that Lot F is
a=ently urrler lease to Hopkins street, Inc. with expiration on
September 30, 1990. HCMever, the rent is structured on a Jronthly
basis effective between June 1 ani September 30 each lease year.
Because the duration of this lease is short ani the rent is only for
a partial year it is considered insignificant to value. However, we
recognize that the a=ent lease to Alpine Bank is belCM market ani.
will remain so until October, 1993. Because the p..1rp05e of our
analysis is to assist Alpine Bank ani the lessor arriving at a
potential sale price for the property, we have assumed that
the builclin;J can be sold free ani clear of the existing lease.
As we n; ~rl1s=rl in the letter of transmittal, we have approxilnated
the value of Alpine Bank's "leasehold" value ani have estillIated that
at approxilnately $50,000.
Zonin:f:
'lhe subject property is zoned C-C, CaImnerCial-<bre. '!his is Aspen's
IrOSt desirable conurerc:ial zoning category. AllCMed uses are varied
ani the site can be developed with a naxi= floor area ratio of
1. 5: 1 or 11,735 square feet if eIl'Ployee housing is not included
onsite or up to 2:1 (15,646 SF) if eIl'Ployee housing is. included
onsite. 'll1e existing builclin;J totals only 2798 square feet,
Jalllrs J. ~ IlIlIien &l',oriatl'S.IIll'.
Rcal Est:Jte Appraisen and CornultaRa
( r "
'"
(
"
6
considerably below what is allowed. We feel that ~ion would
be consistent with highest arrl best use-traXimizin;J larrl value.
Because there are so many different development scenarios which are
appropriate to the site we have engaged the services of Mr. Glenn
Horn, a l=al planning consultant, to assist us in evaluation some
of these alternatives. In the adden:ium to this report we have
included Mr. Horn I s letter which addresses the specifics of the
CaImnerCial-<:ore zone as it relates to the subject property arrl to
several different development scenarios.
Jm Ill'S J. ~ tullie" & .\,"Il'ial('s. II""
Real Estate Appl"2isen and Consultants
!
r
(
.....'......
7
VALUATION SECTION
As we have discussed, we have approached the valuation problem in
two ways. First, we will examine the value of the existin:] builcUng
baser1 upon sales of generally ~le ccmnercial build.i.n;s in
our area am upon the inccrre which we feel the building can
generate. In addition, we have tried to quantify the subject's
"excess lam value" b?"-""'! upon sales of ccmnercial core lam. 0Jr
secorrl approach is a development or abstraction analysis whereby we
have hypothesized a specific project to be built on the site ard
have tried to value it upon its completion. From that we have
defucted our approxilnation of the hard ard soft costs of development
including contributions for en;JloYee housin;J, parkin;J, open space,
am an additional allocation for deve1q:er's profit. 'Ihe result is
a "residual" to the lard or that price whiell a developar could in
theory afford to pay for the subject site "as is."
Land Value by O:mparison:
In our approach to this valuation we have analyzed the subject
property on a component basis. We ~ze that the existin;J
:il!lprovements are capable of generatin:J inccrre ard it is possible
through corrlaminiumization of the property that they could be sold
separately from the re.>rain::ier of the site. However, we also
recognize that the subject property includes considerable "excess
lard value." Thus, there are t'n>o components to the valuation
problem am the sum of those components should represent one
indication of the Market Value "as is."
Value of Existin:r Imorovements:
In the Property Identification section we d.isaJssed the existin;J
builcUng which includes 1435 square feet of street-level space ard
an additional 1363 square feet of finished basement. In analyzin;J
contribution to value of existing :il!lprovements, we have approached
that analysis in two ways. First, we have considered recent sales
of commercial buildings throughout the commercial core ard frcm
those have abstracted a reasonable price per square foot to apply to
the subject building. 0Jr secorrl approach is to examine the
inccrre-generatin;J potential of the subject property, if it were free
ard clear of the existin;J lease. From that we have deducted
appropriate expenses in order to arrive at a net operatin;J incorre
attributable to the ilrprovements. 'Ibis incorre stream has then been
capitalized to another value irrlication for the :il!lprovements.
JillIll'S J.' !olli(':\ ~d,..ndatl'li, Inc.
Real Ou.u!: AppraiSl'n and Consultanu
,
(
.
/......
(
" ""'-..,
8
Although we have not included details on all the Aspen a....-ea's
improved U-ll,",.ercial sales, these sales are included in cur files.
However, two sales are of particular importance. The Patricia Moore
Building l=ated at 610 East Hyroan Avenue, 3 bl=ks scutheast of the
subject, sold in December, 1989 for $l,475,000. Tenns of the sale
were favorable, .'thus suggesting a SIlI3.ll adjustment for cash
equivalency which we have calculated at approximately $40,000. In
addition, our discussion of this sale with the purchaser indicates
that a $100,000 credit was bein; provided by the seller for
improvements to be made to the building. Thus, we feel that the
cash-effective price of this building is $1,335,000. The building
itself includes net rentable area of 3490 square feet with a lc.wer
level, partially below-<;rade gallery of l350 square feet, a main
level, slightly above street grade, at l082 square feet ani an
upper-level office of l058 square feet. The =ent sale price
refl~ $383jSF, overall., We should also note that this building
last sold in April, 1988 for $l,lOO,OOO, also with favorable tenns,
resulting in a cash-effective price of nearer $l,050,000. A
=nparison of these two sales reflects <X.ill[XlUIlded JI'Onthly
appreciation of 1.2% between these two transactions. '!his building
is inferior to the subject in quality although its a:munercial
location an:i exposure are superior. FUrther, the character of the
building is also much superior to the subj ect as much of the
subject's first level is entirely basement in orientation versus the
first level of this building which is garden-level an:i only
partially below grade. FUrther, this building is l=ated on the
north side of the street, affording superior sun exposure ani rrore
open view'S. We feel that this sale can only establish the upper
range of value for the subject in the a.m:ent market.
One other sale also warrants some brief rlic:t"'lJSsion in cur analysis.
The Roarin; Fork corrlominiums Unit 3 sold in Octcber, 1989 for
$2,450,000 with favorable te= ani partial a::mni.ssion. After
adjusting for these items, the effective price is approxilrate1y
$2,425,000. Although this building is situated on the Hyroan Avenue
Mall, it is a four-level, l11Ulti-tenant cxmnercial an:i office
building of awkward configuration an:i layout. ~ of the space in
the building is office in orientation an:i rents in the building
average only $25jSF, despite its excellent rnallfront location. 'lhis
building includes 9847 square feet of net rentable area ani the
price sh~ $246jSF. Although it is comparable in quality to the
subject, its dramatically larger size rrore than offsets any
adjustment required for its location an:i at $246jSF it is evidence
of the lower range in value.
JamesJ.' )Ill\iri\ k\,.nl'iall"" 11Il',
Real Est::r.te Arpr2iKT1 and <':on,ult,nn
(
r-'"
(
~ ."
9
In O:lnsideration of these sales and others contained in our files,
we feel that approxirrately $275/SF is appropriate for the existing
iluprovements, overall. Applied to the existi.n;J iluprovements of 2798
square feet, this then suggests a value in:ii.cation of approxirrately
$770.000.
our secorrl approach to val~ the existing building is OO<;:M upon
its income-generating potentia1. If the subject property were free
and clear of the existing lease, we feel that the street level would
be rented at appro>Qmately $40/SF while t.'1e basement area would be
very rentable at $15/SF. '!his then reflects a gross potential
income of $77,845. However, sarre allocation for expenses is
appropriate, although we acknowledge that these rents would
essentially be on a triple net basis. We have included an allowance
for vacan:::y and credit loss of 3% and for lessor-related expenses
which cannot be passed through of 9%. 'lhese would include
allowances for miscellaneous expenses (legal and a=unting, tenant
litigation costs, etc.), an allocation for reserves for replacements
which are not normally polc<;:M through and an allocation for
management which would also include sarre ~ for leasing
=nmissions. 'lhe following SLII[1I!'arizes our derivation of the net
operating income for the building:
Gross Potential Income:
less Vacan:::y (3%):
Effective Gross Income:
Less !pcSQr Expenses (9%):
Net Operating Income:
$77,845
(2.335)
$75,5l0
(6.796)
$68,714
w11at retains then is capitalization of the net operating income into
a value estimate for the existing iJIlprovements. OITerall Rates shown
from our nost recent sales of commercial projects ran:le from
approxilnately 8.5% to 9.2% with older sales rangin;J from
approximately lOt to 12%. Acknowledging that the subject property
is a relatively small building which is easily rented and also
that the building would appeal to an owner-user, one MlO
historically would be willing to accept a lower capitalization rate,
we feel that 8.5 to 8.75 is the nost appropriate OITerall Rate on
with which to capitalize the subject's incane. '!his then results in
a range in value from $785.000 to $808.000.
our two approaches to val~ the existing iluprovell'el1ts reflected a
ran;Je in value from $770,000 to $808,000. We feel that the middle
of this ra.n;je is best supported, and we conclude that the existing
iluproverrents <.>.Jlltdbute approximately $800,000 in val'ole to the Mlole
property .
Jaml'S J. 'lullica&,\ssudlltl'S.lnf.
Real Estate Appraiser! and Consultants
( " "
(
..
10
Valuation of Excess land:
'Ihe secorrl v..u,~l1eI1t to this analysis is tryin;J to quantify the
excess lan:! contribution for the property. In our approach to the
excess Ian:! v..ul~nent, we have taken the entire site of 7823 square
feet times a 1.5:l floor area ratio, resultin;J in a naxiInum building
size for the site of 11,735 square feet. Although we recognize that
the site could be developed up to a 2:l rnR, this would include
housin;J of additional ~loyees an:! the bulk of the additional space
would not be high-yielding a:murercial/retail space. In addition, on
the followin;J SUIl1IlBl:J' chart all of our comparable sales have also
been analyzed based upon their mini1num allowable floor area ratio
of 1.5:l in the case of C-C zoned sites, l:l for C-l zoned sites,
an:! .75:l for Office zoned Ian:!.
From the 11,735 square feet of gross building area which can be
develcped on the entire subject site, the existin:l' building's square
footage above grade of 1435 square feet is deducted, resulting in a
develcprrent potential for the entire site of lO, 300 square feet.
However, we reccgnize that a portion of this will be built above the
existing building on Lot D. '!hat site totals 2400 square feet,
translatin;J to a roaxill1um allowable size of 3600 square feet or an
expansion potential of 2165 square feet in excess of the l435 square
feet already on the site above grade. 'Ihe rerraining 8135 square
feet would be built on Lots E an:i F.
'Ihe chart on the facing page summarizes the nost recent sales of
a:nmercial an:i office-zoned vacant Ian:! in our market. As the
reader can see, all of our sales have been adjusted for appreciation
at l% per JOClnth. Multiple sales of ~le 3 contained in our
files demonstrated an appreciation rate of .4% per JOClnth between
1984 an:i 1986, an:! 1.7% per JOClnth between 1986 an:i 1987. 'Ihe resale
of Comparable 6 actually showed much higher appreciation, although
we feel that this was an aberration at the time an:! that the initial
sale was low as it was part of a bulk transaction. 'Ihe resale of
~le 12 shows approxiInately 1. 8% per JOClnth appreciation
be1:'.o/een the original sale an:! the subsequent closin;J in May, 1989.
However, this is a very SllB1.l site an:! over the longer teJ:m this
rate JraY be aggressive. We have selected l% per JOClnth as an
appropriate appreciation rate overall. As a general statement, we
acknowledge the difficulty in a=tely analyzin;J our vacant lan:i
sales. Sales 9-13, our !lOSt recent sales, all require scnre type of
qualification in our analysis. Sale 9 was probably purchased with
James J. ~ Illllka &l"ul'iil(l'S, Inc.
Real Estate Appraisen and Consulunts
r".
(
r"",\
11
the intention of buil~ a luxury duplex, not for its ==ial
potential. HCTw'ever, subsequent to the p.u:chase, ~es in the C-l
zone prahibita:i this use ani this site is now being "lardbanked"
pending future development. Sales lO arrl 11 were both Office-zoned
parcels locata:i on'Main street. Sale lO sold with all approvals in
place arrl while we have tried to allocate =ntribution for those
approvals arrl plans, it may be urderstata:i. Sale 11 Was purchased
with no approvals in place but with development of a snail office
project in mind. ().Jr ci; c:r"l,c:sions with a local planner hired to
=nsult with the purchasers of this property in:licate that an office
developrrent was not econcnnically viable arrl =tly the purchasers
are unsure what type of development they will p.rrsue. Sales l-7 are
all much older sales which were purchased arrl developed urxl.er less
stringent Grcr.Yth Management Quota System requirements. Because of
their older closing dates, we would give these sales little
enphasis .
Of the sales included on the facing chart, Sales l2a arrl13 have
been given strol'XJest weight in our analysis. '!hese are our two IOClst
recent sales arrl IroSt physically similar to the subject in their
location. Sale 12a is a srrall 3000 square foot parce1locata:i just
east of the intersection of Hopkins AVemle arrl Monarch Street,
one block west of the subject. '!his location is inferior to the
subject's in its ==ial exposure arrl overall appeal. HCTw'ever,
it has also been a characteristic of our market that smaller sites
sell for a higher price per square foot than larger lots. Further,
arrl perhaps IOClre iltp:lrtantly, this site includes a small vintage
Victorian structure which allows the site to be developed to its
maximum allaNable size outside the requirements of the Growth
Managerrent Quota system. Historically designata:i buildiIBs
can provide an exemption to the ~ process. We have allocata:i
only $25,000 for the =ntribution of these improverrents. In fact,
this may be considerably understata:i given that this buil~ can be
developed without having to urdergo the risks of GQS =rpetition.
. '!he exenption for historical buildin3s also allows for same .
mitigation of employee housing arrl parkin;J requ:ireIrents which would
otherwise have to be satisfied urder the GQ:l. In the final
analysis, we feel that this sale with an adjusted sale price of $114
per buildable square foot can only set the upper ran;je in value
despite its inferior location.
Sale l3 is locata:i directly adjacent to the subject to the west.
'!his sale is primarily a larrl sale although the property was
improved with an l880' s-vintage Victorian =mercial structure of
approxilnate1y 9600 square feet. '!he site totals 7200 square feet
Jall\(~~ J. ~ lullka &.\ssol'iall's, Inc.
Real Estate Appraisen and C005u!tanU
,,-. ",.
(
,<<. "',
(
,. "
12
and, like the subject, it is also zoned a:mrercial-<:ore. 'This
building has been entirely gutted since the time of purc.'1ase
although the existing structure does =ntrilirte value to the site.
Like sale 12a, because this property included an historic structure,
, developnent plans could be approved ootside the =nfines of the
Growth Management Quota System. '!he existing structure we estimate
=ntributes approxilrate1y $25/SF or ba9"'i upon the existin:J building
of 9600 square feet, approx:i1rate1y $250,000. '!hus, our sales chart
show"S the effective price for the land alone of $2,450,000. In
analyzin;J this sale it cannot be overeIrrfhasized that the effective
price we have shown would not include arrj =ntribution for the
ability to develop this building ootside the =fines of the ~.
B3<=rl upon the developrent plan which was ultinate1y approved, we
have approxilnated those costs at $1,000,000 although we ac:know'ledge
that this is a rough estimate. However, if we deduct $l,OOO,OOO
from the adjusted effective price of approxilrate1y $2,700,000, this
then would reflect 'approx:i1rate1y $l,700,000 for this site if vacant
or $157 per buildable square foot. While this property is located
next door to the subject, it is a significantly superior location
due to its pedestrian exposure alan; Mill street. Although the
subject may in fact benefit fran this developnent, we feel that a
significant location adjustment of approxilrate1y 25% to 35% is
warranted, result.i.n:l' in an adjusted price of $l02-$117 ~ buildable
square foot.
In our analysis, as we n;<:r'l'''sed above, we have ~L~ted the
remain:in:J "excess land" to that portion which will be developed on
Lot D and above the exi.stin;J structure and that portion which will
be developed on Lots E and F. We feel that the developtel1t of IDts,
E and F will afford much DPre flexibility as it will not have to
incorporate an existin:J structure. Further, the space which will be
developed atop the exi.stin;J building will be inferior in overall
appeal and will probably be office in orientation rather than higher
yielding camnercial space. . Because of these factors we feel that
the land u..Jll~,1ent above the ~ structure would be penalized
and we have included its =ntribution at half of what we allocate
for development potential aso/Y"iated with Lots E and F.
In =nclusion, we feel that the 8135 buildable square feet
as5""C'iated with Lots E and F should be allocated at approxinate1y
$100-$110 per buildable square foot while the 2165 square feet of
building area to be developed atop the existing building on Lot D
should be allocated at $50-$55 ~ buildable square foot. '!hus, the
followin;J analysis is considered applicable toward the excess land
component of the pz:q:erty:
Jaml'S J. ~Iullka &.\'''llriiltl~.II1C.
R~::II Est::lte Appn.ise" am.! Consultants
(
1"" '"",
(
~ .."""
13
Roun:led:
$813,500 - $ 894,850
$108.250 - $ ll9.075
$921,750 - $1,013,925
.$925,000 - $l,OOO,OOO
8135 SF X $100-$110 per buildable SF =
2165 SF x $50-$55 per buildable SF =
Total Excess Ian::i:
Conclusion:
In the preceding analysis we have estbrated the ccntribution of the
existing structure at $800,000 while the excess lani ccmponent has
J:::een est:imated at $925, 000 to $l, 000,000. '!his then reflects a
value range for the entire property "as is" of $l,725,000 to
$1,800,000. For this approach we have concluded that the middle of
this range is best 5UpIX)rted at:
$1.750.000
We have also ccnsidered our value ccnclusion above in light of the
actual sale to Mrs. D:lI1nelly in September, 1987. As we have
discussed, the property originally sold for $1,250,000. Updating
this sale for appreciation at 1% per =nth over this 28-rronth period
suggests a =rent Market Value of approximately $l,650,000 ani at
1.25% per oonth a Market Value of approximately $1,770,000.
We ackncwledge that precise derivation of appreciation is extremely
difficult, particularly when "the rules have J:::een c.han;ed,"
nevertheless, this appears to SUWOrt the reasonableness of our
ccnclusion.
Land Value bv Develoanent and ~on:
our secorrl approach to valuing the subject is by a process kn<7Nn as
Development ani Ian::i Value Abstraction. In this analysis we try to
place ourselves in the shoes of the developer ani hypothetically
"create" a commercial building on the property. From rents ani
, sales available to us we estbrate the value of the buil~ upon
ccrnpletion ani da:iuct cost of approvals, ccnstruction, enployee
housing, par~, profit, etc. to arrive a residual value to the
lani. '!he result is theoretically the value which a developer can
afford to pay for the lani to create the buil~ we have proposed
ani reap the profit we have est:imated. '!his process is fraught with
uncertainties ani judgrrental decisions on the part of the appraiser.
'!here are so many variables involved that a c.han;e in arrj one can
multiply in others ani substantially affect value. Urrler normal
circumstances we would not rely upon the abstraction process to
.Ial\1l's.I. ~ lollica &l~,(lriatcs.lIlC.
Real E5tau~ Appraisen and Consultants
(
/
.\
(
,
,
14
estinate land value for cx:mrercial property. Hcwever, as we have
already discussed, we are ilnpaired by a severe lack of recent sales
of sites for camrnercial development since the nDSt recent Code
ch.an3'es in our market. Thus, we feel this abstraction analysis IIDJSt
at least be addressed to test the feasibility of a <::aImnerCial
building a:lnstru.cted on the site and t.hl:'c'-lgh this pz:rr<><:<: to assist
us in detennininq land value. '
In the adderrlum to this report can be fourrl a report prepared for us
by Glenn Horn of Davis Horn, Inc. dated January 25, 1990. In it he
outlines four potential options for site deve10prent of the subject.
We have tested several potential developtent scherres but have
decide::i upon a m:xlifie::i version of Mr. Horn I s fourth scenario as the
one nDSt likely and the one to prcduce the least amount of "soft"
costs and highest return to the vacant land.
In our analysis we have assumed a 2:1 floor area ratio developrent
scheme for the property which results in 8863 square feet of
additional new camrnercial space along with the exi.stin:r l435 square
feet in the Alpine Bank project. It also l1e("O<:<:itates 2347 square
feet of errplayee housing (necessary to increase the FAR from 1.5:l
to 2: l) and we asked Mr. Horn to hypothesize a 3000 square foot
upper floor apart:Irent. 'Ibis would be a penthouse unit interx:1e::i to
=p=te with the nDSt recent developllS1ts of luxury townhomes in our
market.
'Ibis development scheme results in errplayees generated by the
project needing to be housed, a=rdin;J to Mr. Horn, of
approxbrately 25 to 37 incl~ the 3 for the upper-floor luxury
aparbnent. In teDns of parking, Mr. Horn calculates 16 spaces for
the commercial area. He iIrlicates in his report that approximately
75% of the errplayee housing units will need parking as an
approxbration which would suggest an additional 19 parking spaces
for errplayee housing. . The city can m:xlify parking requirements for
errplayee housi.ng. There will also need to be 3 parking spaces for
the free market luxury unit bring:in;J the total to 38. We feel it is
~rtant that the 3 free market parking spaces be available on site
for a buyer in this price category. The others will be paid through
"cash-in-lieu" at $15,000 per space for a total of $525,000.
The HvPothetica1 arl1dinq:
We ac:knowle::ige that there are many potential designs to meet the
requirerrents of enplayee hous:in;J, parking and open space for the
subject property. We have a:lnsidered numbers on several and have
Jallll'S J. ~ Illllita&l'''4J('i;tll's,llIf,
R~al Estac:c Appf2iscn and Consultants
(
,,---,
( "'.,""'
15
arrived one which appears reasonable, although w"e ackncwledge we are
not lard planners nor architects ard that the b.llldin;J we have
hypothetically created for the site is only one of many possible
scenarios. We have hypothesized leavID:l' the exi.stin:r structure in
place givin;J l435 square feet of upstairs CXll11lIeI"Cial ard 1363 square
feet of lcr.ver-level office. The space betw-een this buil<ii.n3' ard
Hopkins street is currently utilized as open space with planters,
etc. We propose leavin;J that area of approxilmtely 768 square feet
as open space for the project. We stress that this is only an
approxbnation. '!he total open space requirement for the site of
7823 square feet is 25% or 1956 square feet, leavin;J an unsatisfied
open space requirement of 1188 square feet. The city allOVlS
purchase of open space in lieu of creation of that space by
"cash-in-lieu" payrrent which we rl;"'-"l~'" later. We have hypothesized
=verin;J the remairrler of the site with a f=tprint of approxbnately
5400 square feet (lot line to lot line). '!his buildin;J wt:llid be
placed over a 5400 square foot basement. '!he rear portion of the
property which exterrls to the alley (20 feet by 30 feet) wt:llid be
finished as a garage for the three required parJd..n;J spaces for the
upper-level luxury unit. We have deducted 200 square feet from the
first-level ccnunercial area to allow access areas to the basement
ard wiIrlow wells within the property bourrlaries. We feel the
basement should be finished as a cainbination of storage an:l enployee
housID:l' in an a~ to house as many enployees onsite as possible.
There is a risk that because of light ard acc'?"'''' required for
belcw-grade area that part of this space will be considered "floor
area" by the City. '!his could, theoretically, slightly reduce the
total salable area of the luxury apartment or office area rl;..,-.,''''sed
below.
On the upper levels of the buildin;J we have hypothesized office and
a luxury free market penthouse. We have sanewhat arbitrarily
selected 3000 sqJare feet as an appropriate size for a
three-bedroam, 3-1/2 bath townhouse unit ard have placed that on the
upper level of the structure with the best views. '!he upper level
of the buildin;J must also house 2347 sqJare feet of enployee housin;J
to allow for our FAR expansion. Mr. Horn has hypothesized as a
"cheapest" scenario ll'akin3' this dormitory housin;J which requires 125
sqJare feet per enployee. However, we feel dormitory hcusID:l' would
be better located in the basement or m:x:lified garoen level of the
buildin;J ard that the upper-level employee housin;J would be better
configured as traditional rental or sale units. We have
hypothesized 3 two-bedroam units of 650 sqJare feet each ard one
studio of 397 sqJare feet (both within the mi.ni.nu.Im size guidelines
for their unit types) for a total of 2347 square feet. 'Ibis housin;J
.Iallll'S J. ~1(}lIka khsodah'S, hu'.
R~al E.Mate Appraisen and Consultants
(
~
"-,
(
'~
16
counts for a total of8 employees (2.25 employees per ~bedroam
unit an::l. 1.25 employees per studio unit). As we have ni..,.,,""'2d, we
have a total employee housin:J requirement of at least 25 units
a=rc:lin3' to Mr. Hom leavin:J 17 to be housed elsewhere either
onsite or offsite. We feel the studio an::l. two-bedroam units on the
upper level of the buil~ will be IOOre =nsistent with the
high-quality commercial an::l. luxury residential project than would be
l8-unit employee dormitory as Mr. Hom suggests.
Of the 5400 square foot first-level footprint, we have deducted 200
square feet for access an:i wirrlcw wells an:i 600 square feet for the
parkinJ garage leaving 4600 square feet of new cammercial space on
the street level. lIddin:J that to the l435 square feet OJrrently
onsite results in a total of 6035 square feet of first-level retail.
We have potential for 8863 square feet of total l1E!'iI =mercia!
space. We have used 4600 square feet of that on the first level,
leavin:J ~263 square feet for se=rrl-level office. 'Ibis might be
placed over the l1E!'iI structure or in =nnection with the old buil~
creatin:J a desirable se=rrl-level office over that structure. Also
on this secorrl level, if physically possible, the upper-level
employee housin:J space of 2347 square feet should be placed. We
have reserved the upper level for the 3000 square foot luxury unit
which should be =nfigured on the site to maximize views south
toward Asp:n Mountain an:i to avoid arry obstruction by the =ncrete
block buil~ on the rear of the site owned by Mr. Baldwin of the
Collins Block next door. A portion of this unit might also extend
over the 30X100, easternIrost site which enjoys vieNS south toward
Aspen Mountain an:i avoids arry potential obstruction from an
expansion of this =ncrete block buil~. It also sits over the
garage so that an elevator =uld be provided through the secoirl
level to the unit from that portion of the builclin;J'.
Basements are often used to satisfy parkinJ requirerrents in l1E!'iI
central =re buildings; Hcwever, we feel aCC'?"" will be so
difficult from the alley because of the abnonnal =nfiguration of
the site that this space is better utilized for employee housin:J
purposes an:i storage an:i that parkinJ should be provided offsite by
"cash-in-lieu" payments. 'Ihe reader will ~ll that we have 17
rernainin;r employees to house for the project. We have hypothesized
a 17-unit dorm structure in the basement with gaxden-level access
arrl w:in::1c:M wells for natural light an:i ventilation. 'Ihe 17 dorm
units must each be 125 square feet or a total of 2125 square feet.
'Ibis leaves 3275 square feet of basement storage. Baseuent storage
is excluded from parkinJ an:i employee requirements if it is utilized
simply as unfinished storage for tenants in the builclin;J'.
'.
On the facin:J page is a breakdown of the size an:i =nfiguration
specificatipns for the buil~ we have hypothesized. We have also
Jaml'S J. ~ Jolliea &l_S4ld:tll'S, IlIl',
Real Estate Appraise" and Consultants
( r""
( ...."""
17
included calculations for eIllJloyee hcusini arx:l. parki.n;J. Again, we
stress that this is only one Potential scenario, arx:l. we are not
architects or larx:l. plannel:S. We have dealt only with approxilrations
in our calculations.
I.arrl Residual Calculation:
On the facinj page can be fourrl a chart in which we show a value of
the projected builcli.n3' bas"'" upon current market rents an:! expenses
an:! what we feel the luxury residential unit can be sold for.
Backup data for our calculations can be fourrl in our files. We have
also included an allocation for eIllJloyee housinj. '!he secord-level
eIllJloyee housinj could be sold. Olrrent low-i.ncarne eIllJloyee housinj
guidelines are $70jSF. It is unlikely that the basement space =uld
be sold though it could be operated as rental property at
eIllJloyee-restricted rents. For convenience, we have allocated this
at the same $70jSF to detennine value. '!he luxury unit we have
allocated at $420-$450jSF. 'lhis is =nsistent with prices currently
bei.n;J paid for other penthousejtcr.mhouse units in the central =re.
In our calculation we have =nsidered the size, parki.n;J, central
location arx:l. vieNS that we anticipate for this unit.
We have rented the first-level a:.munercial space in the builcli.n3' at
$45jSF, secord-level office space at $22jSF, basement office in the
existin:1 builcli.n3' at $15jSF, arx:l. basement storage at $12jSF. It is
likely that this storage would be allocated in cubicles. 0Jr
projected rents have been drawn from current rents in the Brarrl
B.1i1cl.in;;,Gcdiva B.1i1cl.in;;, Ajax lblntain B.1i1cl.in;;, Aspen Plaza
B.1i1cl.in;;, Elli's B.1i1cli.n3', Chitwocd Plaza, Shadow Mountain B.1i1cl.in;;,
arx:l. others. '!he result of our calculations is a gross :incare of
a,pproxi.mil.tely $425,000. From this we have deducted 3% for vacancy
arx:l. credit loss arx:l. 7% for expenses. We have calculated all our
market rents at a triple net basis with the tenants payinj a pro
rata share of all expenses including utilities, taxes, builcli.n3'
maintenance, arx:l. a portion of management: expense. We have allocated
7% for the lessor's portion of expenses including ongoinj leasing
c:cnuni.ssions, reserves, a portion of management:, arx:l. a miscellaneous
category. ExpenseS are slightly lower as a percentage an:! rent
slightly higher than our analysis of the existin:1 builcli.n3' above
due to its asSOGiation with a new, laJ:ger a:.munercial strucbJre. '!he
result is a net operatinj i.ncarne of approxillately $383,000. '!his we
have capitalized at Overall :Rates ranging frcm 8.75% to 9%, current
Jaml'S J. ~ lul\ica k\s'ul'iall'S, Inf.
R~al Estate Appraisen and ConsultantJ
(
,
(
'\
18
Overall Rates acx::epted by investors in our narket. The result is a
builclin:J value range from approxilnately $4,250,000 to $4,400,000.
Adding our allocation for the luxury penthouse unit ard ~loyee
housin;J results in a total builclin:J value rangin;J from approxiInately
$5,800,000 to $6,000,000.
From this sarre expenses are appropriate. Ccnmnission ard closin;J
costs on the luxury unit should be approxilnately 8%. We have
allocated 7% of leasin;J ccmmissions applied to the annual gross
incame in order to generate tenants in the builclin:J. We have also
discounted the total gross builclin:J value over a relatively short
3-ronth time period at an anrroal discount rate of 14%. We feel the
buil~ can be essentially pre-leased prior to o:tt1Pletion but
tenants may require sarre time for tenant inproverrents arrl can also
anticipate the possibility of sarre delays in closin;J the employee
units arrl sellin;J arrl closin;J the free market unit. 'Three ronths is
, a' very short anticipated tillle line to cane to full occupancy ard
total sellout. '1his leaves a net buildin3' value from approxilnately
$5,470,000 to $5,680,000.
arllclin:J costs we have estim:t.ted }y>=ri upon the nost recent
construction costs 'of similar product in our market. Hard costs for
the luxury unit we have estimated at $150/SF. Retail/office ard
secon:l.-level ~loyee space we have estimated at $90/SF. Etployee
basement space has been allocated at $60/SF wtrile basement storage
has been entered at $30/SF. The parkin:J garage we have estimated at
$45/SF for total hard costs of slightly over $l,700,000.
Normal soft costs (approvals, finanein;J, architect fees, etc.) we
have estimated at 35% of hard costs or approxilnately $600,000. our
. cash-in-lieu of parkin:J requirement is allocated at $15,000 per
space. 'Ihe reader will recall that we need an additional 35 spaces
resulting in a total cash-in-lieu parkin:J payment of $525,000.
Profit we have estimated at 15% of total gross J::uilclin:J value which
ranges from approxiJnately $870,000 to $900,000. 'Ihe total cost
range is from approxiInately $3,700,000 to $3,740,000 leavin;J a
residual to the land from $1,762,619 to $l,943,100.
We nicrllSsed above that we had hypothesized the J::uildin3' to be
constructed to the lot lines leavin;J inadequate open space. We
estimated approxiInately 768 square feet of open space adjacent to
the existing buildin3' leavin:J a req..U.rem2nt of approxilnately 1188
square feet. '1his remai.ning requirenent is approxiInately 15% of the
total lard size. 'Ihe cash-in-lieu payment for open space is based
JamesJ.' lolliea &\ssol'iall'S.IIII'.
Real E5tatc Appraisen and Consultanu
(
t' .....
(
"
19
upon the value of the larrl. '!hus, we have deducted l5% of the
residual value to the larrl as a cash-in-lieu payment for open space.
this leaves a final larrl value range fran awroxinate1y $1. 500,000
to $1.650.000. Based upon the scenario we have presented, that larrl
value rarqe appears reasonable.
James J. ~ lullim &. \s';III'iah", 111I',
. R~al Estate Appnisen and Consultanu
( " "
....
( ,"..,
20
FnlAL ~ON
Larrl Value by CaI\FlIison:
Larrl Value by Abstraction:
$1. 750.000
$1.500.000 - $l.650.000
'!he above :i.rrli.cators of larxi value suggest a range from
approxillately $1,500,000 to $1,750,000. '!he breadth of this range
is suggestive of the uncertainty surrourx:l.in;J our market for
~ial vacant larxi. our level of confidence within the value
range cannot be high. '!he low en:! of the range is set by our
development/abstraction approach which suggests a price ~e which
a developer could afford to pay for the larxi to construct a
hypothetical buildin:J arxi bring a profit of slightly urrler
$1,000,000. '!his is a "crude" approach with many uncertainties,
assumptions, arxi problems.
'!he upper en:! of the range is set by our value by c::cnprrison
although we acknowledge that there have been no sales of vacant
~ial core larxi since the rost recent changes in the Code. '!he
only sales which have occurred include victorian stl:uctures which
are eligible for exemptions from many of the soft costs we have
rli c:rllSse::l including employee housing arxi parkin;J. We are left to
try to extrapolate value from these dissimilar sales to fini an
:i.rrli.cation of value for the subject's larxi.
We are reluctant to attempt to refine the range sho;.m by our
analyses. While uncertainties arxi problems surrourrling conunercial
development in the =rent market would suggest that the lower range
rray be nore applicable, we reccgnize that there are no vacant
=mercial sites available in our market. As a result, we could
expect a seller to deman:i a premitnn. '!his scarcity of supply would
suggest that the upper range may be nore appropriate. In the final
analysis, it is perhaps the middle, of the range which aJ;:PE!ill'S best
supported. Applying a 1% appreciation rate per nonth to
Ms. !):)nnelly's purchase price would also suggest a current value
from the middle of the range. Nevertheless, we are reluctant to
attempt to refine our range given uncertainties arxi problems in both
our approaches to value. '!he reader shoold be aware that our final
value range includes real estate a:nmri.ssion typical in our area for
~ial property arxi reflects a cash or cash-effective
transaction.
Based upon our analyses, we feel the subject property has a Market
Value (!lOSt probable selling price) as of January' 30, 1990 in a
~e from:
$1.500.000 - $1.750.000
Jaml'S J.' \,,\lira ~1~"Ilriall'S.IIII'.
Real Eslate ..o\ppn.isen and Consultants
E.
f-:il)PK I NS AVe..
( ,,,, ")
(
,-"'"'\
'19~
1:"
q<qll
:r:=
, '~
- '
.,
CONe.. . WALK.: .
( N'.-'~ct~: I"" \IV.
" '
"
, '
,
';'O:Z,'" )
,oo~-'.-
m--r-
,'--.' " ': 'I"
. . . .
".:,: D 'fl-\I',"
100
-IOO~
, '
,',
. . ~
'=,
'~c.,
't:"A"T!O
G,ARDf;t-J
AREA
I
z
Q
~.
IOI~
, ' 0'.
, ,
E
F
"
. . ;.
, (f
.-~q~
A.'-~E.A. l,e.z:3.!: 5.F'.
\'
GRAVEL
PARKING
"''''!!.
~{, I
~
.,.
II' .
,- \"\
r C~=T;
(0
(
o
Existing Building
~
; ~~
'.::'~
.... .~
4..-..
..
.J -4
j
i
~ "
. .
..... .."
--.- --:- .
.
All. .~
Existing Building
(
o
(
o
:c,-<:~_.<:-::'-" - -
~J/!tfjJ!ffjlffj:~5;~~i ';-{~~WJ!~kJC!-'
. .,~~YF..""~~~~--+C'",, ~~.'
Mj.d ... ,-.-', ~~':,8"'S,,::::t ~;'.i"":" ~~:
"'.,.", ,., H.. ,.." .... ._....,.~~~
\
F~--
~~~_.- - '
. _ ~-~....5' '
-..-.=.- -=-~~:
Lots E
and F
o
(
o
View South
I,
I
I
I
I
I
View West Along Hopkins
(
(
(l
. ,.:-~.: ....'-
;.. . eJcl '/-...:.1..".-:-:.~;~~,
." .~-;fjli;;.""
....
r
~ -
----
, -.
.'j.,.
. '1
Interior of E .
xlsting B
ui ld ing
II' _.#~~~;!~~~+~
..~ _ ~",'::r"-'~'
~~~j1f?/': ;'"
~.__.. .
~r
',f...~~'
}i/.
~.'''';;'''\.
-1!,,/,- ~~."
-::~;}E;
}S~~~:II
4
..~.; .
'f~I~e
~.':"t1"M:'" ~,,"1
";:::i<"~~
. <.~....,...
"
Interior of .
EXlsting B
uilding
~
.!~
!
d ---1
-o-.._-~
,--
,
. -'~',.,..,
.,'~ :.
~:o. ..'
,
Basement
i
\
I
I
,---
;
Basement
(r-o\
. -.)' "/-\'-\:'~-^~~~i.~.,/:, \\...-1 !ZO 1
I: fi ~,-~~!,;,'::-'ij'_~".')-~'~"f.,G~o\~:'~,(,_.,~\ ~ '~1 c {
~ \, ~ \!',-,\~/--'1~~~~~... ;:; '~)r ,';~ [~.S::. -- (S fJ.'/\ n:,Id": lj~'
I. '..-::;-~, ''''i<.I'''''~ . . ,':. . .~...~_~., ,^, ~,
- ~ .;, ~'Y.' J"" . -O~"" .""".." ~fl. ,,'_-~., ~ ~, ~ j
! '\ '." r.q !';'\.~";l~ $i:::1.-'\or':':">':"~~(~~':'i~I'-f ~. 'f.} '/Jl '. i (j)..J . ~
~ i' \. ~ j tf,i.! l~/' :C-~'I:'- c~ I~ "T,;r:.~:,..:.:~.'f'--: '~ . .~. , ~ ~ ~
' ;"<':h~".E1~"~~~{, 'j:" .....!/l' 'I'~.l ! O.
l_pi!.'O"....,I: ~.-. ..;.......... 'a,lfl>J.(~1 .~ t,
o \ ~1'!1' ,~-,",'" ;,-<-::,. .,....~:~$~..\{~ ,!.l~ ~ .&::0-.1 u.; I
. / "'1 ~~ ."&-~' ..>.'"'-' :.,. ,'"'' -- ;;..Y..... "t'}J .p. c: : _ ~
i '~.' l'ifl,r~I:~~i(~~H'f~";'.:'f>~~.';f'!. G /:~~"~ :;~P._~~. :
U It... ../1... .,........;.r..~ -... --:;:::?' ~-_~ .. 0 ,_ ".........
i.,.' ~ ~~:.t6cJ~~f:;t%1~-v7l1:~E'~'<' -I' I~ /:~, ~ ~J;
t3 ! l~ j11'tl;[~~l~~~~i'~~~~B~ ~ !nO-=--- ~i-J-'\~ \~ S/-'
0( ~ \~!I ,~. .-~.'A1R:11~~~"":.... I_~--' ; ,-,g.~ t..<~ Ul!- I
~ I :! jlWi l.~!iil"~~*'.., ~!1i\l~~~I'~ :~J ~ ~ lZ~~'~WtLf''l fffl. \ "'~.li'~_:
:> :- I ~! :~11,~ .~~~ Ic:I i ~ ~::l~!'J" ..... I .fIT [I 0 1'1 ~
en.' ;,1 ~~u'~~ I':wr~. 'l:-;,h-B~ '~I~I ':.P :. ,,-(., a
~, . J.d '. r.'t;:- "'......~ ri'ffgp 1_ [).. '" I _
~, 1.;1; .if ,~",'-<'-' il'ffil CiDJ f~:~lj',~-il~("'-." =1l Cl,\, ~
' _.. ~I' I~W;?' I,,,,. ~'ili ~.",::~ . I' J I '%-'
en [." I ~?i. _' ',6 ~!'--"l'~" ~~";;;:K" :~ 0;;-:
r '~~ l . €l '18 NI\f1^J €l
, I: ' ~\ ,~~~~~~~ . '1 ~lr . 11 .~~. _ ,
/. ll' k]~'~~~ f1.rtJ.",: "'if 11J-~~~ fli? I tE !'\;ilk' ~ ": ~. '\
,:l! . t:r "\ '<l~ &<: ..t'.... : ~111Ir.--. c .~':J", ';;.
' . ~. =-- ~ -. ~7ilJJlW ~.I V I -, . ~ .
1::/- ~~~i J~,; )fl~l~l=-;"~~' ... "",oft! .. \-:; r
~I !.E;~I i~~: "' cmlff] ,r1ili~l L~~I 'Iif .I~ '3~"SN'~~OH' r !
I' off' l: ....'1 ~ ~~- " :lei .' ';i!~ \. -ro -v-
~il)' ~t' ".~~ ~1~'f'!Q~Fll\'- ~I< : E m~ ~(]
\ .1 ff '.~]1 111- . . :::.! i: :~l .:!. Ci' W!I1I
"~I .,'''''=1 -; N. I . '&:.i ~'-I' _',
,y f 1}1~~:r;'~':: ~~"" .I '.:.1., .llr~ :i1~" ~
I " -r;,d-~ 4' - '-:r~ bj.rl r'f~Y ~ . I II ~~~" '.
I .. "'F-'-~' . !/ "\'rI~ i ~ ~'I j \
\ ;' ~~,~-; ";7 f S ~~ ~},~~,,, ~ ,? (""- ~i'I n
{~ : ~~W'~ -=" ~ "T'lIllJ 1:~f1 ~ ~,,~, I ~~I U 1Fi"
I '1 ~. ~~- , ~ '~~"'I' 3: _., ." z ~ ~
',~ -"''''. ,..-:-.,' .: ~ -~'i.!' ~"-, iio::-.. - ~ ~~' \ \
,'~ '4' ~ . .; ~!;:"', ~"=--:::"l ,II;;~' ~ 111 . ~
i ~~~ ;:,..1.:..' -- ~"" ;::l,()i,,~~~~'1:~ ~1G~005 1 ' ii
"~': "Q 'Ii .~ ml' , '':':::li",,:..1
~~~.. ~ -- \ ~f.~IU!~'-"JI, IIii .'='''-J~~,
~r"-, ~~ K'~~I~; !1!~"~:I'" I' ~~ .~'
)- ",- ~ <"f~~'-V" '~~' '. c:
\ =:-... ~ :;;:fI It 'I ~o,J~~,~ "" 5; tif
- <= l ~ -:~ "! '~~ ;;i I
I - .""~ ~ H :E, ~'~.~ '~ ~ J~,~.. ~ ( ~ 1
-:.. ...:;g ~ E:;
, >~
~~%:<O
~H~ :~:~ I~~.\:-'\ /i~? 'f/Yf- ~~t '~I~'-.
<5; ~= l--.~ ~~,~ .!-.... If ,; 0':. I l~1
_ ~ 5: <llI ~ . \ ......, ~ " .' 'j: ',..
-=; a ~ ~ /"" ~, . ,,~"?,~,;: : \.1" I I
~ ~ ': ~ ':. : .,~j .../1.::1;.... ,,' \
c:.-::: . ,.;: .I:..--:.,~~/ ~A- lr--." I
S:::: ~. L_. ~ ~ ~ -c -'l'!~ '. i \ "
=~... .c-' ;".: ,.~~ .....-4. 1. '\i I
- : , ~ .'~ - . I ^
... . ~ 5' ~ ?\.:. . : ~ "..:..::." . \;;;f- ., ~ . I
*--"1" "'~-~ ~ I
..~ --
I
I
Ij:~
\-&'
('4~~
f~~
. .~ ?11
J .-
ProCessional ACmiatinns:
Education:
Experience:
Major Clients:
T)lles of PnJperty:
Purposes:
laternent of CertiCication:
(
,
(
Scott M. Bowie, MAl
"
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, MAl #6848
Licensed Real Estate Broker in the State of Colorado
Member of the Aspen Board of Realtors
Instructor, University of Colorado Continuing Education Division
Member of the National Board of Realtors
Harvard University, BA, 19i1. Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude
University of Colorado Continuing Education Division: Real Estate Law; Real
Estate Finance
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers: Course I-A, Principals;
Course 2, Urban Properties; Course VIII, Residential; Course1-B, Capitalization
Techniques; Course VI. Evaluation Procedures; Course IV, Litigation and
Condemnation '
Appraiser-Consultant, James J. Mollica & Associates, Inc., August 1976-present
Colorado Real Estate Broker: 1974-present
Condominium Property Management: Durant Condominiums,
Aspen, Colorado, 1971-76
Designated MAl by American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers: March, 1984
Aspen Savings & Loan
City of Aspen
First Western Mortgage
Banker's Mortgage
Pirkin County Bank
Town of Snowmass Village
Aspen Skiing Co.
Bank of Aspen
Central Bank of
Aspen
Commercial, Office & Retail
Special Purpose Buildings
Subdivisions-Vacant Land
Lodges-Hotels
Ranches-Farms
Industrial
Acquisition
Condemnation
Insurance
Estate Planning
Ute City Mortgage
Pitkin County
Thatcher Mortgage
Chase Manhattan
Mortgage
Residential
Apartments
Condominiums
Mortgage
Tax Planning
The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers conducts a vountaty program
of continuing education for its designated members. MAl's and PuVl's who
meet the minimum standard of this program are awarded periodic education
certification. I am currently certified under this program through
September 15, 1990.
James J. ~ lollica &Associates.lnc.
Real Estate Appraisen and Contu!tants
Professional Affiliations:
Education:
Experience:
Major Clients:
T)'pes of Propert)':
Purposes:
_ tatement of Certification:
,.....,
Randv Gold. U,\I
. '
(
.,...........,
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, MAl #6984
Licensed Real Estate Salesman, State of Colorado, 1979
University of California, Santa Barbara, BA, 1973. Honors
University of California, Los Angeles: "Real Estate Appraisal;" "Analytical
Tools of Real Estate Research;" "Income Tax Faccors of Real
Estare Investment"
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers: Course I-A, Principals;
Course 8, Residential Valuation; Course 1-B, Capitali:ation Theoty and
Techniques; Course 2-1, Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation; Course 2-2,
Valuation Analysis and Report Writing; Course 2-3, Standards of Professional
Practice; Course 6, Real Estate Investment Analysis
Seminars: "Tools and Techniques for Land Analysis," "Appraisal Techniques
and Analysis for Special Properties," "Real Estate Investment Analysis,"
"Contemporaty Appraising of Income Properties," and "Subdivision Analysis"
Society of Real Estate Appraisers Seminars: "Condominium Appraising" and
"Special Purpose Seminar"
Appraiser-Consultant, James J. Mollica & Associares, Inc., May, 1978-present
Associate Appraiser, The Epstein Co., Los Angeles, August, 1975-Occober, 1976
Designated MAl by American Institute of Real Estare Appraisers, November, 1984.
Ute City Mortgage
Aspen Savings and Loan
Bank of Aspen
Thatcher Morrgage
Pitkin County
Single-family Residential
Multi-family Residential
Acquisition
Insurance
Tax Planning
City of Aspen
Town of Snowmass Village
Aspen Skiing Co.
Central Bank of Aspen
Commercial
Vacant Land
Listings
Escate Planning
First Western
Mortgage
Pirkin County Bank
Condominium
Lodges-Hotels
Sales
Mortgage
The American Institute of Real Escate Appraisers conducts a vountaty program
of continuing education for its designated members. MAl's and RM's who
meet the minimum standard of this program are awarded periodic education
certification. I am currendy certified under this program through
September 15, 1991.
James J. ~ lo\lica &As;ociatcs.lnc,
Real Esta[e Appraisen and Consultants
( (
'\
(
)
./
=u'.LCl\T.ION
The undersigned does hereby certify that, to the best of nrj l<ncMledge and
belief and except as othenoise noted in the appraisal report:
1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.
2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the
reported assumptions and limitin:3' conditions, and are nrj personal,
unbiased professional analyses, opinions and conclusions.
3. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the
subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with
.respect to the parties involved.
4. My c:onpensation is not contin;Jent on an action or event resultin:3' from
the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in, or the use of, this report.
5. To the best of nrj knowledge and belief, this appraisal report has been
prepared in conformity with and is subject to the requireIrents of the
COOe of Professional Ethics and starrlards of Professional Practice of
the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers.
6. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report
has been prepared, in conformity with the uniform starrlards of
Professional Appraisal Practice.
7. No one provided significant professional assistance to the person(s)
sigrri.n;J this report.
8. I have personally inspected the subject property and have contributed
rraterially to the value conclusion. As of the date of this report, I '
have completed the requi.reItents of the continuin;J education program of
the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers.
~11or. fwlJV'
~ Gold, MAl
Appraiser-Consultant
I have personally inspected the subject property and have contributed
rraterially to the value conclusion. As of the date of this report, I
have completed the requirementS of the cont:inuin;J education program of
the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers.
~~
Scott M. Bowie, MAl
Appraiser-Consul tant
, (~, . (
DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: Market vallJc 1$' lr focus of most real prooerty appraisal...~ ~n(
market value have been developed and refined. Conti. oi. I~inement is essential to the growth 01 the apprais~
01 market value can be staled as follows:
The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale. the
buyer and seller, each acting prudently. knowledgeably. and assuming the price is nol affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition
is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing 01 title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (a) buyer and
seHer are typically motivated: (b) both parties are well informed or well advised. and each acting in what he considers his own best interest;
(c) a reasonable time ;s allowed for exposure in the open market; (d) payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. doUars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and (el the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or
creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. (Source: Federal Home Loan Bank Board. November.
1986)
"'"\,th economiC and legal definitions of
_ssion. The current economic definition
CERTIFICATION: The Appraiser certifies and agrees that:
1. The Appraiser has no present or contemplated future interest in the property appraised: and neither the employment to make the appraisal.
nor the compensation for it. is contingent upon the appraised value of the property.
2. The Appraiser has no personal interest in or bias with respect 10 the subject mailer of Ihe appraisal reporl or Ihe participants to the sale.
The "Estimate of Market Value" in the appraisal report is not based in whole or in part upon the race. color. or national origin of the
prospective owners or occupants of the property appraised. or upon the race. color or national origin of the present owners or occupants
of the properties in the vicinity of the property appraised.
3. Unless otherwise noted in the body of the report, the Appraiser has personally inspected the property. both inside and oul. To the best
of the Appraiser's knowledge and belief, all statements and information in Ihis report are true and correct. and the Appraiser has not
knowingly withheld any significant information.
4. All contingent and limiting conditions are contained herein (imposed by the terms of the assignment or by the undersigned affecting the
analyses. opinions. and conclusions contained in the report).
5. This appraisal report has been made in conformity with and is subject to the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and
Standards of Professional Practice of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers.
6. All conclusions and opinions concerning the real estate that are setlorth in the appraisal report were prepared by the Appraiser whose
signature appears on the appraisal report unless indicated as "Review Appraiser: No change of any item in the appraisal report shall
be made by anyone other than the Appraiser. and the Appraiser shall have no responsibility for any such unauthorized change.
7. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers relating to review by its duly
authorized representatives.
CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The certification of the Appraiser appearing in Ihe appraisal report is subject to the following conditions
and to such other specific and limiting conditions as are set forth by the Appraiser in the report.
1. The Appraiser assumes no responsibility for matters of a legal nature affecting the property appraised or the title thereto. nor does the
Appraiser render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be good and marketable. The property is appraised as though under
responsible ownership and management.
2. Any sketch in the report may show approximate dimensions and is included to assist the reader in visualizing the property. The Appraiser
has made no survey of the property.
3. The Appraiser is not required to give testimony or appear in court because of having made the appraisal with reference to the property
in question. unless arrangements have been previously made therefor.
4. Any distribution of the valuation in the report between land and improvements applies only under the existing program of utilization. The
separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisaJ and are invalid if so used.
5. The Appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, including but not limited to subsoil problems.
structural deficiencies. zoning and building code incompliance. which would render it more or less valuable. The Appraiser assumes no
responsibility for such conditions. or for engineering which might be required to discover such factors.
6. Unless otherwise stated in this report. the existence of hazardous material. which mayor may nol be present on the property. was not
observed by the Appraiser. The Appraiser has no knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. The Appraiser.
however, is not qualified to delect such substances. The presence of substances such as asbestos. urea.formaldehyde foam insulation.
or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value ofthe property. The value estimate is predicated on the assumption !hat
there is no such material on or in the property that would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions,
or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field. jf desired.
7. Information. estimates. and opinions furnished to the Appraiser. and contained in the report. were obtained from sources considered
reliable and believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such items furnished the Appraiser can be assumed
by the Appraiser.
8. Disclosure of the contents of the appraisal report is governed by the Bylaws and Regulations of the American Institute of Real Estate
Appraisers.
9. Neither all. nor any part of the content of the report. or copy thereof (including conctusions as to the property value, the identity of the
Appraiser. professional designations. reference to any professional appraisal organizations. or the firm with which the Appraiser is
connected) shall be used for any purposes by anyone but the client specified in the report. the borrower if appraisal fee paid by same.
the mortgagee or its successor and assigns. mortgage insurers. consultants. professional appraisal organizations. any state or federally
approved financial institution. any department. agency. or instrumentality of the United States or any state or the District of Columbia.
without the previous written consent of the Appraiser; nor shall it be conveyed by anyone to the publiC through advertising. public relations.
news. sates. or other media. without the written consent and approval of the Appraiser.
10. On all appraisals. subject to satisfactory completion. repairs. or alterations. the appraisal report and value conclusion are contingent
upon completion of the improvements in a workmanlike manner.
11. Zoning in the Aspen area is in a constant state of change. Certain portions of Ihe zoning and land use code are open to inlerpretation. and the outcome of any application is subject to qovernment approval. The Appraiser has made every ellort 10 identify Ihese issues
and their application 10 the subject. However. Ihe Appraiser assumes no responsibility for difficulties in interperelalion olor change in
the land use code.
o
HOLLAND & HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
o
D rn@rnow~ ~
AAi - 2 I99t U
DENVER
DENVER TECH CENTER
COLORADO SPRINGS
ASPEN
BILLINGS
BOISE
CHEYENNE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
600 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLQRAD081611
mE
TREe
ARTHUR C DAILY
\l:\.pril 2, 1991
Leslie Lamont, city Planner
City/County Planning Department
City of Aspen
l30 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Demolition Code Amendment
Dear Leslie:
As you know, last Friday Laura Donnelley closed the sale of
her 409 East Hopkins commercial property, and the Smuggler
Mountain Apartments property was acquired in Pitkin County's name
for the use and benefit of APCHA. The only loose end was the
absence of a Council-adopted amendment to the Municipal Code
which will allow the demolition of the old "Alpine Bank" building
on the 409 East Hopkins property.
On March 19, 1991 the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
approved the necessary amendment to Code section 7-602. On March
27, 1991, the HPC made a finding that all of the standards
required by the proposed Code amendment are met in the case of
the Alpine Bank Building. The only remaining step is adoption of
the necessary ordinance by the city Council at first and second
readings.
I know that the city has every intention of completing the
enactment of this non-controversial legislation as promptly as
possible. I simply wanted to inform you that the buyer of
Laura's property understandably reserved the right to undo the
whole transaction if the Code amendment has not been adopted by
May 31, 1991 in substantially the form approved by P&Z. For this
reason, I would very much appreciate it if you would see that the
first reading takes place next Monday, April 8, 1991, and that
the second reading occurs as soon thereafter as the publication
requirement will allow. Let's not take chances on this one.
If any difficulties arise in connection with this ordinance,
or if significant changes from the P&Z version are proposed,
please get in touch with me right away.
,-,~
,:::;,.
~. ,-,.-,
. ---
'" -,,"
MEi":O:V,NDUK
TO:
t, ~d_1 i~~ ;''''~'l;<'r,'
I?:c[~-'~L~"1J:S- ,:.,::r i"H
FROJ:.1 :
"1 j<~n{,,-:.-
\'-,,,;..
'''l..
;'ld:H";)I;,r, APCHA
THRU:
C fL~'r Y';:~T~ ~' :E::i\',acL~t ~;,"l':5 [d,:,: i'~';::-::i;~:r, .;'.t,,::?C:~'.:.~,
DATE:
~a:rOh Hi, 19~1l
RE:
C JJl\'1";.i;~:-'l:', t (, ," St-1'.H;i,,:,1.::. _! )~-,:1, q ",,; In ,\::)iA:-~:;Tnesnt.$
~:::;;:::.~:,-=~;;.ll,.~""""",w ,'HJN''''';'"""",~
-~',..,- ;:::' ;;", '.~: =:'~';:',';';;';'~.;"':~
'_t,~.::~;;;;;>;~, ::;:~~:::, .:,,::::========lIl:;;:aUg:l;;;:
As -o~;J_:' J.','~ur. ::'P'~!:~:f}f":: p~_-"~_~~e f.i) 5 b.t~ ,~}
Ho',:1,.^, ;iLl'H,,:,-,'i;\' ''',\1'1 s+:t '. '1~+i:,
.. ...-~ ,,-~ =-....-....'.....'.--l _.J__~' y-~,. '-', .
!)ert-!i :.r,\; ':.0 :h'~11 ::"-;J'" '-:}'~'~,' C;.-.J ;j:( ~;;~;.
1.;;\" .i't.t: t: '.or: adopted b~.. the
q t;;, :,r:",:~'h 1.3 i 1991 as it
'.'1' ).lo)':teo.' r: Apartments.
"DirectoJ: kLt.'.:lHn ;:~.;J :r.j;:'~, that .~j;:: ::.;-;'~,-": _;ng JJ.':''-~'}~::lr~ ~-y recommend to
the Cj,ty ,;;,:;, r,:;',.; th" ,,(;,;;':I'it;l-r~C" ,)i' .)~ :".."pe~tYi S,nl,;ggler Mountain
Apar:'t:ments( -;tJj~t'J: :..',1, t<';~'.'m~ t)1':l't'I)r:~5 i:,_# :ncl'cld,~~
..... - ...- - 1';", ~-''''n-'.' _\.t_4",,~!,<,v4j,,;;}"!f~t,'at concerns of the
HOIHlIng E;t)~nl Tltl "..'.'I;':'L:':t."'. d t,-, c.'.'...",-.'..... _h... - ~~
~ ";)(,1 that E ;C".': ", ri"l,c:;:()r r:Jnze make
~f I" .,;CC,il;S and a.nc,::,/.,', 'I ~':H &c<::Elptanoe being
eXp;;"f;,S.J:l {;:mt.! I",h" L,:"'" tj',i.'" _&{;! ._,..-A-l'iCl',~1:I'\. ',,- .......~-~
P?ta~,.t1,,1 '~ell)(1 ';-~::.:: j,~~~t:J~~'I:" F ';;;~;~.i:~~' ~y 'g~~!~~:~e~~~
.'. ..- - -~.
ROllcall V:lte -
CU"~ is -yes
Barnett - yaEl
Roth - yes
Richal'd", - {GIll
Truscott - (8S
True - yes
Motion CarrlQ$ 5-n
~
c
,_.""'..
.....,....
THOMAS FENTON SMITH
ATTORNEY AT LAW
320 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 5
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
/,AR- 8
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 925.5004
TELECOPIER 925-2442
,
March 5, 1991
Reid Haughey
Pitkin County Manager
530 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Carr Kunze
Executive Director
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
39551 Highway 82
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Smuggler Mountain Apartments - Superfund Issues
Dear Carr:
As you know, Laura Donnelly intends to satisfy the employee
housing requirement associated with her application for development
of the 409 E. Hopkins Commercial Project in the city of Aspen, by
the conveyance of Lot 5, Sunny Park Subdivision (" Smuggler Mountain
Apartments") to APCHA or the County.
As you also know, pitkin County is in negotiations with EPA
and the Department of Justice in an attempt to settle out of court
issues relating to Pitkin County's liability for remedial action
and any associated costs for the Smuggler Mountain Superfund site.
I have expressed concern about APCHA acquiring title to the
property, as this would pose the risk of future liability. EPA and
Department of Justice staff have agreed that if the County acquires
the property prior to execution of the Consent Decree, its
acquisition of the Smuggler Mountain Apartments will not subject it
to any additional liability. I have attached herewith a proposed
paragraph of the Consent Decree which addresses this issue. "XVII.
Reimbursement of Response Costs," states that "Defendant (i. e.
Pitkin County) shall not be required to reimburse the united States
for past or future response costs, including response costs
associated with the Molly Gibson Park and Smuggler Mountain
Apartments...." This is the language that is intended to resolve
this issue. However, please note that the Consent Decree is
contingent upon review and acceptance by EPA and Department of
Justice management.
Based upon the representations of EPA and the Department of
Justice staff, I believe that it is appropriate to proceed towards
conveyance of the Smuggler Mountain Apartments property to Pitkin
/'"'
"'-'
.""""'\
.....,,.JI'~
Reid Haughey
Carr Kunze
March 6, 1991
Page 2
County, subject of course to the agreement of all parties regarding
other outstanding issues.
ver~~ours,
Thomas Fenton smith
TFS/dd
cc: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
Aspen city Council
APCHA Board of Directors
Carol O'Dowd, Aspen city Manager
Jed Caswall, city Attorney
Tim Whitsitt, County Attorney
Leslie Lamont, Planner
Art Daily, Esq.
Karen Setterfield
Kunze.30S
r-
'-....
. :IX.
b
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Mayor and Council
Carol O'Dowd, City Manager ~
Amy Margerum, Planning DirectoriWV
Leslie Lamont, Planning l
TO:
THRU:
THRU:
RE:
409 East Hopkins Employee Housing Mitigation
DATE:
tFebruary 25, 1991
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY:
Planning
employee
meeting.
Council directed the applicant, Housing Authority, and
Department to continue working on the 409 East Hopkins
housing proposal reporting back at the February 25
Attorney Tom smith is representing both the County and Housing
Authority (APCHA) in negotiations with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the applicant regarding the potential
purchase of the Smuggler Mountain Apartments for employee housing
mitigation purposes (17.5 employees). As you may recollect, the
EPA indicated verbally that the apartment parcel will be added to
the Smuggler Superfund site.
Attached for your review is the most recent correspondence
between Tom and the EPA. Tom has tried to impress upon the EPA
the urgency of the situation. He has also counseled the County
and APCHA about the premature nature of taking title of property
within the Superfund site prior to resolving the liability issue.
At a special meeting, held by the Housing Authority Board, on
February 20, the Board approved the motion to select a consultant
to report directly to APCHA on the structural/mechanical
inspection of 414 Park Circle (Smuggler Mountain Apartments) to
be funded by the applicant. APCHA shall also pursue the
financial feasibility of ownership of the property (to include
appraisal information provided by applicant). In the interim,
the housing staff will begin collecting financial and residency
data, and rental amounts paid by existing tenants. This
information will also be provided by the applicant.
Friday, February 22 (after this memo was due for Council's
packet) was targeted as a discussion date with the EPA.
Hopefully, some of the liability questions may be resolved.
Both Tom Smith and Carr Kunze will attend the Council meeting and
make a verbal presentation about the status of this important
proposal.
The applicant's representative will also be in attendance and has
been included in the meetings between APCHA, EPA and attorneys.
. ,
I'"
--
/',
THOMAS FENTON SMITH
ATTORNEY AT LAW
320 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 5
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
20
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 925.5004
TELECOPIER 925-2442
\
. 'February 15, 1991
Nancy Mangone, Esq.
Region VIII, U.S. EPA
999 18th Street
suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
John Moscato, Esq.
u.s. Dept. of Justice
Environment and Natural Resources section
10th and Pennsylvania Avenue
Room 7306
Washington, D.C. 205380
RE: smuggler Mountain-Acquisition of Property for Employee
Housing
Dear Nancy and John:
As you know, the hypothetical question which I raised with you
earlier this week, regarding future acquisition by Pitkin County of
property within the Smuggler Mountain Superfund site for employee
housing, has now ripened into a real possibility.
The City of Aspen has received a land use application for a
project known as the 409 E. Hopkins Commercial Project. As you can
see from the attached information, the project location is within
the downtown area of the City of Aspen, and is therefore well
beyond the boundaries of the Superfund site. I have attached a
copy of the land use application form and a certificate of
ownership signed by the property owner.
The memorandum attached hereto from Leslie Lamont to the Aspen
City Council, dated February 11, 1991, explains the applicant's
proposal to acquire and convey the Smuggler Mountain Apartments to
the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority in order to satisfy the
employee housing exaction associated with the land use application.
The Smuggler Mountain Apartments are now located within the
recently expanded site boundaries. Putting aside the question of
the recent expansion of the site boundaries, a matter which also
gives me great concern, there is an obvious issue with the
liability implications under CERCLA if the Housing Authority were
c
/,,\
',,,.,,,;
to acquire this property. Gi ven the fact that the County is
already a PRP and that its Consent Order with you could address
this issue, some consideration has been given to the possibility of
having the property conveyed to Pitkin County instead of APCHA.
This matter is of great urgency to the applicant and the Aspen
City Council, which is scheduled to reconsider this issue at its
meeting on February 25, 1991. Accordingly, I renew my request for
a "read-out" from you regarding how this matter might be treated by
the federal government in a matter satisfactory to the community to
assure the dedication of this property to a much-needed employee
housing use. Please bear in mind that local government would be
acquiring the property for a public purpose and not for profit,
that the property would be dedicated exclusively to low or moderate
income housing, and that the developer has no interest in property
within the site boundaries, but would be acquiring the property for
transfer to local government in connection with development outside
of the Superfund site.
Your timely response to this issue would be greatly
appreciated. Please contact me if you have further questions.
Very truly yours,
~
Thomas Fenton smith
TFS/dd
Enclosures
cc: Carr Kunze
Yvonne Blocker
Leslie Lamont
Arthur Daily, Esq.
Edward M. Caswall, Esq.
Timothy Whitsitt, Esq.
EPA.215
'""
'-'
/'"'.
......,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Carol O'Dowd, City Manager
Amy Margerum, Planning Directora~
Leslie Lamont, Planning
THRU:
THRU:
RE:
409 East Hopkins GMQS Housing Mitigation Proposal
DATE:
February 11, 1991
------------------------------------------------------------~----
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Laura Donnelley, the applicant for the 409 East Hopkins
GMP 1990 commercial competition, has submitted a housing
mitigation proposal for review by staff and acceptance by city
Council. Staff recommends further review of this proposal before
a Resolution is adopted.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At the December 17, 1990 meeting,
Council did not accept the cash-in-lieu proposal for housing
mitigation. Council directed the applicants to attempt to
provide housing and report back to Council in February.
The applicants attended Council's January 24 work session. The
applicant (conceptually) proposed to deed restrict existing units
for 17.5 employees and pay cash-in-lieu for the remaining 2.92
employees. council, although not approving the applicant's
proposal, responded favorably to the effort being made.
BACKGROUND: On February 4, the applicants submitted a more.
detailed housing proposal to the Housing and Planning staffs.
The proposal, as defined by Art Daily of Holland and Hart, is
attached for your review.
Because there are significant policy decisions inherent in this
proposal, staff would like more time to thoroughly evaluate this
proposal for your subsequent review. Therefore, a Resolution has
not been attached for your review.
Although staff has not had an adequate amount of time to study
the plan, there are some issues which staff seeks direction from
Council. Those issues are highlighted below for your
information.
PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to purchase the Smuggler
Mountain Apartments. The purchase price is anticipated to exceed
the cash-in-lieu cost required of the growth management project.
Therefore the applicant's proposal is:
a. the applicants have proposed deed restricting the 409 East
""""
-
"",",
-
Hopkins property to prevent the establishment of any food service
business. Preventing a food service establishment reduces the
overall number of employees to be mitigated from approximately
22.08 to 20.42; and
b. to purchase the building for an estimated total cost of
$929,500; and
c. to transfer the title to the Housing Authority who will deed
restrict the units to low income guidelines; and
d. the apartments will house 17.5 employees leaving a required
mitigation of 2.92 employees which represents a cash-in-lieu
equivalent of $102,200. (at $35,000 per low income employee); and
e. the Housing Authority could condominimize the units with an
estimated gross revenue of $388,167; and
f. the revenue could be applied to payoff the remaining housing
mitigation balance of $102,200 with a cash balance of $285,967
for Housing Authority purposes.
ISSUES: Staff has made a preliminary review of the proposal and
has identified the following issues:
a. the status of the site because of it's proximity to the EPA
Superfund site (Tom Dunlop's initial review indicates that only
the front portion of the parcel is within the Superfund site);
and
b. the Housing Authority's
Smuggler Apartment building
management; and
ability or desire to accept the
for either condominumization or
c. condominiumization (with association fees) may push sale
prices out of the low income employee guidelines; and
d: the cash-in-lieu
mitigation is dependant
therefore deferred.
for the remaining employee housing
upon eventual condominiumization and is
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends tabling approval of a housing
mitigation proposal for 409 East Hopkins. Staff would like to
review the housing proposal in more detail and return to Council
with specific recommendations.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) approve the housing proposal contingent upon
approval by the Housing Authority Board.
2) approve deed restricting the Smuggler Apartment building
thereby mitigating 17.5 employees and require cash-in-lieu for
the remaining employee mitigation of $102,200.
2
.'"
'-'
/"^.-,
~
MOTION: I move to table acceptance of the 409 East Hopkins
housing proposal until staff can thoroughly review the plan and
make specific recommendations to this Council.
Attachment: Applicant's Proposal
3
,......,
-
""'"
-
M);!MQBAI!:~!!:M
TO: Aspen city council
Yvonne Blocker
Leslie Lamont
FROM: Art Daily and
Joe Wells for
Laura Donnelley
RE: 409 East Hopkins - Revised
Affordable Housing Solution
\DATE: February 6, 1991
1. Reauirement: Provide affordable housing for 20.42
employees. The initial requirement of 22.08 employees is being
reduced by 1.66 employees by the recording of a deed restriction
which prohibits the operation of a restaurant on the property.
The restriction can be removed by the payment of the cash-in-lieu
equivalent for 1.66 employees in effect at the time of removal.
2. Cash-in-Lieu Eauivalent: 20.42 x $35,000 per
employee = $714,700. The applicant has offered to pay this sum.
council has stated that standing alone, cash-in-lieu is not an
acceptable housing solution unless no other workable method can
be found.
3. Smuqqler Mountain Apartments: As described in Karen
Setterfield's letter and memo of January 21, 1991, the applicant
has carefully studied all available housing alternatives. The
only property which meets Council's objectives and which may be
financially feasible is the Smuggler Mountain Apartments, a
10-unit building located at 414 Park Circle, City of Aspen, which
is just inside the EPA clean-up site. This property will house
17.50 employees. While negotiations with the owner are not
complete, it is anticipated that the Smuggler Apartments can be
acquired for $900,000 cash. The transfer tax will be $4,500, and
the present estimated cost of upgrading to APCHA standards is
$25,000, for a total cost of $929,500. This sum exceeds the
cash-in-lieu cost of housing all 20.42 employees by $214,800, and
the applicant proposes the following cooperative solution.
4. Applicant Proposal: At the closing of the Smuggler
Apartments acquisition (around April 1, 1991), the applicant will
provide the entire purchase price in cash, and will also pay to
the APCHA the cash amount required to upgrade the property.
Title to the Smuggler Apartments will be deeded directly to the
APCHA, which will in turn deed restrict the 10 units to low
income guidelines. The results of this proposal are as follows:
(a) Current monthly rental revenues are
$7120.00. Under the low income guidelines,
monthly rents will be only $3493.50, a
reduction of 51 percent.
,I"f',
-
.'"
-
(b) smuggler Apartments will house 17.50
employees, leaving a remaining affordable
housing requirement of 2.92 employees. At
$35,000 per employee, the cash-in-lieu cost
of this remainder is $102,200, which will be
received by the city upon condominiumization
of the property by the APCHA.
(c) When the APCHA condominiumizes and sells
the Smuggler units under the low-income sale
guidelines, the potential gross revenues are
as follows: 5545.24 square feet (APCHA
figure) x $70.00 per square foot = $388,167.
These revenues are applied as follows:
(i) Deposit first revenues in Affordable
Housing Fund to retire remaining cash-in-lieu
obligation $102,200
(ii) Cash balance available to APCHA for
employee housing purposes
$285.967
(+ $35,000 = 8.17 extra employees
housed)
(d) The total value created by the applicant
with this employee housing solution is
$929,500 (cash) + 102,200 (deferred
cash-in-lieu) + $285,967 (APCHA's cash
balance) = $1.317.667. This amount exceeds
the original cash-in-lieu obligation by
$602,967.
(e) Note that if the applicant were
permitted to pay $929,500 cash-in-lieu, the
payment would not be due until a building
permit is pulled for 409 East Hopkins. That
date is probably at least a year away. At 10
percent interest, the cost to the applicant
of paying that sum a year in advance is
$92 , 950.
-2-
1""
/....
'v'
-
5. Total out-of-Pocket Exactions Cost for 409 East Hopkins
proiect:
(a) Affordable Housing $929,500
(Smuggler Apartments)
(b) Parking 270,000
(c) Open Space 237,500
(d) Water 5,000
(e) Sewer 3,000
(f) Storm Drainage 5,000
(g) Alley Paving unknown
Total Cost: $1,450,000 + paving
Based upon 9,198 net leasable square feet of space in the
building, these exactions add $157.64 per square foot to the cost
of the project.
6. Conclusion. This is a fair and workable proposal.
Moreover, it represents the very sort of private/public
partnership that is needed to address the community's housing
challenge. The applicant is transferring the entire profit
potential of the Smuggler Apartments to the APCHA, with a maximum
cash windfall of $285,967, in exchange for delayed receipt by the
Affordable Housing Fund of the remaining $102,200 in required
cash-in-lieu. The total value of the proposal is almost double
the cash-in-lieu obligation for 20.42 employees.
The proposal not only achieves the Council's expressed
objective of creating more actual affordable housing (for 17.5
employees), it will eventually provide the cash-in-lieu
equivalent of housing approximately 11 additional employees, for
a total of 28.5 employees. The applicant contributes $214,800
more in cash than the total cash-in-lieu obligation for the
project, and forfeits the benefits of deferring the housing
payment until a building permit issues. We hope you will look
favorably on the proposal.
{6106)
-3-
r
\
...,....
-.
,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Carol O'Dowd, City Manager . ~
Amy Margerum, Planning Director\}~
Leslie Lamont, Planner
1990 Commercial GMP Allocations Resolution ~~
~ecember 17, 1990
THRU:
THRU:
RE:
DATE:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The available 1990 GMP quota for commercial development
is 8,000 net leasable square feet. The Planning and Zoning
commission recommends the allocation of 2,240 net leasable square
feet to the Pitkin County Bank project and 5,760 net leasable
square feet for the 409 East Hopkins project.
Two applications were submitted for review for the 1990
Commercial GMP allocation:
PROJECT
REOUEST
Pitkin county Bank Addition
409 East Hopkins Redevelopment
2,240 net leasable
6,823 net leasable
Pursuant to section
allocate development
shall have met the
Management, System.
8-106 (J), Council shall by resolution
allotments among eligible applicants who
minimum threshold score under the Growth
Although both projects achieved minimum threshold in all review
categories, Pitkin County Bank received the highest score with
31. 48 points. 409 East Hopkins received a score 28.73 points. J"
The 1990 Commercial QUota is 8.000 sQUare feet. 1.063 sQUare feet -)(
short of meetinq the 1990 deve10Dment needs of both Dro;ects. ,I{)
409 East Hopkins is requesting an Excess Development Allotment of
1,063 net leasable square feet. Review of the excess allotment I
request is presented in a separate memo and resolution.
Resolution , from the Planning Commission, is attached
forwarding the-scores to Council. Resolution __ is also attached
for your review allocating the 1990 Commercial GMP Quota.
COUNCIL GOALS: The application supports Council's goals to
encourage growth that will reinforce our sense of community, to
preserve the traditional character of the town, and to develop a
consistent and fair government so that citizens know what to
expect.
r-
"""'\
BACKGROUND: The annual quota for the commercial zone is 8,000
square feet of net.leasable space.
The Planning and Zoning commission scored the applications at a
public hearing November 6, 1990. Both applications exceeded the
minimum threshold. The Commission also reviewed and approved by
special review reductions in parking with a cash-in-lieu payment
and trash/utility service area for Pitkin County Bank. Special
review reductions in the trash/utility service area, the open
space, and the required off-street parking were reviewed and
approved for 409 East Hopkins.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Pitkin Countv Bank- The applicants propose
to construct a 2,240 square foot addition for business purposes.
,f
t
409 East Hopkins - The applicants have applied for 6,823 square
feet of the 1990 quota for the construction of a commercial
building. The applicants propose to redevelop the entire site
replacing 2,375 square feet (pursuant to GMQS Exemption) of the
existing Alpine Bank building for a total net leasable of 9,198
square feet.
PROPOSED MOTION:' I move for adoption of Resolution #__,
allocating 2,240 net leasable square feet of the 1990 Commercial
GMP to the Pitkin County Bank proposal and 5,760 net leasable
square feet to 409 East Hopkins.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Planning and Zoning Resolution #
B. Resolution #
1990.comm.allocation
2
c:::3\--~"'-0 ~ CU~'
C\~
~c\
/'"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
Carol O'Dowd, City Manager ~
Amy Margerum, Planning Director ~~ .
Leslie Lamont, Planner
THRU:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
409 East Hopkins 1990 Commercial GMP, Request for Cash-
In-Lieu and Excess Development AllQtment, Resolutions
#__ and #__,
l December 17, 1990
RE:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY:
allocation
Commercial
The Planning and Zoning commission
of 5,760 net leasable square feet
GMP quota to 409 East Hopkins proposal.
recommends
of the
the
1990
Laura Donnelley, represented by Joe Wells, submitted a commercial
GMP application for the development of a commercial building at
409 East Hopkins.
Pursuant to section 8-106J., Council shall by resolution allocate
developm~nt allotments among eligible applicants who shall have
met the minimum threshold. This proposal met the minimum
threshold for each review category. However this proposal did
not receive the highest number of points, and therefore, will
only be allotted the remaining 1990 allocation which is 5,760
square feet. The project needs 6,823 net leasable square feet.
The applicants are requesting an Excess Development Allotment for
the remaining 1,063 square feet.
The applicant is also proposing
through a cash-in-lieu payment.
Council shall approve of the
mitigation.
to mitigate employee generation
Pursuant to section 8-109 J,
method of employee housing
A resolution is attached for your review regarding the excess
allotment request and another Resolution approving the method of
housing mitigation, provided Council approves both the allotment
and mitigation as proposed.
COUNCIL GOAIS: The application supports Council's goals to
encourage growth that will reinforce our sense of community, to
preserve the traditional character of the town, and to develop a
consistent and fair government so that citizens know what to
expect.
BACKGROUND:
net leasable
requested an
The annual quota for the commercial zone is 8,000
square feet. The 409 East Hopkins application
allocation of 6,823 square feet. Because the
r--
1""'\
Commission awarded Pitkin County Bank a greater score, this
proposal will oniy be allocated 5,760 square feet.
The Commission reviewed an::1 scored the application granting a
score of 28.73 points. The Commission also approved special
review reductions in open space, trash/utility service area and
parking. The applicants have also requested a GMQS Exemption
from the Planning Director for the replacement of 2,375 net
leasable square feet that exists on site. The GMQS Exemption
will be approved at the time of final approval.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: The applicant's propose a cash-in-lieu for
employee housing mitigation. The application committed to
mitigate 60% of the employees generated by the project. A cash-
in-lieu payment would be approximately $772,632. Pursuant to
Section 8-109 J, the Council shall approve the method by which
the applicant proposes to provide affordable housing. Council
shall consider the following factors:
1. Whether the city has an adopted
affordable housing with monies ~eceived
affordable housing dedication fees.
plan to develop
from payment of
RESPONSE: The June 1990 Affordable Housing Production Plan
projects a housing demand for deed restricted units (combining
both public and private responsibility) of 800 units for the six
years from 1990-1995.
2. Whether
applicant's
housing.
RESPONSE: According to the Production Plan, this site has not
been identified for affordable housing however scattered in-town
sites have been the highest priority of the City.
the City has an adopted plan identifying the
site as being appropriate for affordable
3. Whether the applicant's site is well suited for the
development of affordable housing, taking into account the
availability of services, proximity to employment
opportunities and whether the site is affected by
environmental constraints to development or historic
preservation concerns.
RESPONSE: During review of the proposal, the Historic
Preservation Committee discouraged the addition of a third story.
The applicants therefore contend that housing on-site is not a
preferred alternative. However, ,this site is an ideal location
given the proximity to employment opportunities, transit, and
other services.
4. Whether the method proposed will result in employee
housing being produced prior to or at. the time the impacts
2
r
"-'
.,......"
,. ",
of the development will be experienced by the community.
RESPONSE: The method proposed will further the Housing
Authority's efforts to purchase and develop several in-town
sites. The substantial cash-in-lieu offer may facilitate a
better project for those sites that the City and Housing
Authority are currently interested in. For example the Kraut,
Austin, and Hopkins Street sites.
5. Whether the development itself requires the provision of
affordable housing on-site to meet its service needs.
RESPONSE: The development is not seeking a floor area bonus thus
is not required to provide housing on-site. Specific businesses
and their service needs have not been identified.
EXCESS DEVELOPMENT ALLOTMENT: The available commercial quota for
1990 cannot fulfill the 409 East Hopkins proposal. The
appl icants have requested an excess allotment of 1,063 square
feet from the 1991 Commercial GMP, please see attached letter.
The Planning and zoning Commission recommends to Council the
approval of an excess allotment for this project.
At this time the ,available allocation for 1991 is 8,000 square
feet. However if development occurs in the CC .or Cl zone
districts, utilizing the GMQS Exemption process, that additional
square footage will be deducted from the 1991 Commercial Quota.
An excess allotment of 1,063 square feet will reduce the 1991
quota to 6,937 square feet of net leasable.
Council did approve a multi-year allotment for the 1989 Asia GMP
proposal, but the timing of the 1989 GMP process confirmed that
no other projects were competing for the 1990 Office quota.
Pursuant to section 8-103 (B) the Council may authorize
development in excess of the maximum amount of development
allotted for a year established in section 8-103 (A) provided:
1. That the allotment shall not exceed twenty-five percent
of the annual development allotment established in section
8-103 (A) (3).
RESPONSE: The applicant seeks a 1,063 net leasable square foot
allotment from the 1991 Commercial GMP allotment. The request is
13% of the available allotment for 1991. However, if development
in 1991 should occur through the GMQS Exemption process, the 1991
quota will be reduced further. The intent behind an excess
allotment is to enable a project that has slightly exceeded the
available allotment to proceed with development.
2. Any allocation of excess development allotments shall be
3
/""
!"'"'\
off-set by a reduction in successive years so that every
fifth year the total development allotted within the
previous five (5) years shall not be in. excess of the
cumulative total permitted by Section 8-103(A).
RESPONSE: Granting an excess allotment will be deducted from the
1991 Commercial GMP Quota. OVer the past five years there was
46,000 square feet of quota available and 31,661 net leasable
square feet was allocated from 1985 through 1989. However,
41,819 square feet were actually developed through 1985 and 1989.
Thus according to the information, commercial growth has not
exceeded the total allocation for the past five years.
An excess allotment cannot be granted beyond five years to ensure
that a project cannot receive too large an allotment and develop
in a manner that may be out of scale with the community.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST
KEY ISSUES: 1. The P&Z has recommended an Excess Development
Allotment because the scores were close and the quota is only
short by 1,063 square feet.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
the allocation of 5,760 net leasable square feet of the 1990
Commercial GMP quota for 409 East Hopkins. The Commission also
recommends approval of the Excess Development Allotment request.
Staff recommends approval of the cash-in-lieu for employee
housing due to the recommendation of the HPC and the current
efforts to purchase and develop several sites within the downtown
core for housing with the condition that prior to the issuance of
any building permits the payment shall be reviewed and approved
by the Housing Authority and made to the Finance Director.
ALTERNATIVES: 1. The request for an Excess Development
Allotment may be denied.
2. Employee housing shall be provided on-site or the applicant
shall provide a combination of cash-in-lieu, on-site housing or
off-site housing.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move for adoption of Resolution #__
accepting the cash-in-lieu payment for employee mitigation.
I move for adoption of Resolution #_, allocating an Excess
Development Allotment of 1,063 net leasable square feet from the
1991 Commercial GMP to the 409 East Hopkins proposal.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
4
r'
^',
,"",,-'"
."
ATTACHMENTS:
A. November 6, 1990 P&Z Memo
B. Letter Requesting Excess Development Allotment
C. Resolution #
D. Resolution #
E. Resolution 90-21 Granting Special Review
409.cc.allocation
5
r
,.-,
ATTACHMENT A
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Aspen Planning and Zoning commission
Leslie Lamont, Planning
1990 Commercial GMQS, Special Review, and Text
Amendments - 409 Hopkins Street Aspen
TO:
RE:
DATE:
November 6, 1990
=================================================================
SUMMARY: The applicant seeks a 1990 Commercial GMQS allocation
for 6,823 of net leasable square footage. The applicant is also
requesting GMQS Exemption for replacement of commercial square
footage, Special Review for reductions in the trash
service/utility area, the open space and the required off-street
parking. The applicant proposes three text amendments for
demolition of non-historic structures in a Historic District,
waiver of open space payment-in-lieu when HPC review reduces open
space, and elimination of mitigation requirements for commercial
space when demolition and reconstruction is proposed.
APPLICANT: Laura Donnelley
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Joe W~lls
LOCATION: 409 East Hopkins Avenue, North 80 Feet of Lots D and E
and all of F, Block 88
ZONING: Commercial Core (CC), "H" Historic Overlay District
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
referral comments:
The following agencies have submitted
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to develop a new
commercial building on a lot area of 7,753 square feet. The
proposed net leasable is calculated at 9,198 square feet.
Currently the site includes the 2,795 square foot Alpine Bank
r--
',-,
-",..,.,
building and several open space features. The applicant proposes
to donate those features to the city for reinstallation on
another site. The Smuggler Land Office Restaurant's outdoor
patio is also on this property. All these existing conditions
will be replaced by the proposal.
In addition, the applicant proposes cash-in-lieu payments for
employee housing and parking mitigation.
At this point in time staff would like to mention that the'
provision of on-site housing is the desired choice for housing
mitigation. This application does not include on-site housing
primarily due to design and height considerations. But staff
would like to reiterate the need and desire for mixed use
developments within the commercial core.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff will evaluate this application as follows:
GMQS Exemption for reconstruction of an existing building,
special Review for reduction of open space, Special Review for,
reduction in required off-street parking, Special Review for
reduction in trash/utility service area, and .three Text
Amendments. The GMQS scoring is discussed in a separate cover
memo with staff's recommended scoring, for both projects,
attached.
A. GMQS Exemption: section 8-104 enables the Planning Director
to exempt the reconstruction of an existing building which does
not expand commercial or office floor area . . . the applicant
shall demonstrate that affordable housing and parking is provided
for the reconstructed floor area as if it were newly constructed
space.
RESPONSE: Please see the attached Planning Director sign-
off which shall exempt 2,375 square feet of net leasable
from the commercial growth management competition,
attachment B. The Director will sign the GMQS Exemption at
the time of final approval when it is determined that the
housing and parking impacts will be mitigated.
B. special Review- Reduction of Required Open Space: section 7-
404 A.(3) permits the Commission to reduce the required amount of
open space only in the Commercial Core zone district. It shall
be demonstrated that the provision of less than. the required
amount of open space on-site will be more consistent with the
character of surrounding land uses than would be the provision of
open space according to the standard. It may be inappropriate to
have open space on the site when other buildings along the street
front are building to the property line, especially along public
malls, or when the open space is configured in such a manner as
to serve no public purpose.
RESPONSE:
According to the application, 25% of the lot
2
1"""'.
."""
area, or 1,938 square feet, is required as open space.
Approximately 132 square feet of open area is provided along
the side walk but this does not meet the definition of open
space because it is not 10 feet in depth.
HPC requested that the proposed building move forward on the
site so the. architectural elements at either end of the
building are consistent with it's neighbors the Brand and
Collins Block buildings. Both landmark structures on either
corner are built up to the sidewalk.
C. Special Review- Reduction in Off-Street Parking Requirements:
section 7-404 B. enables the reduction of parking in the CC zone
with a payment-in-lieu. Through this review the Commission shall
consider the practical ability of the applicant to place parking
on-site, whether the parking needs of the development have been
adequately met on-site and whether the City has plans for a
parking facility which would better meet the needs of the
development and the community than would location of the parking
on-site.
RESPONSE: Two spaces per 1,000 square feet of net leasable
are required in the CC zone. Because the limited alley
frontage is necessary trash/service access, on-site parking
cannot be provided. This parcel is conveniently located two
blocks from the parking garage, one block from a RFTA bus
route and three blocks from Rubey Park Transit Center should
offset any parking needs generated by the development of the
site.
D. Special Review- Reduction in Trash and utility Access
Requirements: Section 7-404 C. enables an applicant to propose a
reduction in the dimension of the trash/service area if:
1. There is a demonstration that given the nature of the
potential uses of the building and its total square footage,
the utility/trash service area proposed to be provided will
be adequate.
RESPONSE: The required service area for a building of 9,198 net
leasable is 230 square feet (23 feet long and 10 feet deep). The
proposed area is 30 feet long and 20 feet deep or 600 square feet
but an existing transformer reduces the alley 'frontage to 20
feet, three feet less than required.
2. Access to the utility/trash service area is adequate.
RESPONSE: This alley has been very problematic because of the
lack of adequate trash storage areas. Construction of this large
trash/service area combined with the storage area to be built on
the Lane parcel will improve the current conditions of the alley.
3
-.
~.
\......"....
'.. --"
3 . Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making
them easily movable by trash personnel.
RESPONSE: According to the application, the area will be
protected from weather by a roof overhang and elevated to
minimize ice buildup. At least five containers can be provided
directly off of the alley out of the right of way.
4. When appropriate, prov1s10ns for trash compaction are
provided by the proposed development and measures are taken
to encourage trash compaction by other developments on the
block.
RESPONSE: A compactor system is only feasible if all the owners
of the block participate in the cost of a system. A compactor
system is not anticipated due to the adequate size of the service
area.
5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is
adequate and safe for the placement of utilities.
RESPONSE: According to the application, a portion of the area
will be set aside for the provision of transformers and other
utility equipment of the building.
6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the
construction of the access area.
RESPONSE: An adequate trash service area shall be indicated on
the final plans and shall be a condition of receiving a building
permit and final Certificate of occupancy.
E. Text Amendment: The applicant proposes three text amendments:
1. Amendment reaardina demolition of non-historic structures in
an Historic district. Currently the code prohibits the
demolition, without HPC review, of any structurally sound
structure regardless of historic significance. Although the HPC
has agreed that the existing building is non-significant, the
building does not meet the criteria for demolition thus the
applicant proposes to delete the phrase "or any structure within
an "H" Historic Overlay District" from' each of the first three
paragraphs of Section 7-602. The language would then read as
follows:
A. General. No demolition of any structure included in
the Inventory of Historic sites and Structures of the
city of Aspen, established pursuant to Sec. 7-709, er
aftY-~~fllet.tlre- w i bhti1--a,ft-"H"-*!:flt:O~.e-~ er laY'"-9i-e-~~i:e~
shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by
the HPC because it meets the standards of Sec. 7-
602 (B) .
4
I""'
!"""\
No partipl demolition and removal of a portion of any
Historic Landmark ep-~-~-~~~~-~~--uHu7
Hi-!t'eepi:e-~-B-i;!l~ri~ shall be permitted unless
approved, by the HPC as necessary for the renovation of
the structure, and because it meets the standards of
Sec. 7-602 (C), or unless the partial demolition and
removal is exempt because it creates no change to the
exterior of the structure and has no impact on the
character of the structure.
No relocation of any structure included in the
Inventory of Historic sites and structures of the City
of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 7-709, ep-&~y
l!t~Pl:te~1:tpe---.r~i:ft.--en--.J1HU--H-i;!l~eri.e--ever:i:aY--9i-!t~pi:e1::;
shall be permitted unless the relocation is approved by
the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602
(D) (1) through (4).
2. Amendment to allow waiver of open space pavment-in-lieu fees
upon approval bv HPC. Special Review requirements enable a
reduction of open space within the CC zone district with the
provision of a payment-in-lieu. Special Review also enables the
waiver of open space fees when the HPC approves the on-site
relocation of a Historic landmark into required open space.
The applicant proposes to amend the portion ,of the Code in
Section 7-404 A.(3) to enable a waiver of fees when the HPC, in
order to assure compatibility with the Historic District and
Historic Landmark Development Guidelines, approves the relocation
or siting of a proposed structure within required open space.
The proposed language (in.bold) is as follows:
"When, in order to assure compatibility with the Historic
District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines, the HPC
approves the on-site relocation of an Historic Landmark or the
siting of a proposed structure within required open space, such
that the amount of open space on-site is reduced below that
required by this Code, the requirements of this section shall be
waived."
3. Amendment to eliminate mitiqation requirements for
replacement of demolished commercial or office floor area.
Pursuant to section 8-104 A.l.(al (1) the Planning Director shall
exempt the reconstruction of existing buildings.from the growth
management competition. The Code however, stipulates that
reconstruction of commercial or office floor area must be
combined with mitigation of affordable housing and parking as if
it were newly constructed space. The existing building contains
2,375 square feet of net leasable that, although the applicant
does not have to compete for, the applicant shall mitigate
5
r"
.........
.""""\
,-,,'
housing and parking impacts. The applicant proposes to amend
section 8-104 A.1.(a)(1) to delete the mitigation language. The
amendment is as follows:
1. General. Development which the Planning Director shall
exempt shall be as follows:
a. Remodelinq. restoration. or reconstruction of existinq
buildinq.
(1) The remodeling, restoration or reconstruction of
an existing commercial lodge or multi-family building which
does not expand commercial or office floor area or create
additional dwelling, hotel or lodge units or involve a
change of use. No bandit unit shall be remodeled, restored
or reconstructed unless it has first been legalized pursuant
to section 5-510. ~--e~~aift--e~~~e~--~~-~~
lie_~Mtfted,-~"fB--er-~~-of~~-ft'_i"-"bhe--app~:i:e1tI'l:~
l!th1t~~--demo!~-~fta~- aft M'da-blc -ft_\S-i!\~-""itftd---pM'k.i:f~-~
ppey.~-~-~fte- J:e~-of~~-ft'ree:-_-i-r---i~-~l'e
1'I:eW~)' -ee-Mt~:l"I:te~-l!tpl!tee7"
4. The review criteria for a text amendment are as follows:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
generation and road saf~ty.
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.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the city of
Aspen.
6
I""""
,-,
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting
the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood
which support the proposed amendment.
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.
4a. RESPONSE for Demolition of Non-Historic Structures: staff
and the HPC are recommending an amendment to section 7-602 of the
demolition provisions to allow the HPC the ability to determine a
structure "non-significant" and therefore exempt from meeting the
demolition review standards.' "Non-significant" would onlv apply
to 1) a structure not already identified on the Inventory, or
2) a structure not determined to be architecturally significant,
or 3) that the structure's removal from the district would not
constitute a negative effect in the overall character of the
district. The amended language still requires an application and
HPC approval for demolition, however, the "non-significant"
structure would not have to meet the Standards for Demolition
Review. The HPC anticipates the application of this "non-
significant" provision to apply on an infrequent basis. The HPC
has already determined that the building to be demolished in this
redevelopment proposal meets the "non-significant" criteria.
The amendment proposed by the applicant extends demolition
exemption beyond what can be supported by the HPC and staff.
4b. RESPONSE for Waiver of Open Space Payment-in-Lieu: It would
appear that this amendment is an attempt to develop a more
consistent review process with the guidelines used by the
Historic Preservation Committee. The HPC has found, given
particular street front characteristics and/or existing
development, that the requirement of open space for some parcels
is inappropriate. At times ,the HPC may recommend a reduction in
open space to preserve the Historic character of the District.
In the Historic Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan it
is argued that a 25% ~equired open space in the commercial core
zone district discourages retaining the storefront
characteristic. It was suggested that the open space requirement
be deleted, reductions of required open space be subject to
Special Review, or allow for a payment-in-lieu. The Code allows
Special Review with a payment-in-lieu.
There is an inherent conflict in' the attempt to protect and
restore the Historic context of the downtown and the provision of
a payment-in-lieu. The payment-in-lieu, however, is an important
resource. The payment-in-lieu is earmarked for a separate
interest bearing account and 'the monies are to be used solely for
the purchase or development of land for open space, pedestrian or
7
c
/"""""'"
""'_ 4'
recreational activities proposed within or
commercial Core zone district. For example the
of Bass Park would be a very appropriate use of
adjacent to the
ultimate purchase
this money.
staff has in the past questioned the 25% open space requirement
in the CC zone district. staff also recognize~ the conflicting
nature of Historic District Guidelines and the Special Review
requirements. The P&Z may consider an alternative such as not
tieing a payment-in-lieu to the reduction in open space for site
design considerations. Instead, the Commission could require
every development or redevelopment within the commercial core to
pay an open space fee into a discrete fund dedicated for open
space amenities within and adjacent to the downtown. In that
manner a fund would be maintained but appropriate site design
would not be compromised.
4c. RESPONSE for amendment to Eliminate Mitigation Requirements
for Rep1acement of Demolished Commercial or Office Floor Area:
The amendment is in direct conflict with all the mitigation
requirements of the Land Use Code. In 1988, during the Aspen
Land Use revision work, staff proposed increasing the mitigation
requirements for commercial and lodge projects to 100%. A 1988
memo indicated that the threshold had not been reviewed for three
years. Eventually a 60% housing mitigation requirement was
adopted with the provision that existing commercial structures
that are demolished must mitigate employee and parking impacts
that were not originally mitigated.
This Department and review bodies have recently completed a
process that attempted to offset those impacts generated by the
replacement of one use with a more intensive use. Traditionally
the Code did not require mitigation for replacement and
reconstruction. The Housing Replacement Program is a result of
this interest.
In addition, staff is concerned that if existing buildings within
the commercial core do not ultimately mitigate employee and
parking impacts after redevelopment, the smaller (generally
locally serving) structures would become desirable replacement
ventures when combined with GMP allocated floor area if only the
new increased floor area was mitigated.
This Code Amendment proposes a drastic alteration in the GMP
process and staff is not prepared to support this. Further, a
thorough review and analysis of the ~rowth Management System is
an integral part of the Comprehensive Planning process that this
Department has just initiated. However, the P&Z may like to
consider a reduction or elimination of mitigation requirements
when that specific space is deed restricted to local serving or
owned businesses or offices. The new increased space would
remain free market. Council has asked staff to begin considering
ways to preserve locally oriented business and services. Staff
8
r~'
'""""
would be willing to work with the applicant on this approach if
the Planning Commission is interested.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the GMQS Exemption
for reconstruction of an existing building, Special Review for
reduction in required off-street parking, Special Review for
reduction in trash/utility service area, and Special Review for
payment-in-lieu of open space.
,Staff recommends denial of the three Text Amendments. Because
the applicant's entire application is dependent upon at least two
of the text amendments the application would have to be
significantly altered.
If the Planning and Zoning Commission approves this GMP
submission staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall pay a parking fee to the Finance Department. The amount of
the fee will depend upon the final outcome of proposed text
amendment.
2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall pay a Housing Impact fee subject to low income guidelines
and approval by the Housing Authority payable to the Finance
Department. The amount of the fee will depend upon the final
outcome of proposed text amendment.
3. Prior to the issuance of
shall pay an open space fee.
final outcome of the proposed
any building permits the applicant
The amount shall depend upon the
text amendment.
4. Prior to the allocation of net leasable square footage by the
city Council, the applicant shall clarify with the Housing
Authority the employee generation number to be used for this
application.
5. The Engineering Department has no record of a transformer
easement on this parcel. A transformer easement shall be filed
with the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any
building permits.
6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits an adequate
trash service area shall be indicated on the final plans and the
applicant shall supply a letter from BFI, to the Engineering
Department, which supports the reduction in the trash/utility
area.
7. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of Occupancy the
trash/service area shall be inspected and certified, by the
Engineering Department, in compliance with the proposal.
9
c
"'"'"
......,""'"
8. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant
shall review with the Building and Environmental Health
Departments, energy efficiency systems that will improve energy oonseJ:Vation.
10
"......
r,
ATTACHMENT B
Joseph Wells
!.
Joseph Wells, AlCP
Land Planning and Design
,
,
L~~"~ ./
v./ i.: ..l/V!.r;3(...j!'
i ..
\
i
..,---.) / /:C?0"i
~'..-;I .. {.'IV
,
, ,
,/.
<' &iY i-tX/IO
/1-/ / {/ / -l ,.- {-,I
I . /_" 1'.--;1' / L:!-.11.J- ri7 <--rk-1f...'I, ,.-, HI A ' .4- A_
___;--l/1 J1t-,' I:ut) . <,Co ~l );:' (/ i Vj / [) ,vv ,v~,-c<v"V'- --J-- I-A-V Y I
J~ a-11./ , .. '1 I- (it:":), Iv~L.( / l)l/~, -~-~"-1 t{;';. ~k;--
<-:- /?J1A,/i, ..h ,-;//', /dJ IJrJ ,/.....J 7?"",'1~,//,,,
/1} C-f'rv' Jt1 di$ //If?t1;/ vv>--' t/vv'l\ r~!/l/r.l{...-v2-
J/' '/(45;"- /1 <)I' / 'i J. ' .' / .,..__1
/IIL C;~7 ?-7df! /flflUlM 7<~!~t Ck k~-. /!u .' "jU(/
- .. ," . '/., I 110 - /! " 7 . --
- .1,/-('';- /-f !).al it"'./ j(/,;::/ ;-e.: /i:4t/;Z/",~i i?i1
I .:.- _C v vw-' f 1/ 'i.' i C- . "
r,'/ _I, j . --// (' ,/ _' .;{'. / .,.;~
'-(:;>\?y;( a;' [0,/'/1rJ.tl.. ' JY .'Ii.L/ ./(//c/,r //--7 (/f }/lL-1{' ,71 ~::<./
./ -.....,,>>;, -~'""'..., I _;1 .i l I#" , v, '. "__,J I .
-'--'" ,',/ __.,_.,-. _. . ",- ~ ,,' l--.-<;., I....", -: 7!~ / ,. . !,~. /./--
C.;I-:Ju:....-' j LJtJ /If /~ fat / J jj,;Jt.(, t' (L ,z. .u--t-/ / li!.J /
,:'1 1,/ ,. l,- -:' /:
.. ('?' '-,'I .' tZ,.", '-. /'11 /,.-"J/ U / r;
i,(-jf ..,'iV ' ;7t1iL!V{..t'U!,{?t(~J,'J/J \"/'7: . -' - '~'I,-f/l "C4A?.--f7.
-,.' I . ,,,- /' 0,' 7 I ~ ...1./ J' / / / .-' >"1<.-( -.J ,.,-",(/,,~ J
(j//" l /)Z~j ttttjh,hJiilf:.r: I~~ {z'.j~. ;.~. //
I /~, ,I I I ~ '1 I --:7 Li
. jJ / I; . 1# ~ 'I // '/ fl' 'I r'h/~-T:-
/J-~L a/r~. i7ll~'~ . /~/ /(J. u~ C-!it.aaj {~~:
, // /: /.1 ' /
]':i\..- tpe $~ vilA I ' re~ II Ii< ;f; 1t.pUc4 /'(J
~ (kuf dJ1 t4/~. /
,
,.!
fCf~l,r--(/)
" (('i' It.---- ,/
i
c;/((
130 \Iidland Park Place, Numher F2
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone (303) 925,8080
facsimile (:Hl.1) 91S-STS
'"
.......,
.-
Joseph Wells
Joseph Wells, AICP
Land Planning and Design
December 14, 1990
,
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning office
l30 South Galena
Aspen CO 81611
Re: 409 East Hopkins
Dear Leslie:
I am writing to you regarding the open space payment-in-lieu
requirement for the 409 East Hopkins project. As you know,
we have tabled discussion of the code amendments which we
submitted with our application, including a request to
eliminate the open space payment-in-lieu when HPC requires
that a'building be located within required open space.
While we still intend to come back to those issues at a
later date, nonetheless I need to tie down the open space.
payment-in-lieu which will be required if the Code is not
amended. Therefore I am submitting an appraisal of the
property prepared by Aspen Appraisal Group which establishes
the value of the property with improvements at $1,750,000
(pg 13) and which also places a value of $800,000 on the
existing improvements (pg 9).
Under the provisions of ~7-404(A) (3) the payment-in-lieu for
open space shall be based on the following formula:
"Appraised value of the unimproved land, multiplied by
the percentage of the site required to be open space
which is to be developed."
Deducting the existing surface easement from lot area, the
net square footage of the lot is 7753 sq. ft. and the open
space requirement is 1938 sq. ft. of land. We therefore
calculate the open space payment-in-lieu at $237,500, using
a net value for the unimproved land of $950,000 and a
payment requirement of 25%.
110 ~1idJand Park Place, \lllllber f2
.~spen, Colorado HJ611
Telephone (.\03) 915,HOHO
Facsimile (.\03) 925,Hl;5
.-
.~
Ms. Leslie Lamont
December 14, 1990
Page Two
You will note that this is considerably lower than the
figure that I used in my application. I'm sure you will
also recall that I had very little time to prepare the
application and since I did not have the opportunity to
consult with an appraiser or research the issue further, the
figure I used for discussion purposes has proven to be
inaccurate. I was not aware of the appraisal at the time.
This appraisal is proprietary information prepared for the
owner; I would like to request that it not be widely
distributed, particularly to the general public, if
possible.
Let me know when you're ready to discuss this. We would
like to resolve a cost with you as soon as possible, so that
we can decide how to proceed.
Wells, AICP
JW/b
1""'.
"-"
/~
'-"
Joseph Wells
Joseph Wells, AICP
Land Planning and Design
\,
, December 13, 1990
Aspen City Council
Attn: Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen / Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 409 East Hopkins
To the members of the City Council:
On behalf of Laura Donnelley, the applicant for a commercial GMQS allotment for the
409 East Hopkins project, my letter is to request that City Council award a quota
under this year's allocation procedure sufficient to complete this project as proposed.
On September 15, we filed an application requesting approval of a project of 9,198
square feet of net leaseable space, including 2,375 square feet of replacement square
footage and 6,823 square feet of new space requiring an allocation. A second applicant,
Pitkin County Bank, requested an allocation of 2,240 square feet for an expansion of
office space. The total quota requested in this year's competition is therefore 9,063
square feet.
At the P&Z scoring in November, Pitkin County Bank was awarded an average score
of 31.1 points and 409 East Hopkins was awarded 28.7 points. Because of the
closeness of the scoring of the two projects, P&Z recommended that City Council
award an excess allocation of 1,063 square feet to the 409 East Hopkins project.
During the hearing, some P&Z members expressed concern about the absence of
conforming open space in front of the building proposed for 409 East Hopkins. When it
was made clear that the building is in the location preferred by HPC, most of the
members appeared to be satisfied with the proposal and awarded total scores in the
range of 29.3 to 31.4 points. One member was apparently not satisfied with HPC's
decision, however, and awarded the project a score of only 22.5 points. It may be
worth noting for illustration purposes that if the average score could be calculated
without the one unusually low score, the 409 East Hopkins project's average score
would be 30.3 points, within 0.8 points of the other application.
Having completed a review of Council's prior actions regarding commercial allocations
as well as the relevant regulations, we believe that the award of the quota requested
can be accomplished in one of two ways - the first option is to award 1,063 square feet
from the 1989 allocation to the project; the second option is to award an excess
allocation for the same amount of square footage. These options are discussed below:
130 Midland Park Place, Numher F2
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone (303) 925.8080
Facsimile (303) 925-8275
"""
......,
,.,.,""
'-"
page two
1. The 1989 Allocation
Under Resolution No. 35 Series of 1989, City Council extended the filing deadlines
for the 1989 Commercial competition from September 15, 1989 to June 1, 1990, in
order to continue their consideration of certain code amendments.Under Ordinance
No.7 Series of 1989, City Council then adopted amendments which included a
reduction of the CC/Cl commercial quota from 10,000 square feet to 8,000 square
feet annually.
Buildout exempt from GMQS reduced the quota subsequently available in the 1989
competition to the minimum of 2,400 square feet; however, no applications were
filed on June 1, 1990 for the available allocation. Moreover, there is no record that
City Council took action to eliminate this available quota, as it has in past years.
Therefore, we believe that it is not necessary for the City Council to award an
excess allocation from future years because of the availability of an additional 2,400
square feet of quota from the 1989 allocation.
2. Excess Allotment
A quota of 8,000 square feet is available for the 1990 competition. Under the
provisions of Sec. 8-103(b) of the City's Land Use Code, an excess allotment of up
to 25% of the annual development allotment (or 2,000 square feet) may be
awarded by the City Council provided that the excess allocation is deducted
proportionately from the next five years. In this case, the award allocation would
require an annual adjustment of only 213 square feet in available quota over the
next five years.
In the last five years, City Council has allocated only 19,501 square feet of the 39,813
square feet (or 49%) of the available quota for allocation:
Available Allocated
1989 3,000 0
1988 10,000 1,571
1987 3,000 1,033
1986 14,813 13,204
1985 9,000 3,693
39,813 sq.ft. 19,501 sq ft.
In addition, in 1986, 1987 and 1988 City council has taken formal action to eliminate
11,805 square feet of available quota rather than carry it over for possible award in
future years.
/"\
.",
'-"
'-"
page three
Because there has been very little competition for an allocation in recent years and
because City Council has taken action in recent years to dramatically reduce the
available quota, the award of the full allocation requested for the 409 East Hopkins
project does not in any way jeopardize the established growth rate. In light of this, we
do not believe any useful purpose would be served by withholding the award of the
additional 1,063 square feet requested thereby forcing the applicant to refile on
September 15 of next year for this small amount of additional square footage.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
(-~
'.
?~
Joseph Wells, AICP
JW/ch
,.....,
.'-"".
Joseph Wells
1\ll}! - 6
Joseph Wells, AICP
Land Planning and Design
i ,November 6, 1990
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen CO 81611
Dear Leslie:
As a follow-up to our discussion last night, my letter is to
request that P&Z's discussion of the three code amendments
included in the application for the 409 East Hopkins project
be tabled, in order to provide more time to work on the
proposed language with Staff.
Staff appears to acknowledge in the recommendations that
there are inconsistencies in the present code language with
regard to at least two of the three areas addressed by our
proposed amendments, but apparently because you incorrectly
assumed that our GMQS application was dependent upon the
adoption of the proposed code amendments as written, you
recommended denial of those Code amendments, with no
opportunity to discuss possible revisions to the language.
As Chuck Brandt of Holland & Hart clarified in his November
5, 1990 letter to Amy Margerum, the GMQS Application for 409
East Hopkins is not in fact "dependent upon at least two of
the text amendments" as stated on page 9 of the Planning
Office's recommendation. We believe we clearly stated our
intent in filing the rezoning requests on page 6 of our
consolidated application:
"The Code amendments are therefore intended to prompt a
discussion about whether the present rules need to be
revised to be more equitable."
You may recall that soon after I filed the application for
the 409 East Hopkins project, I suggested that once you
began your review that we discuss the various aspects of the
application. Had that meeting occurred, we believe that
some of the incorrect assumptions made by Staff about our
application could have been avoided.
130 Midland Park Place, Number F2
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Telephone (303) 925,8080
Facsimile (303) 925,8275
~..-",-~~~----,-~,-
"..,
^
........
Ms. Leslie Lamont
November 6, 1990
Page Two
We believe that some of the alternatives raised by staff
with regard to the code amendments have merit and deserve
further discussion; we look forward to having an opportunity
to do so in the near future.
s.i!'\~erely,
-'.- ,
-?L/f:it"--....
Joseph Wells, AICP
!.
JW/b
y,,\
"
./
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE:
1990 Commercial GMQS, Special Review, and Text
Amendments - 409 Hopkins Street Aspen
DATE:
November 6, 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicant seeks a 1990 Commercial GMQS allocation
for 6,823 of net leasable square footage. The applicant is also
requesting GMQS Exemption for replacement of commercial square
footage, Special Review for reductions in the trash
service/utility area, the open space and the required off-street
parking. The applicant proposes three text amendments for
demolition of non-historic structures in a Historic District,
waiver of open space payment-in-lieu when HPC review reduces open
space, and elimination of mitigation requirements for commercial
space when demolition and reconstruction is proposed.
APPLICANT: Laura Donnelley
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells
LOCATION: 409 East Hopkins Avenue, North 80 Feet of Lots D and E
and all of F, Block 88
ZONING: Commercial Core (CC), "H" Historic Overlay District
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
referral comments:
The following agencies have submitted
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Aspen/pitkin Housing Authority
Engineering Department
Environmental Health Department
Fire Marshal
Parks Department
Roaring Fork Energy Center
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas
Please see attached comments from referral agencies, attachment
A.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to develop a new
commercial building on a lot area of 7,753 square feet. The
proposed net leasable is calculated at 9,198 square feet.
Currently the site includes the 2,795 square foot Alpine Bank
;.;-,
.c",
building and several open space features. The applicant proposes
to donate those features to the City for reinstallation on
another site. The Smuggler Land Office Restaurant's outdoor
patio is also on this property. All these existing conditions
will be replaced by the proposal.
In addition, the applicant proposes cash-in-lieu payments for
employee housing and parking mitigation.
At this point in time staff would like to mention that the
provision of on-site housing is the desired choice for housing
mitigation. This application does not include on-site housing
primarily due to design and height considerations. But staff
would like to reiterate the need and desire for mixed use
developments within the commercial core.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff will evaluate this application as follows:
GMQS Exemption for reconstruction of an existing building,
Special Review for reduction of open space, Special Review for.
reduction in required off-street parking, Special Review for
reduction in trash/utility service area, and three Text
Amendments. The GMQS scoring is discussed in a separate cover
memo with staff's recommended scoring, for both projects,
attached.
A. GMQS Exemption: section 8-104 enables the Planning Director
to exempt the reconstruction of an existing building which does
not expand commercial or office floor area. . the applicant
shall demonstrate that affordable housing and parking is provided
for the reconstructed floor area as if it were newly c~nstructed
space.
RESPONSE: Please see the attached Planning Director sign-
off which shall exempt 2,375 square feet of net leasable
from the commercial growth management competition,
attachment B. The Director will sign the GMQS Exemption at
the time of final approval when it. is determined that the
housing and parking impacts will be mitigated.
B. special Review- Reduction of Required Open Space: Section 7-
404 A.(3) permits the Commission to reduce the required amount of
open space only in the Commercial Core zone district. It shall
be demonstrated that the provision of less than the required
amount of open space on-site will be more consistent with the
character of surrounding land uses than would be the provision of
open space according to the standard. It may be inappropriate to
have open space on the site when other buildings along the street
front are building to the property line, especially along public
malls, or when the open space is configured in such a manner as
to serve no public purpose.
RESPONSE:
According to the application, 25% of the lot
2
,. "
',- ./
area, or 1,938 square feet, is required as open space.
Approximately 132 square feet of open area is provided along
the side walk but this does not meet the definition of open
space because it is not 10 feet in depth.
HPC requested that the proposed building move forward on the
site so the architectural. elements at either end of the
building are consistent with it's neighbors the Brand and
Collins Block buildings. Both landmark structures on either
corner are built up to the sidewalk.
C. Special Review- Reduction in Off-Street Parking Requirements:
section 7-40.4 B. enables the reduction of parking in the CC zone
with a payment-in-lieu. Through this review the Commission shall
consider the practical ability of the applicant to place parking
on-site, whether the parking needs of the development have been
adequately met on-site and whether the City has plans for a
parking facility which would better meet the needs of the
development and the community than would location of the parking
on-site. .
RESPONSE: Two spaces per 1,000 square feet of net leasable
are required in the CC zone. Because the limited alley
frontage is necessary trash/service access, on-site parking
cannot be provided. This parcel is conveniently located two
blocks from the parking garage, one biock from a RFTA bus
route and three blocks from Rubey Park Transit Center should
offset any parking needs generated by the development of the
site.
D. Special Review- Reduction in Trash and utility Access
Requirements: section 7-404 C. enables an applicant to propose a
reduction in the dimension of the trash/service area if:
1. There is a demonstration that given the nature of the
potential uses of the building and its total square footage,
the utility/trash service area proposed to be provided will
be adequate.
RESPONSE: The required service area for a building of 9,198 net
leasable is 230 square feet (23 feet long and 10 feet deep). The
proposed area is 30 feet long and 20 feet deep or 600 square feet
but an existing transformer reduces the alley frontage to 20
feet, three feet less than required.
2. Access to the utility/trash service area is adequate.
RESPONSE: This alley has been very problematic because of the
lack of adequate trash storage areas. Construction of this large
trash/service area combined with the storage area to be built on
the Lane parcel will improve the current conditions of the alley.
3
/" '""
f- '"
3 . Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making
them easily movable by trash personnel.
RESPONSE: According to the application, the area will be
protected from weather by a roof overhang and elevated to
minimize ice buildup. At least five containers can be provided
directly off of the alley out of the right of way.
4. When appropriate, prOV1S1ons for trash compaction are
provided by the proposed development and measures are taken
to encourage trash compaction-by other developments on the
block.
RESPONSE: A compactor system is only feasible if all the owners
of the block participate in the cost of a system. A compactor
system is not anticipated due to the adequate size of the service
area.
5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is
adequate and safe for the placement of utilities.
RESPONSE: According to the application, a portion of the area
will be set aside for the provision of transformers and other
utility equipment of the building.
6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the
construction of the access area.
RESPONSE: An adequate trash service area shall be indicated on
the final plans and shall be a condition of receiving a building
permit and final certificate of occupancy.
E. Text Amendment: The applicant proposes three text amendments:
1. Amendment reqardinq demolition of non-historic structures in
an Historic district. Currently the code prohibits the
demolition, without HPC review, of any structurally sound
structure regardless of historic significance. Although the HPC
has agreed that the existing building is non-significant, the
building does not meet the criteria for demolition thus the
applicant proposes to delete the phrase "or any structure within
an "H" Historic Overlay District" from each of the first three
paragraphs of section 7-602. The language would then read as
follows:
A. General. No demolition of any structure included in
the Inventory of Historic sites and Structures of the
city of Aspen, established pursuant to Sec. 7-709, e~
aftY--3~flle~'tl~e-;r:Hlh-ifl--~ft-"H"-*.i-st-eri.-e-~}ay--e~i:-Z".ke~
shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by
the HPC because it meets the standards of Sec. 7-
602(B).
4
;J!'" .,
"
/
No partial demolition and removal of a portion of any
Historic Landmark eZ"-~-~-~~~~-~~--uHu7
H~-eeZ".ke-~-ey--fr.i.-3~~4.e~ shall be permitted unless
approved by the HPC as necessary for the renovation of
the structure, and because it meets the standards of
Sec. 7-602 (C), or unless the partial demolition and
removal is exempt because it creates no change to the
exterior of the structure and has no impact on the
character of the structure.
No relocation of any structure included in the
Inventory of Historic sites and Structures of the city
of Aspen, established pursuant to section 7-709, eZ"-~fty
a"~Z"=~1:tZ"e-....,.:H:ft.ift--ftn--..1lif>>--H4.-3~=4.e--ever:!:ay--eioa"~Z".ke~
shall be permitted unless the relocation is approved by
the HPC because it meets the standards of section 7-602
(D) (1) through (4).
2. Amendment to allow waiver of open space pavrnent-in-lieu fees
upon approval bv HPC. Special Review requirements enable a
reduction of open space within the CC zone district with the
provision of a payment-in-lieu. Special Review also enables the
waiver of open space fees when the HPC approves the on-site
relocation of a Historic landmark into required open space.
The applicant proposes to amend the portion of the Code in
section 7-404 A.(3) to enable a waiver of fees when the HPC, in
order to assure compatibility with the Historic District and
Historic Landmark Development Guidelines, approves the relocation
or siting of a proposed structure within required open space.
The proposed language (in bold) is as follows:
"When, in order to assure compatibility with the Historic
District and Historic Landmark Development Guidelines, the HPC
approves the on-site relocation of an Historic Landmark or the
siting of a proposed structure within required open space, such
that the amount of Open space on-site is reduced below that
required by this Code, the requirements of this section shall be
waived."
3. Amendment to eliminate mitiqation requirements for
replacement of demolished commercial or office floor area.
Pursuant to section 8-104 A.1.(a) (1) the Planning Director shall
exempt the reconstruction of existing buildings from the growth
management competition. The Code however, stipulates that
reconstruction of commercial or office floor area must be
combined with mitigation of affordable housing and parking as if
it were newly constructed space. The existing building contains
2,375 square feet of net leasable that, although the applicant
does not have to compete for, the applicant shall mitigate
5
".,
....,
housing and parking impacts. The applicant proposes to amend
Section 8-104 A.1.(a) (1) to delete the mitigation language. The
amendment is as follows:
1. General. Development which the Planning Director shall
exempt shall be as follows:
a. Remodelinq. restoration. or reconstruction of existinq
buildinq.
(1) The remodeling, restoration or reconstruction of
an existing commercial lodge or multi-family building which
does not expand commercial or office floor area or create
additional dwelling, hotel or lodge units or involve a
change of use. No bandit unit shall be remodeled, restored
or reconstructed unless it has first been legalized pursuant
to section 5-510. ~--eh~a~~--~~~~~--~~~
de_l:-io&fteel:-~:fri--e~-~~-:i:ce--'He=--a-Z"er-~+te--~ppl:-.ke~ft~
a"ft~l:-l:--~~-e--~fta~-~J:e--fl.e'tl-34.~~---aft<!lo-~'i:fl~-io:!l
pZ"evi-eleel:--f-ci:'--~fte-~--!'~ e=--a-l'ei:t'-_-io~--i:~--weZ"e
fte'ifl:-y-eefta"~Z"=~-&pCl:ee7'
4. The review criteria for a text amendment are as follows:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
generation and road safety. -
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.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the
natural environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the city of
Aspen.
6
'.
."
". "
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting
the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood
which support the proposed amendment.
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.
4a. RESPONSE for Demolition of Non-Historic Structures: Staff
and the HPC are recommending an amendment to section 7-602 of the
demolition provisions to allow the HPC the ability to determine a
structure "non-significant" and therefore exempt from meeting the
demolition review standards. "Non-significant" would onlv apply
to 1) a structure not already identified on the Inventory, or
2) a structure not determined to be architecturally significant,
or 3) that the structure's removal from the district would not
constitute a negative effect in the o~erall character of the
district. The amended language still requires an application and
HPC approval for demolition, however, the "non-significant"
structure would not have to meet the Standards for Demolition
Review. The HPC anticipates the application of this "non-
significant" provision to apply on an infrequent basis. The HPC
has already determined that the building to be demolished in this
redevelopment proposal meets the "non-significant" criteria.
The amendment proposed by the applicant extends demolition
exemption beyond what can be supported by the HPC and staff.
4b. RESPONSE for Waiver of Open Space Payment-in-Lieu: It would
appear that this amendment is an attempt to develop a more
consistent review process with the guidelines used by the
Historic Preservation Committee. The HPC has found, given
particular street front characteristics and/or existing
development, that the requirement of open space for some parcels
is inappropriate. At times the HPC may recommend a reduction in
open space to preserve the Historic character of the District.
In the Historic Preservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan it
is argued that a 25% required open space in the commercial core
zone district discourages retaining the storefront
characteristic. It was suggested that the open space requirement
be deleted, reductions of required open space be subj ect to
Special Review, or allow for a payment-in-lieu. The Code allows
Special Review with a payment-in-lieu.
There is an inherent conflict in the attempt to protect and
restore the Historic context of the downtown and the provision of
a payment-in-lieu. The payment-in-lieu, h9wever, is an important
resource. The payment-in-lieu is earmarked for a separate
interest bearing account and the monies are to be used solely for
the purchase or development of land for open space, pedestrian or
7
r,
,
,,'
recreational activities proposed within or
Commercial Core zone district. For example the
of Bass Park would be a very appropriate use of
adjacent to the
ultimate purchase
this money.
staff has in the past questioned the 25% open space requirement
in the CC zone district. staff also recognizes the conflicting
nature of Historic District Guidelines and the Special Review
requirements. The P&Z may consider an alternative such as not
tieing a payment-in-lieu to the reduction in open space for site
design considerations. Instead, the Commission could require
every development or redevelopment within the commercial core to
pay an open space fee into a discrete fund dedicated for open
space amenities within and adjacent to the downtown. In that
manner a fund would be maintained but appropriate site design
would not be compromised.
4c. RESPONSE for amendment to Eliminate Mitigation Requirements
for Replacement of Demolished Commercial or. Office Floor Area:
The amendment is in direct conflict with all the mitigation
requirements of the Land Use Code. In 1988, during the Aspen
Land Use revision work, staff proposed increasing the mitigation
requirements for commercial and lodge projects to 100%. A 1988
memo indicated that the threshold had not been reviewed for three
years. Eventually a 60% housing mitigation requirement was
adopted with the provision that existing commercial structures
that are demolished must mitigate employee and parking impacts
that were not originally mitigated.
This Department and review bodies have recently completed a
process that attempted to offset those impacts generated by the
replacement of one use with a more intensive use. Traditionally
the Code did not require mitigation for replacement and
reconstruction. The Housing Replacement Program is a result of
this interest.
In addition, staff is concerned that if existing buildings within
the commercial core do not ultimately mitigate employee and
parking impacts after redevelopment, the smaller (generally
locally serving) structures would become desirable replacel!lent
ventures when combined with GMP allocated floor area if only the
new increased floor area was mitigated.
This Code Amendment proposes a drastic alteration in the GMP
process and staff is not prepared to support this. Further, a
thorough review and analysis of the Growth Management System is
an integral part of the Comprehensive Planning process that this
Department has just initiated. However, the P&Z may like to
consider a reduction or elimination of mitigation requirements
when that specific space is deed restricted to local serving or
owned businesses or offices. The new increased space. would
remain free market. Council has asked staff to begin considering
ways to preserve locally oriented business and services. Staff
8
"
" ,
"
would be willing to work with the applicant on this approach if
the Planning commission is interested.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the GMQS Exemption
for reconstruction of an existing building, Special Review for
reduction in required off-street parking, Special Review for
reduction in trash/utility service area, and Special Review for
payment-in-lieu of open space.
staff recommends denial of the three Text Amendments. Because
the applicant's entire application is dependent upon at least two
of the text amendments the application would have to be
significantly altered.
If the Planning and zoning commission approves this GMP
submission staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall pay a parking fee to the Finance Department. The amount of
the fee will depend upon the final outcome of proposed text
amendment.
2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant
shall pay a Housing Impact fee subject to low income guidelines
and approval by the Housing Authority payable to the Finance
Department. The amount of the fee will depend upon the final
outcome of proposed text amendment.
3. Prior to the issuance of
shall pay an open space fee.
final outcome of the proposed
any building permits the applicant
The amount shall depend upon the
text amendment.
4. Prior to the allocation of net leasable square footage by the
City Council, the applicant shall clarify with the Housing
Authority the employee generation number to be used for this
application.
5. The Engineering Department has no record of a transformer
easement on this parcel. A transformer easement shall be filed
with the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any
building permits.
6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits an adequate
trash service area shall be indicated on the final plans and the.
applicant shall supply a letter from BFI, to the Engineering
Department, which supports the reduction in the trash/utility
area.
7. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the
trash/service area shall be inspected and certified, by the
Engineering Department, in compliance with the proposal.
9
'.,
/""
'-' HOLLAND & HART
ATIORNEYS AT LAW
DENVER
DENVER TKH CENTER
COLORADO SPRINGS
ASPEN
BILLINGS
BOISE
CHEYENNE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
600 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORAD081611
TEtEf'H()NE (303) 925-3476
TElECOPlER (303) 925-9367
CHARLES T. BRANDT
t November 5, 1990
Ms. Amy Margerum
Director, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Amy:
I have had discussions with Joe wells over the weekend
regarding the Commercial GMQS Application for the 409 East
Hopkins project. The purpose of this letter is to point out that
the GMQS Application is not in fact "dependent upon at least two
of the text amendments" as Leslie Lamont has stated on page 9 of
her recomnlendations to the'Planning and zoning Con~ission. We,
therefore, take strong exception with (i) the Planning Office's
representation to the Commission that "the application would have
to be significantly altered", and (ii) the Planning Office's
taking the requested code amendments into consideration in its
scoring of the project.
At the same time that Joe Wells filed for a GMQS allocation,
he also requested the City's consideration of three text
amendments, as permitted under Section 7-1103 of the Land Use
Regulations of the City of Aspen. Thus, under this provision, it
was appropriate for the Application to include the requested code
amendments. At no time did he suggest that the GMQS Application
was dependent or conditional in any way on the adoption of the
proposed code amendments. To do so would have risked not meeting
the threshold scoring required under GMQS if the code amendments
were not approved.
We have carefully reviewed the Application and want to
document what the comments actually were with regard to the three
major elements which would be most affected by the proposed code
amendments - open space, parking and affordable housing. The
GMQS Section of the Application contains the following comments:
l(d) Amenities (pg. 11):
"Because of this (the HPC's desire to align
the new and historic storefronts) none .f the
1""'-
-- HOLLAND&HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Ms. AnlY Margerum
November 5, 1990
Page 2
amendments - open space, parking and affordable housing. The
GMQS Section of the Application contains the following comments:
l19J Amenities (pg. 11):
"Because of this (the HPC's desire to align
the new and historic storefronts) none of the
open space provided on-site complies with the
current open space definition. . . Any open
space requirement would therefore have to be
met tlu:ough an open space payment-in-lieu.
Under current requirements, the payment has
been estimated to be $387,600; if required,
the appraised value of the land would be
established upon receipt'of an allocation."
2(e) parkinq (pg. 17):
"Because of the limited alley frontage and
conflicts between service vehicles and
parking in the alley, no off-street parking
is possible. The applicant proposes to
satisfy the off-street parking required for
the project through a payment-in-lieu. Ii
the code amendment is approved, the
requirement is 14 spaces, requiring a payment
of $210,000.00. . . In addition, in order to
improve the availability of public parking in
the area, the applicant proposes to make a
payment of an additional $15,000 for one
parking space beyond the requirement for the
pro;ect, provided that the applicant is
awarded an average score in this category in
excess of 1 point.
3. Provision of Affordable Housinq (pg. 17):
"The applicant commits to provide a payment-
in-lieu under low-income (Category 1)
standards in effect at the time a building
permit is issued equivalent to 60% of the
employees generated by the project .. In
Section IV of this Submission, the applicant
is requesting approval of an amendment to the
text of the land use regulations to eliminate
mitigation requirements for reconstructed
commercial square footage. If the code
amendment is approved, employee generation
, -"',
- HOLLAND & HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MS. Amy Margerum
November 5, 1990
Page 3
for the project is 27.29 employees.. ..and the
applicant's required payment-in-lieu would
therefore be $573,000..."
We hereby request that the Planning office re-score the
Application with respect to the three categories discussed above
(Paragraphs l.d, 2.e and 3), and any other areas influenced by
the Planning office's interpretation, based on the assumption
that the three requested code am~ndments are not adopted by the
City. If you do not concur that re-scoring is appropriate, we
request that the scoring by the Planning Commission of both
applications be tabled pending a determination by Council under
Section 4-10lL of the Land Use Regulations as to the Planning
office's interpretation of the correct scoring method to be
applied to our client's Application.
;;tl"j ZJ
Charles T. Brandt
for Holland & Hart
CTB/neh
cc: Joe Wells
Laura Donnelley
ATTACHMENT B
,--
'-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE:
409 East Hopkins GMQS Exemption
DATE: ~
November 1, 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing
commercial building and redevelop
commercial building.
to demolish an existing
the site with another
Pursuant to section 8-104 A.1. of the Aspen Land Use Code, the
Planning Director may exempt the remodeling, restoration, or
reconstruction of an existing building from the GMP review
process.
FINDINGS: Pursuant to section 8-104 A.1. the Planning Director
shall exempt a commercial or office reconstruction provided the
applicant mitigates the employee housing and parking impacts.
The applicant proposes to demolish the 2,795 square foot existing
commercial building and rebuild a 19,253 square foot commercial
building. The applicant has submitted a GMP application for a
1990 commercial allocation. The GMQS Exemption precludes the
applicant from competing for 2,375 square feet of net leasable.
The applicant must compete for the net leasable balance of 6,823
square feet.
As part of the GMP submission, the applicant has proposed a text
amendment that would eliminate the mitigation requirement for
employee housing and parking impacts when a demolished commercial
structure is reconstructed. Staff does not support this text
amendment and therefore recommends approval of this GMQS
Exemption with the condition that housing and parking impacts are
mitigated.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Director
approve the GMQS Exemption, of 2,375 square feet of net leasable,
for the reconstruction of existing commercial space with the
condition that the housing and parking impacts are mitigated.
I hereby approve the above
Growth Management Quota exemption
pursuant to section 8-104 A.1 of
the Aspen Land Use Code.
Amy Margerum, Director
"'.~.'.,
'''-
.....,.,;
^-'
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Aspen Planning and zoning commission
Kim Johnson and Leslie Lamont, Planning
TO:
RE:
1990 Commercial GMP Scoring
DATE:
~
October 29, 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Attached for your review is the recommended scoring for two
Commercial GMP projects. The Planning Office staff met to review
these recommendations and provides them to you as a consensus of
the Office.
The two Commercial GMP applications are as follows:
Name
Net Leasable Square Footage
Pitkin county Bank Expansion
409 E. Hopkins
2,240 increase
6,823 new construction
8,000 square feet of net leasable is the cumulative annual
allotment in the CC and C-1zones. Both projects as proposed
equal 9,063 s.f., so both cannot receive a full allotment even if
all minimum thresholds are met.
To summarize the review process, the Planning Office. recommends
that the "auxiliary" reviews for each project take place first,
followed by the GMP scoring for each project. For your
information, we have included a table summarizing the staff
recommend scores of both projects.
Scoring
cateqories
Minimum
Threshold
pit.Co.Bank 409 Hopkins
Points
categories 1 & 2
(arch. design, site design,
energy cons.,amenities,
visual impact, trash areas)
16.8 (60%)
18.5
17 .0
category 1
7.2 (40%)
4.0 (40%)
-10.0 (60%)
13.0
13.0
category 2
5.5
4.5
category 3
(Affordable Housing)
10.0
10.0'
Bonus Points
(given only by Commission)
Total Points
38.0
47.0
44.5
o
-...
-.",,,i
R2~~};
NATURAL GAS
DIVISION OF
K N ENERGY, INC.
Q .
. iof-u
. F-
tOct. 26,l990
CT a o If'
Leslie Lamont
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Asnen, CO 8l6ll
PE: 409 E. Hopkins Commercial G~~0S
Dear Leslie,
Rocky ~~ountain Natural Gas Division of KN Energy Inc. has
sufficient capacity to serve this project.
Due to the need of the sanitation District to install a
manhole to serve this project it will necessitate the re-
location of the gas main in the area of the new manhole.
This can be accomplished next spring.
Cost of this relocation will have to be borne by the dev-
elopment. At this time firm prices are not available but
would be in the $5000.00 to $6000.00 ranqe.
This letter does not constitute a committment to serve gas
to the project.
Sincerely,
rKClAt~. ~~c:J:ph
Raymond L. Patch
District Manager
cc: John Wilson
File
113 Atlantic Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925.2323
"'....
""",,"
-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DAT~ October 26, 1990
RE: 409 East Hopkins Avenue 1990 Commercial GMQS, Special
Review, GMQS Exemption and Text Amendment
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Engineering Department has reviewed the above application and
made a site visit. Comments related to the proposed Code
Amendments, GMQS Exemption and Special Reviews will be
incorporated in the recommendations for GMQS. The following
scoring is recommended:
1. Quality of design
(a) Architectural design - no comment.
(b) site design - 1 point
The applicant proposes very little open space for this
development. Pursuant to Article 5 , Division 2, the required
amount of open space for this zone is 25% of the building site.
The Engineering Department does not support approval of a Special
Review for reduction in open space. To not require open space
and approve the location of the building almost at the property
line, will leave only 12.5 feet of public right-of-way as a
buffer to the street.
If this Special Review is approved, however, the Engineering
Department does not support the proposed Code Amendment to
chapter 24 article 7-602 A. and a payment-in lieu must be paid
based on the appraised value of the unimproved land pursuant to
chapter 24 article 7-404 A. (3).
(c) Energy conservation - 2 points
Based on the referral letter by Roaring Fork Energy Center dated
October 17, it appears that this is an acceptable design in terms
of energy conservation.
,-"
.....,
-
(d) Amenities - 1 point
There is very little usable open space p~oposed and as a result
there is a limited amount of space 1n which to place any
amenities. The applicant proposes to place benches and a bicycle
rack in the public right-of-way. This would limit pedestrian
movement because 8 feet of the 12.5 feet of public right-of-way
is required for sidewalk and the remaining width is not really
adequate for the placement of these amenities.
(e) Visual Impact - recommended scoring: 2 points
This development will not infringe on designated scenic
viewplanes.
(f) Trash and utility access - recommended scoring: 1 point
If the applicant could furnish a letter from BFI which would
support the reduction in trash and utility access requirements,
the Engineering Department would support the special Review
request and would raise the scoring to 2 points. We have no
record of an easement for the transformer located in this area
and will require that an easement be granted by the applicant.
2. Availability of public facilities and services.
(Review of these facilities and services was difficult due to the
lack of confirmation on the supplied information. This
confirmation has typically been supplied by the applicant by
including referral letters from the individual utilities.)
(a) Water supply/fire protection - recommended scoring: 1 point
The proposed development may be handled by existing public
facilities and serv1ces. The applicant's proposal to commit
$5,000 toward the installation of the main extension and hydrant
is not acceptable. I f the appl icant proposed, however, to
install these improvements, the scoring could be raised to 2
points.
(b) Sanitary Sewer - 0 points
Tom Bracewell of the Sanitation District has indicated that the
existing sewer system in this area is not adequate and that the
8" sewer line located in the alley south of the site needs to be
repaired before the system can handle the proposed development.
The applicant proposes to contribute $3,000 toward the repair of
this line but Bracewell indicated that these repairs would cost
at least $6,000. If the applicant would be willing to perform
these necessary repairs, the scoring could be raised to 1 point.
-,
,,...'.....
-
(c) Public transportation/roads - 2 points
The proposed development improves the availability of public
facilities and services in the area by committing to repave the
full width of the alley along the rear property line adjacent to
Lot F.
(d) storm Drainage - 1 point
The proposed development may be handled by existing public
facilities and services for historical runoff. For increased
runoff due to development, the applicant has proposed to
construct drywells. Instead of committing $5,000 for drainage
improvements, if the applicant would propose to install a larger
drywell which would have the capacity to store the historical
runoff, the scoring could be raised to 2 points.
(e) Parking - 0 points
The applicant is willing to commit $225,000 as payment-in-lieu
pursuant to Article 7, Division 4 of Municipal Code. According
to Article 5, Division, 2 spaces are required for each 1000
square feet of net leasable area which brings the total
requirement to 18 spaces. The applicant has requested a special
Review to reduce the number of those required spaces but the
Engineering Department does not support this reduction. There
are several other commercial establishments in town where the
developer has installed underground parking. If the applicant
would propose underground parking, however, we would request the
driveway grade be no steeper than 12%.
If the requested Special Review is approved, the total amount
committed for payment-in-lieu should be $270,000 pursuant to City
Code chapter 24, article 7-404 (B). The Engineering Department
does not support the request for an exemption from GMQS
procedures for reconstruction of an existing building nor do we
support the amendment of City Code chapter 24, article 8-104 (A)
(1) (a) (1) to eliminate mitigation requirements for replacement
of demolished commercial or office space area.
3. provision of affordable housing.
No comment.
4. Bonus points.
No bonus points recommended.
Total points - 11 points
jg/490EHOPK
cc: Chuck Roth
1i)
\..[.,
.ii>
.
"'"'
f"": ASPEN.PITKIN ,_
ENVI~NMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To:
Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From:
Environmental Health Department
Date:
t October 22, 1990
409 E. Hopkins Ave. 1990 Commercial GMQS, Special
Review, GMQS Exemption and Text Amendment
Parcel ID # 2737-073-39-002
Re:
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Aspen/pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above-mentioned land use sUbmittal under authority of the Pitkin
County Code, Title II, and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: sections 2-7 and 5-200:
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer
as provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. That
is in conformance with policies of this office.
ADEOUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: sections 2-6 and 5-205:
~
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided
by the City of Aspen water distribution system. That is in
conformance with policies of this office.
AIR QUALITY: sections 2-17 and 5-106:
The Environmental Health Department supports the applicant's
proposal to encourage use of the parking garage rather than
provide parking spaces in an area which could be auto-free.
There are many energy-conservation options which would lessen air
pollution, which the applicant has unfortunately not chosen to
employ. While use of the air-to-air heat exchanger will improve
energy efficiency, and thus reduce air pollution, the application
provides no specific information on which to judge the mechanical
systems. Low-flow plumbing fixtures will improve energy
efficiency, but there is no commitment to passive solar uses
other than that it will be ",considered" in regard to interiliJ'
colors and finishes.' An important energy-conservation device
which the applicant has omitted is use of compact fluorescent
lights and occupancy sensors. The sidewalk snowmelt system is,
of course, a very high energy-use element of the plan.
,Y'-...
The applicant shall work with the Building Department to review
energy efficiency systems that will improve energy conservation.
NOISE: secti~ 2-23
~
130 South Galena Street
Aspen. Colorado 81611
303/9RD-I!5D7D
fJ
\
{J
I"'""-
----
--
409 E. Hopkins
October 22, 1990
Page, 2
Long term neighborhood
result of approving
construction noise will
noise impacts are not anticipated as the
this project. However, short term
impact the immediate neighborhood.
Should noise complaints be received by this office, the City of
Aspen Noise Abatement Ordinance will be the document used in the
investigation.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
section 2-2
None that are regulated by this office.
CONTAMINATED SOILS:
The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment
should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during
the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials
off-site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy
metals being present in the soil.
This is not a requirement, but simply a
experience in dealing with mine waste
impacts to humans.
request based on past
and possible negative
g.,.,
'.-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
L_1111i8 Lal'ilont, Planning
yv"nne Blocker I Housing
FROM:
DATE:
, Oc~ob.r 21, 1990
40:. East Hopkin. Avonue 1990 Co1tunerd.al GMQS
Sp,~cial RGviE>\>;' / GMQS Exemption and T...~t Amendment
RE:
:z:t==~~"tII:';e!lltJj:~1e:"'~'l:;=:J~~-'~::Iimo,:::c~_m~1c==-:a===-=-'~C';=::I=UJ:;In~ft:&1."'_.___..._____
SUMMARY: Applicant t''''<1lolestf> Commercb 1 GMQS allocation tor t~.
reconstruct.i"n of. til, e:dsting structure contairdnq a two ato y
split-level ,at:n::.cture cf 2,795 net leasable sq. rootage to a t 0
story atruc':ure to contain ",918 aq. ft. of net leasable
comxnercial/o:~fice $pa~:e.
APPLl C1>.NT :
Laura Donnelly, Box 589, Aspen, Colorado
APPLICANT'S J<tP~ESEWTATrVii
Joseph Well., AICP
LOCATION:
North eo fGet of Lota D and E ami all of Lot F,
Elock &8, City and Townsite of Aspen
409 East Hopkins
ZONING: CC
REQU!:S'I': Applicant is r'lolqueating an allotment of 1990 Commeroial
GMQS net le.auable i!!q;;,>1A'e footage to demolish an exilllt1ng two story
structure of ~,795 sq. ft. and to reconstruct a two Btory struoture
to contain 9/S,lS sq, fto of oommercial/office $pac~,
Applicant ha:3 stated t.h",t thay will provid.a 60% of the employe..
generated by the appro\ls,l of thl", applic&tiQn times the low inoom&
guidelines in effect ~t iilllouance of any building p",rmits.
l~pp1icl>nt hail! US<1!d tile calculation <:.'f 4.0 emp./1/000 sf. ft. AS
stated in the 1!1)pL'.cll.\:.ion. that had btlliln racer,tly used by the
PlAnning Oft':tce in date:rmining the et\\t)loyeEl generation for a
restaurant ill the COmmll!cial core. Housing rec;r..Hl\lltfi olarification
on the determination of the applicarlt'61. 1:"prBsent1:ltive to use l!l
restaurant calculatloli fer thie application.
The actual rEl13tdclrant employe;e gero..ration recpired by the 1990
Affordabls ED.ployee. H"l,l>'itng Guid..l1n"9 n,'quire a generation of !5. 0-
10.0 employe.,,, /1,000$,f. Cot:ll'"arc'lll retail ",!'aC@ would require
a generation ftjctor.' ,)[ 3,:;; and OC'lTl;nerci.~l attic.. Iilli,ace requires 3.9
emp. /1,000 R.f.
"'""
This application if for ctrice/retail space and needs clarification
as to what Ilpecific square footage is tor office spaoe and what
specific square footage will be devoted to retail.
AS the application dOSf> not statEl the nature of the offioe/retail
space to be c,onst.ru,ctad by this proposal, Housing ehall compute the
employee 96tH.ration in the saine fashior. u the applicant using the
same qeneration figu~@s as follo~s:
9,191' s.t. )( 4.0 emp./l,OOC s.L .. 36.7t; employees
36.67 emp. x 60% X $35,000.00 = $771,960.00
The applican'': r,ao J:oC],uested an amtal'ldlnent
(A) (1) (al (1) to Etlilr-inlSte the mitigation
replacement ;,f demolished commercial or of!'lc~
ot Section 8-104
requirements tor
flol,)r area.
Houa in~j" stat'! d13agress with applicant. s representative in the
views that tha coda is " inconsistent to re<;I1.1ire al~ applicant who
is replaoing equivalent cOl1\l\\e.rclal space to pay these exactions
when an applicant seeking an allooation to e~pa;~d an existing
(residential) structure is not requireo to pay exactions for the
space to be t'stained."
Simplistically, the, city Code has a8vised a prccadu~e! to .stablish
a viable replacement of commercial and office net leasable floor
space in vlhJ.ch ;'0 prior emplcY<lGl generation requirements were
historically l'eq~driO" or provid<'ld.
STAFF RECOMJIfENDA'fION: Housing rel.1olTlmends "-'l11i61 hy the Planning
Director to llml1lnd, Se-::tion 8-104 (A,) (1) (a) p.) of the Aspen City Code
to allow the elimination ,:;'f mitigatior. reglJ.ireme.nts for replacement
of demolished conlmerclr.l or office floor area.
staff requests: c.:l.=,:rif ication of the employee glOneration of 4.0
emp./l,OOO s.f. tor this application. till thia applioation tor
office, retaH, <Jr X'llstIl.Urant. net leasable apaoe?
ATTACHMENT A
Aspen C9onsolidated Sanitation cJJistlfict
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
. i r,
,: t.
Tele, (303) 925-3601
Tele, (303) 925-2537
October 19, 1990
Leslie Lamont
Planning Office
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 409 East Hopkins Commercial GMQS
Dear Leslie:
The District currently has sufficient line and treatment capacity
to provide service for this project, however there are relatively
small system upgrades which will be necessary,
In order to determine the scale of repairs
need to be installed which wi I I allow the
the segment of line which will serve the
construction will require the relocation of
Mountain Natural Gas. It may be possible
preliminary work by next spring.
needed a manhole wil I
District to televise
project. The manhole
a gas line by Rocky
to accomplish this
At this time it appears as though this project's impact upon the
District's system will require two relatively minor repairs
_ti_ted to cost $3000,ea~b. These expenses will be added to the
standard District connection fees for the project. All associated
fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy,
Sincerely.
p,,~ <--- ~ A'4\-...~L
Bruce Mather 19
District Manager
cc: Laura Donnelley, applicant
Ray Patch, RMNG
-
"..~.,
'-
.......'
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 409 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE 1990 COMMERCIAL/OFFICE GMQS
APPLICATION
NOTICE IS-HEREBY GIVEN that a pUblic hearing will be held on
Tuesday, November 6, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an
application submitted by Joe Wells on behalf of Laura Donnelley
requesting Commercial, GMQS Allotments for a proposed new
commercial building. Associated approvals being requested are
Special Review for open space, 'off-street parking and trash and
utility access; GMQS Exemption and Amendment to the text of Land
Use Regulations. The property is located at 409 East Hopkins
Avenue, Lots D, E and F, Block 88, city and Townsite of Aspen,
excepting therefrom the southerly 20 feet of Lots D and E, Block
88 and is zoned CC, Commercial Core..
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena st., Aspen, CO 920-5090.
.
"
sIC. Welton Anderson. Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
----------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Published in The Aspen Times on October 18,-1990.
city of Aspen Account.
/
/ ,"".,)
/;JA-,A.-'-. ../ .
?- j
i ,
/
/
.'
~-
j
..- ..~.
MEMORANruM
TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
FROM:George Robinson, Parks Director
RE: 409 East Hopkins Ave 1990 Commercial GMQS, Special Review, GMQS
Exemption and Text Amendment. Parcel #2737-073-39-002
DAfE:October 17, 1990
The Parks Department has several concerns with the proposal for 409 East
Hopkins and development plans. The Parks Department has no desire for the
open space elements proposed to be donated to the City for installation on
alternate sites. The reason being, no storage, no proposed sites, and no time
or experience to dismantle and reinstall on alternate sites. Another concern
of the department is the lack of specific landscape plans for the courtyard
area. In reference to page nine, paragraph (b) Site Design, the department
would like to know where these snow storage areas will be? On page twelve,
in reference to the proposal of benches and bike racks, the department would
again ask where specifically would they be located and the design style.
.....--,
.
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER · 242 MAIN STREET · CARBONDALE, CO 81623 · (303)963-0311
;:2
October l7, 1990
TO: Kim Johnson - Planning Office
FR: Steve Standiford - Director
RE: Comments on 409 East Hopkins GMQS Submission
Our comments are listed below for each section of the Energy
Conservation component.
Insulation" The stated insulation levels for the project
walls and roof are very adequat~; There is no mention of
floor/perimeter insulation and we hope this will not be over
looked.
Infiltration: Installing a "Tyvek:' and a vinyl vapor barrier
should go a "ong ways towards ,. insuring that the building will
be energy efficient in regards to air infiltration.
Although, without a blower door or air sampling test, you can
not be sure they will achieve their goal of having a building
envelope that is tight. The skill of the installers will
determine just how air tight the building will be upon
completion. Their installation of an air-to-air heat
exchanger will help maintain indoor air quality and increase
the overall energy efficiency of the structure.
Mechanical Systems: Their stated goals for "long range
effectiveness and efficiency in operation" are worthy of
praise. Although, they do not~flldica.te just what type of
mechanical system will be used. Will it be a natural gas
fired high-efficiency boiler with a multi-zone hydronic
baseboard system or electric baseboard? with the level of
detail we have in ,the proposal, all we can say is ~e goals
sound goo~ We need more information to give any comments on
the relative energy efficiency of their mechanical system.
Plumbing: Once again, the level of detail is missing. We
commend their stated goals but without further information
there can not be any comment on just how good their proposal
will be upon completion. For example, we would like to see
them specify showerheads that use 3 or less gallons per
minute. Insulating the pipes is another good idea. We would
be very interested to see what technology they use for their
domestic hot water needs. The proposal touches all the right
points but they are leaving all of their options open when it
~omes to selecting how they actually will address the goals.
Glazing: The proposal is again sensitive to energy
--'I
~
~
---
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER · 242 MAIN STREET · CARBONDALE, CO 81623 · (303)963-0311
efficiency and specifies materials and strategies to achieve
their overall goals. The use of low "E" glazing is another
good idea that will reduce heat loss. They may want to
'~onsider other types of glazing~that will a~h~evereven mor~
energy efficiency~ For example, Heat Mirror glazing or other
types with reflective films that can achieve R8 values. This
will be especially important for north facing glazing.
Selecting interior finishes and colors to increase mass
heating and occupant comfort is another indication that the
design team is committed to saving energy and natural
resources. Utilizing techniques to increase passive solar
gains is another great sounding goal.
We would appreciate if the project design team and/or the
planning staff would keep us informed of the materials and
products used in this project. The project developers sound
very concerned with energy efficiency and we would-be very
interested in just exactly how they achieve their goals.
~,
--\
t""
.....,
...
-"
DATE:
AX'A,j~~~
~~'1~rney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Electric Department
Environmental Health Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Parks Department
Fire Marshal
Roaring,Fork Energy Center
Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
Leslie Lamont, Planning Office / ~
409 East Hopkins Avenue 1990 Commercial GMQS, special
Review, GMQS Exemption 'and Text Amendment
Parcel ID # 2737-073-39-002
Sephmlger :;Iii, 199&- tl~II:,' /770
, /
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Attached for your review and comments is an application from Joe
Wells on behalf of Laura Donnelley. requesting commercial GMQS
Allotments and approval of Special Review, GMQS Exemption and
Text Amendment to the Land Use Regulations.
Please return your comments, no later than october 19, 1990.
Thank you.'_ ~'. , 'r ,r n
---c I ~ -lJ-\....G, L-J (L- -S l'-A:.J {I--\. '-vV\ C\jU~..] (j.,...u --t '-' ,kd-c,-->J.(
~~-'\lJ ~~\ O-~JL~ 1/\.1t.-t{RUGl \>'-ltvll~ 0)oolltill~S
\"',--~J~~~:Xf{l;~~~C) CLZ-~~~L(<4L ~J YR-L-
Cl rL-~ L\i-...Q,,\~, l.0-Z. C~ 6.),-<)C~-\J0.0 F~'
9c20-So90
-
J ..
-
--
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
\ septemberl27, 1990 "
Joe Wells
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 409 East Hopkins Commercial GMQS
Dear Joe,
This is to inform you that 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 on Tuesday,
November 6, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. 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 post the subject
property with a sign for the public hearing and mail notices to
property owners within 300' of the subject property.
If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner
assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
//!~.eJ-
_ /_ 1/1 _""--.0
/'-'"
,.--......
SEP ~~
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Electric Department
Environmental Health Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Parks Department
Fire Marshal
Roaring Fork Energy Center
Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
~
,FRGU:
Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
RE:
409 East Hopkins Avenue 1990 Commercial GMQS, Special
Review, GMQS Exemption and Text Amendment
Parcel ID # 2737-073-39-002
DATE:
~ September 26, 1990
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attached for your review and comments is an application from Joe
Wells on behalf of Laura Donnelley requesting Commercial GMQS
Allotments and approval of Special Review, GMQS Exemption and
Text Amendment to the Land Use Regulations.
Please return your comments no later than October 19, 1990.
Thank you.
/Vc (0-"'/1'10--'7 C'7//pt! 7fAJd 5/'~/~#/-f-<'lr'cJ Tfilt. 8~cfj /"E-e codE,
.....,
..
...........
.
,
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: ~f17j90
DATE COMPLET$ 2~ qd
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
d 137. o'i~-~<j-()a~ A54-90
STAFF MEMBER: L L
PROJECT NAME: 409 East Hopkins 1990 commerical GMOS.snecial Review
Project Address: 409 East Hopkins Avenue
Legal Address: N 80' of Lots D & E and all Lot F. Block 88
APPLICANT:' Laura Donnellev
Applicant Address:BoX 589. Aspen. Colorado 81612
REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells
Representative Address/Phone: 602 Midland Park Place
Aspen. Colorado 81611
PAID: YES
NO
AMOUNT :
$3755.
NO. OF
COPIES RECEIVED: 20
V-
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
P&Z Meeting Date ~~\ ) 0
1 STEP:
2 STEP:
HEARING:e
RIGHTS: YES
NO
PUBLIC
VESTED
NO
CC Meeting Date
PUBLIC HEARING: YES
NO
VESTED RIGHTS:
YES
NO
Planning Director Approval:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption:
Paid:
Date:
REF~:
~~'~ itty Attorney
-. city Engineer
\ Housing Dir.
y
Aspen Water
~~~City Electric
v V Envir. Hlth.
Aspen Con.S.D.
_Mtn. Bell
vV Parks Dept.
_.JIoly Cross
v~Fire Marshal
~ilding Inspector
Roaring Fork
Energy Center
9/(;1&/~
School District
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
State Hwy Dept(GW)
State Hwy Dept(GJ)
Other
DATE REFERRED:
INITIALS:
cIJf-
FINAL ROUTING: DATE
ROUTED:
r )d! Zoning
INITIAL:
\::I City. Atty
..7'0 Hous1ng
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
Env. H,eal th
1"'......
""""
'"
EXHIBIT 1
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
Project Name
409 East Hopkins Commercial proiect
1)
2)
Project Location
North.80 feet of Lots 0 and E and all of
Lot F. Block 88, Aspen Townsite
3 )
5 )
Present Zoning CC
Applicant's Name, Address &
Laura Donnellev. Box 589.
4) Lot Size 7823
Phone iI
Aspen. Colorado 81612
so. ft
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone iI Joe Wells, 602 Midland
Park Place, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303\ 925-8080
7) Type of Application (please check all that apply):
Conditional Use Conceptual SPA
-L Special Review Final SPA
8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD
Stream Margin Final PUD
Mountain View Subdivision
Plane
Condominiumiza- -L Text/Map
tion Amendment
Lot Split/Lot
Adjustment
Conceptual Historic Dev.
Final Historic Dev.
Minor Historic Dev.
Historic Demolition
Historic Designation
-L GMQS Allotment
GMQS Exemption
8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing
structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous
approvals granted to the property).
Two story split-level commercial buildinG of 2,375 so. ft. of net
leasable, outdoor dininG for restaurant on adiacent propertv and
open space.
9) Description of Development Application
Reqeust for commercial GMOS allotment, special review and related
code amendments for a two story commercial structure of 9.198 so.
ft. of net leasable space plus a full basement.
10) Have you attached the following:
-L Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents
-L Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents
-L Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your
Application
t"'''
\",../
/,
EXHIBIT 2
i September 15, 1990
Ms. Amy Margerum
Planning Director
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ms. Margerum:
My letter is to confirm that I am the record owner of the north
80 feet of Lots D and E and all of Lot F, Block 88, Aspen Townsite;
I have requested that the enclosed application for a commercial
GMQS allocation, special review and amendments to the text of the
Aspen land use regulations be filed by Joseph Wells.
Sincerely,
146761
/"'--.
.... ./
James J. 'Iollica &.\ssociates. Inc.
Real Estate Appraisers and ConsultantS Crvsral Paloce BuilJing' 300 East Hyman ...."enu<. _....p<n, CulomJu 81611 . 303/925-898;
_t~....__. 30"1990
~~~~z ,
Mr. Steven Briggs
Alpine Bank of Aspen
409 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Limited Appraisal Assigrnnent: North 80 Feet of lDts D arx:l E
Plus All of Lot F, Block 88, Aspen, Colorado
Mr. Briggs:
At your request, we have personally inspected the subject property
with the purpose of estimating its Market Value. Please note that
this letter does not constitute a formal appraisal. Rather, it is a
"Limited Appraisal Assigranent" in which we have abbreviated our
discussion of the description of the subject, site data, zoning,
highest arx:l best use, neighborhood arx:l our valuation. Although
abbreviated, our analysis has been in~epth arx:l we do not feel our
value conclusion would change given the detailed reporting
requirements of a formal appraisal.
As we discuss in the Property Identification arx:l Valuation sections
of this report, it is extremely difficult to a=rrately gauge the
Market Value of COIml16rCial larx:l in downtown Aspen. Although the
subject property includes a small commercial building, most of the
value rests in the vacant larx:l which requires development in order
to maximize the highest arx:l best use of the property; Although the'
Growth Management Quota System has been in effect since 1977
affecting the developrrent of properties like the subject, recent
changes to the Plan have resulted in extraordinary "soft costs."
When vacant larx:l is developed, the GQS pr=ess must be pursued and
substantial ~ctions are required from any developer for errployee
housing, parking and open space. Much of the cost associated with
these items cannot be passed through to users of the project but
only serve to increase the developer's basis. Accurately
quantifying these extraordinary soft costs is a significant problem
for the appraiser. Further CCIIPlicating our analysis is the fact
that there is no development land of which we are aware currently
available in the central core as an alternative to a prospective
developer .
We are aware that the primary function of this report is to assist
in negotiations for a possible purchase between laura D:mnelly, the
ASSOCIATE APPRAISERS
Eli::abeth Foben
Eli:abcth A. Newman
!Ii
Scott M. Bowie, MAl
Randy Gold. MAl
James J. Mollica. MAl
.
""",
=ent =er of the subject property, ani Alpine Bank. lis such, it
is i1I1portant to recognize that the value conclusion shown belO',o/
includes typical real estate sales commission of 6%, that
characteristic for properties of this type in our market. OUr
analysis also assumes a cash or cash-effective transaction.
'!he value conclusion shown below has been presented as a ran;re of
value. '!he uncertainty surrcun:ling the extraordinary "soft costs"
of development, the risks ass=iated with aIrf approval in Aspen for
any new development ani lack of available alten1atives in the
=ent market are all factors which have caused us to consider a
relatively wide range in value. For your pw:poses, we would
suggest, hcwever, that a value from the middle of the range be
considered most applicable.
We also rt::U:XJuize that the subject property is OJrreI1tly under lease
to Alpine Bank until October 31, 1993. Because the function of this
appraisal is to assist Alpine Bank an:! the lessor in negotiations
for possible sale, we have bel=--! our analysis under the assumption
that the building is free an:! clear of the eristin;J lease. In fact,
however, there is same leasehold advantage in the eristin;J lease as
we believe it is below market. Although we have not recapitulated
that analysis in this letter, we feel that the OJrreI1t leasehold
interest in the building, because of its below-market terms, is
approximately $50, 000.
Based \lp:ln our analysis of the a=mtulated data, in our opinion the
Market Value of the subject property, under the assumptions outlined
above, as of January 30, 1990, is best allocated in a range from:
$1.500.000 - $1.750.000
Attached to this letter is a brief <'!ic:rllSSion about the appraisal,
the Property Identification section an:! the Valuation section.
SUpport:inq photographs ani a survey of the property as provided to
us have beeninc1uded in the aclden:ium to this report. Mditional
data has been retained in our files an:! can be reviewed if
nece::;9ry .
James J. ~Iollica&.-\ssodates.lnc.
Real Estate .-\ppnisen and COn!iultanu
,,.....,.
If we can be of any further assistance in the interpretation or
application of the findings in this letter, please do not hesitate
to call. 'Ihank you for this opportunity to be of seI:Vice.
Respectfully,
0at~ lw~
Rarrly /Gold, MAI
Appraiser-<Onsul tant
~J~-
Scott M. Bowie, MAl
Appraiser-Consul tant
JamesJ. \lolliCU&\s,;odates.lnc.
Real ~we Appraise" and Consultanu
----. --- -------.-----.----
c
--
.......
10. Location Relative to Retail and Service Outlets.
This criterion does not apply to commercial/office applications.
11. Effects of the Proposed Development.
building has been limited to two stories in order to
adjacent historic structures and has been located on
preferred by the HPC.
The proposed
complement
the site as
12. Construction Schedule. It is presently
anticipated that upon approval of all required review procedures
and receipt of an adequate allocation, construction of the
project would proceed within 6 months. The project would then be
completed in one phase, with completion within 9 months of start
of construction.
B. Commercial GMP Evaluation Criteria.
1. Quality of Design (maximum 18 points).
(a) Architectural Design (maximum 3 points).
Considering the compatibility of the proposed development (in
terms of scale, siting, massing, height, and building materials)
with existing neighborina developments.
with sands~~~eP~~i~~~~ ~ I pot~1r/ Y1~,7~ d/<2-
request, the sandstone 11 '/i-L lr--'P 1c;H:::::"'j~k S
with the bolder sandston (/~ ,/ f: /-
Brand Building. The rhy PI /I\LC /1JI'--?1? / e/r oz/r:.
harmony with the two lan; _ / evr J--/'
""I $- /Vok.A 'S~,/ ?-CU.u:;S
Because the La I ---1/.(,: ._. . d'- ,) Jart of the
Collins Block ownership,~ 7~ t~e.~~lt~ ~posure of
the proposal, the second ,--,[.plre/ift~t.f' chI:!22'c... 3 project
has been designed in twc ((..,L J.f laza
separating the two. Thi '\J l?l);-l'~ I S:u / ? ~ :Ie public
areas below but it does ~ ~:;e i!.- L--'-oI/L.d:' ~ 3tructures
on either site by provid -/0/%&0Z:- &L4-/ <:hl1-42: which
extends completely acros I . an
east-west direction. /-ehzuZ ,itd/t.' k-/cJ:1 ?,-'V Ii:;~ci.
5tructure
-1PC's
Jmpeting
Jck and
nuch in
In addition to accommodating the required functions of
the building, the intention behind the design of the project is
to relate to the existing historic buildings, as well as to the
general environment of the adjacent commercial district in scale,
massing, proportion and materials. These goals have been
accomplished, in part, by providing a projecting bay of
storefront windows at the first level at each end of the building
to match the plane of the facades on either side.
Emphasis has been placed upon creating a vocabulary of
forms and materials that will fit in comfortably with surrounding
structures, and which are in keeping with HPC guidelines and
committee member comments. A somewhat horizontal character has
been given to the building in order to balance its low profile,
8
and to further enh~e a compatible visual eXP~ssion when
in context with its immediate neighbors.
seen
Careful attention has been given to avoiding the
imitation or compromising of the established character of the
building's important neighbors. In particular, the setbacks
relate to both adjacent buildings, the massing of the building
has been broken through the use of the extended first level
storefronts at each end of the building and a slightly recessed
entryway at the center of the building, and the rhythm of the
fenestration of the building is tied to adjacent structures. The
new building will be seen as a clean and quiet structure which
will be viewed as a complement to the adjacent historic
structures.
The south side of the building which fronts the alley
has been treated simply but the second floor facade on the ally
will be finished with the same brick material as the front.
(b) Site Design. (maximum 3 points) Considering the
quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space
areas, the amount of site coverage by buildings, the extent of
underground utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation, including access for service,
increased safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage
areas.
Given the HPC's stated preference to have the new
building aligned with the front of existing buildings to maintain
the historic storefront style, site design options were limited.
Because of the building's location within the commercial core,
the major orientation and identity for the project wil)_be the
pedestrian traffic of shoppers along the storefronts. ~y holding
and defining the street edge in plan and elevation, the proposed
building will strengthen the street's linear character, and
provide a perception of continuity along the sidewal~~~/
Access to the second floor commercial space is provided
from the sidewalk by a stair at the east end of the building and
a corridor leading to the elevator at the west side of the
building. Service and delivery access will be through the alley
at the rear, where a generous service area more than twice the
size of the required area has been provided.
Four existing Norway maples and a cottonwood are in
place to soften the streetscape, and to continue the existing
rhythm and alignment of trees already established along the
sidewalk. While the open space is limited, it is useable and
partially sheltered from the elements by the existing trees. All
proposed utilities will be undergrounded to lessen the visual
impact. A snowmelt sidewalk is provided to limit the need for
snow storage areas. In Section I(B)(2)(c), the applicant has
conwitted to pave the entire width of the alley adjacent to Lot F
provided that the score awarded in that category is in excess of
1 point.
9
~.....
<-V',-
,
;t.;i1':~l:~1":
';:,,':}~,~~~,i~~:~:
COMMERCIAL GMQS SUBMISSION I
.;.r---
/
C"~.",-,.:" "~"~"'4';
409 EAST HOPKINS
APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL
September 15, 1990
Submitted to:
Applicant:
Architect:
Planner:
Attorney:
"~,~~';':'
~,,". "'>'
~
" .
GMQS ALLOCATION
City of Aspen Planning office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-920-5090
Laura Donnelley
Box 589
Aspen, Colorado
81612
Bill poss and Associates
605 Ea~t Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 31611
Phone: 303-925-4755
FAX: 303-920-2950
Joseph Wells, AICP
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-925-8030
FAX: 303-925-8275
Arthur C. Daily
Holland & Hart
600 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-925-3476
FAX: 303-925-9367
TABLE OF CONTENTS
paoe
I.
COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM
APPLICATION (Article 3)
4
A.
B.
Description of proposal
4
8
Commercial GMQS Evaluation Criteria
1. Quality of Design
(a) Architectural Design
(b) Site Design
(c) Energy Conservation
(d) Amenities
(e) Visual Impact
(f) Trash and Utility Access Areas
2. Availability of Public Facilities
and Services
(a) Water Supply/Fire protection
(b) Sanitary Sewer
(c) Public Transportation
(d) Storm Drainage
(e) parking
3. Provision of Affordable Housing
4. Bonus points
II . SPECIAL REVIEW PROCEDURES (Article 7 , Division 4) 20
A. payment-in-lieu of Open Space 20
B. Reduction in Required Off-Street parking 21
C. Reduction in Required Trash and Utility Access 22
III. REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM GMQS PROCEnURES FOR
RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING BUILDING [S8-l04 (a) (1) (A)] 25
IV. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE, THE LAND USE REGULATIONS (ARTICLE 7,
DIVISION 11) 26
,--.,
r""",
'-c r
EXHIBITS
1. Application Form
2. Consent of Applicant
3. Disclosure of Ownership
4. Vicinity Map
5. Map of Transit Routes
6. Technical Memorandum
Regarding Traffic Generation for Commercial Uses
TDA, Inc.
7. Improvement Survey
I. COMMERCIAL GMOS APPLICATION
A. DescriDtion of ProDosal.
This Application requests a Commercial GMQS Allocation
sufficient to complete a new commercial building at 409 East
Hopkins Avenue under the provisions of S8-l06(F), Special Review
of open space, parking and trash/utility service area under
Article 7, Division 4, and Amendments to the Text of Chapter 24
of the Municipal CoLle of the City of Aspen under Article 7,
Division 11.
The property is located between the Brand Building and the
Collins Block; both structures are historic landmarks which are
on the National Register. The site is presently occupied by a
two story split-level structure of 2,795 sq. ft.; this building
includes 2,375 sq. ft. of net leasable and 1774 sq. ft. of FAR.
The site also includes an outdoor dining area and bar for the
Smuggler Land Office Restaurant and a sculpture garden.
The site includes the north 80 feet of Lots D and E and all
of Lot F, Block 88, a total of 7823 sq. ft. of lot area. An
existing transformer easement of 70 sq. ft. reduces the lot area
available for calculation of allowable floor area to 7753 sq. ft.
The existing commercial building on the site, which was
built approximately 20 years ago, is not viewed as being very
compatible with present historic guidelines. The use of jumbo or
modular brick is now highly discouraged and the split-level
design is out of character with all but the most prominent
historic structures generally located on the corner lots.
The new building which has been designed for the site is
intended to complement the adjacent hi~toric structures. In an
effort to work within the HPC guidelines, careful attention has
been given to avoiding the imitation or compromising of the
established character of the building's landmark neighbors. In
particular, the building's setbacks relate to both adjacent
buildings, the massing has been varied, and the rhythm of the
fenestration of the proposed building is tied to adjacent
structures. The new building is a clean and quiet structure
which will be viewed as a complement to the adjacent structures.
In order to assure that the project is in scale with the
National Register structures in the block, the applicant has
chosen not to seek special review approval for bonus square
footage, as permitted up to 2.0:1. The FAR square footage of the
project is 11,629 sq.ft., an FAR of 1.5:1. Total area is as
follows:
4
J
"...........
r,
Net
Leasable
Total Comml. & Accessory FAR
Sq. Ft. Office So.Ft. So.Ft
Basement level 7,624 7,624
Ground level 6,974 5,392 1,582 6,974
Second level 4,655 3,806 849 4,655
19,253 9,198 10,055 11,629
One issue which needs to be addressed is the presence of the
existing open space features on the property which were installed
by the applicant several years ago. These include "Meadow in the
Sky" which is an organic sculpture constructed of a cylindrical
wire cage filled with boulders and covered on top by grasses and
wildflowers.
"Roaring Hole" is a fountain which is a boulder-lined
depression in the ground in a square shape into which plumes of
water are pumped. Finally, the open space is enclosed along the
sidewalk by a low concrete wall and steel frame which forms a
waterfall of small jets of water falling into a rectangular pool
below.
These features have been appreciated by both pedestrians
passing by the site as well as the patrons of the Smuggler Land
Office Restaurant's outdoor patio, which is located along the
eastern side of the property.
In order to comply with the Historic Guidelines and respect
the comments of the members of HPC, the building proposed for the
property maintains the storefront edge at the sidewalk as
established by the two landmark structures at each end of the
block. The building has also been limited to two stories,
responding to HPC's criticism of three story solutions proposed
previously for the property.
The applicant proposes to donate the three existing open
space elements to the City for reinstallation on another site in
the area. It may be appropriate to select a site such as the
open space adjacent to City Hall which is effectively a part of
the commercial core but where maintaining the continuity of the
commercial uses in the core is not at issue. Alternatively it
might be appropriate to relocate the elements to a more remote
site, such as the Art Museum or Art Park site.
The owner also confirms her willingness to negotiate with
the City or other interested parties to sell the undeveloped
property at market value so that it can be preserved as open
space. Such negotiations would obviously need to occur in the
5
I
, )
I
I
_I
I
I
1
very near future and would require the City's approval of a
subdivision or subdivision exemption.
A second issue is the viability of commercial proposals in
the CC zone district. Since the adoption several years ago of a
series of code amendments by the City which dramatically increase
the cost of competing for a commercial allocation, only one
application requesting an allocation of around 3,000 sq. ft. has
been filed in the CC zone. Projects which involve expansions of
historic landmarks and are therefore exempt from GMQS have been
pursued, but other property owners have effectively been excluded
from utilizing a significant portion of their permitted buildout
until such time as comnlercial rents escalate even more
dramatically than they have in recent years.
Included in this submission are two proposed code amendments
which address issues which specifically affect the viability of
this proposal and not necessarily others in the CC zone. The
code amendments are therefore intended to prompt a discussion
about whether the present rules need to be revised to be more
equitable.
Commercial GMQS Procedures request written information covering
twelve areas of concerns, as follows:
1. Water System. Water will continue to be supplied
by the existing 6" City water main in Hopkins which is maintained
at a pressure of approximately 100 P.S.I. Because the project is
limited to commercial uses only increased demand is estimated to
be less than 5,000 GPD. Adequate capacity is presently available
to service this project.
2. Sewacre System. The project is served by the
existing 8" Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District line in the
alley to the south of the site. Impact on the system resulting
from the project is expected to equal water useage, or less than
5,000 GPD. Adequate capacity is presently available to service
this project.
3. Drainacre Svstem. On-site storm drainage for the
proposal will comply with current City standards; the project
will be designed in a manner to assure no negative impact on
historic drainagae patterns. presently, water from the site
flows to the curb and gutter system in Hopkins Street and then to
the northwest.
4. Fire Protection Svstem. The building is across
the street from the Aspen Fire Station, with a response time of
less than five (5) minutes. Fire hydrants are located at the
northwest corner of both Hopkins Street intersections to the east
and west of the building.
6
,...........
1""<"''\
5. Development Summarv. The proposed project
includes 9,198 net leasable sq.ft. of commercial space.
Commercial uses are permitted by right in the CC zone. Minimum
lot size is 3,000 sq. ft. The height of the building is well
below the height limitation of 40 feet in the zone district and
the proposed FAR of 1.5:1 does not require special review.
Special Review of open space off-street parking and utility/trash
service area is requested as permitted in the CC zone.
6. Estimated Traffic Count Increases. In order to
estimate increased daily traffic on adjacent streets resulting
from the proposal, a memo prepared by TDA, Inc. dated July 20,
1984 (Exhibit 6) regarding traffic and parking impacts associated
with non-accessory commercial space within the Aspen Mountain PUD
has been reviewed. TDA estimated that, based on the travel
characteristics unique to the Aspen area; commercial space in the
commercial core can be expected to generate 10 daily one-way
trips per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable. During the peak hour,
approximately 6 percent of daily trips would be generated. The
increased number of trips from the project has therefore been
estimated as 92 daily one-way trips, and approximately 6 peak-
hour trips.
The principal hours of operation of the project is
anticipated to be 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Because of the limited alley
frontage of the project, no off-street parking spaces can be
provided. The off-street parking requirement will be met by a
payment-in-lieu of $210,000. All RFTA bus routes and the Rubey
Park Transit Center are within three blocks of the proposal (see
Exhibit 5). No bike paths are provided through the Commercial
Core.
The location of the project is the greatest
disincentive to auto use. The site is within comfortable walking
distance of the majority of accommodations in the City's lodge
district.
7. Affordable Housina. The affordable housing
required for the project is proposed to be provided through a
payment-in-lieu equivalent to 60% of the employee generation of
the project.
8. Stoves and Fireplaces. The development will not
include any woodburning devices.
9. Location Relative to Public Facilities. Given the
downtown location, the bllilding will be within close proximity to
all public facilities. Because the project is a commercial
project, it is not anticipated that there will be any increased
usage of public facilities.
7
I
!
I
I
J
I
j
J
10. Location Relative to Retail and Service Outlets.
This criterion does not apply to commercial/office applicatipns.
11. Effects of the Proposed Development.
building has been limited to two stories in order to
adjacent historic structures and has been located on
preferred by the HPC.
The proposed
complement
the site as
12. Construction Schedule. It is presently
anticipated that upon approval of all required review procedures
and receipt of an adequate allocation, construction of the
project would proceed within 6 months. The project would then be
completed in one phase, with completion within 9 months of start
of construction.
B. Commercial GMP Evaluation Criteria.
1. Quality of Design (maximum 18 points).
(a) Architectural Design (maximum 3 points).
Considering the compatibility of the proposed development (in
terms of scale, siting, massing, height, and building materials)
with existing neighboring developments.
In addition to accommodating the required functions of
the building, the intention behind the design of the project is
to relate to the existing historic buildings, as well as to the
general environment of the adjacent commercial district in scale,
massing, proportion and materials. These goals have been
accomplished, in part, by providing a projecting bay of
storefront windows at the first level at each end of the building
to match the plane of the facades on either side.
Emphasis has been placed upon creating a vocabulary of
forms and materials that will fit in comfortably with surrounding
structures, and which are in keeping with HPC guidelines and
committee member comments. A somewhat horizontal character has
been given to the building in order to balance its low profile,
and to further enhance a compatible visual expression when seen
in context with its immediate neighbors.
Careful attention has been given to avoiding the
imitation or compromising of the established character of the
building's important neighbors. In particular, the setbacks
relate to both adjacent buildings, the massing of the building
has been broken through the use of the extended first level
storefronts at each end of the building and a slightly recessed
entryway at the center of the building, and the rhythm of the
fenestration of the building is tied to adjacent structures. The
new building will be seen as a clean and quiet structure which
will be viewed as a complement to the adjacent historic
structures.
8
",...-..
-
-u-
--
:
~
.
~
.
,0
'~
r"""""'\
~
o
..
..
.;
.
! i
i I
a:
w
In
~
W
...
0.
W
'"
- .
.
o
.
.
:
.
g
:
o
.
.
:
:
.
,
z
..
...
..
...
Z
w
:I
w
'"
..
III
(J)
Z
-
~
c.
o
J:
I-
(J)
<(
W
0)
o
~
mr
rail
.
e
,-
..
--
n
,-
8
e
- ---
.
.
e- J
~ Ji
· T
~
1 -< ~ '.
.
.
. ----=]
In~
~
;' ~'
,,; I
- I
a: "
w ;
CD
::li
w '
...
..
w
'" .
~.
z
..
...
..
...
..
>
..
...
en
z
-
~
D.
o
~
I-
en
oCt
w
0)
o
~
ill
-----
----.-
5
.
~
,
,
o
_._._-u __
I"""""',
~
,
.
.
"
l
.
.
i
o
"--
~
.
"
, <I
,I '
, I, !)
: ..J f-.' L.
"') ",,"I .
-Jtj\/-- ,~
~I
'~.-/ ~ -,.
~
o
Cll
Cll
.;
a: .
W
III
:l;
W
...
0.
W
'"
z
c
...
..
...
..
>
w
...
a:
..
..
..
::>
en
z
-
~
a..
o
::J:
....
en
<(
w
0)
o
~
Elf
II 'n
J
I
I
J
rom
[[D
ao
[[D
em
c:m
rom
. ,j,
. II. I~'
o:li '
c::::r::] [JI:]
D
o
..
~
'"
-
a:
w
..
:I
w
..
...
w
..
z
o
i
..
...
..
..
..
...
...
c
U)
z
-
~
a..
o
~
~
U)
<
w
0)
o
~
ml
=i
r-..
o
~~
,""--
.-
.'~
z
o
j:
~
w
...
w
..
If)
w
.
'~~
z
o
~
>
w
...
w
..
If)
..
w
D
o
CO
CO
'"
0:
W
lD
::!
w
..
..
W
.,
z
o
j:
~
W
...
W
..
N
..
...
..
%
..
Il:
o
Z
z
o
j:
..
>
W
...
W
..
N
..
...
..
%
..
"
o
If)
en
z
-
~
a.
o
J:
I-
en
oct
W
0)
o
v
mr
~i
I
I
J
The south side of the building which fronts the alley
has been treated simply but the second floor facade on the ally
will be finished with the same brick material as the front.
(b) Site Design. (maximum 3 points) Considering the
quality and character of the proposed landscaping and open space
areas, the amount of site coverage by buildings, the extent of
underground utilities, and the arrangement of improvements for
efficiency of circulation, including access for service,
increased safety and privacy, and provision of snow storage
areas.
Given the HPC's stated preference to have the new
building aligned with the front of existing buildings to maintain
the historic storefront style, site design options were limited.
Because of the building'S location within the commercial core,
the major orientation and identity for the project will be the
pedestrian traffic of shoppers along the storefronts.
Access to the second floor commercial space is provided
from the sidewalk by a stair at the east end of the building and
a corridor leading to the elevator at the west side of the
building. Service and delivery access will be through the alley
at the rear, where a generous service area more than twice the
size of the required area has been provided.
~' The placement of the new building is in alignment with
I the front of existing neighbors, to strengthen the existing
. architectural boundary of the storefronts as already defined by
/ the adjacent buildings. By holding and defining the street edge
(' in plan and elevation, the proposed building will strengthen the
\' street's linear character, and provide a perception of continuity
" along the sidewalk.
Four existing Norway maples and a cottonwood are in
/place to soften the streetscape, and to continue the existing
/ rhythm and alignment of trees already established along the
i sidewalk. While the open space is limited, it is useable and
partially sheltered from the elements by the existing trees. All
proposed utilities will be undergrounded to lessen the visual
impact. A snowmelt sidewalk is provided to limit the need for
snow storage areas.
In Section I(B)(2)(c), the applicant has committed to
pave the entire width of the alley adjacent to Lot F provided
that the score in that category is in excess of 1 point.
,The alley on
adjacent ;to Lot F will
the exi~ting paving of
<~
/ . /
the,south side ,of the bUr' 4ing site .'."
be repaved wi ttl asphalt aV;ing!O matCh
the alley. / \
' / j .
9
".....-..
r.......
(c) Energy Conservation. (maximum 3 points.)
Considering the use of passive and/or active energy conservation
techniques in the construction of the proposed development,
including but not limited to insulation, glazing, passive solar
orientation, efficient heating and cooling systems and solar
energy devices; the extent to which the proposed development
avoids wasting energy by excluding excessive lighting and
inefficient woodburning devices; and the proposed development's
location, relative to whether solar gain can be expected to
reasonably result in energy conservation.
The new building will be designed to maximize benefits
in energy conservation and operating costs while minimizing
system complexity. Energy conservation efforts will be directed
toward selection and design of systems which have proven
performance over extended periods of time. All energy conserving
devices will be simple to understand, operate, adjust and
maintain so the efficiencies achieved can be reasonably
maintained over the effective life of the building systems. The
following specific conservation features will be incorporated in
the detailed design of the project.
(1) Insulation. The greatest opportunity for energy
conservation occurs in the types of materials specified in the
construction of the building envelope. An infiltration barrier
wrap such as "Tyvek" will be installed around the entire building
exterior which will significantly reduce infiltration. All
penetrations of the wrap will be carefully caulked and sealed to
further enhance the effectiveness of the barrier. Windows and
doors with state-of-the-art closures and gasketing methods will
be specified throughout, and bat and rigid insulation
specifications will exceed minimum standards. Insulation values
for the project's walls and roof will be R-28 and R-38 or better,
respectively.
In addition to the exterior barrier wrap and internal
bat/rigid insulation, an interior vapor barrier will be provided.
This vinyl vapor barrier will not only further decrease
infiltration, but will tend to hold interior humidity levels at
least 10% to 15% higher than exterior levels, resulting in a
greater degree of occupant comfort at lower room temperatures.
All penetrations of the vinyl vapor barrier such as at wall
switches and outlets will be sealed. With the individual unit's
envelopes sealed and insulated, an air-to-air heat exchanger will
be used to control the indoor environment while significantly
reducing energy losses.
(2) Mechanical Systems. Comfort heat.i ng will be
provided utilizing high efficiency mechanical systems.
Consideration will be given to integrated systems which provide
optimum efficiency in the projection of both comfort level
heating and domestic water heating. The use of individual
10
-,<,^
temperature controls for major occupancy areas will assure that
building energy inputs can be matched to the occupants' daily use
patterns. Although initial installation cost for high efficiency
systems may be slightly higher than conventional systems, the
long range effectiveness and efficiency in operation will be the
governing selection criteria. Primary heating systems will also
be selected and designed to incrementally match the seasonal and
daily demands of the commercial spaces.
(3) Plumbing. All plumbing fixtures and fittings will
be of a low flow, low water consumption type. Faucet aerators
and shower heads will be selected which provide the maximum
apparent flow at relatively low actual flows. All plumbing will
be fully insulated to prevent excessive water usage at the point
of use while waiting for adequate temperatures to be achieved.
Domestic water heater design will incorporate the latest
technology, and may be integrated with heat recovery from the
heating system. Should the final selection be a stand-alone
water heater, it will incorporate all of the current pilot, flue
and flame efficiency designs, as well as high efficiency storage
tank insulation.
(4) Glazing. All of the glazing in this project will
be selected with the highest "R" value practical. Glazing located
within six feet of the floor will be low "E" type to enhance the
warmth radiating between occupant and glazing. The use of low
"E" glass will permit a significant improvement in the occupant's
sense of comfort because of its effectiveness in re-radiating
interior warmth. In selecting interior finishes and colors,
particularly in those rooms with south-facing glazing, the
advantages of radiant absorption and mass heating will be
considered. While the specific design intent is not to create a
perfect passive environment, the design team will utilize proven
techniques in enhancing the natural solar heating capacities
within the finished interiors.
(d) Amenities. (maximum 3 points.) Considering the
provision of usable open space, pedestrian and bicycle ways,
benches, bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other common areas for
users of the proposed development.
As discussed in Sect,ion II, the deRign for the project
responds to the HPC's desire to have the proposed building align
with the storefronts of National Register buildings on either
side, as suggested in the adopted Historic Guidelines.
Because of this, none of the open space provided
on-site complies with the current open space definition which
requires a minimum depth of 10 feet. Any open space requirement
would therefore have to be met through an open space
payment-in-lien. Under current requi l'ements, the payment has
been estimated to be $387,600; if required, the appraised value
11
J
"".......
1""'-"""
of the land would be established upon receipt of an alloca
The applicant is requesting a code amendment to permit wai,
a payment-in-lieu fee when HPC favors locating the building
required open space; this is discussed in Section IV of thi\
submission. \
Because the two landmark structures at each end of the
block are built out to the sidewalk, there is little opportunity
for amenities on either of these sites. The existing open space
on the site of this proposal functions more as a space to be
viewed by passersby from the outside, rather than as an area to
enter and relax in, except of course, for the restaurant patrons.
The proposal will respond to the needs of pedestrians and bikers
in this block with the inclusion of two benches and a bike rack
to be installed between the street trees. Alternatively, if the
City has identified an alternate location for such improvements,
the applicant will agree to install the equipment elsewhere.
The site is not located directly on a bus route so no
bus shelter is proposed. Pedestrian access in and around the
project will be enhanced through the installation of a snowmelt
system in the walkways on the north side of the project.
Bicyclists are required to use the streets through the
commercial core, as no bike trails are anticipated in this area
under the present master plan.
(e) Visual Impact. (maximum 3 points.) Considering
the scale and location of the buildings in the proposed
development to prevent infringement on designated scenic
viewplanes.
The height of the building, which ranges between
28 feet and 31 feet has been established to relate to both the
recent addition to the Collins Block as well as to important
architectural elements of the neighboring National Register
buildings, and also to minimize the visual impact of the project.
The overall height has been limited to generally align with the
lower roof on the Brand Building; the height is approximately
four feet below the parapet on the Collins Block.
It is important to emphasize that the height of the
building is well below the 40 foot height limit in the CC zone
district. In addition, the Hotel Jerome Viewplane is higher than
the zoning height limit when it crosses over the site at least 45
feet above the groundplane. This is the only viewplane which
extends over the project site.
The location of the building on the site has been
established through several discussions of the project with the
HPC which favored locating the building so that the first floor
storefronts at each end of the building align with the adjacent
12
j
I
_J
"
storefronts. In considering their decision, HPC took into
account the relevant language of the adopted Historic District
Guidelines.
The project is consistent with established community
goals relative to visual compatibility, as evidenced by the
height limit established for the area, the Historic District
Development Guidelines and HPC's review and participation in the
siting of the building.
(f) Trash and utility access areas. (maximum 3
points.) Considering the extent to which required trash and
utility access areas are screened from public view; are sized to
meet the needs of the proposed development and to provide for
public utility placement; can be easily accessed; allow trash
bins to be moved by service personnel, and provide enclosed trash
bins, trash compaction or other unique measures.
We have included a request for Special Review of the
trash/utility service area for the project in Section II(C).
While the overall service area is more than twice that required,
the alley frontage is three feet less than the Code requires (20
linear feet compacted to 23 feet required) because of an existing
City transformer pad adjacent to the alley. Technically, the
transformer pad should be considered an acceptable use of the
service area, however.
The proposed service area for this project can
nonetheless accommodate five dumpsters stacked so that they can
be rolled directly into the alley. This compares quite favorably
with the trash facilities provided with other projects in the
Commercial Core.
In addition to being oversized, the proposed
utility/trash service area is well organized, protected
overhang and slightly elevated to minimize ice buildup.
will be provided as a visual screen of the trash area.
by a roof
A gate
2. Availabilitv of Public Facilities and Services
(maximum 10 points).
(a) Water Supply/Fire Protection. (maximum 2 points.)
Considering the ability of the water supply system to serve the
proposed development and the applicant's commitment to install
any water system extensions or treatment plant or other facility
upgrading required to serve the proposed development. Fire
protection facilities and services shall also be reviewed,
considering the ability of the appropriate fire protection
district to provide services according to established response
times without the necessity of upgrading available facilities;
the adequacy of available water pressure and capacity for
providing fire fighting flows; and the commitment of the
13
,..........
1"""""""
applicant to provide any fire protection facilities which may be
necessary to serve the proposed development.
The Aspen Water Department has confirmed that adequate
capacity exists to provide for the needs of the project without
system extensions or upgrading. Water service will be provided
through the existing 6" City water main in Hopkins. Estimated
increased demand will be less than 5,000 GPD, as the proposed
addition is limited to commercial uses. The Applicant conunits to
t~e payment of fees associated with the fixtures added as a
result of the project.
Fire protection service to the project can be provided
without the necessity of upgrading fire protection facilities.
The Fire Department is across Hopkins Street from the project,
and response time is estimated to be less than five minutes.
Existing fire hydrants at the northwest corner of
Hopkins and Galena and at the northwest corner of Hopkins and
Mill provide adequate coverage for fire protection without
further upgrading of fire protection facilities. Water pressure
and capacity is adequate for fire protection flow.
In discussing water service in the area of the project
with the City Water Department, it is clear that water service is
more than adequate in the area of the site. Therefore, we have
discussed the possibility of participating in the cost of adding
a main extension to serve a new hydrant at the corner of Main and
Hunter Street. This is a location that has been identified by
the Water Department as an area with inadequate hydrant coverage
as well as a location for a needed main interconnect between the
Hopkins Avenue and Main Street water lines.
The applicant is prepared to commit $5,000 toward the
installation of the main extension and hydrant. Since the
location is not immediately adjacent to the project, however,
this commitment is conditioned on an award by the Planning and
zoning Commission in excess of 1 point, since it is clear that
the project merits a score of one point without this additional
improvement. The main extension and hydrant will not only
increase fire protection in the area, but will also serve as a
first step toward the interconnect desired by the Water
Department.
(b) Sanitary Sewer. (maximum 2 points.) Considering
the ability of the sanitary sewer system to serve the proposed
development and the applicant's commitment to install any
sanitary system extensions or treatment plant or other facility
upgrading required to serve the proposed development.
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has
confirmed that the capacity of the existing sewage collection
14
('
system is adequate to accommodate the project. Sewer service
will continue to be provided through the existing 8" District
line in the alley to the south of the site.
This line flows to the west and connects to a 8" main
in First Street which continues to the north toward the treatment
plant. The Sanitation District has confirmed that some minor
paint repairs need to be made in the alley in order to improve
sewer service in the area.
The applicant proposes to contribute $3,000 toward
these repairs, to offset District expenses for this improvement,
provided that the applicant is awarded an average score in this
category in excess of 1 point. This con~itment is in addition to
the Applicant's commitment to the payment of any fees associated
with increased sewer service to the project.
(c) Public Transportation/Roads. (maximum 2 points.)
Considering the ability of the proposed development to be
serviced by existing public transit routes. The review shall
also consider the capacity of major streets to serve the proposed
development without substantially altering existing traffic
patterns, creating safety hazards or maintenance problems,
overloading the existing street system or causing a need to
extend the existing road network and considering the applicant's
commitment to install the necessary road system improvements to
service the increased usage attributable to the proposed
development.
The project is within three blocks of all RFTA bus
routes, and the Rubey Park Transit Center. The site is also
little more than one block from Aspen's pedestrian mall.
The primary hours of operation for the commercial uses
in the building will be approximately 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Because of the project's close proximity to the majority of
accommodations and all bus routes, the daily auto trips generated
by the new project is expected to be well within the capacity of
existing streets in the area. Access for service vehicles will
be from the alley between Mill and Galena Streets.
Traffic generation of the project has been estimated
based on a 1984 memo prepared by TDA, Inc. (see Exhibit G).
Using the parameters of that memo the project is expected to
generate 92 daily one-way trips (46 round-trips) and 6 peak-hour
one way trips (3 round-trips).
In order to improve the road system in the area, the
applicant commits to repave the full width of the alley along the
rear property line adjacent to Lot F, provided that the applicant
is awarded an average score in this category in excess of
1 point.
15
,,-".......
,,-~......
(d) Storm Drainage. (maximum 2 points.) Considering
,
the degree to which the applicant proposes to maintain historic
drainage patterns on the development site. If the development
requires use of the City's drainage system" the review shall
consider the commitment by the applicant to install the necessary
drainage control facilities and to maintain the system over the
long-term.
Site topography presently directs surface drainage into
Monarch Street where it is collected in the existing curb and
gutter system and directed to the northwest of the site. The
drainage concept for the project is to meet the requirements of
the City of Aspen regulations as described in Section
7-1004C(4)(f). This will be accomplished by providing short-
term on-site detention to maintain the historic rate of runoff
for the 100-year storm from the undeveloped site. Prior to
seeking a building permit for the project, the applicant will
submit a drainage plan prepared by a qualified engineer to assure
that the historical rate of runoff will be maintaDled.
It is presently anticipated that surface drainage will
be directed and collected through surface grading. Area drains
will be located in exterior areas with hard surfaces and
collected run-off will be routed via underground piping to
drywell structures designed to discharge water at the rate of the
100-year storm from the undeveloped site. For off-site runoff
entering the site, measures will be taken to maintain historic
drainage patterns and flows.
The City's storm drainage system in the inwediate
vicinity of the project is adequate; there are, however, problems
with the City's system to the west of the site, in the vicinity
of 7th and Smuggler. There is not an adequate collection system
in the area and water in the form of sheetflow presently runs
across the streets and onto the adjoining private properties. In
order to improve public facilities in the area, the applicant
therefore proposes to commit $5,000 toward storm drainage
improvements, provided that the applicant is awarded an average
score in this category in excess of 1 point.
(e) Parking. (maximum 2 points.) Considering the
provisions of parking spaces to meet the commercial and/or
residential needs of the proposed development as required by Art.
5, Div. 2, and considering the design of the parking spaces with
respect to their visual impact, amount of paved surface, and
convenience and safety.
The proposed commercial project is within comfortable
walking distance (1,500 feet) of the majority of accommodations
in the L/TR zone district. In addition, as stated previously,
the project is within three blocks of all RFTA bus routes.
16
Because of increasing congestion in the commercial core as a
whole, a growing number of Aspen's tourists arrive and depart the
commercial core by taxi.
The off-street parking requirement for commercial uses
in the CC zone district is two spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of net
leasable, which may be provided via a payment-in-lieu pursuant to
Article 7, Division 4. In Section IV, the applicant is
requesting an amendment to the text of the lancj-use regulations
to eliminate the mitigation provision for existing space proposed
to be demolished and rebuilt. When existing commercial space is
to be retained, there is no parking requirement for that
increment [S5-30l(c)].
Because of the limited alley frontage and conflicts
between service vehicles and parking in the alley, no off-street
parking is possible. The applicant proposes to satisfy the
off-street parking required for the project through a
payment-in-lieu. If the code amendment is approved, the
requirement is 14 spaces, requiring a payment of $210,000.00:
9,198-2,375=6,823 sq. ft. x 2/1000=13.6 (14) spaces
14 spaces x $15,000/space = $210,0000
In addition, in order to improve the availability of
public parking in the area, the applicant proposes to make a
payment of an additional $15,000.00 for one parking space beyond
the requirement for the project, provided that the applicant is
awarded an average score in this category in excess of 1 point.
3. Provision of Affordable Housinq (maximum 15
points). Each Development Application shall be assigned points
for the provision of housing which complies with the housing
size, type, income and occupancy guidelines of the City, and with
the provisions of Sec. 8-109.
The applicant commits to provide a payment-in-lieu
,under low-income (Category 1) standards in effect at the time a
building permit is issued equivalent to 60% of the employees
generated by the project. In Section IV of this submission, the
applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to the text of
the land use regulations to eliminate mitigation requirements for
reconstructed commercial square footage.
I
I
Proposing to satisfy the project's affordable housing
requirement with a payment-in-lieu is necessary because prior
discussions with HPC indicated that the committee was reluctant
to approve a three story solution for the site.
If the code amendment is approved, employee generation
for the project is 27.29 employees based on the proposed program
of 9,198 sq.ft. of net leasable retail and office space, less
17
J
r---..
1""''''''''
2,375 sq. ft. of existing net leasable space (net new square
footage of 6,823 sq.ft.), and using an employee generation factor
of 4.0/1,000 sq.ft. of net leasable. The applicant's required
payment-in-lieu would therefore be $573,000, calculated as
follows:
27.29 employees x 60% x $35,000 = $573,090
An employee generation factor of 4.0 employees per
1,000 sq. ft.. of net leasable commercial space has been used
because the Planning Office used this factor recently to
determine the employee generation for a restaurant in the
commercial core. Since restaurant facilities have traditionally
been considered the highest employee generator among all uses
listed in the housing guidelines, using the same factor for the
proposed project is conservative.
,
/i
Approval of the method by which the applicant
proposes to provide affordable housing shall be at the option of
the Aspen City County, upon the recommendation of the Commission.
In evaluating the applicant'S proposal, the advice of the City's
housing designee shall be sought in considering the following
factors:
1. Whether the City has an adopted
plan to develop affordable housing with
monies received from payment of affordable
housing dedication fees.
2. Whether the City has an adopted
plan identifying the applicant's site as
being appropriate for affordable housing.
3. Whether the applicant's site is
well suited for the development of affordable
housing, taking into account the availability
of services, proximity to employment
opportunities and whether the site is
affected by environmental constraints to
development or historic preservation
concerns.
4. Whether the method proposed will
result in employee housing being produced
prior to or at the time the impacts of the
development will be experienced by the
community.
5. Whether the development itself
requires the provision of affordable housing
on-site to meet its service needs.
18
,
If the Council shall not approve the method by
which the applicant proposes to provide affordable housing, the
applicant shall be provided with direction as to which other
method or methods would be preferable.
4. Bonus Points. (maximum four points.) Bonus
points may be assigned when it is determined that a proposed
development has not only met the substantive standards of Secs.
8-l06(F)(1) through (3), but has also exceeded the provisions of
these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design
meriting recognition.
. I
I
J
19
,..,
,--...
"
II. SPECIAL REVIEW PROCEDURES
No development subject to Special Review shall be permitted
unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination
that the proposed development complies with the review standards
relevant to the request, as discussed below.
A. Special Review of Pavrnent-in-lieu for Open Space.
The open space requirement in the CC zone is 25% of. the lot
area, or 1,938 sq. ft. Approximately 132 sq. ft. of open area is
provided along the sidewalk, however, along the sidewalk, this
area does not meet the definition of open space because it is not
10 feet in depth. The P&Z may approve a reduction in open space
by Special Review; under current regulations a payment-in-lieu
for that portion of the open space not provided must be paid,
based on the appraised value of the unimproved land.
In Section IV of this application, the applicant is
requesting an amendment to this provision of the code to allow a
waiver of this payment when the HPC determines that provision of
all or a portion of the open space is inappropriate on the site.
If the proposed open space code amendment is not approved,
it is estimated that the payment-in-lieu of open space (based on
an estimated value of $200 per square foot for the unimproved
land, and using a total of 1938 square feet of required open
space to be developed) would be $387,600:
1938 sq. ft. x $200.00 = $387,600.00
For reduction of required open space in the CC zone, the
applicant must demonstrate compliance with the following
standard:
1. Provision of less than the Required Open
Space On-Site is more Consistent with the Character of
Surroundina Land Uses than would be the Provision of
Open Space Accordinq to the Standard:
Response:
Both of the landmark structures on the block are
built out to the property line, in the traditional
manner of the late 1800's. While a limited amount of
open area was approved recently for the small addition
to the Collins Block, this area nonetheless does not
comply with the current open space definition and has
been approved as a variance.
20
)
]
J
j
J
"
In its conceptual approval of this proposal, HPC
requested that the proposed building be moved forward
on the site so that the architectural elements at
either end of the building are located at the property
line, in the same plane as the two historic structures.
The applicant has complied with this request.
This is consistent with the general guideline of
S7-404(A)(3) which states that "it may be inappropriate
to have open space on the site when other buildings
along the street front are built to the property line.
"
B. Scecial Review of Reduction in Reauired Off-Street
Parkina.
In the CC zone, the parking requirement is
2 spaces/l,OOO sq. ft. of net leasable for commercial expansion.
A payment-in-lieu for on-site parking of $15,000.00 per space may
be approved by Special Review by the P&Z under S7-404(B).
Because of the limited amount of alley frontage, and the need to
maintain an adequate trash/utility service area, it is not
possible to provide on-site parking for this project. The
payment-in-lieu of parking is $210,000 calculated as follows:
Net leasable expansion:
9,198 (proposed) - 2,375 (existing) = 6,823 sq. ft.
Off-street parking required for commercial space:
2 spaces/l,OOO sq. ft. x 6,823 sq. ft. = 14 spaces required
Parking payment-in-lieu required:
$15,000/space x 14 spaces = $210,000
In determining whether to accept the payment, the Commission
shall take into consideration the following factors:
1. The Practical Abilitv of the Applicant to
Place parkina On-Site;
Response:
The project's alley frontage is limited to only
30 feet, of which 10 feet is subject to a City easement. In
order to provide required trash storage, it is therefore not
practical to provide off-street parking for the project.
21
r"",
r-'"
2. Whether the Parkinq Needs of the Development
have been Adequately Met On-site;
Response:
As discussed below, while no on-site parking is
provided, adequate off-street parking is readily
available within close proximity of the site.
3. Whether the City has Plans for a'Parkinq
Facility which would better meet the needs of the
Development and the Community than would Location
of the Parkinq On-site;
Response:
The project site is located only two blocks from
the recently completed parking structure. That
facility is presently underutilized; rather than
encourage additional traffic to circulate to off-street
parking in the commercial core it seems preferable now
that an alternative exists, to encourage long-term
parking at the City facility. The applicant's payment
in-lieu would also help defray the cost of the
facility, which exceeded cost estimates.
C. Special Review of Reduction in Trash and Utility Access
Recruirements.
In the CC zone district, a minimum area of 20 linear
feet along the alley with a minimum vertical clearance and depth
of 10 feet is required for a utility/trash service area for a
project of up to 6,000 sq. ft. of net leasable floor area under
the provisions of S5-2l0(D). For each 1200 sq. ft. of additional
net leasable, the length must be increased by 1 foot. With
9,198 sq. ft. of net leasable, the required service area for this
project is therefore an area 23 feet in length and 10 feet in
depth, or 230 sq. ft. of area.
The utility/trash service area proposed is 30 linear
feet with a depth of 20 feet or an area of 600 sq. ft.; however,
the existing City transformer easement reduces the alley frontage
to 20 feet, three feet less than required. The Applicant is
requesting special review approval by the P&Z of the proposed
utility/trash service area.
The review criteria to be considered by P&Z in its
consideration of the appropriateness of a reduction in trash and
utility access requirements (See S7-404C) are as follows:
22
r
,
,
1. Adequacv of the Proposed Utility
Trash/Service Area:
Response:
The proposed service area for this project is two
times as large as that required for the project in
terms of its square footage.
2. The Adequacy of Access.
Response:
The alley behind this project has historically been one
of the most disorganized of all the alleys in the Commercial
Core, due to the absence of off-alley trash storage.
However, with the construction of the large service area
proposed for this project as well as that for the Lane
Parcel immediately adjacent to the site, access in the alley
should be improved upon significantly.
3. Measures to Facilitate Trash Removal.
Response:
The proposed trash storage area is well organized,
protected from the elements by a roof overhang, and will be
slightly elevated to minimize ice buildup. At least five
6'8" x 3'6" trash containers can be provided directly off of
the alley outside of the easement area; this is more than
enough containers to adequately serve the needs of the
project.
4. Provisions for Trash Compaction.
Response:
In the past, the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission
has investigated trash compactor systems for the Commercial
Core area. Such a system will only be feasible if all the
building owners in each block are prepared or required to
participate in the cost of such a system. The owner does
not presently anticipate a need for an individual trash
compactor system, given the size of the service area
provided for the project.
23
"... "'"
r'''''"'
5. Adequacy of Area for Utilities.
Response:
A portion of the service area will be set aside for
transformers and other utility equipment for the building.
These facilities will be more than adequate to serve the
needs of the building.
6. Assurance That the Access Area Will Be Constructed.
Response:
The service area as proposed is an integral part of the
Applicant's GMQS Submission. It will not be possible to
obtain a building permit for the building unless the service
area is included on the construction documents as approved.
24
I
I
. ;
i
, ,
. j
l
, I
J
,)
1
J
~
~
III. REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM GMQS PROCEDURES FO~
RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING BUILDING [S8-104(A)(I)(a)]
Under the provisions of S8-l04(A), the Planning Director
shall exempt from GMQS procedures the reconstruction of an
existing commercial building. Under current provisions,
mitigation for affordable housing and parking is required in
order to replace existing commercial square footage proposed to
be demolished. In Section IV of this submission, the applicant
is requesting a code amendment to delete the mitigation
requirement.
25
1""' "'
r"""
IV. REOUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE LAND-USE REGULATIONS. (ARTICLE 7,
DIVISION 11)
The applicant is requesting approval of three proposed code
changes. The first has to do with a technical oversight which is
already under consideration by the HPC. Under the current
language of S7-602, no structure (whether it is on the historic
inventory or not) which is within an historic district can be
demolished unless the HPC makes a series of findings. One of the
required findings is that the structure must not be structurally
sound.
This and other required findings effectively block the
demolition of any structure which is in an historic district
regardless of its historic significance. The proposed amendment
language included here is only one. method of correcting the
oversight. HPC is presently considering other alternatives to
resolve the problem.
The other two proposed code amendments are intended to deal
with provisions of the code which affect the viability of
commercial projects. The City adopted a series of code
amendments several years ago which dramatically increased the
cost of exactions for commercial projects competing for a GMQS
allocation in the CC zone, including an increase in the housing
requirement from 35% to 60% of employee generation, an off-street
parking requirement and payment-in-lieu provision, significant
restrictions on what may be counted in open space, together with
an open space payment-in-lieu provision, and elimination of the
credit for existing commercial space when demolition is proposed.
Since these provisions were adopted, only one application
requesting a conullercial allocation of approximately 3,000 sq. ft.
in the CC/Cl category has been submitted. In the meantime, the
City has held meetings to discuss the dramatic escalation in
rents for retail and office space in the downtown area and its
consequent effect on the loss of locally-oriented retail and
office business. The Planning Office expects to continue these
discussions in the future but as yet has not made any concrete
recommendations.
The first of the two substantive code amendments establishes
a waiver of the open space payment-in-lieu fee when HPC requires
that a new building be located within the required open space in
order to comply with the adopted historic guidelines.
The second substantive code amendment eliminates the
mitigation requirements for commercial space when demolition and
reconstruction is proposed.
26
r
,
A. General Application Requirements (~6-202):
(1) Application Form is attached as Exhibit 1.
(2) Applicant's Letter of Consent is attached as Exhibit 2.
(3) The street address of the parcel is 409 East Hopkins
Avenue. The legal description of the site. is the north 80
feet of Lots D & E and all of Lot F, Block 88, Townsite of
Aspen.
(4) Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit 3.
(5) The Vicinity Map, included as Exhibit 4, locates. the
subject parcel.
(6) Public notice for an amendment to the text of the
Land-Use Code [S6-205(E)(4)(d)), requires only publication
in the newspaper by the Planning Office. Under the
provisions of S7-ll03, a development application for an
amendment to the text of the Land-Use Code may be submitted
at any time during the year.
(7) Compliance with Substantive Review Standards:
In reviewing an amendment to the text of the Land-Use Code,
the Commission and City Council shall consider the following
review standards of S7-ll02:
1. "Whether the proposed amendments are in conflict with any
applicable provisions of the Land Use Code."
2.
"Whether the proposed amendments are consisteritwith all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan."
I
3 .
"Whether the proposed amendments are compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
4. "The effect of the proposed amendments on traffic generation
and road safety."
5 .
"Whether and the extent to which the proposed amenciment
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."
I
J
27
I" "
r"'"",
c-
..
6. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment."
7. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen."
8. "Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendments."
9. "Whether the proposed amendments would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter."
B. Precise Wordina of the Proposed Amendments to the Text
of Chapter 24:
1. Amendment reaardina demolition of non-historic
structures in an Historic District. In order to
correct the provision which prohibits the demolition of
any structurally sound structure regardless of historic
significance, the following text changes are proposed:
Amend S7-602(A). Demolition. Partial
Demolition or Relocation, by deleting the
phrase "or any structure within an "H"
Historic Overlay District" from each of the
first three paragraphs of the Section. The
first three paragraphs would then read as
follows:
Sec. 7-602. Demolition, Partial Demolition and Relocation.
A. General. No demolition of any structure included in
the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of
Aspen, established pursuant to Sec. 7-709, shall pe permitted
unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the
standards of Sec. 7-602(B).
No partial demolition and removal of a portion of any
Historic Landmark shall be permitted unless approved by the HPC
as necessary for the renovation of the structure, and because it
meets the standards of Sec. 7-602(C), or unless the partial
demolition and removal is exempt because it creates no change to
the exterior of the structure and has no impact on the character
of the structure.
No relocation of any structure included in the
Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen,
established pursuant to Section 7-709 shall be permitted unless
28
""'-,
r-"\
the relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the
standards of Section 7-602(D)(1) through (4).
When deemed appropriate due to the significance of the
project, the HPC may require a Performance Guarantee in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney as assurance that the demolition,
partial demolition, or relocation will be completed as
represented.
2. Amendment of S7-404(A)(3) to allow waiver of open
space pavrnent-in-lieu fees upon approval bv HPC. Under current
Special Review requirements, the waiver of payment-in-lieu fees
for open space is only permitted in the CC zone when the HPC
approves the relocation of an Historic Landmark into required
open space. The adopted Historic District Development
Guidelines, however, strongly encourage new proposals to maintain
the storefront edge at the sidewalk at the expense of open space
area.
For instance, for renovation and restoration projects, the
following language is included in the Guidelines:
A. Streetscape:
"It is important to maintain the elements of
the streetscape which make the commercial
core a pedestrian environment . . .
(including) . access to the display
windows at the sidewalk edge."
B. Setback:
"Buildings in the commercial core form an
edge along the back of the sidewalk. This is
one of the most important characteristics of
the commercial core. Maintain the existing
edge created by the building facades at the
sidewalk. The building facade is the most
effective way of maintaining the edge. . ."
C. Massina:
"The vertical plane of the building facade at
the street edge should be maintained .
For new construction, equally strong encouragement to build
at the sidewalk edge is incorporated into the guidelines:
"New structures do not need to damage the historic
integrity if they are designed to respect the
relationships among the buildings that have already
been established. Broad-scale characteristics such as
29
I
]
I
I
J
"
'-,
the alignment (of buildings) at the sidewalk should be
studied."
A. Setback:
"Plazas or courts that break the continuity
of the facade alignment should be avoided .
. Maintain the alignment of facades at the
sidewalk edge. Most building were built
right up to the sidewalk. This alignment
defines the public space and the building
edge. This basic alignment of buildings at
the sidewalk should be maintained."
By adopting these Guidelines, the City has endorsed a
concept of maintaining the pedestrian experience at the sidewalk
in the commercial core. The open space requirement in the CC
zone has been retained, however. Consequently, applicants who
comply with the guidelines in order to obtain HPC approval are
presently required to make a payment-in-lieu equal to the
unimproved value of the land when less than 25% open space is
provided. This further threatens the viability of all new
commercial projects in the CC zone.
One way this conflict between the adopted HPC guidelines and
zoning regulations can be remedied is to amend a portion of the
language of S7-404(A)(3).
The relevant paragraph presently reads:
"When the HPC approves the on-site relocation
of an Historic Landmark into required open
space, such that the amount of open space on-
site is reduced below that required by this
Code, the requirements of this section shall
be waived."
Proposed language:
"When, in order to assure compatibilitv with
the Historic District and Historic Landmark
Development Guidelines, the HPC approves the
on-site relocation of an Historic Landmark ~
the sitina of a proposed structure within
required open space, such that the amount of
open space on-site is reduced below that
required by this Code, the requirements of
this section shall be waived."
3. Amendment of ~8-l04(A)(1)(a)(1) to eliminate
mitiaation reauirements for replacement of demolished
commercial or office floor area. Under present
30
,.....""
,..-,,~
regulations, the Planning Director is required to grant
an exemption from GMQS procedures for the
reconstruction of an existing commercial building which
does not expand commercial floor area. In order to
obtain such approval, however, the applicant is
required to provide affordable housing and parking for
the reconstructed floor area as if it were newly
constructed space.
At the time of adoption, the intent behind the
regulation appeared to be two-fold - to first
discourage the demolition of smaller historic
structures remaining in the commercial zone districts
and secondly to avoid awarding full credit for
outdated, inefficient or otherwise substandard
structures which could not be expected to generate an
equivalent number of employees and parking demand as a
replacement structure.
With regard to the first concern, continued
strengthening of regulations regarding demolition of
historic structures has provided increased protection
for historic structures of significance to the point
that they would no longer be jeopardized if this
provision were deleted.
With regard to the second concern, a situation
such as the applicant's, where the existing structure
is sound and fully viable as a commercial structure,
was not given sufficient consideration at the time of
adoption. While the existing structure is at odds with
curre~t HPC guidelines (the use of modular or jumbo
brick is clearly discouraged and the split level
concept is also inconsistent with virtually all
historic structures in the District) it is nonetheless
fully occupied and employee generation and parking
demand is as great as the replacement square footage
will be.
It is inconsistent to require an applicant who is
replacing equivalent commercial space to pay these
exactions when an applicant seeking an allocation to
expand an existing structure is not required to pay
exactions for the space to be retained.
While the goals behind the regulations may very
well have merit, nonetheless in practice the regulation
discourages creative solutions in some cases. The
applicant requests that the language be deleted until a
more equitable regulation can be resolved.
31
r "
,""
,
Current language of S8-104(A)(1)(a)(1), with
language requested to be deleted shown as struck:
" 1.
Planning
follows:
General. Development which the
Director shall exempt shall be as
a. Remodelina. restoration, or
reconstruction of existina buildina:
(1) The remodeling, restoration or
reconstruction of an existing commercial
lodge or multi-family building which does not
expand commercial or office floor area or
create additional dwelling, hotel or lodge
units or involve a change of use. No bandit
unit shall be remodeled, restored or
reconstructed unless it has first been
legalized pursuant to Sec. 5-510. Te eetaifl
appre~al te rcesRstEuat acmali0flca commcreial
er offieo fleer area, tho applieaRt Bnall
a6meRetra~e ~kat afferdaslc ReHsiR~ and
par]tiR~ is flE'6vieie:el fer t.he; rCC6Rstract.cd
fleeL' area as if it ,;ero flculy CORstEl1.etcd
spaee.
32
I
j
"...--.,
/',,",,"\
EXHIBIT 1
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
1 )
2)
Project Name
409 East Hopkins Commercial Proiect
Project Location
North 80 feet of Lots D and E and all of
Lot F, Block 88, Aspen Townsite
3 )
5 )
Present Zoning CC
Applicant's Name, Address &
Laura Donnellev, Box 589,
4) Lot Size 7823
Phone #
Aspen. Colorado 81612
so. ft
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Joe Wells, 602 Midland
Park Place. Aspen. Colorado 81611 1303\ 925-8080
7) Type of Application (please check all that apply):
Conditional Use Conceptual SPA
-1L Special Review Final SPA
8040 Greenline Conceptual PUD
Stream Margin Final PUD
Mountain View Subdivision
Plane
Condominiumiza- -1L Text/Map
tion Amendment
Lot Split/Lot
Adjustment
Conceptual Historic Dev.
Final Historic Dev.
Minor Historic Dev.
Historic Demolition
Historic Designation
-1L GMQS Allotment
GMQS Exemption
8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing
structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous
approvals granted to the property).
Two story split-level commercial buildinG of 2.375 so. ft. of net
leasable. outdoor dinino for restaurant on adiacent property and
open space.
9) Description of Development Application
Reoeust for commercial GMOS allotment, special review and related
code amendments for a two story commercial structure of 9.198 so.
ft. of net leasable space plus a full basement.
10) Have you attached the following:
-1L Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents
-1L Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents
-1L Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your
Application
)
j
J
,
EXHIBIT 2
September 15, 1990
Ms. Amy Margerum
Planning Director
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ms. Margerum:
My letter is to confirm that I am the record owner of the north
80 feet of Lots D and E and all of Lot F, Block 88, Aspen Townsite;
I have requested that the enclosed application for a commercial
GMQS allocation, special review and amendments to the text of the
Aspen land use regulations be filed by Joseph Wells.
Sincerely,
, -'l./.-t/.. -r' ,-,.,- -
(016761
,,,.,... ....
EXHIBIT 3
DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP
14678)
35
r-,",\
un
G3
,-_OmmOfi\veaILn
Land Title Insurance Compr ~,
.'
."'" .,
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
1. Effective date: 07/19/90 @ 8:00 A.M.
2. Policy or policies to be issued:
(a)ALTA Owner's Policy-Form B-1970
(Rev. 10-17-70 & 10-17-84) or 10/21/87
PROPOSED INSURED: CUNNINGHAM INVESTMENT
CORPORATION
(b)ALTA Loan Policy,
(REV. 10-21-87)
PROPOSED INSURED:
(c)Alta Loan Construction Policy, 1975
( Rev. 10-17-84)
PROPOSED INSURED:
Case No. PCT-4853 C2
Amount $
Premium $
CO., INC., A COLORADO
Amount $
Premium $
Amount $
Premium $
Tax Cert. $
3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interes~ in the land described or
referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested
in:
LAURA DONNELLEY
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
LOTS D, E AND F, BLOCK 88, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, EXCEPTING
THEREFROM THE SOUTHERLY 20 FEET OF LOTS D AND E, BLOCK 88. CITY AND
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. COUNTY OF PITKIN. STATE OF COLORADO.
I
I
I
I
I
Countersigned at: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, I
NC.
601 E. HOPKINS
ASPEN, CO. 81611
303-925-1766
Fax 303-925-6527
Authorized officer or agent
I
Schedule A-PG.1
This Commitment is invalid
unless the Insuring
provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
~
Commonwealtn ""'.....
Land Title Insurance Com pan)
~
SCHEDULE B-SECTION 1
REQUIREMENTS
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
ITEM (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors
of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured.
ITEM (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be
insured must be executed and duly filed for record to-wit:
1. Deed from
to
Laura Donnelley
Cunningham Investment Co., Inc., a Colorado Corporation
2. Certificate of Incorporation or Certificate of Good Standing issued
by the Secretary of State of Colorado for Cunningham Investment
Company, Inc., a Colorado Corporation.
3. Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Real Estate Transfer
Tax as established by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and
Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990) has been paid or exempted.
4. Evidence satisfactory to the Company that the Declaration of Sale,
Notice to County Assessor, as required by H.B. 1288, Notice to
County Assessor, has been complied with and that no fees or
penalties exist or are currently due.
5. Certificate of Nonforeign Status of Individual Transferor signed by
Laura Donnelley.
This commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring provisions and Schedules
A and 8 are attached.
Schedule 8-Section 1 PG.1
Commitment No. PCT-4853
!.'rEJ' .
~
l..,orrunOllVl'ed!li!
Land Title Insurance Comr .,
SCHEDULE B SECTION 2
EXCEPTIONS
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the
following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the
Company:
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. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if
any, created. first appearing in the public records or attaching
subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the
proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest
or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.
6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax. special assessment. charge or
lien imposed for water or sewer service or for any other special
taxing district.
7. Reservations and exceptions as contained in the Deed from the City
of Aspen providing as follows: that no title shall be hereby
acquired to any mine of gold. silver, cinnabar or copper or to any
valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws; and
subject to all the conditions, limitations and restrictions
contained in section 2386 of the Revised Statues of the united
States, in Deed recorded in Book 79 at Page 32.
8. Terms, conditions and agreements as contained in instrument
recorded in Book 239 at Page 436.
9. Easement over the Southerly 7.0 feet of the Easterly 10.0 feet of
Lot F, Block 88, City and Townsite of Aspen, as set forth in Decree
recorded June 20, 1979 in Book 371 at Page 85.
J
]
This commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
Schedule B-Section 1 PG.1
Commitment No. PCT-4853
~
Lc.mmOHwealW
Land Title Insurance Campan}
, ---
~
SCHEDULE 8-SECTION 2
CONTINUED
Exceptions numbered NONE
are hereby omitted.
The Owner's Policy to be issued. if any. shall contain the following
items in addition to the ones set forth above:
(1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under schedule B-Section 1.
(2) Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents
or in Acts authorizing issuance thereof; water rights, claims or
title to water.
NOTE: If the Company conducts the owners' closing under
circumstances where it is responsible for the recording or
filing of legal documents from said transaction, the Company
will be deemed to have provided "Gap Coverage".
This commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring provisions and Schedules
A and B are attached.
Schedule 8-Section 2
Commitment No. PCT-4853
~
~urrlnlUIl \H:.dllH
Land Title Insurance Comp<v
"
,
ENDORSEMENT SCHEDULE FOR OWNER'S POLICY
The following Endorsements will be issued in connection with the
Owner's Policy to be issued hereunder.
NONE REOUESTED
EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED 1,2,3 & 4 WILL BE DELETED FROM THE OWNER'S POLICY
UPON COMPLETION OF ALL OF THE REOUIREMENTS
NOTE: A satiafactory affidavit and agr3ement indemnifying the Company
against unfiled mechanics' and materialmens liens executed by the
persons indicated must be furnished to the Company. together with
any additional premium required by the filed rates of the
Company. Upon receipt of these items, pre-printed item number 4
will be deleted, or modified from the owners/mortgage policy when
issued, at the descretion of Commonwealth Land Title Insurance
Company.
NOTE: Current survey, certified by a Registered Colorado Land Surveyor
must be delivered to and approved by the Company for deletion of
Printed Exception No.3.
I
I
I
I
I
I
,his commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring Provisions and schedules
A and B are attached.
schedule A-Section 1
Commitment No. PCT-4853
r.....
~
Commitment For Title Insurance
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, herein called the company. for a valuable con-
sideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed
Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred
to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and
to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies
committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this Commitment
or by subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of tille insurance and all liability and obligations
hereunder shall cease and terminate 120 days after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall
be issued, whichever rust occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the said Company has caused its Corporate Name and Seal to be hereunto affixed; this instrument,
including Commitment, Conditions and Stipulations attached, to become valid when countersigned by an Authorized Officer or
Agent of the Company.
~'U ilTL[ /4'
'v'l:f., " J'lo::/
~ '^ ~'~
~ %
~ - n
~ ~
~, ,~
"''I> '.".. ~
'lftOJ_.II"
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
""'~;fJj~t" ~ ~_,
Conditions and Stipulations
1. The term mortgage, when used herein. shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument.
2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter
affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B
hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for
any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose
such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise
acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other. matter, the Company at its option
may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability
previOUsly incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations.
3, Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included
under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance
hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in
Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event
shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is
subject to the insuring provisions, the Conditions and Stipulations, and the Exclusions from Coverage of the fonn of policy
or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part
of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein.
4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out
of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must
be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment.
American Land Title Association Commitment 1966
Cover Page
Form 1004-8
,
c_:
EXHIBIT 4
VICINITY MAP
36
146781
UU UU 'JU UU L
~
""'....',,",
~------- ------i-'yi"ii-'
I I
I I
T - I Z :
I I,
T---L----------------~-&~~1
I I
I I . I
, - ,
I '0 I
I I I
I I
I I 1:I:1J.NnH I
~- --------------------------
I
,
I
I
I
~
Z
"
II:
.
L
W
Q
Z
.
II:
~
o
II:
>-
W
III
::;)
II:
I-------r---------i------H~~NOR-
I
I
I
t
I
- -
~-~-----_--_______~4Y
I ---I I I
I I, I
I I~ I z ~ I
z I ,>C I. L I
~ I I~ I ~ g I
2, ,:I: 1:1: U I
I '--r--I I :! I
l nn nn rTlrln n~ n:
2
.
.j
.j
.
:I:
II:
W
"
W
W
.j
III
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
z
.
c
::;)
Q
.
oJ
C
o
.
o
z
~
c
Q.
C
a
>-
I-
-
Z
-
o
-
>
,- '"
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
146761
/' '"
~
EXHIBIT 5
MAP OF TRANSIT ROUTES
37
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
..............
'-'"
I
.,
~
-
::;,
0
cr
-
.,
c
as
..
l-
.
.-
~
i ..
II ::;,
I, a
-
!: u.
: : g f ~ ~
. 0 i = ,
I . 0 -' = .
I:g !CCcow
. 0 >w..J
I : 0>_... t
i:i~~~t;5~
:j~Z:)~a::0
~ffi:5;2~ffi
Z'>:r:ocn:) _
CJz:)o:.:
1--'_ ~oco
:Eiii:r:cn...:;
'I
~
I
E
.
~
..
o
~
..
-
c'
.
e
A
o
..
.
.
o
-
..
C
.
~I
,..
-,
C
"
o
u
.5
...
-
i:
...
c
.
..
.
oC
;,;
"
~
"
o
e
r ...
"
""
EXHIBIT 6
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
REGARDING TRAFFIC GENERATION
FOR COMMERCIAL USES
TDA, INC.
I
)
j
j
j
I
I
j
J
1016761
38
J
I
J
J
I
r
"-"'''''"'.
r'",\
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To:
Joe Wells
Doremus and Company
Chris Deffebach~Bill
Job:
Date:
July 20, 1984
#1299
nactmemo.cjd
From:
~-
EagerV'
Subject:
Non-Accessory CDmmercial Space Description
The purpose of this memo is to describe the transportation elements in
Aspen code Section 24-11.5 that are affected by the proposed 4,500 sq.
ft. of non-accessory commercial space in the Aspen lodge development.
First, let me explain the basis of our estimates befDre proceeding into
the specific questions raised in the code. Transportation and parking
impacts associated with the residential and commercial development fDr
the proposed Aspen lOd~e haye been described in detail in previous
technical memorandums. Included in these documents was the parking and
transportation impacts associated with accessory commercial space. It
has been preYiously assumed that accessory retail space would be oriented
entirely to Lodge residents or those within walking distance and wDuld
not generate additional vehicular traffic. With 4,500 sq. ft. of non-
accessory retail uses, there would be some additional traffic, though
the amount would be quite small compared to total Lodge volumes.
Specifically, we estimate that the commercial space wDuld generate 40
person trip ends per 1,000 sq. ft. and 10 auto driyer trip ends per
1,000 sq. ft. This results in 180 daily person trip ends and 45 auto
trip ends. During the peak hour, approximately 6 percent, or 3 vehicles
trips would be generated by the non-accessory commercial space.
The number of additional trips generated is small because:
1. Aspen is an unusual situation,
2. most of the shoppers attracted to the commercial space wDuld be
pedestrians in downtown Aspen, and
3. some would drive to downtown, but wDuld have multiple
destinations.
of
lDA
INC
57
, I
1
~
, ,
,..~
The following discussion addresses the transportation elements in Aspen
Lodge 24-11.5 as they relate tD the 4,500 SQ. ft. nDn-acceSSDry
commercial spaces.
Section 24-11.5 (1)(ee)
o Estimated traffic count increases on adjacent streets resulting
from the proposed development.
The 4,500 sQ. ft. of non-accessory commercial space would
generate approximately 3 vehicle trips per peak hour. This represents
2 percent of the net Lodge project peak hDur traffic.
o Hours of principal daily usage.
The retail space would be open between 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
o On and off-street parking to be supplied.
The non-accessory commercial space will not alter the number Df
on and off~street parking spaces supplied by the Aspen Lodge and
Condominium development.
o Location of alternate transit means.
Location of bus routes:
The transfer station for all city and county buses is located
at Rubey Park, which is directly across the street from the
proposed commercial space. The city transit system includes
nine routes that proYide service throughout the city as well
as to Mountain Valley, the Highl~nds and SnDwmass. The county
also operates serYice to Snowmass, as well as two routes going
down valley to El Jebel and Glenwood Springs. The close
proximity of these transit routes to the, proposed project
would minimize the need for retail patrons who are not Lodge
guests to use their car.
I
\
\
I
,j
58
~
~
Location of bicycle and pedestrian routes.
Pedestrian and bicycle access to the proposed commercial site
will be promoted with the construction Df bicycle and
pedestrian imprDvements proposed by the Aspen Lodge develop-
ment. These improvements include:
a pedestrian/bike path along the perimeter Df the site
that will connect with the Ute-Benedict bike path,
contribution toward sidewalk construction and
reconstruction along streets in the Lodge ImprDvement
District,
new crosswalk paYing at the intersections of Durant and
Mill Streets and Durant and Galena Streets,
enriched paving and benches along Mill Street,
benches in scattered nooks along the bike path Dn LDdge
property.
These improvements will increase the accessibility for
pedestrians and bicycles to the commercial space.
o Auto disincentives.
Since 80 percent of the person-trips generated by the retail
space are assumed to be made by Lodge guests or by walking, the
most important auto disincentives would be oriented toward
emplDyees.
The Aspen Lodge will sponsor housing for all Lodge employees,
including those employed in the non-accessory commercial space.
To discourage the use Df autDs by employees, the Lodge will:
locate all LDdge sponsored employee housing within walking
distance of the LDdge or on a transit rDute,
purchase transit passes, fDr any emplDyee that needs Dne to
commute to work,
provide an Aspen Lodge shuttle for seasonal employees residing
down valley.
59
,- ,
, ,
~ .J
Section 24-11.5 (2)(cc)
o Motor vehicle circulation, parking, bus stops and improvements
for privacy.
Landscaping for the commercial space will be CDmpleted as part of
the landscape plan for Aspen Lodge. This plan proYides privacy
for motor vehicle circulation, parking, bus and transit stops on-
site as shown on the site plan.
Section 24-11.5 (2)(dd)
o
Public transportation and road capacity.
The proposed commercial deyelopment will have little impact on
the public transportation system because most person-trips (80%)
will be made by LDdge guests and residents.
The few auto trips generated by the commercial space during the
peak hDur could also be expected to have minimum impact on the
road capa~ity. This impact is eyen smaller when the high
probability that these trips are multi-destinatiDnal is
considered.
. ,
,
To determine the impact of prDjected generated pedestrian volumes
on the streets serving the Lodge, net Lodge pedestrian YDlumes
were added to background pedestrian yolumes. The Lodge is
expected to generate an additional 3 pedestrians per minute at
the most frequented intersection (crossing 2urant at Mill street)
during the peak hDur (winter, 4-5:00 p.m.). The pedestrian
volumes were combines with vehicular yolumes to assess potential
circulation problems. The intersection, with project~d pedestrian
and vehicular volumes, was found to represent average CDnditions
in the central areas of mDst towns and appears to present minor
potential for vehicular/pedestrian conflicts.
Although the commercial space will generate Dnly a fraction of
the total Lodge pedestrian trips, capacity on the adjacent streets
appears adequate tD accommodate the total projected pedestrian
and vehicular YDlumes.
2 TOA, Technical Memo to John Doremus, July 2, 1984
60
""'-
""l
Section 24-11.5 (2)(ee)
ND parking is required for cDmmercial space in the CL zone according to
Section 24-4.5.
61
c
\
I
\
\
\
\
\
J
(4678\
EXHIBIT 7
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY
39
.....
-.
-,
-'j
"
,
.
~ -'}
---<
';t. .--c-
-=--
'"
~
"'-
~8
~~
o-
J:
oj
'"
II
;
01
i 'lf
G,J,P
I,~'. l'~,
Y
, lil.
i'
u!
~
l ~ ~
~E t
~ . ~
1;/
"I
5G~
:8:
, ,
~ ": ~
F?
::J ;1!
~ 0 III
o ~ ~:J ~
~ ~ ~t~.
- ~!I.!~
Q ~ ;;l.it
z? G?"'ilI
~1 " :~j.
~.hh
,
,
> ,
19:?
',0
3lX
,
if
~ ~
~ 1
a.
1,_
I .
%
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
11 i
l~, "
~
...
I
J
,
!
!
r~
I
-I:~
o J ~ ( 1 j 'j
I r'>,~
I
J ,
I __
Cll~
_\
--"
J..:'
._";:~-.r-:'
~
,
"
%/10
; J ~
~ ~ ~
,
i
~
--, ,
~
..
',.-:H:I<;)Q
:;0....=.......)
U
~
1f8~i! i
~~~f;!~ . ~
IElm t[' .~. j
~~;i~p t i J~~ ~
" ., I _,j'"
ifh~!. '~3 ?
FmU .., ~!
J~~i::~ i to- z
~!- ~i - t ~ 4
~ ~~:~Hli, 1-'.1: ~ ~ i
0,; !~~I ~l I ' ,
-... 1- , ....
~ ~>i5f~[ ~ J 1 ~ ~
U'j"! '."" 1'1
~ I, :hl;; ~l ~ ~ ,~3
I- t: ,'_ 'I~ I !
:5 I",!:,,!, 'i
u !~;L: 1 ~
I
,
i
I
,
1
,(.~oi)
!
,
S
1
co
co
'"
U_
~h
co,
>-
'"
--l
--l
..
\
"
10
J~
1,
,I
'1
~ c 8
'.,
~ ;~J
a: ,0
::> f'
:, ;,j
Z '.
LIJ 0; ~
~ ~~~~i
> to i aO"
f ~i11
! ~ gg ~ ~
-'
L !J
1'; i~ ~ t:
J~ ;~
w, ~;
~.;; -
.
;;
2
II
o
. ,
~
~
,
"
"
,
,
j
l~FI; ,
. ~ ., II
"
,-
"
!
.
"t':.
'-' ...
, "
. !
.~
1~l ~I
:.10
it"
";"1
H~i!
:- . ~a
:LJ~
;;~f~
~ ..1
(!;:,
.~ "..
~hii
- . ~ i!
'HI
i;~; I
"'I'
..10 ~
H~h
",.-..., '
'--
EXHIBIT 8
PROPERTY OWNERS
WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROPERTY
\
\
\
\
\
\
l
j
40
(4876)
I""'"
Can Am Aspen Developments
135 E. Cooper Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
The Bank of Aspen
119 S Mill St
Aspen, CO 81611
GOrdon L Whitmer and Howard Ross
314 E Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Camilla Sparlin
c/o lillian Lively
Box 2213
Aspen, CO 81612
Chitwood Plaza Company
c/o David J Myler
106 S Mill St
Suite 202
Aspen, CO 81611
.~
Duane Robert and Marg&I8t WhItIieId Johnson
1116 E. CInnabar Ave.
Phoenix, ArIzona 85020
Mill Street Plaza Associates
Suite 301A
205 S. Mill
Aspen, CO 81611
Wheeler Square Associates. lne.
c/o The Donald Reisher Company
710 E Durant Ave
2nd Roar
Aspen, CO 81611
WOllam L Comcowich
Trustee of Robert Barnard Trust
420 W Main 51
Aspen, CO 81611
Jesse J and Esther M Maddalene
Central Bank Grand Junction
2265 Tangtewood Rd.
Grand Junction, CO 81503
"
.1' "-
"'-./
M & W AssoCiates
205 S Mil 51
Suite 301A
Aspen. CO 81611
Marjorie P JenIdnsOn
403 W HaIam St.
Aspen. CO 81611
I
\
Ryanco PartnerShip Ud
Suite 106
201 N Mill 51
Aspen. CO 81611
Harley BaJdwln
The Brand Bulding
205SGaJenaSt
Aspen. CO 81611
Wendelin AssoClates
9 Old Cross River Rd
Snowmass Center
Katonah. NY 10536
Footloose Moccasin
210 S Mill 51
#201
Aspen. CO 81611
I
\
\
. I
1
1
\
J
J
I
J
Mountain Enterprise
4001 aassen Blvd
O\daholTl8 CIty. OK 73118
Margaret M Dole
Box 8455
Aspen CO 81611
T. Michael Kantzer
6501 Vista Del Mar
Playa Del Ray, CA 90293
Aspen Art Investment. Ud.
Number 8
1450 Sierra Vista Dr.
Aspen, CO 81611
, ""'"
r'"",
David and Kathleen Denson
170 East Gore Creel<
Val. CO 81657
Hills of Snowmass. Inc.
170 E Gore Creel<
Val. CO 81657
R. Braden and J McCormick
Box 2874
Aspen, CO 81612
Walter F Hampel Jr.
Box 1034
Aspen, CO 81612
Duvike lne.
Box 2238
Aspen, CO 81612
Lorna AlIa Corporation
6210 N Central Expressway
Dallas, TX 75206
Lorna AlIa Corporation
Box 8105
Dallas, TX 75205
SA Levant America
c/o Colonial Navigation Co., lne
#2240
17 Battery Place
New York, NY 10004
Ransom B. Woods, Jr. and Justine F. Woods
Box 12288
Aspen, CO 81612
Fritz and Erika Under
3404 207th Ave. S.E.
Issquah, WA 98027
B and K AssociaIes
308 S Mill
Aspen. CO 81611
Birkwood Assoclates
Box 3421
Aspen, CO 81612
Lis G Sorenson
Box 9381
Aspen, CO 81612
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
J
James E Cox and Anthony E Cos
c/o Aerscape Umited
314 S Mill 51
Aspen. CO 81611
Maurice Berriro
Suite 912
3475 Mountain St9reet
Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G2A4
"
Amella L Kopp end Robert L ZupencIs
Box 100
Aspen. CO 81612
Angeline M end Roy Grillilh
530 Walnut
Aspen, CO 81611
Bruce E. Carlson
Box 3587
Aspen, CO 81612
W. G. Bullock
Grant B~ock Trust
Box 609
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
BPO Elks Lodge No 224
Aspen Elks Lodge - No 224
Suite 21
210 S Galena St
Aspen, CO 81611
r---.
....."~...........,
SJA ASSOCiates, Ud.
Su/Ie 207
520 E Durant Ave
Aspen, CO 81611
Pitkin Center, Ud.
Box 4948
Aspen, Co 81612
Arcades Assoclates, Ud.
Jerome H Michael
c/o Alrscape Umited
314 S Mil 51
Aspen, CO 81611
Mason & Morse
514 E Hyman Ave
Aspen, CO 81611
Laura Donnelly
P.O. Box 589
Aspen, CO 81611
Sabbatlnl Sport Inc.
208 S. Mil St
Aspen, CO 81611
Theodore Koutsoubos
419 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Christine DiBartolo
104 Magnolla Lane
Covtngton, LA 70433
Bruce Konheim
G/enroy Partners
C/O Charles Israel
P.O. Box 36n
Aspen, CO 81612
L~~., "
~: ?,~.~~"",~.."'- ". -J"'''?"'c~.:.r.~1-;._~_-''-,-,~~" -"'Yf"'.~-'w
<.._.,.~"..-
. ,~..
A5tf-qD
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113
-63250.134
-63270-136
-63280-137
-63300.139
-63310-140
-63320-141
00125
00123
00115
REFERRAL FEES:
-63340-205
-63340.190
-63340-163
County
00113
-63160-126
-63170-127
-63180-128
-63190-129
-63200-130
-63210-131
-63220.132
-63230.133
-63450.146
00125
00123
00113
REFERRAL FEES:
-63340-205
-63340-190
-63360-143
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00113 -63080-122
-63090.123
-63140-124
-69000-145
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
GMP/FINAL
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
SU B/FI NAL
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS!
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
~ /15'0. OOj
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
HOUSING
ENGINEERING
/40. 00
~i5-..2//
SUBTOTAL
GMP/GENERAL
GMPIDETAILED
GMP/FINAL
SUB/GENERAL
SUB/DETAILED
SU B/FI NAL
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS!
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
HOUSING
ENGINEERING
CITY/COUNTY CODE
COMP. PLAN
COPY FEES
OTHER
Name / (l U ro.... DOnM! Iley
Address: P. 0 . 130 x 5'9:'1
f.l....,t:?~ r1)
Check# II /, <: Q
,
Additional billing:
C/, .)
c~
;'
.,'/>7/,
L-/U~t-/
c.c'0.. -<...-.--"