HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.624 E Hopkins Ave #2.A77-94
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
city of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 09~15/94
DATE COMPLETE: '1/ ,<;'
,
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
2737-073-32-004 A77-94
STAFF MEMBER: KJ
Hopkins GMOS Allotment
Hopkins
PROJECT NAME: 624 East
Project Address: 624 E.
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: MHS Partners
Applicant Address: Box 1709. Aspen. CO
REPRESENTATIVE: Bill Poss & Assoc.
Representative Address/Phone: 605 E.
Aspen.
925-7615
Kim Weil
Main 925-4755
CO 81611
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV. HEALTH
TOTAL
$ 2119
$ 96
$ 60
$ 60
$ 2335
# APPS RECEIVED
# PLATS RECEIVED
21
21
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF
P&Z Meeting Date Iv!
/
CC Meeting Dati}: / ~/ Zt
APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: --1L-
PUBLIC HEARING: ~ NO
VESTED RIGHTS: NO
PUBLIC HEARING: YES ~
VESTED RIGHTS: YES
eeting Date
Oct /3
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
REFERRALS:
,tJ City Attorney X Parks Dept. School District
~;,~\~ ~ city Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas
. \ ~ "u -X- Housing Dir. x: Fire Marshal CDOT
V)(}-(/J} X Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board
10 I /' ----2C- City Electric Mtn. Bell Open SJ>ace B073d
I I';> ~ Envir.Hlth. ><: ACSD X other~~Ncr/TIfI9A1S,
Zoning Energy Center '>< Other _ c.. I
DATE REFERRED: '1/z. '1 INITIALS: ~ W, DUE: 10)1 ';;-
;~~~~=~~~~~~~~=f\\~=====~~~~=~~~~~~~~~I9~~~~~~~~~~
___ city Atty ___ City Engineer ___Zoning ___Env. Health
___ Housing ___ Open Space Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
. ;
A COMMERCIAL
GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM APPLICATION
,-
!~I
FOR
...
624 EAST HOPKINS
-
-
.
-
-
Submitted by
-
-,
MHS Partners, Ltd.lRichard Corriere
c/o Steve Marcus
P.O. Box 1709
Aspen, CO 81612
(303) 925-7615
-
-
-
"""1
-
-
I.....'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ."""'''',",
- -
Prepared by
Bill Pass and Associates, P.C.
605 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-4755
~
"
I..,., TABLE OF CONTENTS
!"'~
M Section Paae
,.-
I. INTRODUCTION 1
...
... II. PROJECT SITE 2
...
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
...
... A. Water System 3
.. B. Sewage System 4
.
C. Drainage 4
..
.. D. Fire Protection 4
-
E. Development Data 5
-
F. Traffic and Parking 6
- G. Affordable Housing 7
...
H. Stoves and Fireplaces 8
-
- I. Location 8
-
J. Impact on Adjacent Uses 9
-
- K. Construction Schedule 9
.. IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA 10
-
A. Quality of Design 10
..
1. Architectural Design 10
- 2. Site Design 11
- 3. Energy Conservation 12
4. Amenities 12
.. 5. Visual Impact 13
- 6. Trash and Utility Access Areas 13
-
-
-
.. -
- --
......,.....
"
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1'1..
I~.. Section Paae
l"f
u B. Availability of Public Facilities and Services 14
II'. 1. Water Supply/Fire Protection 15
2. Sanitary Sewer 15
- 3. Public Transportation/Roads 16
- 4. Storm Drainage 16
5. Parking 17
-
- C. Provision of Affordable Housing 18
-
D. Bonus Points 18
-
- V. ADDITIONAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 19
- A. Special Review 19
- 1. Trash Area and Utility Area Reduction 20
2. Off-Street Parking (Provisional) 21
-
- B. Vested Property Rights 22
-
APPENDIX
-
- Exhibit 1 Pre-Applicalion Conference
- Title Commitment
Exhibit 2
-
- Exhibit 3 Permission to Represent
- Exhibit 4 Application Fee Agreement
-
Exhibit 5 Land Use Application Form
..
- Exhibit 6 Vicinity Map
..
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
"
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Title Paae
- Improvement Survey
- Site Plan
II
-
- Basement Plan iii
- Main Level Plan IV
-
Upper Level Plan v
-.
- South Elevation VI
- North Elevation VII
-
East Elevation VIII
--
West Elevation IX
-
-
.....
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- /"',.,.,
- -
---
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
.-
..
-
..
,>.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
..
,.
-
-
"
I.
INTRODUCTION
The following application requests a commercial growth management quota
allocation of two thousand, seven hundred (2,700) net leasable square feet. The
project is located at 624 East Hopkins. In addition, the Applicants are requesting
special review for reduction in trash and utility area. Finally, vested rights status is
requested for all approvals granted pursuant to this application.
The application is submitted pursuant to Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Aspen Land
Use Regulations by MHS Partners, Ltd., a Colorado Corporation, and Richard
Carriere. Permission for Bill Pass and Associates, P.C. to represent the Applicants
is included in the appendix. An executed application fee agreement is also included.
The application is divided into four parts. The first part, or Section II of the
application, provides a brief description of the project site, while Section III describes
the Applicants development. The third part, or Section IV, addresses the proposed
development's compliance with the growth management review criteria of the Aspen
Land Use Regulations. Section V discusses the special review approvals which are
also required to develop the project.
While the Applicants have attempted to address all relevant provisions of the
Regulations, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of
the applications, questions may arise which require further information andlor
clarification. The Applicants will be pleased to provide such additional information
as may be required in the course of the application's review.
1
""
_....
.
, '
-
..
II.
PROJECT SITE
-
The project site is located on the north side of Hopkins Avenue between
-
-
Hunter and Spring Streets. It consists of one and one-half Aspen city lots, or
-
approximately 4,500 s.f,
-
The lot is bordered on the north by the Stage Three Theaters, across the
-
-
alley. The Stewart Title building is to the west, while the 632 East Hopkins building
.
is to the east. Across Hopkins Avenue, are two small victorian houses, one of which
-
.
is a historic resource.
-
The topography of the lot slopes down from front to back approximately three
.
-
feet. There are two large fir trees in the northeast corner of the property. Another
.
large fir is in the southwest corner of the lot. Finally, there is a large deciduous tree _
in the southeast corner. There is no other significant vegetation on the lot. "
.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
"
The proposal is to construct a two story office building containing
-
approximately three thousand, four hundred and sixty (3,460) square feet of floor
.
-
area (far below the maximum allowable of 4,500 square feet) In addition, there will
.
be a full basement to be used only for storage and building service. The project was
-
.
originally designed as a single family residence and received final HPC approval
-
and vested rights in July of 1992. However, the Applicant's have decided to build an
.
-
office building instead. There will be only very minor changes to the bUildings
"
-
.
-
2
.
-
c
""""
.
...~
-
ry l
_'.1_
.'~."'l'.'-~"".-
.,"",..""",~",,-o,,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.11''''
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'.
exterior and the HPC approval should not be affected. The sole tenant of the
building is planned to be Bill Pass and Associates, P.C., an Aspen architectural firm
founded in 1976.
The building has been sited in the center of the property up against both the
Stewart Title building and the 623 East Hopkins building on either side. The front
yard will be extensively landscaped with trees, shrubs, and flowers. The rear yard,
which is not visible from the street will contain parking, service and utilities, and a
bike rack for employees.
The building massing is reminiscent of that of a historic townhouse but with a
contemporary flair. The intent was to create a building which steps down from the
Stewart Title building on the west, to the 632 East Hopkins building on the east
Principal building materials are native sandstone, brick, ornamental metal and glass.
A more detailed description of the Applicant's proposed development IS
provided below.
A. Water System
Water service to the proposed development will be provided via the
existing six (6) inch main located in Hopkins Avenue. The tap from the main line was
installed in August of 1992, during the repaving of Hopkins Avenue Therefore, no
disruption of Hopkins Avenue is expected for the installation of water service. Larry
Ballenger of the Aspen Water Department has indicated that the municipal water
3
-
-
.
-
.
system has sufficient capacity to serve the development. No improvements to the
-
existing water main or treatment plant will be required as a result of the Applicant's
.
-
proposed development.
-
B.
Sewage System
-
The proposed development will be served by the existing eight (8) inch
.
-
sanitary sewer located in the alley behind the project site. Tom Bracewell of the
.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has indicated that anticipated flows can be
-
accommodated without improvements to the existing sewer lines or treatment plant.
-
-
c.
Drainage
-
Existing drainage patterns will be unaffected by the project and no
-
-
adverse impact is anticipated with respect to the City's existing drainage facilities.
-
Historic flow rates with respect to surface water runoff and ground water recharge
.
-
will be maintained. In the event required, on-site drywells will be used to retain and
...
dispose of additional surface runoff A detailed drainage plan for the project will be
-
submitted to the City's engineering department for review and approval pnor to the
.
-
issuance of a building permit for the project.
.
D.
Fire Protection
-
.
Fire protection will be provided by the Aspen Volunteer Fire
-
Department. The project site is located approximately two blocks from the fire
-
-
station, resulting in a response time of approximately three to five minutes. There
-
are two fire hydrants within one block of the proJect. The proposed project will also
-
have fire sprinklers which will further enhance fire protection.
-
-
4
-
-
~
.....
"""
-
....~"'"
-
....._"-t'...,.-.~~."'''.~
-
...
-
-
...
-
-
....
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
...
-
-
-
'101
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'.
E. Development Data
As Table 1 indicates, the proposed project will contain three thousand,
four hundred and sixty (3,460) square feet of floor area. The net leasable area will
be two thousand and seven hundred (2,700) square feet. The proposed project is
well under the maximum allowable external floor area limitation of the underlying C-1
zone district. The height of the project is 34 feet tall, significantly less than the
maximum 40 feet allowed in the C-1 Zone District.
TABLE 1
DEVELOPMENT DATA
1.
Existing Zoning
Total Site Area (s.f.)
Existing Floor Area (s.f.)
Existing Net Leasable (s.f.)
Maximum Allowable External Floor Area at1 : 1 (s. f.)
Proposed External Floor Area at .77:1 (s.f.)
Proposed Net Leasable Area (s.f.)
Minimum Required Open Space at 25%
Proposed Open Space (s.f.)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. Maximum Allowable Building Height (fl.)
11. Proposed Maximum Building Height (ft)
12. Minimum Required Parking Spaces at 1-5/1,000 s.t.
13. Proposed Parking
C-1
4,500 s.f.
o s.f.
o S.t.
4,500 sf.
3,460 sf.
2,700 s.t
1,130 s.f.
1.130 sf
40 fl.
34 ft
4 spaces
4 spaces
NOTES:
1. All numbers have been rounded to the nearest ten (10) square feet.
2. Basement level which is one hundred (100) percent bleow grade is not included in the floor
area
3. Net leasable area excludes bathrooms, stairways, circulation corridors, mechanical areas,
and tenant storage areas.
5
-
-
.
, .
-
..
As Table 1 indicates, four (4) parking spaces will be provided on site
...
If the service area is not reduced as proposed, the Applicant will pay cash-in-lieu for
.
...
one or two spaces. A detailed discussion of the proposed development's service
.
and parking requirements is provided in Section V of this application.
-
F.
Traffic and Parking
..
...
The proposed development should have no adverse impact upon the
..
existing street system. Assuming a trip generation factor of eight (8) vehicles per
...
day per one thousand (1,000) square feet of net leasable area, the proposed
.
-
addition would theoretically generate approximately twenty-two (22) additional
-
-
vehicles per day. These additional vehicles represent a minimal percentage
-.;
increase in the traffic volumes of adjacent streets, all of which are currently
-
functioning below allowable capacity.
..
-
It should also be noted that the project site is conveniently located
..
within walking distance of the commercial core and the municipal parking garage. In
-
addition, the Roaring Fork Transit Agency's (RFTA) local and down valley bus
.
...
routes all pass within walking distance to the project site.
..
With respect to parking, the current requirement for commercial uses in
-
the C-1 zone district is one and one half (1-1/2) spaces per one thousand (1,000)
.
-
square feet of net leasable area. The four (4) required parkmg spaces are proposed
-
-
to be provided on the property. however, since the lot IS only 45 feet Wide. the
-
service area must be reduced in order to accommodate all of the required parkmg
-
The Applicants will satisfy the proposed development's parking requirement via a
-
-
6
..
-.
r-
"""-,
""'"
-
....~.
-
-~".,",~~,
~.
~.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'.
payment-In-lieu as provided for in Section 7-404. B. of the Regulations if the service
area is not reduced, as noted previously, a detailed discussion of the project's
service area and off-street parking requirement is provided in Section V of this
application.
G. Affordable Housing
As Table 1 illustrates, the proposed building contains two thousand,
seven hundred (2,700) net leasable square feet. Based on an employee generation
factor of three and one-half (3-1/2) employees per one thousand (1,000) square feet
of additional net leasable square footage, the proposed development will
theoretically generate approximately 9.45 new full time equivalent employees
calculated as follows..
2,700 s. f. netleasable/1, 000 s.f. = 2.7
2.7 x 3.5 employees/1 ,000 s.f. = 9.45 employees
The Applicants propose to satisfy the affordable hOUSing req'uirement
of Section-81 06. F(3) of the Regulations via a payment of cash-in-lieu for sixty (60%)
percent of the 9.45 employees generated by this project. The Applicants feel a
payment is appropriate in this case given the small nature of the building. The
prospective tenants, Bill Pass and Associates require all of the space planned for
the project. Any affordable housing provided on site will enlarge the building and
negatively impact further a small site.
With respect to which category is appropriate for calculation of a cash-
in-lieu fee, the Applicant would request Category 3. ThiS category IS appropriate
7
"'0'-'
~'>'"
-
-
-.
"
-
.
since Bill Poss and Associates, P.C., is a professional office which employs
..
architects and designers whose household incomes generally fall into the Category
.
...
3 range.
.
Pursuant to Section 8-109.J. of the Regulations, the City Council must
-
approve the method by which the Applicants propose to satisfy the proposed
.
...
development's affordable housing requirement. In the event the Applicants are
.
eligible for a growth management allocation, and the proposed payment-in-lieu is
-
determined to be unacceptable, the Applicants will provide affordable housing in an
-
amount consistent with the representations of this application (i.e., sixty percent of
..
the full time equivalent employees generated by the proposed development) via an
-
alternative method acceptable to the City Council.
H.
Stoves and Fireplaces
...
No wood burning devices or gas fireplaces are included in the
..
proposed development.
I.
Location
-
-
The project site IS located near the eastern edge of the City's
...
downtown commercial area. The Aspen Mountain Area is located approximately four
-
..
(4) block south of the property, while Paepke Park is located approximately four (4)
blocks to the west. The Rio Grande recreation area is located two (2) blocks north
...
of the property. Rubey Park, the hub of the City's mass transportation system, is
...
located approximately four (4) blocks to the south. Main Street and Highway 82
provide convenient access to the community's schools, Aspen Valley Hospital, and
...
8
-
-
r
.-.
..
"-
.....,
-
--_"!'I"...
1~,'ltll!.l.n
.~..
-
......
,-
-
-
-
~~...
-
-
-
......
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
'.
the Pitkin County Airport. No significant impact upon the above facilities IS
anticipated as a result of the proposed development
Impact on Adjacent Uses
The project site is zoned C-1, as are all of the adjacent properties.
Existing land uses in the immediate site area include retail, commercial, business
J.
and professional offices, residential units and the Stage Three Theater. The
proposed development is consistent with the intent and purpose of the C-1 zone
district and is compatible with surrounding land uses. As a result, the functional
character of this mixed commercial/office/residential area of the City will be
unaffected the Applicant's proposal.
K. Construction Schedule
Construction will commence prior to expiration of the proJect's GMQS
allocation and vested rights status. The exact starting date of construction, however,
has not been determined.
9
~.....-
,....,...
-
.-
'.
~910.2
EL-7910.8
[~~
>
~
~
-
-
-
-
..~
COJl/i:HFff
-
,~
-
H .,Qr7 ~
-
-
f:otJCflI"If'"
WMK
-
-
...
(
fl. r';ll" ~
-
-
-
~
..
..
E A S T
OIl
ALLEY
r
'"
,.
~
~
u
I
/
r
~
z
~
.,
~
m
"
u
/
/
8 L 0 C K
9 8
21.01' WIDE REt.
El-7909.fi
"'-.....(00[ OF ASPHALT
- --,...=-
S r5-0g'I'"e: AEC
45.03 PRORATED
45.00' REt.
tl
I
I
I
I
"r
/1
lQIO
-=-El-1912.1
.r
CONCfIETE
AC
".----..
"'"
~
REC. AREA"4.500 SO.FT. ,j-
PRORATED"4.S03 SO.FT tj-
.'
"
~ u
'" '"
~
m
" ~
,~ .,
~ "
/
/
",J
R' f'lM'"
"
.W"Ifll VAl \If
O!lll,nr 110m
~
"
'"
~
^
I
I
I
I
I ,,---
1/''''
~
\ I
,I
rI -1011. ~
:;;
"
"
,
~
>
~
o
.
~
/
I_OT Q
LOT
R
(.~~\
TR~
N 15"0'01' Jr.." RIO
HI:..C 1:i.O.) I'HOH^ lU_
Ult I CK WAI K "-:--
/
CotJeIU"
f I nw t IN! 01 clHm
~
11.'917 "
A'II'11AII
() IrlVA"nN ,.. ^""O!MlJ
10. rill' 4' IlmM IISl'IN
..In AHIIAI M^,'
HOPK/NS
-..
A V E
{~ 'll'IOf RFC
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
~~ T!i"09' r r 'r
-
LO r s
4500' RfC
45 0]' f'RORAHO
IOlJ.ll
!IF Itll
::.
.
x
!
~
.
~
.
.
r~
'~1iJ1!) I..t:
~~
f-~
.\0 OC
IL<{
ILIl..
,c),
, -
!""t:
I!)
z
D
-l
fa
C)
z
\I)
~
_u _.-l_._
,I
i'l!
, ''''':
:iil"'''I'
~ " ,III' I
UJ
OC
:::>
\I)
:I:C)
ij)-l
<l:\)
f-UJ
\I)
UJ
UJ
OC
f-
I!)
Z
f-
\I)
X
W
.' , , ~1:Jt'
I
" .
i
SNI)jdOH '3
".....
'<;,
~
-/'
\I)
z
~
Il..
C)
:I:
UJ
N
m
-l)
..
"
~ -
.
-
.
Z -
<(
~ .
lL -
ill -
~ -
-
U) .
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
.~
k-
""
..
.?
.,i(!""
l
~.
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,..,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
..
~
~
..
..
'.
,
i/
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
l
!
i
h
,
.,.5 IR
:i
. \1. I
, I
I
MEC.HANIC.AL
BUILDIN6 5TORA6E
ARC.HIVE STORA6E
SAMPLE STORA6E
PRINT ROOM
GATAL06UE 5TORA6E
L16HTJi'lELL
r
ST I
I
If
i
i
I
i i
I I
! I
I,
~I
.;:- -'~'-':::---7.J .:.:.... ! t---+
~ : -.q--l- I
il:. '.L1, 'I
i~ 1"
~I ...-----r;
II L16HTJi'lELL I
-<
\
LOHER LEVEL PLAN
-....
-
(.,tN/t$n._I~
.
.', ....
. -L"
r
---
-- ---..
,
J-L
9
III
-
III
-
iT
, , ~.
i"
-I
w
~~i
i-I
--1 L__
.
-
...lI::.
STAIR
Il. c::.
III
-
.
-
l~l,-
I or, 14. i
1 i .." I
i . "
! C7 0 I_
i POJll(D~
II
LJ
III
L
"tt --<l
\~ j
-
-
-
III
-
III
-
.
OFFICE
OFFICE
-
, II
' i r' j..
~.-i'
. I-~ - --- ,., i i
i! LI GHTJIIIELL. II'
, I ..........
.r;;; i~
-1-1 l[
. .J_
.~. /~
~ . .. il ~+_....~ r-rl-
I~_~::-:=.,:-~-==- I I
L.ry: _____ n
I Ii :'-__ i:
--~~ lbl I
-~ ,I III
. j j LlGHmeLL II I
.
! I
i i
"
I
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
III
,...
~
-
.,.+t.""H ~.." I'll t..,.....,.,.
..
-
...
..
-
-
-
-
....
....
-
N''''
....
-
"'...
....
....
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
..
-
j
j
~
-
, '.
II
,
I
. ~ .-- l!
~..-..
r. DECK '
STAIR.
.:.1
"iL--
iid
f-4
---!l
I / '
",-.1
f/O
I PO~ --R
I
i
I
j j
~
-.
/1
i I
-J.--L
DECK ~ ]'
~!
OFFICE
-',STAIR/ i
, .' I
~_ -I
, .' I
. ", l "g
, ; ;-.' . --7!. iliJ'. Ii
,', i. _ ,I
" l~~~
"j I ' I
" 1/
i" I ..-
1k=-1
-' .,L
,
~. /~
, "
~ \i 'I
'r , I
I
,
I
II
:+
I ,
t I
JI
u
--
.-.
UPPER LEVEl-. PLAN
-
Ir i! il
I ! I I '!I
i I
I ,
.
.'
-
STONE C.AP
BRIC.K
BRICK AC.C.ENT BAND
. .
METAL Y'lINDOY'lS
-
METAL BALUSTERS
METAL BAND
SLATE ROOF
METAL
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
III
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
STONE VENEER
-
-
r--
SOUTH ELEVATION
.-.
'"",",.
""-....-',......,
t",."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
..
..
j
~
...
"".....""'_.l
'i I.. \\\-
" } ---1 _ ---'-\,
--+--~- '\.
"
'.
:<
-.-.--
/
/
/
'. /
METAL Y'lINDOY'lS
STONE BAND
SLA TE ROOF
"I.,
\ L STONE VENEER
BRICK
STONE BAND
METAL ND
BRICK ACCENT BA
STONE SIU.
".......
NORTH ELE~TION
-
-
, I
i
,
" Ii II
\ "
I, II
I' " ,I
,
i' I "
" I ! ~ , !
"
, It-
,
".
-~----_.
~
IL W a
W \11
() Il... Z ~ Z
() <( W W <(
n:: v > I- [Q
W W '::L ....1 W ....1\11 W
I- Z V <( =i z <(3 z
<( () I- :t () 1-<( ()
....1 I- it W I- W[Q I-
\11 \11 [Q 2: '.5 \11 2: \11
i: i
i'
,
! !
,.i.I", ,
i ! :' ~! I! ~
[i.!!I'I:i: i ,'I::'
~ il; : ! j' I I
1'!li'.II;, : ;,: '
i!!il:,:: :' i
l:i:!I;li .ii: i
: !. 'II. '.J ! ~ i ! :: I'"
'1"'1,
1"'1 ''''
rlllll"I"II! I !;II'! I, ,'I;
'1"1111' I ! II i '
:.111111 I'. : i Iii
"Iii' 1'1 'II
,11%1: !!ili!I!. '
'i
i:
,
'i!
i i !'
I,',' i
I!
I I
I '
I I
, I
i
II!
,
, ,
, ,
, II
~ ' ,
;, ,
,
:," 'I' !
,: I,
': I i
" I
. I
i
I: :
: i, i
Iliii"!
II
I
I
I
1----1
I
I
I
I
r-
"-
""""
,-
.." :
I'
~ d I
t:,
;l!i'
,
, '
..
" 2:" -
() .
-
I- -
<( ..
> -
ill
---1 ..
ill -
I- ..
U) ..
<( .
ill
..
.
-
..
-
.
..
.
..
..
-
.
..
..
-
-
-
-
-
..
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
: !
I
I
-
-
illl! :1
"
-
-
-
-
i"-
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I
II:
,'II]
-
-
-
-
-;
.' . -.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
....
-
-
-
....
-
-
-
-
...
-
-
...
-
-
-
-
IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW CRITERIA
The following section addresses the proposed development's compliance with
the City's commercial GMQS evaluation criteria. We believe that the proposed
development meets or exceeds the minimum applicable standard in each review
category. Please reference, as necessary, the appropriate headings in Section III. of
this application for detailed information supporting the Applicant's representations
and commitments.
A.
Quality of Design
"Each Development Application shall be rated based on the
quality of the exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned points
according to the following standards and considerations.
o u A totally deficient design
1 -- A major design flaw
2 .. An acceptable (but standard) design
3 -- An excellent design
The following features shall be rated accordingly"
1. Architectural Design
"Considering the compatibility of the proposed development (in
terms of scale, siting, massing, height and building materials) with existing
neighboring developments."
The immediate site area contains a variety of building types and uses.
As a result, the architectural intent of the proposed development IS to provide a
commercial building which will be compatible with the neighborhood. The primary
building materials will be brick and sandstone which are consistent with the materials
10
-
-
..
"
-
.
used in the construction of most of the historic commercial core buildings. In
-
addition, the new building's window proportions were designed to be compatible with
.
-
those in historic buildings. The project's height was set so that as the streetscape
..
moves towards the east, the buildings step down from the Alpine Professional
-
Building to the Stewart Title buHding, to 624 East Hopkins, to the 632 East Hopkins
..
-
building.
..
The project siting and scale is similar to that of other developments in
-
the neighborhood. The building is set back from the street, a situation that is
..
-
consistent with the neighborhood character. It should be noted that the Applicant's
..
have vested HPC rights and the project was well received by the Commission.
-
..
Based on the above, we believe that the proposed development's architecture and
-
represents an excellent design which merits the maximum score available in this
..
-
category.
..
2.
Site Design
-
"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."
..
-
..
..
..
The intent of the project's site design is to enhance the neighborhood's
-
streetscape by creating a landscaped garden in the front yard of the proJect. The
..
-
plant materials will consist 0 f native trees, shrubs and flowers. In addition, the four
..
significant trees on the property will be Integrated into the landscape plan
-
..
-
11
..
-
I"""
~
..
'>...
-
.' , . ~
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
......
-
-
"....
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
..
-
-
-
As Table 1 indicates, approximately eleven hundred and thirty (1,130)
square feet of open space will be provided. This represents 25% of the lot area as
required by code.
The alley side of the site will contain four (4) parking spaces and bike
racks for employees and clients. All utilities will be located underground. Given the
quality of the project's site design, we believe that a maximum score is also merited
in this category.
3.
Energy Conservation
"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 proposed development will comply with the minimum requirements
of the Model Energy Code in effect at the time of the issuance of a building permit.
As such compliance cannot be determined until detailed design of the building is
undertaken, an energy analysis demonstrating compliance with applicable Code
requirements will be prepared and submitted in connection with the ProJect's building
permit application
4.
Amenities
"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."
12
-
-
.
." , " ....
.
As amenities, benches, tables and bike racks will be installed on the
-
property to enhance the pedestrian native of the project, and to accommodate the
..
..
needs of the project's employees and visitors. These features constitute significant
II
amenities which merit the maximum score available in this category.
-
5.
Visuallmp'act
..
-
"Considering the scale and location of the buildings in the
proposed development to prevent infringement on designated scenic
viewplanes."
..
-
..
There are no designated scenic viewplanes which are impacted by the
proposed development. The Applicant's limitation of the project's height to two (2)
..
-
stories, however, allow the buildings along the north side of Hopkins Avenue to step
.
down visually from west to east. As discussed previously, the scale of the project is ..
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the proposed ·
...
development will visually complete and enhance the appearance of the Hopkins
.
Avenue streetscape. Given the proposed development's lack of adverse visual
...
impact, and its positive contribution to the immediate site area, a maximum score IS
.
-
merited in this category.
..
6.
Trash and Utility Access Areas
...
.
"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."
-
.
-
..
...
13
-
-
,....
-
..
-
-
JII~;_"""","fJlT.1
"
"
Though it is smaller than required by C-1 zone district, the proposed
-
development's trash and utility area has been sized to meet the needs of the
-
anticipated tenant, Bill Pass and Associates, P.C, The proposed area will
-
accommodate two dumpsters even though only one will be required. In addition, the
..
-
area will be enclosed and paved with an all weather surface.
..
-
It should be pointed out, that Bill Pass and Associates has presently
and will continue an arrangement with an outside contractor to collect recyclable
-
bottles, cans, paper and cardboard. This contractor collects the recyclables from
-
-
inside the office so no trash area space is required. No new transformers or utility
-
-
pedestals are anticipated to be required for the project. The project's trash and
-
utility area design along with the recycling program represents an excellent program
which merits the maximum score available in this category.
B, Availability of Public Facilities and Services
"Each Development Application shall be rated on the basis of its
impact upon public facilities and services by the assigning of points according
to the following standards and considerations.
o -- Proposed development requires the provision of new public
facilities and services at increased public expense.
1 --
-
-
-
- 2--
.-
-
-
...
-
-
-
Proposed development may be handled by existing public
facilities and services, or any public facility or service
improvements made by the applicant benefits the proposed
development only and not the area in general.
Proposed development improves the availability of public facilities
and services in the area."
14
'"
'-"
1. Water Supply/Fire Protection
"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 applicant to provide any fire protection facilities which may be necessary
to serve the proposed development."
The Aspen Water Department has indicated that the existing six (6)
inch main located in Hopkins Avenue is adequate to serve the proposed
development, and that system upgrades will not be required. The existing fire
"
.
-
.
-
'""
-
'""
-
'""
-
.
-
-
-
-
hydrants are located at Spring and Hopkins, and Hunter and Hopkins. Both of these ·
locations are approximately one-half block away. Therefore, the existing service is
adequate to serve the project.
2.
Sanitary Sewer
"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 proposed development may be handled by the existing level of
service in the area. The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has indicated that
the existing ten (10) inch line which is located in the adjacent alley is adequate to
serve the project, and that system upgrades will not be required.
15
t"""
.-.
..."
<",-"~".,,
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
'""
-
'""
..
-
'""
-
.' , ".
-
...
-
...
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.>t",
-
-
-
-
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
...
-
3. Public Transportation/Roads
"Considering the ability of the proposed development to be
served 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 serve the
increased usage attributable t the proposed development."
The proposed development may be handled by the existing level of
service in the area. As discussed in Section III.F of this application, the surrounding
street network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development.
No improvements to the existing street network are either required or proposed.
Rubey Park, the hub of the City's mass transportation system is located
approximately four (4) blocks south of the property. With the exception of the Hunter
Creek bus route, all of the City's existing public transit routes presently pass with in
one block of the project site. The Hunter Creek route passes through the Mill Street
and Main Street intersection, which is located less than three (3) blocks west of the
site.
4.
Storm Drainage
"Considering the degree to which the applicant proposes to
maintain historic drainage patterns of 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."
16
,.....
-
The proposed development may be handled by the existing level of
service in the area. The project site's historic flow rates with respect to surface
water runoff and groundwater recharge will be maintained, thereby complying with
the storm drainage design requirements of the subdivision regulations and the City's
Engineering Department. No improvements to the City's stormwater drainage
system are either required or proposed.
5. Parking
"Considering the provision of parking spaces to meet the
commercial and/or residential needs of the proposed development as required
by Article 5, Division 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 development may be handled by the existing level of
service in the area, and no practical ability presently exists to provide more than four
(4) parking spaces on site in connection with the proposed development. However,
as previously stated, in order to provide four (4) spaces, the service area must be
reduced. If it is not reduced, then the Applicant's, propose to make a payment-in-
lieu of parking as provided for in Section 7-404. B. of the Regulations As all monies
obtained via this provision are to be used for the construction of parking structures
and facilities located within or adjacent to the commercial core, and a new such
facility was recently completed adjacent to the project site, the Applicant's payment-
in-lieu effectively mitigates the proposed development's off-street parking
requirement. It should also be noted that a second municipal parking garage is
presently being planned for the area located adjacent to Cooper Avenue between
17
r
""'"
'.
,~
.'
III!'
...
III!'
.'
-
-
-
-
.
-
.
-
-
-
..
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
...
.
-
-
-
-
-
..
-
-
..
-
-,
.. ' 1>..
Spring and Original Streets. The Applicant's payment-in-lieu could be used for this
project, or to help retire the debt associated with the Rio Grande parking garage.
-
C.
Provision of Affordable Housing
..
-
"Engineering 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.
-
-
..
-
Points shall be assigned as follows:
..
i)
Zero (0%) to Sixty (60%) percent of the additional employees
generated by the proposed development: One (1) point for each
six (6%) percent housed;
-
..
-
ii)
Sixty-one (61%) to one hundred (100%) percent of the additional
employees generated by the proposed development: One (1)
point for each eight (8%) percent housed."
...
-
-.
As discussed in Section III.G of this application, the Applicants propose to
-
make a cash payment-in-lieu indexed to APCHA's Category 3 guidelines, as
...
provided for in Section 8-109.1.2. of the Regulations. This payment will offset the
...
impact of 5.67 employees, or sixty (60) percent of the approximately 9.45 employees
-
theoretically generated by the project. Based on the Applicant's commitment, and
...
the provisions of Section 8-1 06.F.(5)(c) of the Regulations, the proposed
-
development is entitled to ten (10) points, calculated as follows:
-
-
60 Percent of Employees Generated Housed ;- 6 Percent = 10 Points
-
D.
Bonus Points
..
-
"Bonus points may be assigned when it is determined that a
proposed development has not only met the substantive standards of Sections
8-106 (F) (1) through (3), but has also exceeded the provisions of these
sections and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting recognition. An
-
-
..
18
-
-
.-.
""'"
-
-
......
.
" . '.
-
.
award of additional bonus points shall not exceed ten (10%) percent of the
total points awarded under Section 8-106 (f) (1) through (3). Any Commission
member awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification of that
award for the public hearing record."
_i
""
-
We believe that the proposed development has exceeded the minimum
""
-
review criteria of the City's commercial growth management regulations in several
.
categories and, as a result, has achieved an outstanding overall design meriting the
-
award of additional bonus points. Specific areas in which we believe the project
.
-
excels include architectural design, site design, amenities, and visual impact.
""
Detailed discussions of the project's merits in each of these areas are provided
-
-
under the appropriate headings in Section IV. of this application.
-
V.
ADDITIONAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
.
-
In addition to a commercial growth management quota system allocation,
.
special review approval is required for the reduction of the trash and utility area.
-
Vested property rights status is also requested for the approvals which may be
.
-
granted pursuant to this appiication.
.
A.
Special Review
-
The Applicants request special review approval to reduce the required
.
-
size of the project's trash and utility area. This request is detailed below. Also
""
..
included is a special review to pay cash-in-lieu for required parking. This review is
""
needed only if the service yard is not reduced.
-
""
""
19
""
-
I"'"
.-.
.
~
....""
..
.' < ~.
1. Reduction in Trash and Utility Area
Pursuant to the Aspen Land Use Regulations, the Planning and Zoning
~,
...
Commission may approve a reduction in the trash and utility area size. The relevant
-
review criteria the commission must take into account include whether the size of the
-
-
service area is adequate to serve the potential users of the building and whether
...
access to the service area is adequate.
-
As previously mentioned, the proposed development consists of a
-
...
small commercial building. The potential user is a local architectural firm, Bill Pass
-
and Associates, P.C., Given the small size of the building, 2,700 s.f., a service area
-
-
10 feet x 20 feet is excessive. The user of the building will require no more than
one, two cubic yard dumpster. They are also committed to recycling and have an
outside contractor collect their recyclable cans, bottles, and paper products. This
-
-
contractor collects the recyclables from inside the office so no area in the service
-
yard will need to be devoted to this purpose. Further, no transformers or utility
-
-
pedestals are anticipated to be needed for the project.
-
For the above reasons, we request that the size of the service yard be
-
set at nine (9) feet wide x ten (10) feet deep. We feel this is an appropriate size
-
-
given the size and use of the building. In addition, the size and configuration of the
-
building make it highly unlikely a restaurant would ever occupy this building.
-
...
Finally, since the property is only 45 feet wide, and off-street parking
...
must be considered, the parking requirement of 4 spaces takes approximately 36
-
-
...
20
-
-
-
--
--
,....'0<-..
.-
II
." ~ '.
-
feet, leaving 9 feet for a service yard. We feel the proposed solution IS best given all
.
-
of the concerns of trash service, utility needs, and parking.
..
-
2. Off-Street Parking (provisional review)
..
The review is necessary only if there is no reduction in the required
-
service yard.
..
-
Pursuant to Section 7-404.B. of the Regulations, the Planning and
..
Zoning Commission may approve a payment-in-lieu of parking in the C-1 zone
-
district. The relevant review criteria which the P&Z must take into account include
III
-
whether there exist practical limitations to the provision of on-site parking, and
..
whether the Applicant's parking requirement may be met by an off-site parking
-
..
facility.
-
As discussed previously, the proposed development consists of a new
..
-
3,460 square foot building. If the trash and utility area is not reduced, it is physically
.
impossible for the Applicants to meet the project's entire parking requirement on-site.
-
Given the proximity of the City's municipal parking garage, and the inability to
.
-
provide on-site parking, the Applicant's commitment to satisfy the project's off-street
.
parking requirement via a payment-in-lieu is appropriate in this case. The proposed
..
development's off-street parking requirement is four (4) spaces calculated as follows
..
-
2,700 s.t. netleasable/1,000 s.f. = 2.7
..
2.7 x 1.5 spaces/1 ,000 s.t. net leasable = 40
-
..
Pursuant to Section 7-404.8.1, the Applicants will make a one-time
-
only payment-in-lieu of parking to the City of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00)
..
-
21
..
-
I""'"
""'"'
-
'."'-
.~.'
-
,.' < '..
per space. The payment will be for one (1) or two (2) spaces depending on the
outcome of the service yard reduction review. The payment will be made prior to
.Iii.
issuance of a building permit for the project.
...
8.
Vested Property Rights
...
...
In order to preserve the land use approvals which may be obtained as
-
a result of this application, the Applicants hereby request vested property rights
-
status pursuant to the provisions of Sections 6-207 of the Regulations. It is
-
-
understood by the Applicants that final approval of the proposed development must
-
be granted by ordinance of the City Council to establish such status. It is also the
-
Applicants understanding that no specific submission requirements, or review criteria
-
-
other than a public hearing, are required to confer such status.
~
-
-
-
-
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
- 22
-
-
/"."'"
- -
1",
J
\
.~
l
APPENDIX
EXHIBIT
Cily of ASJlen
Pre-Application Conference Summary
K':r
Planner
oF0ce:
'7/!:i:1
ale
projcet ~.uls Pr..lty,V,J G-Yv1 G:' - COf/1/111'(rltf
^pplicant s Represenlallve " /..,
Representative's Phone J- '17<;'1
Owner's Name
Type of ^fl"liealillll /~ '~1
Description of lhe proJeet~ol.mellt elllg reqllesled f>1~'><MvT S-{-./tl1<!..
17- '?,nDf'l . i\le,.\ '110:1 ~t>Jo(ir,
(~'I~~
'l1,e applie!,1I1 has heell reqnested 10 respond 10 Ihe following items and provide Ihe following
reporls:
Lnlll! Use Code Secllon
Commen's
e" \ '11 '/-+ /
~f ,j/ o..tV<< ."i, fA"",.
el)\e z.:: /'. t., '
L-M/ V\. .r l..L
(r I<A f
5/1 Art ~I'
u",
.J
lJ;..~~ 11)11/' t/-
( ,.
~~
'.
fl\P.~lf%A,Js
H1i ~J)v~J
ReCerrnl ^geJlci"". 0
NFL- - v,/,,Ar)h.(/,?,..r'';;/j,p
E: /Jif rt'fl "
~~ I'd
ds
t-.lec. '
E.tJv, /.Ie. \ M-l
,
The review is: (f'&Z only) (CC 0111 (f'&Z alld CC)
I'lIulie lIearing: @~o)
IJrplls;1 ror Ihe ^pplicalion Re~'ew: ~ J Iq
nefcrml agcllcy nal f=: q(o !:iJrr) &O(ilj6-) c"O(Ii'III./I.)
TOT^"IJEI'OSIT J:::' c;. .00
(^dUilional hllur.~ arev.nJ al a rale of $ 1 63/lIr,)
To ^I.ply SnlJmif Ihe Vollowing Inflll'llmli:lII:
I.
2.
:1.
Proof of llwlle"lIip.
Signed fce agreement.
^pplicfllll'S 11f1I11C. :\(Idrc~~ ;1Ial telephone llulIlhcr in ;'l Iclh:r ~igllCd hy lhe O1.l'plicalll
~~hich .i1lsn ~1;t~CS lhc, nam('~ :.1ddrcs~ ,alH~ Iclcphollc number of the rCI'rescnlalivc.
~all' po"t lor revIew 01 Ihe apphcalloll .$;). 3 3~E!2-
9-( lllie~ of lhe ctlll1plelc application packel aIlCJIIl:1p~,
S- ary teller cxplaillill~ the request (c:dsling colltliliul1s I1ml proposed lIses), incluuing
slreel adtlrc," ","l legal (Icscriplioll of Ihc p"'pe1Iy.
^" 8 1/2" hy II" vicillily lIlap Il1calillg Ihe parcel wilhill Ihe Cily of Aspell.
Site plall shall illelllde property hOllllllaries, 101 si7.e, proposed access. alld physical
fealures (drainageways, slreallls, rivers. ele,)
~.
).
6.
7.
8.
9,
io.
These ilems need 10 he slllJmilled if circled:
c9
Li.~t of adjacelll properly owncrs wilhin :100 feel of Ihe sllbjecI property wilh addresses.
S i1e phOIOS,
Proof of legal aeccss 10 Ihe parcd.
Historic Preservation Commission review/approval.
c.
d,
.1"
-
~. ~ '- '
1
.
"
~,
.
-
.
...
.
...
.
-
..
..
.
...
.
...
..
..
..
..
.
-
..
..
.
...
..
-
.
...
..
-
..
-
..
-
..
-
:- SEP 14 Jl94 09:31AM GARF'IELD & HEOiT P.C
P.2
'-
j .
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
EXHIBIT 2
", Pi':kin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
_,.State of Colorado hereby certifies that MHS PARTNERS, L'l'!l., A COLORADO LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP AND RICHARD CORRIERE are the owner's in fee simple of the
"'-following described property:
-LOT Q AND THE WEST ONE-HALF (1/2) OF LOT' R, BLOCK 98, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASI?EN .
-
-COinf.rY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
'""E:NCUMBRANCES :
-
Deed of Trust from: MHS Partners, Ltd., a Colorado Limited Partnership
-to the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin
:or the use of Alpine Bank, Aspen
~o secure $468,330.00
~ated July 13, 1993
:ecorded July 13, 1993 in Book 717 at Page 634
-aeception no. 358751
"'~uJ:,ject to easements and rights of way of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
~s furnished for informational purposes only.
.._Y:
'gnature
E:RTIFIED
ember 1, 1994 @ 8:30 A.M.
-
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ,;~,
- - ~
EXHIBIT 3 .
. \ -
.
..
.
September 14, 1994
..
.
-
Ms. Kim Johnson
City of Aspen Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
.
..
RE: 624 EAST HOPKINS
II
...
"
Dear Ms. Johnson:
..
This letter shall serve as authorization of the Applicant:
.
..
MHS Partners / Richard Carriere
c/o Steve Marcus
P.O. Box 1709
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-7615
"
..
"
...
to allow:
Bill Pass and Associates
605 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-4755
a
"
to act on their behalf with respect to the Growth Management Quota Allocation
Application for 624 East Hopkins.
..
.
..
Sincerely,
~ ~~""?
---~
Steve Marcus
.
..
.
-
..
-
..
-
-
-
r",
-....
-
-..,;
-
- ------~
EXHIBIT 4
... ~..-'"
-
... ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
-
...
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
-
-
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and MHS Partners/Richard Carriere
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
-
..
-
1.
APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
, .
... 624 East Hopkins
... (hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
-
-
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance
No. 77 (Series of 1992) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications
and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination
of application completeness.
-
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or
scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full .'
extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and
CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT
to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to
be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICAi~T agrees he will be
benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments
upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred.
CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full
costs to process APPLICANT'S application.
-
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for
CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the
Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission
and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless
current billings are paid in full prior to decision.
-
-
-
-
-
...
-
...
-
-
...
-
-
..
. .. ~
-
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's
waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of appliC~tio~
completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ 1\
which is for \ ~ hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs
exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to
CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned
above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made
within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay
such accrued costs shall be groUnds for suspension of processing.
-
..
-
.
-
.
-
CITY OF ASPEN
APPLICANT
.
MHS Partners/Richard Corriere
-
By: ~ {Y)oov<
Diane Moore
City Planning Director
By: !~ kV'^.' *..~
Mailing Address: ?C:>. ~OK 1..",,\0,,\ -
A..S.t>e.I0, C.o, g \<c. \..
-
-
Date:
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
.
-
..
-
..
-
-
-
2
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
1)
...
!)
-
3 )
..
..iJ
-)
"")
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~)
EXHIBIT 5
~ ..... ~-,
ATTACHMENT 1
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
Project Name
624 East Hopkins
project Location 624 East Hopkins:
citv and Townsite of Aspen
Present zoning C-1
Lot 0 and west 1/2 of Lot R. Block 98.
4) Lot Size
4.500
Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # MHS Partners/Richard Corriere. c/o steve
Marcus. PO Box 1709. Aspen. CO 81612. (3031 925-7615
Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Bill Poss and Associates. P.C.. 605
E. Main st.. Aspen. CO 81611. (3031 925-4755
Type of Application (please check all that apply):
Conditional Use Conceptual SPA
XX special Review Final SPA
8040 Greenline _ Conceptual PUD
stream Margin Final PUD
Mountain View Plan Subdivision
condominiumization Text/Map Amendment
Conceptual Histori
Development
Final Historic
Development
Minor Historic
Development
Historic
Designation
XX GMQS Allotment
GMQS Exemption
Lot split!
Lot Line Adjustment
Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures;
approximate sq ft; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the
property) .
See attached information
~) Description of Development Application
See attached information
-J) Have you attached the following?
-
-
-
...
..
..
-
..
Response to Attachment 2. Minimum Submission Contents
XX
xx
Response to Attachment J, Specific Submission Contents
XX Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for your Application
-
.......
-
-.-t;;I
---,..
..
-~
---IOJ-
------liJ
. <0
.
.
"- !:::
,;
-=i
j'g Ii m
'8, J:
~.
~i 8; X
::; W
z
:"': .
..... .
. I U~~J
e; :~.;; :V:~1~f.~
'" ';lii<l).~", ~ ~w',. 5~
tcI< OIIe E'" i!l u:; "'='c
};'22E~~~:i~~~ #I.
~~~~~> ,.
~~:~~~;~~qq~~
"i"..;. , ; ii i : I I I ill, !
~" ~l!!;"!"",~
i~ :~
i. ~4 ~ ...._!__
~ 'l.." ---'-'--~~-'-=o_~
~ct-""""-- U~,~ ~~,..(l
........."2. GondoItI . .. ...... 0::':_ ..
~ ~ ~lii~a~~=:~Oi_~..
a::C:~":::=5=5i~~~ee
."' u .. u ~ ~ > g i:5 "'';; Vi <II...,
~!~~Q2.i~g(l>:1Il
- , ~~~..,~~~:::~
~~~~~l~;~~~~;~:~11~~i~~
f':!.o,~. : : :C
~~. " j j~
~~ i ' ,~~ '.
:~J . . to , 'd~ : j '~Hl~~Jn
d~c;~ i~.5ei;Viig~o~'U~, ~~~~~~~
~Jt~J~~'"J<=_~~~~~ C=~aa::a::a::
~ii~~~g~~J5g6~~~~~~~~
;:;;~;ii~;~~~g~;~ ~~~H~;G
o~ , , : j
:":1 ''''
;!Z: 'Ill:
:.... :..
: ~-~ 3o~
. . ,.~> ~"~10~~.8~
~> ~"~ ..~U:6<j~~,,~1'd;~
~~~~~~~h ;~H15'~:3 ;'>l~g-iH";:;G
~5g1~~~Z2~~~~=~~~ ~
~jooooxx___ ~N~~~~ ~~:::_
<:: "O..............::....;:....wx,.-:=:i:. S
" ~~ ",NN _ ,,_ = , . "
' N=O~W~W _" ~
:~,; W 00. . . <(
B. . '"
. i; j!!
:. ". ,~- ,
: j !. -~ii ia.~ ~~,;~;~ i. ! .i<Ji: C
...:: iUl!!. :ut:..J.:!;~<..J..:...:o"l'.=i
~ J j~~ !~0u ~,,'q~~5"~ ~
'::l VI 'a = = "'.. .. u .!:i ':: :> :5 ~:i Ji': ...""- _
:> C:<i;~ ~~ ~~lJUiA~..._
~ t;-.....::~=..L_
0.,;
.. .s;;. _~ 0 ..;
iHi!
oOlii'.gi!
~ i~ e B
;;; E ~.~.,
~8--,,, ~
o'i Cl.. 0
i:i ~ o! g.
~:!Eaa.
c:
(1)
a.
rn
<(
"',11"
"JI
t .
;;;
. -f ".t
.
. ...
"
.'
;~
,<-'
(1A~lr7~w~
~
'"
!
"
e
.
1
.
~
~
..Q.-~
c CL
r
'""""
'.......
..
'.-
.'
~
-
-
-
-
-
..
.
..
..
.
..
...
-
..
..
...
.
...
..
-
.
...
..
...
..
...
..
-
-
-
..
-
-
..
-
..
/""
--
,
ORDINANCE NO, 70
(series of 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING THE HOUSING MITIGATION PROPOSAL AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR A
PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FOR THE 1994 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT
ALLOTMENT FOR THE 624 EAST HOPKINS PROJECT LOCATED ON LOT Q AND
ONE-HALF OF LOT R, BLOCK 98, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the
624 E. Hopkins project on November 1, 1994, and approved, in
conjunction with growth management scoring ,special reviews for
trash area reduction and parking reduction; and
WHEREAS, on November 28, 1994 the city Council of the City of
Aspen awarded a commercial/office development allotment in the CC
(Commercial Core) and C-1 (Commercial) zone districts for 1994
pursuant to Resolution No.88 (Series 1994) 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 624 E. Hopkins was
awarded 2,700 square feet of net leasable area within the 1994
commercial/office development allotments; and
WHEREAS, the development of the 624 E. Hopkins project must
mitigate for 7.09 employees; and
WHEREAS, the 624 E. Hopkins project originally requested that
the City council approve an affordable housing mitigation package
in which it would pay cash-in-lieu at the Category 3 level for its
entire affordable housing obligation. This was because the small
size of the site essentially precludes incorporating housing into
the building design which has already received approval by the
Historic Preservation Committee; and
1
"._,.,....,,,_~...<h...._"'."i.'.'.
c
i"'''',,",.
WHEREAS, the Aspen/pitkin County Housing Office reviewed the
proposed mitigation package on October 18, 1994 and forwarded the
Housing Board's preference to first provide on-site housing,
secondly provide off-site housing, and lastly provide cash-in-lieu
for affordable housing mitigation; and
WHEREAS, based on typical incomes of general office employees,
the Housing Office also recommended that any cash payment be
calculated on the average of the Category 2 and Category 3 income
amounts; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the difficulties of the site and
Housing Office's second preference to purchase units, the applicant
met with the Housing Board on January 4, 1995, to discuss the
purchase of a duplex in the Woody Creek area. The Housing Office
then forwarded to the Planning Office and City Council an updated
opinion which supported the purchase of the Woody Creek units, with
conditions, and included the fall-back option for all cash-in-lieu
mitigation for this project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the 624 E. Hopkins
housing mitigation proposal for the purchase of the Woody Creek
duplex and/or all cash mitigation for 7.09 employees to be fair and
equitable and consistent with the mitigation requirements contained
in section 8-109 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, a request for Vested Rights for the development was
submitted to the Planning Office within the growth management
application; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal
2
-
"..---,
'"
Code the City Council may grant Vesting of Development Rights for
a site specific development plan for a period of three years from
the date of final development plan approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
section 1:
In accordance with section 24-S-109(J) of the Aspen
Municipal Code, city Council does hereby accept the employee
housing mitigation plan for 7.09 employees as required by the 624
E. Hopkins project to be as follows:
1) The applicant shall exercise all due diligence to purchase a
six bedroom duplex in the Woody Creek area to house six
persons subject to the following:
a. The units will be rehabilitated to the extent required
to meet health and safety codes and provide affordable,
quality units that will not require additional
improvement or maintenance costs.
b.
The units
households,
price for a
will be sold to qualified
at prices that do not exceed the
Category 2 three-bedroom unit.
Category 2
maximum sale
c. The remaining 1.09 employees shall be mitigated by the
payment of cash at a rate which is the average of the
Category 2 and Category 3 cash-in-lieu amounts as
established in the APCHA Guidelines in effect at the time
of payment. Payment shall be made to the City Finance
Office.
2) If the above alternative cannot be provided, the applicant
shall pay cash-in-lieu for 7.09 employees at a rate per person
which is the average of the Category 2 and Category 3 cash-
in-lieu amounts as established in the APCHA Guidelines in
effect at the time of payment. Payment shall be made to the
city Finance Office.
At a minimum, in order to demonstrate that a good faith effort
to purchase a unit(s) was pursued, the applicant shall a
provide to the City a purchase contract for said property
which was rejected, prior to the city I s acceptance of the
cash-in-lieu payment.
3) The above housing mitigation conditions shall be accomplished
3
.,. -"'-'''''-",~.,_.~.-..
-.
!
',..~.....
......'''"''.
prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project.
section 2:
Pursuant to section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code,
City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the
624 E. Hopkins site specific development plan as follows:
1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by Resolution No. 88, Series of 1994, shall
remain vested until November 28, 1997. However, any
failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant
to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly
record all plats and agreements as specified herein and
or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the
forfeiture of said vested rights.
2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all
rights of referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance or
Resolution No.88, Series of 1994, shall exempt the site
specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or
approvals required by this Ordinance, Resolution No.88,
Series of 1994, 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.
4. 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 3: The city Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to
be published in a newspaper of general circulation 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,
4
-
-
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 4: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
_ day of
1995 at 5:00 P.M. in the City council
Chambers, Aspen city Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior
to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published
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 13th day of December,
1994.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S, Koch, city Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this
, 1995.
day of
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S, Koch, city Clerk
5
"','M.'..' ".''l'
.....
.. "'_..",._......'_r_~""''''.<.~".,.._...._q._.....
ASPEN CITyQUNCIL REGULAR MEETIrC) JANUARY 23,1995
(
applicants report back to Council. Councilman Reno said he would like to be
assured that the applicants have done their utmost to make the property deal work
out.
Councilman Reno moved to adopt Ordinance #70, Series of 1994, adding to
section I item #2 that the applicant shall provide a minimum of a proposed
contract with evidence that the contract to purchase was rejected, demonstrating a
good faith attempt, anything consisting an real offer in good faith was made to
purchase the property and was rejected; seconded by Councilwoman Richards.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Waggaman, yes; Paulson, yes; Richards, yes;
Reno, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #2. SERIES OF 1995 - 939 E. Cooper Subdivision,
Rezoning, GMQS Exemption
Councilman Reno moved to read Ordinance #2, Series of 1995; seconded by
Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #2
(Series of 1995)
(
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING
SUBDIVISION, MAP AMENDMENT, GMQS EXEMPTION AND VESTED
RIGHTS STATUS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 2 AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS AND 2 FREE MARKET UNITS ON LOT A, BLOCK 37
AND 75' x 100' OF VACATED CLEVELAND STREET, EAST ASPEN
ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, 939 EAST COOPER AVENUE (EAST
COOPER COURT), ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO was read by the
city clerk
\
Leslie Lamont, planning office, told Council the applicants are proposing to
subdivide a parcel in the RMF zone, to create a second lot, and to rezone that lot
to AH. The applicants propose to historically designate the parcel, to seek a
GMQS exemption for the development of 3 units on the AH parcel, and to vest
their rights. Ms. Lamont pointed out the parcel is 10,500 square feet, subdivided
to two parcels the second one would be 4500 square feet. Minimum lot size in
RMF is 6000 square feet. There is a historic residence on the front half of the
parcel and a historic barn on the back half. The applicants propose to relocate the
historic residence to the northeast corner, and to refurbish it and to relocate the
barn to the southwest corner and refurbish it. The applicants propose a second
free market dwelling unit on lot I and to build a second free market unit and
resident occupied unit and to deed restrict the barn to category 3 or 4. The central
courtyard will be maintained as open space for all residents of the two parcels.
5
"
ASPEN CITITbrlNCIL REGULAR MEETING;-;ANUARY 23, 1995
(
ORDINANCE #7
(Series of 1995)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO REPEAL
SECTION 15-5 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE
APPOINTMENT AND DUTIES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT were read by
the City Clerk
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt the consent agenda; seconded by
Councilwoman Waggaman. The consent calendar is:
1. Resolution #6, 1995 - Disposition of Securities
2. Resolution #4, 1995 - Appointment of Acting City Manager - Bill Efting
3. Ordinance #3,1995 - Aspen Youth Center SPA Amendment
4. Ordinance #5, 1995 - Code Amendment - Temporary Uses
5. Ordinance #6, 1995 - Code Amendment Open Meeting Laws
6. Ordinance #7,1995 - Code Amendment Municipal Court Clerk
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Reno, yes; Waggaman, yes; Paulson, yes;
Richards, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried.
(
Councilwoman Waggaman moved to table Ordinances 58, 61, 66, Series of 1994
and to continue Ordinance #48, Series of 1994, to March 13; seconded by
Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #70. SERIES OF 1994 - 624 E. Hopkins Housing Mitigation &
Vested Rights
Kim Johnson, planning office, pointed out there have been revisions to the
ordinance_relating to the housing board's recommendations. The applicants
propose housing Il'litigation by purchasing a duplex in the mid-valley area. As a
fall back, the housing board supports cash-in-lieu for 7.09 employees.
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor
Bennett closed the public hearing.
(
".
Councilman Reno asked if there is a way to check to see if this deal can be struck
or the applicant is just going to pay cash in lieu. Mayor Bennett said the
ordinance states the applicant should use all due diligence to purchase this
housing. Bill Poss said they have .flot finished the deal. If they find another
property, the applicants will hllve to return to Council. Councilman Reno said he
would like a method of keeping track of the outcome of this mitigation. Poss said
he will report back to staff. Kim Weil reminded Council the HPC approval
expires in 3 months, which is why they cannot explore a lot of alternatives. John
Worcester suggested before taking the option of paying cash-in-lieu, the
4
-.
Aspen City Council C)
January 9. 1995
Regular Meeting~
(
Dave Tolen, housing director, told Council the board was encouraged that these
units would be sales units and they can be sold in category 2. This helps to
balance their location. The housing board asked if the applicant could explore
construction of deed restricted units in conjunction with the Maroon Creek club.
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor
Bennett closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Waggaman said she approves having the units actually available.
Councilman Reno encouraged a creative solution, like working with the schools
or larger businesses on ajoint project. Councilwoman Richards said this may be a
good idea but it may be too late for this project.
Councilwoman Waggaman moved to table Ordinance #70, Series of 1994, to
January 23 for further investigation; seconded by' Councilman Reno. All in favor,
motion carried. .,
ORDINANCE #69, SERIES OF 1994 - Subdivision Design Standards
(
Bob Gish, public works director, told Council the land use code does not currently
provide for any variations in the subdivision design standards, like road widths,
curb and gutter. Staff recommends that design variations be permitted through a
special review process.
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. Si Coleman asked if this would require
an architectural review committee. Mayor BeWlett said this allows an applicant to
come before the planning department and request some engineering variations.
Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #69, Series of 1994, on
second reading; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Roll call vote;
Councilmembers Waggaman, yes; Paulson, yes; Reno, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor
Bennett, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #72. SERIES OF 1994 - Ajax TavernlLittle Nell SPA
Amendment
I
\.
Kim Johnson, planning office, told Council this request incorporates 121 square
feet of restaurant preparation area outside the restaurant on the patio next to the
gondola. This will only be used during the ski season. Ms. Johnson said this
change necessitates further parking requirement, which can be met by securing
parking spaces in the Little Nell garage or paying $3600. P & Z forwards a
recommendation of approval with condition~..
4
I"""
,..,
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
January 9.1995
(
9. Amy Margerum, City Manager, said there is a request from the County
Commissioners to schedule a meeting once a month. Councilwoman Richards
said she would be willing to do this only if there are issues on which to meet.
This meeting should be canceled if there is nothing to discuss. Councilman Reno
said he feels Council already has too many meetings. Council agreed to
tentatively schedule this for the first Tuesday of the month and to cancel it if there
are no issues.
10. Amy Margerum, city manager, requested a work session date for Cozy
Point. Council scheduled this for February 21 at 5:00 p.m.
II Amy Margerum, city manager, said staff needs to discuss with Council the
Entrance to Aspen planning process. Council scheduled this for Tuesday, January
10 at 8:00 a.m.
Councilman Reno moved to continue Ordinan~e' #61 and 66 to January 23 and
Aspen Valley Bank to February 13, 1995; seconded by Councilwoman Richards.
All in favor, motion carried.
CONSENT CALENDAR
,/'.
Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by
Councilman Paulson. The consent calendar is:
I. Minutes -- December 12, 19, 1994
2. Resolution #1, 1995 -- Posting of Public Notices
3. Resolution #2,1995 -- Adopting Official City Map
All in favor, motion carried.
..,
ORDINANCE #70, 1994 - 624 E. HOPKINS HOUSING
MITIGATION AND VESTED RlGHTS
Kim Johnson, planning office, reminded Council at the last meeting Council
discussed the housing mitigation, cash-in-lieu, and purchasing housing out of the
metro area. Ms. Johnson told Council the applicant has found some housing
down valley. The housing board is supportive of purchasing this property,
upgrading the units, deed restricting them and selling the units in category 2. This
would require additional cash mitigation to fulfill the entire requirement. Ms.
Johnson said P & Z forwards a 3 to 3 vote for all cash mitigation. Ordinance #70
approves an all cash mitigation.
\.
Bill Poss, applicant, said it is difficult to buildco;mmercial or office space in town
and this is a tight project financially. Poss told Council the applicants went to the
housing office. They found 2 units within the Aspen Area plan to purchase. The
housing office would like the applicants to look for units closer to the metro area.
3
~'
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning and Zoning commission
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planner
RE:
624 E. Hopkins 1994 Commercial Growth Management scoring
in the C-1 Commercial Zone District, Special Reviews for
Reduction of Trash/utility Area and Parking (Public
Hearing)
DATE:
November 1, 1994
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This application seeks a commercial GMP allocation for
2,700 sq. ft. of net leasable space for development on a 4,500
square foot parcel in the C-1 Commercial zone district, There are
no other applications for commercial allocation in 1994,
In an initial scoring by Planning staff, the project meets minimum
scoring thresholds.
The applicant also requests Special Review for reduction of both
trash/utili ty area and parking. Staff recommends approval of
Special Review for trash/utility area reduction with conditions,
This would eliminate the need for parking reduction. The
Commission shall also review and forward to Council a
recommendation regarding the cash-in-lieu method by which the
applicant is mitigating for affordable housing.
Staff suggests that the Commission first consider the project's
request for Special Reviews, then begin the scoring process. Blank
scoresheets will be available at the meeting.
APPLICANT: MHS Partners, Ltd. and Richard corriere, represented
by Kim Weil, Bill Poss and Associates, ~,C.
LOCATION: 624 E. Hopkins Ave. (Lot Q and 1/2 of Lot R, Block 98,
Townsite of Aspen) .
ZONING: C-1
APPLICANT I S REQUEST: The applicant seeks a Growth Management
allotment for 2,700 sq, ft. of net leasable sq. ft. within a
proposed 3,460 s. f. building. The intent is that poss and
Associates will relocate their architecture firm to this
development.
A Special Review approval is sought to reduce the required
trash/utility service area along the alley from the required 10
feet deep by 20 feet wide, to 10 feet deep by 11 feet wide (per
Engineering's discussion with the applicant). The application also
1
'\
~
requests Special Review for parking reduction in case the
trash/utility Special Review is not granted. The applicant seeks
from city council vested development rights for a period of three
years and approval of the housing mitigation program which consists
of cash-in-lieu payment for 5,67 employees (note that this figure
is disputed by the Housing Office). Please refer to the complete
application package.
PROCESS: It is suggested that the Planning Commission first review
the project's requested special Reviews as these are critical to
the continuance of the development. If special Reviews are
approved, the Commission shall score the project using the
criteria/point system established in the land use regulations for
commercial projects. Staff has scored the proposal and submits
this score to the Commission (Exhibit "A"). The Commission may
elect to accept staff's score as their own.
If the Commission finds that the project meets minimum point
thresholds, it will be forwarded to the city council for GMP
allocation of net leasable area and approval of the housing
mitigation package and vested property rights.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: All referral agency comments are included as
Attachment "B".
Electric: Bill Early states that three phase power is available
at this location. A new transformer may be necessary to service
an increased load. However, no load information was presented in
the application so service needs of the new load are only an
estimate. The applicant shall pay for any upgrades to the system
and must provide a transformer location on the site if one is
needed.
Enqineerinq: Chuck Roth comments that the storm run-off mitigation
proposed meets Code requirements. The trash storage reduction is
acceptable with the condition that if building occupants change and
require increased dumpsters, the owner will increase the size of
the area and reduce parking upon approval of Special Review,
Sidewalk installation is required of the applicant prior to
issuance of a certificate of Occupancy,
The applicants shall agree to join any future
tricts which may be formed for the purpose
improvements in the public right-of-way.
improvement dis-
of constructing
The applicant shall consult city Engineering for design
considerations of development within public rights-of-way, Parks
Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any
work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-
of-way from city Streets Department.
Fire Marshall: Ed Van Walraven states that the project must comply
2
1/
0""""
with all local fire codes and requirements.
HPC: This proposal has received full HPC approval as a residence.
If an amendment is necessary for any exterior changes including a
rooftop elevator projection, it must be reviewed by HPC,
Housina Office: Cindy Christensen forwarded comments. The
applicants intend to mitigate for 60% of the employees generated.
However, they calculated their employee generation at the low end
of the range for the C-1 zone which is 3,5 to 5.25 persons per
1,000 square feet of net leasable area. We believe that the mid-
point of this range (4.375 persons/1,000 s,f.) is more appropriate
for the architect's use or general office use. This raises the
gross employee generation to 11.81 persons. 60 percent of this
figure is 7.09 employees, the minimum mitigation requirement.
The Housing Board's policy in the Affordable Housing Guidelines
establishes the following preference hierarchy:
1) On-site Housing
2) Off-site Housing, including buydown concept
3) Cash-in-lieu/land-in-lieu
The applicants request that their housing mitigation be cash-in-
lieu at the Category 3 level. The Housing Office proposes that if
cash-in-lieu is accepted, the figure should be an average between
the Category 2 and Category 3 amounts, or $42,500 per person for
a total of $301,325 at current cash-in-lieu amounts,
Parks: The applicant shall protect the existing trees during
construction by erecting barricade fencing at the driplines of the
trees prior to any construction activity. If changes are proposed
in the right-of-way landscaping, the Parks Department must approve
the landscaping plan.
Sanitation District: Bruce Matherly states that adequate line and
treatment capacity is available to service this project. The
project will be charged a prorated share of the cost of
improvements for downstream constraints in the Galena Street line.
Total connection costs can be estimated once detailed plans are
submitted and a tap permit is completed.
Environmental Health: The project is not expected to negatively
impact air quality in the non-attainment area. Construction noise
may be a problem - construction may only occur between 7am and
10pm.
STAFF COMMENTS: There is an annual allocation of 8,000 s.f. of
commercial area available for growth management competition. No
other applications were submitted for 1994.
3
:;;
This project received extensive design review by the Historic
Preservation Committee a few years ago prior to the demolition of
the residence which occupied the parcel. At that time, the new
structure was to be a single family home. The replacement of one
residential unit for another did not have to go through growth
management competition. Since the structure is now seeking to be
commercial space, it must receive a growth management allotment by
city Council after scoring by the Commission.
Special Reviews: Trash/utility area required by the Code for the
C-1 zone must be a minimum of 20 feet in length, parallel to the
alley, and at least 10 feet deep. The project site is 45 feet
wide, and the applicant desires to accommodate as much parking on-
site as possible, A 20 foot wide trash area would eliminate two
of the four parking spaces that the project requires.
Pursuant to Section 24-7-404 C. a Special Review for reduction of
the dimensions of a utility/trash service area shall be approved
only 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.
2, Access to the utility/trash service area is adequate.
3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making
them easily movable by trash personnel.
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.
5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is
adequate and safe for the placement of utilities.
6. Adequate provisions are incorporated to ensure the
construction of the access area,
The applicant has discussed the issue with the city engineering
staff and determined that a trash area 11 feet wide would still
allow four parking spaces, trash space and utility functions. As
the proposed use is office and the trash needs of office space is
not as great as restaurant use, staff supports the request to
reduce the area to 11 feet in width and 10 feet in depth, with the
condition that no restaurants may occupy the structure without
providing additional trash/utility space pursuant to special review
by the P&Z,
parkinq Reduction / Cash-in-lieu The C-1 zone requires 1.5 parking
4
~
spaces per 1,000 s.f. of net leasable area. This project proposes
2,700 s. f. of net leasable for a parking requirement of 4.05
spaces, As discussed above, if the Commission approves the
reduction of trash/utility area, this project can place 4 of the
4,05 required parking spaces on the property. The fractional
parking space may be provided in cash ($750.00) by the applicant
rather than providing an entire fifth space. This allowance was
recently created by a text amendment within Ordinance 56, 1994.
If the Commission does not grant the trash/utility reduction,
section 24-7-404 B. allows the Commission to grant a reduction of
required off-street parking. If parking is provided via a payment-
in-lieu, the applicant shall make a one time payment to the city
in the amount of $15,000 per space. The applicant shall
demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents, customers,
guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into
account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic
generation of the project, the projected impacts onto the on-
street parking of the neighborhood, its proximity to mass transit
routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as
vans, provided for residents, guests and employees.
In determining whether to accept mitigation or whether to require
that the parking be provided on-site, the Commission shall take
into consideration the practical ability to place parking on-site,
whether parking needs of the development have been adequately met
on-site, and whether the city has [plans for] a parking facility
which meet the needs of the development and the community than
would location of the parking on-site.
Response: The Planning Office does not recommend a reduction of
parking on this site for the following reasons:
1. The community is experiencing critical parking needs in the core
area and surrounding commercial and residential areas. An
extensive paid parking program will begin this winter. Each site
should construct as much parking for its own use as possible,
2. The Engineering staff has considered the trash area reduction
and finds that the reduced space can meet the building's office
needs without reducing on-site parking.
Growth Manaqement staff Score: Planning staff jointly reviewed the
project pursuant to the scoring criteria contained in section 24-
8-106 F. of the land use regulations. The Planning Office forwards
the following recommended score for the 624 E. Hopkins Commercial
GMP project:
scoring
Minimum
5
/
")
Cateaories Threshold
1) Quality of Design 7.2 (40%)
2) Public Facilities
and Services 4 (40%)
3) Affordable Housing 10 (60%)
Points
12
5
10
-------
-------
27
1)
Combined 1 & 2
16.8 (60%)
17
Pursuant to section 24-8-106 F.(5) to be eligible for an
allocation, a development application shall be required to meet the
thresholds of each category and a combined threshold for categories
1 & 2, Individual and combined categories have been met as shown
in the table above. The Commission may accept staff's score or do
its own scoring procedure, Blank score sheets will be available
at the meeting,
Affordable Housina - The project is proposing to meet their
affordable housing mitigation by paying cash-in-lieu for 60% of the
employees generated, The Commission shall make a recommendation
to the Council with regard to the method by which an applicant
calculates employee generation, and how the mitigation will be
accomplished. As mentioned by the Housing Office, the project
generation is expected to be higher than the application presents.
The Housing Office made the determination that 4.375 employees per
1,000 s.f. will be generated rather than 3.5 per 1,000 s.f. The
range established for the C-1 zone is 3.5 to 5,25 employees per
1,000 s,f, of net leasable area.
Also, the Housing Office believes that the employees generated by
an office use will be a mix of category 2 and Category 3 employees
rather than all Category 3 as stated in the application.
Staff recognizes that the applicant is proposing all cash
mitigation because they are trying to work within a ready-approved
building shell, The HPC approved this size and design because of
its compatibility with the surrounding buildings and neighborhood.
To incorporate affordable housing within this structure will
effectively eliminate its commercial viability, The Council and
Housing Office have an established priority to acquire actual
housing units through the growth management process. If the site
cannot realistically handle housing, the applicant should be
expected to look for housing units in Aspen to buy and deed
restrict at category 2 and 3.
6
~
('": l 5':'-c:~"-</' r ,/ I' .' "
/!" . -J" . ,'vL W.J'C',.."..'. "1" ;,.-. 'j' A DIA -<~f( v,;j,j , r i / (I'-~,":';''!'<''
" /J -IV,,", . "~>t..,j.'.L(" (',.,___,.), /)'V1(J"......y
[II-"" ~ '. ,_"r,tC-_"~~ tv t~ ":)'-~' (1./~~~"41PI".,.L~,.t':~1.n"~r~1, (i ;, .
f;",-""(~",, le/i~' VA.O>e~Ajf-.; "'"' (j4, . .1PVl ~ _~1.;J--H..{(Ljf.-.J:iIa,1v<
'l.....-_~ .(;....) baJ .,~,-t\<<k.f &(!
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends ap'<'roval of ~, "n'"
Special Review for reduction of trash/utility area ~ per the '" 'l;.
Engineering Department I s dimensions of 10 feet deep by 11 feet
wide. The Planning Office also recommends approval of a threshold
score for GMP allocation. The following are recommended conditions
for this project:
1. The two trees that are to be preserved on-site shall be
protected by sturdy barricade fencing at the drip lines.
Debris and excavation material shall not be stockpiled under
the trees.
r
f"
~'f\.A),
.\ ,.
[p\ i 6" 0
)'~(.J
\" '
IN, "
0,,0
)"1 nreP
I. 'II.\.'''
0, I '.
:~,O
2,
The applicant shall submit an
providing load information
Department prior to issuance
application for electric service
for review by the Electric
of any building permits.
3, The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement dis-
tricts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
4. The applicant shall consult city Engineering for design
considerations of development within public rights-of-way,
Parks Department for vegetation species, and shall obtain
permits for any work or development, including landscaping,
within public rights-of-way from city Streets Department,
5. No restaurants shall occupy the structure without providing
additional trash/utility space pursuant to special review by
the Planning and zoning commission."
6. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning commission and City council shall be adhered to and
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended
by other conditions. . {1.ft?I<r"v..,~
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: "I move to approve the Special Retiew' for the
reduction in trash/utility area floor area for a space 10 feet deep
by 11 feet wide with the conditionsl-~ecommended in the Planning
Office memo dated November 1, 1994."
"I move to score the 624 E, Hopkins Commercial Growth Management
project at ~ points, finding that required thresholds have been
met for growth management allocation."
additionally:
"I move that city council accept a housing mitigation package which
addresses the Housing Office's concerns that the minimum threshold
employee generation is 7.0X~persons and that the Category level be
a mix of category 2 and Category 3 employees./1 THe applic;<I" L' '"
iiffOrJ{"L>lC huu"'lng. ~~:age.~tt~: COf\ta~n(t~~ :{;::~-;W~iq fLlf"~~
SfC:~ VlJ1i ~ ,; fO?l.f~~~ 11: 7 a.)(.~f f::Jf :f ... ~ :#~('>r(::\
(l)lll'<\;Tl~tl.\" ::f- ~ I (VI"', !)~ Ct.CrC~H NO", 6 ~ U\\.v\,J ()-'^i CO-4-t'\ 1 F!J 'to >""'~
. tCJ..tfIl-1oa..-- (;:J!;:~) " ~ <';,.J t" ,) ',:. ~"'~' ~." ~Q~'HJl'"
ctl~~~ i&. (L'.I~'",)~ ,.-'J,-' . J
... 1..,-. .
units in Aspen to deed restrict prior to the issuance of any
building permits."
Application Booklet
Exhibits:
"A" - Planning staff scoring Sheet / Recommended Score
"B" - Complete Referral Memos
8
~
CITY OF
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE GROWTH
PLANNINI. . ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT ~, APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION
ASPEN
MANAGEMENT SCORE SHEET
PROJECT: 624 E, HODkins
DATE: November 1, 1994
1. QUALITY OF DESIGN (maximum 18 points). Each development
application shall be rated based on the quality of the
exterior of its buildings and site design and assigned points
according to the following standards and considerations:
0 A totally deficient design;
1 A major design flaw;
2 An acceptable (but standard) design; or
3 An excellent design.
The following features shall be rated accordingly:
(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,
RATING: 2.75
COMMENTS: Staff has found that there is good compatibility with
the adjacent modern structures. The HPC has made Conceptual and
Final design review of the building for specific details.
(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.
RATING:--L..
COMMENTS: The project meets its 25% open space requirement and
retains the existing trees on the parcel. The entry walk is
inviting. The trash area and parking work well along the alley.
(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
C\
result in energy conservation.
RATING: 2,25
COMMENTS: The applicant commits to meeting the Model Energy Code,
but does not commit to exceeding any specific elements of that code
with details we can score upward. No fireplaces or gas appliances
are proposed, Natural light is admitted on the south side of the
basement through sizable light wells. Fairly large windows on the
southern side will allow solar warming in the winter.
(d) AMENITIES (maximum 3 points), considering the provision of
usable open space, pedestr ian and bicycle ways, benches,
bicycle racks, bus shelters, and other common areas for users
of the proposed development.
RATING: ~
COMMENTS: The application states that benches, tables and bike
racks will be installed, however nothing is noted on the plans or
in the text to indicate where or how many of these improvements
will be added. It is unknown whether the site size can accommodate
such amenities.
(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.
RATING:~
COMMENTS: There are no designated viewplanes in the vicinity of
the building therefore the standard score is recommended, The
structure is 6 feet below the maximum height allowed in the zone.
The design attempts to act as a step-down from the taller stewart
Title Building on the west to the office building on the east,
(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.
RATING: 1. 5
COMMENTS: The applicant has discussed the trash area question with
Engineering who is comfortable with the reduced area of 9' by 11'
on the condition that a restaurant cannot occupy this building
without readdressing the trash area size. The Electric Department
comments that a larger transformer may be necessary to serve this
project. All upgrades to power, if necessary, will be
2
\0
automatically charged to the applicant, Access to the building,
using the concrete walkway, will be difficult when the parking
spaces are full.
2. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES (maximum 10
points). Each development application shall be rated on the
basis of its impact upon public facilities and services by the
assigning of points according to the following standards and
considerations:
o -- Proposed development requires the provision of new
public facilities and services at increased public
expense;
1 -- Proposed development may be handled by existing
public facilities and services, or any public
facility or service improvements made by the
applicant benefits the proposed development only,
and not the area in general; or
2 -- Proposed development improves the availability of
public facilities and services in the area.
In those cases where points are given for the simultaneous
evaluation of two (2) services (i.e., water supply and fire
protection) the determination of points shall be made by
averaging the scores for each feature,
(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
applicant to provide any fire protection facilities which may
be necessary to serve the proposed development
RATING:~
COMMENTS: There is capacity to serve this project without
upgrading the system or making extensions.
(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
3
\\
required to serve the proposed development.
RATING: ~
COMMENTS: The Sanitation District has sufficient line and
treatment capacity to serve this project, but needs the applicant
to participate in a prorated share of costs of downstream
improvements,
(c) PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION/ROADS (maximum 2 points). Considering
the ability of the proposed development to be served 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 consider the applicant's
commitment to install the necessary road system improvements
to serve the increased usage attributable to the proposed
development.
RATING:-L
COMMENTS: This project is located one block off of Main Street
which is the primary transit route in the City, Review of this
project by city agencies has determined that the project will not
substantially alter the traffic patterns in this area. The on-
site parking will be located off of the alley to minimize visual
and traffic impacts,
(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.
RATING:-L
COMMENTS: According to the comments received by the Engineering
Department, the storm drainage plan meets what is required in the
Code.
(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 Article 5, Division
2, and considering the design of the parking spaces with
respect to their visual impact, amount of paved surface, and
convenience and safety.
RATING:------1-
4
\1}-
COMMENTS: If the project receives Special Review approval for the
reduction trash / utility area, the required 4 parking spaces can
be provided on-site along the alley. The remaining fractional
parking space (.05 space) shall be provided cash-in-lieu rather
than providing an entire space on site,
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 Section 8-109.
Points shall be assigned as follows:
Zero (0) to sixty (60) percent of the additional
employees generated by the proposed development: One (1)
point for each six (6) percent housed;
Sixty-one (61) to one hundred (100) percent of the
additional employees generated by the proposed
development: One (1) point for each eight (8) percent
housed.
The following standard shall be used in calculating the number
of full-time equivalent employees generated by the proposed
development:
Commercial Core (CC)
and Commercial (C-1):
3.50 to 5.25 employees/1,OOO sq. ft,
(net leasable), based on review of
the city council's housing designee;
RATING:~
COMMENTS: The applicant commits to paying cash-in-lieu for 60% of
employees generated. As previously mentioned, the Housing Office
calculated that the 60% figure would be 7.09 employees, The cash-
in-lieu proposal must be approved by City Council, The Housing
Office's preference for housing places the cash-in-lieu option last
behind on-site housing and purchase or construction of off-site
housing.
4. BONUS POINTS (maximum 4 points). Bonus points may be assigned
when it is determined that a proposed development has not only
met the substantive standards of Section 8-106(F) (1) through
(3), but has also exceeded the provisions of these sections
and achieved an outstanding overall design meriting
recognition. An award of additional bonus points shall not
exceed ten (10) percent of the total points awarded under
section 8-106(F) (1) through (3). Any commission member
5
\'?
awarding bonus points shall provide a written justification
of that award for the public hearing record.
RATING:
COMMENTS: Staff does not assign bonus points,
SUBTOTAL: 27
5. TOTAL POINTS -
SCORING CATEGORIES:
POINTS:
1,
QUALITY OF DESIGN
--1L
2,
AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES ,
SERVICES
5
3,
PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
10
4,
BONUS POINTS
o
TOTAL POINTS:
JL
This score meets the m1n1mum combined threshold requirements
established in Section 8-106 F,5, which are:
Scoring
cateqories
Minimum
Threshold
Points
1)
2)
Quality of Design
7.2 (40%)
12
Public Facilities
and Services
4 (40%)
10 (60%)
5
3)
Affordable Housing
10
-------
-------
27
1)
Combined 1 & 2
16.8 (60%)
17
6
\~
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department d-~
Date: October 12, 1994
Re: 624 E. Hopkins GMQS Allocation
Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Site Drainage - The application meets minimum Code standards for subdivision design
standards for storm runoff.
2. Traffic Impacts - The traffic impact analysis is acceptable. As indicated, there will be
no significant reduction in service level of Hopkins Avenue.
SPECIAL REVIEW
3. Reduction in Trash and Utility Area - I have discussed the sizing with the applicant's
representative. They have agreed to increase the length from 9 to 11 feet. This change
will fit on the site because four parking spaces are 34 feet total width. This would permit
storage of two dumpsters and include space for utility meters and disconnects.
There have been a number of trash area sizing problems in the commercial core,
some related to parking uses. Future owners or tenants with different uses could need
larger trash enclosures. We recommend a condition of approval that if more trash storage
area is required in the future, the applicant will increase the size of the area and pay cash-
in-lieu as necessary at such time.
4. Reduction in Parking - If reduction in the trash and utility area is not approved, and
if reduction in parking is necessary, the Engineering Department has no comments to the
contrary. The property is sufficiently close to public parking and to mass transit to permit
a reduction in parking.
\10
........
,
OTIIER COMMENTS
5. Sidewalk Curb and Gutter - These are not required to be discussed in a GMQS
application. The site plan does indicate a sidewalk. Installation of sidewalk is required
by City code prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The curb and gutter is in
satisfactory condition.
6. Improvement Districts - The applicant did not offer to agree to join future
improvement districts, however it is recommended as a condition of approval that the
applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts which may be formed for the
purpose of constructing improvements in the public right-of-way.
7. Work in the Public Right-<lf-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work
and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the
applicant as follows:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design
considerations of development within public rights-of-way, parks department
(920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from city streets
department (920-5130).
cc: Cris Caruso
M94.348
{\
"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Kim Johnson, city Planner
FROM:
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
624 E. Hopkins GMQS Allocation
DATE:
October 18, 1994
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This project has received full approval from the HPC in its earlier
configuration as a residence. The project architect has indicated
that there will be no changes made to the building in its
conversion to office space that will be visible from the outside,
except possibly a small roof projection for the required elevator.
If this change is made it will be reviewed by HPC, otherwise there
are no concerns at this time.
~
""'"
"'"'"
, ,;,
, '
,
'~I
OCT
4 19ge
i I
. '
.--.'"
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Bill Earley, Electric
Date: 10/4/94
Subject: 624 E. Hopkins, GMQS Allocation
I have reviewed the information submitted from the applicant and
it does not provide information on the electric requirements for
this development. We have three phase power available in this
alley so we can meet almost any requirements by installing a new
transformer. The applicant would have to pay for any improvements
needed to our system to meet their power requirements. If a new
transformer is required, the applicant would have to provide a site
for this transformer.
without the load information I cannot be sure, but based on my
experience we should have no problem providing electric to this
development.
\fA.
/=~
.-,ur
-}?J
FRGM;
RE:
DATE:
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
MEMORANDUM
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health Department
Electric Department
Parks Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Aspen Fire Protection District
Parking/Transportation
HPC
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
624 E, Hopkins GMQS Allocation
Parcel ID No. 2737-073-32-004
September 27, 1994
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by MHS Partners.
Please return your comments to me no later than October 15.
Thank you.
fiLo~eA ! Lk tf'v-P-Li cJ2L ~oe~ ?-~~ ~
-J-~~?
~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DAlE:
RE:
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
George Robinson, Parks Director
Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
October 24, 1994
624 E. Hopkins GMQS Allocation, Parcel ill No. 2737-073-32-004
We have reviewed the application submitted by MHS Partners for GMQS Allocation at 624 E.
Hopkins. The development appears to cover sufficiently those areas of concerns for the Parks
Department, including preservation of existing, significant trees on the property. During
construction of the property, these trees should be protected from excavation impacts by setting up
some protective, temporary fencing around the dripline of the trees. The only other concern of the
Parks is landscaping in the right-of-way. No detail is given on the site plan indicating whether any
changes are proposed as part of this development to the ROW area. If changes are proposed, a
detailed landscape plan should be submitted to the Parks Department for review and approval.
~\
,
ASPEN.PITKIN
ENVIf:10NMENTAL HEALTH DEPAJ::M'1VJENT
MEMORANDUM
To:
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
Chris Chiola, Environmental Health Department ((ie
Lee Cassin, Senior Environmental Health Officer '^ tL.
From:
Through:
Date:
October 7, 1994
Re:
624 E. Hopkins GMQS Allocation
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the 624 E. Hopkins
land use submittal under authority of the Municioal Code of the City of Asoen. and has
the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 ,,,haIl.....'wfulf."......'u__ot
uy InaiIdma: ..m for redcSenee or baIinSlr JlUIPl*I within the city to constnIct: or n!rOftItnXt an 011__ -se diIpoIal deYke..
The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection
lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this
department. The ability of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to handle the
increased flow for the project should be detennined by the ACSD. The applicant has
indicated in the documentation that the applicant and the service agency are mutually
bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development.
ADEOUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 'AIIb_,-.facilms,_MIh.
like within the city Iimib wbich 1IIe water .haIl be conneaed 10 the IllWIidpaI WIller uIiJity 1)'Ilem..
The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with
Environmental Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen
Water Department shall determine if adequate water is available for the project. The City
of Aspen water supply meets all standards of the Colorado Department of Health for
drinking water quality.
WATER QUALITY IMPACfS: Section 11-1.3 ................ol...........................m.....poI........Pply....
iDJUIY aDd. poUutiou, the city .hall serciR repIatory and JUperviIory jarildktion wkhfn the '&Ii(,). .....4tuI Jimil:I of the City or ~ and Oft!' aU Il:rUmI and mun:es contributin,
to munidp81 WlIlB' supplier for . dislance of live (5) miles IIbove the points from which munldpa1 wacer Rtpplies ~ diYerted..
This application is not expected to impact down stream water quality.
1
130 BDUt:h Galena Street:
Aspen. Colorado 81611
303,/880-15070
ft'r
rKrclfiJ~
. -
AIR OUALI1Y: Sections 11-2.1 ..........-ol[......__ol...Mwddpo!"""J.._..........................
01 air parity a-JbIe by requlriDa die me of aD avai18bIl! pmedealllIl!thodI and 1eduaiqaeJ 10 etlIDol. ptneat and redaee air poDudoa throu.Jhout the cily-. The Lud Vie
RquladDalIeek to -.e.en ~ aDd -.void b'aDIpOrt.lItio demmk tbBt t:IlMlIt be -c" . weD . to "prowide dean air by pramctiDa die DlIlunII air IhedI ud. recIudna:
_.
This project is not expected to negatively impact air quality in a non-attainment area.
The applicant is not proposing the use of woodstoves or gas log fireplaces. If these plans
change the applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental
Health Department before the building permit will be issued. Metropolitan areas of Pitkin
County, which includes this site, may have two department certified devices and unlimited
numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New buildings may NOT
have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 ........"""""........._...........___01__....
repreRDIa. pr8eIItudiDcrusiD&tbrelIttD the pubtie puce and totbe bed:h,. safety and ~Gttbe nadmt:I ofthe.Cityol AIpeslIlDdIt b...... _.Acc:ordinJIy, ft.
the poIiq of eoUDdl to pl'Oridl! Itandards for pennWblll! DDiIr Il!YeIIIa qriouf Ilte8I and IIIlHUI!I'II ad lit fttiouI times and to prohIbil: IIOiIe m emss of thole ~k..
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards,
and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.
It is vexy likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will
have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this
and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels.
...ENV:WP:LAND _ USE:E.HOPKINS.GMQS
2
tt"
Aspen {9onsolidated Sanitation q)istrict
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
FAX #(303) 925-2537
Tele. (303) 925-3601
Sy Kelly - Chairman
Albert Bishop - Treas.
Louis Popish - Secy,
Michael Kelly
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
October la, 1994
Kim Johnson
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 624 E. Hopkins GMQS
Dear Kim:
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has
sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this project.
There is a downstream constraint in the Galena street line for
which the applicant will be charged a prorated share of the cost
of improvement.
Service for the project is contingent upon compliance with the
District's Rules and Regulations which are on file at the office.
Total connection costs for the project can be estimated once
detailed plans are available and a tap permit is completed at the
District office,
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
z.,....wfv.,..<,~"'-' ~
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
1976 . 1986 . 1990
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
rq.~
~' ".....
ASPEN.PITKIN .
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OEPAFf'TMENT
MEMORANDUM
To:
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
Chris Chiola, Environmental Health Department Q?C
Lee Cassin, Senior Environmental Health Officer ;n'i:.C
From:
Through:
Date:
October 7, 1994
Re:
624 E. Hopkins GMQS Allocation
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the 624 E. Hopkins
land use submittal under authority of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. and has
the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 '''haUbeunJawfulfo''''.~o'~pantof
any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to COnstrUct or reconstruct an on-aite sewage disposal device.-
The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection
lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this
department. The ability of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to handle the
increased flow for the project should be determined by the ACSD. The applicant has
indicated in the documentation that the applicant and the service agency are mutually
bound to the proposal and that the service agency is capable of serving the development.
ADEOUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55 'AllbWldin..,_.f,ciliu..,,,...Ia,o,,'"
like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system.-
The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with
Environmental Health policies ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen
Water Department shall determine if adequate water is available for the project. The City
of Aspen water supply meets all standards of the Colorado Department of Health for
drinking water quality.
WATER OUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 '1'0"'" P...... of """""""'g and P"""""'g"' mwok'paI_'"ropp'y"m
injury and pollution. the city shall exercise regu1arory and supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporat:ed limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources contributing
[0 municipal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted."
This application is not expected to impact down stream water quality.
1
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
303/920-15070
'}fd-
fecycledpapef
AIR QUALITY: Sections 11-2.1 "Itisthepwposeof[theairqua1itysectionoftheMunidpalCode]toaclUevethemaximurnpractkaldegree
of air purity possible by requiring the use of all available practir:al methods and techniques to C'OIlb'OI, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..: The Land Use
Regulations seek to "lessen congestion. and -avoid transportation demands that cannot be ~ as well as to "provide dean air by protecting the nAtUml air sheds and reducing
ponutants-.
This project is not expected to negatively impact air quality in a non-attainment area.
The applicant is not proposing the use of woodstoves or gas log fireplaces. If these plans
change the applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental
Health Department before the building permit will be issued. Metropolitan areas of Pitkin
County, which includes this site, may have two department certified devices and unlimited
numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per building. New buildings may NOT
have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device use coal as fuel.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1 'The ci'Y rouncil fi"'" and """"".... 00"" " a .ign;&... ~~ of onviro~<aI ponurlo. tho,
represents a present and increasing threat to the public peace and to the health. safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen and it its visitors. .....Aceordingly, it is
the policy of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times aud to prolubit noise in eue5S of those levels.-
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards,
and construction cannot be done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.
It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will
have some negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this
and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels.
...ENV:WP:lAND _ USE:E.HOPKINS.GMQS
2
~"
.Aspen C9onsolidated Sanitation (District
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601
FAX #(303) 925.2537
Sy Kelly. Chairman
Albert Bishop - Treas.
Louis Popish. Secy.
Michael Kelly
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
October 10. 1994
Kim Johnson
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 624 E. Hopkins GMQS
Dear Kim:
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District currently has
sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this project.
There is a downstream constraint in the Galena street line for
which the applicant will be charged a prorated share of the cost
of i mpr ovemen t.
Service for the project is contingent upon compliance with the
District's Rules and Regulations which are on file at the office.
Total connection costs for the project can be estimated once
detailed plans are available and a tap permit is completed at the
District office.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~ ~_., -"-'_ .,,-1- q ~
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
EPA AWARDS OF EXCELLENCE
1976 - 1986 - 1990
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
~~
,/'"'.,
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO Kim Johnson
From: Stan Clauson
Postmark: Dec 29,94 5:48 PM
status: previously read
Subject: Reply to: 624 E. Hopkins housing
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply text:
From Stan Clauson:
It seems to me that payment-in-lieu is an option provided for in the
code, even if it is not a preferred option. Further, the amount the
payment needs to have a "rational nexus" to the actual impact, in
this case employee generation. If this project were competing with
others, I could see the need to accept the maximum benefit. But this
is a small project, and should be recognized for its limited impact
and cash flow. What happened to the consideration of some small
housing component in the project? This plus cash-in-lieu should be ok
Preceding message:
From Kim Johnson:
Any thoughts on their info. packet I gave you? Dave Tolen and I will
try to meet tomorrow. I think Dave's continuing concern is that
accepting cash won't really get us anywhere for the near future (and
less in the distant future given the cost spiral.)
Dave may also seek our support of the applicant purchasing housing in
Woody Creek area. I've gotten reserved support of this idea from
Mary, Les and cindy based on the AACP. I'll seek more input from
Mary on Friday. Please CEO with comments you might have. THanks.
-------========x========-------
fA
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 624 EAST HOPKINS COMMERCIAL GMQS ALLOCATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, November 1, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
City Hall, 130 S, Galena st., Aspen, to consider an application
submitted by MHS Partners, Box 1709, Aspen, CO, requesting approval
for a commercial Growth Management Quota System allocation of 2,700
net leasable square feet to construct a two story office building.
The property is located at 624 E. Hopkins Ave.; Lot Q and the west
~ of Lot R, Block 98, city and Townsite of Aspen. For further
information, contact Kim Johnson at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S, Galena st., Aspen, CO 920-5100 .
s/Bruce Kerr. chairman
Aspen Planninq and zoninq commission
Published in the Aspen Times on October 11, 1994
=================================================================
city of Aspen Account
-
C~k~0J~
9/2-'1 jel t(
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
,,-....
..,
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
Dave Tolen, Housing Office
624 East Hopkins Office Development Mitigation
5 January, 1995
The Housing Board considered mitigation for the 624 East Hopkins
project at its regular meeting of January 4, 1995, The board
considered the option for the applicant to purchase an existing
duplex in lower Woody Creek, rehabilitate the units, and sell them
to qualified category two employees.
Raco_aDdatioD:
recommendations:
3)
The Housing Board made
the
following
1) The applicant should explore offsite housing, approved by
the Housing Office, in a location closer to Aspen:
2)
If the applicant is unable to identify an
alternative, the duplex in Woody Creek
acceptable under the following conditions:
The units will be rehabilitated to the extent
required to meet health and safety codes and
provide affordable, quality units that will not
require additional improvement or maintenance
costs,
acceptable
would be
The units will be sold to qualified Category 2
households, at prices that do not exceed the
maximum sale price for a category two three bedroom
unit,
The Housing Board
housing only if
provided.
recommends payment of cash in lieu of
the above alternatives cannot be
,-
f
~ ' ~ ~ ',,' ,
::'/'JI!( ,
(:) /' ='
,
MEMeftAN.UM
Te:
M.yer .n. city ceuncil
TRIm:
Amy M_r~erum, City
st.n Cl.use~~y
M.n.~er
THlW:
cemmunity .evele~ment .irecter
FROM:
Kim Johnson. Planner
DATE:
January 23, 1995
RE:
624 E. Hopkins Affordable
Commercial Growth Management
- continued Second Reading
1994
Housing Proposal for 1994
Allocation and Vested Rights
of Ordinance 70, Series of
-------------------------------------------~---------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: City council considered second reading of Ordinance 70
on January 9, 1995. At that meeting, the applicants presented that
the Housing Board supported the concept of the purchase and deed
restriction of a duplex in the Woody Creek area in order to
substantially fulfill the project's housing requirement of 7.09
persons. A straw vote of Council indicated that they would accept
an amended version of Ordinance 70 based on the Housing Board's
recommendations.
staff is forwarding a revised ordinance for adoption. The .ffecte.
sections are "Whereas" paragraphs 4.7 and 8 and section 1.
The amended conditions read:
1)
The applicant shall exercise all due diligence
six bedroom duplex in' the Woody Creek area
persons subject to the following:
to purchase a
to house six
a. The units will be rehabilitated to the extent required
to meet health and safety codes and provide affordable,
quality units that will not require additional
improvement or maintenance costs.
b.
The units
households,
price for a
will be sold to qualified
at prices that do not exceed the
Category 2 three-bedroom unit.
Category 2
maximum sale
c. The remaining 1.09 employees shall be mitigated by the
payment of cash at a rate which is the average of the
Category 2 and Category 3 cash-in-lieu amounts as
established in the APCHA Guidelines in effect at the time
of payment. Payment shall be made to the city Finance
Office.
2) If the above alternative cannot be provided. the applicant
-""".
.... -',
, tr t'
Vf~1 I
'.Jr~"lJ fj..--'
0. ( ,
t.<../'" .--f
/",> / .:' __/.-./3)
'II
.;c,! .'
I u
shall pay cash-in-lieu for 7.09 employees at a rate per person
which is the average of the category 2 and Category 3 cash-
in-lieu amounts as established in the APCHA Guidelines in
e~fect. at the ti~e of payme. nt.. Pa,Yment shal~..be made t,o the ,), .
c;t;y F~,nanc:J OfflC~..", Jl"t ~_-t'",-1Zv tfUh'~kr~.1 :fe< v'~. '" 1-.'rO<.l
/\,L.fCit'"UJ' 4, (' 1,,11\l>..f,. '.', ,I ;/~('j/..,f ~dd;.,'~ C', ~ )J~ .~(<l,,<,
The above housing mitigation conditi~s shall' accomplishe&
prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve on second reading Ordinance
70, Series of 1994 as amended from first reading, accepting a
housing mitigation package for the 624 E. Hopkins GMQS project."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ordinance 70, Series of 1994
EXHIBIT A - Housing Office Memo, January 5, 1995
----
,r"',.
ORDINANCE NO. 70
(Series of 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING THE HOUSING MITIGATION PROPOSAL AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR A
PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FOR THE 1994 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT
ALLOTMENT FOR THE 624 EAST HOPKINS PROJECT LOCATED ON LOT Q AND
ONE-HALF OF LOT R, BLOCK 98, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning commission reviewed the
624 E. Hopkins project on November 1, 1994, and approved. in
conjunction with growth management scoring, special reviews for
trash area reduction and parking reduction; and
WHEREAS, on November 28, 1994 the City Council of the City of
Aspen awarded a commercial/office development allotment in the CC
(Commercial Core) and C-1 (Commercial) zone districts for 1994
pursuant to Resolution No.88 (Series 1994) 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 624 E. Hopkins was
awarded 2,700 square feet of net leasable area within the 1994
commercial/office development allotments; and
WHEREAS, the development of the 624 E. Hopkins project must
mitigate for 7.09 employees; and
WHEREAS, the 624 E. Hopkins project originally requested that
the City Council approve an affordable housing mitigation package
in which it would pay cash-in-lieu at the category] level for its
entire affordable housing obligation. This was because the small
size of the site essentially precludes incorporating housing int9
I
the building design which has already received approval by the
Historic Preservation Committee; and
1
r
r
WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office reviewed the
proposed mitigation package on October 18, 1994 and forwarded the
Housing Board's preference to first provide on-site housing,
secondly provide off-site housing, and lastly provide cash-in-lieu
for affordable housing mitigation; and
WHEREAS, based on typical incomes of general office employees.
the Housing Office also recommended that any cash payment be
calculated on the average of the Category 2 and Category 3 income
amounts; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of the difficulties of the site and
Housing Office's second preference to purchase units, the applicant
met with the Housing Board on January 4, 1995, to discuss the
purchase of a duplex in the Woody Creek area. The Housing Office
then forwarded to the Planning Office and City Council an updated
opinion which supported the purchase of the Woody Creek units, with
conditions, and included the fall-back option for all cash-in-lieu
mitigation for this project; and
WHEREAS, the city Council has determined the 624 E. Hopkins
housing mitigation proposal for the purchase of the Woody Creek
duplex and/or all cash mitigation for 7.09 employees to be fair and
equitable and consistent with the mitigation requirements contained
in section 8-109 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, a request for Vested Rights for the development was
submitted to the Planning Office within the growth management
application; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal
2
I""'"
I
-"
Code the city Council may grant Vesting of Development Rights for
a site specific development plan for a period of three years from
the date of final development plan approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
section 1:
In accordance with section 24-8-109(J) of the Aspen
Municipal Code, City Council does hereby accept the employee
housing mitigation plan for 7.09 employees as required by the 624
E. Hopkins project to be as follows:
1) The applicant shall exercise all due diligence to purchase a
six bedroom duplex in the Woody Creek area to house six
persons subject to the following:
a. The units will be rehabilitated to the extent required
to meet health and safety codes and provide affordable,
quality units that will not require additional
improvement or maintenance costs.
b.
The. units
households,
price for a
will be sold to qualified
at prices that do not exceed the
Category 2 three-bedroom unit.
Category 2
maximum sale
c. The remaining 1.09 employees shall be mitigated by the
payment of cash at a rate which is the average of the
Category 2 and Category 3 cash-in-lieu amounts as
established in the APCHA Guidelines in effect at the time
of payment. Payment shall be made to the City Finance
Office.
2) If the above alternative cannot be provided, the applicant
shall pay cash-in-lieu for 7.09 employees at a rate per person
which is the average of the Category 2 and Category 3 cash-
in-lieu amounts as established in the APCHA Guidelines in
effect at the time of payment. Payment shall be made to the
city Finance Office.
3) The above housing mitigation conditions shall be accomplished
prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project.
section 2:
Pursuant to section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code,
City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the
3
f'
......
624 E. Hopkins site specific development plan as follows:
1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by Resolution No.88, Series of 1994, shall
remain vested until November 28, 1997. However, any
failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant
to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly
record all plats and agreements as specified herein and
or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the
forfeiture of said vested rights.
2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all
rights of referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance or
Resolution No.SS, Series of 1994, shall exempt the site
specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or
approvals required by this ordinance, Resolution No.8S,
Series of 1994, 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.
4. 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 3: The city Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to
be published in a newspaper of general circulation 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.
4
,....."
,
'""'
section 4: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of
1995 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior
to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published
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 13th day of December,
1994.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S, Koch, city Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this
, 1995.
day of
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S, Koch, City Clerk
5
-
,..'.....
THRU:
Amy Margerum, City
/,'
stan ClaUSO~y
Manager
(r. 23. .J. o-J
/It ~ f(;U-
f0\ tf5d ~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and City Council
THRU:
Community Development Director
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE:
January 9, 1995
RE:
624 E. Hopkins Affordable Housing Proposal for 1994
Commercial Growth Management Allocation and Vested Rights
- Second Reading of Ordinance 70, Series of 1994
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
SUMMARY: The Planning Office does not forward a recommendation at
this time on this project's housing proposal for an all-cash
mitigation for 7.09 employees. On January 5, a discussion before
the Housing Board will consider the potential purchase of one or
more units outside of the city limits of Aspen. The Aspen Area
Community Plan recognizes the need to secure affordable housing up
valley from the Aspen Village area. Further information on the
Housing Board's findings will be presented at the Council meeting.
since first reading on December 13, 1994, the applicant has
sUbmitted~~~':~~~n~l iQtormat~ regarding the financial position
of the pr ec and the l.mpacts of housing mitigation on the
project. This information dated December 22, 1994 is attached as
Exhibit "A".
The Planning and Zoning commission forwards a split vote of 3-3 on
the all-cash mitigation proposal based on the small size of the
parcel and the proposed development, and the design constraints
which have evolved through HPC review.
BACKGROUND: The development proposal is seeking a commercial GMQS
allotment for 2,700 square feet of net leasable square feet for the
construction of a new office building. The Planning and Zoning
Commission scored the project on November 1, 1994, finding that the
GMQS thresholds have been met. A separate staff memo and
resolution is under Council's consideration for the square footage
allocation.
PROPOSAL AND KEY ISSUES: The design of the structure was approved
by the Historic Preservation Committee in 1992. At that time the
building was to be a residence. Based on the building's 2,700 s.f.
of net leasable area and the Housing Office's determination on
employee generation of 4.375 employees per 1,000 s.t. of net
leasable (for general off uses), the project must mitigate for 7.09
employees. The following equation establishes the mitigation
~
--
"'""
figure:
2,700 s.f. net leasable at 4.375 empl./ thousand s.f. = 11.81 gross
employee generation
11.81 employee X 60% (minimum GMQS mitigation threshold) = 7.09
employee
The applicants have proposed to mitigate their employee generation
by making a cash payment for 7.09 employees. The applicants state
that the price/income category for the mitigation should be
Category 3 because of their intent that the building would be
occupied by an architecture firm. Please refer to the application
booklet distributed prior to first reading regarding housing
mitigation, as well as the December 22, 1994 update from the
applicant (Exhibit A) and original Housing Office referral memo
(Exhibit B.)
The Housing Board's standard preferences for affordable housing
mitigation is as follows, however these options will be further
discussed with Council on January 9.
1) on-site housing
2) off-site housing
3) cash-in-lieu/land-in-lieu
section 24-8-109 J. lists five factors with which to consider a
GMP housing proposal:
1) Whether the city has an adopted plan to develop
housing with monies received from payment of
housing dedication fees.
affordable
affordable
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 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.
The Planning and zoning commission reviewed the all-cash proposal
and was split in its recommendation to Council. Three
commissioners were in favor of the cash mitigation based on the
2
-
-
size of the project (and the inability to fit housing into the
small size of the building) and the fact that this is a needed
infill project that should get underway as soon as possible. The
other three commissioners were in favor of the applicant proposing
a purchase of existing housing unites) as well as cash payment for
some employees. These commissioners were also sympathetic to the
small size of the development. All of the commissioners felt that
the applicant should continue to explore other housing options
prior to final approval by Council.
Per the Housing Office's referral memo recommendation, any cash
accepted for housing mitigation should be the average of Categories
2 and 3 amounts. This is based on incomes of a typical range of
office employees.
If City Council wishes to approve the cash mitigation, staff
forwards Ordinance 70 from first reading which requires cash
mitigation for 7.09 employees at an amount which is the average of
Category 2 and category 3 amounts in effect at the time of payment.
Vested rights for the project is not a problem. However, the three
year vested rights period commences on the date that the Council
approved the GMQS allocation as the applicant does not need to
pursue any additional land use approvals to pull a building permit.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office withholds a recommendation at
this time pending the outcome of the Housing Board's discussion on
a downvalley purchase.
The Planning and Zoning commission forwards a split recommendation
(3-3) for the all-cash mitigation.
ALTERNATIVES: The Council may opt to table this item and direct
the applicant to continue to work with the Housing Office to
explore options of providing deed restricted units for all or a
portion of its affordable housing obligations and return with a
revised housing package.
The Council may elect to approve the ordinance accepting an all-
cash mitigation based on the average of the Category 2 and Category
3 amounts, or as proposed by the applicant at Category 3.
PROPOSED MOTION: none
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ordinance 70, Series of 1994
EXHIBITS
A. December 22, 1994 Financial Data from Applicant
B. October 18, 1994 Housing Office Referral Memo
3
-.
C1ty ::.....U __~h~~~:
'~" . . l' . ~
Ap~ov-.. '.<> ..~. <::;;
. .-.,..-,.- ._~;- ,
Il ord1iiance-:--"~-'.c:"-'-='~
y . -_.~~_.
MEMORANDUM .------ -~~.' '''''',:'T''I
TO:
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
PROM:
Cindy Christensen, Housing Office
...
DATE:
October 18, 1994
RE:
624 East Hopkins GMQS Allocation
Parcel ID No. 2737-073-32-004
ISSUE: The applicant is requesting a growth management quota
allocation of 2,700 net leasable square feet. The applicant is
requesting approval for a cash-in-lieu fee to mitigate for housing
instead of providing employee housing.
BACKGROUND: The Housing Board has established policies in the
Affordable Housing Guidelines regarding mitigating affordable
housing impacts. Their preference is as follows:
1. On-site housing;
2. Off-site housing, including buydown concept;
3. Cash-in-lieu/land-in-lieu.
RECOMMENDATION: The proposed development is located in the C-1
zone district. Therefore, the Housing Office would recommend that
the applicant provide on-site housing for 7.09 employees. The Code
specifies that 3.50 to 5.25 employees/1, 000 square feet needs to be
mitigated. Because of the nature of the business, the Housing
Office recommends that the applicant mitigate for 3.50 + 5.25
employees X 50% = 4.375 X 2.7 = 11.81. Sixty percent of the 11.81
employees must be mitigated, or 7.09 employees.
A possible scenario for on-site housing would be to provide two
three-bedroom units and a studio unit.
The applicant is also requesting to mitigate the employees as
Category 3. The Housing Office contends that there should be a
split between Category 2 and Category 3 mitigation. Therefore,
should a cash-in-lieu fee be approved by City Council, the Housing
Office would recommend a fee of $51,000 + 34,000 + 2 = $42,500 X
7.09 = $301,325.
Again, the Housing Office prefers on-site housing over a cash-in-
lieu payment.
Iclc:word\referral\624eh.em
-
/'"
ORDINANCE NO, 70
(Series of 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
APPROVING THE HOOSING MITIGATION PROPOSAL AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR A
PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FOR THE 1994 COMMERCIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT
ALLOTMENT FOR THE 624 EAST HOPKINS PROJECT LOCATED ON LOT Q AND
ONE-HALF OF LOT R, BLOCK 98, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and zoning commission reviewed the
624 E. Hopkins project on November 1, 1994, and approved, in
conjunction with growth management scoring, special reviews for
trash area reduction and parking reduction; and
WHEREAS, on November 28, 1994 the city Council of the City of
Aspen awarded a commercial/office development allotment in the CC
(Commercial Core) and C-l (Commercial) zone districts for 1994
pursuant to Resolution No.
(Series 1994) 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 624 E. Hopkins was
awarded 2,700 square feet of net leasable area within the 1994
commercial/office development allotments; and
WHEREAS, the development of the 624 E. Hopkins project must
mitigate for 7.09 employees; and
WHEREAS, the 624 E. Hopkins project requested that the City
Council approve an affordable housing mitigation package in which
it shall pay cash-in-lieu at the Category 3 level for its entire
affordable housing obligation; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Office reviewed the
proposed mitigation package on October 18, 1994 and forwarded the
Housing Board's preference to first provide on-site housing,
1
-.
,'"
secondly provide off-site housing, and lastly provide cash-in-lieu
for affordable housing mitigation; and
WHEREAS, based on typical incomes of general office employees,
the Housing Office also recommended that any cash payment be
calculated on the average of the category 2 and Category 3 income
amounts; and
WHEREAS, the city council has determined the 624 E. Hopkins
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; and
WHEREAS, a request for Vested Rights for the development was
submitted to the Planning Office within the growth management
application; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal
Code the City Council may grant Vesting of Development Rights for
a site specific development plan for a period of three years from
the date of final development plan approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
section 1:
In accordance with section 24-8-109(J) of the Aspen
Municipal Code, city Council does hereby accept the employee
housing mitigation plan for 7.09 employees as required by the 624
E. Hopkins project to be a cash payment with the following
conditions:
1) The payment shall be calculated at the average of the category
2 and Category 3 cash-in-lieu amounts as established in the
APCHA Guidelines in effect at the time of payment.
2
-
"...
2) The payment shall be made to the Finance Office prior to the
issuance of any building permits for the project.
section 2:
Pursuant to section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code,
City Council does hereby grant the applicant vested rights for the
624 E. Hopkins site specific development plan as follows:
1. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by Resolution No. ,Series of 1994, shall
remain vested until November 28, 1997. However, any
failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant
to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly
record all plats and agreements as specified herein and
or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the
forfeiture of said vested rights.
2. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all
rights of referendum and judicial review.
3. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance or
Resolution No. , Series of 1994, shall exempt the site
specific development plan from subsequent reviews and or
approvals required by this Ordinance, Resolution No. ,
Series of 1994, or the general rules, regulationsor
ordinances of the City provided that such reviews or
approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted
and vested herein.
4. 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 3: The city Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to
be published in a newspaper of general circulation 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
3
-
"'""
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 4: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
_ day of
1995 at 5: 00 P.M. in the city council
Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior
to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published
in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the city of Aspen on the
day of
, 1994.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S, Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this
, 1995.
day of
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S, Koch, city Clerk
4
-
/-..
C1ty Council Eyhi hitL
~...ved . , 19 _
By Ordinance
I__:i:' ,.., ,-.,
t. L
605 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE 3031925-4755
FACSIMILE 3031920-2950
--~---
-.---.
December 22, 1994
Ms. Kim Johnson
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Employee Impact Mitigation - 624 East Hopkins
Dear Kim:
As you are aware, the partners in the 624 East Hopkins commercial project have
requested the ability to satisfy their employee housing commitment by providing a
payment-in-lieu fee of just over $300,000.00. During their consideration of
Ordinance 70, series of 1994, last month the majority of city council, while
sympathetic to the hardships and financial constraints that led to this request, felt
uncomfortable accepting a payment-in-lieu fee. One suggestion brought up by
council person Richards, during the discussion, was for the developers to share with
the city their financial analysis of the project.
What follows is a conceptualized pro forma for the project. This pro forma assumes
a payment-in-lieu fee of slightly more than $300,000.00.
I. Development Costs
a. Land Acquisitiol1
b. Architectural Fees
c. Permit and Fees
d. Building Costs ($150.lsJ.)
e. Impact Fees
f. Construction Interest
$ 900,000.00
75,000.00
25,000.00
750,000.00
300,000.00
75.000.00
TOTAL Development Costs
$2,125,000.00
.-
Employee Impact Mitigation - 624 East Hopkins
December 22, 1994
II. Projected Yearly Income
a. Upper Levels: 2,700 s.f. at $35.1s.f.
b. Basement Storage: 1,400 s.f. at $18.1s.f.
TOTAL Project Yearly Income
III. Projected Yearly Expenses
a. Real Estate Tax
b. Insurance
c. Utilities (heat and light)
d. Maintenance
e. Management
f. Mortgage Interest (1.2 million at 10%)
TOTAL Projected Yearly Expenses
IV. Summary
a. Projected Yearly Income
b. Projected Yearly Expenses
YEARLY PROFIT <DEFICIT>
./.........
$ 94,500.00
25.200.00
$119,700.00
$ 15,000.00
2,000.00
6,000.00
7,500.00
5,000.00
120,000.00
$155,500.00
$119,700.00
155.500.00
<$ 35,800.00>
As you can see from the above analysis, the project generates a yearly deficit of
almost $36,000.00. Any increase in the affordable housing mitigation costs will
obviously increase this deficit. Clearly this project can only be classified as a very
long term investment which only makes financial sense for an owner occupant such
as Bill Pass and Associates,
2
-
..-......
Employee Impact Mitigation - 624 East Hopkins
December 22, 1994
For these reasons would respectively request the City Council to further consider our
request to satisfy the affordable housing requirement by the providing of a payment-
in-lieu fee.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
J;iJJ/
KimWeil
Associate
3
..
Saturda}LSunday. October 15-16. 1994. 11le Aspen Times 21-C
Public Notice
~
ORDiNANCE NO. 46
(Serlel oJ 199-4)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
mE CITY OF AsPEN. COLORADO, VACATING
PORTIONS OF GALENA STREET ADJOINING
THE CUL-DE-SAC AT ITS NORTH TERMINUS
. CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2,531 SQUARE
FEET All wmtlN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PJTKJN
COUNI'Y, COWRADO.
Cop6eI 01 thJt ordinance are av.llable In the
office 01 the City Clerk. City Hall, 130 South
Galena, "-pen, duriDl normal buslneu hours.
f1NAU. Y adopted, passed and approved this
11 day of October 1994.
John S. Bennett, Mayor
A1TEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Published In The Aspen Times October 14.
1....
ORDINANCE NO. 47
(SERIES OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUN-
CIL GRANTING A REZONlNG FROM Af.2 PUD
TO OPEN SPACE (OS) TO THE PUBLlCALLY
OWNED ZOUNE OPEN SPACE SEC110NS 2 & II,
TOWNSHIP 10 SOlJlll, RANGE 85 WFST OFTHE
61lI P.M., HlGHWAY 82,ASPEN COLORADO
Copies of this ordinance are available In the
ofllce of the City Clerk. City Hall, 130 South
Galena, Aspen, durlng nonnal buslneu hours.
f1NAU..Y Adopted, pused and approved this
n day 01 October, 1994.
John sennett, Mayor
A 1TI3T: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk .
Publlsh~ In The Aspen Times October 14,
1994.
ORDINANCE NO. 48
(5erleoofl"')
AN ORDINANCE OF mE ASPEN CITY COUN-
Cn. DFSIGNATlNG S20 WALNlfI'STREET, LOT 8
AND THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 9, BLOCK 3,
W1UlAM'S ADDITION TO mE cm OF ASPEN,
AS -H; HISTORIC LANDMARK PURSUANT TO
SECTJON 24-7-703 OF mE MUNICIPAL COOF.
Copies of this ordinance are available In the
olflce of the City Clerk, City Hall, 130 South
.Galena, Aspen, durlng nonnal business hours.
f1NAU. Y adopted, passed and approved this
n dayofOctober,I994.
A1TI3T: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Publl5hed In The Aspen Times October 14,
,....
ORIlINANCE NO. 50 AN ORDINANCE OF mE
CITY COUNCn. OF11iE cm OF ASPEN, COJ...
ORAOO AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF TIiE
MUNICIPAL CODE. LAND USE REGUUTIONS,
TO PROVIDE A PLANNING AND ZONING COM- .
MISSION SPECIAL REVIEW TO PERMIT PARK.
ING ON GARAGE APRONS IN MULTl-FAMIL Y
PROJECTS SUWECT TO NEW REVIEW CRITE-
RIA ESTABUSHEO IN SECTION 24-5-302(A) AND
SECTION 24-7404(B)
Copies of tWs ordinance are available In the
olflce 01 the CUy Clerk, CUy Hall, 130 South
Galena, Aspen, during nonnal business houn.
FlNA1l.Y, adopted,-pused and approved this
II day of <ktober, 1994.
John Bennett, Mayor
A'ITI'ST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Published In The Aspen Times October 14,
1994.
ORDINANCE 51 (SERIES OF 1994)
. AN ORDINANCE OF 1lIE ASPEN CITY COUN-
CIL GRANTING A SOC: MONTH EXTENSlON OF
TIlE 1992 LODGE GMQS AU.OTMENT GRANT-
ED BV ORDINANCE 3, SEIUF.S OF 1993 FOR 720
EAST COOPER AVENUE, ASPEN COLORADO.
Copies 01 this ordinance are available In the
office 01 the City Clerk, City Hall, 130 South
Galena, Aspen, durill8 DOnnal business hours.
FINAU. V, adopted, paued and approved this
11 day of October, 1994.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATI'EST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Published In The Aspen Times October 14,
1....
PUBUC NOTICE
Piease take notice that the Board of County
Commissioners finally adopted approved on
October 11,.1994, the following Re5oluUon No.
94-18J:
ProoN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS-
SIONERS RESOLlmON 94-181 AIJfHORlZJNG
11iE ISSUANCE OF PITKIN COUNTY, COL-
ORAOO, AIRPORT REFUNDING REVENUE
BONDS,SF.RlES 1994, IN TIlE AGGREGATE PRIN-
CIPAL AMOUNT OF $1,140,000; AND PROVJD-
lNG OCfAII..S IN CONNECTION TIiEREWlTIi
1be resolution authorizes the Board of Coun-
ty Commissioners (the -Board"), on behalf of
Pitkin County, Colorado (the -County.), to
Issue the -Pitkin County, Colorado, Airport
Relundlna Revenue Bonds, Serles 1994,- (the
"Series 1994 Bonds") in an aaregate principal
amount of $1,140,000 for the purpose of provkl-
Ina funds to refund, pay, and discharge the
County's outstanding AIrport Refunding Rev-
enue Bonds, dated as of April I, 1983 (the
-Refunding ProJectj. The Series 1994 Bonds
wW be dated u of October 15, 1994, will mature
on December 1 olahe years 1995 through 2004,
and will bear Ink,., from tJlejr date to maturi-
ty at rates ranglnJ from 4.10 to 5.50 per annum,
pa~able seml-vlnually on June I and December
1 in each year, commencing December 1, 1994.
The Series 1994 Bonds will be subject to
redemption prlor to their stated matuTlty. at
the opUon 01 the County, on December I, 1999,
or any date thereafter.
The resolution, In summary outline, Is as fol-
lows:
Preambte recites the authority lor Issuance of
the 5erles 1994 Bonds and other matters relat-
lnathereto.
Section 1 defines certain terms for all pulpos-
a 01 this reaoluUon.
Section 2 rlUlIa all action prevkJUlIy taken.
by the County In respect to the Refunding Pro-
Jeet and the sale and delivery 01 the Serles 1994
......
Section 3 authorizes the luuance 01 the
Sedes 1994 Bonds.
Section 4 seta forth tbe detatls of the SerIes
1994 Bonds.
Section 5 authorizes the optional prior
redempUon of the SerleI 1994 Bondi.
Section 6 sets forth the execution and autho-
rlzaUon requirements.
Section 7 descri* registration, transfer and
exchanse procedQns.
Section 8 provides that the Series 1994 Bonds
be fully negotiable.
Section 9 states the neceulty for and
approval 01 the Project and the Series 1994
Bonds. .
Section 10 provides that the Series 1994
Bonds are equally secured.
Section II provides that the Series 1994
Bonds are special limited obllllalions of the
County and are not to be considered general
obllgoltlons or Indebtedness 01 the County.
Section 12 describes the character of the
agreement
Section 13 statel that paymenl of the Series
1994 Bonds Is not secured by the pledge of any
property.
Section 14 accepts the purchase contract for
the SerIes 1994 Bondi.
Section 15 Is reserved.
Section 16 authorizes the execution and use
of the final oUerlna statement for the Series
1994 Bo'lds.
Section 17 sets forth the lorm of the Series
1994 Bonds, Certificates, and Relllstration
Panel.
Section 18 provides for the application of
gross revenues.
Section 19 provides lor delivery of the Series
1994 Bonds.
Section 20 provides for the disposition of
bond proceeds.
SecUon 21 provides for the redemption of the
outstanding 1983 Refw1dlng Bonds.
SectIon 22 providelllor the.redempUon of the
outstanding 1983 Revenue Bonds,
SecUon23 " reserved.
Sectlon 24 provides for the transfer 01 funds
and accounts.
Section 25 provides for a Reserve Account
Section 26 provides lor a Rebate Fund.
Section 27 describes the general adminlstr.
tlon of funds.
Section 28 describes the rate maintenance
covenant.
Section 29 seu lorth tax covenants.
Section 30 sets forth additional general
covenants.
Section 31 provides for additional parity
bonds.
Section 32 dellnes -Events of Default.-
%lIWl 3S concerR6 remedies for deJAUlt
SecUon 34 concerns dutlel upOn default.
Section 35 specllles no Impairment of the
Series 1989 Bonds.
Section 36 concerns defeasance.
Section 37 provides for amendment of the
resolution.
Section 38 concerns successor registrars or
paying agents.
SecUon 39 provides for boR!J Insurance from
AMBAC Indemnity Corporation.
Section 40 speclfles a payment procedure
pursuant to the municipal bond Insurance poil-
<yo
Section 41 specifies nolices to be lIlven to
AMBAC. .
Section 42 concerns consent of AMBAC.
Section 43 concerns the parties Interested
herein.
Section 44 COncerns the effect of actions on
bond owners.
Section 45 states findings about the maxi-
mum net effective Interest rate and remaining
authorization.
SecUon 46 directs ofiicers and employees 01
the County 10 take all action necessary to effec.
tuate the provisions of the Resolution.
Section 47 concerRlseverabillty.
Section 48 repeals all conmctlng resolutions.
Section 49 provides that the resolution will
be Irrepealable until a certain time.
Section 50 provides that the resolution will
be effective Immediately upon Its adoption.
Section 51 provides lor publication by title
and short outline.
flNA1l.. Y AOOPTED AND APPROVED, the I Uh
dayofOctober,I994.
Copies of the lull text oJ the resolution are
available In the Pitkin County Clerk's Olllce dur-
Ing regular business hours at S30 E. Main
51_.
Pu)Ilshed The the Aspen Times on October
14, f994.
PUBLIC NOTICE
HE: AlPINE BANK AABC BRANCH OFflCE SPE-
ClAL REVlEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hear-
lna wUl be held on Tuesday, November 15, 1994
at a regular meetlnll to begin at 5:00 pm before
the Board 01 County Commissioners, mstrlct
Courtroom, 506 East MaIn Street, Aspen to con.
skier an application submitted by Alpine Bank
reqUelUng Special Review approval to allow a
walk-In bank branch office at the Aspen Airport
Business Center. The property is located on
wt 1, Block 3, Allng I, Aspen AIrport Business
Center. For further Information contact Ellen
SusanO at the Alpen/Pltkln Plannln, Olllce,
_.
s/Robert W. Chlkl, Chalnnan
Board 01 County Commissioners
Published In The Aspen TImes on October 14,
1....
PUBUC NOTICE
RE: OWL CREEK RANCH, LOT 8, SPECIAL
REVIEW TO ALLOW IN. EXCESS OF 15,000
SQUARE fl:ET OF FLOOR ARFA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN that a public hear-
Ini will be he&d on Tuesday, November 15, 1994
at a regular meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before
the Pitkin County Board of County Commls.
slonen, District Courtroom, Pitkin County
Courthouse, 506 East Main Street, Aspen to
consider an application submitted by Prime
Aspen Properties, Ltd., requesting Special
Review approval to allow In excess of 15,000
square leet of Ooor area. The property Is locat-
ed at Lot 8, Owl Creek RaDch PUD. For further
Information contact Rick Malllll at the
Aspen/PItkln Planning Office, 920-5062.
./Jody Edwards, Chairman
Pitkin County Plannlna and
Zoolna Commission
Published In The Aspen Times on October 14,
1....
PUBUC NOTICE
RE: OATES CARETAKER DWELLING UNIT
REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GNEN that a public hear-
Ing will be-held on Tuesday, November 15, 1994
at II regular meetlna to begin at 5:00 pm before
the Board of County Commissioners, District
Courtroom, S06 East MaIn Street, Aspen to con-
sider an application submitted by John Oates
reqUelfUng approval lor a 600 square loot care-
taker dwelllna unit In an existing cabin. The
property Is located on Lot 2, WoUson Subdlvl-
alon. For further Infonnatlon contact Rick Mag-
III at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Oltlce, 926-5062.
sjRobert W. Child, Chalnnan
Board 01 County Commissioners
Published In The Aspen TImes on October 14,
19\14:
P\JBUC NOTICE
RE: 624 fAST HOPKINS COMMfRC1AL GMQS
AU.OCATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hear-
Ing win be hekI on Tuesday, November I, 1994
at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the
Aspen Planning and Zoolna Commission. 2nd
Roor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St.,
Aspen, to consider an application submitted by
MHS Partners, Box 1709, Aspen, CO, requestina
approval for a commercial Growth Manage-
ment Quota System allocation of 2,700 net
leasable square leet to construct a two story
office bulldlna. The properly Is located at 624 E.
Hopkins Ave.; Lot Q and the west ?' Lot R,
Block- 98, CUr anti Tnwnslte ul As~n..lor Cur.
ther Information, contact Kim John~W at the
Aspen/Pltldn Planning Office, 130 S. Galena St.,
Aspen, CO 920-5100
S/Bruce Kerr, Chairman
Aspen PlaMlng and Zoning Commission
Published In the Aspen TImes on October 14,
,...
PUBUC NOTICE
HE: DflJSE 1041 HAZARD REVIEW &. GENER-
'AI.. SUBMISSION
NOTICE IS HERFBY GIVEN that a public hear-
loll win be held on Tuesday, November 15, 1994
at a regular meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before
the Board of County Commissioners, District
Courtroom, S06 E. Maln St, Aspen to consider
an application submitted by Donald Delise
requestinll 1041 Huard Review and General
Submission approval lor construction 01 a sln-
lIle family residence. 1be property is located on
the east side of Castle Creek Road approximate-
ly 4 miles south of Hillhway 82; Philadelphia
mill site (M.S. 7570 B), the Highland Mary (M.S.
7570) and the Wilton Belle (M.S. 2111). For fur-
ther Information contact Tim Malloy at the
Aspen/PltJdn PlanolRB OHlce. 920-509S.
s/Robert W. CWld, Chalnnan
Board of County Comml$sloners
Published In the Aspen TImes on October 14.
,...
PUBUC NOTICE
RE: 939 EAST COOPER AVENUE LANDMARK
DESIGNATION AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOP-
MENT REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBV GIVEN that a public hear-
Ina will be held On Wednesday, November 2,
1994, It I special meetina to begin at 5:00 pm
before the Aspen HistoTlc Preservation Com-
mittee In the second floor meetlna room, City
Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to
consider an application spbmltted by Bob &.
Darnell 1.aniley requesting approval of land-
mark Designation and Conceptual Development
Review to duplex the existing historic resi-
dence and 10 construct three detached units on
the property at 939 East Cooper AvenUl;!, Lot A,
Block 37, East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen.
For further Information, contact Amy Amidon
at the Aspen Pitkin Plannlna Office, 130 S. Gale-
na St. Aspen, CO. 920-5096.
, I/Joseph Krabacher, Chairman
Aspen Historic Preservation Committee
Published In The Aspen TImes on <ktober 14,
1'"
PUBUC NOTICE
RE: JAfFEE 1041 HAZARD REVIEW AND GEN-
ERALSUBMISSION
NoncE IS HERFBV GNEN that a pubUc hear-
Ina wlU be held on Tuesday, November 15, 1994
at a regular meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before
the Board 01 County Commissioners, District
Courtroom, 506 East MaIn Street, Aspen to con-
skfer an application subtnltted by WUton Jaffee,
Jr. reqUeltlng approval of 1041 Hazard RevIew
and General Submission. The property Is locat.
ed approximately three miles southeast of
Highway 133 on the south aide 01 Prince Creek
Road In Section 24, Township 8 South, Ranae 88
West. For further Infonnatlon contact Dlen Sas-
sano at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 920-
5098.
s/Robert W. ChUd, Chalnnan
Board 01 County Commissioners
Published In The Aspen Times on October 14,
,...
NOTICEOFPUBUCH~NG
PLEASE TAKE NCYfICE: That the Board of
County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Co'I-
orado wUl conduct a publk: hearlnll on the fol-
lowing resolution on October 25, 1994 at 5:00
pm, and the Board of County Commissioners
Meeting Room, Pitkin County Courthouse, 506
F. Main Street, AsPen, Colorado, at which time
and place all members of the public may
appear and be heard:
A RESOumON OF TIiE BOARD OF COlMY
COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COL-
ORADO, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
ProoN COUNTY, COLORADO, GENERAl.. OBU-
GATION OPEN SPACE REFUNDING AND
IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1994, IN THE
AGGREGATE- PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF
$/),100,000 AND PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN
DETAILS iN CONNEC11ON TIiEREWTIli.
Copies of the proposed resolution are avan:
able for public Inspection 'rom 8:30 am to 4:30
pm In the office of the Clerk and Recorder, 530
E. Main Street, Aspen, Colorado. Phone 920-51
BO.
Jeanette Jones, Deputy County Clerk -
Published In The Aspen Times on October 14,
,...
NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: That the Board of.
County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Col-
orado wUl conduct a public hearlna on the fol-
lowing ordinance at 5:00 p.m. on the 25th day
of October, 1994, at the Board 01 County Com-
missioners Meeuna Room, Pitkin County Court-
house Plaza, 530 East Main Streel, Aspen, Col-
orado, at whlch time and place all members of
the publiC may appear and be heard:
AN ORDINANCE OF TIiE BOARD OF COUN'IY
COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COL-
ORADO GRAl'mNG AN ACCESS EASEMFNI' TO
THE DEVELOPERS OF WILLIAMS RANCH
ACROSS THE MOWE GIBSON PARK Ordinance
No'-
Serle$ 1994
RECrrALS
1. There Is currently belna developed the
Williams Ranch subdivision which consists 01
a1lordable hoUsing lor local reskfents 01 Pllkln
County.
2. The developers of WUlIam1 Ranch subdivi-
sion are desirous of obtaining a local access
road to the subdivision throuah lands owned
by Pitkin County.
3. In exchanse for an access easement, the
WIlliams Ranch developers will dedicate 1/2
acre of publiC park land within the subdivision
for the use of the general public. The deve1op-
ers also agree to construct Improvements to
the Mollie Gibson Park at their expense.
4. In excbanse for the access easement, the
Williams Ranch developers will dedicate the
section of Smulllller Road which traverses the
Smulllller Mine parcel to Pitkin County, as fur-
ther described in the attached easement.
NOW, TIiEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY TIiE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
PITKIN COUNTY, that Pitkin County arant to
Williams Ranch subdivision an easement
across the Mollie Gibson Park as fully
described In the attached Easement Agreement
and authorize the Chait to .Ign any doc:wnenta-
tlon related to the lP'antlng of such easemenl:.
EASEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS Easement AJreement (" Aareement111
made this day 01, 1994, between the Board 01
County Commissioners of Pitkin County
(~Grantor.) and the Estate of Stefan Albou)',
("Grantee1.
RECrrALS
I. Grantor owns certain real properly iltuate
In Pitkin County, Colorado described on Exhibit
A ("Grantor's propertyj;
2. Grantee owns certain real property sttuiIe
In Pitkin Counly, Colorado adjacent to
Grantor's property described on Exhibit B ,
("Grantee's property"); .
3. By the execution of this Aareement,
Grantor deslr~s to convey to Grantee I non-
exclusive 60 foot access road easement for
vehicular inllress and egress to the WlOlams
Ranch residential subdlvblon. By execution 01
lhls Agreemenl, Grantee desires to accept the
easement as provided herein.
GRANl'
I. In consideration of the terms and condl.
tlons stated in this Aareement, Grantor con-
vey. to Grantee, its successors and assigns, a
perpetual, non-excluslve road euemllQt lor the
construction, maintenance, repair and use of a
llMdway acrolS Grantor's property lot ease 01
acceu to Grantee's property to the use of lhe
real property descrlbed In Exhibit C for vehicu-
lar Ingreu and egress across Grantor's proper-
ty for the benefit 01 the Grantee and the aeneral
pubIJc to access Grantee's property.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. TIle road easemllQt shall be appurtenant to
Grantee's property and shall be of perpetual
duration. The easement will be .revokable
based on failure of Grantor or successors to
perform any of the terms and conditions
required herein.
2. ConslderaUon. The 'oUowlng consideration
shall be aranted 1M the access easement
a. Grantee wUl dedicate one-half acre of land
within the Williams Ranch subdivision as pub-
lic park land with public access.
b. Grantee wUl dedicate the sec;t:lon of Smug-
gier Road which traverses the Smuagter Mine
parcel, as described In Exhibit 0, to Pitkin
County.
3. Allllnment and Leaal Description. The
access easement shall conform to the allan-
ment described on Exhibit C.
4. Width. The easement shall be sixty feet In
width or such greater width as may be neces-
sary to satisfy existing codes, conditions and
requirements 01 Pitkin County or such other
governmental aaencY with appropriate lurWlk:-
lion.
5. Use. The road easement IS no~cluslve
and may be used by Grantor, III heirs, succes-
IOrs and assigns. The easement 5hall be used
by Grantee, Its successors. assigns lor purpos-
es slaled In the Grant above. Grantee accepts
thIS easement on behalf of the general publiC
and its acceptance serves to ensure the use of
this easement by members of the general pub-
lic to attesI Grantee's property.
6. Construction and MiUntenance. Grantee
agrea to pay for all repairs and maintenance
costs and eitp.!nsel altrlbulable to Grantee's
use of the road easement. Grantee agrees to
prepare a temporary construcUon access plan
for vehicular and pedestrian trafllc. Grantee
further agrees that all costs of surveytn& engi-
neering, construction, repairing and mainlaln-
Il\I the road easement shall -be paid solely by
Grantee, Its successors.or asslans.
7. ConstrUction or Improvements to Mollie
Gibson Park. Grantee agrees to construct
Improvements to the Mollie Gibson Park on. a
sub contractor bask lor Pitkin County.
8. SoU Removal. Grantee will dispose of OU2
soli removed Irom the Smuggler Mobile Home
Park on the Smuasler Mine Property.
9. WlITanUes. Each party warrants that It Is
Ihe owner of the property Identllled In Ihe
recitals and described in the exhlblls as
srauton and lrantee's property. Grantor war-
rants lhaI. he will cause all liens and encum-
brlnCfl to be released or subordinated with
respect to the easement granted herein and
that: he will warrant and delend Granlee's title
lult! Use of"the r~(fand driveway ufol the road
euemenl from any and all claims to the road
easement by third parUes made by, on, or
behaIJ 01 Grantor.
10. Default. EIther party shall have the rlsht
10 enlorce the obligations of perlormance 01
the other party u contained herein throuRh lit-
igation seekinll an award of damages 01" InJunc-
tive relief'. The prevailing party In such illiga-
don shall be entIUed to recover all costs lnclud-
In8 reuooable attorney's fea.
II. Amendment. ThIs Agreement IhaU not be
amended, modified, or supplemented except by
wrltten Instrument slllned and acknowledged
by the".,....
12. Succeuors and AuIBItI. All provllJons of
the Agreement, Including the benefits and bur-
dens created thereby shall run with the land
and shall enure to the benefit 01 and be bAnding
upon the parties respectIVe heirs, administra-
tors, successors and assigns.
13. Notlcel. Any notice required or pennlUed
hereunder shall be In wrltlna and shall be
deemed alven when personally delivered to
any party hereto or when mailed, post. pre-
paid, by reSi.tered or certified mall, relurn
recdpt requested, to the JolaowJll8 addresses;
Grantor:. PItkIn Coonty Board of County Com-
-
C/oCouoty _
530 East Malo Street
Aspen. Colorado 41611
Grantee: Estate 01 Stefan Albouy
</0 Guy" Wri",
201 North MW Street, Sl:e. 106
Aspen. ColOrado 81611
. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties under-
stand and..-Io pedorm and to be bound by
each of the lerms, conditions 01 this Agree-
ment, the effective of which shl!Jl be the date
lint above written.
CopIes ol the proposed ordinance are .van-
able lor public Inspecuon during reauJar busi-
ness hours In the office of the Clerk and
Recorder, 530 East Main Street, Aspen, Col-
OI"ado. Phone 920-5200.
Jeanette Jones, Deputy Clerk and Recorder
published In The Aspen Times October
14,1994
-.".--
.
LEGALS
DEADLINE
NOON ON TuEsDAY
Copy must be clearly typed. No fax transmissions accepted for publication
.
.J!'
'j'
'i"
,',
'd...
RATES
_.u"
ist insertion - .5060jline; 2nd insertion - .3680/line
Proof of publication - $2
~~
The Aspen Times. SarurdaySunday. DPcember 34. 1994
Public Notice
LEGAl. NOTICE
Notice Is hereby gtWn that the Forest Service.
U.S. Department of A.grlculture, has acquired
through a land exchange as dlrPcted In the Act
of May 19, 1994 (pL 103-255). <<rtaln parcels 01
land 85 described below:
Minerai Claim Name M.S. No. Mining D1strk't
AJ.P. Lode......................50S6 ..... .Columbla
Allee Lode.. ...............4158.. .Roarlrlg Fork
Alpine Lode.. ...........5389... .. .Columbla
Annie Hayford Lode......6043 ..... .Hlghland
Apex Lode .............2046 .. .. .Columbla
RJ. Lode .. .............5429 .. ,Roaring Fork
Belcher Lode..................3089 .. .CuUe Creek
Belle'2.... ........8.'l8i.. .Cohlmbla
Bismark Lod..... .. ......;.2901 . . .Cotumbla
Black Bess Lode .....;......6294 . .Roarlng Fork
Black Eagle Lode ..........7696. .. .Columbla
Bon Ton l.ode ...............2749. .. .Columbla
8onl. 13 1.00('...... .......2716..... .Columbla
Bowling Grffn Lode,.....72f'S . . ... .Columbla
Brittle Sliver Lod~ .........3227 .. .Roarlng Fork
Broker Lod~.................I2911 ...... .Dlfflcult
Buckey~ Lod~ ...............2825. ... .Columbla
Bunkum Squint lod~ ....9795 .. .....woody
Caesar Lode ...................1762 .. .Roarlng Fork
Capt. Phillips lode."...~.5097 .. .. .Columbla
Case lode.......................3811 . .Independence
Castle QueE'O l.odto ........2799 . .. ~ .Columbla
Catalpa Lode..................6184 ..... .Columbla
Centennial '2 l.ode .......5428 .. .Roarlng Fork
Centre Lode ........ ..........2899 . . . .. .Columbla
Chicago Tim~.Lodl!' .;...6OfI9 .. .RoarlnA Fork
Cleveland lode..............4212 .. .Hlghland
Clill lode........................2823 .. .Columbla
Colorado lode.. ... ........4121 ..... .Columbla
Colo. Central Lode ....1817.. .RoarInR Fork
Cootlnental and
Colorado Lodl!'... . ......15715 .... EaRll!' River
Crel!'dmore I.ode .. ........2904 ..... .Columbla
Cresllda L. Lode ............3857 ... . . .Columbla
Damascus Lode.............6R12 .. .RoarlnA Fork
Derry lode ..........6184 ..... .Columbla
Diamond Lode ...............4156 .. .Roarlng Fork
DIves Lode .....................6112 .. .Sprlng Butte
Dixie Lode.. ...................1986 .... .Hlghland
DreadnauRht Lode ........4830 . . . . . .Columbla
Dubuque Lode.. ........3847. . . . . .Columbla
Duplicate Lode.... ....5430. . .Roarlng Fork
FJla Lode... . ............5809 .. .Hlghland
FJlls Lode........................41S2 ..... .Columbla
Esmerelda lode.............7385 . . . .Columbla
Eureka Lode. .......3.'i07 . . .Columbla
Evening Star lode.........3012 .. .RoarIng Fork
Extenuate Lode.................I04. . . .Columbla
Flora Lode... ..............4157.. .Roarlng Fork
Flort'nce l.ode . ....7285. . .Columbla
ForeE' Lode ....... .. ........6569 . .Elk MO\Jntaln
Franklin Lode .. .............6112 .. .Sprlng Butte
Franklin Lode ..9760 .. ... .Woody
Germanla lode'.. ...........3814 . .Independent"e
Gertrude S. Lode ..........2...09 .. .Roarlng Fork
Glen Mlck Lode. . . ...4274 .. .RoarlnR Fork
Gold Reel Lode..............4363 . .lndependence
Grand Prize Lode ..........2366 .. .RoarlnR Fork
Grand Union Lode............I23 '... . . .Columbla
Gra)' Carbonate Lode ......154 ;.. .RoarInR Fork.
Great Expectation Lode7680 .... ~ .Columbla
Grey Eagle lode ..........12910 .'.,... .Dlfflcult
Grey Hound Lode ....:.....9757 ....... .Woody
H.R Johnson Lode .......3024 .. :RoarIng Fo(k,
Helena Lode ..........,........3350 ..... .Columbia
Hillside ~..................9;S7. .... .Hllhland
Hoopes Lode ....6112 .. .Sprlng Butte
itIlllols Lout; ...................6812 .. .Roarlng For}"
Imperial Lode ..........3765. .. . .Cotumbla
iowa Lode...... ...............4336 .. .Roaring Fork
hondale No. I Lode.......7915 Baule Mountain
Irondale No.2 Lode...;...7916 Battle Mountain
J.e. f}emIan Lode ........7750 . . .Woody
J.P. Lesher Lodee.. . .....3090 .. .Castle Creek
Kansas Lode..... .. .....2903 . . .Columbla
Kentucky Lode ..............n85. .. .Columbla
Kilt)' Bowen Lode..._.....4114 ..... .Columbla
Leona Lode ...... ..6641 ..... .Cotumhla
Uncaln Lode... ..............5794 .. .Roarlng Fork
Unle Baltimore Lode....4480 .. .Columbla
Llnle Cedar Lode ..........5431 . .Roarlng Fork
Utile Giant Lode...........,5642 . ... .Columbla
Uttle Grace Lode ..........5554 . .... .totumbla
Uttle Jessie Lode.. .....4122. . . .Columbla
UttleMlnnleLode.........5098 .. .Columbla'
Loco Lode .....6112 .. .spring B,utte
Louie B. Lode................,43lO .. .Roarlng Fork
louise Lode . ... ...........,2339 ,. .Roarlng Fork
Lucky Queen Lode........8455 .. .Roarlng Fork
Maggie Lode .....5749 .. Highland
Magic Lode... .....7220 .woody
Marlon Lode ..4082 .... .Columbla
Mary Marla Lode....... ...tilts4 .... .Columbla
Mono Lode.. . ..5845 .. .Roarln. Fork
Momin. Call Lode....,....74J8 ..... .Dlfficult
Mornln. Star Lode ........3011 .. .Roarlng Fork
Mount Sinai Lode.. .....12806 .. .Roarlng Fork
Mountain Quail Lode ....2898. .:. .Columbla
My Queen Lode ............,7438 . .UilflCull
~York'2Lode.. ..2599 :..RoarlngFork
Oakland'21.ode.. ........UUB . .Castle Creek
Occident Lodt'.. . ........5555 . ... .Columbla
Oliver Cromwt!1I Lode...til84 ..... .Columbia
Ophir Lode............. .......4155 '., .Roarlny Fork
Overbrouk Lode ....21:169 ..... ,Columbia
I>an Handle l.ode~. .......2900. ... .Columbla
Pay Stone Lode..............5338 .. ,Roaring Fork
Pearl Lode. . .2945 ..... .Columbia
Pde Carroll Lode ......;...2116 ... .HIghland
Plca)'un(> LOOt! ....~..,.......5i4J ..... .Hlghland .
Plllt'lfroVt! l.udt! .....,.......l'J40 .. .Roarlng Fork
Princess Lodto............' ...HJtI ...... .IHlIIcult
Pride of tht! Wt'St I.Odto ,27NJ. . .tolunlbla
I>ut.der Lode . .......;619 ..... .tolumbla
Quaker Looe.. ...... .2669. . tolumbla
(Jueto l.o<k ...... ... ..... ...J272. . . .tolumblll
Rahll;lorlO I~.,. ......,..279H ....: .tolurniJia
Rt'Vt!iIIei..odt'............. ..743M ...... .1.Hllicull
Revt'nut' Tunnel tode.11l7/j1 .Roarlng Fork
Rot:ker l.ode .9i95. . . . c ,Wuody
KOSk Pyatt l.ode.. .......ti21S:J Hattie MOUlltain
S.vaHt'I.udt>,... .... ""..4473. .. .C"lum~ia
.Set;urlly I.ude... ,.II-ilili .. .RrNlnllrl>rk
~linell.udt>. .... 2H1!J .... .tolum~la
Shooll)' I..ode.. ,.... .....!1757 ... .WtMJdy
Siberia l.odl!.. .,. ... ...3296 .. .Hlllhland
Sliver thlell.odt'.. ,j!7ij1t . .toIUIll~la
SIlver GhuK:e IJxtl' ..:H(i4 . . .tulum~l.
Sllv~ iIIt"! l..ude ............5:IK!J ..' .. .Columbia
Silver lkai/:ue 1..1Ck-........!J9:t'.<! . ...WIJlKiy
SlIv~ l:ipoolll.udI!".....,,~2:t . ..... ~W...od)'
SlIverThread l.odt' ... . .~2:t .w11f~.I)'
SiI\"t"I" TIIlI.odr , . tilMilj . .ItiKhland
SlIvt'f Wa'lt' l.odt'........ :SIK9 ., .Clllum!,ia
Suowlla.kt' l.odt'.. .:S:IKI .RI,arlnK t"lwk
SIIa.r Lode.. ..:Wlli.. .l:"lumllia
Svarl.odl!..__. ......... .:Jjt.ili . Columbia
SI. Elmu l.udt'...:.. ..,tlu:r. .f:Ululllhla
51.l.ouls l.odt'. ...:t!J7:t Ruarillg Fork
Stlirultht'Wt'lillmlt'.15!J5!J .WIIlId)'
, Sterling 1.odI!. ...... ...... ..2H2t.i ..... .tulunlbia
Storm King I.ode, ..... ....9:t:'2 .Itighluud
Surl'rllit'l.04e.. ......5J:iK. .Rollrhl!(rurk
It'l'ra l.odl! .....5554 .... .tululllbia
Terrlblel.odt'........ . ....175:t .. .KuarhlH Fork
; TibbIU.I.odt'................:i7!J7 .... .,.(;oluIIIJ,ia
lip "'01.1>>dt'...~ ....i274. . .Columbl..
,TlpTup l,Ildt"..... .....;..7:i2lJ . .WulJd)'
J"ravelll!r l.odt' .....,.l!JCU .(;olulllllla.
l,;.l:i. Mlllt 1.lId", ..............41414 . . , .. .t:lJlumbill'
IjlleXl~~".ydr..,.,."".~IZL:<..'.Kowlll~.furk ","
Ule 1.....:....".......;........:..,.1.... ...Kuarhlll,t'IJriI.!\:
Ute'2 Lode........ ....6.4.l4.. .Roarlng Fork
Vtrglnlaf'2 Lode ...........2342 .. .Roarlng Fork
Wardell Lode ..... .....6112 . .spring Butte
Wffigt" lOOt" . . ......5336 .. .Roarlng Fork
West Virginia Hooser
I.ode.. ........6322 . Roaring Fork
Wolverine Lode .. .........8504 ..... Columbia
Zulu I.ode.. .........9795 ....... .woody
This Public Nollt"e Is the olllclal notlllcallon
to all persons or organizations 01 the claim 01
ownership b)' the United States 01 America to
all right. tllle. and Interest to all Ihe land
parcels listed above. An)' parties who wish to
assert a claim to an)' rlKht. title. or Inte""st 10
these lands must do so In a<<ordance wilh 28
U.S.C. 2409a. P.I.. 103-255 requIres that 28 U.S.C.
24~a be 'he the resolution 01 any claims.
Notwllhstandlng 5Ktlon 2409a(g) of title 28.
United States Code, any civil action against the
United States to quiet title to tht" National For-
est parcels listed above must be filed In the
United Slates District Court for the District of
Colorado no latf'r Ihan the dale that Is Sill (6)
years alter the datf' 01 publication 01 this
notice.
Quesllons aboul this notice should be sent
to:
Foresl Supervisor.
While River National Forest.
P.Q. Box 948. G1enwood Springs. CO 81602
Published In The Aspen Times December 2. 9,
Ihnd 23,1994.
NOnCE OFPUBUC TRUSTEE'S SALE
No.94-19
To Whom It May Concern: this Notice Is given
wUh retard to the following described Deed 01
Trust:
Original Grantor of Deed of Trust (Borrower)
Ronald P. Wallace and Stace Yater-Wallace
Original Beneficiary of Deed 01 Trust Bruce 1
Shipman. Inc:. and American Wine Merchants
Current owner of the evidence of debt secured
by the Deed 01 Trust Bruce 1 Shipman. Inc. and
American Wine Merchants
Date of Deed of Trust August 14. 1990
Reconllng Date 01 Deed of Trost March 20. 1991
Count)' 01 Recording Pltldn
Reception No. of Recorded Deed oITrust 331164
Book and Page 01 Recorded Deed of Trust Book
No. 642 Page No.165
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFlED that the under-
signed as the legal owner 01 an evidence 01 debt.
the original principal 01 which was Sixty ThO\Jsand
Dollars (S60.000.00) and which Is secured by the
Deed of Trost descrlbed above, has flied written
election and demand lor sale as provided In said
Deed 01 Trust. 1lle outstanding principal balance
due and owing upon the evidence of debt secured
by the abovedescrlbed Deed of Trust being lore-
closed Is S60,OOO.OOas 01 October 19. 1994.
The lollowlng-descrlbed property Is all 01 the
property encumbered by saki Deed of Trust:
LOT 402, BlOCK 4. ELK RUN PLANNED UNIT
DEVElOPMENT. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
liiEREOf. RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 21 AT PAGE
93 OF THE PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO
RECORDS, (AND 1liAT PORTION OF THE FASE-
MENf WHICH UFS IN THE COUNTY OF EAOu:,
, STATEOFCOlORAOO).
also known by streft and number as: A02 FJkCir-
de. 8aMIt; CO 81621
mE LIEN OF mE DEED OF1RUST TO BE f'ORE.
CLOSEI)MAY NOTBEA F1RSTUEN.
rnEREFORE. NlJTlCF IS HFRF.RY GIVF.N Ih'llt I
will, at 10: 00 o'c1ock am. on the date of De<:. 7,
1994, at 506 East Main Stref!l. Aspen. Colorado, seU
at public auction to the highest and best bidder
ior cuh. the real property described above, and
all interest of said Grantor. the heirs, successors
and assigns 01 said Grantor, for the purpose of
pa)'lng the Indebtedness provided In said Note
and Deed 01 Trust. atlOrneys' lees and the ecpens-
es of sale. and will deliver to the purchaser a Cer.
U!kate 01 Ptircllase, all as provided by law.
Date: October 20. 1994
Thomas Carl Oken. Public Trustee 01 the Count)'
01 Pitkin. CokJrado
Arst PuLl1catlon Date: November 4. 1994
lAst Publication Dale: December 2, 1994
By Jud)' James. Deputy Public Trustee
PITKIN COUNlY PUBLIC TRusn:E
Published In The Aspen Times on November 4.
11.18, 25 and Decenlber2. 1994.
NOTICE OF mJBUC TRusn:ESALE
No. 94-20
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
this Nollce Is given with r<<'Rard to the lo!towlng
descrlbed Deed of Trust:
OrIgInal Borrower(s): JE Abels
C\lrrftIt Borrower( s): lE. Abels
Original Grantor(s): J.E. Abels
C~nt Granlor(s): J.E. Abels
Original Benellclary: E1mmoor Equities, Inc.,
d/b/a Atnlu AslOClatn. loe " Trustee
. turrent Owner 01 the Ev\dence of Debt Secured
by the Deed 01 Trust: FJmmoor Equities. Inc., d/b/a
Atnlu Alscx.iates. Inc.. Trustee
Date of Deed of Trust: March 24. 1994
R.tcordlllJJ l>ale of Deed of Trust: March 25. 1994
CO\Jnty uf Recording: l'ltkin
Deed 01 Trusl Recording Inlormatlon: Book 745,
I'age 659. Reception Nu. 368268
YOU ARE Ht-:REnV NOTIFIED thai the legal
owner of an evkleoce 01 debl. In the original prlf)-
clpal amount IIf Five Hundred Thousand and
no/UJOths Oollars ($5I(I.OOO,OU), secured by the
I~ of Trust desnil.lt'd above, has lIIed written
eIet'llon and demand lor salt' as provided In sllJd
Deed 01 Trust. '!llt' outstanding principal balance
due and owing upon the evidence of debt secured
by the ahnve-dnnli)t'(\ l>eed 01 Trost being lore-
closed Is J-'ivt' Hundred Thuusand and no/lOOths
I}ollars ($SOO.OOHlJ). as 01 Oc.1uher 13. 199-1.
'l1w ft'a1llrlJIJt'l'ty lu Iw loreclOllt!d Is dell<:rlbed
llli lolkJWs:
'nlt' NlIrtherly :iK leel. ul l.olli A, n, and C, n1uc:k
7M. <.:it)' and Townsile .,1 AsIX'Il, together whh all
thai IlIIrllolllll vUI'att'd Hallam Street, 1)'lng
NUI'''t'rl)' ,.. said lilts. Easterl)' III the I.:ast lIue III
N.,rth Monardl S1rt't't and Southwesterly ollJi\t'
....5 uf lhe Dty and Tuwnslte 'JI Aslwn. Count)' of
1>jlklll.~tllte(J'Cl.IllJfltdn.
!dlel a1SI1 bIlullJWII lIy !ilrt't'l and number as 21M
Nur1h M1mardl. Asjlt'll. tu"'Jladll.
'n"" 1't'a1IW1Ij.lt'rt)' lwill~ flJredlllit'(1 Is a1lul the
IWlJIJt'f1)'l!ut:uml.lt'rt'l.lb)'sakllJt'e(I"I'I'rw;t.
'IHE I.lEN UtEATEO UY .~A11) I)EEU OF THIIS"!"
IU]Nlj J-l>tu-:t'I.OSlJ) MA V NOT HE A l'lRST LIEN
.I1tEKI.:mIU:. NOTK:E IS HEKEHY liIVEN. thai I
will. al HI lJ'dlK"k a,m" un lilt' datt' ullJt'(.t'ml.lt'r
JiI. 1!J!t1. al Ih.. Suulh lrulll dllflr. Pllkin OlUlll)'
tllUrlhllu~. 5l..i ~~sl Main ~t.. AsIIt'II. tuluriUhl.
llt'IlalllUhlk' aodlon tII tilt' hlght'sl and I_t IIk!-
der lu( ,'ash. tilt' rt'al pmpt.rty dt"!lt'(i1Jt'd ahllVt'.
and alllntt'rt'sl 01 said Ciranlllr.lht' ht'lllaml
JIlIliillns III said (jranlur, 11Ir tht' purl"ISt' 1I111ll)'llIg
tl"" bll!t'IJIt'lItlt'l;s pruvlclt'llln !ialll Nutt' alllllJoot'tI
1IITrUSl.allllfllt')'s'It't'5.1II1dtht't'ItIft'lIlit"!1f1lsalt'.
and wlllllt-II\It'r I" tift' l'urdlll!lt'f'(1J a Ct'rtllll:att' C,.
l'urdWt'..dllllllrlwhtt'l.l II)' law.
m..: lAW HMM III-' Itl.C)()M MUltN" A(:t:()MAZ.
7.0. IJ.t. IS ATrE~WI1NC; TO couJ-:n A UmT
A~IJ ANY .INi'Ott~AlION OIHAINEIJ WII.I. liE
INl, J-lJR .I1tAT I>tJI(l1I( '~E.
1.l;dt':tk1ullt'f":6.I!J!J4
; '1llumQ ('Ilrl ()Iu:1I, Ilubllt: 'I'ruslet:
..~___. ~'J' l'tklnt:')ulltySllllt'~Cll.Jfadfl
Arstl'ublicatlon o.lte: November 4. 1994
Last Publication Date: December 2. 1994
By: Judy James. Deputy Public Truslee
JosephA. Murr, Esq.
Bloom Murr &. Accomazzo. P.C.
410 17th Street, Suite 2400
Denver. Colorado 80202
Published In The Aspen TImes on November 4.
11.18.25 and Oecember2. 1994
PUBLIC NOTICE
PL.FASE TAKE NOTICE that Bill McDonough has
lIIed a Petlllon with the 8asaJt Water Conservancy
Dlslrlct requesting the Inchtlllon Into said Distrlct
01 the 101lowlR8 described lands located In the
County 01 Pitkin. State 01 Colorado, to wit:
A tract 01 land situated In Lot 15. Section 9 and
Lot 4. Section 16, Township 9 South. Range 85
West ollhe SIxth Prlnclpal MeridIan, PItkin Coun-
t)', Colorado. described as foDows:
Beginning at a polnl whence the 1/4 Corner
between said Section 9 and l6 bears S63033'E
1.015.80 feet; thence S20"1"'W 615.22 leet to the
center of the RoarIng Fort Rfwr; thence 567' 49'E
85.73 leet along the center of the Roaring Fork
RIver to the conlluence with the center 01 Woody
Creek; thence N62"ffi'E 67.091eet along the center
of Woody Creek; thence N45OO6'E 188.40 feet along
the center of Woody Creek; thence NIG"46'E 74.15
leet along the center of Woody Creek; 'hence
N3G'09'E 56.10 feet along 'he center of Woody
Creek; thence N43"21'E 34.IG feet along the ante!'
01 Wood)' Creek; thence N54~'E 28.11 feet along
the center of Wood)' Creek; thence North 119.97
feet; thl!nce N34"42'E 114.921eet; thenceN71"SS'W
237.381eet to the point 01 beginning.
SaId Petition .haIl be heard at the regular meet-
Ing of the Board of D1rectonof said DIstrict on
December 12. 1994, at 7:00 o'clock P.M. at the
Days Inn. 950 Cowen Dr., Carbondale. Colorado,
when and where aU person. Interested shall
appear and show cause. In writing. why said Peti-
tion should not be granted. The failure of any per-
son to lIIe a written
objection shall be taken as an assent to the Inc~
slon of the above described lands within the Di5-
trIct. Wrltten objections may be f8ed In advance 01
said meeting by mailing or dellv8y to the Basalt
Water Conservancy DIstrict at 302 FJghth Street.
Suite 310, GIenwood Springs. Colorado 81601 .
BASAlT WATEJ{ CONSERVANCY DJS'ffiICf
By: s/Barbara Mlck
"""""MId<.Secretoty
Published In The Aspen times on November IS,
25 and December'2. 1994.
NOTICE OF F1NAL SE1Tl.EMf.NT
-After thirty (30) days from December 9.1994,
the Clt)' 01 Aspen. Owner will pay to CAS CON-
STRUCTION. INC., Contractor, the full balance due
on the pro)ed, 2 M.G. C1earweU Baffling. covered
by General CondlUons. AU persons having claims
lor labor, rentals. services. or materials furnished
under this Contract. who shall not have been pakI
therelore. shall presenl the same to the Owner In
writing and verified prior to date specified above,
or the Owner shall be free 01 allUablllUe. for
attempting to obtain paymeQtto suclI persons by
the Contractor:
Published In the Alpea; Times December 2
and 9, 1994.' '
INVITATION f'ORPRoPosAlS'
Colorado Mountain CoIiege Is soliciting pro-
fl~s.ah irom ql!!I11l1f>d flrmA of cf>rtlllf'{1 pUblic
3(:(."O'.1ntantl> to audit Ute Colorado Mountain C0l-
lege ftnanclalltatements for the year ending June
30. 1995. with the option 01 auditing the Colorado
Mountain Con. nnanclalllat~ lor the lour
subsequent flscal years; Audhltrms t!lI:preulng
Interest wiD be prov\ded with a topy Gl a request
lor proposals (RfP).
Please Indicate yqur Interut In receiving a
copY of the RFP by malting a request In writing 0.-
by phone to thefoliowlng addn!Uby 1:00 p.rn. on
December 15. 1994:
Ms. Linda Huttenhower, or
Mrs. MarIlyn Bullock
AudIt Committee
COlorado Mountain CoUeIIe
P.O. Box 10001
G1enwood Springs, CO 81602
(303}O45O691
All questions and comments should be direct-
ed to Dr. Spuhler. Ms. Huttenhower. or Mrs. BuJ.
lock. Contact with Colorado MountaIn CoUege per-
sonnel other than lhem regllrdlng this RFPrriay be
grounds for elimination from the .election p~
cess. Colorado Mountain College reserves 'he
rlght to refuse any and all proposals.
Published In The Aspea Times December 2.
,....
COUNn' COURT, PITKIN COUNlY,
COUJIWlO
Case No. 94C3J1
PiSUC NOTlCE
IN THE MAlTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE
CHANGEOF NAME OF:
Gabriella M. Larson, Petitioner.
ORDER FOR PlmUCAl10N
The Court having read and consklered the Peti-
tion for Change of Name and the petltloner's alft..
davit, and the Court being suffldently advtsed,
RNOS: That the aDegations made In saki pen.
lion and alfldavlt satl.fy all statutory require-
ments,
AND THE COURT ruRnlER RNOS: That the
desired change of name is proper and not detri-
mental to the Interests 01 any other penon.
n- ts THEREFORE ORDF.RID:
l. That pursuant to it.tute, petltlon@r shall
give public ootk:e 01 such change of name by pub-
Ilcatlon olllubik: Notice three (3) times In The
Aspen nmes, a leKaI newspaper published In said
county. This publication Is 10 be made within
~ty (20) days 01 the date 01 this Orde!'. Proper
I)rool of Ilubllcatlon shall be IIIed whh the Clerk of
the Court ujJoo Dnal publk:aUon.
2. 111al the name of Gabriella M. l.arson Is
hereby changed 10 GabriPlla Andaye Sooain.
l>aled: November 22, 1994.
t-1tzhu8h Scott 10. County Judse
(Jenllt L Melnick, Clerk
1'ullllslu'(lln 11te Aspen Times December 2; 9
and IG.I9'J.t.
OKlXNANl.'t-: NO. 62
Serlt'Sull9!J4
AN OHIMNANtl.: m' THE crry COUNCIl. m'
'I'H": UTY 01' A.'WEN. tOWHA!K), AM~:NUlNG
I'OHlION~ OJ-' TIn: MOUEI. TRAFFIC CODE
HEljAHUlNCi IIARKING MJ-:rJ-:RS ANU I'ARKINO
REc:lllATll)N ANII ENJ-l)RtEMENT; I>ECIARlNG
UN,\rll.:NI*]) CAR AlARMS ~ l'UlUJC Ni.Jl.SN'lCE;
ANll PHE~CKIIlIN(i I>HOCWUR.:~ ,..OR THE
ABA'I FMENT mFJU1W.
("1I11~ III thl$ unlill.al~"t' nrt' avallahle In the
olllt't'ullllt' l:Ilyt.1erk. Clly Ilull. l:ll~Clulh(~w..
Aliiit'll. c1urlnglloRnal lIusll_lI hl.lurs
1.1NAI.I.Y adlll)It'c1, Ilaut't:1 culll atl\WU'It'Ct thl.
:lH dOl)' III NIIW'lIIllt'r. W!H.
Jllhll~.I!t'IlIlt'tt.MllyClf"
ATll~~T: Kollhryn~, Knl'll, CIty t""'k
l'ullllshl;'(lln 'nlt' AsIJt'll Tim" till 1)a't'111ht'f'
i.I!I!J4.
fOO)lNAHt1-:NtI.liti
(~JU~~tW I!P.M)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCil OF
ASPEN. COLORADO. GRANl1NG A MAP AMEND-
MENT roR REZONING OF THE W1WAMS RANCH
PARCEL fROM THE COUNn' ZONING AF-I TO
THE CITY'S AH (AFFORDABLE HOUSING) zONE
DISTRICT rnR A PARCEL OF LAND LOCAlrD IN
SECTION 7. TOWNSHIP 10 SOutH. RANGE 84
WEST OF11tE6TII P.M.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24.7-1102 01
the Alpen Municipal Code ,he Applicant, Stephen
A100uy's Estate and Smuggler Consolklated Mines
Corporation. submitted an application for a map
amendment to re!OM a 12.7 acre parcel 01 land
from the County's AF-l zone district to the Clly's
A.H (Affordable Housing) zone dlslrlct; and
WHEREAS. the rezoning request wu submll-
ted In conjunction with a land use request to
develop thls property with 35 affordable housing
unlls and 15 free market units and to annex this
parcel Into lite CIty 01 Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the CIty of Aspen atIl\eftd the 12.7
acre.parcd to the CIty 01 Aspen byOrdlnante No.
GI. Serles of 1994 and I. required 10 rezone the
property wlthln 90 days of anneuUon; .00
WHEREAS. City Council has approved the
Applicant's land use request lor the deftIopment
01 a 50 unit aflordable and free market deve1op-
ment by OrdlnaJ'lCe 52, SerleII of 1994; and
WHmEAS. a duly notked public heutn8 wu
held by the Aspen Planning and ZonInI ConunI....
.Ion on September 13, 1994 at which time the
Commission recommends rezonlnl approval to
CIty Council by a 40 vote; and
WHEREAS. City Council considered Ihe
request at a public
he8rtng on HoYember 28, 1994 and haw lound
that lhe request meets the requirements of Sec-
tion 24-7-1102 01 the Aspen Munldpal Code.
NOW, ntEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED BY mE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COL-
QRAOO,
Section I: That It does hereby tram a Map
Amendment which mones the subject parcel
from the Cqunty's AF-I zone district to the CIty'.
AH (Affordable Housing) zone disb1ct and shaD be
promptly entered on the Ol8c1al Map In attor-
dance with SectIon 2~103(B) of the Munidpal
Code.
SectIon 2: The City Clerk Is hereby directed,
upon the adoption of thls OrdInance. to rec:ord a
copy of this Ordinance In the o&lce 01 the PIIIdn
County Clerk and Recorder.
~~: A public heIIrinB on the Ordif'lllll(:e
shaD be held on the 9 day of January, 1995 at 5:00
P.M. In the City Council Chambers. Aspen City
Hall, Aspen. Colorado. FIfteen (15) days prior to
the hearing a public notke 01 the hearing shall be
published In a newspaper of general drculatk)n
within the CIty oIAspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUB-
LJSHED as provkIed by law. by the City eo.:n:u of
the Cltyol Aspen on the 28 day 01 Nowmber,I994.
JoIm_Moyor
A1USr: KathrynS. Koch. CltyOert
PublIshed In The Aspen ThneI on Deanlber
~ 1....
ORDINANCE NO. 69
_"1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL oF'"
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AMENDING'
CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. LAND .
USE REGUUTIONS. TO PROVIDE FOR VARIA-
noNS IN SlIBDM5ION DESIGN STANDARDS BY
SPECW. RfV!EW SURJECT TO NEW REVIEW C'RI-
TERIA FST ABLISHFD IN SECTION 24.7--404.E .
WHEREAS. SectkJn 24-7-1103 of the Munldpal
Code provktes thai: amendments 10 ChapIer 24 of
the Code. to wtt, -Land Use ~-, shdI be
revieWed and ~ lor apProYal by the
P1annlnR Dlrector and then by ,he Plannlna and
Zoning Commlalkln at: a publk: hear\n8. an:! then
approved. approved with conditions. or disap-
proved by the City councU .t a public heating;
and .
WHEREAS. the P&annlng DRctor dkI receive
from the City EngIneering Department a rec0m-
mendation lor an amendment to the land use rea-
ulaUoris, and fe'Viewed arid recommended for
approval. certain text. ameudments to 01apter 24
relating 10 SectIon 7-1004.C.4 -DesJJl'I standBrdt-
and SectIon 7404 ~ alandards tor apedaI
_'and
WHf.REAs, ... _..... and ZonIne CommJo.
slOn revIew<<Ithe proposed lexI amendment, In .
conJunctIon wtIh the WIlliams Rand!. de\.~jt
application rt'YIew. on -. 1994. at whkh time the
Planning and ZonIng Commlstlon recommended
_toCllyCoundl by _;and
WIlEREAS, ... CIly CoundI ......... the....
amendment wHI aDow and promoIe deYelopment
that III compatible wtth the Aspen Area C0mpre-
hensive Plan an:! with exlstIri8 adttIcenI: Iind uses
and neighborhood c:haractertsUc:s Ind wm be oon-
slalent with the pubIk welfare an:! pwpotea and
......."""'" 2'''''' _Code; '.
NOW TIiFREFORE'BE IT 0RDAJNft) BY 1ltE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COL-
ORADO: .
Section I:
Section 7-1034.C.... ~DesIgn standards- 01 Chap-
ter 2... of the Munk:lpaI Code of the CIty of Aspen,
Colorado, 1.- hereby amended by the MIdIUon 01
paragraph h.. to read as foRow.-:
h. Variations or des;1Jn standards. Varlallon
from the provtslon' 01 thlll secUon. -DesIlJl SIan-
dards,~ may be granted by special revtew as ~
v1ded lor In 0IvbJ0n 4 01 thlll Chapter.
Section 2:
Section 7....04 -Rmew slandards for special
review- of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code oldie
City of Aspen, Colorado. Is hereby amended by
the addition of a new paragraph. whkh shall MId
aslollows:
E. Subdivision design standard.-. Whenever a
special revk!w Is for development which does nol
meet the subdivtlkJn design standards of Section
2....7-1004.C..... the development appllcaUon shall
be approved only If lhe Iollowtnc c:ondItk:Jm have
been met: '
I. A unique sl'uatlon exists for the develop-
ment where strkt adherence 10 the subdMlllon
design standards would re.-ulls In intompaUbOIty
with the Aspen Atea Comprehensive Plan, the
exls'lntI. netghbortng developed &reM. and/or the
goaIsoflheronimunlty. . .
2. The applicant shall speclly each design ':
standard vartaUon requested and provide jUltlfl.
cation lor each variation request, providing design
recommendalions b)' professional enilneer. as
""""""Y.
Sa11on3: '
'1\ls Ordltull1l."e shall not &Uec:l any exlstlny 11t-
lJP.tkm and shall not clJJef8te as an aOOtemenl 01
any 1K.1km or procet'tllng now I)t'oolng under or
b)' \IIrtlM' of the onUnances r.praJed or amended
as 1lt'n'ln proVided. and the same shall tw ron.
duc't'd and conduded under such prior ordl-
IUUK't'I.
Stol.111ln.J:
If an)' st'dlun:. suhst'l:i1cm, senlenl'f>. clause,
I)hrast'. 1M' IMlrtlt"' tlf this Onllnant.'f> II fur any r8-
INM\ hrkllnvalkl or tuK.llostllutlonalln'. cuurt of
nlllll)rletlt jllrllltlll'UUI1. sudl 1"1r1lon shall be
det"tnt'tlII lepar(jr. dlstllK1and Inlll'pendenlllro-'
vl.lnn and IIhall nol aUrt., the Villkllty 01 ,he
I't'malnll," 1)llrtkMtI thrreul.
Sf't'lkm5:
A IMlhllt. hl'arllIK nn UIls Ordinance shall be
held on the 9 day 01 January, 1995 In the City
Council Chambers, Aspen Clt)' Hall, Aspen. Col--
orado. lJlteen (15) days prior to which a hearing 01
public notk:e 01 the same .ha11 be published In a
newspaper 01, general dta1iatIon within the City 01
_. .
INTRODUCED. READ AND ORDERED PUB-
USHFD as provided by law. by the Oty Council of
theOtyof Aspen on the 28 day of November 1994.
John Bennett. Mayor
A1TEST: Kathryn S. Koch, Qty Clerk
Published In The Aspen 1'Imes on IJecenber
2.1994.
ORIXNANCENO.70
_"1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CnY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COWRADO. APPROVING
THE HOUSING MITIGATION PROPOSAL AND
VE5IlD RJGHTS FOR A PEJUOD OF TIiRfE YEARS
fOR TIlE I'" COMMEIlCIAL GROWIll MANAGE-
MFNr AIWITotFNr FOR TIlE 624 EAST HOI'KlNS
PROJECT LOCATED ON LOT Q AND ON&HA1.fOf
LOT..BLOCK!II, 1'OWI'lSlI>: Of ASPEN
WHEREAS; the Alpen Planning and Zoning
eomm.............. ... 624 E. _ project
on NoYernber I, 1994, lOcI approved, In conJu~
tlon with powth manqement ,oorlng, ,peelal
review. for trub area reduction and parking
_Ion;.....
WHERF.AS. on November 28, 199'" 'he City
CoundI clthe CIty of Aspen awarded a commer-
daI/oftIOe development aDotment In the CC (C0m-
mercial Core) and CI (CommerdaI) zone districts
lor 1994 purIII8M to ReIoluUon No. (SerIes 1994)
under the growtb ~ quota system as
sellorth In ArtIcle 8 cl QIIpte' 24 of the Munldpal
Code; and
WHFREAS.the ~.tent protect known as
624 E. HopIdnI WIll .w.ded 2;700 tqUUe lee( 01
net lea,able area within the 1994
comrnen:W/offk:e development aIotmenta; and _
WHEMEAS.thedel elt~..ltolthe6Z4E. po' "I
kIns profet:tmustmlUptelor 7.09employees.. ,
_...624E._proJect..._""
eel that the City Coundl approve an affordable
holuln. mftlpUon plM:bae In whkfIlt shall pay
cash-ln-heu at the Category 3 level for Ils . entire
___and
WHEREAS, the A.IpeQ/PItldn County Housing
0IIIce"""'" the......... 'mIU_n_
on October 18, 1994 an:! IorWarded the HousIIlI
. Board', p~ to IlrIt: provide OIHlte hous-
'ng. _ ...-...... houoln& ....Iaotly
...--...--.......
_and
WHEREAS, baled on typkallncomea cl I(ener-
al office employees, the HousIng OffIce also rec-
ommended that any casI'l payment be cakuJated
on the awnae of the c.tegorr 2 an:! Category 3
Income amounts: and
WHEREAS, the CIty CoUndl has determined
... 62. E. HopIdno......... _ propnoaI to
be fair and equItabIe.oo consistent: with the mill-
pdon ~contalned ~SectIon Solmol
0IapI<0' 24 01 the MunIdpoI Code; and
WIlEREAS,......... ...~_ _......
~WIlIsubmlnedtotheAannl"'Offlce
:_...__.............and
. WHIlRi'.As,_to_24<;207.....
_.......... Codll the c...c...d may.....
VestlltloIIkt. '. ..RItIlIIloradespedfk
deWIopIt_lt pIIn ....~clthree)'Mn &om
, thedateClt -= -" 'pa.n ippnMl.
NOW. BE It' RESOLVFD BY 11-IF.
em COlI'ICIL OF114E OTY
OFASPEN,COWRAOO1HAT:
SectIon 1: In IIttOrdanctr, with SectIcHJ 2+8-
. 109Q)"'" _ .......... ""'" CIly CoundI
---""--.......
tIon plan lor 7.CJ9 empktyees _ required by the
624 E. HopIdq; protect to be a.CMh payment wflh
...-..........,
I) The payment .haD be cakulated al 'he
awnce 0I1he c.tegory 2 .... Category 3 casfHn-
Beu amounts II established In the APCHA GtJkIe..
linea In ellec:tll the time 01 pa)IIhIH.
2) The payment thaIl. be .made to the f'lnanI:e
OIIIce_tothe .
......... 01...,_............. project.
SedIon 2: ~ to SedIon 24-6-207 01 the
Municipal ""'" CIty CoundI_ .............
... oppbnI_.........the 624 E._",
............~.....-
I. The rlaJds .,aoted by the ,lte,.peclflc
...................~by__No. 88.
Series 011994, .... f8DlIIII wsted.untU November
28,l997'-HoweYer, Uly failure to abide by the
terms and condtuonl atteadInlto this approval
.hall reauIt in JorfeIture of MId wsted property
rights. Failure to timely and property record aU
pIaIi and aareemenu u ~ herelnand
or In the MurddpaI Code Mall.., resuIlln die
-..-.......""...
2. The appnwitIlIf'MIed hereby shall be suI).
Jec:lto"rlahbof~Iind)udldal~i III
3. NoII*'II!1 the a apprOnia provided ID
i:>rdInaDce or RaoluUon No. 88, SerIes of 1 . .11
.haIl ellIeRIpllhe.1Ie apedfIc development pmt,l
from .ubsequent review. and or approvals
......... by .... 0nIn00ice. .......... No. .......
of 1994, or the ..... rules, regutaUons or ordi-
nances oIlhe CIty pnMded thai sudI revieWS or
approvals are not inconAsIent with the approvals
.......
Ind vetIed herein.
.... The tslabHshrnent herdn of a vested prop-
erty right .haII not preclude lhe appllcatioo 01
ordinances at feJlUlatiol1l whk:h are general In
nature an:! are apphcabIe to aD property subJect
to land use ,..aauon by the City of Aspen includ-
Ing. but not limited to. buUdIIll, fire. plumbing,
MdrtcaI and rnec:harlaI codes. In this regard. u
a CondItIon 01 this site development approval. the
developer shill abide by any and as such buIkIlng,
fire, phunblnt. e&ectrk:a1 and mechanical codes,
urdeU an esempUon therefrom Is granted In wrIt-
....
Secdon 3: The CIty Clerk shall caJH nollce 01
this 0rdinaIx!e to be published In a newspaper 01
general drculatioR 'wtthln the City of Aspen no
later Ihan Jourteen (14) days IoIIowlng Dna! ad0p-
tion Meo(. Such ~ shall be gtven In the 101-
_'0"'''
Nodc:e II hereb)o stven to the ~ publk: r~
the approval of a Sft spedIIc development pt
arid the crftUon 01 a. vested property ....hl f>
suant to TIlle 24. Article 68, Colorado Revls~
S'alules, pertalnl.. to the followtng deicrlbed
........,., .
The property shall be described In the notice
and appended to .aki notice shall be the ordl-
l'Wk'e grantln& iIuch approval.
Section 4: A public: hearing on the Ordinance
shall be held on the 9 day of January. 1995 at S:OO
P.M. In the City Council Chambers. Aspen City
HaH, Aspen Colorado. lIiteen (15) days prior to
which. hearInII of public notice of ,he same shall
be published In a Ill"WSpaI)ef' cI general dn:uJatlon
within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUR-
IJStflJ.. ptovIded by law. by the Clt)' Council of
thl' CII, 01 Aspen on ,he 28 day 01 November.
,....
John Bennett, Mayor
Am:sT: Kathr)'nS. Roch. Clt)' Clerk
I"ubUshed In The Aspen TImes on Ikt:ember
2, UI94.
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 Sou1h Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 , /
(303) 920.5090 . Oo'f Ii
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES p.. 7 31/ 0 1 J /3. :J. ;- n /11 / 17
CITY: l1' I
TOTAL ~" 5. (j{)
Name 77/ ;}I s A:::t.' " Phone: 9' ~ 5' - 'j h / .:::
Address: .6~/ 1?r.J tJ Project: C;;:J -/ f. .1/o:r;l;;
/I., ,)..'/>I ,// .f) r;. /J1 () ~
p - " / / ~I
. __ - /V I ~ a 1./ '
! Dalo: , I .' . No 01 Copieo:
-63250-134
-63270-136
-63280-137
-63300-139
-63310-140
-63320-141
-63330-150
-63432-157
-63432-157
-MR011
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
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
-63335-151
-63336-152
-63337-153
-63338-154
-63339-155
Exemption
Minor
Major Devel.
Signn. Devel.
Demol~ion
COUNTY:
-63160-126
-63170-127
-63180-128
-63190-129
-63200-130
-63210-131
-63220-132
-63230-133
-63240-149
-63450-146
-63235-148
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
REFERRAL FEES:
-63360-143
-63340-163
-63340-190
-63340-205
Engineering - County
Engineering - City
Housing
Environmental Hea~h
00115
00123
00125
PLANNING OFFICE SALES:
-63080-122
-69000-145
County Code
Other (Copy Fees)
Check #:
A2 //1/. /)
9i> () 0
6,) ,-,0
f>O-tJu
/