HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.409 E HopkinsAve.A54-90409 E.Hopkins 1990 Commercial pGMQS Q
N.80'ofLotsD&E&allof LotF',Pock 88
J
C-1� e - -1-e
/F—sq,
+� f*w ,
T r^ yb
�i%+ii
1 aI f
t
.7F ,
,ir y t
k, ,ct, t i \x i o vim] ► S � ,,
yy Y
r { '
y A
iy Y Y
y' r
4 ysm.,� t7
4 r i1 .r'►�; .ti cw�,,_r#e' y: r a „ .. ,,'�.^, a
aY.
g.�
Y�Cf fy�� `1���•r ..j1 C,Y'��Y, ��if' ., .. ��ji,.�y 5+.. ,�
1990 COMMERCIAL GMQS SUBMISSION t
�•' t I' 'i v l^H.•
409 EAST HOPKINS
APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL GMQS ALLOCATION
September 15, 1990
Submitted to: City of Aspen Planning office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-920-5090
Applicant: Laura Donnelley
Box 589
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Architect: Bill Poss and Associates
605 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 31611
Phone: 303-925-4755
FAX: 303-920-2950
Planner: Joseph Wells, AICP
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-925-8030
FAX: 303-925-8275
Attorney: Arthur C. Daily
Holland & Hart
600 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 303-925-3476
FAX: 303-925-9367
4! so
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM
APPLICATION (Article 3)
4
A. Description of Proposal
4
B. Commercial GMQS Evaluation Criteria
8
1. Quality of Design
(a) Architectural Design
(b) Site Design
(c) Energy Conservation
(d) Amenities
(e) Visual Impact
(£) 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
111 A. Payment -in -lieu of Open Space
20
I� B. Reduction in Required Off -Street Parking
21
C. Reduction in Required Trash and Utility Access
22
III. REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM GMQS PROCEDURES FOR
RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING BUILDING (§8-104(a)(1)(A)]
25
r
J IV. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE, THE LAND USE REGULATIONS (ARTICLE 7,
DIVISION 11)
26
M
a
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
EXHIBITS
Application Form
Consent of Applicant
Disclosure of Ownership
Vicinity Map
Map of Transit Routes
Technical Memorandum
Regarding Traffic Generation for Commercial Uses
TDA, Inc.
Improvement Survey
I. COMMERCIAL GMQS APPLICATION
A. Description of Proposal.
This Application requests a Commercial GMQS Allocation
sufficient to complete a new commercial building at 409 East
Hopkins Avenue under the provisions of §8-106(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 Code 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 historic 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
National Register structures in the block,
chosen not to seek special review approval
footage, as permitted up to 2.0:1. The FAR
project is 11,629 sq.ft., an FAR of 1.5:1.
follows:
4
in scale with the
the applicant has
for bonus square
square footage of the
Total area is as
•
•
Net
Leasable
Total Comml. &
Sq.Ft. Office
Basement level 7,624
Ground level 6,974 5,392
Second level 4,655 3,806
19,253 9,198
Accessory FAR
Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft
7,624
1,582
849
10,055
6,974
4,655
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
W
so
•
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 commercial 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. Sewage 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. Drainage System. 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 System. 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.
5. Development Summary. 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 Housing. 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 building 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
so so
10. Location Relative to Retail and Service Outlets.
This criterion does not apply to commercial/office applications.
11. Effects of the Proposed Development. The proposed
building has been limited to two stories in order to complement
adjacent historic structures and has been located on the site as
preferred by the HPC.
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.
M
H
Q
w
M
0
•
M
IN
O
H
a
W
0
I-
Ch
a
W
9
M
I I
O
W
J
W
Y
n
O
x
A
Z
a
O
2
H
cn
Q
W
O)
O
qt
rm*
so
F�
U)
Z
a
O
2
H
U)
a
w
M
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
` lthe front of existing neighbors, to strengthen the existing `architectural boundary of the storefronts as already defined by
j 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
ace 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 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 the south side of the bui ding site
adjacent.,to Lot F will be repaved with asphalt wing to match
the existing paving of the alley.
E
M so
(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. Ail 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 heating 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
M M
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 Section II, the design 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 -lieu. Under current requirements, the payment has
been estimated to be $387,600; if required, the appraised value
11
so
of the land would be established upon receipt of an alloca
The applicant is requesting a code amendment to permit waiN
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
C I
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 by a roof
overhang and slightly elevated to minimize ice buildup. A gate
will be provided as a visual screen of the trash area.
2. Availability 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
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 commits to
the 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
rT J
M
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 commitment 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 maintained.
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 immediate
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
M
N
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 land -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 [§5-301(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 Housing (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.
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
N
C:
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.
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.
M'7
so
as
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.
8-106(F)(1) through (3), but has also exceeded the provisions of
these sections and achieved an outstanding overall design
meriting recognition.
19
M so
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 Payment -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
Surrounding Land Uses than would be the Provision of
Open Space According 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
N
4P
In its conceptual apprrval 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
§7-404(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. Special Review of Reduction in Required Off -Street
Parking.
In the CC zone, the parking requirement is
2 spaces/1,000 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 §7-404(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/1,000 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 Ability of the Applicant to
Place Parking 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
L�]
2. Whether the Parking 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 Parking
Facility which would better meet the needs of the
Development and the Community than would Location
of the Parking 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
Requirements.
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 §5-210(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 §7-404C) are as follows:
22
M
so
1. Adequacy 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
w
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
N
III. REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM GMQS PROCEDURES FOR
RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING BUILDING [S8-104(A)(1)(a)]
Under the provisions of §8-104(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
N
IV. _REQUEST 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 §7-602, 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 conunercial 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
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 (§6-205(E)(4)(d)], requires only publication
in the newspaper by the Planning Office. Under the
provisions of §7-1103, 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 §7-1102:
1. "Whether the proposed amendments are in conflict with any
applicable provisions of the Land Use Code."
2. "Whether the proposed amendments are consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan."
3. "Whether the proposed amendments are compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
j existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
i
4. "The effect of the proposed amendments on traffic generation
and road safety."
5. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether
and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed
the capacity of such public facilities, including but not
limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency
medical facilities."
27
0 a
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 Wording 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 §7-602(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 be 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
0
a
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 57-404(A)(3) to allow waiver of open
space payment -in -lieu fees upon approval by 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. Massing:
"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
I -A
a
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 57-404(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 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 of 58-104(A)(1)(a)(1) to eliminate
miticlation requirements 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
current 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
•
•
Current language of 58-104(A)(1)(a)(1), with
language requested to be deleted shown as struck:
"l. General. Development which the
Planning Director shall exempt shall be as
follows:
a. Remodeling, restoration, or
reconstruction of existing building:
(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 eb ,;
er a-ffiee-€leer area, the agplieant sh
rl-eer-area as if it rPer-e-new'_y --- +- •et Q
spaee.
32
EXHIBIT 1
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
1)
Project
Name 409
East Hopkins
Commercial
Project
2)
Project
Location
North 80
feet
of Lots D
and E and all of
Lot F, Block
88, Aspen Townsite
3)
Present Zoning
CC 4)
Lot Size 7823 sq. ft
5)
Applicant's Name,
Address & Phone #
Laura Donnelley,
Box 589, Aspen, Colorado 81612
6)
Representative's
Name, Address & Phone #
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
Conceptual Historic Dev.
X
Special Review
Final SPA
Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline
Conceptual PUD
Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin
Final PUD
Historic Demolition
Mountain View
Subdivision
Historic Designation
Plane
Condominiumiza-
X Text/Map X
GMQS Allotment
tion
Amendment
Lot Split/Lot GMQS Exemption
Adjustment
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 sq. ft. of net
leasable, outdoor dining for restaurant on adjacent property and
open space
9) Description of Development Application
Regeust for commercial GMQS allotment, special review and related
code amendments for a two story commercial structure of 9,198 sq.
ft of net leasable space plus a full basement.
10) Have you attached the following:
X Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents
X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents
X Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your
Application
0 a
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
i Aspen land use regulations be filed by Joseph Wells.
Sincerely,
Laura o nel ey-
_
I
4
•
�Ll
EXHIBIT 3
DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP
(4678) 35
3 E �_oinInon,ycaiLn
Land Title Insurance Comp4b
C7
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
SCHEDULE A
1. Effective date: 07/19/90 @ 8:00 A.M.
Case No. PCT-4853 C2
2. Policy or policies to be issued:
(a)ALTA Owner's Policy -Form B-1970 Amount $
(Rev. 10-17-70 & 10-17-84) or 10/21/87 Premium $
PROPOSED INSURED: CUNNINGHAM INVESTMENT CO., INC., A COLORADO
CORPORATION
(b)ALTA Loan Policy, Amount $
(REV. 10-21-87) Premium $
PROPOSED INSURED:
(c)Alta Loan Construction Policy, 1975 Amount S
( Rev. 10-17-84 ) Premium
PROPOSED INSURED:
Tax Cert. $
3. Title to the FEE SIMPLE estate or interest 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.
Countersigned at: PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. Schedule A-PG.1
601 E. HOPKINS This Commitment is invalid
j ASPEN, CO. 81611 unless the Insuring
303-925-1766 Provisions and Schedules
Fax 303-925-6S27 A and B are attached.
Authorized officer or agent
commonweaun
Land Title Insurance CompanO
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 : Laura Donnelley
to : 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 Schedule B-Section 1 PG-1
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT-4853
a and 8 are attached.
�, l,UI71IIlUI1WC�illil
M Land Title Insurance Com10
•
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.
S. 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.
S. 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.
This commitment is invalid unless Schedule B-Section 1 PG.1
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT-4853
A and B are attached.
�.�mnluiiwea�cn
Land Title Insurance Compan
4b 40
SCHEDULE B-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 Schedule B-Section 2
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT-4853
A and B are attached.
i LUi111I1UI1�� CAtl1I
Land Title Insurance Comp
•
ENDORSEMENT SCHEDULE FOR OWNER'S POLICY
The following Endorsements will be issued in connection with the
Owner's Policy to be issued hereunder.
NONE REQUESTED
EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED 1,2,3 & 4 WILL BE DELETED FROM THE OWNER'S POLICY
UPON COMPLETION OF ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS
NOTE: A satisfactory affidavit and agreement 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.
-his commitment is invalid unless Schedule A -Section 1
the Insuring Provisions and Schedules Commitment No. PCT-4853
A and B are attached.
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 title 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 first 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.
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
Attest: / By Awtele
�j
Secre tary President
Conditions and Stipulations
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 form 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
L7�
•
EXHIBIT 4
VICINITY MAP
14676� 36
cc
W
<
Y
J
W
J
W
<
J
=
m
FIrl
EE [�U PLI HH L
,:Z�� (r------- — — — — — — -I— 1vM OIY
I I
_ I
T I Z I
I I
---I-----------------L-�iNiads
I I I
I I J
I I
1 131NnH I
1 I
I 1
I
� 1
I I
1
1 -lvo
1 :� I • t
Al,
1..
IliwUL
1
I I
HONVNOR
I
t ,
t I
I
t I
I
1
� I IZ ► � I
Z W
Z I IY I < d I <
< IO I O
1 � I
I I
I I I
a
H
�4
EXHIBIT 5
MAP OF TRANSIT ROUTES
we7m 37
a
O
r
L
•
E
a
0
i
s
•
O
/p
LL
C
7
♦�
Ii
C
M
�-
c
c
•
d
L
V
cmo
_
A
O -
O
o J =
} o }� W J
Jzaz0 O n
QYZ:)U- } 0)
>w=�U z cc
Z> 0 M w
15
•
•
EXHIBIT 6
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
REGARDING TRAFFIC GENERATION
FOR COMMERCIAL USES
TDA, INC.
38
146751
•
•
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Joe Wells Date:
Doremus and Company
Job:
From: Chris Deffebach, Bill Eager
Subject: Non -Accessory Commercial Space Description
July 20, 1984
#1299
nactmemo.cjd
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 before proceeding into
the specific questions raised in the code. Transportation and parking
impacts associated with the residential and commercial development for
the proposed Aspen Lodge have 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 previously assumed that accessory retail space would be oriented
entirely to Lodge residents or those within walking distance and would
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 would generate 40
person trip ends per 1,000 sq. ft. and 10 auto driver 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 would be
pedestrians in downtown Aspen, and
3. some would drive to downtown, but would have multiple
destinations.
1 TDA, Aspen Lodge, Top of Mill, 700 S. Galena and Summit Place
Transpor a ion udy, November 18, 1984 and TDA,.Aspen Lodge, Top of
Mill, 700 Galena and Summit Place Parking Study, March 30, 1984.
his latter report revised the parking figures.)
TDA
57
111
The following discussion addresses the transportation elements in Aspen
Lodge 24-11.5 as they relate to the 4,500 sq. ft. non -accessory
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 projectpeak hour 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 of
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 provide service throughout the city as well
as to Mountain Valley, the Highlands and Snowmass. The county
also operates service 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.
in
- Location of bicycle and pedestrian routes.
Pedestrian and bicycle access to the proposed commercial site
will be promoted with the construction of bicycle and
pedestrian improvements proposed by the Aspen Lodge develop-
ment. These improvements include:
a pedestrian/bike path along the perimeter of the site
that will connect with the Ute-Benedict bike path,
contribution toward sidewalk construction and
reconstruction along streets in the Lodge Improvement
District,
new crosswalk paving 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 on Lodge
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
employees.
The Aspen Lodge will sponsor housing for all Lodge employees,
including those employed in the non -accessory commercial space.
To discourage the use of autos by employees, the Lodge will:
- locate all Lodge sponsored employee housing within walking
distance of the Lodge or on a transit route,
- purchase transit passes for any employee that needs one to
commute to work,
- provide an Aspen Lodge shuttle for seasonal employees residing
down valley.
59
•
•
Section 24-11.5 (2)(cc)
o Motor vehicle circulation, parking, bus stops and improvements
for privacy.
Landscaping for the commercial space will be completed as part of
the landscape plan for Aspen Lodge. This plan provides 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 development will have little impact on
the public transportation system because most person -trips (80%)
will be made by Lodge guests and residents.
The few auto trips generated by the commercial space during the
peak hour could also be expected to have minimum impact on the
road capacity. This impact is even smaller when the high
probability that these trips are multi-destinational is
considered.
To determine the impact of projected generated pedestrian volumes
on the streets serving the Lodge, net Lodge pedestrian volumes
were added to background pedestrian volumes. The Lodge is
expected to generate an additional 3 pedestrians per minute at
the most frequented intersection (crossing (Durant at Mill street)
during the peak hour (winter, 4-5:00 p.m.). The pedestrian
volumes were combines with vehicular volumes to assess potential
circulation problems. The intersection, with projected pedestrian
and vehicular volumes, was found to represent average conditions
in the central areas of most towns and appears to present minor
potential for vehicular/pedestrian conflicts.
` Although the commercial space will generate only a fraction of
the total Lodge pedestrian trips, capacity on the adjacent streets
appears adequate to accommodate the total projected pedestrian
and vehicular volumes.
2 TDA, Technical Memo to John Doremus, July 2, 1984
Section 24-11.5 (2)(ee)
No parking is required for commercial space in the CL zone according to
Section 24-4.5.
61
•
•
EXHIBIT 7
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY
lW676) 39
I
u
0
U
U
S
22k
12:
4.
w
v,
1:3t
z 2
Via
,_,j
LU
IL
,
.14 d 'o
'r flail;
-u , NIMI i
as 1 1 c
T
uj
iR
an
0—
X
LJ
rj
L)
Ll
•
EXHIBIT 8
PROPERTY OWNERS
WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROPERTY
„676) 40
Can Am Aspen Developments Duane Robert and Margaret Whitfield Johnson
135 E. Cooper Ave. 1116 E. Cinnabar Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611 Phoenix, Arizona 85020
The Bank of Aspen Mill Street Plaza Associates
119 S Mill St Suite 301A
Aspen, CO 81611 205 S. MiU
Aspen, CO 81611
Wheeler Square Associates, Inc.
Gordon L Whitmer and Howard Ross c/o The Donald Fleisher Company
314 E Hyman Ave. 710 E Durant Ave
Aspen, CO 81611 2nd Floor
Aspen, CO 81611
Camilla Sparlin William L Comcowich
c/o Lillian Lively Trustee of Robert Barnard Trust
Box 2213 420 W Main St
Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81611
Chitwood Plaza Company
Jesse J and Esther M Maddalone
c/o David J Myier
Central Bank Grand Junction
106 S Mill St
2265 Tanglewood Rd.
Suite 202
Grand Junction, CO 81503
Aspen, CO 81611
M & W Associates Marjorie P Jw*kv on
205 S Mil St 403 W Hauarn St_
Suite 301A
Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611
Ryanco Partnership Ltd
Harley Baldwin
Suite 106
The Brand Budding
201 N Mill St
205 S Galena St
Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen, CO 81611
Wendelin Associates
Footloose Moccasin
9 Old Cross River Rd
210 S Mill St
Snowmass Center
#201
Katonah, NY 10536
Aspen, CO 81611
Mountain Enterprise Margaret M Dole
4001 Classen Blvd Box 8455
Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Aspen CO 81611
T. Michael Kantzer Aspen Art Investment, Ltd.
6501 Vista Del Mar Number 8
Playa Del Ray, CA 90293 1450 Sierra Vista Dr.
Aspen, CO 81611
David and Kathleen Denson Hillis of Snowrnass, Inc.
170 East Gore Creels 170 E Gore Creek
Val, CO 81657 Val, CO 81657
R. Braden and J McCormick Walter F Hampel Jr.
Box 2874 Box 1034
Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81612
Duvike Inc.
Loma Alta Corporation
Box 2238
6210 N Central Expressway
Aspen, CO 81612
Dallas, TX 75206
S.A. Levant America
Loma Alta Corporation c/o Colonial Navigation Co., Inc
Box 8105 #2240
Dallas, TX 75205 17 Battery Place
New York, NY 10004
Ransom B. Woods, Jr. and Justine F. Woods Fritz and Erika Linder
Box 12238 3404 207th Ave. S.E.
Aspen, CO 81612 Issquah, WA 98027
B and K Associates Amelia L Kopp and Robert L Zupancis
308 S Mil Box 100
Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81612
Birkwood Associates Angeline M and Roy Griffith
Box 3421 530 Walnut
Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81611
Lis G Sorenson Bruce E. Carlson
Box 9381 Box 3587
Aspen, CO 81612 Aspen, CO 81612
James E Cox and Anthony E Cos W. G. Bullock
c/o Aerscape Limited Grant Bullock Trust
314 S Mil St Box 609
Aspen, CO 81611 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Maurice Berriro BPO Elks Lodge No 224
Suite 912 Aspen Elks Lodge - No 224
3475 Mountain Stgreet Suite 21
Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G2A4 210 S Galena St
Aspen, CO 81611
SJA Associates, Ltd. Pitkin Center, Lid.
Suite 207 Banc 4948
520 E Durant Ave Aspen, Co 81612
Aspen, CO 81611
Arcades Associates, Ltd.
Jerome H Michael Mason & Morse
c/o Airscape Limited 514 E Hyman Ave
314 S Mill St Aspen, CO 81611
Aspen, CO 81611
Laura Donnelly Sabbatini Sport Inc.
P.O. Box 589 208 S. Mill St.
Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611
Theodore Koutsoubos Christine DiBartolo
419 E. Hyman Ave. 104 Magnolia Lane
Aspen, CO 81611 Covington, LA 70433
Bruce Konheim
Glenroy Partners
C/O Charles Israel
P.O. Box 3677
Aspen, CO 81612
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
LAND USE
APPLICATION FEES
City
00113
-63250-134
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
2 S6• Q o
-63270-136
GMP/FINAL
-63280-137
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
-63300-139
SUB/FINAL
-63310-140
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63320-141
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
-63340-205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Ato • O O
00123
-63340-190
HOUSING
O -
00115
-63340-163
ENGINEERING
SUBTOTAL
County
00113
-63160-126
GMP/GENERAL
-63170-127
GMP/DETAILED
-63180-128
GMP/FINAL
-63190-129
SUB/GENERAL
-63200-130
SUB/DETAILED
-63210-131
SUB/FINAL
-63220-132
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63230-133
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
-63450-146
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
-63340-205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
-63340-190
HOUSING
00113
-63360-143
ENGINEERING
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00113
-63080-122
CITY/COUNTY CODE
-63090-123
COMP. PLAN
-63140-124
COPY FEES
-69000-145
OTHER
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL' % .5 `� • O 7�
Name: L� Q l P Phone: 1�
Address: f Q • &x S Project: qI� o
/-I -- (2 ' 7 ('i)
Check # _ / • _ � Date: O
Additional billing: #of Hours:
4L
Y I Do Y 0 1_;11aDili Y.
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Any Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Director-,
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: June 28, 1993
RE: Consent Agenda - Resolution Series of 1993, Amending
Resolution 14, Series of 1991
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. Language 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
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
ACouncil Exhibit
Approved , 19 _
By Ordinance
Y•
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 allotment 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
0 . 0
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
applicant for 409 East Hopkins is hereby approved and adopted as
follows:
1. The applicant shall convey or cause to be conveyed the
Smuggler Mountain Apartment building located at 414 Park Circle,
Aspen Colorado, to Pitkin County by April 29, 1991, thereby
mitigating 17.5 employees.
2. If the County does not take title of 414 Park Circle
(Smuggleb 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
0 •
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. irling, M r
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 V � - (,—� 4J , 1991.
Kathryn Y. Koch, City Cler
0
MEMORANDUM OY(( b
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direc or'
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: June 14, 1993
RE: 409 East Hopkins Vested Rights for Employee Housing
Mitigation - First Reading Ordinance, Series of 1993
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,
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%
0a
0 •
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
0
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: " 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
tty Council Exhibit '6 "`
Approved , 1 _
By Ordinance
RESOLUTION NO.
(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 8-103(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
i
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 required 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
1 at 31.48 points and the 409 East Hopkins project at 28.73
points; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance
with Section 8-106(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 8-106(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 8-106(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.
E
•
Section 2
In accordance with Section 8-106(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
g3. 1wth management quota.
Section 3
In accordance with Section 8-108 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
th,� project is developed, or unless an exemption from or exten-
sion to the approval is obtained.
Dated: r.� r�:L:_ �:�.ti{., %� , 199�.
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 7City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held _1C`'��y-%'-� /�/ 1990.
Kathryn ✓ Koch, City Clerk
3
• aty Council Exhibit
Approved 19 _
By Ordinance
RESOLUTION NO. _(VI
(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 8-106 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
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 1,063 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
•
•
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 1,063
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 8-103(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
8-106(B) of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code is hereby awarded to
the 409 East Hopkins project for 1,063 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
•
I Section 3
In accordance with Section 8-108 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.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do
Jcertify 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 /% , 1990.
Kathryn S Koch, City Clerk
3
City Council Exhibit
Approved , 19 _
By Ordinance
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 allotment 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
1 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
jApartments; 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
applicant for 409 East Hopkins is hereby approved and adopted as
follows:
1. The applicant shall convey or cause to be conveyed the
Smuggler Mountain Apartment building located at 414 Park Circle,
Aspen Colorado, 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
i
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
paragraph 5 above, is removed with the consent of the City Council
1 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. SEirVing, M r
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 !� ./ d-i 2--AJ , 1991.
��6
- Z� a
Kathryn . Koch, City Cler
• council
roved 19
-dinance
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
0
u
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
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 virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
3
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
, 1993.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
day of
John Bennett, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
, 1993.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
4
John Bennett, Mayor
1]
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to the general public
of the approval of a site specific development
plan, and the creation of a vested properly
right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68, Colorado
Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following
described property:
409 E. Hopkins, Block 88. Lots D, E. and F,
Aspen, Colorado
ORDINANCE 36
(SERIFS OF 1993)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
GRANTING PERPETUAL VESTED RIGHTS FOR
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION PRO-
VIDED 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 develop-
ment 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 appli-
cant. 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 1 I dwelling units to
L, 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, the Smuggler Mountain Apartments
were added to the affordable housing invento-
ry in 1991, before any commercial growth has
occurred on the property, and the City has
already received substantial benefit in the pro-
vision of employee housing; and
WHEREAS, the concept of buying down existing
dwelling units
for the preservation of employee housing is
consistent with the recommendations of the
Aspen Area Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, a Growth Management allocation is
valid for three years and if development has
not commenced within the three years the allo-
cation becomes void; and
WHEREAS, the current owner of 409 East Hop-
' kins,and successors In Interest to the original
developer, Kandycom Inc., requests to perma-
nently vest the affordable housing mitigation
�for 20.4 employees that was provided in 1991;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having
reviewed the application recommends
approval of perpetual vested rights for the
affordable housing mitigation for 20.4 employ-
ees provided for commercial development on
the 409 East Hopkins parcel; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having con-
sidered the Planning Office's recommendations
for perpetual vested rights does wish to grant
the requested vested rights finding that I I
dwelling units have been added to the afford-
able 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 sub-
stantial benefit in actual affordable housing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COL-
ORADO:
Section 1:
Pursuant to Section24-6-207 of the Municipal
Code, City Council does hereby acknowledge
that affordable housing mitigation for the 409
East Hopkins development project as previous-
ly 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 per-
manently vested and credited to the future
commercial development on the 409 East Hop-
kins 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 condi-
tions attendant to this approval shall result in
forfeiture of said vested property rights.
4. The approval granted hereby shall be sub-
ject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review.
S. Nothing in the approvals provided in this
Ordinance shall exempt the site specific devel-
opment plan from subsequent reviews and or
approvals required by this Ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances of the
City provided that such reviews or approvals
are not inconsistent with the approvals grant-
ed and vested herein.
6. The establishment herein of a vested proper-
ty right shall not preclude the application of
ordinances or regulations which are general in
nature and are applicable to all property sub-
ject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen
including, but not limited to, building, fire,
plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In
this regard, as a condition of this site develop-
ment approval, the developer shall abide by
any and all such building, fire, plumbing, elec-
trical and mechanical codes, unless an exemp-
tion therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 2:
The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordi-
nance to be published in a newspaper of gener-
al circulations within the City of Aspen no later
than fourteen (14) days following final adop-
tion 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 ordi-
nance 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 comfletent jurisdiction, such
provision and such h1ding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 4:
-Kris Ordinance shall not effect any existing litiga-
tion and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by
virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conduct-
ed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be
held on the day of July 12, 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 cir-
culation 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 14th day of June, 1993.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this
12th day of July, 1993.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Published in the Aspen Times July 16, 1993.
J
0
memo Kennedy Ml04lamend
I. I DI • 11141 Z 10 1
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Housing Mitigation Proposal for 409 E. Hopkins -
Resolution # L+
DATE: March 26, 1991
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Staff recommends adoption of Resolution #f approving
the GMQS housing mitigation proposal for 409 East Hopkins.
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 waiving
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.
ATTACB MEN`PS :
Resolution #jLL
County Resolution 91-7
2
{
•
D19
CITY
30
May 13, 1992
B. Joseph Krabacher, Esq.
Krabacher, Hill & Edwards
201 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
PEN
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
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,
Edward M. Caswall
City Attorney
EMC/mc
jc513.2
cc: Diane Moore
Leslie Lamont
L I II'rED APPRAISAL ASSIGII`=
of the
DQNNEI LY PROP=
North 80 Feet of Lots D 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: Randy Gold, MAI
Appraiser -Consultant
Scott M. Bowie, MAI
Appraiser -Consultant
James J. MoMca & t--ocimes. Inc.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consulunts
Function of the Report:
The function of this appraisal is to assist Alpine Bank Aspen in
negotiations with Laura Donnelly, the owner of the subject property.
Should a contract for sale be constunnated between the parties, we
assume that this report will also function in securing financing to
be used in the purchase of the property.
Scone of the Appraisal:
This report is a "Limited Appraisal Assignment" conforming to our
understanding of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice. It has also been prepared to meet the Ethics and
Standards Requirements of the American Institute of Real Estate
Appraisers. The methodology employed in arriving at our value
conclusion utilizes elements from all three traditional approaches
to value: the Cost, Market Data and Irene Approaches. Because the
subject property is greatly underutilized and does not represent the
highest and 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 discuss below, our approach has been to blend
various parameters established by the three approaches into our
valuation.
In the course of verifying the curable sales data in our
analysis, we have discussed the transactions with either the seller,
buyer, or seller's agent (the real estate broker or salesperson),
and have also verified closing data with the records of the Pitkin
County Clerk & Recorder's office. We have personally inspected the
comparable sales in our analysis. Comparable income and expense
data considered in our analysis has been derived through
conversations and valuation assignments tcnpleted for Aspen's
largest landlords. Much of the information 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
and can be reviewed if necessary.
Approach to the Valuation Problem:
As we discuss in the Property Identification section of this report,
the subject property is currently greatly underutilized and will
require additional development in order to maximize its highest and
best use. Because of this, a traditional Market Data analysis is
hllllesJ.IloiiiCilInc.
Real Estate Appraisers 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 existing building for its
contribution to value and have also tried to quantify the
"excess land value." Tcward that end, the value of the
existing building has been analyzed according to its
income -generating potential in the current market and
according to rent sales of generally similar improved
c=e=ial buildings. our excess land value ccu onent has
been based upon sales of vacant lam in the c ercial
are, although we acknowledge that many of these are dated
or require qualification. This is discussed in more detail
in the Valuation section of this report.
2. our second approach has-been to analyze the subject
property by abstraction. Toward that end, we have
hypothesized what we view as a likely development scenario
for the subject property. We have tried to estimate the
Market Value of that project upon cotpletion. Appropriate
to this analysis are the costs of the development:
the hand costs of construction, miscellaneous soft costs
such as architectural fees, engineering, Planning and
consultation, financing during construction, etc. as well
as extraordinary soft costs which result from the GMQS
process. These include our approximations for the cost of
employee housing, parking and open space. We have also
considered an appropriate allocation for developer's
profit. When these development csts are deducted from the
estimated Market Value of the project upon completion, the
result or "residual to the land" is that price which a
developer in theory could afford to pay for the subject
Ply "as i.s . "
We recognize 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 land planners. However, from cur
general experience we have tried to arrive at a development
scenario which seems likely, not only with respect to
current zoning requirements but also with respect to the
physical constraints of the site. We have also engaged Mr.
Glenn Horn, former Assistant Director of the Pitkin County
Zoning Department (and now an independent planning
consultant). Included in the addendum to this report is
J;uiuesJ.Ilollirt�.Asgwi;►tcs.1nc.
Real Estate Appraiser and Consultants
3
his letter which outlines four different scenarios for the
development of the subject. However, we have concentrated
our analysis on that approach which we feel is most likely
and which appears to us to result in the highest value for
the property.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
Sales History'
Title to the subject property is currently held by Laura Donnelly.
The property last sold from Bresnitz to Donnelly in September, 1987
for $1,250,000, cash to the seller. That 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 portion of Lot E
although essentially the property is unchanged since that sale.
About the PmpertV:
The subject property is located at 409 East Hopkins Avenue, 1 block
north of the Hyman Avenue pedestrian mall. This location is between
South Mill Street and South Galena Street. The subject's
location is considered an 80% ccmmercial location currently as
there is little pedestrian traffic between Galena and Mill on
Hopkins. However, with the renovation of the Collins Block Building
located directly adjacent to the subject to the west, we anticipate
that the pedestrian flow in this area will incree and the
subject's location as a commercial alternative will become more
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 and Townsite of Aspen.
Although typically City lots measure 30 by 100 feet, suggesting a
size of the subject parcel of 7800 square feet, a survey provided to
us suggests that the sites are slightly irregular in size and that
the actual parcel size is 7823 square feet.
Lot D is currently improved with a one-story brick/masonry building
aver a full basement. The building is situated partially above
street grade. Construction details consist of slump brick over
concrete block exterior, poured concrete foundation, thermopane
windows and builtup roof. Heat for the building is from a gas -fire
hot water baseboard system.
The building includes two separate levels. The upper level,
situated slightly above street grade, features raised ceilings,
painted drywall and brick walls and carpeted flooring. This level
of the building includes a small entry airlock area one private
office and the rest of the level is essentially open. This level of
the building totals 1435 square feet.
J'uii('y J. �III(AIiC4'1 & S-41 iliCS,IIIC.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultanu
• �w
The lower level of the building is entirely below grade and totals
1363 square feet.' The basement area includes one office, a small
kitchen area, three small mechanical roans, a storage inn and mens
and wcmens half baths. Also located on this level is a steel vault.
At the time of our inspection the building was found to be in good
condition, generally well maintained. The building is set back from
East Hopkins Avenue with concrete and brick walkways and
planters along access to the entry. The building has little in the
way of view. Currently, a one-story concrete block building is
located on the south 20 feet of Lots D and E. We understand that a
small employee housing project will be processed in this area and
its eventual construction has been considered in our analysis. Lots
E and F are essentially open in character. Lot E includes a
sculpture garden with small fountain area and Lot F provides seating
for the Smuggler Land Office Restaurant.
As we have noted, we are aware that Lot D with the existing
improvements is currently under lease to Alpine Bank with the
termination on October 31, 1993. The current rental is structured
at $57,240, payable in equal quarterly payments. The rental
increases each year of the remaining lease term on November 1 based
upon an annual increase of 6%. We are also aware that Lot F is
currently under lease to Hopkins Street, Inc. with expiration on
September 30, 1990. However, the rent is structured on a monthly
basis effective between June 1 and September 30 each lease year.
Because the duration of this lease is short and the rent is only for
a partial year it is considered insignificant to value. However, we
recognize that the current lease to Alpine Bank is below market and.
will remain so until October, 1993. Because the purpose of our
analysis is to assist Alpine Bank and the lessor arriving at a
potential sale price for the property, we have assumed that
the building can be sold free and clear of the existing lease.
As we discussed in the letter of transmittal, we have approximated
the value of Alpine Bank's "leasehold" value and have estimated that
at approximately $50,000.
Zon
The subject property is zoned C-C, CcmTercial-Core. This is Aspen's
most desirable commercial zoning category. Allowed uses are varied
and the site can be developed with a maximml floor area ratio of
1.5.1 or 11,735 square feet if employee housing is not included
onsite or up to 2:1 (15,646 SF) if employee housing is included
onsi_te. The existing building totals only 2798 square feet,
�11��I1'i1.�.1�W►ci.1tes.111c.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
(I a
RI
considerably below what is allowed. We feel that expansion would
be consistent with highest and best use --maximizing land 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 local planning consultant, to assist us in evaluation some
of these alternatives. In the addendum to this report we have
included Mr. Horn's letter which addresses the specifics of the
Ccmrercial-Core zone as it relates to the subject property and to
several different developrezt scenarios.
J,utwyJ.1lullic;t.ks�4) ltes,I►►(%
Real Estate Appni—I and Consultants
As we have discussed, we have approached the valuation problem in
two ways. First, we will examine the value of the existing building
based upon sales of generally ale camrercial buildings in
our area and upon the irK=m which we feel the building can
generate. In addition, we have tried to quantify the subject's
"excess land value" based upon sales of ca=eacial core land. Our
second approach is a development or abstraction analysis whereby we
have hypothesized a specific project to be built on the site and
have tried to value it upon its completion. Frcm that we have
deducted our approximation of the hand and soft costs of development
including contributions for employee housing, parking, open space,
and an additional allocation for developer's profit. The result is
a "residual" to the land or that price which a developer could in
theory afford to pay for the subject site "as is."
Land Value by Ccarison'
In our approach to this valuation we have analyzed the subject
property on a component basis. We recognize that the existing
inprovements are capable of generating inccim and it is possible
through condcmi r, i unization of the property that they could be sold
separately from the re-Tainder of the site. However, we also
recognize that the subject property includes considerable "excess
land value." Thus, there are two czmponents to the valuation
problem and the sum of those conponents should represent one
indication of the Market Value "as is."
Value of Existing Imorovements:
In the Property Identification section we discussed the existing
building which includes 1435 square feet of street -level space and
an additional 1363 square feet of finished basement. In analyzing
contribution to value of existing irprovements► we have approached
that analysis in two ways. First, we have considered recent sales
of colmrercial buildings throughout the coum)ercial core and frUn
those have abstracted a reasonable price per square foot to apply to
the subject building. our second approach is to examine the
incane-generating potential of the subject property, if it were free
and clear of the existing lease. From that we have deducted
appropriate expenses in order to arrive at a net operating income
attributable to the inprovements . This income stream has then been
capitalized to another value indication for the improvements.
JaIIlesJ..1lollic;i., i,I<<-s,II►c.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
8
Although we have not included details on all the Aspen area Is
improved commercial sales, these sales are included in cur files.
However, two sales are of particular importance. The Patricia Moore
Building located at 610 East Hyman Avenue, 3 blocks southeast of the
subject, sold in December, 1989 for $1,475,000. Terms of the sale
were favorable, thus suggesting a small 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 being 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 lower
level, partially below -grade gallery of 1350 square feet, a main
level, slightly above street grade, at 1082 square feet and an
upper -level office of 1058 square feet. The current sale price
reflects $383/SF, overall., We should also note that this building
last sold in April, 1988 for $1,100,000, also with favorable terms,
resulting in a cash -effective price of nearer $1,050,000. A
conmarison of these two sales reflects ccupcux3ed monthly
appreciation of 1.2% between these two transactions. This building
is inferior to the subject in quality although its ccmmexrcial
location and exposure are superior. Further, the character of the
building is also much superior to the subject as much of the
subject's first level is entirely basement in orientation versus the
first level of this building which is garden -level and only
partially below grade. Further, this building is located on the
north side of the street, affording superior sun e-,cDosure and more
open views. We feel that this sale can only establish the upper
range of value for the subject in the current market.
one other sale also warrants some brief discussion in our analysis.
The Roaring Fork Condominiums Unit 3 sold in October, 1989 for
$2,450,000 with favorable to rots and partial omission. After
adjusting for these items, the effective price is approximately
$2,425,000. Although this building is situated on the Hyman Avenue
Mall, it is a four -level, multi -tenant ccmTercial and office
building of awkward configuration and layout. Most of the space in
the building is office in orientation and rents in the building
average only $25/SF, despite its excellent mallfront location. This
building includes 9847 square feet of net rentable area and the
price shows $246/SF. Although it is eamparable in quality to the
subject, its dramatically larger size more than offsets any
adjustment required for its location and at $246/SF it is evidence
of the lower range in value.
James1.Inc.
Real Estate Apprai—I and Consultants
(r g
In consideration of these sales and others contained in our files,
we feel that approximately $275/SF is appropriate for the existing
improvements, overall. Applied to the existing improvements of 2798
square feet, this then suggests a value indication of approximately
770 000.
Our second approach to valuing the existing building is based upon
its income -generating potential. If the subject property were free
and clear of the existing lease, we feel that the street level would
be rented at approx�mately $40/SF while the basement area would be
very rentable at $15/SF. This then reflects a gross potential
income of $77, 845. However, scme 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 vacancy and cred-it lass of 39. and for lessor -related expenses
which cannot be passed through of 9%. These would include
allowances for miscellaneous expenses (legal and accounting, tenant
litigation costs, etc.), an allocation for reserves for replants
which are not normally passed through and an allocation for
management which would also include some expense for leasing
commissions. The following summarizes our derivation of the net
operating income for the building:
Gross Potential Income: $77,845
Less Vacancy (3%): (2,335)
Effective Gross Income: $75,510
Less Lessor Expenses (9 %) : (6,796)
Net Operating In=ie: $68,714
What remains then is capitalization of the net operating income into
a value estimate for the existing imprwements. Overall Rates shown
from our most recent sales of commercial projects range from
approximately 8.5% to 9.2% with older sales ranging from
approximately 10% to 12%. Acknowledging that the subject property
is a relatively small building l ding which is easily rented and also
that the building would appeal to an owner -user, one who
historically would be willing to accept a lower capitalization rate,
we feel that 8.5 to 8.75 is the most appropriate Overall Rate on
with which to capitalize the subject's inccm. This then results in
a range in value from $785 000 to $808 , 000.
Our two approaches to valuing the existing improvements reflected a
range in value from $770,000 to $808,000. We feel that the middle
of this range is best supported, and we conclude that the existing
improvements contribute approximately $800,000 in value to the whole
party.
�aIIles 1.)1UlIICll&Assm-iates,lnc.
Real Est= Appraiser, and Consultants
10
valuation of Excess Land:
The second component to this analysis is trying to quantify the
excess land contribution for the property. In our approach to the
excess land component, we have taken the entire site of 7823 square
feet times a 1.5:1 floor area ratio, resulting in a maximum building
size for the site of 11,735 square feet. Although we recognize that
the site could be developed up to a 2:1 FAR, this would include
housing of additional employees and the bulk of the additional space
would not be high -yielding armMercial/retail space. In addition, on
the following summary dart all of our comparable sales have also
been analyzed based upon their minimum allowable floor area ratio
of 1.5:1 in the case of C-C zoned sites, 1:1 for C-1 zoned sites,
and .75:1 for Office zoned land.
From the 11,735 square feet of gross building area which can be
develcoed on the entire subject site, the existing bui-id ng's square
footage above grade of 1435 square feet is deducted, resulting in a
develcpment potential for the entire site of 10,300 square feet.
However, we recognize that a portion of this will be built above the
existing bu 1 ding on Lot D. That site totals 2400 square feet,
translating to a maxim= allowable size of 3600 square feet or an
expansion potential of 2165 square feet in excess of the 1435 square
feet already on the site above grade. The remaining 8135 squab
feet would be built on Lots E and F.
The chart on the facing page summarizes the most recent sales of
commercial and office -zoned vacant land in our market. As the
ceder can see, all of our sales have been adjusted for appreciation
at 1% per month. Multiple sales of Comparable 3 contained in our
files demonstrated an appreciation rate of .4% per month between
1984 and 1986, and 1.7% per month between 1986 and 1987. The resale
of Comparable 6 actually showed much higher appreciation, although
we feel that this was an aberration at the time and that the initial
sale was law as it was part of a bulk transaction. The resale of
Comparable 12 shows approximately 1.8% per month appreciation
between the original sale and the subsequent closing in May, 1989.
However, this is a very small site and over the longer term this
rate may be aggressive. We have selected 1% per month as an
appropriate appreciation rate overall. As a general statement, we
acknowledge the difficulty in accurately analyzing our vacant land
sales. Sales 9-13, cur most recent sales, all require some type of
qualification in our analysis. Sale 9 was probably purchased with
J�u»csJ.1li�llirt,�..4)( s,Inc.
Real Esea" Appraisers and Consulancs
the intention of building a luxury duplex, not for its vial
potential. However, subsequent to the purchase, changes in the C-1
zone prohibited this use and this site is now being "landbanked"
pendilxl future development. Sales 10 and 11 were both Office -zoned
parcels located on*Main Street. Sale 10 sold with all approvals in
place and while we have tried to allocate contribution for those
approvals and plans, it may be understated. Sale 11 was purchased
with no approvals in place but with development of a small office
project in mind. Our discussions with a local planner hired to
consult with the purchasers of this property indicate that an office
development was not economically viable and currently the purchasers
are unsure what type of developTezt they will pursue. Sales 1-7 are
all much older sales which were purchased and developed under less
stringent Growth Management Quota System requirements. Because of
their older closing dates, we would give these sales little
emphasis.
Of the sales included on the facing chart, Sales 12a and 13 have
been given strongest weight in our analysis. 'These are our two most
recent sales and most physically similar to the subject in their
location. Sale 12a is a small 3000 square foot parcel located just
east of the intersection of Hopkins Avenue and Monarch Street,
one block west of the subject. This location is inferior to the
subject's in its cammercial exposure and overall appeal. However,
it has also been a characteristic of our market that smaller sites
sell for a higher price per square foot than larger lots. Further,
and perhaps more importantly, this site includes a small vintage
Victorian structure which allows the site to be developed to its
maxim zn allowable size outside the requirements of the Growth
Management Quota System. Historically designated buildings
can provide an exertion to the G„KS process. We have allocated
only $25,000 for the contribution of these improvements. In fact,
this may be considerably understated given that this building can be
developed without having to undergo the risks of G4Qs ccnpetition.
The exemption for historical buildings also allows for some
mitigation of employee housing and parking requirements which would
otherwise have to be satisfied under the GMQS. 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 range in value
despite its inferior location.
Sale 13 is located directly adjacent to the subject to the west.
This sale is primarily a land sale although the property was
improved with an 1880's-vintage Victorian camv--rcial structure of
approximately 9600 square feet. The site totals 7200 square feet
JaIIles Mollll'I1.�Mlci(ilcS, Inc.
Real Estate Appraiser and Consultants
and, like the subject, it is also zoned Ccnnercial-Core. 'Ibis
building has been entirely gutted since the time of purchase
although the existing structure does contribute value to the site.
Like Sale 12a, because this property included an historic structure,
development plans could be approved outside the confines of the
Growth Management Quota System. The existing structure we estimate
contributes approximately $25/SF or based upon the existing building
of 9600 square feet, approximately $250,000. Thus, our sales chart
shcws the effective price for the land alone of $2,450,000. In
analyzing this sale it cannot be overemphasized that the effective
price we have shown would not include any contribution for the
ability to develop this building outside the confines of the G'QS.
Based upon the development plan which was ultimately approved, we
have approximated those costs at $1,000,000 although we acknowledge
that this is a rough estimate. However, if we deduct $1,000,000
from the adjusted effective price of approximately $2,700,000, this
then would reflect approximately $1,700,000 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 along Mill Street. Although the
subject may in fact benefit from this develcpment, we feel that a
significant location adjustment of approximately 25% to 3516 is
warranted, resulting in an adjusted price of $102-$117 per buildable
square foot.
In our analysis, as we discussed above, we have segregated the
remaining „excess land" to that portion which will be developed on
Lot D and above the existing structure and that portion which will
be developed on Lots E and F. We feel that the development of Lots•
E and F will afford much more flexibility as it will not have to
incorporate an existing structure. Further, the space which will be
developed atop the existing building will be inferior in overall
appeal and will probably be office in orientation rather than higher
yielding comme=ial space. Because of these factors we feel that
the land component above the existing structure would be penalized
and we have included its contribution at half of what we allocate
for development potential associated with Lots E and F.
In conclusion, we feel that the 8135 buildable square feet
associated with Lots E and F should be allocated at approximately
$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 per buildable square foot. 'Thus, the
following analysis is considered applicable toward the excess land
component of the property:
IauIirs.l. l li►Ilica&.k, wgwi.lws.inc.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
a
13
8135 SF x $100-$110 per buildable SF
2165 SF x $50-$55 per buildable SF
Total Excess Land:
IL.:.. =.A
conclusion:
$813,500 - $ 894,850
$108 250 - $ 119,075
$921,750 - $1,013,925
$925,000 - $1,000,000
In the preceding analysis we have estimated the contribution of the
existing structure at $800,000 while the excess land component has
been estimated at $925,000 to $1,000,000. This then reflects a
value range for the entire property "as is" of $1,725,000 to
$1,800,000. For this approach we have concluded that the middle of
this range is lost supported at:
$1,750,000
We have also considered our value conclusion above in light of the
actual sale to Mrs. Donnelly in September, 1987. As we have
discussed, the property originally sold for $1,250,000. Updating
this sale for appreciation at 1% per month over this 28-month period
suggests a current Market Value of approximately $1,650,000 and at
1.25% per month a Market Value of approximately $1,770,000.
We acknowledge that precise derivation of appreciation is extremely
difficult, particularly when "the rules have been changed,"
nevertheless, this appears to support the reasonableness of our
conclusion.
Land Value by Develt and Abstraction:
Our second approach to valuing the subject is by a process known as
Development and Land Value Abstraction. In this analysis we try to
place ourselves in the shoes of the developer and hypothetically
"create" a c=nercial building on the property. Frcm rents and
sales available to us we estimate the value of the building upon
completion and deduct cost of approvals, construction, employee
housing, parking, profit, etc. to arrive a residual value to the
land. The result is theoretically the value which a developer can
afford to pay for the land to create the building we have proposed
and reap the profit we have estimated. This process is fraught with
uncertainties and judgmental decisions on the part of the appraiser.
There are so many variables involved that a change in any one can
multiply in others and substantially affect value. Under normal
circumstances'we would not rely upon the abstraction process to
1<<n its !. l lul(ic<<.�.t���►��<<<«, ����.
Real Estate Appraise" and Consultants
14
estimate land value for ccmmercial property. Hcwever, as we have
discussed, discused, we are impaired by a severe lack of recent sales
of sites for commercial development since the most recent Code
changes in our market. Thus, we feel this abstraction analysis must
at least be addressed to test the feasibility of a commercial
building constzvct-ed on the site and through this process to assist
us in determining land value.
In the addendum to this report can be found 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 development of the subject.
We have tested several potential development schemes but have
decided upon a modified version of Mr. Horn's fourth scenario as the
one most likely and the one to produce the least amount of "softy
costs and highest return to the vacant land.
In our analysis we have assumed a 2:1 floor area ratio development
scheme for the property which results in 8863 square feet of
additional new commercial space along with the existing 1435 square
feet in the Alpine Bank project. It also necessitates 2347 square
feet of employee housing (necessary to increase the FAR from 1.5:1
to 2:1) and we asked Mr. Horn to hypothesize a 3000 square foot
upper floor apartment. 'This would be a penthouse unit intended to
compete with the most recent developments of luxury tcwnhomes in our
market.
This development scheme results in employees generated by the
project needing to be housed, according to Mr. Horn, of
approximately 25 to 37 including the 3 for the upper -floor luxury
apartment. In terms of parking, Mr. Horn calculates 16 spaces for
the commercial area. He indicates in his report that approximately
75% of the employee housing units will need parking as an
approximation which would suggest an additional 19 parking spaces
for employee housing.. The City can modify parking is for
employee housing. 'There will also need to be 3 parking spaces for
the free market luxury unit bringing the total to 38. We feel it is
important 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 Hypothetical Buildirxt'
We acknowledge that there are many potential designs to meet the
requiremenis of employee housing, parking and open space for the
subject property. We have considered numbers on several and have
.1, sg)(i;UCs.111C.
Real Estate APPratsen and Consultants
arrived one which appears reasonable, althcugl we acknowledge we are
not land planners nor architects and that the building we have
hypothetically created for the site is only one of many possible
scenarios. We have hypothesized leaving the existing structure in
place giving 1435 square feet of upstairs ccmTercial and 1363 square
feet of lower -level office. The space between this building and
Hopkins street is currently utilized as open space with planters,
etc. We propose leaving that area of approximately 768 square feet
as open space for the project. We stress that this is only an
approximation. The total open space requirement for the site of
7823 square feet is 25% or 1956 square feet, leaving an unsatisfied
open space requirement of 1188 square feet. The City allows
purchase of open space in lieu of creation of that space by
"cash -in -lieu" payment which we discuss later. We have hypothesized
covering the reminder of the site with a footprint of approximately
5400 square feet (lot line to lot line). This building would be
placed over a 5400 square foot basement. The rear portion of the
property which extends to the alley (20 feet by 30 feet) would be
finished as a garage for the three required parking spaces for the
upper -level luxury unit. We have deducted 200 square feet frtzn the
first -level rcial area to allow access areas to the basement
and window wells within the property boundaries. We feel the
basement should be finished as a combination of storage and en-ployee
housing in an attempt to house as many employees onsite as possible.
There is a risk that because of light and access required for
below -grade area that part of this space will be considered "floor
area" by the City. 'This could, theoretically, slightly reduce the
total salable area of the luxury apartment or office area discussed
below.
On the upper levels of the building we have hypothesized office and
a luxury free market penthouse. We have sculewhat arbitrarily
selected 3000 square feet as an appropriate size for a
3-1/2 bath townhouse unit and have placed that on the
upper level of the structure with the best views. The upper level
of the building must also house 2347 square feet of employee housing
to allow for cur FAR expansion. Mr. Horn has hypothesized as a
"cheapest" scenario making this dormitory housing which requires 125
square feet per employee. However, we feel dormitory housing would
be better located in the basement or modified garden level of the
building and that the Leper -level employee housing would be better
configured as traditional rental or sale units. We have
hypothesized 3 two -bedroom units of 650 square feet each and one
studio of 397 square feet (both within the minim m size guidelines
for their unit types) for a total of 2347 square feet. This housing
.�llllles�.,loili("I, :hmicialt's,lire.
Neal Estate APP-tsen and Consultants
16
counts for a total of 8 employees (2.25 employees per two-bedrOan
unit and 1.25 erployees per studio unit). As we have discussed, we
have a total employee housing reqdreinent of at least 25 units
according to Mr. Horn leaving 17 to be housed elsewhere either
onsite or offsite. We feel the studio and twa-bedrex n touts on the
upper level of the building will be more consistent with the
high -quality rcial and luxury residential project than would be
18-unit employee dormitory as Mr. Horn suggests.
Of the 5400 square foot first -level footprint, we have deducted 200
square feet for access and window wells and 600 square feet for the
parking garage leaving 4600 square feet of new ccsuunercial space on
the street level. Adding that to the 1435 square feet currently
onsite results in a total of 6035 square feet of first -level retail.
We have potential for 8863 square feet of total new camTercial
space. We have used 4600 square feet of that on the first level,
leaving 4263 square feet for second -level office. This might be
placed over the new structure or in connection with the old building
creating a desirable second -level office over that structure. Also
on this second level, if physically possible, the upper -level
employee housing space of 2347 square feet should be placed. We
have reserved the upper level for the 3000 square foot luxury unit
which should be configured on the site to maximize views south
tcward Aspen Mountain and to avoid any obstruction by the concrete
block building 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, easte=nostsite which enjoys views south toward
Aspen Mountain and avoids any potential obstruction from an
expansion of this concrete block building. It also sits over the
garage so that an elevator could be provided till the second
level to the unit from that portion of the building.
Basements are often used to satisfy parking requirements in new
central core buildings. However, we feel access will be so
difficult from the alley because of the abnormal configuration of
the site that this space is better utilized for employee housing
purposes and storage and that parking should be provided offsite by
"cash -in -lieu" payments. The reader will recall that we have 17
remaining employees to house for the project. We have hypothesized
a 17-unit dorm structure in the basement with garden -level access
and window wells for natural light and ventilation. The 17 dorm
units must each be 125 square feet or a total of 2125 square feet.
This leaves 3275 square feet of basement storage. Basement storage
is excluded from parking and employee requirements if it is utilized
simply as unfinished storage for tenants in the building.
On the facing page is a breakdown of the size and configuration
specifications for the building we have hypothesized. We have also
�iIIIles
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
included calculations for employee housing and parking. Again, we
stress that this is only one potential scenario, and we are not
architects or land planners. We have dealt only with approximations
in our calculations.
Land Residual Calculation:
On the facing page can be found a chart in which we show a value of
the projected building based upon current market rents and expenses
and what we feel the luxury residential unit can be sold for.
Backup data for our calculations can be found in our files. We have
also included an allocation for employee housing. The second -level
employee housing could be sold. Current law -income employee housing
guidelines are $70/SF. It is unlikely that the basement space could
be sold though it could be operated as rental Preppy at
employee -restricted rents. For convenience, we have allocated this
at the same $70/SF to determine value. The luxury unit we have
allocated at $420-$450/SF. This is consistent with prices currently
being paid for other penthouse/townhouse units in the central core.
In our calculation we have considered the size, parking, central
location and views that we anticipate for this unit.
We have rented the first -level commercial space in the building at
$45/SF, second -level office space at $22/SF, basement office in the
existing building at $15/SF, and basement storage at $12/SF. It is
likely that this storage would be allocated in cubicles. Our
projected rents have been drawn from current rents in the Brand
a; l ding, Godiva Building, Ajax MOun ain Building, ng, Aspen Plaza
Building, Elli's Building, Chitwood Plaza, Shadow Mountain Building,
and others. The result of our calculations is a gross income of
approximately $425,000. From this we have deducted 3% for vacancy
and credit loss and 7% for expenses. We have calculated all our
market rents at a triple net basis with the tenants paying a pro
rata share of all expenses including utilities, taxes, building
maintenance, and a portion of management expense. We have allocated
7% for the lessor's portion of expenses including ongoing leasing
commissions, reserves, a portion of management, and a miscellaneous
category. Expenses are slightly lower as a percentage and rent
slightly higher than our analysis of the existing building above
due to its association with a new, larger coualercial structure. The
result is a net operating income of approximately $383,000. This we
have capitalized at Overall Rates ranging frcn 8.75% to 9%, current
JalI►es Iloll icwk.As 41(imeti,111C.
Real Estate App►aisen and Consultants
ku
Overall Rates accepted by investors in our market. The result is a
gilding value range from approximately $4,250,000 to $4,400,000.
Adding our allocation for the luxury penthouse unit and employee
housing results in a total building value ranging from approximately
$5,800,000 to $6,000,000.
Fran this some expenses are appropriate. conmdssion and closing
costs on the luxury unit should be approximately 8%. We have
allocated 7% of leasing commissions applied to the annual gross
income in order to generate tenants in the building. We have also
discounted the total gross building value over a relatively short
3-month time period at an annual discount rate of 14%. We feel the
building can be essentially pre -leased prior to completion but
tenants may require some time for tenant improvements and can also
anticipate the possibility of some delays in closing the employee
units and selling and closing the free market unit. Three months is
a'very short anticipated time line to cane to full occupancy and
total sellout. This leaves a net building value from approximately
$5,470,000 to $5,680,000.
Building costs we have estimated based upon the most recent
construction costs of similar product in our market. Hard costs for
the luxury unit we have estimated at $150/SF. Retail/office and
second -level employee space we have estimated at $90/SF. Employee
basement space has been allocated at $60/SF while basement storage
has been entered at $30/SF. The parking garage we have estimated at
$45/SF for total hard costs of slightly over $1,700,000.
Normal soft costs (approvals, financing, architect fees, etc.) we
have estimated at 35% of hard costs or approximately $600,000. Our
cash -in -lieu of parking requirement is allocated at $15,000 per
space. The reader will recall that we need an additional 35 spaces
resulting in a total cash -in -lieu parking payment of $525,000.
Profit we have estimated at 15% of total gross building value which
ranges frcan approximately $870,000 to $900,000. The total cost
range is from approximately $3,700,000 to $3,740,000 leaving a
residual to the land from $1,762,619 to $1,943,100.
We discussed above that we had hypothesized the building to be
constructed to the lot lines leaving inadequate open space. We
estimated approximately 768 square feet of open space adjacent to
the existing building leaving a requirement of approximately 1188
square feet. This remaining requirement is approximately 15% of the
total land size. The cash -in -lieu payment for open space is based
�1IIIles J.1I1)IIIc(I ► ASSod;lhw, inc.
Real Estate Appraiser and Consultants
(a (0
19
upon the value of the land. Thus, we have deducted 15% of the
residual value to the land as a cash -in -lieu payment for open space.
this leaves a final land value range from approximately $1.500,000
to $1,650,000. Based upon the scenario we have presented, that land
value range appears reasonable.
1111les1.1loll icu,�.��:�1� �il<<•�,����.
Real Estate Appraiser, and Consultants
( 40
( 40
20
I����. ' D//1 M/ I• /1
Land Value by Orison: $1,750,000
Land Value by Abstraction' $1,500 000 - $1,650,000
The above indicators of land value suggest a range from
approximately $1,500,000 to $1,750,000. The breadth of this range
is suggestive of the uncertainty surrounding our market for
commercial vacant land. Our level of confidence within the value
range cannot be high. The low end of the range is set by our
development/abstraction approach which suggests a price range which
a developer could afford to pay for the land to construct a
hypothetical building and bring a profit of slightly under
$1,000,000. This is a "crude" approach with many uncertainties,
assumptions, and problems.
The upper end of the range is set by our value by conparison
although we acknowledge that there have been no sales of vacant
ccnm)ercial core land since the most recent changes in the Code. The
only sales which have occurred include Victorian structures which
are eligible for exeeptions from many of the soft costs we have
discussed including employee housing and parking. We are left to
try to extrapolate value from these dissimilar sales to find an
indication of value for the subject's land.
We are reluctant to attempt to refine the range shown by our
analyses. While uncertainties and problems surrounding dial
development in the current market would suggest that the lower range
may be more applicable, we recognize that there are no vacant
commercial sites available in our market. As a result, we could
expect a seller to demand a premium. This scarcity of supply would
suggest that the upper range may be more appropriate. In the final
analysis, it is perhaps the middle of the range which appears best
supported. Applying a 1% appreciation rate per month to
Ms. Donnelly'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 and problems in both
our approaches to value. The reader should be aware that our final
value range includes real estate commission typical in our area for
commercial property and reflects a cash or cash -effective
transaction.
Based upon our analyses, we feel the subject property has a Market
Value (most probable selling price) as of January"30, 1990 in a
range from:
�1 500,000 - $1,750,000
�illlll's , �OIl1('il ��Isq)(hail's, III(•.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
E.
HO PKINS AVE.
yq -a3
• A
LONG W.oLFL,• � �
•,
',
•• •
• �I
(N-.1�'CY�'II• W ,�-IO,�Z7` �•
QO.Z� ��!�'�a3 ,
100 RZ
—
u
i151
tl
'1
AREA
t7
G
�
.
ip4.
'Z4 pqb
•t9
(O1
--
J •'
AraE1A -7,6Z3
--__
— --
RAVEL—
fir----
PARKING
a
IOC>'•—.
I
Li I ' I•"
u
�-
-E 25�
`—
SEE E3r,. Z`
-
L1 roo'
' ;4
IL
_.. a .. J „ ' • A' `!v 'r13i' _ _ Y '' . -
=bra :� _ � � ...R�.��'� 4�T•i�c #.+�+� �i�� _
F �
4S � c+t-x; �Yi�ii•.;r .4_t.� �s 44 • 'iar:ta'''-. '�'T �r t�, t.
M ti
ki
•I .S � �
:
i
{ � � ' �
"r{',�.�'rr,},S�•�n,'1 � " Y `•���
'
�
•!
_ .� + r�ita .' a �,.
� _ ' t
Jim
lip,
.
C[�r�,•r_•
.�-
�+-.
r
?f f ,, r -'tom r 'ail• `, J
mok
FAIR. �.•
IA
`. i
ob
Al
t _ r..�, III% r . Li 'ta;• °! �-..
s
_ rr r
•
�
ar
r '
� 1 �•
��+ S ter. r ~ - •!•��•
r
t r .
,
_..,.. M,1� 11
cfg"
tv rl�-
I i7
7,7�: `1*4
Momms
Te.s D;421
.Wapi-T
K��
-mow
CA
en
0 cw
Scott 1l. Bowie, mm
Professional .-affiliations:
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, MAI #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
Education:
Harvard University, BA, 1971. 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 1-A, Principals;
Course 2, Urban Properties; Course VIII, Residential; _Course 1-B, Capicalizacion
Techniques; Course VI, Evaluation Procedures; Course IV, Litigation and
Condemnation
Experience:
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 MAI by American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers: March, 1984
Major Clients:
Aspen Savings & Loan Aspen Skiing Co. Ute City Mortgage
City of Aspen Bank of Aspen Pitkin County
First Wesrem Mortgage Central Bank of Thatcher Mortgage
Banker's Mortgage Aspen Chase Manhattan
Pitkin County Bank Mortgage
Town of Snowmass Village
Types of Property:
Commercial, Office & Retail Lodges —Hotels Residential
Special Purpose Buildings Ranches —Farms Apartments
Subdivisions—Vacanc Land Industrial Condominiums
Purposes:
Acquisition Insurance Mortgage
Condemnation Estate Planning Tax Planning
catement of Certification:
The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers conducts a vountary program
of continuing education for its designated members. MAI's and RM'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. ,l 101 ica &-;associates. Inc.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
Professional AfGiiations:
Education:
Experience:
Major Clients:
Tapes of Property:
Purposes:
_ tatement of Certification:
Randy Gold, 11:1I
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, MAI -r698.1
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 Factors of Real
Estate Investment"
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers: Course 1-A, Principals;
Course 8, Residential Valuation; Course 1-B, Capitali_ation Theory 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,"
"Contemporary Appraising of Income Properties," and "Subdivision Analysis"
Society of Real Estate Appraisers Seminars: "Condominium Appraising" and
"Special Purpose Seminar"
Appraiser -Consultant, James J. Mollica & Associates, Inc., May, 1978—present
Associate Appraiser, The Epstein Co., Los Angeles, August, 1975—October, 1976
Designated MAI by American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, November, 1984.
Ute City Mortgage
Aspen Savings and Loan
Bank of Aspen
Thatcher Mortgage
Pitkin County
Single-family Residential
Multi -family Residential
Acquisition
Insurance
Tax Planning
City of Aspen First Western
Town of Snowmass Village I�tortgage
Aspen Skiing Co. Pitkin County Bank
Central Bank of Aspen
Commercial Condominium
Vacant Land Lodges —Hotels
Listings Sales
Estate Planning Mortgage
The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers conducts a vountary program
of continuing education for its designated members. MAI's and RM's who
meet the minimum standard of this program are awarded periodic education
certification. I am currently certified under this program through
September 15, 1991.
Janes J.1lollica &;.ksu►ciaws. Inc.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
The undersigned does hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and
belief and except as otherwise noted in the appraisal report:
1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correc-'t.
2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the
reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my 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 compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from
the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in, or the use of, this report.
5. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this appraisal report has been
prepared 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. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report
has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice.
7. No one provided significant professional assistance to the person(s)
signing this report.
8. I have personally inspected the subject property and have contributed
materially to the value conclusion. As of the date of this report, I
have completed the requirements of the continuing education program of
the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers.
y (4old, MAI
Appraiser -Consultant
I have personally inspected the subject property and have contributed
materially to the value conclusion. As of the date of this report, I
have ccnTpleted the requirements of the continuing education program of
the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers.
Scott M. Bowie, MAI
Appraiser -Consultant
DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: Market vale is � r locus of most real property appraisal ,n in economic and legal definitions of
market value have been developed and refined. Conti' linement is essential to the growth of the apprai ston, The current economic definition
of market value can be stated as follows:
The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a lair sale, the
buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition
is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: (a) buyer and
seller 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 is allowed for exposure in the open market; (d) payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and (e) 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)
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 to the subject matter of the appraisal report or the 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 out. To the best
of the Appraiser's knowledge and belief, all statements and information in this 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 set forth 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 the 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 appraisal 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 may or may not 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 detect 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 that
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, if 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 conclusions 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, sales, 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 the zoning and land use code are open to interpretation,
and the outcome of any application is subject to government approval. The Appraiser has made every effort to identify these issues
and their application to the subject. However, the Appraiser assumes no responsibility for difficulties in interperetation ofor change in
the land use code.
DENVER
DENVER TECH CENTER
COLORADO SPRINGS
ASPEN
BILLINGS
BOISE
CHEYENNE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
HOLLAND & HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
600 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
April 2, 1991
Leslie Lamont, City Planner
City/County Planning Department
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Demolition Code Amendment
Dear Leslie:
�1E@1Eadr
(303)925-3476
ARTHUR C. DAILY
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.
D
HOLLAND & HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Leslie Lamont, City Planner
April 2, 1991
Page 2
Thanks again for your assistance and support in resolving
the employee housing issue.
Sinc reY
Arthur C. Daily
for Holland & Hart
ACD/jg
cc: Mayor William Stirling
Joe Wells
Laura Donnelley -Morton
0 Z lc"9i 1`i : HI I H :,` ,J7H. _ J_. P. W �
i •
Y.EVQWtNDUR
TO: Off f ' c O
FROM: '1 jan, e ',V . (,ke%-, %:'x:J.! i s t rs:?:. s ; "; , APCHA
THR'U: Carr Y+;. s:.,;eVlttiv,:1 Di.rizc:'::(I , �:?
DATE: !, M'�vrc h :11*;1 1991
RE: cd11V€. cr1. fiYcjc:' 1, I Xr t it ,'rl tlrte tit s
As per ;rou "P.:1t.ic E t pv :1 se fii, 3 k��s'. � Uftek rx t- or. adopted by the
Housirg Auti c,x..I:y 3,.)nr-j. at J,t i; cn, 13, 1991 as it
Pertains to the, o : '.• r Srwo ,'l or Molinta :.n Apartments.
"Director that ':,"ier Yr)ii5 : ng 1.01or—I ty recomm and to
the City tht!. accFapt ancr;• of t..`ae , t* �pe_ty,: Smuggler Mountain
Apartments, 0UVj'r;FA'-1 dw
concerns of the
Houaing Board i1a i�,t',.ctilttad tO
a:id th:'at [1irector Vanze m e
r . _ of cir anc; ar;ceptance being
i exp,-eo:sly thi
potential %lilrtV ',.rl 1 tali,{:'. <..,.rt: 1 iat the EPA'res0 Ves
; by Director Roth.
Rol 1 call V ate -
cu— is -yes
aa-k nett -- y is
Roth - yes
Richard6 - Joe
Truscott -- tea
True - yen
Motion carri-oc E.:).
'`1
•
•
Reid Haughey
Pitkin County Manager
530 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Carr Kunze
Executive Director
Aspen/Pitkin County
39551 Highway 82
Aspen, CO 81611
THOMAS FENTON SMITH
ATTORNEY AT LAW
320 WEST MAIN STREET. SUITE 5
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
March 5, 1991
Housing Authority
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 925-5004
TELECOPIER 925.2442
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
•
•
Reid Haughey
Carr Kunze
March 6, 1991
Page 2
County, subject of course to the agreement of all parties regarding
other outstanding issues.
Very truly yours,
L
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.305
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: 409 East Hopkins Employee Housing Mitigation
DATE: February 25, 1991
SUNMARY: Council directed the applicant, Housing Authority, and
Planning Department to continue working on the 409 East Hopkins
employee housing proposal reporting back at the February 25
meeting.
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.
THOMAS FENTON SMITH 0
ATTORNEY AT LAW
320 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 5
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 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
loth 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
to acquire this property. Given 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,
11
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
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager y#1THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
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 pay off 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 ability or desire to accept the
Smuggler Apartment building for either condominumization or
management; and
C. condominiumization (with association fees) may push sale
prices out of the low income employee guidelines; and
d. the cash -in -lieu for the remaining employee housing
mitigation is dependant upon eventual condominiumization and is
therefore deferred.
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
r1
u
TO:
RE:
M E M O R A N D U M
Aspen City Council
Yvonne Blocker
Leslie Lamont
409 East Hopkins - Revised
Affordable Housing Solution
FROM: Art Daily and
Joe Wells for
Laura Donnelley
DATE: February 6, 1991
1. Requirement: 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 Equivalent: 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. Smuggler 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.
(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-
•
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 -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager /
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning DirectorQ,,
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE: 1990 Commercial GMP Allocations Resolution 4f
DATE: December 17, 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 REQUEST
Pitkin County Bank Addition 2,240 net leasable
409 East Hopkins Redevelopment 6,823 net leasable
Pursuant to Section 8-106 (J), Council shall by resolution
allocate development allotments among eligible applicants who
shall have met the minimum threshold score under the Growth
Management System.
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 meeting the 1990 development needs of both projects.
409 East Hopkins is requesting an Excess Development Allotment of
1,063 net leasable square feet. Review of the excess allotment /
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.
BACKGROUND: The annual quota for the commercial zone is 8,000 T
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 County Bank- The applicants propose
to construct a 2,240 square foot addition for business purposes.
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
;1DO; Lei OTIO-VVI
IOC
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director��
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE: 409 East Hopkins 1990 Commercial GMP, Request for Cash -
In -Lieu and Excess Development Allotment, Resolutions
# and # ,
DATE: December 17, 1990
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the
allocation of 5,760 net leasable square feet of the 1990
Commercial GMP quota to 409 East Hopkins proposal.
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
development 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 to mitigate employee generation
through a cash -in -lieu payment. Pursuant to Section 8-109 J,
Council shall approve of the method of employee housing
mitigation.
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 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.
BACKGROUND: The annual quota for the commercial zone is 8,000
net leasable square feet. The 409 East Hopkins application
requested an allocation of 6,823 square feet. Because the
Commission awarded Pitkin County Bank a greater score, this
proposal will only be allocated 5,760 square feet.
The Commission reviewed and 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 plan to develop
affordable housing with monies received from payment of
affordable housing dedication fees.
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 the City has an adopted plan identifying the
applicant's site as being appropriate for affordable
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.
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
•
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
applicants 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
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
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
ATTACHMENT A 10
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: The following agencies have submitted
referral comments:
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
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 CONVENTS: 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
ir]
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, provisions 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 regarding 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
shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by
the HPC because it meets the standards of Sec. 7-
602 (B) .
4
No partial demolition and removal of a portion of any
Historic Landmark er---4+�►-►*}*--�ritrir--are--uHu ;
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, er-arrp
gtrtietttre-�i+iritr--air-"'--Htister3e--ever Iay-
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 oven space payment -in -lieu fees
upon approval by 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 mitigation 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. Remodeling, restoration, or reconstruction of existing
building.
(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--ebtein--epp�^oira�----►±-re
�1°ra��-eke orrst-mat-e--they- a - j>e-rk-iTr --is
pr 5,vided -ft- -the - -re----- -- }-�f-lee-r--rrea-as -i fi�t were
���-eons�rtrcted:-�ptrec:
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.
0
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 only 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% 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 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
F
recreational activities proposed within or adjacent to the
Commercial Core zone district. For example the ultimate purchase
of Bass Park would be a very appropriate use of 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 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 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
E�
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 any building permits the applicant
shall pay an open space fee. The amount shall depend upon the
final outcome of the proposed 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.
07
8. Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant
shall review with the Building and EnvJsonmental Health
Departments, energy efficiency systems that will improve energy conservation.
10
ATTACHMENT B •
Joseph Wells
Joseph Wells, AICP
Lam d Planning and Design
�� •' � ' CAL;
130 Midland Park Place, Number F2
Aspen. Colorado 81611
Telephone (303) 925-8080
Facsimile (303) 925-82-5
E
•
Joseph Wells
Joseph Wells, AICP
Land Planning and Design
December 14, 1990
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 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%.
130 Midland Park Place, Humber F2
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Te ephonc (303) 925 S,OSO
Facsimile (303) 923-827; 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
applicaticn 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.
eg ds,
oseph Wells, AICP
JW/b
_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, Number F2
As en, 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,
Wells, AICP
JW/ch
.7
Joseph Wells
Joseph Wells, AICP
Land Planning and Design
November 6, 1990
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen CO 81611
Dear Leslie:
t
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) 925-82 7 5
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.
Sincerely,
Joseph Wells, AICP
JW/b
r
El
lul�iu�7�1►i�Iilui
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: The following agencies have submitted
referral comments:
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
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
Wo
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 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. Measures are provided for
them easily movable by tras
enclosing trash bins and making
h 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, provisions 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 regarding 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
shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by
the HPC because it meets the standards of Sec. 7-
602 (B) .
4
No partial demolition and removal of a portion of any
Historic Landmark
Ilet-erg---a-flise 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, er-arty
a rtre tire-jai-tit-i- --air-1+I"--H3s-to-r3e--Ever-Iap--Bie r t-
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 payment -in -lieu fees
upon approval by 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 mitigation 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
a
M
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. Remodeling, restoration, or reconstruction of existing
building.
(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.'ge--ebain--ae�a�---to---j-en*±nt-sex
elt&1717--demorrat-r�-&--tha€-hods3rg--ait&-pa-rknit-fg--.ir9
gra�i-ded--f-frr- -the --retie-rurct-ed---fleer- a-r -&-ors--16€-3-t -were
rre�,a�p-eai°re�rtretec�-egaee-
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.
C:
a
L]
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 only 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% 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 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
recreational activities proposed within or adjacent to the
Commercial Core zone district. For example the ultimate purchase
of Bass Park would be a very appropriate use of 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 Cade 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 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
0
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 any building permits the applicant
shall pay an open space fee. The amount shall depend upon the
final outcome of the proposed 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
•
•
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 conservation.
10
• HOLLAND' & HART
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DENVER 600 EAST MAIN STREET
DENVER TECH CENTER ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
COLORADO SPRINGS
ASPEN
BILLINGS
BOISE
CHEYENNE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
November 5, 1990
Ms. Amy Mar_gerum
Director, Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Amy:
TELEPHONE (303) 925-3476
TELECOPIER (303) 925-9367
CHARLES T. BRANDT
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 recommendations to the"Planning and Zoning Conunission. 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:
1(d) Amenities (pg. 11):
"Because of this (the HPC's desire to align
the new and historic storefronts) none of the
HOLLAND & HART •
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Ms. Amy Ma rger. um
November 5, 1990
Page 2
amendments - open space, parking and affordable housing. The
GMQS Section of the Application contains the following comments:
1(d) 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 through 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) Parking (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. If
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
project, provided that the applicant is
awarded an average score in this category in
excess of 1 point.
3. Provision of Affordable Housing (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 600 of the
employees generated by the project . . . 1n
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 Marger.um
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 amendments 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 4-101L 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.
Very -ruly you s,
Charles T. Brandt
for Holland & Hart
CTB/neh
cc: Joe Wells
Laura Donnelley
ATTACHMENT B
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
•
lu1:4W, (]:i.1►TIITyjuI
Amy Margerum, Planning Director
Leslie Lamont, Planner
409 East Hopkins GMQS Exemption
November 1, 1990
•
SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing
commercial building and redevelop the site with another
commercial building.
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
•
6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson and Leslie Lamont, Planning
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-1 zones. 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 Minimum Pit.Co.Bank 409 Hopkins
Categories Threshold Points
Categories 1 & 2 16.8 (60%) 18.5 17.0
(arch. design, site design,
energy cons.,amenities,
visual impact, trash areas)
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
(Affordable Housing)
Bonus Points
(given only by Commission)
Total Points
7.2
(40%)
13.0
13.0
4.0
(40%)
5.5
4.5
10.0
(60%)
10.0
10.0,
38.0 47.0 44.5
�I
•
Pursuant to Section 8-106 E.(5) a development application shall
be required to meet the thresholds of each category and combined
categories to be.eligible for an allocation.
Attachments: Scoring sheets reflecting Staff consensus for the
Pitkin County Bank and 409 E. Hopkins Commercial Building
ljl/cover90gmp
2
�. OCKY
MOUNTAIN
NATURAL GAS
DIVISION OF
K N ENFRGY, INC.
Oct. 26,1990
Leslie Lamont
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Asnen, CO 81611
PE- 409 E. Ilopkins Commercial (710S
Dear Leslie,
Rockv Mountain 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 ranee.
This letter does not constitute a committment to serve gas
to the project.
Sincerelv,
(---?CXXt MCrl�
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
DATE: 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 proposed and as a result
there is a limited amount of space in 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 services. The applicant's proposal to commit
$5,000 toward the installation of the main extension and hydrant
is not acceptable. If the applicant 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.
0 40
(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
ASPEN*PITKIN I*ENVIR NMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Environmental Health Department
Date: October 22, 1990
Re: 409 E. Hopkins Ave. 1990 Commercial GMQS, Special
Review, GMQS Exemption and Text Amendment
Parcel ID # 2737-073-39-002
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.
ADEQUATE 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
L 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 interior
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.
The applicant shall work with the Building Department to review
energy efficiency systems that will improve energy conservation.
NOISE: Sectiol2-23
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-5070
1 0 •
409 E. Hopkins
October 22, 1990
Page, 2
Long term neighborhood noise impacts are not anticipated as the
result of approving this project. However, short term
construction noise will 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 request based on past
experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative
impacts to humans.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Loslie Lartont, Planning
FROM: Yvonne Blocker, , Hous frig
DATE: October 21, 1990
RE: 409 East hopkins Avenue 1990 C'onin ereial Gt Qs
sp,z�aia' Review, GMQS Exemption and Tesut Amendment
��sca�xarwrcrstr.�>�csres�;7:c�-aa:aea:,_s;accr.�cc-uc: c�.,z:�r� �.�,nr_m=rca®s0.a,uw�.�uwwMwww
SUMMARY: Ap;_+li�.vx►t I"1 CZuesth Commercial GMQS allocation for the
reconstruction of tea; Wxiz- ting st.ructura containing a two atOz'
split-IOVO" st:rl tl_ rs" r'f 2, 795 not leasable sq. frcitage+ to a two
story struc,�-are t,a contain 9, 91.g sq, ft. oP net leasablecommercial/o:R.°ices sj-)A
APPLICANT: L•aur& Donnelly, Box 589, Aapan, Colorado
APPL2CF;NT f S ? FRrSLI`f� _TIVE , I J; se3ph Wel:;.s, ATCP
LOCATION: North 20 fsat of Lot8 D and E and all of Lot F,
Bloc;: u$, City and Townsi,et of Aspen
409 East Hopki,ne
ZONING: CC
REQUEST: A{apii4=znt is requeeting a.^j a lctment. of 1990 Commercial
GMQS net leavahl.e g�.a , footage to �1eraC? ish an axis ping two story
struCtuze of 2,75i5 aq, ft. and to reconstruct a two story structure
to captain 9, �1R s;. fx,. of comnereial/oo'rice space;.
Applicant hn:B stated `hui, they will prOvidia 60% of the employees
generated by the approval Of t}Zj,a ,aPp`iOdtiOn tines the low income
guidelines in effect wt iaauanca of any building permits.
A-pplicant ha3 us�f;!cl rha c'ajc,;.lat.ion c5f 4_ o emZ;.;'1, :;JO of. ft. as
stated in ties a-Ppl:cation that had brrari recently used by the
Planning Office Ira d.atrermininc, the enOoyee generation far
restaurant in thec on.mercial cor'ii. Hour <.rag rega,&eta, clarification
on the determination of tthe appliCari4-e, represent.;itive to use a
restaurant c"11--u..1ation fo:r this application.
The actual '"ta' r-htlt e:rplOyee ge::oratlon req,.;ired by the 1990
Affordable Eti,p .oyec! :1WIJ-jig Gtaidalitiae require a gererat.ion of 5.0-
10.0 ezrployef3g /7:,00r% s, f, w�ymn, �rc'.rl retail. w,VaCC- wOUld require
geneT'd lA:1 f6(.:t:-4- :ri :' , ) I:v. cojT,,.n6j: c iH? of iC j: a.^..$ requires 3.9
emp. /�,000 s.f.
This application it for o„ficre/retail space and neado clarification
as to what ffpeci ll"ic squsaro footage is for office space and what
&POCifiG SgUare footage will be devoteci to retail.
As the application does not state the natare of the office/retail
space to be c:onst:cuct.sd by this proposal, Housing shall compute the
employee gerxaraticn in the sate fashion as the appl .ant using the
dame veneration fig3Krea as follows,
9, 1:9A S. f . �_ 4 . Cj emp./l, OOC s. f.. - 36. 7F, ariployees
35.67 e,;ir. h 60% X $3!rI,000.00 = $771,960.00
The applicant; r:ac; :.-equested an amandinent of Section 8-104
(A) (1) toIizri rate t;le mitigation requirements for
replacement of commer Cia.l. or office floor area.
Housing sta .'f c11.*,rgE;F with ap'pl icant' a repx eaet�tative in the
views that tree cod� is inconsistent- to require. a?•j applicant who
is replacing e ;u.iva lent commercial space to pay these exactions
when an applicant seeking an allocation to expalld an existing
(residential) stvuc*uro is not required to pay exactions for the
space to be vata"ner."
Simplistically, the. "ity Coda has deviser a prccndu-ca to establish
a viable �f commercial +Uld office net leasable floor
space in hi.c:: a-ko Filor emp.lcyrae gen,6.-r&-t-i jj r-Gcruirements were
historical.:,y or pr•uv{dxd.
STAFF r,FCCI�S:rld AI.:'7CaN Hoisting fiv the Planning
Director to zimen,. set�tion 8-104 (Xj' (1) of the Aspen city Coda
to allow the eliralnat;Lon. of r.i.tigatior, rs�uiremfdnts 2or replacement
of de.rolishe� cc,:�:rt .r•c i.�;l or office floo3� arraa.
Staff requests cALi.rification of the eriplc es generation of 4.0
imp./1, CCd $. f. Cc�2: t:h .s application.rG thiL* application for
office, reta.1.1, or rt E;taurant•. net leasable apace?
ATTACHMENT A 0
41
.{aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601
October 19. 1990
Leslie Lamont
Planning Office
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 409 East Hopkins Commercial GMQS
Dear Leslie:
Tele. (303) 925-2537
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 needed a manhole will
need to be installed which will allow the District to televise
the segment of line which will serve the project. The manhole
construction will require the relocation of a gas line by Rocky
Mountain Natural Gas. It may be possible to accomplish this
preliminary work by next spring.
At this time it appears as though this project's impact upon the
District's system will require two relatively minor repairs
estimated to cost $3000 each. 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,
Bruce Mather l(yr
District Manager
cc: Laura Donnelley, applicant
Ray Patch. RMNG
•
U
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 409 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE 1990
APPLICATION
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE GMQS
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.
s/C. Welton Anderson, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on October 18, 1990.
City of Aspen Account.
•
MEMORANDUM
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
DATE -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
October 17, 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 adequate. 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 long 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 indicate 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 the goals
sound good. 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
comes to selecting how they actually will address the goals.
Glazing: The proposal is again sensitive to energy
ROARING FORK ENERGY CENTER • 242 MAIN STREET • CARBONDALE, CO 81623 • (303)963-0311
efficiency and specifies materia
their overall goals. The use of
good idea that will reduce heat
consider other types of glazing
energy efficiency. For example,
types with reflective films that
will be especially important for
Selecting interior finishes and
heating and occupant comfort is
design team is committed to savi
resources. Utilizing techniques
gains is another great sounding
is and strategies to achieve
low "E" glazing is another
loss. They may want to
that will achieve even more
Heat Mirror glazing or other
can achieve R8 values. This
north facing glazing.
colors to increase mass
another indication that the
ng energy and natural
to increase passive solar
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.
ORANDUM%��r�t�
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
FROM: 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: C
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.
o-
Cl-
9�0-S�qO
0
•
September 27, 1990
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
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
• 0 a
C
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
7f If Re�. 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.
CASELOAD SUY94ARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 9 17 90
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
�%3 %' 6-73- L-04E A54-90
STAFF MEMBER • 1_ L._
PROJECT NAME:409 East Hopkins 1990 Commerical GMOS,Special Review
Project Address: 409 East Hopkins Avenue
Legal Address: N 80' of Lots D & E and all Lot F, Block 88
APPLICANT: Laura Donnelley
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
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: V
P&Z Meeting Date
CC Meeting Date
PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
-City Attorney — — Mtn. Bell
City Engineer v V Parks Dept.
Housing Dir. 'ioly Cross
Aspen Water � Fire Marshal
^\7 City Electric uilding Inspector
i \- Envir. Hlth. =T,:�eRoaring Fork
(Aspen Con.S.D. Energy Center
School District
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
State Hwy Dept(GW)
State Hwy Dept(GJ)
C0i'aI
DATE REFERRED: & '0 INITIALS: /N
FINAL ROUTING: DATE
City Atty City Engi
Housing Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: i
ROUTED: `'
Ier Zoning -
O
INITIAL:
Env. Health
• EXHIBIT 1 •
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
1)
Project
Name 409
East Hopkins
Commercial
Project
2)
Project
Location
North 80
feet
of Lots D
and E and all of
Lot F, Block
88, Aspen Townsite
3)
Present Zoning
CC
4)
Lot Size 7823 sq. ft
5)
Applicant's Name,
Address & Phone
#
Laura Donnelley,
Box 589, Aspen,
Colorado 81612
6)
Representative's
Name, Address &
Phone #
Joe Wells, 602 Midland
Park Place, Aspen,
Colorado 81611
(3031
925-8080
7)
Type of Application
(please check
all that
apply):
Conditional Use
Conceptual
SPA
Conceptual Historic Dev.
X
Special Review
Final SPA
Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline
Conceptual
PUD
Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin
Final PUD
Historic Demolition
Mountain View
Subdivision
Historic Designation
Plane
Condominiumiza-
X Text/Map
X
GMQS Allotment
tion
Amendment
Lot Split/Lot GMQS Exemption
Adjustment
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 sq. ft. of net
leasable, outdoor dining for restaurant on adjacent property and
open space
9) Description of Development Application
Regeust for commercial GMQS allotment, special review and related
code amendments for a two story commercial structure of 9,198 sq.
ft of net leasable space plus a full basement.
10) Have you attached the following:
X Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents
X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents
X Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your
Application
• 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,
Laura nel eye
.yam
(467e)
•
•
Janies J.110 ca &tssociato. Inc.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants Cn•stal Palace Building; • 300 East H%-man .venue • aspen. Colorado 81611 • 303/925-898 i
January 30, 1990
Mr. Steven Briggs
Alpine Bank of Aspen
409 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Limited Appraisal Assignment: North 80 Feet of Lots D and 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 Assigrm>ent" in which we have abbreviated our
discussion of the description of the subject, site data, zoning,
highest and best use, neighborhood and our valuation. Although
abbreviated, our analysis has been in-depth and 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 and Valuation sections
of this report, it is extremely difficult to accurately gauge the
Market Value of couercial land in downtown Aspen. Although the
subject property includes a small commercial building, most of the
value rests in the vacant land which requires development in order
to maximize the highest and best use of the property: Although the
Growth Management Quota System has been in effect since 1977
affecting the development of properties like the subject, recent
changes to the Plan have resulted in extraordinary "soft costs."
When vacant land is developed, the GMQS process must be pursued and
substantial exactions are required from any developer for employee
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 coaplicating 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 Donnelly, the
Scott M. Bowie, MAI
ASSOCIATE APPRAISERS Randy Gold. MAI
Elisabeth Fobert James J. Mollica, MAI
Eli:abeth A. Newman
F
current owner of the subject property, and Alpine Bank. As such, it
is important to recognize that the value conclusion shown below
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.
The value conclusion shown below has been presented as a range of
value. The uncertainty surrounding the extraordinary "soft costs"
of development, the risks associated with any approval in Aspen for
any new development and lack of available alternatives in the
current market are all factors which have caused us to consider a
relatively wide range in value. For your purposes, we would
suggest, however, that a value from the middle of the range be
considered most applicable.
We also recognize that the subject property is currently under lease
to Alpine Bank until October 31, 1993. Because the function of this
appraisal is to assist Alpine Bank and the lessor in negotiations
for possible sale, we have based our analysis under the assumption
that the building is free and clear of the existing lease. In fact,
however, there is some leasehold advantage in the existing lease as
we believe it is below market. Although we have not recapitulated
that analysis in this letter, we feel that the current leasehold
interest in the building, because of its below -market terms, is
approximately $50,000.
Based upon our analysis of the accumulated 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 discussion about the appraisal,
the Property Identification section and the Valuation section.
Sporting photographs and a survey of the property as provided to
us have been included in the addendum to this report. Additional
data has been retained in our files and can be reviewed if
necessary.
James J. MoMca Inc.
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
•
•
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. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully,
Randy Gold, MAI
Ar-oraiser-Consultant
Scott M. Bowie, MAI
Ai -raiser -Consultant
James].
Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants
10. Location Relative to Retail and Service Outlets.
This criterion does not apply to commercial/office applications.
11. Effects of the Proposed Development. The proposed
building has been limited to two stories in order to complement
adjacent historic structures and has been located on the site as
preferred by the HPC.
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.
The proposed building is a two story brick structure
with sandstone details and painted wood windows. At HPC's
request, the sandstone has been simplified to avoid competing
with the bolder sandstone detailing of the Collins Block and
Brand Building. The rhythm of the detailing is very much in
harmony with the two landmark buildings, however.
Because the Lane Parcel building, which is part of the
Collins Block ownership, partially blocks the alley exposure of
the proposal, the second level commercial space of the project
has been designed in two wings with an open central plaza
separating the two. This plaza cannot be seen from the public
areas below but it does benefit both of the historic structures
on either site by providing a second level open space which
extends completely across the site of the proposal in an
east -west direction.
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,
C
11
0
ql
77
e ,
and to further enha'Ce a compatible visual expl*lssion 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.
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. ,'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.'
i
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
committed 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.
�61
-�tTA l- :Rpolz
-�bTR L, tJ ET VEflSAA3 Le 3 co o
Q � . 1�\- - - Z—,\. �"l lyq,14qDi
a 7 b
.4 o AMND 321-�IZEIIT H-MR11KH170"
UFFFR LEVEL PLAN NOVEMBER 30,Ic-lcf3 SGALE:
NORTH
TCTP--
T-- LVOV- 1 is�-F-EA --
(o 8 S b
" DT(k,
' 4eT V PO:�
ti�3o
11
MAI N LEVEL PLAN
NOVEMBER 30,1 qci3
NORTH
L
a
WEST ELEVATION
s
mm
:WA V!1
l llpp■-1jjmv---
ml
■s
�0 WINE
T
UP
CI
VIJIVIIV. GI�..-
SPACE
CORRIDOR
SERVICE YARD
on
Iff
MAIN LEVEL PLAN
TRANSFORMER
0
STORAGE
STORAGE
UP
CORRIDOR
STORAGE
STORAGE
I��
ICI!
I