HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.Lots 5&6 Aspen Meadows.A74-95
..#
-.
"..
-
'-"
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
city of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 6 ~16t95
DATE COMPLETE: (Q j _ to ~ ...
f -J
PROJECT NAME: ASPEN MEADOWS
project Address:
Legal Address: LOTS 5 & 6. ASPEN MEADOWS SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
2735-122-31-001 A74-95
STAFF MEMBER: LL
REQUEST FOR GMQS DEADLINE EXT.
APPLICANT: SAVANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: JOSEPH WELLS
Representative Address/Phone: 602 MIDLAND PARK
Aspen. CO 81611
925-8080
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
# APPS RECEIVED
# PLATS RECEIVED
FEES: PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV. HEALTH
TOTAL
$ 1020
$
$
$
$ 1020
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL:
1 STEP: XX 2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting D~e
\~Jl '<ACiI
..4;> I
CC Meeting ~at; ,
PUBLIC
VESTED
HEARING: YES NO
RIGHTS: YES NO
HEARING: ~C) ~
RIGHTS: YES NO
PUBLIC
VESTED
DRC Meeting Date
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
REFERRALS:
city Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir.Hlth.
Zoning
Parks Dept. School District
Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas
Fire Marshal CDOT
Holy Cross Clean Air Board
Mtn. Bell open Space Board
ACSD Other
Energy Center Other
~ lfl~ INITIALS: DUE:
============================================f.===================
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED:;)t:2IJO,iP INITIAL: 1/111
If ~
___ City Engineer ___Zoning ___Env. Health
___ Open Space Other:
DATE REFERRED:
___ city Atty
___ Housing
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
(1000 t Cof'l Q~J .
toied Q/,JQ5 h'l ()fCj;'l)
"'"'"
---
-
~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director Community Development
DATE:
October 19, 1995
RE:
Information Item Savanah Limited Partnership's
Compliance with Ordinance 38 - GMQS Extension and Vested
Rights Extension for Lots 5 & 6 Aspen Meadows
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
staff would like to inform Council of the progress to date in
working with Savanah toward compliance of Ordinance 38. Upon
adoption of Ordinance 38, three conditions of approval were placed
upon the applicant:
1. The applicant shall review, with the Parks Department, the
landscape plan that was approved with the Meadows SPA
development plan and confirm that the plan is in compliance.
If the Plan is not in compliance, the applicant shall correct
all deficiencies by September 29, 1995. Failure to comply
with this condition shall render this extension invalid.
2. The applicant shall excavate the pedestrian/bike trail to
the top of the slope on Lot 6, as required in the
insubstantial amendment to the Aspen Meadows Lots 5 and 6, to
be completed by October 31, 1995.
3. The applicant shall replace the non-functioning trail
lights along old Meadows Road by September 29, 1995.
The applicant has met with the staff of the Parks and Community
Development Departments in an attempt to comply with the above
conditions of approval. The meeting covered alot of ground and we
quickly realized that more work was necessary in order for Savanah
and the Parks Department to successfully excavate the new
pedestrian trail and determine if the Meadows SPA landscape plan
was in compliance. It has become clear that the deadlines imposed
by the Ordinance have not and will not be met. Please refer to
staff's attached letter to Savanah which summarizes our meeting.
However, based upon our meeting staff and Savanah have identified
the amount of work that is required to reach closure on these
issues and comply with the intent of the Ordinance. The trail,
depending upon the weather will be excavated either this fall or
next spring with the assistance of Savanah as required in the
Ordinance. The landscape plan, if necessary, will be brought into
compliance either this fall or next spring depending upon what
species must be planted.
o
,...,
.'..."....
Barring any concerns expressed by
come to resolution with savanah on
the Aspen Meadows.
Council, staff will continue to
the trail and landscape plan for
If Council does not agree with staff's approach
Savanah, staff will bring the topic forward
discussion at the earliest possible date.
in working with
for a Council
2
,....,
'-,
......
-
.
ASPE\ . PITKI\
October 19, 1995
Ferdinand L. Belz, III
Savanah Limited Partnership
515 S. Galena street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Pl.-I.\\I\G & ZO\I~""; DEP\RT\IE\T
CD\HIL\IT't DEI ELll!'\I~\ T OEI'.\:;'T\11:\T
RE: Aspen Meadows, Lots 5 and 6 Extension
Compliance w/Ordinance 38, Series of 1995
Thank you for your letter summarizing our meeting on September 26,
1995. In order to inform City Council of our work, I to would like
to follow up that meeting with staff's understanding of Savanah's
compliance requirements. The following conditions of approval were
included in Ordinance 38, Series of 1995:
1. The applicant shall review, with the Parks Department, the
landscape plan that was approved with the Meadows SPA
development plan and confirm that the plan is in compliance.
If the Plan is not in compliance, the applicant shall correct
all deficiencies by September 29, 1995. Failure to comply
with this condition shall render this extension invalid.
2. The applicant shall excavate the pedestrian/bike trail to
the top of the slope on Lot 6, as required in the
insubstantial amendment to the Aspen Meadows Lots 5 and 6, to
be completed by October 31, 1995.
3. The applicant shall replace the non-functioning trail
lights along old Meadows Road by September 29, 1995.
with regard to the trail lights along Old Meadows Road, everyone
present agreed that eliminating the lights was the best solution.
Snowplowing of the private drives was destroying the lights and
neither the Parks Department nor Savanah wanted to maintain lights
that have never functioned and are poorly located.
All present recognized that it may be more prudent to excavate the
trail next year. As soon as detailed construction plans are
submitted to the Parks Department for the Meadows pedestrian trail,
coordination of excavation, trail maintenance, cash-in-lieu from
Savanah, and possible reconstruction of the trail after development
of the Tennis townhomes will be discussed with the Parks
Department.
Finally, the Ordinance required a determination, by September 29,
Ll1l5\'L ill GII F\\ Slr'HI . :\~I'I\.. C\I,('R-\Il(l MUd 1 . PH'J\E 303.920.3090 . h\ 303.420.319;-
'-',,'lci,'''r''''''"'',,~-r DII<ECT Fl.\ ll\E: 303.1.l20j.1,:.><J
c
o
1995, as to whether the current landscape plan is in compliance
with the approved Meadows SPA development plan. At the September
26 meeting it was agreed that a thorough site-visit was required.
Representatives of the MAA and,the Institute as well as Savanah
have planned to meet on-site w;j.th George Robinson of the Parks
Department to identify, if any, ilreas of non-compliance. The time
of year for planting will be determined by the type of vegetation
that would be required to be pl.nted.
Everyone present at the meeting realized that the deadlines imposed
within Ordinance 38 would be difficult if not impossible to meet.
However, we recognize that it is Savanah's intent to comply with
the requirements of the Ordinance in the most efficient and
expeditious manner possible.
Although staff cannot amend the Ordinance to change the imposed
dates, we shall advise Council of our work to date and inform
Council of Savanah' s attempt to comply with the spirit of the
Ordinance. In addition it is staff I sunders tanding that the
conditions of approval will be accomplished by Jlme of 1996.
Sincerely,
\
Deputy Director
cc: George Robinson, Director Parks Department
Stan Clauson, Director Community Development
"""" .-,
SAVANAp,..tLIMITED PARTNEI~HIP
October 3, 1995
~~~
I ~ .),;,
.,.~ .1"
~ ....,
./' ,;, ~~:}
Leslie Lamont
Deputy Director
city of Aspen
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
,
n.
'--
,-I.-
-:i{j"
RE: Aspen Meadows
Lots 5 and 6 Extension
On September 26, 1995 we met with George Robinson and Rebecca Baker
to discus~ the conditions required by city council with the latest
six month extension for the development of lots 5 and 6 at the
Aspen Meadows. The following is the outcome of that meeting and
thus the status of the conditions.
1. Landscape Review - The landscape plan for the Meadows SPA was
reviewed at the meeting. It was agreed that a follow-up meeting to
walk the site would take place on October 5, 1995. George Robinson
and myself along with representatives of the Institute and MAA will
represent. At that meeting, compliance will be further reviewed
and a plan will be agreed upon, if necessary. Per our discussion,
this continuing efforts satisfies this condition to date. We agree
to comply with outcome of our next meeting.
2. Pedestrian Bike Trail - The Parks Department will be receiving
construction drawings for the trail the week of October 2, 1995.
Once they receive those, they will call to do further coordination.
At that time issues such as timing, varying slopes, temporary
trail, cash-in-lieu, etc. can be resolved.
3. Trail Lights - It was agreed by all that the trail lights would
be deleted and capped. This satisfies this condition. This work
is in process.
I will continue to keep you informed at this work progresses.
Thank you for your assistance.
cc: George Robinson
::J I'> S. (;i:1l{'1l11 Sl . ..\SjlCIl. co R 1 () I I . 303Iq~:J-4:272 . I~.\X ~J:2:J-+3H7
.- .,.~~,._..,~~---_.-. --,.~_...-..~.._--~
_ ,'__ .~....._.~.._.._,', ""~~"____",_,~"",_<,~",,,,,_.,"_...,.~_...~~~",.__;_...__._'~____'_" Ak,.'",om.
Vl\c..
THRU:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
MEMORANDUM
~
Director~
TO:
Mayor and Council
THRU:
stan Clauson, Community Development
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE:
August 28, 1995
RE:
Aspen Meadows Residential GMQS and Vested Rights
Extension Request - Second Reading Ordinance 38, Series
of 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicants, Savanah Limi ted Partnership, has
requested another six month extension to their 1990 GMQS allotment
and vested rights status for the development of 10 townhomes on
Lots 5 and 6 of the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area.
This request would extend the allocation and the vested rights to
December 19, 1995. Please review the extension request, exhibit
A.
Staff recommends approval of a six (6) month extension of the GMQS
allocation and the extension of vested rights status.
Council approved Ordinance 38, Series of 1995, at first reading.
Please see attached Ordinance 38, Series of 1995.
APPLICANT:
Savanah Limited Partnership
BACKGROUND: Council approved the 1990 GMQS allocation for 10 new.
townhomes on Lots 5 and 6 as part of the Aspen Meadows Specially
Planned Area development approval. The SPA was approved in early
1991. The GMQS allocations were due to expire June 21, 1994. In
April of 1994, Savanah requested a six month extension on the GMQS
and vested rights for Lots 5 and 6. Council granted the extension.
The applicants again requested an extension in December which
extended the allocations and vested rights status to June 19, 1995.
When Council granted the last extension, Mayor Bennett remarked
that he hoped this was the last extension request. The applicant
responded that another extension may be requested for two reasons:
- to try and get on a fall construction schedule so as not to
conflict with summer programs; and/or
1
j
- to split the project into two different projects.
STAFF COMMENTS: section 24-8-108 of the Municipal Code states that
a development allotment and all other development approvals shall
expire on the day after the third anniversary of the latest date
of project approval, unless a building permit is obtained and the
project is developed, or unless an exemption from or extension of
the approval is obtained.
For developments other than a sUbdivision, an application for
extension shall be submitted prior to the third anniversary of the
date of approval of a site specific development plan which shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of city council that:
(a) Those conditions applied to the project at the time of its
final approval which were to have been met as of the date of
application for exemption have been complied with; and
RESPONSE: Several conditions of approval are required to be
completed prior to the issuance of any building permits. For
example, the applicant has agreed to excavate the pedestrian/bike
trail alignment beginning at Lot 6 to the top of the slope only.
For Lot 5, units 1, 2, 10 & 11 shall be backfilled to reduce
perceived height.
Currently, the Parks Department is pursuing trail development for
this alignment and anticipating a fall construction date. Due to
the numerous extensions, staff recommends that the applicant, as
a condi~ion of this extension, begin and complete excavation of
the trail by October 31, 1995.
All other conditions have been satisfied with the following
exception:
1. The Parks Department and the applicant must review the SPA
approved landscape plan to ensure that the required landscaping has
been completed or to identify what remains to be completed.
(b) Any improvements which were required to be installed by the
applicant prior to construction of the project have been installed;
and
RESPONSE: All the improvements which were required under the SPA
Agreement have been completed. Although construction has not begun
for Lots 5 and 6, the applicant shall be required to mitigate any
construction damage to Aspen Meadows Road and a 1" to 1.5" overlay
is required when the construction is complete.
Although the construction of the new units and the renovation of
the existing townhomes has not begun, utilities have been installed
and road upgrades completed. However, the lights that have been
installed along the new bike/pedestrian path, parallel to the new
2
.....'...,
Meadows Road do not work and should be repaired or replaced. The
landscaping plan must be reviewed to determine compliance.
(c) The project has been diligently pursued in all reasonable
respects, and the extension is in the best interest of the
community.
RESPONSE: Although this is the third extension request and
building permits have been ready for issuance, staff concurs that
construction during the summer is not in the best interest of the
Meadows' programs or the community's best interest.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval for a final six (6)
month extension (there should be no reason that the applicant
cannot begin construction in the fall) of the 1990 Residential GMQS
allocation and the extension of vested rights for Lots 5 and 6 of
the Aspen Meadows Subdivision as approved and amended in the Aspen
Meadows Specially Planned Area development plan with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall review, with the Parks Department, the
landscape plan that was approved with the Meadows SPA development
plan and confirm that the plan is in compliance. If the Plan is
not in compliance, the applicant shall correct all deficiencies by
September 29, 1995. Failure to comply with this condition shall
render this extension invalid.
2. The applicant shall excavate the pedestrian/bike trail to the
top of the slope on Lot 6, as required in the insubstantial
amendment to the Aspen Meadows Lots 5 and 6, to be completed by
October 31, 1995.
3. The applicant shall replace the non-functioning trail lights
along old Meadows Road by September 29, 1995.
4. The six (6) month extension shall begin at the date of
expiration of the previous 6 month extension which is June 19, 1995
and expire on December 19, 1995.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance 38, Series of 1995,
which extends the 1990 Residential GMQS allocation and vested
rights status for Lots 5 and 6 of the Aspen Meadows Specially
Planned Area from June 19, 1995 to December 19, 1995."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Ordinance 38, Series of 1995
EXHIBIT:
A. Extension Request
3
,r"
<<<'......
.",
-"
ORDINANCE 38
(SERIES OF 1995)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A SIX MONTH
EXTENSION OF THE 1990 RESIDENTIAL GMQS ALLOTMENTS AND VESTED RIGHTS
GRANTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 14, SERIES OF 1991, AND EXTENDED BY
ORDINANCE NO. 22, SERIES OF 1994, AND AGAIN BY ORDINANCE NO. 10,
SERIES OF 1995, FOR THREE TOWNHOMES ON LOT 5 AND SEVEN TOWNHOMES
ON LOT 6 OF THE ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 24-8-108 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City Council may grant an extension of GMQS allocations up
to six months for developments other than detached residential and
duplex units; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 1991, City Council adopted Ordinance No.
14, Series of 1991, which approved the Aspen Meadows Specially
Planned Area Final Development Plan and included residential GMQS
allocations; and
WHEREAS, the GMQS development allotments included the
construction of 10 townhomes on two parcels, Lots 5 and 6i and
WHEREAS, the development allotments expire on the day after
the third anniversary of the date the GMQS allocations, or other
development approvals, have been awardedi and
WHEREAS, Council has granted two prior six-month extensions
which extended the GMQS allocation and vested rights to June 19,
1995i and
WHEREAS, the applicant, Savanah Limited Partnership, has
requested another six (6) month extension of the GMQS allocations
for Lots 5 and 6 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivisioni and
WHEREAS, the applicant also requests an extension of vested
rights status, to coincide with the GMQS allocation extensioni and
1
./""-
-,
,
-
WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having reviewed the application
recommends approval of a six (6) month extension of the GMQS
allotments and vested rights approved in Ordinance 14, Series of
1991; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen city Council, having considered the
Planning Office's recommendation for the GMQS extension, does wish
to grant another extension for six (6) months and extend vested
rights status finding that the Aspen Institute requires more time
to finalize purchase of Lot 5 without jeopardizing the option
contract, Savanah requests to re-examine the affordable housing
mitigation requirement which has increased significantly since the
1991 approval, and avoiding campus disruption as a result of summer
construction activity is in the best interest of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
Pursuant to section 24-8-108 of the Municipal Code, City Council
does hereby grant the applicant another six (6) month extension of
the 1990 Residential GMQS allocation approved by Ordinance l4,
Series of 1991, and extended by Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1994
and No. 10, Series of 1995, for Lots 5 and 6 of the Aspen Meadows
Subdivision beginning June 19, 1995, and ending December 19, 1995.
section 2:
Pursuant to section 24-6-207 of the Municipal code, city Council
does hereby grant the applicant an extension of vested rights
status for the site specific development plan for Lots 5 and 6 of
the Aspen Meadows Subdivision as approved by Ordinance 14, Series
of 1991 and amended by Planning Office memo dated March 16, 1995,
with the following conditions:
1. The extension of vested rights shall be for six months to
December 19, 1995.
2. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
2
approved by this Ordinance and the insubstantial amendment
shall remain vested for a total of four years and six months
from June 20, 1991, which was approved by Ordinance No. 14,
Series and insubstantially amended. However, any failure to
abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval
shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights.
3. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
4. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances or the city provided
that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the
approvals granted and vested herein.
5. 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 circulations within the city of Aspen no
later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof.
section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional.
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
section 5:
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending
under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
3
,.,."...
-,....
section 6:
A PUbl~g on the Ordinance shall be held on the..2r
day of 995 at 5:00 P.M. in the city council Chambers, Aspen
City Hall Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing
a public notice of the same shall be published one in a newspaper
of general circulation within the city of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the
City Council of the City of Aspen on the
day of
, 1995.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
~ FINALLY, adopted,
r..Mp-' 1995.
passed and approved this
cPt'
day of
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
4
/-
,....,....
EXHIBIT A
-"
Request for Extension from GMQS Expiration Deadlines
for the Aspen Meadows Multi-Family Projects
This application is submitted on behalf of Savanah Limited Partnership, owner of
Lots 5 and 6, Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area and the Aspen Institute (the
"Parties"). The Parties request an additional extension of six months in the
expiration of the growth management allocations for the three multi-family units
approved by the City on Lot 5 (the Trustee Houses) and for the seven multi-family
units approved on Lot 6 (the Tennis Townhomes) as well as an extension of the
vested rights granted by the City for the projects approved for these lots.
Over the course of the last year, Savanah has been working closely with the Aspen
Institute along with third parties to try to develop a co-development scenario which
will better serve the Institute's long-term needs for additional housing for its
participants. In fact, two separate contracts to develop the residential projects were
entered into during the last year but were terminated prior to closing. These two
negotiations covered a period of over three months and significantly delayed
progress toward construction. Despite these setbacks, Savanah has continued to
work with the Institute in this regard and an option contract has now been finalized
between the two parties for the purchase of Lot 5 by the Aspen Institute.
The Institute, now that it has Lot 5 under contract, is trying to determine how to
proceed with acquiring and constructing the Trustee Houses in a way which will
avoid disrupting the cultural and academic programs at the Meadows. Savanah, in
turn, is awaiting a decision by the Institute in this regard. It is important to
emphasize that the agreement between the Parties is an "Option to Purchase" which
the Institute will not be able to exercise until fall or early winter. Thus, requiring
that the building permits be obtained at the present time would jeopardize the
Institute's ability to acquire Lot 5.
The planning for the Meadows has always contemplated having only one of these
two projects under construction at one time because of the limited amount of space
available for staging in the area. While it would be possible to obtain building
permits for these projects and then delay construction for some period of time, once
1
/".-.."
....''''....,
,
.........
a permit has been obtained, a series of specific deadlines becomes established as a
result of the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. The parties do not
believe that triggering the rigid schedule specified under the building code is
desirable in this case, given the need to schedule construction around the programs
of the non-profit organizations and given the fact that the Institute is now acquiring
one of the parcels.
Savanah is also re-analyzing the affordable housing issue to determine whether
there might be an alternative which is both cost-effective and also a preferable
solution to the City to the payment-in-lieu approach called for under the original
approvals. Under the SPA Agreement, Savanah agreed to make a payment-in-lieu
equivalent to 16,60 full-time equivalent employees for the ten new multi-family
units. At the time the approvals were granted, the payment-in-lieu per employee
under the Housing Guidelines was $ 35,000.00 per employee. Savanah was therefore
anticipating a total payment for the ten units in the range of $ 581,000.00.
Under the current (May, 1995) Housing Guidelines, however, the payment-in-lieu
per employee has risen to $ 79,000.00 per employee and the total payment for the ten
units to $ 1,311,400.00. The increase in fees, while resulting from a desire on the part
of the City to have the fee more closely reflect the actual costs of producing housing,
has nonetheless had the effect of altering the original projections for the two
projects and prompted the need to re-examine alternative solutions.
A. Background:
Under the provisions of Sec. 8-108(A)(2), development allotments and all other
development approvals are deemed to expire on the day after the third anniversary
of the project's final development approval, unless a building permit is obtained
and the project is developed, or unless an extension of the approval is obtained.
The approvals are now scheduled to expire on June 19, 1995 1.
1 Sec. 6-207(c) of the Code provides that in those matters in which the Council has final approval.
that approval shall be by ordinance. A site specific development plan shall be deemed approved on
the "effective date" of the approving ordinance. The effective date of Ordinance 14/91. under which
the City granted Final SPA Development Plan approval to the Aspen Meadows. was five business days
after the date of publication of the ordinance following its approval on June 10; in other words. the
effective date of the ordinance was June 20, 1991. Therefore. the GMQS allocations and vested rights
2
.~"*-.",
-
for the two multi-family residential projects in the Aspen Meadows SPA were originally due to expire
on June 21. 1994. Under Ordinance 22/94 and Ordinance 10/95. City Council granted extensions of six
months each; the approvals are now due to expire on June 19, 1995.
In March 1994, Savanah submitted building permit applications for the two multi-
family projects in anticipation of obtaining building permits to begin construction of
these two projects by the original deadline in June, 1994. However, because of the
scheduling reasons mentioned elsewhere, Savanah needed to postpone
commencement of construction of the seven new townhouse units on Lot 6 until
the fall of 1994 and then begin renovation and enlargement of the Trustee Houses
and construction of the three new units on Lot 5 in the fall of 1995. Therefore,
Savanah previously requested and received approval of an extension in the date of
expiration of the GMQS allocations and vested rights for these resi~ential projects
from June 21, 1994 to December 21,1994 (see Ordinance 22/94, attached as Exhibit A).
Subsequent to the granting of the extension, some unforeseen zoning issues arose
with regard to these two projects as a result of City zoning staff review of the
pending building permit applications. These issues prompted Savanah, in October
1994, to seek two administrative amendments to the prior SPA approval. The
Planning staff reached a decision regarding these two administrative amendments
as documented in their March 16, 1995 memo, attached as Exhibit R In the mean-
time, pending a resolution of the proposed amendments, Savanah was granted a
second extension to June 19, 1995 (see Ordinance 10/95, attached as Exhibit C).
The intent in requesting these extensions was to allow Savanah to minimize the
disruption on the summer programs of the non-profit organizations by undertaking
the most disruptive stages of construction during the falloff-season and to maintain
the availability of the seven existing trustee houses as rental units for the use of the
participants of the non-profit programs through at least the 1995 summer season.
Starting the two projects at separate times will also ease the problems of
construction staging in the relatively constrained area remaining at the Meadows.
In the prior extension requests, Savanah acknowledged an interest in seeking
further extensions for the Trustee Houses to accomplish the staggered construction
of the two projects.
3
-
I
....,.
'..'..,
~,-
The City and other parties to the Agreement were quite sensitive to the timing of
construction at the Meadows because of its potential impacts on the programs of the
non-profit organizations. Section HA) of the SPA Agreement, Construction
Schedules - General, includes language in support of the notion of minimizing
disruptions to the non-profit organization's summer programs during the five
stages of construction activity then anticipated:
"1. It is anticipated that the Institute renovation and new construction,
including the seven lodge buildings, administration building, health club and
pool, parking structure and attendant site work will be undertaken in at least
three distinct phases with the major components of each phase beginning in
the Fall and ending the following Summer.....
5. The schedule for completion of the City trail and bridge installation from
the old Meadows Road to picnic point and across to the Rio Grande trail and
from behind the auditorium accessing the Roaring Fork Road side of the
campus will be established by the City but will be coordinated with the
affected Consortium members. Disruptive construction activity will be
scheduled so as not to interfere with campus programs or activities......."
The City and Consortium members also acknowledged in the same section of the
Agreement that exact construction schedules for the entire project could not be
agreed to, due primarily to two factors:
"(a) Construction scheduling depends on the success of fund raising efforts by
the nonprofit members of the Consortium.
(b) Construction will take longer than a normal development because
summer programming and activities on the Property will require curtailment'
of construction activity during summer months."
If Savanah and the Institute are unable to obtain from the City a further extension
in the time to obtain the building permits for these two projects, it will be necessary
for both Savanah and perhaps even the Aspen Institute to obtain building permits
for both townhouse projects and proceed with construction within the time
constraints spelled out in the building code. Once construction begins, it necessarily
needs to continue until the projects are completed. This would mean that some of
the most disruptive construction activities would probably occur this summer,
when the non-profit organizations' programs at the Meadows are underway; this is
a prospect that is not attractive to the Parties.
4
.""'l,.
r-"'"
-""
Savanah and the Aspen Institute are therefore requesting the continued cooperation
of the City in the ongoing agreement between the City and the members of the
Consortium to try to avoid unnecessary disruptions of the academic programs at the
Aspen Meadows through the various construction stages to be undertaken.
B. Extension of GMQS Expiration Provisions for Lots 5 and 6:
Under the provisions of Sec. 8-108(A)(2), multi-family developments shall be
eligible for extension of the GMQS expiration provisions. To obtain an extension,
an application for extension shall be submitted prior to the approval deadline which
shal1 demonstrate to the satisfaction of City Council that the fol1owing three
conditions in bold have been met (the Parties' response to these conditions fol1ows
each condition);
(a) Those conditions applied to the project at the time of its final approval
which were to have been met as of the date of application for exemption have
been complied with [Sec. 8-108(A)(2)(a)].
To the best of the Parties' knowledge, al1 of the conditions which were applied
to the Project under the SPA Agreement have been complied with.
(b) Any improvements which were required to be installed by the
applicant prior to construction of the project have been installed [Sec. 8-
l08(A)(2)(b )].
All of the improvements which were required to be installed under the SPA
Agreement have now been completed, including the planting of additional
cottonwood street trees along Meadows Road and some additional cleanouts
that the City requested be added to the irrigation system.
(c) The project has been diligently pursued in all reasonable respects, and
the extension is in the best interests of the community [Sec. 8-108(A)(2)(c)].
Despite the fact that actual construction of the new residential units and
renovation and expansion of the existing residential units has not begun,
Savanah has nonetheless expended wel1 over one million dol1ars in road
construction, instal1ation of utilities and landscaping in anticipation of the
residential building program.
5
,#-
The Consortium members have diligently pursued completion of the project
while working within the constraints of the fund-raising efforts of the non-
profit organizations and the interruptions in construction during a large
majority of the summer building season which were previously agreed to;
these were recognized concerns spelled out by the parties to the SPA
Agreement. The project infrastructure is in place and most of the new and
renovated facilities are now complete.
Savanah has diligently pursued building permits for the two projects which
are the subject of this request and has worked closely with City staff to resolve
unforeseen zoning issues. Savanah and the Aspen Institute believe that the
additional extension is clearly in the best interests of the community in order
to continue to avoid disrupting the programs of the non-profit organizations
during the summer season.
In summary, Savanah and the Aspen Institute are requesting an extension of the
GMQS expiration provisions for the allocations granted to the ten townhouse units
(three units on Lot 5 and seven units on Lot 6) as well as vested rights for the two
projects for a period not to exceed six months. This extension is requested in order
to provide additional time to allow the Institute to finalize its purchase of
Lot 5 and to avoid jeopardizing the option contract, to allow Savanah to re-examine
the affordable housing issue and to avoid campus disruptions which would result
from starting construction during the summer academic season.
6
Vlb
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
Mayor and Council \\ ~
Amy Margerum, City Manager ~
stan Clauson, community Development
Director~
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE:
August 14, 1995
Aspen Meadows Residential GMQS and Vested Rights
Extension Request - First Reading Ordinance O:S, Series
of 1995
RE:
=================================================================
SUMMARY: The applicants, Savanah Limited partnership, has
requested another six month extension to their 1990 GMQS allotment
and vested rights status for the development of 10 townhomes on
Lots 5 and 6 of the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area.
This request would extend the allocation and the vested rights to
December 19, 1995. Please review the extension request, exhibit
A.
Staff recommends approval of a six (6) month extension of the GMQS
allocation and the extension of vested rights status.
Please see attached ordinance~, Series of 1995.
APPLICANT:
Savanah Limited partnership
BACKGROUND: council approved the 1990 GMQS allocation for 10 new
townhomes on Lots 5 and 6 as part of the Aspen Meadows specially
Planned Area development approval. The SPA was approved in early
1991. The GMQS allocations were due to expire June 21, 1994. In
April of 1994, Savanah requested a six month extension on the GMQS
and vested rights for Lots 5 and 6. council granted the extension.
The applicants again requested an extension in December which
extended the allocations and vested rights status to June 19, 1995.
When Council granted the last extension, Mayor Bennett remarked
that he hoped this was the last extension request. The applicant
responded that another extension may be requested for two reasons:
_ to try and get on a fall construction schedule so as not to
conflict with summer programs; and/or
- to split the project into two different projects.
1
..'--~'--~~~""'----^-'~"----^"---~~
STAFF COMMENTS: Section 24-8-108 of the Municipal Code states that
a development allotment and all other development approvals shall
expire on the day after the third anniversary of the latest date
of project approval, unless a building permit is obtained and the
project is developed, or unless an exemption from or extension of
the approval is obtained.
For developments other than a sUbdivision, an application for
extension shall be submitted prior to the third anniversary of the
date of approval of a site specific development plan which shall
demonstrate to the satisfaction of city council that:
(a) Those conditions applied to the project at the time of its
final approval which were to have been met as of the date of
application for exemption have been complied with; and
RESPONSE: Several conditions of approval are required to be
completed prior to the issuance of any building permits. For
example, the applicant has agreed to excavate the pedestrian/bike
trail alignment beginning at Lot 6 to the top of the slope only.
For Lot 5, units 1, 2, 10 & 11 shall be backfilled to reduce
perceived height.
currently, the Parks Department is pursuing trail development for
this alignment and anticipating a fall construction date. Due to
the numerous extensions, staff recommends that the applicant, as
a condition of this extension, begin and complete excavation of
the trail by October 31, 1995.
All other conditions have been satisfied with the following
exception:
1. The Parks Department and the applicant must review the SPA
approved landscape plan to ensure that the required landscaping has
been completed or to identify what remains to be completed.
(b) Any improvements which were required to be installed by the
applicant prior to construction of the project have been installed;
and
RESPONSE: All the improvements which were required under the SPA
Agreement have been completed. Al though construction has not begun
for Lots 5 and 6, the applicant shall be required to mitigate any
construction damage to Aspen Meadows Road and a 1" to 1.5" overlay
is required when the construction is complete.
Although the construction of the new units and the renovation of
the existing townhomes has not begun, utilities have been installed
and road upgrades completed. However, the lights that have been
installed along the new bike/pedestrian path, parallel to the new
Meadows Road do not work and should be replaced. The landscaping
plan must be reviewed to determine compliance.
2
<"","._~.__._,_.~.__,n-'-'~"'~","'_'_'_"'~,"-___"~__~'"
(c) The project has been diligently pursued in all reasonable
respects, and the extension is in the best interest of the
community.
RESPONSE: Although this is the third extension request and
building permits have been ready for issuance, staff concurs that
construction during the summer is not in the best interest of the
Meadows' programs or the community's best interest.
RECOMMENJ)ATION: Staff recommends approval for a final six (6)
month extension (there should be no reason that the applicant
cannot begin construction in the fall) of the 1990 Residential GMQS
allocation and the extension of vested rights for Lots 5 and 6 of
the Aspen Meadows Subdivision as approved and amended in the Aspen
Meadows Specially Planned Area development plan with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall review, wi th the Parks Department, the
landscape plan that was approved with the Meadows SPA development
plan and confirm that the plan is in compliance. If the Plan is
not in compliance, the applicant shall correct all deficiencies by
September 29, 1995. Failure to comply with this condition shall
render this extension invalid.
2. The applicant shall excavate the pedestrian/bike trail to the
top of the slope on Lot 6, as required in the insubstantial
amendment to the Aspen Meadows Lots 5 and 6, to be completed by
October 31, 1995.
3. The applicant shall replace the non-functioning trail lights
along old Meadows Road by September 29, 1995.
4. The six (6) month extension shall begin at the date of
expiration of the previous 6 month extension which is June 19, 1995
and expire on December 19, 1995.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to read Ordinance 3i), Series of 1995,
which extends the 1990 Residential GMQS allocation and vested
rights status for Lots 5 and 6 of the Aspen Meadows Specially
Planned Area from June 19, 1995 to December 19, 1995."
"I move to approved Ordinance 3S', Ser ies of 1995, on first
reading."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
ordinance~, Series of 1995
EXHIBIT:
A. Extension Request
3
ORDINANCE ~
(SERIES OF 1995)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A SIX MONTH
EXTENSION OF THE 1990 RESIDENTIAL GMQS ALLOTMENTS AND VESTED RIGHTS
GRANTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 14, SERIES OF 1991, AND EXTENDED BY
ORDINANCE NO. 22, SERIES OF 1994, AND AGAIN BY ORDINANCE NO. 10,
SERIES OF 1995, FOR THREE TOWNBOMES ON LOT 5 AND SEVEN TOWNBOMES
ON LOT 6 OF THE ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 24-8-108 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City council may grant an extension of GMQS allocations up
to six months for developments other than detached residential and
duplex units; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 1991, city Council adopted Ordinance No.
14, Series of 1991, which approved the Aspen Meadows specially
Planned Area Final Development Plan and included residential GMQS
allocations; and
WHEREAS, the GMQS development allotments included the
construction of 10 townhomes on two parcels, Lots 5 and 6; and
WHEREAS, the development allotments expire on the day after
the third anniversary of the date the GMQS allocations, or other
development approvals, have been awarded; and
WHEREAS, Council has granted two, six month extensions which
extended the GMQS allocation and vested rights to June 19, 1995;
and
WHEREAS, the applicant, Savanah Limited Partnership, has
requested another six (6) month extension of the GMQS allocations
for Lots 5 and 6 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also requests an extension of vested
rights status, to coincide with the GMQS allocation extension; and
1
WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having reviewed the application
recommends approval of a six (6) month extension of the GMQS
allotments and vested rights approved in Ordinance 14, Series of
1991; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen city Council, having considered the
Planning Office's recommendation for the GMQS extension, does wish
to grant another extension for six (6) months and extend vested
rights status finding that the Aspen Institute requires more time
to finalize purchase of Lot 5 without jeopardizing the option
contract, Savanah requests to re-examine the affordable housing
mitigation requirement which has increased significantly since the
1991 approval, and avoiding campus disruption as a result of summer
construction activity is in the best interest of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
Pursuant to section 24-8-108 of the Municipal Code, city Council
does hereby grant the applicant another six (6) month extension of
the 1990 Residential GMQS allocation approved by Ordinance 14,
Series of 1991, and extended by Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1994
and No. 10, Series of 1995, for Lots 5 and 6 of the Aspen Meadows
Subdivision beginning June 19, 1995, and ending December 19, 1995.
section 2:
Pursuant to section 24-6-207 of the Municipal code, City Council
does hereby grant the applicant an extension of vested rights
status for the site specific development plan for Lots 5 and 6 of
the Aspen Meadows Subdivision as approved by Ordinance 14, Series
of 1991 and amended by Planning Office memo dated March 16, 1995,
with the following conditions:
1. The extension of vested rights shall be for six months to
December 19, 1995.
2. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
2
approved by this Ordinance and the insubstantial amendment
shall remain vested for a total of four years and six months
from June 20, 1991, which was approved by Ordinance No. 14,
Series and insubstantially amended. However, any failure to
abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval
shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights.
3. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of
referendum and judicial review.
4. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or the
general rules, regulations or ordinances or the City provided
that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the
approvals granted and vested herein.
5. 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 circulations within the city of Aspen no
later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption hereof.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of
this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional
by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
section 5:
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall
not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending
under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
3
Section 6:
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 hearing
a public notice of the same shall be published one in a newspaper
of general circulation within the city of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the
City Council of the city of Aspen on the
day of
, 1995.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, city Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this
day of
, 1995.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, city Clerk
4
,
Aspen City Council 0
Regular Meeting
o March 13. 1995
Mayor Bennett called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. with Councilmembers
Reno, Richards, Waggaman and Paulson present.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
I. Jim Markalunas, representing the Aspen Grove Cemetery Association,
thanked the city and the streets departments for assistance in opening the road to
the cemetery in adverse conditions. Markalunas said he is in support of paid
parking program. Markalunas requested more bike racks for the summer.
Markalunas said he would like to see more enforcement of snow removal on the
sidewalks. Markalunas submitted an outline he prepared for the energy
committee on the pursuit of hydroelectric power.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
I. Councilman Reno moved to continue Ordinance #48, Series of 1994, 520
Walnut Historic Designation, to March 27; seconded by Councilwoman
Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried,
2. Councilwoman Richards moved to add the nominations to the overlay
committee to the agenda as VIII(c); seconded by Councilman Reno. All in favor,
motion carried.
3. Mayor Bennett brought up the conditions of the streets and the many
potholes. Mayor Bennett requested a summary from staff of what is being done to
fix the potholes.
4. Acting City Manager Bill Efting told Council the tentative agenda for the
monthly study session with the County Commissioners is water capacity and
affordable housing. This meeting is April 4th at 5 p.m,
5. Acting City Manager Bill Efting said the parks open space master plan
received unanimous approval from P & Z. Efting said Council can schedule a
work session, or if they prefer, schedule it on a regular agenda. Council said
depending on the size of the agenda, they would rather have it on a regular
agenda.
6. Acting City Manager Bill Efting told Council the closest place for hot mix
to fix the potholes is in Grand Junction. The mix is cold before it gets to Aspen.
Staff is requesting help from other departments to provide extra people to fight the
potholes. Efting said he may come back and request money for more manpower.
_,~"~~,.""",_,~~""."."_,,,,_,~,,"'_~_"_ ,~____'.,""~'M
Aspen CityCuncil
1""'\
Regular Meeting
.
March 13, 1995
7. Acting City Manager Bill Efting said the enforcement of snow removal on
the sidewalks has been by complaint basis. The staff will be issuing warnings this
week.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilwoman Richards moved to read Ordinances 15, 16, and 17, Series of
1995; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried,
ORDINANCE #15
(Series of 1995)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A SIX
MONTH EXTENSION OF THE 1992 LODGE GMQS ALLOTMENT
GRANTED BY ORDINANCE 3, SERIES OF 1993, AND A VESTED RIGHTS
EXTENSION FOR THE BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE REDEVELOPMENT, 720
EAST COOPER AVENUE, ASPEN, COLORADO
ORDINANCE #16
(Series of 1995)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
GRANTING SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION AND GMQS EXEMPTION
APPROVAL FOR THE CARISCH LOT SPLIT (LOTS A, B, C, AND D,
BLOCK 27, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN)
ORDINANCE # 17
(Series of 1995)
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1995 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
GUIDELINES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY
HOUSING AUTHORITY
Councilwoman Waggaman moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by
Councilwoman Richards. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Paulson, yes; Reno,
yes; Richards, yes; Waggaman, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried.
RFTA SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUEST
Dan Blankenship, RFTA general manager, told Council the RFTA board
approved this request in February. The request is to purch/.se a down valley
maintenance facility, related equipment, 5 used buses and the equipment to
refurbish them and to carry over two capital projects to 1995. The total of the
request is $210,023.
2
-.,
(-,
~
Aspen City Council
Regular Meeting
o
March 13. 1995
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing.
Si Coleman asked if this would affect RFT A operations. Blankenship said it will
not.
Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Richard moved to approve RFT A supplemental budget request as
outlined in Resolution 95-1; seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor,
motion carried.
ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 1995 - SavanahlMeadows GMQS
Vested Rights Extension
Leslie Lamont, planning office, told Council Savanah Limited Partnership
requests a 6 month extension to the GMQS allocation for the 10 multi-family
units. These units were approved in the 1990 GMP competition within the 1991
Aspen Meadows SPA final development plan. Ms. Lamont said this extension
request would expire in June 1995. The building permits would issue before that
and construction could occur this summer. Ms. Lamont said there was some work
with the applicant on the drainage easement and the designs of the retaining walls
for the trustee townhomes. Ms, Lamont said these should be resolved in the next
month.
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor
Bennett closed the public hearing.
Councilman Reno moved to adopt Ordinance # 1 0, Series of 1995, on second
reading; seconded by Councilwoman Richards.
Mayor Bennett said he hopes there is not a request for another extension in 6
months. Joe Wells, representing the applicant, said two reasons for another
request would be to try and get on a fall construction schedule so as not to conflict
with summer programs or to split this into two different projects. Councilwoman
Waggaman asked about the pedestrian trail. Ms. Lamont said the city is not
pursuing a different alignment for the trail; however, staff is making sure new
construction will not impact the current alignment.
Rollcall vote; Councilmembers Paulson, yes; Waggaman, yes; Reno, yes;
Richards, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #13. SERIES OF 1995 - Valley Hi Vested Rights
Extension
3
._~-;.<,. .4._'__.,;.__,_........,;-~."~,~.;~,...,____,-w..
Aspen CityCuncil
f""',
Regular Meeting'
March 13, 1995
Leslie Lamont, planning office, told Council this is a request to extend the vested
rights 5 more months from June 15 to November 15, 1995. Ms. Lamont said the
property is under contract and the purchaser has requested these 5 months to get
constructions drawings and to get into the review process. Ms. Lamont noted the
ordinance has been amended to state "Redevelopment of 1000 East Hopkins
A venue shall proceed according to the development timeline submitted and
approved as part of the extension of vested rights application (exhibit B).
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing.
David Guthrie said the purchaser is a local resident who is trying to do the right
thing and he should be given this chance.
Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Richards asked if the residents had been contacted. . Ms. Lamont
said she talked to the representatives ofthe neighbors, who are aware ofthis
ordinance. Mayor Bennett noted Council has recently rejected a request for
extension. The reasons for the recent denial do not seem to have changed.
Councilwoman Waggaman said the difference between this applicant and the
previous applicant is they wanted to hold onto their position with no apparent
intention of demolishing or building. This applicant has a specific time line and
plans. Councilwoman Waggaman said this project will be done and some of the
neighborhood will be cleaned up.
Councilwoman Richards said the exactions for the old vested rights were part of
the Ordinance #1 lawsuit settlement. Councilman Paulson said he hates for the
community to lose 19 units housing 60 people. Ms. Lamont said the new
proposal includes 4 affordable housing units of 1.25 persons per unit.
Councilwoman Waggaman suggested the city should look at building some
apartment-type low income housing to fill this need.
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #13, Series of 1995, as
amended on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. Roll call
vote; Councilmembers Waggaman, yes; Paulson, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor
Bennett, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #3. SERIES OF 1995 - Aspen Youth Center SPA
Amendment
Leslie Lamont, planning office, told Council the Aspen Youth Center Board
requests amendment of the SPA plan as they feel there is a need to expand the
permitted uses in the Youth Center. The Board feels there is a need to expand
4
_.
r'
Aspen City Council "'-.
Regular Meeting
o March 13. 1995
beyond youth-oriented activities. There is. presently a kitchen facility in the
building and they would like this expanded to a year-round basis. The P & Z
approved the amendment to the SPA plan.
Ms. Lamont told Council the kitchen operation has been and will be used in
context with the high school as a teaching aide. Ms. Lamont pointed out one of
the conditions in the ordinance had prohibited advertising of the food
establishment. The applicant feel this reduced the opportunity to find a tenant for
the kitchen.
Perry Harvey, representing the Youth Center, told Council this building is
underutilized. Harvey said the Board favors changing the approval language to
allow for the use of the facility by other community groups when not being used
as a youth center. Harvey said the Board would like to see the facility used by the
city's recreation department, by Colorado Mountain College. Harvey pointed out
the Youth Center is centrally located and is near parking and public
transportation. Harvey told Council the community center has been demolished,
the two in-town schools have changed to other uses. This has created a demand
for space for in-town classes. Harvey said the Board has looked at ways to
generate revenue for the facility.
Harvey told Council the Youth Center is zoned PUB with and SPA overlay. The
purpose of the PUB zone is to provide for the development of governmental and
quasi-governmental facilities for cultural, education, civic and other governmental
purposes. One permitted use is a community recreational facility. Harvey said
the Board has worked with the school to develop a vocational training lab out of
the kitchen facility. There is a suggested class outline. Harvey told Council there
are 4 tables and about 5 stools in the kitchen facility.
Harvey reminded Council during the budget process, the Youth Center was given
a grant of $2500. Harvey said the planning fees have cost them more than the
grant. Harvey requested Council waive the planning application fees.
Councilwoman Richards asked if there is a mechanism so that Council can look at
this use change in 2 or 3 years. John Worcester, city attorney, told Council this
could be handled in the lease. Harvey pointed out condition #8 calls for an annual
review by P & Z of the programming. Ms. Lamont agreed this could be added to
the lease as well. Councilwoman Richards said this facility could be used by the
environmental health department for the food handler classes and by CMC for
their master chef program.
1
Mayor Bennett said the language in the amendment states all activities shall be
either of a public nature or sponsored by the Youth Center to generate funds for
the Center. Mayor Bennett noted the language states operation ofthe kitchen
should be an educational extension of the schools the greatest extent possible.
5
Aspen CityCuncil
~
Regular Meeting.,j
March 13. 1995
Mayor Bennett said the application seems.to be more restrictive. Harvey said the
Youth Center has lost some possible operators of the kitchen because of the
restrictive nature and the kitchen needs to be open year round. Mayor Bennett
said it seems odd to approve a year round restaurant in the Public zone when the
public zone does not allow year round commercial restaurant. Ms. Lamont
pointed out the public zone allows accessory uses. Councilwoman Waggaman
suggested this be limited to 14 or 16 seats.
Mayor Bennett said the original lease was the result of many huurs of negotiation
and some of the proposed deletions seem to go against Council's original intent.
Councilwoman Richards suggested a clarification of terms, like "Public use", and
also a statement of intent.
Councilwoman Richards moved to table Ordinance #3, 1995, to March 27;
seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman.
Councilman Reno suggested the request to waive planning fees be formally
addressed for second reading. Councilwoman Richards requested staff include a
past history of request for waivers of fees. Mayor Bennett requested an analysis
from staff about what can and cannot be done in a public zone. Councilwoman
Richards applauded the youth center for looking to the private sector for ways to
support the facility rather than just asking the Council for more and more money.
Councilwoman Richards amended the motion to table Ordinance #3,1995, to
April 10; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #61. SERIES OF 1994 - Williams Ranch Annexation
Dave Bellack, assistant city attorney, reminded Council last year they adopted an
ordinance approving the land use for this project. There was a traffic study done
and Council's direction was that the applicants contribute $100,000 for traffic
improvements off-site. The engineering department has come up with a cost 5
times of that identified by the traffic study engineers. The applicants have given
the city a mortgage on all but 4 of the free market lots and all the affordable
housing lots. Gary Wright, representing the applicant, told Council the was this is
structured is that even if free market homes are not sold they will be able to build
the affordable housing units. Bellack said the agreement state the project shall be
started within 2 years and completed in 6 years.
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments Mayor
Be~ett closed the public hearing. I
Councilwoman Richards said she is concerned about the city's schedule for the
infra structure improvements. Councilwoman Richards said there should be a
6
fjjj
....
./
Aspen City Council
Regular Meeting
,.',
V March 13. 1995
way to let adjacent property owners what the schedule of improvement is.
Councilwoman Waggaman agreed the specifics should be available for the
neighbors. John Worcester, city attorney, said the city has not yet drafted a major
schedule of improvements. Mayor Bennett suggested asking staff for a plan on
spending the $100,000 that is available from the applicants; beyond that the Asset
Management Committee will need to look at this with the overall plan for the city.
Councilwoman Waggaman said she does not care if the improvements are phased
in but the city needs to get started on this plan. Councilwoman Richards said she
would like to have one phone number, one pel son responsible so that citizens can
call to find out what the improvements are, when they are scheduled.
Councilman Reno moved to adopt Ordinance #61, Series of 1994, on second
reading; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers
Richards, yes; Paulson, yes; Reno, yes; Waggaman, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes.
Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #66, SERIES OF 1994 - Williams Ranch Rezoning
Dave Bellack, assistant city attorney, told Council rezoning this property to AH
(affordable housing) zone is consistent with the project already approved.
Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor
Bennett closed the public hearing.
Councilman Reno moved to adopt Ordinance #66, Series of 1994, on second
reading; seconded by Councilman Paulson. Roll call vote; Councilmembers
Waggaman, yes; Reno, yes; Paulson, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Bennett, yes.
Motion carried.
KRAUT PROJECT FINANCING AND SHADOWWOOD BUY
DOWN
Jim Curtis, housing authority board, told Council through a pilot program Rocky
Mountain Natural Gas gave the project a $26,000 grant to convert to gas domestic
hot water. This will ultimately benefit the residents of the project.
Curtis said there is an opportunity to save $34,000 in the construction loan. Curtis
reminded Council the project started construction with a $1.2 million loan from
the housing/day care fund. These funds will be spent by early May 1995. The
budget to finish the project is $2.1 million through January 1996 completion date.
Curtis said for the project he can get a bank loan or fund the project through city
loans. The bank loan at 10 percent interest and 1/2 point and the city loan at 7
percent and no points. The latter would save the project $34,000. These funds
7
Aspen City Cuneil
('.
Regular Meeting
Mareh 13, 1995
would earn more interest for the city than they are currently earning. Curtis said
he does not need a decision at this meeting.
Steve Barwick, assistant city manager, told Council the in 5 year budget for
housing/day care funds there appears to be money available. Barwick noted
$800,000 was budgeted for this project. There is $1.9 million budget for housing
projects, none of which has been allocated for any specific projects. Council
agreed the Kraut project should proceed with internal financing. Council agreed
to look at other projects, like Cozy Point and Shadowwood, before making a final
decision.
Dave Tolen, housing director, told Council in the Aspen Area Community Plan,
sites in the metro area identified as possibilities, Shadowwood is identified as
priority #1 for preservation of deed restricted units. Tolen said this proposal is a
buy down with development of additional units on this property. Tolen said the
owner is interested in maintaining ownership and managing the units. Tolen said
the proposal is for the city to putin $750,000. The county is putting in $450,000
and there is a $300,000 donation tied specifically to this project for a total of $1.5
million.
Councilwoman Richards said she is concerned about putting public money into
buying down a project that has high rents. Greg Thomas said his intent is to
operate this as he has in the past, to minimize the number of people per unit.
Thomas told Council he has renovated the units. Tolen told Council the housing
office got two appraisals; one the value of the property as it is right now. Tolen
said rental units are not the highest and best use for the property, Tolen said the
highest and best use and value for the propeliy is two single family houses at $2,5
to $3 million. Appraised as a deed restricted property it is valued at $1.5 million.
The difference in these two prices is the buy down price.
Mayor Bennett questioned the flat cpi increase. Tolen said this is a protection for
the owner in the ultimate value of the property. Mayor Bennett said the full cpi is
a greater increase, not just inflation adjusted. Mayor Bennett said he likes the idea
of the project but would like to find a compromise on the cpi issue. Mayor
Bennett said this is related to what happens with Cozy Point and Snyder project.
Tolen told Council the housing department's rent are adjusted at 40 percent
proportion of cpi. Councilwoman Richards said the buy down concept is putting
down half the purchase price only to diminish the free market value.
Council agreed to discuss this in an executive session after the executive session
Tuesday, March 14th.
RESOLUTION #11, SERIES OF 1995 - Ballot Language
8
r
Aspen City Council '--
Regular Meeting
/-,
.....; March 13. 1995
The proposed question reads "Shall on-street paid parking continue to be an
element of the City of Aspen's Transportation Plan with the new revenues to
continue and increase transportation services for the Aspen area?"
Mayor Bennett said this question holds Council to their promise and use parking
revenues for the transportation program. Councilman Reno requested this be
changed to "current transportation plan" so the voter knows what this is referring
to. Council agreed this should be changed to "to be part of the City of Aspen's
Transportation Plan with the revenues used to continue and increase etc"
Councilman Reno moved to adopt Resolution #11, Series of 1995, amending the
question to read "Shall on-street paid parking continue to be a part ofthe city of
Aspen's current Transportation Plan with the net revenues used to continue and
increase transportation services for the Aspen area"; seconded by Councilwoman
Waggaman. All in favor, motion carried.
OVERLAY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
Councilman Paulson moved to appoint Steve Buettow (P & Z) and Roger Moyer
(HPC) to the overlay committee; seconded by Councilwoman Waggaman.
Councilman Reno abstained. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilwoman Richards moved to continue the meeting to March 14 at 6 p.m.;
seconded by Councilman Paulson. All in favor, motion carried. Council left the
meeting at 9 p,m.
9
,...-.-""
-~---~.._~-.._--,._~--,._-..,.._~
("
.""",,,
~
~,
"'-\
II
ASPEN. PITKIN
PLANNING & ZONI!'lG DEPARTMENT
COM~UNITY DEVElOPMENT DEPARTMENT
June 23, 1995
David Brown, AIA
Stryker/Brown Architects, PC.
300 S. Spring Street, suite 300
Aspen, . CO 81611
Re: Building permit applications for Meadows Tennis & Meadows'.
, Trustee
Dear David:
This letter is to inform you that the above-referenced permit
applications have expired. The administrative extension which
the Building Division granted lasted till June 19, 1995. .This
date corresponds with the expiration date of the S.P.A.
approvals.
Further consideration of an S.P.A. extension will need to go to
City Council. We would ~lso request from Council specific
guidance on extensions for these building permit applications.
Contact Leslie Lamont (920-5101) if you need information
regarding planning approvals.
~
Vicki Monge
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET. ASPEN, COLORAD<? 81611 . PHONE 303.920.5090 . FAX 303.920.5197
DIRECT FAX LINE: 303.920.5439
Prinled01lrecydedpap<'!"
,...,,,,,, _...'-. '"...c~_""'~..._..~. ,___....".__ ...,
I
//
/'
r ""'"
.......... .....",
STRYKER / BROWN
ARCHITECTS, PC
June 30, 1995
Ms. Vicki Monge
Aspen/Pitkin Planning and Zoning Department
Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department
City Hall
Aspen, Colorado 81611
re: Aspen Meadows Tennis and Trustee Townhomes Permit
Resubmission/Extension
Dear Vicki:
~f
~~
On behalf of Savanah Limited Partnership, I am enclosing a copy of the letter from
City Attorney, John P. Worcester, to Robert Hughes. It is my understanding that
Savanah Limited Partnership has formally applied for an extension of the S.P.A. .
approvals.
Under the spirit of the attached letter, please continue the revised plan checking (per
our recent uresubmissionU), and let me know when the permit is ready to pick up.
If there is any confusion, or question on this, I suggest we set up a meeting with
Mssrs. Worcester, Hughes, and Kanipe, and you and me.
Happy Fourth!
Sincerely,
STRYKER/BROWN ARCmTECTS, pc
-v~~-
-
David Brown, AIA
cc: Ferd Belz
Robert W. Hughes
Joe Wells
300 S. SPRING STREET. SUITE 300
ASPEN COLORADO 81611
303,925.2254 925.2258 (FAX)
- - -- -
.-
-"---'--"
,.......\
(......,
".
. &.:..; -
,
..
'.
;. ..;'
. ,
..'
('
\.../
~.
....,.#
/)
J
'j"
~J
;:
"
iI.
.1'D.....
. .'
THE CITY OF ASPEN
. . OffiCE 01 tH' CITY ATTORNEY
June.I.5, ~995
~
Robert W. Hughes, Esq.:.
oates, . Hughes &. Knezevich
533. East Hopkins Avenue
~pen, colorado 8~6~~
Re: EXtension of Vested Rig~ts
Dear Bob:
.'
. This is to confirm our telephone conversation in which we dis-
cussed the City's policy with respect to the. expiration of vested
rights.
If an application for an '~ension' is received'before the expira-
tion date of the vested rights, City council will consider the
request as. timely filed even though the matter is scheduled by
City Council for .cons~deration after the eXpiration date. ~n the
event that city council does not approve an extension of vested
rights for.the period of time requested' by the applicant, staff'
.will normally recommend to'the city Council' that the applicant be
granted a two-week 'extension to apply for and receive a building
permit.. As 'youknOW; the approval of ..extensions is .within the
sole discretion of.city council and.staff's recommendations in
this regard are in no 'way binding upon the City council..
I trust this .clarifies the city's policy in these matters.
you have any questions regarding the a!:love" 'please advise..
. ..
If . .
sincerely, . .
, I
. . ,
'.~//J~
~~y~ ~orcester
City.Attorney
JPW/mc
. jw6~5. J.
i
,
-.'
,
'cc: Planninq Department
. '. f~'.(~~~~
'. .
130 Soum GALIN.... Sut'sel . MPs.-.:, COLORADO ~16n . PWONI303.920.50.55 -, FAX 303.9l0.5U9
I'nad..~w,.,..
'-'~'''~-''''''''''',",_.~----,-",.",",'....-"<'
ASC/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5090 FAX# (970) 920-5197
""""'
,
...,./.
June 28, 1995
Joe Wells
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Aspen Meadows Lots 5 & 6 GMQS Extension
Case A74-95
Dear Joe,
The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We
have determined that this application is complete.
We have scheduled this application for 1st Reading before the Aspen City Council on Monday,
July 24, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. Second Reading and Public Hearing will be
on August 28, 1995. Should these dates be inconvenient for you, please contact me within 3
working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda dates will be considered final and
changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable
technical problems. The Friday before the meeting dates, we will call to inform you that a
copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office.
Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to property owners within 300' and to
post the subject property with a sign at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Please
submit a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing
prior to the public hearing.
If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont the planner assigned to your case, at 920-
5101.
Sincerely,
';;w;A1\J'-L
Su:zmilie L. Wolff
Administrative Assistant
"_ph
" '"'~"~"",,.~.> ",",.~_.;.-_,._.~"",_",,,,,~,,_._,__. ,_,.oA ~..'< ~._.,.~,..~."",''''.",__..~,__~_ __...~~._.""__~
/"'''
'-'
.-...
--
SA V ANAH LIMITED PARTNERSffiP
444 Washington Blvd.
Marina del Rey, California 90292
(310) 821-9899 Phone
(310) 821-7188 Fax
June 6, 1995
Mr. Stan Clauson
Director of Community Development, City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Clauson:
I am writing you on behalf of Savanah Limited Partnership, owner of the Lots 5
and 6, Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area. Savanah has authorized the preparation
by J oseph Wells Land Planning of the attached extension requests for the residential
Growth Management Quota System approvals and vested rights granted for these lots
under Ordinance 14, Series of 1991.
During the processing of this application, Savanah will be represented by
Ferdinand Belz and Joseph Wells. Please contact Ferd at 925-4272 or Joe at 925-8080
if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely yours,
ses International,
its Managing General Partner
ORB:yni
Enclosures
cc: Ferdinand Belz III
Joseph Wells
USBRS\LEOAL\PAUL\WP\ORB\Cl.AUSON.606
"",..,
........
L^WU'FICRAO~' '-'
KAUFMAN Ir PETERSON, P.o.
11. nST "TMAN AVEHU[
A'~~N.CQ~AADO 11&11
TELUHOllE
(t'0l ....IU..
rAOSIIIIU:
tt70l NNOIO
~,..,
llIOOlIE L PntasOH
C:IDEOIII, llAurllAH .
DIN L. FEIlIWI'U ..
loa'N J. MfLEA...
. Al,H1...n......tf\U.
. MltlllUffll UI 'LOll"
-..LM....".........,_
... ._1ftlC1I'
.:rune 6,. 1995
Mr. Stan Clauson
Director at Co~unity Dev.lo~ent
Ci ty Of Aspen
130 s. Galena Street
Alpen, co 81611
"II '&VIUIU LblUaa 'i~tD81'.h1p LGt; 5, ~p.n Hutows
spedallJ 11aftJlt4 ana
Dear Mr. Claulon:
% am writing to you to conf1r~ that the Aspen Institute is
presen~ly un~er con~~act to purcha.e.from Savanah Li~ited
Partnership Lot 5. Aspen Meadows specially Planned Are.. We
have consented to the preparation ~y Jo..ph Wells L.n4 Plannin;
of the attached extension request for the r'5ia~ntial Growth
Management Quota syst.. ap~toYal. and vested rithes qrantad tor
this lot under Ordinance 14, Seri.. of 1991.
Durinq th. procelsin; of this application, the Aspen
!nstituto will ~8 repre5ented ~~ GiQcon Kaufman. .1ease conta=t
Gideon at 925-Sl66.0n O~ beh&U if you have any question. or
neee! dditionlll infol'lllation. .
sineerely yours,
Tha Aspen In,titute
B)':
~
.,
/'
/' '\
./
Joseph Wells
](l'l'ph Wdl,. AleI'
tl11d PJ.lnnl11~ ;Jnd Ilt'~lgn
June 8, 1995
Mr. Stan Clauson
Director of Community Development, City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Mr. Clauson:
I am writing to you on behalf of Savanah Limited Partnership, owner of
Lots 5 and 6, Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area, Savanah is requesting
review and approval by the City Council of the attached extension request for
the residential Growth Management Quota System approvals granted for
these lots under Ordinance 14, Series of 1991.
Please contact John Sarpa or Ferd Belz at 925-4272 or me if you have any
questions or need additional information.
Sincerely yours,
'. i << ;',
"_I '_.....
c~
Joseph Wells, AICP
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen. Colorado 81611
Telephone (~O.3) 911-8080
Facsimile 1303) 92:;-8T5
j#""-....
/ ..'"
"-'
Request for Extension from GMQS Expiration Deadlines
for the Aspen Meadows Multi-Family Projects
This application is submitted on behalf of Savanah Limited Partnership, owner of
Lots 5 and 6, Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area and the Aspen Institute (the
"Parties"), The Parties request an additional extension of six months in the
expiration of the growth management allocations for the three multi-family units
approved by the City on Lot 5 (the Trustee Houses) and for the seven multi-family
units approved on Lot 6 (the Tennis Townhomes) as well as an extension of the
vested rights granted by the City for the projects approved for these lots.
Over the course of the last year, Savanah has been working closely with the Aspen
Institute along with third parties to try to develop a co-development scenario which
will better serve the Institute's long-term needs for additional housing for its
participants. In fact, two separate contracts to develop the residential projects were
entered into during the last year but were terminated prior to closing. These two
negotiations covered a period of over three months and significantly delayed
progress toward construction. Despite these setbacks, Savanah has continued to
work with the Institute in this regard and an option contract has now been finalized
between the two parties for the purchase of Lot 5 by the Aspen Institute.
The Institute, now that it has Lot 5 under contract, is trying to determine how to
proceed with acquiring and constructing the Trustee Houses in a way which will
avoid disrupting the cultural and academic programs at the Meadows. Savanah, in
turn, is awaiting a decision by the Institute in this regard. It is important to
emphasize that the agreement between the Parties is an "Option to Purchase" which
the Institute will not be able to exercise until fall or early winter. Thus, requiring
that the building permits be obtained at the present time would jeopardize the
Institute's ability to acquire Lot 5.
The planning for the Meadows has always contemplated having only one of these
two projects under construction at one time because of the limited amount of space
available for staging in the area. While it would be possible to obtain building
permits for these projects and then delay construction for some period of time, once
1
a permit has been obtained, a series of specific deadlines becomes established as a
result of the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. The parties do not
believe that triggering the rigid schedule specified under the building code is
desirable in this case, given the need to schedule construction around the programs
of the non-profit organizations and given the fact that the Institute is now acquiring
one of the parcels.
Savanah is also re-analyzing the affordable housing issue to determine whether
there might be an alternative which is both cost-effective and also a preferable
solution to the City to the payment-in-lieu approach called for under the original
approvals. Under the SPA Agreement, Savanah agreed to make a payment-in-lieu
equivalent to 16.60 full-time equivalent employees for the ten new multi-family
units. At the time the approvals were granted, the payment-in-lieu per employee
under the Housing Guidelines was $ 35,000.00 per employee. Savanah was therefore
anticipating a total payment for the ten units in the range of $ 581,000.00.
Under the current (May, 1995) Housing Guidelines, however, the payment-in-lie~
per employee has risen to $ 79,000.00 per employee and the total payment for the ten
units to $ 1,311,400.00. The increase in fees, while resulting from a desire on the part
of the City to have the fee more closely reflect the actual costs of producing housing,
has nonetheless had the effect of altering the original projections for the two
projects and prompted the need to re-examine alternative solutions.
A. Background:
Under the provisions of Sec. 8-108(A)(2), development allotments and all other
development approvals are deemed to expire on the day after the third anniversary
of the project's final development approval, unless a building permit is obtained
and the project is developed, or unless an extension of the approval is obtained.
The approvals are now scheduled to expire on June 19, 1995 1.
1 Sec. 6-207(c) of the Code provides that in those matters in which the Council has final approval,
that approval shall be by ordinance. A site specific development plan shall be deemed approved on
the "effective date" of the approving ordinance. The effective date of Ordinance 14/91, under which
the City granted Final SPA Development Plan approval to the Aspen Meadows, was five business days
after the date of publication of the ordinance following its approval on June 10; in other words. the
effective date of the ordinance was June 20. 1991. Therefore. the GMQS allocations and vested rights
2
"
for the two multi-family residential projects in the Aspen Meadows SPA were originalJy due to expire
on June 21.1994. Under Ordinance 22/94 and Ordinance 10/95, City Council granted extensions of six
months each; the approvals are now due to expire on June 19, 1995.
In March 1994, Savanah submitted building permit applications for the two multi-
family projects in anticipation of obtaining building permits to begin construction of
these two projects by the original deadline in June, 1994. However, because of the
scheduling reasons mentioned elsewhere, Savanah needed to postpone
commencement of construction of the seven new townhouse units on Lot 6 until
the fall of 1994 and then begin renovation and enlargement of the Trustee Houses
and construction of the three new units on Lot 5 in the fall of 1995. Therefore,
Savanah previously requested and received approval of an extension in the date of
expiration of the GMQS allocations and vested rights for these residential projects
from June 21,1994 to December 21, 1994 (see Ordinance '22./94, attached as Exhibit A).
Subsequent to the granting of the extension, some unforeseen zoning issues arose
with regard to these two projects as a result of City zoning staff review of the
pending building permit applications. These issues prompted Savanah, in October
1994, to seek two administrative amendments to the prior SPA approval. The
Planning staff reached a decision regarding these two administrative amendments
as documented in their March 16, 1995 memo, attached as Exhibit B. In the mean-
time, pending a resolution of the proposed amendments, Savanah was granted a
second extension to June 19, 1995 (see Ordinance 10/95, attached as Exhibit C).
The intent in requesting these extensions was to allow Savanah to minimize the
disruption on the summer programs of the non-profit organizations by undertaking
the most disruptive stages of construction during the fall off-season and to maintain
the availability of the seven existing trustee houses as rental units for the use of the
participants of the non-profit programs through at least the 1995 summer season.
Starting the two projects at separate times will also ease the problems of
construction staging in the relatively constrained area remaining at the Meadows.
In the prior extension requests, Savanah acknowledged an interest in seeking
further extensions for the Trustee Houses to accomplish the staggered construction
of the two projects.
3
E- ~.
...."...'
The City and other parties to the Agreement were quite sensitive to the timing of
construction at the Meadows because of its potential impacts on the programs of the
non-profit organizations. Section I(A) of the SPA Agreement, Construction
Schedules - General, includes language in support of the notion of minimizing
disruptions to the non-profit organization's summer programs during the five
stages of construction activity then anticipated:
"1. It is anticipated that the Institute renovation and new construction,
including the seven lodge buildings, administration building, health club and
pool, parking structure and attendant site work will be undertaken in at least
three distinct phases with the major components of each phase beginning in
the Fall and ending the following Summer"H'
5. The schedule for completion of the City trail and bridge installation from
the old Meadows Road to picnic point and across to the Rio Grande trail and
from behind the auditorium accessing the Roaring Fork Road side of the
campus will be established by the City but will be coordinated with the
affected Consortium members. Disruptive construction activity will be
scheduled so as not to interfere with campus programs or activities,H...."
The City and Consortium members also acknowledged in the same section of the
Agreement that exact construction schedules for the entire project could not be
agreed to, due primarily to two factors:
"(a) Construction scheduling depends on the success of fund raising efforts by
the nonprofit members of the Consortium,
(b) Construction will take longer than a normal development because
summer programming and activities on the Property will require curtailment
of construction activity during summer months."
If Savanah and the Institute are unable to obtain from the City a further extension
in the time to obtain the building permits for these two projects, it will be necessary
for both Savanah and perhaps even the Aspen Institute to obtain building permits
for both townhouse projects and proceed with construction within the time
constraints spelled out in the building code. Once construction begins, it necessarily
needs to continue until the projects are completed. This would mean that some of
the most disruptive construction activities would probably occur this summer,
when the non-profit organizations' programs at the Meadows are underway; this is
a prospect that is not attractive to the Parties.
4
/"'"'
,-"',\
"-.,/
Savanah and the Aspen Institute are therefore requesting the continued cooperation
of the City in the ongoing agreement between the City and the members of the
Consortium to try to avoid unnecessary disruptions of the academic programs at the
Aspen Meadows through the various construction stages to be undertaken,
B. Extension of GMQS Expiration Provisions for Lots 5 and 6:
Under the provisions of Sec. 8-108(A)(2), multi-family developments shall be
eligible for extension of the GMQS expiration provisions, To obtain an extension,
an application for extension shall be submitted prior to the approval deadline which
shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of City Council that the following three
conditions in bold have been met (the Parties' response to these conditions follows
each condition):
(a) Those conditions applied to the project at the time of its final approval
which were to have been met as of the date of application for exemption have
been complied with [Sec. 8-108(A)(2)(a)].
To the best of the Parties' knowledge, all of the conditions which were applied
to the Project under the SPA Agreement have been complied with.
(b) Any improvements which were required to be installed by the
applicant prior to construction of the project have been installed [Sec. 8-
l08(A)(2)(b)].
All of the improvements which were required to be installed under the SPA
Agreement have now been completed, including the planting of additional
cottonwood street trees along Meadows Road and some additional cleanouts
that the City requested be added to the irrigation system.
(c) The project has been diligently pursued in all reasonable respects, and
the extension is in the best interests of the community [Sec. 8-108(A)(2)(c)].
Despite the fact that actual construction of the new residential units and
renovation and expansion of the existing residential units has not begun,
Savanah has nonetheless expended well over one million dollars in road
construction, installation of utilities and landscaping in anticipation of the
residential building program.
5
/",\
-./
The Consortium members have diligently pursued completion of the project
while working within the constraints of the fund-raising efforts of the non-
profit organizations and the interruptions in construction during a large
majority of the summer building season which were previously agreed to;
these were recognized concerns spelled out by the parties to the SPA
Agreement. The project infrastructure is in place and most of the new and
renovated facilities are now complete.
Savanah has diligently pursued building permits for the two projects which
are the subject of this request and has worked closely with City staff to resolve
unforeseen zoning issues. Savanah and the Aspen Institute believe that the
additional extension is clearly in the best interests of the community in order
to continue to avoid disrupting the programs of the non-profit organizations
during the summer season.
In summary, Savanah and the Aspen Institute are requesting an extension of the
GMQS expiration provisions for the allocations granted to the ten townhouse units
(three units on Lot 5 and seven units on Lot 6) as well as vested rights for the two
projects for a period not to exceed six months. This extension is requested in order
to provide additional time to allow the Institute to finalize its purchase of
Lot 5 and to avoid jeopardizing the option contract, to allow Savanah to re-examine
the affordable housing issue and to avoid campus disruptions which would result
from starting construction during the summer academic season,
6
"~"'-'"
/,
--'
SA V ANAH LIMITED PARTNERSIDP
444 Washington Blvd.
Marina del Rey, California 90292
(310) 821-9899 Phone
(310) 821-7188 Fax
June 6, 1995
Mr. Stan Clauson
Director of Community Development, City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Clauson:
I am writing you on behalf of Savanah Limited Partnership, owner of the Lots 5
and 6, Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area. Savanah has authorized the preparation
by Joseph Wells Land Planning of the attached extension requests for the residential
Growth Management Quota System approvals and vested rights granted for these lots
under Ordinance 14, Series of 1991.
During the processing of this application, Savanah will be represented by
Ferdinand Belz and Joseph Wells. Please contact Ferd at 925-4272 or Joe at 925-8080
if you have any questions or need additional information.
Sincerely yours,
,
-----~
A ses International,
its Managing General Partner
ORB:yni
Enclosures
cc: Ferdinand Belz III
Joseph Wells
USERS\LEOALIPAULIWP\ORBICLAUSON.606
.'~' ''',
,1lMd L prUll50"
CIDEOIII, IlAU'IIIA" .
1Ill" L FU'W'.U ..
L^WUP.'ICRAO.'-"
KAUFMAN. PETERSON, p,c.
11. f:~T HTMAN AVENU[
A'~CN.CO"ORADO I1G11
TfW~OIlE
(t'0l n"lUII
'''I.I~E
(f7OJ UNlI'O
loe'w J. M'fLER Ill.
. ..ue ......'u .. ..........
. uh .IMlnlllllfLAlllDl.
-Ml,...."........".
.........lftIIlI"
3uft. 6,. 1995
Mr. Stan Clauson
Di~ector of CO~llnity D.v.lo~.nt
City Of ASllen
130 S, Galena Street
Aapen, co 81611
a.1 I..anab L1miteG .i~t..~.hlp LQt 5, .,p.n X..tOW.
speai.l11 'lan..t aZla
Oear Mr, Claulon:
: am writing to you to conf1r~ that the Aspen Institute is
presGn~ly under contract to purchas..from Savanan Limited
Partnership Lot 5. Aspen Mladows speciAlly Planned Area, We
have consented to tne preparation ~y JOI.ph Wells ~nd Pllnnin;
ot the attached extension request for the r.sidential Growth .
Management Quota System approval. and vested rif,hts 9tantad tor
th1a lot under Or4inance 14, Serie. of 1991.
blltinq the process1nq of th~1 applicatlon, the Aspen
Institut. will ~. represented bl GiQC9n Kaufman. Please contact
Gideon at 925-8166 .on our bebalt it you have any ~eBtion& cr
need additional infor.matign. .
sincerely ~our;,
Tha Aspan In,titute
~
B)':
Dand McLaI.l'
'.
Exhibit A
ORDINANCE 22
(SERIES OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A SIX MONTH
EXTENSION OF THE 1990 RESIDENTIAL GMQS ALLOTMENTS AND VESTED RIGHTS
GRANTED BY ORDINANCE NO.14, SERIES OF 1991 FOR THREE TOWNHOMES ON
LOT 5 AND SEVEN TOWNHOMES ON LOT 6 OF THE ASPEN MEADOWS
SUBDIVISION, AND FOR EXEMPTION FROM EXPIRATION OF THE GMQS
ALLOTMENTS FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS 7,8,9 AND 10 OF THE ASPEN
MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 24-8-108 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City Council may grant an extension of GMQS allocations up
to six months for developments other than detached residential and
duplex units and may grant exemption from expiration of GMQS
allocations for subdivisions of detached residential or duplex
units; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 1991, City Council approved Ordinance
No.14, series of 1991, which included residential GMQS allocations
)
for the development of the Aspen Meadows specially Planned Area
Final Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, Savanah Limited Partnership was a co-applicant for
the Aspen Meadows SPA Final Development Plan and by virtue of
Ordinance No.l4, series of 1991, received approval to construct a
total of 10 townhomes on two parcels, Lots 5 and 6; and
WHEREAS, development allotments expire on the day after the
third anniversary of the date the GMQS allocations, or other
development approvals, have been awarded7 and
WHEREAS, Savanah Limited partnership has requested six month
extensions of the GMQS allocation and vested rights in order to
commence construction of the ten approved townhomes on Lots 5 and
6 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision, and to exempt from expiration
the single family units on Lots 7 through 10 of the Aspen Meadows
..-'
""'""
-
)
SUbdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having reviewed the application
recommends approval of a six month extension of the GMQS allotments
and vested rights for the townhomes and for the exemption from
expiration for the four single family lots; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the planning
Office's recommendation for the residential GMQS and vested rights
extension and exemption from expiration does wish to grant the
requested extension for six months beyond the approvals granted in
Ordinance No.14, series of 1991, for the multi-family residences
as well as the requested exemption from expiration for the single
family lots at the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area
development.
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991 specified that the
existing townhomes on Lot 5 could be expanded up to 2,500 square
feet, the new northernmost townhome would receive a height
variation for up to 8 feet, a minimum setback variation for
accessory buildings for zero feet, and a waiver of minimum RMF zone
district open space requirements, and waiver of the 6 month minimum
lease requirements; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No.14, Series of 1991 specified that the
townhomes on Lot 6 would receive a height variation for up to three
feet in the center of the building, a minimum setback variation for
accessory buildings for zero feet, and a waiver of minimum RMF zone
district open space requirements, and waiver of the 6 month minimum
lease requirements; and
2
"
~
WHEREAS, vested rights for a period of three years was
included in the application submitted to the Planning Office by the
Aspen Meadows co-applicants and was approved as part of the overall
SPA Plan approval; and
WHEREAS, Savanah Limited Partnership had not commenced
their projects approved by Ordinance No. ~4 prior to the expiration
of vested rights due to the desire to not disrupt the Aspen
Institute's facilities and programs or the rental of the existing
townhomes for Institute participants by construction activities,
and the need to maintain required parking and construction staging
for the Institute's lodge buildings and parking garage; and
WHEREAS, section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code was
adopted to provide the necessary procedures to implement the
) provisions of Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S., as amended and
section 24-68-104 (1), C.R.S., permits the vesting period to be
extended upon the express authorization of City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
section 1: Pursuant to section 24-8-108 of the Municipal Code,
City Council does hereby grant the applicant a six month extension
of the 1990 residential GMQS allocations approved by Ordinance
No.14, Series of 1991, for lO multi-family units on Lots 5 and 6
of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision beginning June 21, 1994, and
ending December 2l, 1994, and does grant exemption from expiration
of the GMQS allocations approved by Ordinance No.14, Series of
1991, for the single family units on Lots 7,8,9 and 10 of the Aspen
3
,,,/
Meadows Subdivision.
)
section 2:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase
or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
I
unconsti tutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation
and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding
now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and
concluded under such prior ordinances.
section 4:
That it does hereby extend Vested Rights for Savanah
Limited Partnership granted by the site specific development plans
approved for the Aspen Meadows SPA Final Development Plan,
established by Ordinance No.14, Series of 1991, for a period of
six (6) months from June 2l, 1994. However, any failure to abide
by any of the terms and conditions attendant to the approvals shall
result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure
to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded
by the Land Use Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested property rights.
section 5: The establishment 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
4
~,...,
,
'-"
this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the
applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing,
electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is
I
granted in writing.
section 6: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of
this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office
of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 7: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
~ day Of~ 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the city Council Chambers,
Aspen city Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published one in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the
I
City Council of the City of Aspen on the ot~
day of
~
, 1994.
~ {y~~-
Joh Bennett, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted,
~ ' 1994.
passed and approved this /.3
day of
~4 r3~-
John ennett, Mayor
Kathryn . Koch, City Clerk
)
5
Exhibit B
/',
,
--
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
stan Clauson, Director Community Development
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
TO:
RE: Aspen Meadows Insubstantial SPA Amendment for Minor
Amendments for Lots 5 & 6 of the Aspen Meadows finals SPA
Development Plan
DATE:
March 16, 1995
=
--------------------
==============
SUHMARY: The applicants, Savanah Limited Partnership and Newfield
Entgrprises International Inc., seek to amend the Aspen Meadows
Fir:.,l SPA Plan f.or Lots 5 & 6 to adjust a drainage easement on Lot
6 and average the individual sizes of several townhomes on Lot 5.
ZONING: Academic with SPA overlay
STAFF COMMENTS: The Aspen Meadows SPA plan was approved in 19
The approved plan included the development of 7 new townhomes on
Lot 6 and 3 new townhomes on Lot 5.
Lot 6: For Lot 6 a drainage easement was provided on the north
side of the parcel. The easement is 15 feet wide on the recorded
plat and defined as 20 feet wide on a recorded easement document.
In order to construct the 7 townhomes as was approved, including
the allowable floor areas, the applicant and staff have identified
two alternatives:
1. the written easement agreement is reduced to 15 feet wide;
or
2. the entire building footprint is shifted 5 feet to the
north.
Originally, the applicant proposed to adjust the north property
boundary by 5 feet to maintain the 20 foot drainage easement and
maintain the approved side yard setbacks.
After reviewing the drainage easement, the recorded easement
agreement and visiting the site, staff has concluded that the
recorded easement can be amended to reduce the width of the
easement to 15 feet. According to city documents the only
structure in the easement is for drainage purposes. It was also
discovered that the recorded easement document had not been
reviewed and signed by the city. Therefore the city has agreed to
the nullification of the street drainage easement. Specifically,
the Engineering Department believes that the easement indicated on
the plat is sufficient for future engineering purposes.
Staff objected to the lot line adjustment and/or the reduction of
the side yard setback on the north side of Lot 6 because any
reduction in the land area between the proposed townhomes and the
-'.
'..J
public pedestrian trail easement would negatively impact the trail
by placing a solid wall of structure close to the trail. Staff has
recommended and the applicant has agreed, in exchange for reducing
the size of the drainage easement (nullifying the recorded
agreement) to excavate the site for the trail to the top of the
slope at the time that the excavation for the townhomes occurs.
Lot 5: When approved, the townhomes on Lot 5 were limited to a
maximum of 2,500 square feet of floor area per unit. For Lot 5
there are currently 8 townhomes on the site and 3 more units are
proposed to be added. Two units, 10 & 11, will be constructed on
the north side of the existing townhomes and unit 1 will be added
onto the south side of the structure. Significant renovations with
additional floor area will also occur on the existing 8 townhomes.
- -
Because of the topography and the method used to calculate floor
area ratio, unit 11 floor area calculations are greater than 2,500
square feet. Therefore the applicant has requested to average the
sizes of the townhomes for FAR calculation purposes to ensure that
the total FAR for the entire project is consistent with the
approved size of 2,500 square feet per unit.
Staff has reviewed the problem with the project architect and has
concurred that due to topographical constraints and the desire to
construct 3 new units that are compatible with the approved plans
and the historic integrity of the existing Beyer townhome design,
that the ability to average the floor area is necessary. In
reality, the size of three new townhomes does not change and the
total floor area of the project, which is 27,500, will not
increase.
In reviewing the renovations and new units proposed for Lot 5 for
this insubstantial amendment, staff expressed concern over the
massing of the western elevation and its relationship to the
topography. Because the slope falls off steeply at the north end
of the townhomes the last two units present a significant wall on
the slope and toward the public trail and open space below.
The architect, in response to staff's discussion, has proposed to
backfill the first two and last two units of the project as
depicted in the revised site plan January 25, 1995 attached to this
memo. In an additional effort to blend and contrast the new units
with the old units the architect has proposed to add wood shingle
siding onto units 1, 10, & 11 as also depicted on the site plan
attached to this memo.
Staff confirmed that the backfill will not impact the proposed
pedestrian/bike trail alignment. The Parks Department has
confirmed that the trail alignment that is recorded in Book 217,
Page 550 will not be impacted by the backfill on units 1, 2, 10 &
11.
2
,
-"""\
.~
Pursuant
approved
provided
to section 24-7-804 E. an insubstantial amendment of an
SPA plan may be authorized by the Planning Director
that the amendment does not:
a.
change the use or character of the development;
RESPONSE: The character of the Aspen Meadows SPA is tourist/guest.
The reduction of the drainage easement to 15 feet on Lot 6 and
averaging the floor areas for Lot 6 will not compromise previous
approvals or the character of the Aspen Meadows.
b. increase by greater than 3% the overall coverage of
structures on the land;
RESPONSE: N/A._
c. substantially increase trip generation rates of the
proposed development, or the demand for public facilities;
RESPONSE: N/A.
d. reduce by greater than 3% the approved open space;
RESPONSE: N/A.
e. reduce by greater than 1% the off-street parking and
loading space;
RESPONSE: N/A.
f. reduce in required pavement widths or rights-of-way for
streets and easements;
RESPONSE: N/A.
g. increase greater than 2% the approved gross leasable floor
area of commercial buildings;
RESPONSE: N/A.
i. create a change which is inconsistent with a condition or
representation of the project I s original approval or which
requires granting of a further variation from the project's
approved use or dimensional requirements;
RESPONSE: The proposed changes are necessary to preserve the
original approvals.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the nullification of
the 20 foot storm drainage easement for Lot 6 of the Aspen Meadows
Subdivision and the insubstantial amendment for the Aspen Meadows
3
/.
"".
~
SPA to average the allowable floor areas for Lot 5 of the Aspen
Meadow Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall excavate the pedestrian/bike
alignment to the top of the slope, adjacent to. Lot 6
excavation for development on Lot 6 is taking place.
2. The total floor area for Lot 5 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision
shall not exceed 27,500 square feet.
trail
while
3. The applicant shall backfill units 1, 2, 10 & 11 to reduce the
perceived height of those units. .
I hereby approve of the insubstantial amendment
to the final development of the Aspen Meadows
SPA pursuant to section 24-7-804 of the
~:m;.irect~~i~~ ~velopaent
Department
cc: Bill Drueding, zoning Officer
4
)
/
'. <
,R",
..........~
Exhibit C
--",.,.'"
ORDINANCE 10
(SERIES OF 1995)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A SIX MONTH
EXTENSION OF THE 1990 RESIDENTIAL GMQS ALLOTMENTS AND VESTED RIGHTS
GRANTED BY ORDINANCE NO.14, SERIES OF 1991 AND EXTE~ED BY
ORDINANCE NO.22, SERIES OF 1994, FOR THREE TOWNHOMES,ON LOT 5 AND
SEVEN TOWNHOMES ON LOT 6 OF THE ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDIVisION, CITY OF
ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-8-108 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City council may grant an extension of GMQS allocations up
to six months for developments other than detached residential and
duplex units; and
WHEREAS, on June 10; 1991, City Council approved Ordinance
No.14, Series of 1991, which included residential GMQS allocations
for the development of the Aspen Meadows specially Planned Area
Final Development Plan; and
')
WHEREAS, Savanah Limited partnership was a co-applicant for
the Aspen Meadows SPA Final Development Plan and by virtue of
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991, received approval to construct
a total of 10 townhomes on two parcels, Lots 5 and 6; and
WHEREAS, development allotments expire on the day after the
third anniversary of the date the GMQS allocations, or other
development approvals, have been awarded; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991 specified that the
existing townhomes on Lot 5 could be expanded up to 2,500 square
feet, the new northernmost townhome would receive a height
variation for up to 8 feet, a minimum setback variation for
accessory buildings for zero feet, and a waiver of minimum RMF zone
district open space requirements, and waiver of the 6 month minimum
)
1
'...'...
/".",
)
lease requirements; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No.14, series of 1991 specified that the
townhomes on Lot 6 would receive a height variation for up to three
feet in the center of the building, a minimum setback variation for
accessory buildings for zero feet, and a waiver of minimum RMF zone
district open space requirements, and waiver of the 6 month minimum
lease requirements; and
WHEREAS,
vested rights for a' period of three years was
included in the application submitted to the Planning Office by the
Aspen Meadows co-applicants and was approved as part of the overall
SPA Plan approval; and
WHEREAS, on April 19, 1994, Savanah Limited Partnership
requested six month extensions of the GMQS allocation and vested
", rights in order to commence construction of the ten approved
)
townhomes on Lots 5 and 6 of the Aspen Meadows SUbdivision, and to
exempt from expiration the single family units on Lots 7 through
10 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, upon consideration of this request pursuant to
section 24-8-108, the City Council did approve Ordinance 22, Series
of 1994, granting a six month extension of GMQS allocation and
vested rights for the multi-family units on Lots 5 and 6, and an
exemption from expiration of development rights for the single
family homes on Lots 7 through 10; and
WHEREAS, Savanah Limited Partnership had not commenced
their projects vested by Ordinance No. 22, Series 1994 prior to
the expiration of vested rights due to late discovery of issues
I
,
"
2
')
)
",""
.........
-","'"
regarding a drainage easement on Lot 6 and retaining walls and
trail impacts on Lot 5 as well as the desire to not disrupt the
Aspen Institute's facilities and programs or the rental of the
existing townhomes for Institute participants by construction
activities; and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 1994, Savanah Limited Partnership
submitted an application requesting an additional six month
extension of the GMQS allocation and vested rights in order to
resolve final construction details and commence construction of
the ten approved townhomes on Lots 5 and 6 of the Aspen Meadows
Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having reviewed the application
recommends approval of an additional six month extension of the
GMQS allotments and vested rights for the townhomes; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen city council having considered the Planning
Office's recommendation for the additional residential GMQS and
vested rights extension does wish to grant the requested extension
for six months beyond the approvals granted in Ordinance No. 14,
Series of 1991 and Ordinance No.22, Series of 1994, for the multi-
family lots at the Aspen Meadows specially Planned Area
development; and
WHEREAS, section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code was
adopted to provide the necessary procedures to implement the
provisions of Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S., as amended and
section 24-68-104 (1), C.R.S., permits the vesting period to be
extended upon the express authorization of City council.
.)
J
3
"-,
..-..,
'~ -'"
)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
section 1:
Pursuant to section 24-8-108 of the Municipal Code,
City Council does hereby grant the applicant an additional six
month extension of the 1990 residential GMQS allocations approved
by Ordinance No.14, series of 1991 and Ordinance No. 22, Series of
1994, for 10 mUlti-family units on Lots 5 and 6 of the Aspen
Meadows Subdivision beginning December 21, 1994, and ending June
19, 1995.
section 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase
or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
')
remaining portions thereof.
section 3: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation
and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding
now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and
concluded under such prior ordinances.
section 4: That it does hereby extend Vested Rights for Savanah
Limited Partnership granted by the site specific development plans
approved for the Aspen Meadows SPA Final Development Plan,
established by Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991, and extended by
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1994, for a period of six (6) months
from December 21, 1994 through June 19, 1995. However, any failure
to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to the
4
.
-)
-
/....~"'-
"'..,/'
approvals shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property
rights.
Failure to properly record all plats and agreements
required to be recorded by the Land Use Code shall also result in
the forfeiture of said vested property rights.
section 5: The establishment 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
applicant shall abide by any and all such building; fire, plumbing,
electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is
granted in writing.
)
section 6: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of
this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office
of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
section 7: 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
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published one in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the
City Council of the City
4J~1995.
of Aspen on the
j.!3
day of
ATTEST:
)
5
~)
..,/
/'
r-,
~'
passed and approved this / 3
FINALLY, adopted,
~ 1995.
John
')
)
6
~ &~--, .Y{
nnett, Mayor
day of
,"..'
""".
'''''--'"
Exhibit A
-
ORDINANCE 22
(SERIES OF 1994)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A SIX MONTH
EXTENSION OF THE 1990 RESIDENTIAL GMQS ALLOTMENTS AND VESTED RIGHTS
GRANTED BY ORDINANCE NO.14, SERIES OF 1991 FOR THREE TOWNHOMES ON
LOT 5 AND SEVEN TOWNHOMES ON LOT 6 OF THE ASPEN MEADOWS
SUBDIVISION, AND FOR EXEMPTION FROM EXPIRATION OF THE GMQS
ALLOTMENTS FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS 7,8,9 AND 10 OF THE ASPEN
MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 24-8-108 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City Council may grant an extension of GMQS allocations up
to six months for developments other than detached residential and
duplex units and may grant exemption from expiration of GMQS
allocations for subdivisions of detached residential or duplex
units; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 1991, City Council approved Ordinance
No.14, series of 1991, which included residential GMQS allocations
)
for the development of the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area
Final Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, Savanah Limited Partnership was a co-applicant for
the Aspen Meadows SPA Final Development Plan and by virtue of
Ordinance No.14, Series of 1991, received approval.to construct a
total of 10 townhomes on two parcels, Lots 5 and 6; and
WHEREAS, development allotments expire on the day after the
third anniversary of the date the GMQS allocations, or other
development approvals, have been awarded; and
WHEREAS, Savanah Limited Partnership has requested six month
extensions of the GMQS allocation and vested rights in order to
commence construction of the ten approved townhomes on Lots 5 and
6 of the Aspen Meadows SUbdivision, and to exempt from expiration
the single family units on Lots 7 through 10 of the Aspen Meadows
...
........
-
Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having reviewed the application
recommends approval of a six month extension of the GMQS allotments
and vested rights for the townhomes and for the exemption from
expiration for the four single family lots; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen city council having considered the Planning
Office's recommendation for the residential GMQS and vested rights
extension and exemption from expiration does wish to grant the
requested extension for six months beyond the approvals granted in
)
Ordinance No.14, Series of 1991, for the multi-family residences
as well as the requested exemption from expiration for the single
family lots at the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area
development.
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991 specified that the
existing townhomes on Lot 5 could be expanded up to 2,500 square
feet, the new northernmost townhome would receive a height
variation for up to 8 feet, a minimum setback variation for
accessory buildings for zero feet, and a waiver of minimum RMF zone
district open space requirements, and waiver of the 6 month minimum
lease requirements; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No.l4, Series of 1991 specified that the
townhomes on Lot 6 would receive a height variation for up to three
feet in the center of the building, a minimum setback variation for
accessory buildings for zero feet, and a waiver of minimum RMF zone
district open space requirements, and waiver of the 6 month minimum
lease requirements; and
2
,.........
-'
WHEREAS,
vested rights for a period of three years was
included in the application submitted to the Planning Office by the
Aspen Meadows co-applicants and was approved as part of the overall
SPA Plan approval; and
WHEREAS, Savanah Limited Partnership had not commenced
their projects approved by Ordinance No. l4 prior to the expiration
of vested rights due to the desire to not disrupt the Aspen
Institute's facilities and programs or the rental of the existing
townhomes for Institute participants by construction activities,
and the need to maintain required parking and construction staging
for the Institute's lodge buildings and parking garage; and
WHEREAS, section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code was
adopted to provide the necessary procedures to implement the
) provisions of Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S., as amended and
section 24-68-104 (ll, C.R.S., permits the vesting period to be
extended upon the express authorization of City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
Pursuant to section 24-8-108 of the Municipal Code,
City Council does hereby grant the applicant a six month extension
of the 1990 residential GMQS allocations approved by Ordinance
No.14, Series of 1991, for 10 mUlti-family units on Lots 5 and 6
of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision beginning June 2l, 1994, and
ending December 2l, 1994, and does grant exemption from expiration
of the GMQS allocations approved by Ordinance No.14, series of
1991, for the single family units on Lots 7,8,9 and lO of the Aspen
3
,
'"'''\
-'
Meadows Subdivision.
/
section 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase
or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
I
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation
and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding
now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and
concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: That it does hereby extend Vested Rights for Savanah
Limited Partnership granted by the site specific development plans
,
)
approved for the Aspen Meadows SPA Final Development Plan,
established by Ordinance No.14, Series of 1991, for a period of
six (6) months from June 2l, 1994. However, any failure to abide
by any of the terms and conditions attendant to the approvals shall
result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Failure
to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded
by the Land Use Code shall also result in the forfeiture of said
vested property rights.
section 5: The establishment 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
4
""
-
this regard, as a condition of this site development approval, the
applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing,
electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is
I
granted in writing.
section 6: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of
this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office
of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
section 7: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
~ day Of~ 1994 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen colorado, fifteen (l5) days prior to which
hearing a public notice of the same shall be pUblished one in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the
I
City Council of the City of Aspen on the ot~
day of
~
, 1994.
~ ~~-
Joh Benne~~ Mayor
Kathryn s.
FINALLY, adopted,
~ ' 1994.
passed and approved this /3
day of
~4 r5~--
Johnennett, Mayor
Kathryn
)
5
r......
Exhibit B
-
MEMORANDUH
TO:
Stan Clauson, Director Community Development
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
Aspen Meadows Insubstantial SPA Amendment for Minor
Amendments for Lots 5 & 6 of the Aspen Meadows finals SPA
Development Plan
RE:
DATE:
March 16, 1995
=-
SOMHARY: The applicants, Savanah Limited Partnership and Newfield
Enterprises International Inc., seek to amend the Aspen Meadows
Fir. _cl SPA Plan t.or Lots 5 & 6 to adjust a drainage easement on Lot
6 and average the individual sizes of several townhomes on Lot 5.
ZONING: Academic with SPA overlay
STAFF COMMENTS: The Aspen Meadows SPA plan was approved in 19
The approved plan included the development of 7 new townhomes on
Lot 6 and 3 new townhomes on Lot 5.
Lot 6: For Lot 6 a drainage easement was provided on the north
side of the parcel. The easement is 15 feet wide on the recorded
plat and defined as 20 feet wide on a recorded easement document.
In order to construct the 7 townhomes as was approved, including
the allowable floor areas, the applicant and staff have identified
two alternatives:
1. the written easement agreement is reduced to 15 feet wide;
or
2. the entire building footprint is shifted 5 feet to the
north.
Originally, the applicant proposed to adjust the north property
boundary by 5 feet to maintain the 20 foot drainage easement and
maintain the approved side yard setbacks.
After reviewing the drainage easement, the recorded easement
agreement and visiting the site, staff has concluded that the
recorded easement can be amended to reduce the width of the
easement to 15 feet. According to City documents the only
structure in the easement is for drainage purposes. It was also
discovered that the recorded easement document had not been
reviewed and signed by the City. Therefore the city has agreed to
the nullification of the street drainage easement. Specifically,
the Engineering Department believes that the easement indicated on
the plat is sufficient for future engineering purposes.
Staff objected to the lot line adjustment and/or the reduction of
the side yard setback on the north side of Lot 6 because any
reduction in the land area between the proposed townhomes and the
1"","
:)
public pedestrian trail easement would negatively impact the trail
by placing a solid wall of structure close to the trail. Staff has
recommended and the applicant has agreed, in exchange for reducing
the size of the drainage easement (nullifying the recorded
agreement) to excavate the site for the trail to the top of the
slope at the time that the excavation for the townhomes occurs.
Lot 5: When approved, the townhomes on Lot 5 were limited to a
maximum of 2,500 square feet of floor area per unit. For Lot 5
there are currently 8 townhomes on the site and 3 more units are
proposed to be added. Two units, 10 & 11, will be constructed on
the north side of the existing townhomes and unit 1 will be added
onto the south side of the structure. Significant renovations with
additional floor area will also occur on the existing 8 townhomes.
- -
Because of the topography and the method used to calculate floor
area ratio, unit 11 floor area calculations are greater than 2,500
square feet. Therefore the applicant has requested to average the
sizes of the townhomes for FAR calculation purposes to ensure that
the total FAR for the entire project is consistent with the
approved size of 2,500 square feet per unit.
Staff has reviewed the problem with the project architect and has
concurred that due to topographical constraints and the desire to
construct 3 new units that are compatible with the approved plans
and the historic integrity of the existing Beyer townhome design,
that the ability to average the floor area is necessary. In
reality, the size of three new townhomes does not change a~d the
total floor area of the project, which is 27,500, will not
increase.
In reviewing the renovations and new units proposed for Lot 5 for
this insubstantial amendment, staff expressed concern over the
massing of the western elevation and its relationship to the
topography. Because the slope falls off steeply at the north end
of the townhomes the last two units present a significant wall on
the slope and toward the public trail and open space below.
The architect, in response to staff's discussion, has proposed to
backfill the first two and last two units of the project as
depicted in the revised site plan January 25, 1995 attached to this
memo. In an additional effort to blend and contrast the new units
with the old units the architect has proposed to add wood shingle
siding onto units 1, 10, & 11 as also depicted on the site plan
attached to this memo.
Staff confirmed that the backfill will not impact the proposed
pedestrian/bike trail alignment. The Parks Department has
confirmed that the trail alignment that is recorded in Book 217,
Page 550 will not be impacted by the backfill on units 1, 2, 10 &
11.
2
/'"'
"""\
--
Pursuant
approved
provided
to section 24-7-804 E. an insubstantial amendment of an
SPA plan may be authorized by the Planning Director
that the amendment does not:
a.
change the use or character of the development;
RESPONSE: The character of the Aspen Meadows SPA is tourist/quest.
The reduction of the drainage easement to 15 feet on Lot 6 and
averaging the floor areas for Lot 6 will not compromise previous
approvals or the character of the Aspen Meadows.
b. increase by greater than 3% the overall coverage of
structures on the land;
RESPONSE: N/A._
c. substantially increase trip generation rates of the
proposed development, or the demand for public facilities;
RESPONSE: N/A.
d. reduce by greater than 3% the approved open space;
RESPONSE: N/A.
e. reduce by greater than 1% the off-street parking and
loading space;
RESPONSE: N/A.
f. reduce in required pavement widths or rights-of-way for
streets and easements;
RESPONSE: N/A.
g. increase greater than 2% the approved gross leasable floor
area of commercial buildings;
RESPONSE: N/A.
i. create a change which is inconsistent with a condition or
representation ot: the proj ect' s original approval or which
requires granting of a further variation from the project's
approved use or dimensional requirements;
RESPONSE: The proposed changes are necessary to preserve the
original approvals.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the nullification of
the 20 foot storm drainage easement for Lot 6 of the Aspen Meadows
Subdivision and the insubstantial amendment for the Aspen Meadows
3
p,,,
~
SPA to average the allowable floor areas for Lot 5 of the Aspen
Meadow Subdivision with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall excavate the pedestrian/bike
alignment to the top of the slope, adjacent to Lot 6
excavation for development on Lot 6 is taking place.
2. The total floor area for Lot 5 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision
shall not exceed 27,500 square feet.
3~the~c~shall backfill units 1, 2, 10 & 11 to reduce the
perceived height of those units.
trail
while
I hereby approve of the insubstantial amendment
to the final development of the Aspen Meadows
SPA pursuant to Section 24-7-804 of the
~[_~~de. l q-
st~rect~~:ty ;:evelopment
Department
cc: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer
4
,)
'\
I
/
)
<
,~~
Exhibit C
~
-
ORDrNANCE 10
(SERrES OF 1995)
AN ORDrNANCE OF THE ASPEN CrTY COUNCrL GRANTrNG A srx MONTH
EXTENSrON OF THE 1990 RESrDENTrAL GMQS ALLOTMENTS AND VESTED RrGHTS
GRANTED BY ORDrNANCE NO.14, SERrES OF 1991 AND EXTE~DED BY
ORDrNANCE NO.22, SERrES OF 1994, FOR THREE TOWNHOMES,ON LOT 5 AND
SEVEN TOWNHOMES ON LOT 6 OF THE ASPEN MEADOWS SUBDrvisrON, CrTY OF
ASPEN, prTKrN COUNTY, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 24-8-108 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City Council may grant an extension of GMQS allocations up
to six months for developments other than detached residential and
duplex units; and
WHEREAS, on June 10, 1991, City Council approved Ordinance
No.14, series of 1991, which included residential GMQS allocations
for the development of the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area
Final Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, Savanah Limited Partnership was a co-applicant for
the Aspen Meadows SPA Final Development Plan and by virtue of
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991, received approval to construct
a total of 10 townhomes on two parcels, Lots 5 and 6; and
WHEREAS, development allotments expire on the day after the
third anniversary of the date the GMQS allocations, or other
development approvals, have been awarded; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991 specified that the
existing townhomes on Lot 5 could be expanded up to 2,500 square
feet, the new northernmost townhome would receive a height
variation for up to 8 feet, a minimum 'setback variation for
accessory buildings for zero feet, and a waiver of minimum RMF zone
district open space requirements, and waiver of the 6 month minimum
1
.--.
""'
-
)
lease requirements; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No.14, Series of 1991 specified that the
townhomes on Lot 6 would receive a height variation for up to three
feet in the center of the building, a minimum setback variation for
accessory buildings for zero feet, and a waiver of minimum RMF zone
district open space requirements, and waiver of the 6 month minimum
lease requirements; and
WHEREAS,
vested rights for a' period of three years was
included in the application submitted to the Planning Office by the
Aspen Meadows co-applicants and was approved as part of the overall
SPA Plan approval; and
WHEREAS, on April 19, 1994, Savanah Limited Partnership
requested six month extensions of the GMQS allocation and vested
.', rights in order to commence construction of the ten approved
"
i
I
townhomes on Lots 5 and 6 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision, and to
exempt from expiration the single family units on Lots 7 through
10 of the Aspen Meadows Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, upon consideration of this request pursuant to
Section 24-8-108, the City Council did approve Ordinance 22, Series
of 1994, granting a six month extension of GMQS allocation and
vested rights for the mUlti-family units on Lots 5 and 6, and an
exemption from expiration of development rights for the single
family homes on Lots 7 through 10; and
WHEREAS, Savanah Limited Partnership had not commenced
their projects vested by Ordinance No. 22, Series 1994 prior to
the expiration of vested rights due to late discovery of issues
2
)
)
'J
E
"""
"'.....,
--
regarding a drainage easement on Lot 6 and retaining walls and
trail impacts on Lot 5 as well as the desire to not disrupt the
Aspen Institute I s facilities and programs or the rental of the
existing townhomes for Institute participants by construction
activities; and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 1994, Savanah Limited Partnership
submitted an application requesting an additional six month
extension of the GMQS allocation and vested rights in order to
resolve final construction details and commence construction of
the ten approved townhomes on Lots 5 and 6 of the Aspen Meadows
Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having reviewed the application
recommends approval of an additional six month extension of the
GMQS allotments and vested rights for the townhomes; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning
Office's recommendation for the additional residential GMQS and
vested rights extension does wish to grant the requested extension
for six months beyond the approvals granted in Ordinance No. 14,
Series of 1991 and Ordinance No.22, Series of 1994,'for the multi-
family lots at the Aspen Meadows Specially Planned Area
development; and
WHEREAS, section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code was
adopted to provide the necessary procedures to implement the
provisions of Article 68 of Title 24, C. R. S., as amended and
Section 24-68-104 (1), C.R.S., permits the vesting period to be
extended upon the express authorization of City Council.
3
)
/'"'"
-.,
-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
section 1:
Pursuant to section 24-8-108 of the Municipal Code,
City Council does hereby grant the applicant an additional six
month extension of the 1990 residential GMQS allocations approved
by Ordinance No.14, Series of 1991 and Ordinance No. 22, Series of
1994, for 10 mUlti-family units on Lots 5 and 6 of the Aspen
Meadows Subdivision beginning December 21, 1994, and ending June
19, 1995.
section 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase
or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of ~he
)
remaining portions thereof.
section 3: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation
and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding
now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and
concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: That it does hereby extend Vested Rights for Savanah
Limited Partnership granted by the site specific development plans
approved for the Aspen Meadows SPA Final Development Plan,
established by Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1991, and extended by
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1994, for a period of six (6) months
from December 21, 1994 through June 19, 1995. However, any failure
to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to the
4
')
)
.--,
"'""'
.....,I
approvals shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property
rights.
Failure to properly record all plats and agreements
required to be recorded by the Land Use Code shall also result in
the forfeiture of said vested property rights.
section 5: The establishment 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
applicant shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing,
electrical and mechanical codes, unless an exemption therefrom is
granted in writing.
)
section 6: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of
this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office
of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
section 7: 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
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published one in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the
City Council of the City
4J~ 1995.
/.3
day.of
of Aspen on the
John !l!:;tt~~~
ATTEST:
)
5
\ -)
r''''''',
,'....,
-...-'
FINALLY, adopted,
~ 1995.
passed and approved this / ~
)
)
day of
~ e~--.~ -
John nnett, Mayor
6
r
I
"7
.T';--1
Aspen/Pitkin Community ~
Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
A: 1l)~ tJ
City Land Use Application Fees:
00113-63850-041 Deposit
-63855-042 Flat Fee
-63860-043 HPC
-63875-046 Zoning & Sign Permit
MR011 Use Tax
-Lo::m ,0 Q ____
County Land Use Application Fees:
00113-63800-033 Deposit
-63805-034 Flat Fee
-63820-037 Zoning
-63825-038 Board of Adjustment .
Referral Fees:
00113-63810-035
00115-63340-163
00123-63340-190
00125-63340-205
County Engineer
City Engineer
Housing
Enviromental Health
Sales:
00113-63830-039
-69000-145
County Code
Copy Fees
Other
Name 5fttta/f~~!!~~rJ'v_
Address: 31;,;;,c~:'^- ~
(/, ""." I " - L I' \ I
_,-=_"_\'j..):,,'v'Y\... I ~o- '0 1..0
\,
Phone: