HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.409 E Hopkins Ave.A27-93
,.
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
city of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 05/03/93
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL 10 AND CASE NO.
2737-073-39-004 A27-93
STAFF MEMBER: LL
Permanent Extension of Vested Riahts
PROJECT NAME: 409 E. Hopkins
Project Address:
Legal Address: Lots D. E and F. Block 88. city and Townsite of
Aspen
APPLICANT: Kandvcom. Inc.
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: Tom smith. Austin. Peirce & smith
Representative Address/Phone: 600 E. Hopkins. suite 205
Aspen. CO 81611 925-2600
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING $ 942.00 # APPS RECEIVED 1
ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED
HOUSING $
ENV. HEALTH $
TOTAL $ 942.00
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: -1L 2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
I '0 v &II~ VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
./
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
DRC Meeting Date
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
~S?RRALS :
City Attorney Parks Dept. School District
City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas
,-'\. Housing Dir. Fire Marshal CDOT.
Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean A~r Board
city Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board
Envir.Hlth. ACSD Other
Zoning Energy Center Other
~~:~=~~~~~~~~~1~~========:~:::~~~~==:=~========~~~~==~1:=~===
FINAL ROUTING:
DATE ROUTED:
INITIAL:
_ City Atty
_ Housing
_ city Engineer
_ Open Space
_Zoning _Env. Health
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
.....-
"""\
.....j
...,....
#.358876 07/15/93 15:46 Rec $20.00 BK 718 F'G 50
SIlvIa Davis, F'itkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
ORDINANCE 36
(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, the Smuggler Mountain Apartments were added to the
affordable housing inventory in 1991, before any commercial growth
has occured on the property, and the City has already received
substantial benefit in the provision 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
1
fV"""3876 07/15/93 15:46 Rec $:~OO Bf< 718 F'G 51
e...fvla DavIs, PItkin Cnty CIEl'l..{, Doc $.00
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
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
2
("' ~
#35887~7/15/93 15:46 Rec $20.00 '-....1718 F'G 52
Silvia Davis, F'itkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
hereby be permanently vested and credited to the
development on the 409 East Hopkins parcel,
following conditions:
future commercial
subject to the
1. If future development generates more than 20.4 employees,
additional mitigation shall be required in accordance with those
mitiga~ion 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.
3
('"'5887607/15/93 15:46 Rec ~.OO BK 718 F'G 53
.lvla DavIs, F'ltkin Cnty C.Ak, Doc $.00
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
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 circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the
')
, 1993.
/~
~(3~
John ennett, Mayor
day of
City Council
~
,.,,'- .'/1
.... "i' Of .{ ~ "1_,"
,"\, ..' -'. .~/:. ~ ''',...
~' "<."\
of the City of Aspen on the
"ft~thry:"," S /Koch,
('/};,......, ., .'
. < OR!.;.,"
. ...""....",
"
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this
~, 1993.
/L
day of
John i:;ett~}~
')
K~thryn S
('A" ,.'
U('... .. ~
C,~ II ~
4
,-,
\,
-
~, /'
IXb
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City
Council
THRU:
Amy Margerum, City
FROM:
Diane Moore, city
DATE:
July 12, 1993
RE:
409 East Hopkins Vested Rights for Employee Housing
Mitigation - Second Reading Ordinance 36, 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 36, 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. This project has not yet
commenced construction.
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 GNP allocation for 409 East Hopkins will expire January 24,
1994. The current owner, Kandycom Inc., would like to ensure that
if the GNP allocation expires in January of 1994, or if a new GNP
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 vestinq of the employee
mitiqation is beinq souqht.
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:
vestinq 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.
Staff has received referreral comments from the the Housing Office
and they agree that the continued recognition for the mitigation
of 20.4 employees should be perpetually vested.
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
2
c
.-....
building was on the market and if sold, redevelopment (because of
Ordinance 1) of the property would have required replacement of 50%
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
~
L
----
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.
PROPOSBD MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance 36, series of 1993 on
second reading."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
A. Ordinance 36, Series of 1993
B. Resolutions 58 and 61, Series of 1990
C. Resolution 14, Series of 1991
4
TO:
/' [fl1~' trf 11 ~iJJjJ tJ/ ~14 ~~
~ (){btv&n6L-[Z-tC- '~~ vI (
MEMORANDUM i ~ ,..
Mayor and City Coun'cil c? , -11715 ' ,'<2-, 1?IA ~"jy
Amy Margerum, City Manager .~ ~ '. r'
Di.n. Moor.. City Pl.nn'n. Dir.c~ "~.
Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
THRU:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
June 14, 1993
409 East Hopkins Vested Rights for Employee Housing
Mitigation - First Reading ordinance~, Series of 1993
RE:
y~
SUMMARY: The applicants, Kandycom Inc., have requested to 1~/Mr
perpetually vest the employee housing mitigation that was provided
for the 409 East Hopkins Growth Mana~t deve.!.opmllnt plan.
~b DIO:C(r .~ ~v) it]of- ',/6f flffT'JYI'--i0 ~Y1 .
Staff' recommends approval of Orainance ,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.
~\\) 1
J(\ V,)'J C
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.
BACRGROUND: 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,
, ~"D D 'J:) ), L I
'----" i~ 2Ni'o/ II':' ~/^,1 G~ _ 4!hYv 7 ( ) ->;IJ<..
eJiir U\Jv~ ~Wy ~~ 1 i /1 [~Jvv~v,;/) ,( , , ~lf:hJujj..
r A- 1-i r ",<MIL ,hi' liO!1~/~~~ii f!~~CU;, ,~ !l/iJJ.i5(~;/,;;;'i fin
."""
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
Apartments, the applicant also provided
apartments.
the Smuggler Mountain
$25,000 to upgrade the
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
Homesi te Inc. for the construction of a 5,000 square foot home
adjacent to the Aspen Alps. Council considered preservation of
5 acres of open space within the Aspen Alps property as
justification for granting vested rights in perpetuity.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of perpetual vested
rights status for the employee mitigation of 20.4 employees for the
409 East Hopkins parcel with the following conditions:
1. If future development on this parcel generates more than 20.4
employees, additional mitigation shall be required in accordance
with those mitigation standards then in effect.
3
.-
-
-,
()O-': ,
"
v
.--J ' " '"
r ,j._-j..._.y:~
).".1
,/
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Leslie Lamont, Planning
FROM:
cindy Christensen, Housing
DATE:
June 1, 1993
RE:
409 E. HOPKINS PERMANENT EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS
Parcel I.D. No. 2737-073-39-004
ISSUE:
On March 29, 1991, the Smuggler Mountain Apartments' property was
conveyed to Pitkin County, along with a $25,000 upgrade
contribution to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office. This
fulfillment of the employee housing mitigation requirements
associated with the project was made prior to application for a
building permit. The performance of these conditions provided a
significant benefit to the City and provided employee housing
mitigation for 20.4 employees. The applicant would like to vest
this mitigation for future development.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Housing Office agrees that the continued recognition for the
mitigation of 20.4 employees should be vested. The Housing Office
would like to retain the right, though, of reviewing the
development application once it is submitted. At the time of this
review, should any additional housing requirements over and above
the 20.4 employees be imposed, the Housing Office has the right to
ask for that employee mitigation.
In the absence of a change in the proj ect approval or in the
absence of an increase in the employee housing mitigation
requirement based upon a new proposal, the Housing Office
recommends that mitigation for 20.4 employees be perpetually
recognized.
\clc\word\referral.40geh.ref
~
.
CITY
~.
PEN
t
~4AY I 4
May 13, 1992
B. Joseph Krabacher, Esq.
Krabacher, Hill & Edwards
201 North Mill street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 409 East Hopkins Employee Mitigation.
Dear Joe:
I am forwarding you this letter in response to a couple of
questions you posed in your correspondence of April 24th perti-
nent to the above-noted matter.
1. You first ask whether City Council has accepted the
transfer of the Smuggler Mountain Apartments to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority as full and complete satisfaction of the
housing mitigation requirement for the 409 East Hopkins develop-
ment project. The answer to this question is yes.
Resolution No. 14 (Series of 1991), adopted by council
on March 25, 1991, indicates that the project developer proposed
a housing mitigation plan under which it would have the Smuggler
Mountain Apartments conveyed to the Housing Authority on the
condition that the City accept same as full satisfaction of the
housing mitigation requirement. In that the employee mitigation
figure for the project was calculated at 20.4 employees, and the
apartment building could only house 17.5 employees, there ini-
tially was a question of whether the apartment building would be
enough to satisfy the mitigation requirement. Given all the
relevant factors, City council determined that the developer's
proposal was fair and reasonable and, therefore, accepted the
apartment building in complete satisfaction of the employee
housing mitigation requirement. (The developer also agreed to
pay $25,000.00 to offset building improvement costs.)
2. You have also asked whether the accepted housing
mitigation plan "runs with the land". In a true legal and
technical sense, the answer to that question in my opinion is no.
However, section 24-8-108(A) (2) of the Municipal Code provides
that development allotments and all other development approvals
are eligible for an extension in the standard three (3) year
@ recycled paper
,r
...
May 11, 1992
Mr. Joe Krabacher
Krabacher, Hill & Edwards
Jerome Professional Building
201 North Mill street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Joe:
According to your letter you are seeking an interpretation with
regard to the employee mitigation of the 409 East Hopkins
commercial growth management approval of December 17, 1990.
It does state in the "Whereas" clauses that the applicant was
required to mitigate 20.4 employees for the 409 East Hopkins
development but Council accepted affordable housing mitigation for
17.5 employees by requiring the applicant to convey the SMuggler
Mountain Apartments to Pitkin County.
For your client's clarification I would agree that the purchase
and subsequent transfer of the Smuggler Mountain Apartments to the
Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority did mitigate the employee
housing requirement for the 1990 Commerical Growth Management
Allocation awarded to 409 East Hopkins. The applicant was
originally required to mitigate for 20.4 employees but Council did
in fact accept the purchase of Smuggler Mountain Apartments as full
mitigation for this project and no further mitigation was required
for the 1990 GMQS approval.
Resolution No. 14, Series of 1991 states:
1. The applicant shall conveyor 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.
It is clear that 409 East Hopkins has mitigated for 17.5 employees
as opposed to 20.4 employees.
A GMQS allocation is valid for three years and an extension may be
requested for additional time to utilize the allocation (pursuant
to section 24-8-108 of the Municipal Code). It is at that time
that prior approvals and employee housing mitigation should be
discussed.
Sincerely,
Jed Caswall, City Attorney
cc: Diane Moore, City Planning Director
Leslie Lamont, Planning
409 East Hopkins GMQS file
c
---.
., /
Ronald D. Austin
FrederickF.Pein:e
1bomas Fenton Smilh
Rhonda J. Baril
AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P,C.
Attorneys At Law
600 East Hopkins Avenue
Suite 205
Aspen. Colorado 81611
1lo1epbooe (303) 925-2600
FAX (303) 925-4720
, 0 !993
May 10, 1993
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 409 East Hopkins - Permanent
Extension of Vested Rights
Case Number A 27-93
Dear Leslie:
Enclosed please find the signed original letter authorizing
representation of Kandycom, Inc. by Austin, Peirce & Smith, P.C.
and the Agreement for Payment of Application Fees in the above
matter.
If you have any further questions or requirements, please
contact me at your earliest convenience.
Very truly yours,
AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C.
By: ~
Thomas Fenton Smith
TFS/vvn
Enclosures
cc: Kandycom, Inc.
Richard S. Cohen, Esq.
4 C:\WP51\LETTERS\COVER2.TFS
-.
KANDYCOM, INC.
P.O. Box 1135
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546
May 5, 1993
Ms. Lesli Lamont
Aspen/Pit in Planning Office
l30 South alena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE:
09 East Hopkins Permanent
xtension of Vested Rights
ase Number A 27-93
ont:
This s to confirm that Kandycom, Inc. owner of Lots D, E, and
F, Block 8 , City and Townsite of Aspen, excepting therefrom the
southerly 0 feet of tots D and E, Block 88, also known as 409 East
Hopkins venue, Aspen, Colorado, hereby consents to the
representa ion of Kandycom, Inc. by Thomas Fenton Smith and Austin,
Peirce & Smith, P.C., with respect to the above-referenced
applicatio .
Sincerely,
~ ~
~l1;h'i/I~a 7
~. ideftt
Jt?IsUM /T!1 /<.'U'KA
Vc;",
~
V<~ rr.,~iide>nf,
KI\vvn
,.'~
ASP N/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
for Pa
CITY OF A PEN (hereinafter CITY) and Kandycam, Inc.
(hereinafter PPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. PPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
pennenant tension of vested rights for the 409 East Hopkins Project case #A27-93
(hereinafter, HE PROJECT),
2, PPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance
No. 77 (Seri of 1992) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications
and the paym nt of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination
of applicatio completeness,
3. PPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or
scope of the roposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and
CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT
to make pay ent of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to
be billed to PPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be
benefited by etaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments
upon notifica ion by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred,
CITY agrees t will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full
costs to proc ss APPLICANT'S application;
4. ITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for
CITY staff complete processing or present sufficient information to the
Planning Co mission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission
and/or City C unci! to make legally required findings for project approval, unless
current billin s are paid in full prior to decision,
-
~'..
.#
5.. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of.the CITY's
waiver of ts right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application
completene s~ APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of ~42.00
which is fo b_ hours of Plalliling Office time, and if actual recorded costs
exceed the itial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to
CITY to r imburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned
above, ine! ding post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made
within 30 d ys of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay
such accru costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
CITY OF
APPLICANT
By: 7;;;;;6/(3' "
Malling Addn!'ss:KandycQ!\, 'Inc.
P.O. Box 1135, MarnToth Lakes, CA 93546
Date: "h~ 7. / 9 9.....y
-
2
,....
-
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO
Jed Caswall
cc
Leslie Lamont
From: Diane Moore
Postmark: May 09,93 3:09 PM
Status: Certified
Subject: Tom smith's req't for vesting
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
Tom finally delivered his request for "permanent vesting" of the 409
East Hopkins project on Friday. I talked to him and told him that we
would try and get this on the may 24 meeting for first reading but
that may not be possible. He understandably wants 2nd reading before
old council on June 15.. anyway I want to get together with you on
either Monday or Tuesday to discuss as I leave on Friday for Mexico
and have to go to Denver all day on Wedesday for CDOT/EPA meeting
with Amy, John and Lee. Please let me know your availability. Thanks
Lez, could you make me a copy of his submittal.
-------========x========-------
I""'
--
Ronald D. Austin
FrederickF. .Peirce
Thomas fentOn Smith
AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P,C.
Attorneys At Law
600 East Hopkins Avenue
Suile 205
Aspen, Colorado 81611
1CIophooe (303) 92S-2600
FAX (303) 92S-4720
Rhooda J. 8azil
May 6, 1993
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
[liM - 7
RE: 409 East Hopkins project - Permanent Extension of Vested
Riqhts, Case #A27-93
Dear Leslie:
In response to the May 4, 1993, letter requesting additional
information with respect to the above-referenced application, I am
enclosing the documents listed below.
Diane Moore suggested that I provide this information as
quickly as possible in order for first reading to occur at the last
May meeting of the city council, with second reading at the first
meeting in June. Accordingly, the second and third items
identified below have faxed signatures. The originals are in the
mail to me, and I shall deliver them to you on Monday or Tuesday of
next week when I receive them.
The documents enclosed are as follows:
1. Proof of ownership. This consists of the deed from
Laura Donnelley to K and Y, Inc., dated March 29, 1991, and
recorded at Book 642 Page 713; Articles of Amendment to the
Articles of Incorporation of K and Y, Inc., changing the name of
the corporation to Kandycom, Inc.; and Certificate of Amendment to
Kandycom, Inc., formerly known as K and Y, Inc., issued by the
Colorado Secretary of State.
2. Letter of authorization for Austin, Peirce & Smith to
represent Kandycom, Inc. in this matter.
6 C:\WP51\LETTERS\LL2.TFS
-.
........-.....
AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH
Attorneys At Law
Ms. Leslie Lamont
May 6, 1993
Page 2
3. Executed Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen
Development Application Fees.
Please call if you require any additional information, and let
me know about the scheduling of this matter before City Council.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C.
By: ~
Thomas Fenton Smith
TFS/hs
Enclosures
cc: Diane Moore
Kandycom, Inc.
Richard S. Cohen, Esq.
6 C,\WP51\LETTERS\LL2.TFS
c
~
" ..,l
Ronald D. Austin
FmJcrick F. Pein:e
Thomas Fenton Smith
Rhonda J. Sazil
AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C,
Attorneys At Law
600 East Hopkins Avenue
Suite 205
Aspen. Colorado 81611
1>Iophone (303) 92>-2600
FA)( (303) 92>-4720
April 27, 1993
City Council of the City of Aspen
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 409 East Hopkins Project - Application for a Permanent
Extension of Vested Rights
Dear Mayor and Council:
We represent Kandycom, Inc., owner of the 409 East Hopkins
Avenue Project property, Lots 0, E and F, Block 88, City and
Townsite of Aspen. On beh.:af of the proI6rty owner, I am
submitting this application for the permanent extension of vested
rights in accordance with C.R.S. 24-68-104(2) and Section 6-207 of
the Land Use Regulations of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.
On September 15, 1990, the then owner of the property, Laura
Donnelley, submitted a Commercial GMQS Application to complete a
new commercial building at 409 East Hopkins Avenue. The property
was then, and is now, occupied by a two story, split level
structure of 2,795 square feet, including 2,375 square feet of net
leasable space and 1,774 square feet of FAR.
Pursuant to Resolution 58 (Series of 1990), dated December 17,
1990, the City Council granted a development allotment of
5,760 square feet of net leasable space from the 1990 Commercial
Growth Management Quota. By Resolution 61 (Series of 1990), dated
January 24, 1991, the project received an excess development
allotment of 1,063 square feet of net leasable commercial space
from the 1991 Commercial Growth Management Quota. These approvals
are subject to all condition" of development approval for the
409 East Hopkins project as imposed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission pursuant to the project's 1990 Commercial GMQS
allotment. Finally, pursuant to P&Z Resolution 91-8, dated
November 6, 1990, special review approval was granted for reduction
of on-site parking, trash/utility service area, and open space for
the project subject to conditions.
,-.
\.../
,-~-
AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH
Attorneys At Law
City Council of the City of Aspen
April 27, 1993
Page 2
By Resolution 14 (Series of 1991), dated March 25, 1991, the
City Council approved a proposal for employee housing mitigation in
connection with the GMQS approval. Pursuant to that resolution,
the applicant was deemed to have satisfied its requirement to
mitigate affordable housing for 20.4 employees by conveying the
Smuggler Mountain Apartment Building located at 414 Park Circle,
Aspen, Colorado, to Pitkin County. The applicant was also required
to pay $25,000.00 to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
("APCHA") for improvements to the Smuggler Mountain Apartments.
Finally, the applicant was required to execute deed restrictions
satisfactory to APCHA prior to and as a condition of the issuance
of a building permit for the 409 East Hopkins development,
restricting the Smuggler Mountain Apartments to low income
Category 1 housing guidelines.
On March 29, 1991, the Smuggler Mountain Apartments' property
was conveyed to Pitkin County and a $25,000.00 upgrade contribution
was made to APCHA. Contrary to the usual procedure, this
fulfillment of the employee housing mitigation requirements
associated with the project was made prior to application for a
building permit for the approved 409 East Hopkins Project, and thus
prior to any impacts upon the City which would serve as the basis
for the employee housing mitigation. The performance of the
condition for employee housing mitigation represented by the
purchase and conveyance to Pitkin County of the Smuggler Mountain
Apartments at a cost of over $900,000.00, and the $25,000.00
contribution to APCHA for upgrades, has provided a significant
benefit to the City and was taken in substantial reliance upon the
project approvals. Accordingly, Kandycom, Inc., hereby requests
perpetual vesting of the project approvals reflected in
Resolutions 90-58, 90-6l, 91-14, and P&Z Resolution 9l-8. Our
request includes a recognition that the employee housing mitigation
for 20.4 employees would also be vested.
While common law vesting might be deemed to exist as a matter
of law, in view of the acceptance of a substantial benefit by the
City and action by the owner in reliance on the project approval,
we prefer to resolve this issue by agreement with City Council.
It is our understanding that in response to two prior requests
for the extension of vested rights, the City Council granted
approvals based in large part upon consideration of the benefits
accruing to the City as a result of the applications. We believe
that factor weighs heavily in favor of this request, in view of the
~
----
"
AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH
Attorneys At Law
City Council of the City of Aspen
April 27, 1993
Page 3
substantial benefit already received by the City of Aspen in actual
upgraded employee housing.
In the Moses Lot Split, Ordinance 3l (Series of 1992),
perpetual vesting was granted based in large part upon the benefit
to the community represented by the preservation of open space.
Here, a compelling public benefit has been derived by the
dedication of the Smuggler Mountain Apartments to employee housing,
furthering a well-established priority in the City of Aspen.
This request is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan
in terms of the development approval subject to vesting. The
approval project, unlike the existing building, must meet HPC
requirements to ensure neighborhood compatibility. Therefore, the
vested rights would apply to a project that furthers this community
interest and improves the neighborhood.
In addition to the benefits provided to the City and the
reliance which has occurred as a result of the contribution of
employee housing, the property owner is otherwise in full
compliance with the terms and conditions of the project approval
for the 409 East Hopkins Project. We believe that perpetual
vesting is warranted in light of all the relevant circumstances,
and request that you approve this application.
It would be our understanding, based upon the approval of this
application, that in the event of a request for amendment or
modification to the existing project approval, there would be
continued recognition of the mitigation for 20.4 employees which
has already been performed. Any additional housing requirements
over and above 20.4 employees could be imposed as a result of a
project amendment if required by the City Code. In the absence of
a change in the project approval or in the absence of an increase
in the employee housing mitigation requirement based upon a new
proposal, mitigation for 20.4 employees would be perpetually
recognized, since it would be vested along with project approval as
a condition thereof.
please notify me if any additional information in support of
this application is required. Also, please notify me of the date
that this matter will be considered by the City Council. I have
enclosed our application fee of $942.00.
-
....../
AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH
Attorneys At Law
City Council of the City of Aspen
April 27, 1993
Page 4
Thank you for your cooperation.
TFS/smg
cc: Kandycom, Inc.
Richard S. Cohen, Esquire
4 C:\WP51\LETTERS\KANDYCOM.TFS
-
..,.
Very truly yours,
AUSTIN, PEIRC
By:
Thomas Fenton Smith
P.C.
()
/~-'-,,-
'" ,"
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO
Diane Moore
cc
Leslie Lamont
From: Jed Caswall
Postmark: Feb 23,93 12:18 PM
Subject: 409 E. Hopkins
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message:
In researching T. smith's letter to you for code interpretation, I
noticed that the reso as signed by mayor and in clerk's office is not
the same amended version of the reso that I drafted incorporating
council's changes. The problem is in para.no.6. The version I prepar-
ed states Council will remove the deed restriction re the restaurant,
the signed version(I don't know who prepared it)states restriction
"is removed..." Lez, did you draft this? The signed version is a bit
confusing and does not reflect accurately council's approval. Can you
guys review--we should talk about it on friday.
-------========x========-------
12e) it I{ ~~~ Iqql
kL ~ ~~~ ~ O~O.
~ 1J ~ct-__~ (NfVWV
~ ~,~ M 1>>0 ~ --b F. cYI^-
~~r~~~
~r~b ~cCoPk ~t )2e1) M ~ ~ ~
it ~'U V
M ts+l1kf., In -1uTYY15
~~~
cn~.
,.....
~,
'-. ,'/
Ronald D. Austin
Fmlcrick F. Peirce
Thomas Fenton Smith
AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH
Attorneys At Law
600 East Hopkins Avenue
Suite 205
Aspen, Colorado 81611
'Wepbone (303) 925-2600
FAX (303) 925-4720
Rhonda J. Bazil
February 1, 1993
fEB
2'"")
jl.,
. ,...../;J0
Ms. Diane Moore
City of Aspen Planning Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena St~eet
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Edward M. Caswall, Esquire
Aspen City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Request for Article II Code Interpretation of Sections 5-
702 and 8-l02 as applied to 409 East Hopkins Property
Dear Diane and Jed:
I represent Kandycom, Inc., owners of the 409 East Hopkins
property in Aspen. As you may recall, this property was the
subject of a GMQS approval pursuant to Resolution No. 58 (Series of
1990) and employee housing mitigation approval pursuant to
Resolution No. l4 (Series of 1991).
The present owners of the property, through their then
attorney, Joseph Krabacher, exchanged correspondence with
},1r. Caswall regarding the employee h0using mit,igation req-uirement.
Mr. Krabacher informally requested two interpretations regarding
the approval, first, to confirm mitigation for 20.4 employees by
the above referenced resolutions, and second, a request as to
whether the affordable housing mitigation "runs with the land." He
did not request a Code interpretation pursuant to Article 11.
This request for Code interpretation relates to the second
issue referred to above. I do not believe that the issue as I
understand it was presented to you by Mr. Krabacher. Specifically,
this letter requests an interpretation of the meaning of
Sections 5-702 and 8-102, as to whether these Code provisions are
interpreted to allow a credit for the employee housing provided in
accordance with Resolution No. 14 (Series of 1991), if the approved
project is not developed and an amendment to the approval is
requested.
--
/-,
AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH
Attorneys At Law
Ms. Diane Moore
Edward M. Caswall, Esquire
February 1, 1993
Page 2
While the Smuggler Mountain Apartments were purchased and
conveyed in accordance with the employee housing mitigation
requirements of the project approval, no building permit has been
requested for the approved development at 409 East Hopkins Avenue.
The current owner of the property is uncertain as to whether it
will undertake development and is considering a sale of the
property. Potential purchasers expect to have a clear
understanding of the terms of the approval, and in particular the
affect of the completed dedication of employee housing. I agree
with Mr. Caswall's previous interpretation that the affordable
housing mitigation does not "run with the land," as such. And I
also agree that for the current approval to remain vested, we must
comply with the City Code. However, potential purchasers wish to
know how the employee housing mitigation will be treated if they
decide to seek an amendment to the current approval or possibly an
entirely different approval. The possibility that a $950,000.00
investment in employee housing might not be treated as a credit
against a future development of the 409 East Hopkins property is
obviously a significant concern and has a major affect on the
marketability of the property. Accordingly, I am requesting on
behalf of Kandycom, Inc. that you provide us with a Code
interpretation pursuant to Article 11 of the Aspen Municipal Code
with respect to Sections 5-702 and 8-l06(F)(3).
These sections of the Code, consistent with Colorado case law
on the issue of permit conditions and development exactions,
express the affordable housing requirement in terms of "employees
generated by the proposed development" or "as a result of the
activity for which a fee is required." The intent of the employee
housing mitigation requirement is for development to pay its own
way and to mitigate the employee housing impacts of the proposed
development.
This is entirely consistent with a long line of Colorado case
law, whereby the Colorado Supreme Court has consistently held that
exactions and impact fees must bear some reasonable relationship to
the needs generated by the proposed new development. See, Cherry
Hills Resort Development Co. v. Citv of Cherry Hills Villaqe,
790 P.2d 827 (Colo. 1990); Beaver Meadows v. Board of Countv
Commissioners, 709 P.2d 928, (Colo. 1985); Bethlehem Evanaelical
Lutheran Church v. City of Lakewood, 626 P.2d 668 (Colo. 1981); and
Wood Brothers Homes. Inc. v. Citv of Colorado Sprinas, 568 P.2d 487
(Colo. 1987). These cases are consistent with Nollan v. California
-
----
AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH
Attorneys At Law
Ms. Diane Moore
Edward M. Caswall, Esquire
February 1, 1993
Page 3
Coastal Commission, 107 S.Ct. 3141 (1987), where the Supreme Court
held, inter alia, that it was inappropriate to require landowners
to bear more than their fair share of the cost of contributing to
public burdens which in all fairness and justice should be born by
the public as a whole.
Thus, my request for Code interpretation is not as to whether
the employee housing mitigation requirement which was satisfied by
the dedication of the Smuggler Mountain Apartments "runs with the
land," but whether this mitigation, which has already been
performed, is to be considered as a "credit" in accordance with the
above referenced provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code, in the
event of any proposal for amendment to the existing approval prior
to the actual development of the property.
We would agree that if the Code requirements become more
stringent, as a result of a new proposal or a Code change, then the
additional requirements must be satisfied. However, we believe
that it would be appropriate to interpret the Code, consistent with
its language and intent, to mean that in the event of a request for(
amendment or modification to the existing approval, and prior to
any development in accordance with a building permit, the landowner
would receive credit for the prior employee housing dedication.
This would seem fair and reasonable to us, since the existing
dedication was intended to mitigate a development which, under
those circumstances, would not have been built. The failure to]
recognize a credit for the existing dedication would result in an
unfair requirement for additional employee housing mitigation not
commensurate with the actual impact of development of the property.
Our position finds direct support in case law. Whether an
impact fee is an equitable pro rata contribution must include
consideration of the extent to which the property has already
contributed to such mitigation. Banberrv v. South Jordan Citv, 63l
P.2d 899, 904 (Utah 1981); Downev v. Wells Sanitary District,
56l A.2d 174, 176 (Me. 1989). The logic of these cases is
compelling, and is consistent, in our view, with the requirements
of Sections 5-702 and 8-106 of the Aspen Municipal Code, which
exact employee housing mitigation in order to mitigate the impact
of actual development.
Accordingly, we request a Code interpretation, that
application of the above-referenced requirements regarding employee
-
,......
\", ./
AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH
Attorneys At Law
Ms. Diane Moore
Edward M. Caswall, Esquire
February 1, 1993
Page 4
housing mitigation, with respect to any new proposal for
development of the 409 East Hopkins Avenue property prior to
development in accordance with the current approval, will recognize
a credit for employee housing previously provided in accordance
with Resolution No. 14 (Series of 1991).
I cannot overemphasize the significance of this issue for my
client, who fears that the property may be effectively unmarketable
in the absence of formal recognition consistent with the Code, of
the value of the employee housing mitigation which has already been
provided.
Please let me know if you require any additional information
in support of this request for Code interpretation, and I thank you
in advance for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
AUSTIN, PEIRCE & SMITH, P.C.
BY' W G .riI,
Thomas Fento~'
TFS/smg
cc: Dr. and Mrs. Keiichi Itakura
Richard S. Cohen, Esquire
4 c: \ WP51 \LETTERB\MOORECAS. TFS
~
f-
CITY.
~ ~ (f} ",;t
~~>I ~',';i:.r!_,',
j' \\"Io''''fli_ ':
I "~,'l"~' '';''11'''''''''
_,:..~~~ _li.!-'J>,~lJ:HU:,,\,,;:~J,~_,~t~ .
. ~!:,ih~:":I:tnO.Er(ri: '\;~J';;:.- ,I
I J,w.mt iifftkz.:, ';', , '
,">... ~""i,:<<"~~.";'-,...,,'
I 'rJi I,,~>>,r'~"
,
(-
PEN
MAY I 4
May 13, 1992
B. Joseph Krabacher, Esq.
Krabacher, Hill & Edwards
201 North Mill street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 409 East Hopkins Employee Mitigation.
Dear Joe:
I am forwarding you this letter in response to a couple of
questions you posed in your correspondence of April 24th perti-
nent to the above-noted matter.
1. You first ask whether City Council has accepted the
transfer of the Smuggler Mountain Apartments to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority as full and complete satisfaction of the
housing mitigation requirement for the 409 East Hopkins develop-
ment project. The answer to this question is yes.
Resolution No. 14 (Series of 1991), adopted by Council
on March 25, 1991, indicates that the project developer proposed
a housing mitigation plan under which it would have the Smuggler
Mountain Apartments conveyed to the Housing Authority on the
condition that the City accept same as full satisfaction of the
housing mitigation requirement. In that the employee mitigation
figure for the project was calculated at 20.4 employees, and the
apartment building could only house 17.5 employees, there ini-
tially was a question of whether the apartment building would be
enough to satisfy the mitigation requirement. Given all the
relevant factors, City Council determined that the developer's
proposal was fair and reasonable and, therefore, accepted the
apartment building,in complete satisfaction of the employee
housing mitigation requirement. (The developer also agreed to
pay $25,000.00 to offset building improvement costs.)
2. You have also asked whether the accepted housing
mitigation plan "runs with the land". In a true legal and
technical sense, the answer to that question in my opinion is no.
However, Section 24-8-108(A) (2) of the Municipal Code provides
that development allotments and all other development approvals
are eligible for an extension in the standard three (3) year
@ recycled paper
.....-
"",0",",,
,
,-
"
v
Aspen/Pit
130
Asp
(303) 9
ing Office
treet
611
0-5197
March 17, 1993
Mr. Thomas Smith
Austin, Peirce, & Smith
600 East Hopkins Ave.
Suite 205
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Tom:
I have attached a copy of my code interpretation regarding the 409
East Hopkins property in Aspen.
In your request for an interpretation, you expressed concerns that
the possibility existed that a $950,000.00 investment in employee
housing might not be treated as a credit against a f~ture
development of the 409 East Hopkins property. A strict
interpretation of the Code does not provide for a "credit" for
prior employee housing dedication. However, in this particular
sit~ation, I think it wo~ld make sense for us to explore some other
alternatives for your client so that the $950,000.00 investment is
not jeapardized. Jed and I have discussed this conceptually and
we need to set up a meeting with you.
I will call you and schedule a meeting for next week.
Sincerely,
DbE~
City Planning Director
CC: Jed Caswall
Leslie Lamont
@ recycled paper
,-
\. /
..-,.
M~):ch 17, 1993
Aspen/Pit
130
Asp
(303) 9 -
-./,
1 f:! ~ f,}
l\ \....' "
" \...~', , . II
\. '. ~
. '.
. " - ~
~. ~ :..., . I. ' I ., . ,"
, ."'1 "'':(Ir.- '.'
~.~ ~,1I ..
'", .\\ ...-,
, .... -.'
'...~ :, )
.'.,"..
~
ing Office
treet
611
20-5197
Mr. Thomas Smith
Austin, Peirce, & smith
600 East Hopkins Ave.
suite 205
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Request for Article 11 Code Interpretation of sections 24-5-
702 and 24-8-102 as applied to 409 East Hopkins Property
Dear Tom:
I am responding to your request for a code interpretation regarding
the 409 East Hopkins property in Aspen. This property was, the
subject of a GMQS approval pursuant to Resolution No. 58, Series
of 1990 and employee housing mitigation approval pursuant to
Resolution No. 14, Series of 1991.
As a matter of background review, city Attorney Jed Caswall
responded in his May 13, 1992 letter to questions raised by Joseph
Krabacher regarding the 409 East Hopkins employee mitigation. The
letter focused on two points:
a) 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 development
project. The transfer was in accordance with Resolution No.
14, Series of 1991.
b) The affordable housing mitigation does not "run with the
land".
My evaluation of your request could be summarized as to whether the
employee housing mitigation requirements (Smuggler Mountain
Apartments), which has already been performed, is to be considered
asa "credit" in accordance with the referenced provisions of the
Aspen Municipal Code, in the event of an amendment to the existing
approval prior to the actual development of the property.
Jed and I have reviewed the applicable sections of the Municipal
Code and believe that the Code does not explicity provide for a
"credit" for prior employee housing dedication. I would refer you
to section 24-8-108 (A) (2) of the Code and it states that
development allotments and all other development approvals are
eligible for an extension in the standard three (3) year vesting
1
@ recycfed paper
-
.........
.
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.
An important point is that the the owner must file for all
extensions in a timely manner in order to maintain the development
allotments and other development approvals (employee mitigation).
The owner seeking the extensions must also demonstrate to the
satisfaction of city council that the extension is in the best
interest of the community. If the owner fails to seek or obtain
a necessary extension, then all previously awarded approvals could
be lost.
In that the owner of 409 East Hopkins has mitigated for the
employee impacts prior to securing a building permit or actually
developing the project, it is important that the extensions be
secured. If an amendment to the approval is requested, then
Council could consider (they are not required to do so) the
acceptance of the previously !)erformed employee mitigation and
apply this mitigation to the amended application for 409 East
Hopkins. section 24-8-109 (J) states that approval of the method
by the which the applicant proposes to provide affordable housing
shall be at the option of the city Council,. upon the recommendation
of the commission. This process would also apply to amendments to
development applications.
I believe that a fair and reasonable approach regarding the 409
East Hopkins project would be to credit the project with the
previously performed employee mitigation if an amendment to the
development approval was approved (assuming time extensions were
granted to maintain allotments and approvals). However, it is
possible that a new city councilor a new regulation could dictate
otherwise.
The owner has several options: a) Pursue completion of the project
prior to expiration of the allotments; b) Secure extensions of the
development allotments and approvals; c) Secure extensions of the
development allotments and submit an amendment to the development
application requesting that the previously performed employee
mitigation be credited to the amended application (and if
additional employees are generated, additional mitigation will be
provided) .
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
~~
city Planning Director
2
111-lKUkl-l
I b' NU, 61 <j<jJ4~4b~
Jan 21.b~ 13:1U P,03
ASP N/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
IQu.Em
CITY OF A PEN (hereinafter CITY) and KIlJ)(lycon, InC.
(hereinafter PPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
,1. PPLlCANT has submittca to CITY all application for
P~t t€lnsion of veM:oo rights tor Un;' 40~ E:tst Hl.\pkins ProjecL <.:al>~ ~lI27-93
(here.ioaftet, HE PROJECT).
2. PPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance
No. 77 (Seri of 1992) establishes II fee structure for Planning Office applications
and the paym nt of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determ.ination
of appHcatio completeness.
3. PPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or
scope of the roposed project, it is not pORRihle at this time to ascertain the full
extent of the costs involved in prOCOMlIlg the application. APPLICANT and
CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT
to make pay ent of an hlitial deposit and to. thereafter permit additional cost.s to
be bilJed to PPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agre,e.s he will be
benefited by etaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments
UpOn notifiea ion by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred.
CITY agrees t will be benefited through the greater certamty of recovering its full
costs to proc ss APPLICANT'S application,
4. ITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for
CITY staff complete processing or present sufficient information to the
Planning Co mission and/or City Council to enable the Planning COlllmission
and/or Clo/ C unci! to make le~ally required findings for project approval, unless
ourrent billi s aro paid in full prior to decision.
111-jh0h_11
It - l-lU. V.L --,...),-,''-t~''-t'--'...)
Jdll .....1.,Vv .1..",).11 f .U....
5.. Therefore, APPLICANT a~rees that in consideration of,the CITY's
waiver of ts rJght to collect full fees prior to a determination of application
completone SL APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposilln tile amount of ~42.00
which Is fI ~_ hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs
exceed the iti~l deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly bilIings'to
CITY to r Imburse the CITY for the proc.essing of the application mentioned
above, ioel ding post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made
within 30 d s of the bilhng date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay
such ACCru costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing.
APPLICANT
By: ?;;;;p ,(ft' -
Mafilng Addn~ss:Ka.ndyeci1l,' Inc,
P.O. Box 1135, MMIrOth l,.Mell, CJ\. 93546
Date: ,.h~ 7. /99....1'
,
2
,,-,
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920-5197
May 10, 1993
Tom smith
Austin, Peirce & smith
600 E. Hopkins
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 409 E. Hopkins Permanent Extension of Vested Rights
Case A27-93
Dear Tom,
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 first reading before the
Aspen City Council on Monday, June 14, 1993 at a meeting to begin
at 5:00 p.m. Should this dates be inconvenient for you please
contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After
that the agenda dates will be considered final and changes to the
schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for
unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting
dates, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo
pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office.
If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner
assigned to your case at 920-5101.
sincerely,
;;~M-.fo.Si-
Suzanne L. Wolff
Administrative Assistant
f<Jl'1Nl:oe.DO.ph
--
/".,~
,
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Attorney
Housing Director
FROM:
RE:
Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
409 E. Hopkins Permanent Extension of Vested Rights
Parcel ID No. 2737-073-39-004
May 10, 1993
DATE:
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Kandycom, rnc,
Please return your comments to me no later than May 28, 1993.
Thank you.
,-.,
~-
"',,,/
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
May 4, 1993
Tom Smith
Austin, Peirce & Smith
600 E. Hopkins, suite 205
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 409 E. Hopkins Permanent Extension of Vested Rights
Case #A27-93
Dear Tom,
The Planning Office has completed its preliminary r_eview of the
captioned application. We have determined that this application
is incomplete. Please submit the following items in order to
complete the application.
1. Proof of ownership;
2. Authorization to represent the applicant;
3. Complete and return the enclosed Agreement to Pay form.
If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the Planner
assigned to this case at 920-5101. Thank you.
Sincerely,
~
Suzanne L. Wolff
Administrative Assistant
,.... _,~ n~, ~,~" ..,. _~__ ..
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street ,_ '? co J
. Aspen, Colorado 81611 ,-:; 7 3 7-D13' J I-OD /
(303) 920~5090 ,"
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES I/- 2 7 -1 .,
CITY:
-63250-134
-63270-136
-63280-137
-63300-139
-63310-140
-63320-141
-63330-150
-63432-157
-63432-157
-00100-00000-31070
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
-63335-151
-63336-152
-63337-153
-63338-154
-63339-155
COUNTY:
-63160-126
-63170-127
-63180-128
-63190-129
-63200-130
-63210-131
-63220-132
-63230-133
-63240-149
-63450-146
-63235-148
00115
00123
00125
REFERRAL FEES:
-63360-143
-63340-163
-63340-190
-63340-205
PLANNING OFFICE SALES:
-63080-122
-69000-145
GMP/Conceptual
GMP/Final
SUB/Conceptual
SUB/Final
AII-2 Step Applications
All 1 Step Applications
Staff Approval
Zoning Plan Check
Sign Perm~
Use Tax for Sign Permits
Exemption
Minor
Major Deve!.
Sign~. Deve!.
Demolition
GMP/General
GMP/Detailed
GMP/Final
SUB/General
SUB/Detailed
SUB/Final
All 2 Step Applications
All 1 Step Applications
Staff Approval
Board of Adjustment
Zoning Plan Check
Engineering - County
Engineering - City
Housing
Environmental Heahh
County Code
Other (Copy Fees)
TOTAL
97;7 ()(J
q ij' ;)' () r)
Name: j:',,-:;,,;/ r'""" fJ- i J ,./ ,--J~ f . Phone:
Addres;: Lfh-~ / /35 ProJ9" ct: <(or <;: ~ ?/:,r.
?Jh../YYi/!r, {~.'../ / I~- 07'it,v7.. . /.', I"I-),. ./;/
Check #: / q t Dale:' No of Copies: I //C~1df-~