HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sr.700 W Hopkins.1975
1"""';.
1"'"'\.
130 so
aspen,
MEMORANDUM
street
8 I 6 I I l1-L&1L~
~ 0-'~~
~ IOh,
~~..
DATE: June 24, 1976
TO: Kathryn Hauter
FROM:~andra M. Stuller
RE: 700, Hopkins Litigation
Judge Lohr ordered eertification of the reeord before July 24th.
That means I need:
1. Transeripts of all the subdivision hearings
(before both P & Z and Council).
2. Transeripts of the exeeption hearing before
p &~z.
3. Transcript of the exemption hearing before
P & Z (you already did the exemption hearing
be~re the City Council).
Get going!
SSlpk
""
~,~,
BRUCE KISTLER
LAWYER
P. O. BOX 3 1 07
ASPEN. COLORADO 8161 1
FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
420 EAST MAl N STREET
TEI...lOPHONE:
303.925-1030
February 17, 1976
City Council
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
Re: 700 West Hopkins Avenue Condominiums
Dear Couneil Members:
700 Hopkins Avenue Apartments and 7th Street Partners
submit the following in support of their application for an
exemption from the definition of a Subdivision as set forth
in Seetion 20-3(5) of the Subdivision Regulations of the City
of Aspen pursuant to authority eontained in Section 20-19 of
said regulation.
FACTS. Applieant filed with the city sketeh plan
Preliminary Plat and Final Plat doeuments relating to the con-
version of 15 apartment units into condominium units. Final
Plat approval was given and a Subdivision Improvement Agreement
exeeuted by the City and the applicant. Under sueh agreement,
applieant paid to the City a sum of $27,607.98 in lieu of a
land dedieation required by Seetion 20-18. The purpose of seeking
this exemption is to reeover the cash payment made under the sub-
division regulations.
ARGUMENT:
I. A) The subdivision regulations perform no
function with regard to the eonversion of apartments to condomin-
iums except as to the land dedication or fee in lieu thereof
required by Section 20-18. The purpose of subdivision regulations
is to control the design and improvement of a subdivision (and
in this ordinanee to raise money for parks and open space).
B) Conversion of apartments to eondominiums
is nothing more than a change of form of ownership.
C) Such a eonversion has no impact whatsoever
on the growth of the eommunity.
D) Such a eonversion has no impact on the
use of land in the eommunity.
City Council
February 17, 1976
Page 2
E) The imposition of the fee in lieu of land
dedication bears no reasonable relationship to any eommunity
needs whieh are attributable to the "subdivision" (conversion).
Thus the land dedieation requirement or fee in
lieu thereof in application to a eonversion is illegal. There
then remains no reason for inelusion of eonversions within the
subdivision regulations.
II. The Subdivision Regulation requiring land dedica-
tion or fees in lieu thereof is unconstitutional in this faet
situation and therefore an exemption from sueh requirement should
be granted by exempting this subdivision from the definition
eontained in the ordinanee.
LAW. The following is authority to elearly establish
the illegality of the land dedieation or fee in lieu thereof
as it relates to a conversion.
The Courts have basieally taken two positions on the
relationship that a dedieation requirement must bear to the
activities of the subdivider to eonstitute a reasonable exercise
of the municipality's police power. One position is that a
developer of a subdivision may be required to assume only those
eosts whieh are "speeifically and uniquely attributable to his
aetivity" and whieh would otherwise be cast upon the publie.
pioneer Trust & S. Bank v. Village of Mt. Prospect, 22 Ill.2d 375,
176 N.E.2d 799 (1961); Aunt Haek Ridge Estates, Ine. v. Planning
Commission, 27 Conn. Sup. 74, 230 A.2d 45 (1967); Frank Ansumi,
Ine. v. City of Cranston, R.I. ,264 A.2d 910 (1970).
These jurisdictions require that any monies that are colleeted
must be specifically eonfined and limited to the direct benefit
of the regulated subdivision. If the Colorado Supreme Court
adopts this position Aspen's subdivision ordinanee will be struck
down as to all subdivision dedieations or fees and not just as
to the eonversion situation.
In light of the Colorado Supreme Court's holding in
Stroud v. City of Aspen, Colo. , 532 P.2d 720 (1975)
that struek down the requirement by the City of Aspen for pay-
ment of a fee in lieu of providing off street parking spaces on
the grounds that the improvements to be financed were "not
direetly confined and limited to the direct benefit of the Strouds",
it would indicate that the Court will follow the position taken
in the jurisdietions cited above.
The other line of cases dealing with the rela.tionship
between the aetivities of the subdivider and the dedieation fee
--
~
<
~,
,--,
City Couneil
February 17, 1976
Page 3
take a less restrietive view than that mentioned above. These
cases hold that a rational nexus must exist between the activity
and the fee but that the needs resolved by sueh fees need not
be specifieally and uniquely attributable to the subdivider.
Jordan v. Village of Menomonee Falls, 20 Wise.2d 608, 137
N.W.2d 442, 447 (1965); Jenad v. City of Searsdale, 18 N.Y.2d
78, 218 N.E.2d 673 (1966); Billings Properties, Ine. v.
Yellowstone County, 144 Mont. 25, 394 P.2d 182 (1964); Asso-
eiated Home Builders v. City of Walnut Creek, 94 Cal. Rptr.
630, 484 P.2d 606 (1971). These jurisdictions relieve the
munieipality of the burden of proving that the dedication will
be used solely for the needs ereated by the inhabitants of a
partieular subdivision. However, if the developer ean show
that the subdivision does not, in fact, eontribute to the
needs of the aequisition of open space or impose greater bur-
dens on the municipal faeilities, then the exaction of the
dedieation of land or fee in lieu thereof would be unreasonable.
"There also may be situations, unlike the instant
one, where there is no substantial influx from the
outside and a proposed subdivision only fulfills a
purely local need within the community. In those
situations, it may be more difficult to adduce proof
sufficient to sustain a land dedication requirement."
Jordan, supra, at 448 (emphasis added).
All of the eases eited above upheld the eonstitution-
ality of the subdivision regulations as they applied to new sub-
divisions. All of the holdings are based on the premises that
the subdivisions are bringing in new people which makes it
neeessary for the eommunity to expand its facilities.
"...but this eourt is of the opinion that if the
subdivision ereates the specifie need for sueh parks
and playgrounds, then it is not unreasonable to eharge
the subdivider with the burden of providing them"
Billings Properties, Ine., supra, at 187 (emphasis
added) .
And in Jordan, supra, at page 448, it was stated:
"In return for this benefit (approval of a plat) the
munieipality may require him to dedieate part of his
platted land to meet a demand to whieh the munieipality
would not have been put, but for the influx of people
into the community to oeeupy the subdivision lots.
(Emphasis added.)
~
--
City Council
February 17, 1976
Page 4
It is axiomic that if a subdivision does not bring
in any new people to a eommunity, as is the ease with a "eon-
version", then no new needs or greater burdens are placed on the
eommunity and thus there is no reasonable relationship between
the subdivider's aetivity and the imposition of the fee.
The mere faet that the City of Aspen may be in need of
greater recreational facilities does not establish the requisite
nexus to impose the subdivision fee on 700 West Hopkins. This
is a pre-existing need, upon which the mere ehange of ownership
of 700 West Hopkins has no effect. To impose these eosts on
eertain transaetions whieh have no rational relationship to the
problem is an arbitrary and capricious exereise of the poliee
power.
Upon your favorable eonsideration of this applieation,
please order the repayment to the applieant of the sum of
$27,607.98 which was paid under the subdivision agreement.
Very truly yours,
931)
.-..,
,..-"
F~ 11, 1976
Bruee 1ti$t.ler, Esq.
A~at-La.W
P. O. _ 3lCl1
ASpen., CO. 81611
ReI 700 1ilepk1n.a AVQue
Dear 13ruce.
% am in receipt: of your let:t.er of l'e.bnary tt)! re-
questift9 Xat:ky to set. J!'OU' appeal for t:he COUn<l!il Meeting of
the 23r4. By corn 01 this let:ter % am ti3reet:lnq ber to post.-
pone ~at. - set.t.lng und.l I .. satisf1e4 that: yow: req\test. 1s
appropriate.
The cmly $elie seo1t!.on perm1tt.ing review by t:he cov.nell
is Section 2Q-lt(b) eoacern!a<J e2fell.lptJ..oas from 1:be delinhion
of 8l2bdivia1on. To date X have hear4 ~ eo:DilIIlent:a that pmlMmt
any issuas u.4er t.hat: seat:ion. Perhaps you ha.... I!l<lIIIM new
material that. wU.l bring' .the mat.t.el" within the peniew of
Section U-19{b)ad Uso, please forweu:4 1'1: t.o I!Ie an4 we
can 4iscuss a oouno11 1'...,.1_ at ~at. tdJae.
.,;
:If X am not QOnVUloe4 of the P#Op.det.y of 1'...,.1ew X
will. be happy t;o ~ate 10:' purposes of lJ:t.ivaUon thaiWou
have exhausted all ~at::e adalinlst.rat.ive remeClies.
."ery uul):' yours,
~
$and)ra~ stuller
Cit.y At.tOJl:.MY
eel Bill Kane /"
Xat.k1 ~
BS!pk
'"
..,."....".... ,-
~
~
BRUCE KISTLER
LAWYER
P. Q. BOX .3 1 07
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
420 eAST MAIN STREET
TEL..EPHONE:
303-925-' 030
February 9, 1976
Kathryn Hauter
City Clerk
c.i ty of Aspen
Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 700 Hopkins Avenue Apartments
Dear Kathy:
I have been advised by Bill Kane that Monday,
February 23, 1976, would be available for 700 Hopkins Avenue
Apartments to present its request for an exemption from sub-
divsion regulations to City Council.
whatever materials we have to submit to Couneil will
be in your hands prior to noon Wednesday, February 18, 1976.
Please eonfirm that this matter has been placed on
Couneil's agenda for that date.
BK:me
Very truly yours
./~
/Bruce Kistler
ee
Bill Kane
Sandra Stuller
,."~,, ,.''It.
".
......
"'''.-.,.
-
-.
~
,
.~
~ 20-17
. ASPEN CODE
~ 20-18
transmission and distribution feeder lines and
communication long distance trunk and feeder
lines and necessary appurtenances may be placed
above ground.
(6) Other utilities not specifically mentioned shall be
provided in accordance with the standards and
regulations of the respective utility department or
company.
(7) The subdivider shall stllb out' all utilities to the
property line of indi vidual lots.
(f) Stann drainage.
(1) The drainage plan for the subdivision shall
comply with the criteria in the city's "Urban
Runoff Management PlbIl."
(2) Short-term on-site detention storage shall be
provided to maintain the historical rate of runoff
for the loa-year storm from the undeveloped site.
(3) In cases where storm runoff from an' upstream
basin passes through the subdivision, .the
drainage plan shall provide adequate means for
maintaining the historical drainage system.
(4) The drainage plan shall include calculations and
quantities of flow at the points of concentration.
(Ord. No. 22-1975, ~. 1)
See. 20-18. Public dedications and easements;
(a) All land submitted for subdivision approval shall be
subject to the following land dedication or cash payment in
lieu thereof for the purpose. of providing parks, school
playgrounds, active recreation facilities and similar public'
use and open spaces. . .
(1) The subdivider shall dedicate to the city for public use
purposes land in the ratio of two and one-half (2.5)
acres for everyone thousand (1,000) residents of the
proposed subdivision,' i.e., the number of residents
SuPP. No. 11
1230
.
.
"".
,.~ .....
'-'U*
:"... ..,;,
,~ "
"':'l&...
(.'.".'....D.~.
~ .'" .
\; ;;;
'<:"~
(.:'J).
.. "
'~
~",.~,.... .
~.,
.~...:_{.,'.;."
:<;0
IT
~.
~ 20-18
SUBDIVISIOJ:oI
520-18
multiplied by twenty-five ten thousands (0.0025) of an
acre per resident. The number of residents shall be
calculated on the following baSis:
Type Nwn~r~
Dwelling Unit ResidentslDwellingUnit
Studio 1.0
1 bedroom 1.3
2 bedroom 2.7
3 bedroom 4.0
Single-family or duplex 4.0
(2) At the option of. the city, the subdivider shall in lieu
of such conveyance make a cash payrilent in an
amount'-~qual to the current market value of the"
undeveloped land required for dedication by subpar-
agraph (1). Undeveloped shall mean without buildings
or structures, but shall include other improvements or
utilities if installed prior to subdivision. .
(3) In the case of commercial' development; the subdivider
shall make a cash payrilent in an a.mountequal to six
(6) per cent, of the current market value of the
undeveloped land.
(4) In the case of mixed residential and commercial
development the open space dediC!ltion for the
residential uses shall be determined as insubparagra-
ph (1) and the open space dedication for, the
commercial uses shall be determined as in subpar-
agraph (3) using as the undeveloped land area the
total land area less the minimum land area required
for the proposed dwelling units.
(5) Nothing herein to the contrary notwithstanding, the
dedication requirements of section 20-18(a)(1) shall -
not be imposed in the event of the construction or
condominiumization of a single duplex, tri-plex' or
four-plex structure. '
(6) In the event a cash payrilent is to be made and the
city and the subdivider fail to agree on the current
market value of the land, such, value shall be fixed
Supp. No. 11
1231
-~-''''f:;X<::'
~
..
.
\.
.. ..<o,~.
.;;......,
,~
,.
"
.-..
.~2().18
ASPEN CODE
~ 2()'19
and established by a qualified appraiser acceptable to .
both parties.
(7) The proceeds of such payments shall be deposited in a
separate city account and shall be used only for the'
acquisition of land for park and active recreation, and
open space purposes, and for improvement of such
public land an9- o~n spaces.
(8) If the area required for such public uses exceeds the
amount hereinabove required for the subdivider's
contribution, the .lands needed in addition to such
required contributions shall be reserved for purchase
by the City of Aspen for nQt more than five (5) years
from the date of approval of the subdivision.
(b) Whenever a proposed subdivision embraces any part
of an eXisting or planned street or transit alignment
designated on an adopted plan, it shall be the responsibility
of the subdivider to cause the right-of'way required by such
plan to be platted and dedicated to the public.
(c) Whenever a tract to be subdivided includes any part of
a bikeway, bridle path, cross. country ski trail or hiking -trail
. designated on the Aspen Trail System Plan, the subdivider
shall plat and grant public easements in compliance with
the plan. These easements shall be in addition to, and shall
not be included in, the computation of the public open space
dedication required.
(d) Whenever a tract to be subdivided includes any part of
an existing or planned public utility or drainage system
designated on an adopted plan, the subdivider shall plat
and grant public easements in compliance with the plan.
(Old. No. 22-1975, ~ 1)
Sec. 20-19. Exceptions and exemptions.
Certain exceptions from' the . strict lipplication of the
provisions of this chapter and exemptions from the
definition of a. subdivision set forth in section 20-3(q) hereof
may be obtained under the following conditions: .
(a) The planning commission may grant exceptions from
the strict application of one or more of the standards,
suPP. No. 11
1232
""".,-;".,:;0-'"
.
..
:t-'
. ,
..
.\
~)
I
CD
(D
,.;
,1
t'(
;}
i
i
"
.
"",,'"
.
\.
.
,-.,
';'
,
~.
52().19
SUBDIVISION
52().20
requirements and other provisions of this chapter
(other than the design standards in section 20-17)
when, in the judgment of the planning commission,
. undue, hardship may result from strict compliance. No
exception shall be granted unless the planning
commission finds:
(1) That there are special circumstances or conditions
affecting the subject property such that the strict
application of the provisions of this chapter for
which an exception is sought would deprive the
applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and
(2) That the exception is necessary for the preserva-
tion and enjoyment of a substantial property right
of the applicant; and
(3) That the granting of the exception will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other property in the area ,in which the subject
property is situated
(b) Following receipt of. a recommendation from the
planning commission, city council may exempt a
particular division of land from the definition of a
subdivision set forth in section 20-;3(s), when, in the
judgment of the city council, such division of land is
not within the intent and purpose of this chapter.
No such exception or exemption shall be granted unless a
written application therefor has been submitted to and
considered by the planning commission, and the grounds for
granting such exception or exemption have been entered in
the minutes of the granting body by motion or resolution
,duly adopted (Ord. No. 22-1975, ~ 1)
See. 20-20. Subdivision fees.
(a) Upon submitting a conceptual presentation or plat to
the city planning office for review, the applicant shall pay to
the city an initial fee of one hundred dollars ($100.00), plus
an additional amount determined as follows:
Supp. No. 11
1233
,.
'.
..-
,
,
jf~.:.",.
..
~,
~
ASPEN/PITK
130 so
aspen,
I
I~'\\'::";',: :'
,~~ ,.. J 1.-
, '
"," ~..
-" :', :
ing Department
street
81611
~':;...... '~<-....
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE: Subdivision Exception and Exemption Request
700 West Hopkins
DATE: January 15, 1976
This is a renewed request for subdivision exception to the open space
requirements of the subdivision regulations under Section 20-19 and
a new request for exemption to the subdivision regulations pursuant
to Section 20-3 (s). Enclosed in your packet are various documents
relating to the.subdivision.
On September 8, 1975, the City Council gave Final Subdivision approval
to this project. The subdivision improvement guarantees have been
signed, and a cash dedication of $27,607 has been received by the City.
These circumstances alter certain of the conclusions of the Planning
Office memo of July 31, 1975, which relate to the right of the appli-
cant to make this appeal. The City Attorney, Sandy Stuller, will be
present at your meeting to discuss this situation.
(J~ Prt'Z-
j-z-tjt 6
/~
"'"
~
<
-,,--""" ,!.
CITY.
130 so
aspen,
SPEN
street
81611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 10, 1975
TO: Members of Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Sandra M. Stuller
RE: Varianee Request - 700 Hopkins Apartment
I have been advised that Bruce Kistler, on behalf of 700
Hopkins, has renewed his request for a variance from the subdivision
dedication requirements for the eondominiumization of the apartment
house. In the event that I cannot attend the seheduled meeting on
this appeal, let me give you my eomments, some of which were earlier
in my August 6th memo to you on the same subject.
History of the Dedication Requirement
The dedieation requirements stemmed from the January 1974
"Comprehensive Development Plan-Parks and Recreation Department,
Aspen, Colorado" prepared by Ted Armstrong. He premised the sehedule
of park requirements on the generally accepted standard of ten aeres
of developed park area for every 1,000 persons using the park serviees.
Using peak population figures, he reeommended that on readoption of the
subdivision regulations, there be a required dedieation of five aeres of
open spaee per one thousand population. The Couneil, in faet, adopted a
requirement of one half that amount, namely 2~ aeres for every 1,000
residents (number of residents times .0025 aeres/resident) to be housed
by a proposed development. The Council imposed no requirement in the
case of the eonstruction andlor eondominiumization of a single duplex,
triplex or fourplex strueture (this, to encourage the development of
local housing).
It was realized at the time of adoption of the dedi eat ion re-
quirements, that they must be further refined. To date, the Couneil
has been considering:
1. Placing a minimum 6% dedication on all developments.
2. Exempting multi-family developments on 9,000 square
feet or less.
3. Exempting eondominiumization of existing dwelling
units.
,'-"
~,
Members of Planning & Zoning Commission
Deeember 10, 1975
-Page 2-
4. Exempting governmentally approved employee housing
projeets.
5. Readopting the present requirements but imposing
them on all new development, whether or not the project
comes within subdivision review.
6. As an alternative to subdivision dedication fees,
imposition of a recreation investment fee, recreation tax,
or establishment of a recreation speeial improvement dis-
triet.
To date, the Council has not adopted any partieular approach,
but they have been forwarded your speeifie reeommendation (No. 4 above)
and will probably initiate amendment of the requirement in the near
future.
Variance Request
The 700 Hopkins request is brought under the provisions of
Seetion 20-19(a) whieh is essentially a "variance" proeedure. To
grant a variance you must first determine whether hardship will re-
sult from applieation of the regulation. Then you must further deter-
mine (1) that there are speeial eircumstanees affeeting the property
such that the striet applieation of the provisions would deprive the
applieant of a reasonable use of his land, (2) granting of the variance
is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right, and
(3) the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare.
Generally speaking, the variance power is designed to
ameliorate the effect of regulations when their application ereates
unnecessary burdens on a few beeause of the uniqueeircumstanees
affeeting their property. Stated another way, "unneeessary hardship"
exists only if the problem is unique to the property and not shared
by other landowners in a district. Financial hardship alone usually
is not enough to constitute unnecessary hardship, that requirement
being met only if the impaet of the ordinance is so severe as to amount
to eonfiseation of property. To eonstitute unnecessary hardship, the
hardship complained of must originate in the oridinance, and not stem
from the actions of the applicant (i.e., it must not be self indueed).
Implying these principles to the 700 Hopkins request, I
argue:
1. The applicant cannot argue that his situation is
unique as the code provision will affeet all such develop-
ments in the same manner. A legislative body may categorize
~,
,~
Members of Planning & Zoning Commission
December 10, 1975
-Page 3-
different types of development (if the eategorization
achieves legitimate governmental objeetives) as long
as all those within the same category are treated in
the same manner. There has been no discrimination among
those who have condominiumized apartment buildings and
any argument that there is diserimination because this
is the first project to come under the regulation is
without merit.
2. The City's subdivision regulations were changed
speeifieally to cover the condominiumization of apartments
beeause, prior to this, they were exempt and it seemed to
the City Council unfair that condominiums, and not apart-
ments, Qo/me within the fee requirements. Both the State
and Pitkin County regulations (sinee 1973) have taken this
approaeh.
3. If any hardship exists, it results not from the
Code but from the faet that there is an existing non-
conforming strueture. In essence, the problem is that there
are being sold 15 units in the R-6 distriet whieh (with
9,000 square feet) would today allow eonstruetion of only
a duplex. Sinee the dedication fee is calculated aceord-
ing to the number of residents, we get a high fee - BUT
ALSO NOTE THAT WITH 15 UNITS RATHER THAN 2, THERE IS 7 1/2
TIMES GREATER CAPACITY TO ABSORB THE COST. Here the applicant
enjoys a benefit (inereased density) from non-eonforming
status, but does not want to assume a eost of the impaet
of the development.
4. ~rhere is no evidence that imposition of the fee
will prohibit a reasonable use of the land. THE APPLICANT
WAS ALREADY ENJOYING A REASONABLE (and privileged) USE OF
HIS LAND BY OPERATION OF A 15 UNIT (nonconforming) APART-
MENT COMPLEX. Imposition of the fee would only reduee the
profitability of the condominiumization of the complex, not
deny a reasonable use of the land.
5. Finally, the grant of any varianee would be
directly detrimental to the publie welfare because (a)
the pUblie would lose the cash contribution to the
park/open spaee land aequisition fund, and (b) all others
who have or will eon tribute to the fund would be unfair-
ly discriminated against.
Challenge to the Constitutionality of the Ordinance
The only information I have seen to date on this request
seems to indicate that the applicant's only approach will be to
ehallenge the eonstitutionality of the ordinanee. This is an in-
appropriate taetic inasmuch as (a) you are a lay board whieh is not
r-., ,'-'"
Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission
Deeember 10, 1975
-Page 4-
authorized to make legal determinations on the validity of ordinances,
(b) the appeal has been designated a request for ~ variance, and this
presumes that the applicant coneedes that the ordinanee is valid but
its applieation to him, beeause of his unique eireumstanees, produees
unexpected hardships, and (e) the Colorado Supreme Court has held that,
as a matter of law, a person who has already paid a dedication fee
(which this applieant has) eannot enjoy the benefits of subdivision
approval and then turn around and ehallenge the dedication requirement.
The ease I allude to is a 1964 Colorado case ealled The City
of Colorado Springs v. Kitty Hawk Development, 392 P2d 467 in whieh a
developer was required, in order to get city water, to annex; and when
he annexed he beeame sUbject to the City's subdivision regulations im-
posing a dedieation requirement. He paid the fee, reeeived final
approval, executed the subdivision agreement and then sought to eon-
test the legality of the subdivision dedication requirement. The
Court refused to permit him to make this argument, saying:
"Mueh is made in the Plaintiff's (the subdivider)
brief of business eompulsion (L e. he was 'eompelled'
to eomply with the dedieation requirement to get approval,
therefore, he is not bound by his decision to pay the fee).
In the instant ease the implications of that doctrine are
not applicable. The only 'eompulsion' - legal or other-
wise - serving to motivate Morrison and his assoeiates
was the desire to make a profit on the Kitty Hawk Sub-
division. In order to do this, water and sewer services
were essential. The City was under no obligation to
furnish these serviees for property outside the City's
corporate limits. The Plaintiff wanted water and sewer
serviees; the City required annexation and a sum of
money equal to 8% of the appraised value of the property.
Each got what is bargained for. Morrison's own testimony
is that up to the time this decision was made Kitty Hawk
was under no legal obligation to purchase the property
or to proeeed with its subdivision plans. In such eireum-
stances, the equities clearly do not lie with the Plaintiff.
We see no reason, legal or moral, why the Plaintiff should
have all the benefits of its bargain by which it obtained
the water and sewer services it needed in order to earry
out its plans, and ,yet receive baek from the City a
portion of the consideration (the dedication requirement)
which it gave in order to obtain these serviees... (Even if
we were to assume the subdivision agreement, whieh ineluded
a promise to paY' the fees, was an illegal contraet on its
faee) this is no help to the Plaintiff (subdivider) sinee
it is estopped to assert such a faet, having received and
retained the benefits conferred thereunder, and the eon-
traet has been fully exeeuted on the part of all parties."
~, .~
Members of the Planning & Zoning commission
December 10, 1975
-Page 5-
In the ease of the 700 Hopkins Apartment no one eompelled
the eondominiumization of the apartment house; the proceedings were
initiated by the owner, presumably for sale profits; the owner knew
what the dedication requirement would be before he executed the sub-
division agreement; he had agreed to pay the fee, indeed, he has al-
ready; he had filed the plat, and sold units, fully enjoying the
benefits of subdivision approval; and now he wishes to eontinue to
enjoy the benefit but withhold the consideration paid therefore.
There was no "compulsion" recognized by the law and, as the Court
said above, the owner eannot hope to enforee the City's side of
the agreement (to reeord the plat and authorize sale of the units)
and refuse to abide by his obligation under the agreement (to pay the
requisite fees). As a matter of law, the applicant is too late to
challenge the constitutionality of the subdivision dedieation require-
ment imposed on him.
SS/pk
'f"
~
-~
~
~
CITY:.OF ....ASPEN
aspen ,c~J~~itad~; 801611 box v
.. ',,"~:: '," , , . ", '" ..' , '
, ..,,,'
'-<:!;1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE: Subdivision Exception and Exemption Request
700 West Hopkins
DATE: October 16, 1975
This is a renewed request for subdivision exception to the open space
requirements of the subdivision regulations under Section 20-19 and
a new request for exemption to the s.u.b.di'Vj.s'iJ:miregulations pursuant
to Section 20-3 (s). On September 8, 1975, the City COuncil gave
Final SUbdi'v.ision approval to this project. The subdivis;Jon improvement
guarantees have been signed, and a cash dedication of $27,000 has been
received by the City.
Enclosed in your packet are various documents relating to the subdivision
The City Attorney, Sandy Stuller, will be present at your meeting to
discuss this situation.
r-, ,.-",
BRUCE KISTLER
LAWYER
P. O. BOX 3 1 07
ASPEN. COLORADO 8161 1
FIRST NATIONAl. BANK BUILDING
420 EAST MAIN STREET
TELEPHONE:
303.925.1030
Oetober 16, 1975
The Planning and Zoning commission
City of Aspen
pitkin County , Colorado
RE: 700 W. Hopkins Condominiums
Gentlemen:
7th Street Partners as optionee of 700 W. Hopkins Avenue Apart-
ments and party in interest to the subdivision of the abovecaptioned
property, hereby amends its applieation for an exception under
Seetion 20-19 of the Munieipal Code of the City of Aspen by adding
thereto the following:
The undersigned further makes applieation for an
exception of the subdivision from the definition
as set forth in Section 20-3(s) as being not with-
in the intent and purpose of the regulations.
Very truly yours,
7TH STREET PARTNERS
By:
;:;r~
uce Kistler
ttorney for 7th,Street Partners
BKldjg
,....-......,
...-..::
octo~r 9, 1975
Bruce Kistler, 8sq.
P. O. BoX 3107
AspEm, co. EllUl
1\e: Application for EXcQ};.Ition
700 ~kins AvenU$ Apartments
Dear Bruoe:
I have J:l$en adV'ised ,t.hat. ~u .hl1ve r~sted the
%'einstatement of your re:(p%Qs1:for ex~tion from the
dedieaUon requ!rellMn1:s C)fSeotion .20..19 for 700 Hopkins
Avenue APartments.
Please ~ advl~dthat paYlllfilnt j)f suoh a fee
was a condition for 1:he sUb\:livls1on approV'al granted by
the City Counoil. In ,the event: the variance requested
bgranted, the C,i'ty counoil must eonsenttoan Ulendment
of the ~iv1sion Ag'rOlllent eliJl1inat1nqthe paYlllfilht of
the deiiloation tee. Failure to 8l1I$\d. will subldt your
pro:i_tt~ t~e r_edies provided inSec't1on 20-5 Cd} of the
Aspeb Munlolpal Code.
very truly yours,
~'
Sandra M. Stuller
City Attorney
SS/pk
00: Bill Kane
.,1'~'
~
.
Reception No 1 ~Z87
Julie Hane Reco'rder
,,Recorded At 11:47 AM' ~)ber 6, 1975
BOOK 3U3 PACl853
j..'
"c!
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEME~T
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this~06day of
September, 1975, by and between 700 Hopkins Avenue Apartments, a
general partnership ,(Subdivider), and the City of Aspen, a
Colorado Munieipal Co!:,poration (City), HITNESSETH:
I. RECITALS
1.1 Subdivider is the owner and subdivider of 700 West
Hopkins Condominiums, all as more particularly described and shown
on the final plat of sueh subdivision to be reeorded fOllowing the
exeeution of this agreement (the property).
1.2 Subdivider has eomplied with all the requirements
and provisions of the subdivision ordinance of the City of Aspen,
except as to those to be performed pursuant to this agreement.
1.3 The City has given final subdivision plat approval
for the eonversion of the property into eondominium units condition-
ed upon subdividers agreement as set forth below.
1.4 The current market value of the land deseribed in
the subdivision plat has been appraised by an appraiser acceptable
to both subdivider and the City at a figure of $79,500.00.
II. BASIC AGREEMENT
2.1 The parties understand and agree that various
improvements usually constructed at the time of subdivision have
not been made to the premises but that their construetion may be
postponed to a later time without public detriment. Subdivider
agrees, as a condition to subdivision approval, that it will agree
to join and otherwise waive any right to protest against the
organization of any special improvement district to be formed at
any future time, encompassing the premises, and for the eonstruetion
-.
-.
BOOK303 p,\cL8M
of any improvements presently required by the Subdivision
Ordinance of the City of Aspen. Subdivider further agrees that
in the event that the City of Aspen shall, at any time, or from
time to time, eonstruet or install any improvements presently
required by the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Aspen,
whieh improvemen~serviee or improve the general area in which
the premises are located, including said premises, it shall pay
or reimburse the City of Aspen for that portion of the aetual eost
of such improvements which is properly allocable to the premises.
Provided, however, that such improvements shall include an area
of at least the ent.ire, city block in whieh the premises are sit-
uated (except those portions t.hereof which may have been previous-
ly so improved).
It is agreed that the above obligation will be assumed by
the respeetive condominium owners on purchase of the units of the
eondominium, and it is agreed, to adequately appraise such owners
of the obligation to make improvements, that elauses substantially
as set forth below will be contained in the Condominium Declaration
,
covering the sUbjeetproperty, will not be deleted or amended with-
out the approval of the City of Aspen, and will be filed for record
in connection with the sul;>division of the property:
30. (h) Each Condominium Unit owner shall agree
to join an.d otherwise waive a right to protest
against the organization of any speeial improve-
ment distriet to be formed at any future time,
eneompa$Shlg, the premises, and fOr the eon-
struet:i.on of any imprOVements presently requir-
ed by the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of
Aspen.
(i) In the event that the City of Aspen, at
any time, or from time to time, shall construct
or install any improvements presently required
by the SUbdivisior) Ordinanee of the Cit:y of Aspen,
whieh improvements service or improve the general
area in which the premises are loeated, including
the said Prelllises, each condominium unit owner
shall, pro-rata to his interest in the general
eommon elements, upon demand, payor reimburse
the City of Aspen for that portion of the
actual eostof ,such improvements whieh is proper-
ly alloeabl.e to the premises, provided, however,
that suehimprovementsshall include an area of
at least the entire city block in whieh the pre-
mises are situated (exeept those portions there-
of which may have been previously improved).
-2-
~
~
8oo~.31J3 P~.l>L 855
2.2 Subdivider agrees to pay to the City prior to filing
for reeord of the s~bdivision plat, the sum of $27,607.98 as full
payment for all obligations for the payment of eash in lieu of land
dedication as required by the provisions of Seetion 20-18 of the
Aspen City Subdivision Ordinance.
2.3 The parties mutually understand and agree that the
.eondominium units constructed on the subjeet property are intended
to be owned and oceupied by long...term residents of the area. In
order to insure that the aforesaid purpose is fulfilled, subdivider
agrees that no unit shall be leased for a period of less than six
months, and that the aeceptanee of this prohibition is aeondition
for subdivision approval.
It is agreed that the above limitation on leasing
will be assumed by the respeetive condominium owners on purehase of
the units of the condominium, and it is agreed, to adequately
appraise sueh owners of thi,s prohibition, that eaeh and every instru-
ment by which title to one of said units is conveyed shall contain
the following covenant:
"By hisp~rehase and recording of the instant
deed, purehaseragrees that the condominium
unit conveyed hereby shall never be leased for
a period of less than six (6) suecessive months.
This restrietion shall constitute a covenant
running with the title to the subject unit and
be enforeeable by the City of Aspen."
Subdivider further agrees that a clause substantially
as set forth below will be contained in the Condominium Deelaration
covering the subjeet property, will not be deleted or amended with-
out the approval of the City of Aspen, and will be filed for record
in connection with the subdivision of the property:
30. (j) Any deed eonveying any interest in any
condominium unit shalleontain the following
express restrictions:
"By his purehase and recording of the
instant deed, purehaser agrees that the
eondominium unit eonveyed hereby shall
never be leased for a period of less
than six (6) successive months. This
restrietion shall eonstitutea eovenant
running with the title to the subject
unit and be enforeeable by the City of
Aspen. "
...3-
~
.-
.
. .
BOOK 303 Pf,GL 856
2.4 All covenants hereby undertaken by subdivider are
expressly made a eondition of approval of the subdivision of the
subject property by the City of Aspen.
2.5 This agreement. shall be binding upon and inure to
''''',~ ,,'
the benefit of the heirs, executors periO,qnal representatives,
. 'I: ',.,' ::.:}:~:{~>.{:yj"'~\~ ',~
sueeessors and assigns of the part1es he1"'etlo. "" ',.,
{ ~;'-~:iJ':Z
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoil1.g
,:Y,~,;l
exeeuted as of the day and year first ab~-ite
:~,
ag~ement has been
':i;,
rnentioned.
.:'t:..,!;.:
d-'
':..J
-;.:.
Y,
.'
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss. :
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
,
Avenu.e Apartrn
Aeknowledged before me by
1975.
hand
ial seal.
My Commission Expires:
1'~ 70
.,,'.. ..:'\:.....'1"- .
ATTBS'l'. . -
,~...:)' ;d'.J~. '
'.".:~l.t\1,.Oi'~~ .- ~
","',J1r;!f!:,t.\\I'" :-, "'.,
,';s~~'iEi~~F COLORADO
By:
Stan~I' Ma
C0UN'l;Y OF PITKIN
)
) ss. :
)
. \ ".~\ \ \'~::,'::; i_( ~':~l ,,:'+ 'A,..,,/
.,,' \) 'iJi cI Cc-", .
./. .';':,:-:;:':..;,"'-;., Stacy Standley" III, ;.'layor, and Ka.t.hryn Hauter,City Clerk of the
". ~. q... i.^!,".,x~(,j,i\ -,.....:-JJ:t..~,. ',...;..... '. ..,. . .' . :.w .
l:",!'/':{t1tW.l~, /,\." "
~~L{~~~I~:~n,~F Aspen, Colorado.
s}' \ .....' D I/~\>\I'!: :;,.~ ty.!;":
?~. r ....."l:-;V~~,~~;'SJ>~ ~.}.',,;r;':t
."", ..51' ,..~ ':'(;'I:i!:;,~;.",'.W~;l,,~... C). ~;;:,;/}/{f
;''',' 1;,/' ~"...:,.: ..'".~~ ,o'v..~'~;fr"
"",; lll~'" : {If: ...~,vr;:~JJ~:'
":,i,'.:f~~UlllH"",,,i~:'I'i~ . ::;/1
,,'rii';;/"!.,!:;~i1i1y Commission E:lI.-pires~_~/ /~ /77";.
~,"
Acknowledged before methis~a day of. f,f~ A--~V 197:
Witness my hand and official seal.
~~~h~~0..-~~
,;'. . Nota yft'ublic
S'o.
1975
:,~egular Meeting
,
ORDINANcr: il5 B
(Series of 1975)
, AN ORDINIINCr, IIHENDING SEC'rION 2~7,B (7) '01' ,1'IIE IISI'EN MUNICIl'1IL CODE
EJ.IMINA'rING liS A RECOG~n?EI> 1l0LIDI\Y 'fIlE ELr.VEN'r1! DAY OF NOVEHBER
(VE'rERAN'S Dr.Y} , AND SUBSTl'J'U'rING 1'IlEREI'0I<E 'r11E I'IHS'f NONDIIY IN
AUGUS~ ,(COLOr~DO DAY) was read by the city clerk.
=::t:ouncilwOmanpcucrscn moved to approveOJ:dinancc '#58,' Series of 1975, on first rending;
~~econdcd by Councilwoman Johnston. Rollcall vote; councilmentbers Dchrcndt, ayc:
:.:...;:rohns'ton, aye; Parry I aye: Pedersen,ayc; Hayor Standley, ay.e. Motion carried.
=tl1IDINIINCE #59, SERIES OF 1975 .: Vacatin,g Alley 92
'~':..~:.c6uncilwoman Pedersen moved to rcadOt'dinance #59, Series of 1975; seconded by
:~arry. All in favor I.motion carried.
ORDINANCE #59
(Series of 1975)
" AN ORDINANCE VACATING ALL OF TilE PLl,TTED AI.LEYWAY I,YING IN AND BETl'IEEN BLOCK
., 92, CITY AND 'l'OHNSITE OF ASPEN, l'~ND BLOCK 19 , EAST ASP:EN ADDI'rIONAL TOH"NSITE
. (LYING WES1'ERLY OF A NORTllEI<LY EX1'ENSION OF 'THE EllS'!" LINE OF LOT 13, EAST
ASPEN ADDITImJ) SAID VACNl'ION BEING PURSU~.NT TO SECTION 43-2-301, ET SEQ, C.R.S.
1973, AND BEIIIG CONDITIONED ON RESERVA'fION OF RIGIlT-OF-\'AY FOR UTILITY LOCATION I
AND ~~INTENIIllCE OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO LOTS ADJOINING THE VACATED PORTIONS OF.
TEE ~LEYWAYWaS read by the city clc~k. .
:',:.:.:..:councilman Parry moved to adopt Orc1inanccf. 59, Series of 1975, on first reading;. se~onded !
",;,:.:by Councilwoman Johnston. Roll call vote; Counciimt=>..mbers Johnstoni a:YCi ,Parry, aye;
-",,::Pedersen, a,yei Beh~cndt, aye; Nayor. S~~ndley; "aye.. . MotiC?n carried. \..
.":,
~nRDINANCE #60, SERIES OF 1975
Pay Schedule
~ouncilman Parry moved to read Ordinance i60, Series of 1975; seconded by Councilman
~JBehrendt. All in favor, motion carried.
, ORDINANCE #60
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE'A~~NDING SECTIONS 2-76 AND 2_91 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE SO
AS TO ADD TO THE PAY SCHEDULE FOR f.1UNICIPAL EHPLOYEES THREE ADDITIONAL PAY
STEPS; MODIFYING THE MININUl-l AND r.1l;XIHU1,1 Si\L1\RIES FOR EACH ClJ'.SSIFlCATIONi
RECOGNIZING SIX NEW JOB CLASSIFICATIONS; PROVIDING THE MINI~:UM (BUT
ELIMINATING THE ~VlliIMUM) SliliARY FOR PART TIME E~~LOYEES was read by the
ci ty clerk.
-~-;-Xouncil"Toman Johnston moved to.table' Ordinance f;60 until Council gets through \-lith'
~~he budget; seconded by Councilman Behrendt.
::~_.:Finan~e Director Butterbaugh pointed out this ordinance' did not alter the ,pay scale
'at all,' it just extended ,the pay scale three steps. There are people \-lorking at City
~Hallwho have gone beyond step D. This ordinance was drafted to deal with them.
Councilwoman Johnston said she had a probl~m with the whole pay system of the City
_~':,~:and \<.?ould like to have a discussion about the pay system. City Attorney Stuller
:.::::::noted the Council could have this discussion at'tjle public. he,ari?9. on this ordinance.
:=:.:';:Councilwoman Johnston said she objected
'~9hnston_~aid she felt raises should be
... .J.lotion to"
. _..:and Hayor.
~
~
~
I
i
seconded~
i
,~
to cost of living increa$es. Councilwoman
based on merit and performance.
table Councilmembers Behrendt and Johnston aye: Councilrnembers Parry, Pedersen
Standley, nay.
councilman P~rry moved to adopt Ordinance 160, Series of 1975, on first reading:
by Councilw?rnan Pedersen.
Council decided to put off the public hearing
October 27th, so' that a majorov?rhaul" of the
:.out.
and second" reading of thisordinbncc until J
salary Beales could be di~suss and worked a
!
I
~oll call vote: Councilmcrobcrs Pedersen, aye: Parry, aye: John~tPn,' nye: Schrendt, ayo;
)~yor Standley, aye. MotionCarr~cd~ .
::::(200 1I0rKI~ - Final Subdivision Approval
r.
City Attorney Stuller told Council that the final subdivi::oion agreement for this, proj,ect :1.
had been reviewed by ,the cngillcc:ring ilnci :pl;mning dcp:.::trtmcnt., Stullcrpointc<.l out some II
. very slightchi"ln<]C"s of wording. 'fhe agreement cont.:lins the' two clements ,thccn9incer
_ ".requested; agreement to join futurcimprov0Jncnt distri.cts,or to contribute to the
'cost~ of ,!utl1r<'> improvcmcntr;. 'fhpi"lqrL'('1l\('nt contn.inr> the~ix month] ('ascclcmsc , it
will ,be in .:\1I'Y dl...'ed t.o on}' O\\'lwr c,nd \<jj.ll be it p.:1rt .of th'~condom.inill:n dccl.:lriltion.
:'J,'hc uCJ1'ccmcntacccpL!; uS the- ilppr.1iscd.Wll\.H:'!oL the :tot the t1pprnifi~d. .by Brian Goodheim,
and il subdjvi!:icm dt'diciltion fee 'of $27 ,607. CityAltol"n~y StullQ-i: zU,bmittcd the
subdi.visioll' ilgr~CmQnt to Council withth~ ~ndor~cmcnt. of t,he: ~clntinistr(ltion.
Mayor,St.\J\(:l1(~y L!;fikc..'q.lh~ucc }~it.ll(lrthc! nlixt\1rc of thc.' uni:b;nn<l thC' :otatus,of tho I:
C"ontr.:lct:-:.. Kir.tlnt" Hilicl thcrc..l""'(,l~C twor.tudio!l, $cven lwo-'hcdro{lm:.ii "lnu BixOIl(!';'hcdroom..
J,ll of the . uni tHbutt,W0 l.wn-heclrQC1lnS <have' h('("ll nold ~ H.-'yor Sl.:,mc1lC'y s...lic1 he thO\lqht
the..' City miqht lw il\ll!n:~:b'd in t~'r:inl) i.l Ullll 1.01' cmploy('c' hOu::ill'-l,in!.tf;',Ju of Uw nuL-
divifiion "kc..licolLiou 1('~, Jlutthf;'rc {Ire no uni l:i in 1I1.1t pric..'(' J'dltq(..
f
,
,
,
~' ,;<
"
I
f
I
i
I
'lo,l
, ,.-,
8, 1975'
,
Cit~l ^t.lot:llcj' Stuller s;:ddhcr' 0nlymrvJifje,1 . of UII_~~qr('C'm(:nt \\'.:15 that
join,.in th~cost(lL;'ln impr,ov("lIl\'nt di~~trict: .lwa (.ond.ition to subdivision.
cl mclltC'l" of Chi..lIl(Jing thc~ phr,l:;iulj in the f.ul.Jdivi.zion ;tCjrccm<ml.
c~uucillil<IHBchn:,..ldt movcdt:0 df'provetli(! fin.:l.l subdiviBion for 700 \--:cst lIopJdns subjc!ct
to JCl.ity !l.ttorrl~yl~;(lpprov~l1 uf the slight.. dir.crcparH;Yi" seconded. by CouncilwOfll<:1n Pedersen.
All in favor, motion l:Hi"iicd.
;1~lJ:c(.'ing to
IL is just.
~ ORDINl\HCE #61, SE!~JES OF 1975 - Rezoning of 700 West Hopkins
i
I
I
,
:1
i
Councilwomanpcdcrscn moved to read Ordinance i61,Scrics 'of '1975; seconded by councilman
Parry. All in favor, motion c~rried.
ORDINANCE #61
(Series of 1975)
'"
AN OHDWlII<CE !\EZONWG ~'HE S'ITE OF nlE 700 HOPKINS AVENUE AP<lR:rHENT ~'O
R}~SIDEN'J'IAL R-6 was read ,by the ci ty clerk:. ...
Counc.ilman Bdu:C'ndt. moved to approve Onn.Demeo ff61,. Series of 1975, on first reading;
Ii,' sct:(lfl(h:~d by Councih!oman Pedersen. Roll 'call vote; Ccullcilmembcr Be}u:-endt, aye;' Johnston,
11 aye; )'ilrry, aye; Pedersen, aye; Na=ror Standley, aye. Notion carried.
.1
I
Ii
,I,
~!
t
i
::
i
i
,1
City .7\ttornc}' Stuller poiritcd out t;.hesa three rezoning ordinances \-Jcre a result c'f
recent anncxatioCl.f;, 'l'he '.l'horl"lD.3 propertywCls notincludc.~d because the P & Z has not
decided the uses for this property. These properties t.hatar:e being rez'o.ncdare zoned
just like the adjacent land. .
ORDINll:NCF: #62, SERrES OF l_.~5 - . Hezoning enclaves.;
Councilwoman Pedersen moved 'to read ordJn"ance ~ ift2, Series of 1975, seconded by Councilman
Parry. All in favo7'1 motion carrie~': '
onDltU.NCE ~ 62
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THH.EE RECENTLY 'ANNEXED F.NCLAVES I~OCA'l'ED t-lITHIN
THE HES'I' END OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, AND REZONING SAID PARCELS AS
., ,RESIDENTIAL R-15 was read by the city c.lerk.
L Cou.ncihJOman pedersenrnoved to adopt OrdinC;lnce #62, Series of 1975, on -first reading;
1 seconded by Council\t?oman Johnston. Roll call vote: Coui1cilmembers Johnston, aye:
'parry, aye: Pedersen, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
~ ORDINA.NC:C#63" SERIES OF 1975.;... Rc'zon5.ngAspenview
;1 Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance *63, Series of 1975; seconded by Council-
I woman Johns ton. ,All in favor, motion carr ied .
~
I
"
I
f
. ORDINAI<CE ii63
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING A TRACT OF LA,lDCONTAINING .1126
IS 'l'HE SITE OF ASPEt~ VIE\\' CONDONINIUHS AND ZONING SAID
RESID1:~~~'1'IhL NUI,'rI.;...Fl.rULY 'l.vas' r.ead by the city clerk.
ACRES 111lICIl
PROPERTY
"
Council<;o,'oman Pedersen moved to 'ldopt Ordinance, #63,' Scric$- of 1975, on first reading:
seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll' call vote; CouncilmC'::tibcrs Pedersen, ~ye; Parry, aye;
Johnston, aye; n(~hrcndt, a)'ci NClYOr. Stanc11cy, aye. . ~1ot.ion 'carri.ed.
HAI,G GLIDERS
-----
Council.\';O!;lan Pedersen moved to put hang gliders onthc~cnda:" seconded by Councih.;oman
JohnsLon. 1\.11 in fLlvor, laqLion cflrri.cd.
N':ly().I~St<IIK1],.y t(l]<1 Council 1.hi1.L the City AttCIl.-ney hnd !.~~nt Council a mcmor,)nd\ll~l on
th(~ Hang Gl il..1inq l\~:~;(.'ciat.ion ,and the' 'l'holP.:\r; Property.
COllllC.i ]mi"111 B(,.'hl'..:.l:it. I:.uvl""l...l to ,:)(xept. Cit.y Altorncr Stl.lllcJ':'"s rcco:ni1.H:-nc1.:tlioJls on the hang
glid('r~; s(.~(;on\h'd h? Counc"i.lwl.'>:~\;ln' Pcdcr:::a~ll.
CO\1u<:i h,;olij~m 1',.d~~I"~;0Jl ai2:kC'dwhill hnn~l gljdcr~) \<lou.lel' do t'.o).thl~ UBC or th~ field .7lS far
ac- rugby plilycn: (n' ::oc(:~r t~'~11;U:4 H.:1yor SlilTldl(~y' q,nf',\\'0r.\.d thnt Ull" hil'WI glid<"'l:S \-Iould
\l1'w:lw.l t.ll,. fj,'LI ('.a th\' ::(.,1{ h ~:id\' (\f tll\' ::idl'lII(l r;q!II-'of-\-hIY,. 'j'hvlHlClh ~:id,. would
~';lil1 l:':'':W.itJ.:li,!..'.;...ll. (.lib.;': ll~;\':;. ei.t.yi\ll'll!:n,:')" f;jll.!)<.'] POil,ll('d (1~lt if thi:', ~l(:rjvily
of h.lll'J qlidill'J <''111,; t.h.' 1'hoHd:; P)'0pt~r~y b."co:::,'!; (..l'l.;,.IIl.iZi..d 01" lonll"ll,. ll\\:'y .....ill 11<1\'c
get ~:pt.>cj f i.c .:liJpl"{)\',d and pr<"'.:;t.'llt. th<..' Ci. tj' wi lh in:-..U.l"alJOc 4
1\ 1.1 i'n f il\'ur, mi,t'ioll ca~'rj('ll.
C(ln~\\'ih.:'\:,::11 l'l,.:.'l:;t'll lWl'~'('d to ddjuOI'II.'lt (':l~ 1,1.11).; .::t'rulwIl'<.l by ('()ul\L"illl~;11) I'dl'l')". 1\1J.
in f.1VUJ:, mOlit)j1 l".u'rjvu.
;f
J"X[l', 'I r, );(~::{/I.'" /,~_.______
, ",I\.ltJ\I'Yll.~:. 11.:111tt'l, City (,Jc:d;
/
P
!
T
X
I
N
c
o
U
N
T
Y
\
I
,'-"
DIRECTOR OF HOUSING- P. O. BOX 909B - ASPEN, COLORADO BI611 e PHONEd303) 925-6612
MEMORANDUM
--_._------
August 27, 1975
TO:
Bill Kane
City Manager
City Council
FROM:
Brian Goodheim
RE:
700 W. Hopkins Subdivision Dedication Fee
Pursuant to your request for an official comment on the 700 West Hopkins
Subdivision dedication and specifically Jim Mollica's appraisal of.the land
value of this development, I find two key issues to be in contention:
1. The first stems from the general non-applicability of Section 20-18
of the City Subdivision Regulations to condominium conversion of
( 'apartment buildings which are non-conforming uses. It is obvious that
.'the intent of this section is to appraise the land value for improve-
ment to its highest and best use. Typically, the highest and best
use of a property is dictated by market and physical conditions, but
most importantly, it is constrained by government regulation in the
form of zoning. Aspen's Zoning regulations on pages 51-52, Sections
24-12.2 (c) and 24-12.3 (b) allow for continuation or redevelopment
of non-conforming uses within one and two year periods of non-use or
destruction. With the existence of such zoning provisions, an appraisal
of the, subject property .nth directions to ignore the existing value-
in-use fails to reflect a very material factor in the property's
valuation.
2.
Secondly, after reviewing'Jim Mollica's appraisal report and con~
suIting with him personally, I am of the opinion that the report-is
technically correct given the assumptions under which his clients
asked that the appraisal be performed. 'These underlying assumptions
are that the site be appraised as being'vacant and under existing
zoning of R-6. Taken together, this completely disregards the pro-
perty value in 'its existing use, discounts the rights of the property
owner to reconstruct the existing non~conforming use as provided for
in sections 24-12.2 (c) and 24-12.3 (b) of the Zoning Code, and
disallows any value attributed to the intensity of the existing use.
In short, the assumptions under which the appraisal was made, force
an understatement of the market value of the land component.
~
.-,
~~ "
Critiquing the appraisal ".,hich was submitted as the subdivider's initial
estimate. of market value, I would suggest that it not be accepted by Council
for the above reasons, i.e., that the underlying assumptions do not reflect
the reality of the Zoning Code, ignore the property's commercial intensity
and its value in use, thereby understating its market value. As an alter-
native approach to value, I propose the following two techniques be employed
as approaches to value:
1. Comparable Sales Approach Adjusted for Land Use Intensity:
Under this approach to value, the ~rket data approach which Jim
Mollica used to estimate value on the basis of lot area (square
footage) would.be adjusted to reflect a differential in land use
intensity. For instance, utilizing Centennial Park Condominium
and the Mi~ler/C6ates duplex (Mollica's sale #5) as examples, the
following value is indicated for the s~bject property.
Subject Property
Centennial Park
Miller/Coates
Land Use
15 unit apartment
9 unit apartlnent
duplex
d
Improvement: .
Square footage
7688 s. f.
8100 s. f. .
3200 s.f.
Lot Size
9000 s.f.
12,000 s. f.
27,000 s.f.
Floor Area Ratio
(measure of land
use intensity)
7688/9000 =
.854
8100/12,000 =
.675
3200/27,000 =
.119
Inten.sity Co-
efficient (re-
lated to ~ubject
property)
n.a.
.854/.675 =
1.26
.854/ .119 =
7.18
Comparable Land
Cost per S.F.
n.a.
$93,500/12,000 s.f.=
$7.79/s.f.
$35,000/27,000 s.f. =
$1.30/s.f.
Equalized In-
tensity Land
Cost per S.F.
$9.82/s.f.
$9.33/s.f.
Indicated Value
of Subject Property
$88,380
$83,970
This intensity approach indicating a value of, say, $85,000 for the subject property.
.
/'
^
1"'"\ .
,. .. -;
2. Income Approach to Value: The Subdivider's (land residual) Method:
Of special applicability to an appraisal of the subject property is the
subdivder's method because this method shows what any given property
is worth to the developer who contemplates subdividing (or in this
case, converting) it.
Project Revenues:
7688 Sq.. Ft. @ $55.00 avg.
Less. Marketing:
3% Selling Commission
NET REVENUES
$422,840
12,685
$410,155
Less Project Costs:
Construction 7688 s.f. @ $30/s.f.
Tap fees
Landscaping
Legal and Administrative
Building Profit (12% of Construction)
Land Development (Entrepreneur~al)
Profit (10% of Gross)
Construction Interest (1/2 year @ 10%)
Construction and Takeout Commitment
230,640
15,000
5,000
.'7 000
,,-""',.'
27,676
.,..',
42,284 "..
6,266.
10,000
(330,366)
LAND RESIDUAL:
79,789
The income approach closely substantiates the "intensity" approach with
its value indication of approximately $80,000.
SUMHARY:
Given the quantum differential between the applicant's opinion of market
value and that which is indicated by the two appraisal approaches employed
herein, I feel that the applicant's opinion, as evidenced by Mr. Hollica's
appraisal, should not be accepted.. As provided for in such instances,
Council and applicant should designate a mutually acceptable appraiser to
render a final opinion of value. I see no reason why Mr. Mollica is not.
acceptable, provided that he and the applicant agree that. the. uridet;Lying
assumptions and directions to the appraiser employ a value consideration
based upon the property's value in use.
'--:~~:21.~'~:~~ .':':\~~r~':.:'}.'::~T",'Ir:':iI2tt:-;":?,:'--:,~1?,~:"'~":"'~;'1~~r;~"""""'<!"'_"""""'~~ ,,,,,~_,,,,,,..~C"""'_.~"'''''''''''~'''''''''"'''''"~'''"'~~_~''=<~~'''''."," ,_ ~..~
""'"....'17:'C..~...,...",~~
1"'"\
.
AN APPRAISAL OF
700 HOPKINS ~VENUE AP~RTMENTS,
LOTS Q, R, S, OF BLOCK 19,
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
August 25, 1975
I
,
For:
Mr. John Hayes
Seventh Street
Box 3107
Aspen, Colorado
d/b/a.
Corporation
81611
Prepared By: James J. Mollica
Real Estate Appraiser
MASON & MORSE, I}jC.
\
."""
August 25, 1975
Mr. John Hayes
Seventh Street Corporation
P. O. Box 3107
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Appraisal of Lots Q, R, S, Block 19, City of
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mr. Rayes:
Pursuant to your request and ih accordance with the ."
City of Aspen'S Subdivision Regulations, I have examined
the subject property and .have gathered and analyzed
applicable market data for the.purpose of estimating
the Fair Market Value of the subject property "as if
vacant" for Subdivision Dedication Purposes.
This valuation is based upon current City .of Aspen
Zoning Code (Ordinance 11 adopted April 28, 1975) and
the City of Aspen's Subdivision Regulations (Ordinance
22 adopted April 14, 1975).
As a result of this appraisal and analysis, it is my
opinion that the Fair Market Value of the subject
property, "as if vacant", (under current Zoni.ng Regula-
tions) as of August 25, 1975 is:
Forty-Five Thousand Dollars
($45,000.00)
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
MASON & MORSE, INC.
\
if) , 71~
James J. Mollica
Real Estate Appraiser
JJM: Ih
"""
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION
Legal Description: Lots Q, and all of Rand S, Block
19, lying within the city and
Township of Aspen, and a tract or
land lying part of Rand Slying
Southwesterly of Aspen Townsite Line
described by metes and bounds, see
Deed Book 227, Page 600
Present OWner of Record: Lot Q: Mil-Rose Investments
Lots Rand S: 700 Hopkins
Avenue Apartments, cloG. W.
Madsen, Jr.
Grantor: William A. Gilner
Date of Last Transfer: July 6, 1967
Recorded in Deed Book: 227/600
Size: 9,000 square feet
Tax Valuation:
$2,430.00
and S: $5,820.00
$8,250.00 - Land
Value Only
Lot Q:
Lots R
Total:
Tax Rate: $65.01 per $1,000.00
Tax District: l-AFS
Estimated Annual Taxes: $536.00, Land Only
(Information supplied by pitkin
County Assessors Office)
LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS:
The subject is located on the southeast corner of
Sixth Street and West Hopkins AvenUe. It is rectangularly
shaped with 90 feet of frontage on West Hopkins Avenue
and a depth along Sixth Street of 100 feet.
Both Hopkins and Sixth Street are two~lane, tar and
gravel paved, \vith no gutters or sidewalks. At the north
t:'r
,-.
of the property is a gravel surface alley.
The site is fairly level and a.t grade with both
Hopkins and Sixth Street, and contains 9,000 square feet.
UTILITIES:
The subject is improved with all pUblic utilities
including city water, sewer, telephone, cable television.
ZONING:
R-6, Residential.
The permitted uses under R,..6 zoning is "one family
dwellings, two family dwellings ,access.ory buildings
and use, farm and garden building, and use provided that
all such buildings and storage areas are located at least
100 feet from pre-existing dwellings on other lots."
The minimum lot per dwelling unit is 4,500 square feet.
The subject site contains 9,000 square feet, therefore
a duplex structure is permitted.
HIGHEST AND BEST USE:
Based on the above mentioned requirements, it is
your appraiser'S opinion that the highest and best use
of the subject property, under current zoning, if vacant,
would be for a duplex residence.
Highest and Best Use is defined as "that reasonable
and probable use that will support the highest present
value as defined, as of the effective date of the appraisal.
Alternatively, that use from among reasonable, probable,
legal alternative uses, found to .be physically possible,
.1"'"\
appropriately supported, financially feasible, and. which
results in highest land value. (American Institute of
Real Estate Appraisers Terminology Handbook 1975).
PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL:
The purpose of this appraisa.l is to estimate. the
Fair Market Value of the subject property as if vacant~
Fair Market Value is defined as "The highest price in
terms of money which a seller will sell and a ready, willing
and able buyer will buy, neither being under stress to
act and having full knowledge of the capabilities to
which the property can be used."
FUNCTION OF THE APPRAISAL:
The function of this appraisal is to be used in
conjunction with the Subdivision Dedication to the City of
ASPen, Section 20-18, Subparagraph 2. (See documents
in the Addendum of this report).
DATE OF THE APPRAISAI.,:
The date of this valuation is as of August 25, 1975.
Your appraiser personally inspected the subject
site on August 21,1975.
1"'"\
DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS:
Lot Q is improved with a six year old structure
containing 6-apartment units containing approximately
2,904 square feet total. This structure is in good
condition, needing minor repairs and redecoration.
Lots Rand S are improved with a seven year old
structure containing 9-apartment units with a total area
of approximately 4,784 square feet. This structure is
in very good condition, needing minor repairs and re-
decoration.
Please note that no monetary allocation was placed
on the structures due to the purpose and function of
this report. As explained in Section 20-18, of the
Subdivision Regulations, this appraisal is concerned only
with the current market value of the undeveloped land
required for dedication by a subparagraph. Undeveloped
shall mean without buildings or structures, but shall
include other improvements or utilities if installed prior
to subdivision.
NEIGHBORHOOD DATA:
The subject is loca.ted nine blocks from Aspen's
commercial core, where major shopping, business and
entertainment is located. The subject site is also within
walking distance to the Aspen Mountain Ski Slopes,
,.....,
Schools and churches are located within six blocks of
the subject, and free bus .transportation is offered
throughout the City of ~spen, surrounding subdivisions,
and local ski areas.
The subject is approximately 80%. built up with single
family residences and multi-family dwellings-employee
housing. This area contains a mixture of structure
ages and ranges of value.
The location and age of this neighborhood lep.ds
itself to rental properties for long term employee housing.
The overall condition, quality and durability of this
neighborhood is considered good.
5' /2-S"rft
.2~. I?'7.s---
.:J. /,1:/<13
;-.,
MARKET D~TA APPRO~CH TO VALUE.
Your appraiser has gathered and analyzed recent
sales of comparable, residential properties. In comparing
these recent transactions to the Subject property, your
appraiser has considered zoning, date of sale, size and
location as being the most applicable adjustments. The
following is a summary of Some of the data which. your
appraiser considered most applicable in valuing the
subject property.
Sale n;
Lots A, B, C,D, Block 39, City of Aspen
Sold May, 1975 for, $85,000 or $21,250 per lot
or $7.08 per square foot.
This sale contains 12,000 square feet and is very
similar to the subject property in location and zoning,
however, it is on the south side of Hopkins.at the base
of Shadow Mountain and has superior views, open area,
to the south and closer to the commercial core.
Sale #2;
Lots M, N, 0 of Block 45, City of Aspen
Sold September, 1974. for $61,500 or $20,500
per lot or $6.83 per square foot.
This sale contains 9,000 square feet. and was improved
under previous zoning with !our Y-bedroom condominiums.
The previous zoning supported a higher land value. The
location and views are slightly superior to the subject.
2e "30..3
,
~,J"'l'Z-
,,,.....,
Sale #3:
Lots A and B of Block 118, City of Aspen
Sold August, 1974 for $52,000 or $26,000 per
lot or $8.67 per square foot.
This sale contains 6,000 square feet and is located
in a similar location on the east side of town. I.t was
recently improved with five I-bedroom apartments under
multi-family ~oning, which has superior value.
Sale #4:
Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1, Conners Addition to the
City of Aspen
Sold January, 1975 for $85,000 or $8.50 per square
foot.
This sale contained 10,000 square feet and has
superior location, one block from commerci(;ll core and
ski lifts. Currently this site is being improved with
condominium units, and it has superior zoning.
-
Sale #5:
Lots 7, 8, 9 of Block 2, Oklahoma Flats
Sold October, 1974 for $35,000 or $1. 30 per
square foot.
This sale contains 27,000 square feet and is located
in an inferior neighborhood, but on the Roaring Fork River,
two blocks from commercial core. It has recently been
improved with a duplex structure.
/""";
Sale #6:
Lot 9, West Aspen Subdivision
Sold June, 1975 for $39,500 or $2.53 per square
foot.
This sale contained 15,600 square feet and is
zoned for a duplex. It has a slightly less valuable
~
location due to distance from town.
Sale #7:
(Current Listing)
Lots E and Fof Block 18, City of Aspen is
listed for $56,500 or $28,250 or $9.42 per
square foot.
This sale contains 6,000 square feet and has
slightly superior location, however, due to size can
only support a single family dwelling. It has been
listed for 9 ~onths with very little action.
CONCLUSION AND CORRELATION:
The above mentioned sales indicate a wide range
in value, due to difference in zoning, size, and location.
Sale in is the most comparable in location to the
subject, however, it is larger and has. superior views
due to its location~
Sale #2 is very similar in size and location, however
it was purchased and improVed under previous zoning
regulations .which could support a higher valuation.
,-,
Sales #3 and #4 have superior. zoning - multi-family
and also can support higher values.
Current listing #7 is one block from the subject
but due to size can only support a single family .dwelling,
Sales #5 and #6 were both purchased under duplex
zoning. Those sales are considerably larger, but this
due to their R-15 zoning. The subj.ect property has a
superior location to both Sales #5 and #6, but can be
improved with equal utility. These sales indicate a
range in value of between $17,500 to $19,750 per unit.
Based upon utility, and considering the subjects superior
location, your appraiser considers the subject property
to be slightly above the upper range of value as indicated
in sales #5 and #6.
Based on these sales and adjustments, it is your
appraiser's opinion that the subject. property has a Fair
Market Value, if vacant, of $45,000.00 or $22,500 per
unit, or $5.00 per squa;re foot.
Indicated Value of Subject J;'roperty, if vacant:
Forty-Five Thousand Dollars
($45,000.00)
----'
~
!
j
I
;
101 !
~I
,
.
.
j
!
!
l
i
~
~
r--1.1
INJl
'0 I,
~ j ~
I""'-H
I
....,....--1
QJ
~~-I
l!:::.Jl
--,
~--i
i
--I
]---1
~
I
--1
.
!
~--j
,
I
~-1
I
--I
.
f
--'--j
_. . ~. .
j
i
-!
!
I L-
1""\
v 1m I
~-I""lB{B . ~--------~I:
J" I 1 t.O\!
'i! .1 -,
L-i ~.' n..' ,_., - - - '_j
: ,_J ,j r-;;
i !, IN{"
r- u ------1 .-. .-1 <Q II
I ------1 -------00
: . - _uu_, t.- U,(U,
~-~ -, -1 ~__u --mt
Hi 9
ItL4\ -j ~ t ----lli1~t;
I . ' t- ,
I : I .
!- .- __u -1 r_~____._ to_ J
~_B -----------4 r fjJr
L--- _ _ ~ ~------ __ _ t- _)
I jW, )rw ~
1- ---- --lC '-~-g--- ~,!
:..---- - ---. .---~:t:- ,~r
; i ;:c L-l!
r~_-~. ~=--m
H.l L
c:
w
::::::
I I
t,ffi'_I .----1 ---.--r~ll
I --.-, ----.-----!:~h
L , _ _ _ __ _ .J
I ,---- --1 I . ..i'
1_ --- ____.-11 ,---
r NI
I 1_,
i _,~ ~_:.__
Lw
,
-_of
;
I
,_._._1
,
I
[;1-j
I':;' I,
.eJl
I
t
, -
t)",:
,
--'
!
_oj
t~_ " .
i i
il~ I~-.-l
;--10) j i
i.i....-..!, l
i !
;
.
I-
I
l-
I
I
r -
en
1- Ih
Hl. 9
I It
1--- -- ---1 r--. -e -[611
, 1 ;', 10 I~
i--. ; ~----.- '--ICJ';~
I r-~ . ~,
t:'~'- i . ... Ii. 'I' -------------- j
.. ......... -.-"--- --". ---;
(!; 1
{ .__ ___ .__ to.
--- ----~-----kJ__- . ~i
i(\li . -'---------1
-.~---.----- 1--- - .
~,----~-l ~------1
f ~ u---l~-------- u
ttI]-.-.--1 ~-- .. l
!g I
~[gj . -1
. ~ @ __ 1
~=--~t,!
-f~l---- --1-r
! --- --: IL-----------!
1- U;--------j I -~. --1
r~--.---l r---, -.-'-----.-1 -
--~_.fgl
~
z
<:
~
.--.1
.
- .--1
l-
I
,
I
,
(~.
...'.'
';>"
'-
t
"
, f
! . 4'
1---1'..-.'
1 p'
--~
, : / t.
i L:; i
~ Il6/ c: ~
5 1_ a: u
J: :J
l
n /~,
;-,~~
I . ,. \
r
~~~~H]ll~
... ~ " %
2 n
r ~ <> %
" M ." M
" :0 ." ;;
" < <; Z
M %0 '" g
" eM
'" c
'" ,,~ "
~o c
::::l=:. 0
>:::::: 0
rM "
:0
n 0
;; "
r it:
M
:0
n
.;;
r
n
3
'"
;:
M
i!:
;;:
r
9-
.;i
'"
o
:0
'"
'..,,"C" h",,~ ill] [I I
11
~~ ~ ::=::: ~~: ~
.-::,..,~ .- '
fk,~~ "- -. -,;>':.
.. <> .. .. n r
c .. ..
! ". n .. .. " r
" g c :- <> <>.
". a ,. '" <>
" ~ r X " "
M '" n M '"
-" ,. " ...
<> < "
2; ;; ,.
g ... 0
..
<>
"
'"
..
O.Qg~~.~<
L:J LJ W ~ 't:!:! W
~
.0
"
n
..
c:
"
,.
,
g
,.
,
..
"
,
..
'"
.'
'"
."
~
M
'"
r
!(
'"
M
U
C
....
=
...
>=
r
"
....
~
c
....
:j
;;
...
'"
".
'"
c;
..
:'\
;;.
...
'"
.....
..
c
'"
~
~
,
:!!
;.
"'"
<"
f"lM
:00
r
?<~
S? 0:=4
~ ""0'
~ a~
Q oM
"'5
..
-~
a]m rn ~ rn 1Il
ws ..,. -" -;0" -" :S
~!!: l;'o :6 m
-.. 3= .".
~: -0 M .c 0" !?~ :e
"'~ ~ ~:: 0=
_M
,.,. ,,'" ~ "
s:;j ~ . E'" -5"::r: . 5":::- r
.... .0 gi! .0 ,.
..... ~!;l 2};
. ~1"t ~~ is,,, ~" z
.u
.... ",- ~ "", "x ":i.., m
"
~ ;; u> .. r ",> Q
~- = ."
:: :g -:; ~ ~.:K m
. - '"
jt, r
"- "- "-" 't "- !<
M
;0 ;; ;; ~ ;; ;;
... ... '"
.... ... ...
~ :t ~ t: ~ ~
DIJ~'. ~ Q ~ r;:t
,.."N.O 0 8j ~
"
.
..
"
"
c:
:0
~
"
'"
u
5
M
"
...
>=
r
...
'"
:-
z
'"
;\
:0
~
g
~
Z
:;;
'"
~
g
r:
1<
~
:0
..
~
..
;l
;:
~
-
\
.
b
"
"
'"
"
M
'"
a
'"
~
<;
:<
"or.,
;;- ~ ;:,;-:,
.::-
'.-:
.. .'. ~ i
"
r
i':-
I.... ..
", -" ~
.,'
., -
.. ;.
~'
N_":ORD OF PROCEEDINGS
~
100 Loaves
,011II11.. e.,. "cr~l\'n .. .. . ~, tA.
Section 20-:;'8 Public Dedications and Easements
-,~
f
(a)
All land submitted for subdivision app~oval
t
'shall be subject to the fOllowing land dedication
or cash payment in lieu.thereof for the purpose
of'providingparks, school playgrounds, active
recreation facilities and similar public use and
open spaces.
-'
(1)
The subdivider shall dedicate to the
City for public use purposes land in the ratio
of two and' one-hi:llf (2.5) acres for everyone
thousand (1,000) residents of the proposed
.
subdivision, i.e., the number of residents
mult!plied by twenty-five ten thousands (0.0025)
. pf an. acre per resident f The number of. .resident"
shall be calculated on the following basis:
Type
Dwelling Unit
Studio,
Number of
Residents/Dwelling Unit
l.a
1 bedroom
1.3
3 bedroom
2.7 .
4.0
2 bedroom
Single Family or Duplex
4.0
(2)
At the option of the City, the sub-
r
aivider shall in lieu of such conveyance
make a cash payment in an amount equal to
~1
the current market value of the undeveloped
.
land required for dedication by subparagraph
(1). Undeveloped shall mean without buildings
or structures, ~ut shall include other im-
provements or utilities if installed prior
"'t"'\.COl1'h~;".{co;,","
~
!""'\
QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER
James J. Mollica
Real Estate Appraiser
Licensed Real Estate Salesman, States of Colorado and Ohio
Salesman Member of Aspen Board of Realtors
EDUCATION
Business and Advertising, BSJ, Ohio University
Real Estate Law. Ohio University
Course l-A, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers
Course 8. American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers
Course 201. Society of Real Estate Appraisers
BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
Construction. Deffet Companies, Ohio (During College)
Appraiser Intern - Associated Consultants and Appraisers. Inc.
June, 1972 through November, 1973
Independent Real Estate Appraiser, Associated with Mason and
Morse, In c . J an u ar y, 1 974
...
MAJOR CLIENTS SERVED
First National Bank of Aspen
Aspen Industrial Bank
Bank of Snowmass
First Western Mortgage
City of Aspen
Holland & Hart (Law Firm)
Colorado National Bank
TYPES OF PROPERTY APPRAISED
Residential
Condominiums
Vacant Land
Commercial
Motels
Ranches
PURPOSES OF APPRAISALS
Acqui s it i on
Sales
Exchange
Partition
Liquidation
Estate Planning
Condemnation
Tax Planning
Insurance
Mortgage
i
i
i
I 3.
I
j
I
I
!
I
4
4.
.-.,.
."......,
THIS APPRAISAL IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION.s
AND STIPULATIONS BELOW
1. No responsibility is assumed by the appraiser for matters
which are legal in. nature, nor is any opinion on the
title rendered herewith. The appraisal assumes good
title and responsible ownership. Any leins or encum-
brances which may now exist have been disregarded and
the property has been appraised as though free of indebt-
edness and as though no delinquency in the payment of
general taxes or special assessments exists. No survey
was made of the property by an engineer.
2. The employment and compensation or rendering 6f opinidn
in this report are not contingent upon the value found.
nor upon ~nything else ~ther than the delivery of this
report for the predetermined fee.
All information and comments concerning location. neigh-
borhood. trends, construction quality and cost. obsoles-
cence. condition, necessary repairs, rents. expenses.
income, taxes, ~r any data ~n the property appraised
herein represents the estimates and opinions of the
appraiser formed after an examination or study of the
property.
While it is believed the information, estimates. and
analyses given and the opinions and conclusions drawn
from them are correct. the appraiser does not guarantee
them and assumes no liability for any error in fact.
analysis, or judgment.
5. The appraiser herein, by reason of this appraisal. is
not required to give testim~ny or attendance in court or
any government hearing with reference to the property in
question unless arrangements have been previously made
therefor.
6. The distribution of value between land and improvements
applies only in a program of utilization in harmony with
the highest and best use of the land and is invalid if
used in making a summation appraisal,
1"'"\
1""'.
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned does hereby certify that, except as otherwise
noted in this appraisal report:
1. I have no present or contemplated future interest in
the real estate that is the subject of this appraisal re-
port.
2. I have no personal interest or bias with respect to
the subject matter of this appraisal report or to the
parties invQlved.
3. To the best of my knowledge and belief the statements
of fact contained in this appraisal report, upon which
the analyses, opinions, and conclusions expressed herein
are based, are true and correct.
4. This appraisal report sets forth a11 of the limiting
conditions (imposed by the terms of my assignment or by
the underSigned) affecting the analyses, opinions, and
conclusions contained in this report.
5. In the preparation of this appraisal report I have
used as a guide the Professional Code of Ethics and
Standards of the American Institute of Real Estate Ap-
praisers.
~...~
· ,m.. J · ...,,:-'/74
. ,,,' ,,'ot, ,''co, m ...
"''''-
"""
.~
"'.' ...
BRUCE KISTLER
LAWYER
P. o. a 0 x 3 1 07
ASPEN, COLORADO B 161 1
FIRST NATIONAL SANK BUILDING
42:0 EAST MAl N STREET
TELEPHONE:
303 '92:5-1 030
August 21, 1975
Planning Department
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
RE: 700 W. Hopkins Condominiums
Gentlemen:
In connection with the final plat approval of the City
of Aspen for the subdivision of the above captioned property,
in lieu of a subdivision agreement, we propose to include the
following covenants within the Condominium Delcaration covering
the premises:
31 (h) Each Condominium Unit owner shall agree to
join and otherwise waive a right to protest
against the organization of any special improve-
ment district to be formed at any future time,
encompassing the premises, and for the con-
struction of any improvements presently re-
quired by the Subdivision Ordinance of the
City of Aspen.
(i) In the event that the City of Aspen, at any
time, or from time to time, shall construct
or install any improvements presently required
by the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of
Aspen, which improvements service or improve
the general area in which the premises are
located, including the said premises, each
condominium unit owner shall, pro-rate to
his interest in the general common elements,
upon demand, payor reimburse the City of Aspen
for that portion of the actual cost of such
improvements which is properly allocable to
the premises, provided, however, that such
improvements shall include an area of at least
the entire city block in which the premises are
situated (except those portions thereof which
may have been previously so improved).
.
.""'.
-.
-
-
ASPEN/PITKINPLANNINGi DEPARTMENT
130Sbuth Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Staff (He.)
RE: 700 West Hopkins Subdivision Final Plat and Rezoning of
Annexed Land to R~6.
DATE: August 20,1975
This is a request for Final Subdivision Plat approval of 700 West
Hopkins condominiums. This is an existing apartment building located
in the r;est end of town on the corner of Hopki ns Avenue and 6th Street,
consisting of 15 units on .three lots. The zoning is R-6, with planning
office and Planning & Zoning recommendation to rezone the annexed
porti on to R-6.
The applicant requested an exemption from the Park Land Dedication Fee
(3,125.4 sq. ft.. or cash equivalent) but at the August 5, 1975 Planning
& Zoning Commission meeting the applicant tabled this request. The
request was made pursuant to Section 20-19 Exceptions and Exemptions
of the Subdivision Regulations which grants the Planning Commission
authority to grant such exceptions.
The recommendati ons of the pl anni ng offi ce are as follows:
1. The Subdivision Improvement Agreement should include
the foll owing items:
a. corrmitment to join and to waive right of protest
for any future improvement di stri cts i ncl udi ng
the subject property formed for .the purpsoe of
constructing street improvements, drainage im-
provements, or buried electrical improvements,
.
-
~
".
MEMORANDUM
City Counci 1
700 West Hopkins Subdivision
August 20, 1975
Page Two
b. commitment to pay for.theconstructi on, or to
reimburse the city for construction. of street
paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk when the city
deem~ these improvements necessary should an
improvement district not be created, and
c. cash payment in lieu of land dedication; land
dedication would be 0.07175 acre (3125.4 sq.ft.).
2. Completi.on Of a Subdivision Improvement Agreement
satisfactory to the City Attorney and City Engineer.
3. Covenants on the property to insure long term leasing
of six (6) months or greater.
t""'\
^
MEMO
TO : HAL CLARK
FROM: DAVE ELLIS ~L.--
DATE: AUGUST 13, 1975
RE: 700 W. Hopkins Condominiums - Subdivision Agreement
The subdivision agreement should include the following items:
1) commitment to join and to waive right
of protest for any future improvement',
districts including the subject property
formed for the purpose of constucting
street imppovements, drainage improvements,
or buried electrical improvements.
2) commitment to pay for the construction, or
to reimburse the city for construction,
of street paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk
when the city deems these improvements
necessary should an improvement district
not be created.
3) cash payment in lieu of land dedication;
land dedication would be 0.07175 acre
(3125.4 sq. ft.).
cc: Sandy Stuller
George Madsen
. ~
..'
". I"'" "_._,,,.
-":'''''''.
, ;:~-.,
1t._~j
"
,
)
',-
"'--
, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
rw:tI" 'e. r..mr~.,\ t, I.. l. C;I,
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
August, 5,.1975'
Meeting was called to order by Chainnan Jenkins at 5:10 p.m. with members
Roger Hunt, Mike Otte, Patrick Dobie, Brian Goodheim, Danny Abbott and Chick
. Collins. . Also present were Hal Clark, Greg Cole and Bill Kane of the Planning
Office. ,.
Old Business Clark asked that Centennial Park"which had been tabled previously
by them, be acted on now.. Council had given Centennial .their
conceptual approva.l based ona redesign of the units to eliminate
the chance of the "door game"being played.
Motion
Otte moved to consider preliminary plat approval
Centennial Park Condominiums. Goodheim seconded.
motion carried. . ..
for tJ;1e
.All in favor,
Park Land Attorney Bruce Kistler requested'that it be tabled.
Dedication _
Fee Exemption Lloyd Parks, long time.resident of the 700 West Hookins building,
noted that he had been asked to come to 'ask them to eliminate the
I dedication fee ,since the price has doubled on unit he is purchasing
Motion
Hunt moved to table the request at the applicant's request.
Goodheim seconded. All in favor, motion carried.,
Jenkins asked that they get together with Goodheim on Housing at
their next meeting.
Subdivision
exemption
./
John Kelley represented the Gaudino duplex which technically didn't
need the exemption but was asking for it because of financing.
Members felt that they were back to the same problem over dedicatio
fees which were unequal.
Collins moved to approve the request for exemption for the Gaudino
duplex. Goodheim seconded.
Motion
Motion
Goodheim said that it didn't seem fair because these people didn't
have to make a plat and yet were exempt from dedication fees, also.
Since members were'undecided about how to handle the problem,
Goodheim withdrew his second and the motion died. Clark felt that
a letter from the City Attorney explaining the situation would
help Kelley with the bankers.
,Hunt moved to table the Gaudino duplex exemption. Abbott seconded
All in favor, motion carried.
I
Francis Whitaker and Katy Smith, of Gr<l.ssroots TV, presented a
video-taped progrilm featuring bikers riding through alleys in the.
west end and illso from the center of to'~nto 7th street. Hunt felt
it necessary to determine who has the right of way and suggested
posting signs .. since the bikes .~ill have to yield. Whit<l.ker noted
that they ha.d thought to p<l.int'q:osswalks in line with the <l.lleys
with yield signs for the cars. Goodheim mentioned <l.nothcr possible
solution of c~l-dc-Racs. Members felt that it could cause potcntic
accidcn ts hay inq the bi}:cs qo throuqh the streets to the ,a.lleys.
City Attorney Stuller noted that the Model Traffic Code, which the
City has adoptetl, prohibits the use of rO.ldways for skiing. Jenkir.
summarized th-.:lt.it was the responsibility of the pedestri<l.n <l.nd
cyclist to protect their own Rafety. lie felt it might help "dth.
the theft and pilfirage in the hou~;es along the alley.
John Faulkner, along with c,reg Cole, presented the idea for bike
lanes in the downtown area. Cole noted that the Planning Office
was more in favor of a "spoke~ system then a "hub". Members felt
it would Cilune problems with loss of parking, possible accidents
on the passenger side of the parked cars a.nd that bikes would go
Trail Access
Bikeways
-1-
'.~_.'~-':-'^"':"f:""'"
....l""<'?~- ..
. '1'f'T"
. ""f. .'
.'
.....~.. ....
.. "~"'''''''
'""1'1' . ,,".~
j
'''9' .,.,,#
'''~~'''''',,:.,.
..~.. '~'1'1'''l::~-.:.
~I\-'
"."
.
Jenkins opened the public hearing for the Aspen View Subdivision
rezoning. Clark said that this would be a filling out of the
existing property. The City has it zoned R/MF and the County had
it as R-lS. Kane noted, that there is a.R Ordinance requiring land
to be part of the City for subdivision thus a part had been
annexed. They had annexed the land as R-lS,. Clark noted that
they have 90 days to reaone. Goodheim asked why the land was
annexed with Kane stating that they own the land but it was in
the county and was needed as a fire lane. '
Hunt move.ci to.zone Aspen Vi;ewas sho\vn on the plat to R/MF.
Collins seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Jenkins closed
the public hearing.
700 W. Hopkins Clark pointed out that this was Madsen's at the base of Shadow
-;-- mountain. They were in preliminary and final plat stage and
they were asking to rezone the county designation of R-lS to
City R-6.
Stream Margin
. \
Motion
Rez'oning:
Aspen View
"
Motion
~
.".....".
p & Z 7-29-75
..
were shown the new alignment for Red Mountain Road whioh::'elimiri"5tc,
Mill Street and the bridge as access up to Red Mountain. Goodheim
asked how the trails were to be interfaced with the transi.t with
Stanford noting that they had a shuttle bus from the Rio Grande.
It was questioned whether the City or County was in litigation .
over the Shaw property with Jenkins noting that he didn't think
that the tip of the land was the Shaw's. . Russell said that it
would be probably done through a land swap.
Goodheim moved to approve the request. Abbott seconded. Dobie
questioned whether the bikes could take the new trail over the
winter with Stanford noting that with the bridge, it would be
easier to take this trail then go by way of Mill Street.
All in favor, motion c.arried.
Motion Hunt moved to rezone the 700 W. Hopkins as indicated on the plat
from R-lS to R-6 on the annexation area. Collins seconded.
Motion
Election of
Officers
Goodheim questioned whether he should bring this up but he was
apprehensive about the. large rash of condominizations since all
the rental areas are becoming owner units. He noted that even
thought the renters are given the right of first refusal, many of
them can not afford to purchase the unit and the City is losing
much of its rental units this way. Jenkins noted that he had
not been aware of the problem until Goodheim brought it up but
thought it something tha't the P & Z should be aware of in the
future. Goodheim questioned whether they wanted to address them-
selves to who is benefitting. Kane felt it was appropriate for
the P & z to discuss and question the history of each request.
J:enkins fel t that some uni ts are particularly stable and had a
history of good ownership. Clark said that it was a false
assumption that the new ownership precludes rentals since they
could be absentee owners. Goodheim said that many of the owners
of the development were speculating by making thcm into condos.
Clark noted that several were suffering from the dedication fee
to which .Jenkin5 felt that it was punitive. .Jenkins asked that
they sch(">oulc" ~l discussion with GoodhC'im (..l~ .T priv~lh-; citi2('n)
and the Rousing Task Force. Clark noted that Druce Kistler would
be coming to their meeting next week to ask for an exemption from
the dedication fees.
All in favor, motion carried.
Jenkins read a statement from Otte, who was out of town, in,favor
Chick Collins as Chairm.:ln. Collins moved to open the nominations
for Chilirman. Collins nominated Jenkins. Goodheim nominated
Collin5. Jenkins cl05cd the nominations. Collins said that he
didn't have the time to pUt into being chairman. Jenkins said
to Collins that, bC'causc of the all the n<'w members, oniy he or
Jenkin,; had the b.~ck'1round to be ch..i rIlI.ln. P"p<'r ballots were
c,]!;t wit}, }o~anc 'notinq tlhlt ~Jcnkin!; h.tt.l bt'L'1l el(_'cted.
-2-
!
I ,
I
-j
I
f
,
r
.
-,-.
",. ., -'-'.',~_. ~.,!,
,-,
/~
CITY".OF.'A,S PEN
aspen ,c'~.,I:~:::ra:.tl~~ a1~11 box v
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff (He)
RE: 700 West Hopkins - Exemption from Park Land Dedication Fee
DATE: July 31, 1975
This is a request for exemption to the dedication to open space
requirements of the subdivision regulations, Section 20-19.
Attached is a copy of said section for your reference.
The Planning Office has discussed the request for exemption with
Sandy Stuller and it is clear that the applicant has the right
to appeal under Section 20-19, and that the Planning Commission has
final authority in this matter as the subdivision code is now
written. The recommendations of the Planning Office are as follows:
1. The regulations require that no exception be granted
unless the Planning Commission makes certain specific
findings. There are no special circumstances that
"deprive the applicant a reasonable use of hiis land",
in fact, the property is substantially over dense for
the existing four lots and as such is non-conforming.
The excess density puts strains on existing public
facilities in the area. The property right is not
effected in that condominiums will exist as non-con-
forming as they are existing now. Therefore our
recommendation is for denial of this request.
2. Should the applicant wish to participate in the housing
program in the City of Aspen, and guarantee certain
limits to the future dollar appreciation of the condo,
minium units, it would be appropriate to consider the
request to lower the dedication fee. While it is true
that the units are being offered at less than market
value and with right of first refusal available to the
present renters, we believe this benefits only the initial
buyers of the property and does not contribute to
eliviating our local housing needs.
.....-,
,
.-
-,
MEMORANDUM
700 West Hopk ins
July 31, 1975
Page Two
3. We further recommend that the Planning COlTlTlission and City
Council give consideration to revising the open space
dedication requirements by incorporating special provisions
for thE:! programs of the housing authorities.
. .
,
. ...: c"._ .~.:.... '_.' ..
.'
.'
.
1_. .
~
'.)
.
.
(')~'
<'
'/""", . .
.
.
. .
.
.
RECOr:D OF pr.oceeDINGS
100 Lc;\V('s
....
. .
.
,
.
~
.
.,
,~
"
.'.
,
"
tection 20--19
Exceptions and Exemptions
.
"
.
Certain cxceptiori~ from the strict applic~tion
of the, provisions of thIs ch~pter and exemptions from
the definition ofasubdivision set forth in S.ec.20-3(q)
. .
hereor,may be ohtained und~r the f~llowing conditions:
(a', The Planning Commission may grant exceptions
from the 's'trict application of o.ne .or more of the
standard's, requirements' .,and other provisions of this
,c~aptcF (other than the dc~i9n standards in 5ec.20-17)
, .
when,' i.n the judgment of 'the 'PliIl1l1ing'. CG>.l!\mi:,sion" undue
hardship may result .fror,l struct compl5.<>nce. r\o exception
shall he' granted unlc,ss the Planning Commission finus:
, .
(1) That there arc spccinl circurnstctJlccs
or conditions affecting the subject proparty'
such that thc strict app1ici:ltion of the pro~
visions of this chnpter for ,.!hich nn e~:cC'ption
1s sought would deprive the applicnnt of the
reasonable use of hi:; land; and
(2) That the, e>:ception is neces:;nry .for
,thcprescrvap.oTl nnc1.cnjoynwnt of ',"l ,subr;tnnti.:ll
property right of the ,tpplicnnt; <.:.nc1
,(3) 'l'h.:lt: Lhe grilnting of the exception
wl11 not bc detr1r:tc'ntnl to the public \o.'clfilrc
or injuriolw Lo other property ill the nreil ill
which Lhe ~ubjcct prop~rtyiQ ~ituDtcd.
. .
(b) .'ollowinr; receipt of arccor.uncndntion froll\ the
tho l'lnnn!."'] commi:;:;ion" City council m."lY cxcn\pL a
pnrticul<lr divlliion or 1nm1 [rom the definition or n
..3G-.
.
.
'.
,..':
l
f'.
,
.
.
I'., .'" .:.
,
........
.. ",.-,.
"r
:'1'
"
."
,';.0'
. ;.'
..
.'
I
i
{
~;\
;
,
_0& C. .':'~.!.' 1"\ ~.!
..
"
.
" ':
.'
.
. '
....
~.~
~.
. ," - .
.' .
,
~;-..;
.
..
.
.'
.
"
.
.
. .
.
RECORD OF PROCEEO"tNGS
100 Loavos
=-
I I
subd~v1sion set forth in Sec.. 20-3(5), whe~, in the
. I
.'
.. - .,.... .-- .-. .. ~- ..-. - .,.._-~
'ju~gmcntof the City Council, such. division of land
is not within the intent and purpose of :thi~. chapter.
_ 30 such exception or exemption ~hall be granted
~nless a written application therefore has been sub-
mitted to and con~idercd by the Planning Commis~ion,
and the grounds for granting such exception or exemption
have been entered in the minutes of the granting body
by motion or resolution duly adopted.
Section' 20..,20 Subdivi.~i.ori Fees
.
(a) ,Upon ~ubmitting a conceptual presentation or
plat to the City Planning Office for review, the applicD.nt
shall pay to the City an initial fee of One lIundred ($100.00
DollD.rs, plus an additional mnount determined as LolloVlS:
(l)For R-lS,R-30,R-40,RR and Con~crvation Districts
the fee shall bc Five ($5.00) Dollars, T\'lenty-T\...o
($22.00) Dollars, and' Thr.ee ($3.00). DollD.r~ per dwell-
.
ln9 unit for the conceptual, preliminary <lnd final
platreview~ respectively.
('2). },'or. all other zoninQ' districts the fee
shall be Sixty ($60.00) l>oll<lrs:, 'l'wO lIundn'd Eighty
($280.00). Dollart:,.and Thirly-:;"ive ($35.00) Doll<lrs
per acre :of land {or the conceptual, preliminary
And final p1at r?viewt: re~pcct;ively.
(b). If in the C1f?ihion. of the Pl ann i1\g Con.'1\i :;::10n,
"
A cpec1.:ll study i.5 necciis",ry {or the review of 1\ plOlt,
and.cnid study C.:lnnot be executed by the City Sl;afr,
thc.owner &h<111 Cl:1l'loY.:lt hi:; expense, :l licen:;cd'pro-
fCGt:ion.:ll or per:::on(r:) qU<1lified too do the p01rt.icul.:ir'
IItudy. Frior .to ernplo~'1nent tocontluct touch t:t\~dy, tho
.
-37-
: ,./.. ,
.~: ',' ~
: 'J,
......
.. '"
...
, .
: .
~t
'...;
.
. .
....-~
.
,,~
~.
r'\
BRUCE KISTLER
LAWYER
P. o. BOX ::I 1 07
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
420 EAST MAIN STREET
TELEPHONE:
303.925-1030
July 29, 1975
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
Pitkin County, Colorado
RE: Application for Exception
Gentlemen:
The undersigned 7th Street Partners (a partnership)
as optionee of 700 Hopkins Avenue Apartments and party in inter-
est to its subdivision application, hereby makes application for
an exception from the strict application of the provisions of
Section 20-18 of the Aspen Municipal Code (The Subdivision Ordin-
ance) as it applies to the subdivision of the existing 15-unit
apartments into Condominium Units to be known as the 700 W.
Hopkins Condominiums. Subdivision approval for such conversion
is pending. As grounds therefore, the undersigned states:
1. Special circumstances and conditions affect the
subject property so that strict application of the provisions
of said section 20-18 would deprive the applicant of the reason-
able use of its land in that:
a. Section 20-18 requires a dedication of
3.049.2 square feet of land or cash in lieu there-
of, in an amount equal to the current market value
of the undeveloped land required for dedication.
b. The subject property includes only 9,000
square feet 50 that the dedication is the equivalent
of 33.88% of the land or its value. Due to the fact
that the land is developed, it is wholly impractical
to dedicate any portion of the subject land.
c. The imposition of such a fee is in violation
of the Constitution of the United States and the
State of Colorado for the following reasons, among
others:
(i) The imposition._is unreasonable as
it relates to the subject property.
.
.
-,
,-.,
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 29, 1975
Page Two
(ii) The effect thereof is to deprive
the owner of his property without due process.
(iii) Such imposition constitutes a taking
of private property for pUblic use without
just compensation.
(iv)
the equal
cation to
The ordinance deprives the owner of
protection of the laws in its appli-
this particular property.
(v) The imposition is arbitrary, capri-
cious and excessive.
d. Because the ordinance and its application to
the subject land in unreasonable and unconstitutional,
it therefore has the effect of depriving the applicant
of the reasonable use of the land.
2. The exception is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, namely
to effect a change in the type of ownership from an apartment type
to a condominium type without the imposition of an unreasonable
and unconstitutional charge.
3. That the granting of the exception will not be detre-
mental to the public welfare or injurious to any other property
in the area in which the property is situated, but, in fact the
public welfare will be served by providing a right.o.f ownership
of housing to local residents (indirectly) without the burden of
excessive, unreasonable and unconstitutional charges.
Your immediate consideration of the application is
respectfully requested.
Very truly yours,
~~
Bruce Kistler
Attorney for 7th Street Partners,
(a partnership) as optionee and
party in interest to the subdivision
application of the owner of the
subject lands, 700 Hopkins Avenue
Apartments, (a partnership) owner
of the subject premises
el
"
.
,1"""'\
,-"
.;
,
!
\
!
L
Clrry ()F ASI)EN
aspt~n.colorado,81611h()X v
~'Er.IORMlDUM
RE.:
DATE:
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
Planning Office (HC)Cff~
, Rezoning of70Q West Hopkins
July 24, 1975
TO:
fROM:
This is a request to rezone that portions of t~e 700 West I~pkins
Condominiums which is in process of annexation to the City of Aspen.
An exact description of the area to be zoned is contained in Resolution
#25 of the Aspen Ci ty Counci 1. The cont iguous Ci ty property is R-6
and the property to be annexed is R-15.
TherecOlemendation of the Planning Offi ce is to zone the p'.operty R-6.
Thi~ will make the 700 Hopkins a non-confor~ing use but this action
is preferrable to creating an island of multi ,family zoning.
-
..
-'
.\
.
tT
LEGAL NOTICE
1""""\
,-.
~
Notice is hereby given that the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission shall 'hold a public hearing on July 15, 1975, 5:00
P.M., city Council Chambers, to consider the preliminary
Subdivision plans for the 700 West Hopkins project, more
particularly described as:
EXHIBIT "A"
A tract of land situated in the SE 1/4 of
Section 12, TIO S, R 85 W. of the 6th P.M. Pitkin County,
Colorado and being part of the Mary B. No. 2 Lode Mining
Claim, survey No. 19640. Said tract is more fully described
as follows:
Beginning at a point on Line 7-8 Aspen Townsite,
being also on the Westerly line of Sb,:th Street whence
the Northeast corner of Lot S, Block 19, City of Aspen
bears N 140 50' 49" E 91.00 feet; .
.
il
f
Thence N 550 18' 18"W 95.68 feet along-said
line 7-8 to a point on the Westerly line of Lot Q, said
block 19;
I'
~
Thence S 140 50' 49" W. 41.49 feet'along the
Southerly extension of the Westerly line of said Lot Q,
to a point on the extension of the Northerly line of West
Hopkins Avenue;
Thence S 750 09' 11" E 90.00 feet along said
'extension of the Northerly line of West Hopkins Avenue
to a point on the extension of the Westerly line of Sixth
Street;
Thence N 140 50' 49" E 9.00 feet along said ex-
tension of Sixth Street to the point of beginning containing
2272 square feet more or less.
Plans are on file with the City/County Planning Office and may
be inspected during regular business hours.
/s/ Kathryn S. Hauter
City Clerk
Published in the Aspen Times June 26, 1975.
.
r
I
.
.
,
..
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
,~
~
MEMORANDUM
Planning Office
Dave Ellis ~. V
700 West Hopkins Condominiums Preliminary Subdivision
Plat Review
July 10, 1975
The above preliminary plat is acceptable as submitted.
I""
1"""0.
SUBDIVISION PLAN CHECK FORM
Mailing Date:
June 24, 1975
Subdivision:
700 West Hopkins Condos
Preliminary Plat,
P &'Z Hearing:
JulY 15, 1975
To:
City Water Dept.
According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision
Regulations, the enclosed plat constitutes a subdivision and must be
processed in accordance with said Regulation.
This form with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each
utility company and public agency may inspect the plat and the
site, making comments. concerning the placement of easements, etc.,
and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy of the plat.
This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to
the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission no later than July 10, 1975
interpreted as approval without comments.
O~~
11("27:~ )
No response will be
M
REMARKS:
Signature of Agency
~
.,-..,
SUBDIVISION PLAN CHECK FORM
Mail i ng Date:
Subdivision:
June 24, 1975
700 West Hopkins Condo's
Preliminary Plat
P & Z Hearing:
July.15, 1975
To:
Aspen Fire District
According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision
Regulations, the enclosed plat constitutes a subdivision and must be
processed in accordance with said Regulation.
This form with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each
utility company and public agency may inspect the plat and the
site, making comments, concerning the placement of easements, etc.,
and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy of the plat.
This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to
the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission no later than July'lO, 1975 .
No response will be interpreted as approval ~lithout comments.
R~J;t;~r/~i&~~
/ tJo-I P 4J'-
CJ~(O~
1"""',
,-,
SUBDIVISION PLAN CHECK FORM
Mail i ng Date:
June 24, 1975
Subdivision:
700 West Hopkins Condo's
Preliminary Plat
P & Z Hearing:
JulY 15, 1975
To:
Rocky Mountain Gas Co.
According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision
Regulations, the enclosed plat constitutes a subdivision and must be
processed in accordance with said Regulation.
This form with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each
utility company and public agency may inspect the plat and the
site, making comments, concerning the placement of easements, etc.,
and where necessary sketching recommended, alterations on a copy of the plat.
This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to
the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commi.ssion no later than July 10, 1975
No response will be interpreted as approval without comments.
REMARKS:
~MlJofv!J~
. t/
%F~'i84--
~
f""',
^
SUBDIVISION PLAN CHECK FORM
Mailing Date:
June 24, 1975
Subdivision:
700 West Hopkins Condos
Preliminary Plat
P & Z Hearing:
July 15, 1975
To:
Metro Sanitation
According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision
Regulations, the enclosed plat constitutes a subdivision and must be
processed in accordance with said Regulation.
This form with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each
utility company and public agency may inspect the plat and the
site, making comments, concerning the placement of easements, etc.,
and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy of the plat.
This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to
the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission no later than July 10, 1975
No response wi 11 be interpreted as approval without comments.
REMARKS: ~l; ~ #~ -1-)- D , s: d A/ ~ '-7c 7; " /Iv D~ ~r iJ.. . 'ct-
. ,A-rr~!C:---
~J:i~-~.
Signature of Agency
~~-w
..5 a........ *~ ",,' .JO_~ 't:4- '
~
^
SUBDIVISION PLAN CHECK FORM
Ma il i ng Da te :
June 24, 1975
700 West Hopkins Condos
Subdivision:
Preliminary Plat
P & Z Hearing:
July 15, 1975
To:
City Electric Dept.
Accordi ng to the procedure set forth in the Ci ty of Aspen Subdi vi si on
Regulations. the enclosed plat constitutes a subdivision and must be
processed in accordance with said Regulation.
This form with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each
utility company and public agency may inspect the plat and the
site, making comments, concerning the placement of easements, etc.,
and where necessary sketching recommended. alterations on a copy of the plat.
This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to
the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission no later than
No response will be interpreted as approval without comments.
REMARKS, l1"p.-f --h ~ &~~e
~A.f '-yJp,? ~",J - ~_ c:u-tl .. -.. ~r~
;r/"Cf'~.~ ~~~. . _.
"
,
~l,',
,-,
!
,-....f/I.
!""'\
~ Ii:
C ITy,::;;;r.:~P':.'::ll.. S PEN
. ":'_'~"I,:~gr;'".".'4,
aspen ,c~t\9.i~.Jid::~;:8.~61J box v
.,1;' :~::~:>.'. .". ."
"'i'!
MEMORANOUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Aspen Planning Staff
RE: 705 W. Hopkins Condominiums, Conceptual Subdivision Review
DATE: June 17, 1975
This is a request to condominiumize an existing apartment building
located in the west end of town on the corner of Hopkins Avenue and
6th Street. The zoning in the area is R-6. While the building is
presently occupied by 21 persons, it is projected that the potential
occupancy is 28-29 persons. Annexation proceedings have been i niti ated
to bring the entire ownership within the City limits. It is the
Planning Office recommendation that this annexed tract be zoned R-6,
the current County zoning is R-15. This zoning will not affect
the non-conformity of the project, but will conform to the zoning of
the part of tract currently within the City limits.
Given the overwhelming density of 15 units located on three lots, the
Planning Office concerns are that adequate parking be provided on site
and that the units be covenanted for six month leases.
1""'\
r-..
C ITY"..::~OiF:'::AS PEN
"./'~"~ ":."~'. ~:... .",:,' "."" ~ '". ~
aspen ,c~jlf.;t~dtj~.'8j~11 box v
"."'."" "',,' ""
".' ",,'
.''if;''" '
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
Planning Staff
700 W. Hopkins Condominiums
June 12, 1975
This is a request to condominiumize an existing apartment building
located in the west end of town on the corner of Hopkins Avenue and
6th Street. The zoning in the area is R~6. While the building is
presently occupied by 21 persons, it is projected that the potential
occupancy is 28-29 persons. Annexation proceedings have been initiated
to bring the entire ownership within the City 1 imi.ts. It is the
Planning Office recommendation that this annexed tract be zoned R-6,
the current County zoning is R-15. This zoning will not affect
the non-conformity of the project, but will conform to the zoning of
the part of tract currently within the City limits.
Given the 'overwhelming density of 15 units located on three lots, the
Planning Office's concerns are that adequate parking be provided on site
and that the units be covenanted for six month leases.
,."...,-".....:~..'."^',"'..~.----...,-,.,.
,.,..,
r"\
-~
.....~,.,
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO
THE CITY OF ASPEN
REQUEST:
The undersigned petitioner, being the sole landowner
within the exterior boundary of the territory hereinafter des-
~
cribed, respectfully requests the City Council of the City of
Aspen to approve the annexation of the proposed area to be
annexed in "accordance with the provisions of 1973 CRS Title 31,
Article 8, and in support thereof alleges:
1. It is necessary and desirable that the territory
described below be annexed to the City of Aspen.
2. The requirements of 1973 CRS Section 31-8-104
and 31-8-105 exist or have been met.
3. The petitioner is the sole owner of the territory
sought to be annexed and therefore the owner of
more than 50% of the territory sought to be
annexed.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
The legal description of the land owned ,by Petitioner for
which annexation is sought is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
ATTACHMENTS:
Accompanying this petition are four prints of an annex-
ation map containing the information required by 1973 CRS Section
31-8-107.
CIRCULATORS AFFIDAVIT:
State of Colorado)
) ss.
County of pitkin )
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, upon his oath
deposes and says:
1. That he circulated the above petition for annexation'
to the landowners of the territory sought to be
annexed.
2. That the signature of George Madsen as general
partner of 700 Hopkins Avenue Apartments, the sole
~
A.
,..' o'
..... -::'..l
landowner, is the signature of the person whose
name it purports to be.
~day of
Hay, 1975
by
Sworn to
. as circulator of the within petition.
and
SIGNATURES:
This petition has been executed this 7tp day of May,
1975 by George Madsen, as a general partner of Petitioner,
700 Hopkins Avenue Apartments (a general partnership) whose
mailing address is Box 87, Aspen, Colorado 81611.
700 HOPKINS AVENUE APARTMENTS
By:
i
I
I
I
I
,
I
~
1
!
,
t
k.
t
l'
,
I
~;
,~, . "' ..
,
Jenkins closed thep~b1ic hearing. .ii . .
HOJ=>~ Mojo expiainedthat. thj.s wastheexi~{ing Madsen apa-:rtments'on.
6th & Hopkins. The lette:rs of reference are in order and the
engineering department has no conunents on it. He stressed that
this 'was ,an already existing building. Council had been concerned
about the parking, that the present.curb cuts remain and that
.there be no off-street parking. The Planning Office also had
concerns that there be a retention of parking and a six months
covenant on the units. He said that they had reservations about
the curb cut but that Council felt this was a residential area.
Thelot across is vacant but could eventually be built on. It
was also noted that annexation was complete at this time. .. .Jenkins
said he objected when they wanted to create a continuous curb
cut because they only gain oneparkihg space. ~oodheim asked if
there were 1 space per unit with Jenkins noting,i t was an existin~
buildin9 and wouldn't. have to conformwJ.th the present code on
the parking. Jenkins opened the public hearing, and there being
no commen ts, closed it.' .
~Dtion
€west
" t,,_.,
...;."..-.;.
.~r.~.", r~._
::::Motion
-7ark Circle
J
p&Z 7-l5-75
"
,:;.~
Collins moved to table the application' until they receive from
Council a set of information that is acceptable>to them and also
;p &Z would like ~.,o see preliminary drawings instead of the final
ones. Hunt seconded. All:in favor"motion carried.
Hunt moved to gr~nt the preliminary subdivision with
limitations and a six months covenant on the leases.
se.conded. All in favor, motion carried.
no engineerin~
Collins
Jenk'ins asked that it be noted he had;,stepped down' as temporary
chairman to gh-e his presentation. Hunt was mape . acting chairman.
Jenkins said this was Lot 12, Park Circle North and there 00uld
be 12 one-bedroom units. There was adequate parking on the ratio
.of one space per bedroom. It is zonedR./MF with density by right
of one bedroom for 1250 sq ft. It would be three stories and they
have satisfied all the requirements. Engineering has asked for '
power and comrnunications on the lot which he .has complied with.
He showed them a floor plan with a possible change in that the
. staircase may come up a differe.nt way. The liY~ng room \-;ould
be on the view side with rectangular \-lindowsiri,the bedroom. Mojo
wanted to point out that this was a good contrast from Centennial
. Park.since on the plat it snows clearly that the unit COUldn't be
changed to add another bedroom. ,Collins still questioned .the
.contiguous parcels since both sides are mandatory PUD, and'if
one stands. alone all must stand alone.
Dobie arrives.
Hojo explained that the project can st<l,Ild on its OWn without other
parcels and Jenkins only has to retain;o"'l1ership of one of the
units. He said he would like to see the units handled through
the Housing Authority. Jenkins said it ""as his intention, regard-
less of the Authority, to covenant sl:x months' c.r nore leases.
Hojo said that there would be a trail easement of 10 feet which
would be worked out with engineering and Jenkins explained that
it had been dropped temporarilY but he would covenant an undefinite
piece of land.. Hunt opened the publiq, hearing. There being no
comments, he clOSed the hearing.
Goodheim moved to approve the preliminary plat COnditional upon
a six months lease and 10 feet trail access. Dobie seconded.
All in favor, motion carried.
Jenkins resumed his position as acting chairman and noted that
they would change the agenda around to hear the 80/40 review, then
Aspen Savings, and finally Callahan andClarendon~
110/40 Greenline ~lojo noted that according to the code, any property that 'comes
,:Review - ,lithin 50 yards of the 80/-10 line has to be revie;.led by P [, 7.. The
~ibberd , Hibberd duplex would be at the base of the 5th Ave., condominiums.
.j "'" Goodheim qUQstioned whether the slope wasn't too much for water
. and sewer with Mojo stating that Dave Ellis says tello wat.er pressure
...!--"!otion
-2-
,-
f
r
",.~.(i
"}."
.,.......,.:.,.
:;;'{'.'::< j
.
,~ "'.,
"*,-",,.
..,.,....l':....<:'.,.,:
"..~,.".-',"-"..
-, . '-', '""-,, ,.~
')v...;;
1""'0
. ,-"
Regular Meeting
Asp"ell C.i ty Council
June 23, 1975
Goodheim requested a dcf.inition from the City Council of thei.r housing policy. Nayor
Standley stated thd.t Council h,-ld decided un':lnirnously th'-l.t housillgisa priority itE..~m
even to the point of putting money into the housing iSl::>uc. Councilmembcrs \'1ishart,
Pec1cl.-scn and Mayor Standley 'were appointed as a housing subcommittee to work with
Goodlwirn. . .
ZONING OF STAN .101INSOI1 PROPER1'Y
Zoning of
Stan Johnson
prOpcl-ty
The planning dcpartmen.t explained to Council that this prop'erty was Hunter street vacated
on the south side of Durant street. The adopted. zoning map showed this zoned as C-
conservation toJhieh allows ,very little development potential. 'I'he r0nsons it \vCl;szoncd
this was wero (1) in the Urban Design Plun there was u ncC'dto mnj nt.ain open 'gpClccand
access, to Aspen mountain and ( 2) the C-conse:rvatibn zone was not viewcc'l uS cohE i scatory
as the property has three different easements that criss-cross thepropctty. 'j'hc:
property is 1250 square feet of irregular s.hape and is subject to seLback rcq.u,j,remcnts.
'l'he planning offi<":8 does not feel that the site has development potential.
f
v
The planning office gtlve this information to Council because there might be lC9,:'11 .:lction
to force some sort of compensation. The planning office added thut they had not been
able to adequately locate the px'operty nor have been ablc to see a plal. The p1011ning
office goals arc open, space ~nd access to the,n1ountain,and t.hey wanted to make the
Council aware that the application of C-conservation zoning was nota mistake.
Mayor Standley said ,he felt that when using easements as a mqans of determining land use,
this should be up to the owner. The City's role should be determining whClt,is Clppropriate
land' use consideration without easements. Yank Mojo told Council that all the casements
ei ther preceded the sale of the property Or. '''ere grRnted at time of the sale. Muyor
Standley pointed out that properties on both sides were zoned commercial/Lodge and the
piece in the.middle should be the same. City Attorney Stuller said the planning office
was saying that this piece of property was appropriate for conservation for the various
planning reasons listed above; secondly Kane's argument with reference to the easements
is that it was not. confiscatory zoning because ,the land had little value on its face.
City Attorney Stuller told Councilif.the owner, Stan Johnson, is unhappy with the
zoning, he should apply for rezoning and go before the P & Z and get a recommendation
and then corne to City Council for formal action.
.
City Attorney Stuller further told Council it wus her understanding that the planning
office zoning this piece of property C-conservation because it was under skier's case-
ment.' They asked the Ski Corp if they objected to having this property zonedconscrva-
tion, and they appro~ed the zoning. Johnson said he felt the planning office had
singled out his one lot forC-conser~ation zoning as all lots around it were zoned C/L.
Nayor St~n<;ney said he was seeking clarification of thi s pa~ticular zoning and, had
received it. Mayor Standley t'old Johnson that planner Kane could explain the process
for rezoning; and that is the way Johnson should go.
PIZZAGALLI UNDERGROUND PARKING REPORT
Underground
parking study
City Manager Mahoney had submitted to,Council a~eportfroroPizzaqalli. This report was
the first step in the enquiry of feasibility of parking under Wugncr or Rubey parks.
The plannin'g office. sllbmi tted a memorandum critical of the ,depth of this study. Nahoney
was asking Council if they felt the Pizz~galli report merited further consideration.
Councilmembers Behrendt, Johnston, Wishart and Pedersen indicated lhey v,"cre not int.erested;
Hayor StandlE:!Y and councilman parr.y indicated ,they were.
Councilman Parry said he thought that Pizz.:tgalli ",'ould fund as well as build thj s park-
ing st~ructure. ,!-layor Standley said that Pizi':agalli would do the construction, bL~t. the
CitY,would fund it. Councilman Parry said in that case, he we.s no longer interested.
City Harwger r-iahonl''Y t.old Council he would write Pizzagalli and inform them tllat. Council
was no longer interested inunder.ground pad:ing.
)
J
700 HOPKINS APl>R'l':'l!?'J'l'S - Con~~l su~diyi.s~5~~ Review
Yank r.lojo of t.he planning department told Counoil thi.s \<1<:1$ 0 project to condominimize
ancxistil1gap.:lrtment buildi n9. Thei' present buildiIl~l conta ins 15 uni ts Pl"('~cnt: J y
occupiE-~d by 21 people. Under, subdi.visiQnrthcoccup;ltion could go up to 28 or 29
people. 'I'he planningofficc>is recommending that tlw ;!oning [or thjs be H-6. The
only concern of the planniuCj office is thill adcquulc parkirr9 be pl'ovid0d ~ill<:1 tJhlL
lcasC'~; be cov011<tnt:cd to six months at lcZl.~;t. 'l'lle planning office reported th\..'y had
nO problems with this subdivision.
Councih:nman ,"Johnston asked Nojo if when goj nl] to 28 or 29 o,;;ctlpilncy \o.'olllc1 uni l~; lh"' (](ld('d;
~lo.io ~.:1id no. Md)!Or St;lndlcy asked \-,hat t1H.' p.1~'tlHlill~1 office"' .held in'mind C01" <Idl.'''-j\.l;:tl'
parJdlvl. Mojo po.int,:>d out thc'rc W,:15 a continuOl15 cud) cut- <7Ilonq Hopkins <lnd c,lr~~ p<ld,(.d
up on that strip. If it is taken out, it would climinat,c p~rkjllS plilCCS.
Councilwomun Pedersen moved to approve the
t.he prescnt curb Gutz shull rCTIlu.in und the
that th0. units be covencntr.-d :[or six month
in favor, motion c~1rried.
conceptual. ~1I1b(livision dcs)gn '1u"llifying
off st.reeL parkinq !;hall be kept in L.lct:
lcas~; sccond0d by Counc.i.lnl<l.n Hehl"pndl.
that
.Jnd
All
~~,~!L:!~~_.J _0!~.!~I~J~ ~~~i,l2.!.:!I ~l..2~
~'llC applicants for tIlls suhdivision were llot preS011t.
....~.'C"'M_..._.. .~~_~_.., _~_
~ _,."....".._.,.,''''''-<.....,___,~,<,__,,,...,..,,,-'''''',,,..,..,.,:,,,:_.,,.,'''.-'''I.,,;''''~;",.,.,f'.~.-"......
....,.,.,v."
"';"'!"~'~'~'''''~;':~'"''~~~''''0'''~''':'''':'''''''-::'" ~,,,~ .~..,.-,,,,.. ~:r"'!'~-."" .'.:.'.,-.,",,,...-.
J(')
1"-.
^
Regular meeting
Aspen City Council
Jun'e 23, 1975
Cl'l'Y EHPLOYEE' RE'l'IR~MEN'I' PRO(~w'\.M
Mayor Standley suggested that this propo!=;cd ordinance be referred to the Finunce COIlunittc
for review ~md work to dCVl~JOp a final draft. M<:lyor Standlcynlso suggested including
the county in thi.s retirement program plan. '1'he Finance Committee meeting was schf.~duled
[or 10:30 a.m. Friday, June 27.
WILl. PLAN
,
V
. BiLl Kane, city-ConnLy Planner, told Council the Null Commission had accomplished two
. th'ings; adoption of a general master plan'~ I and a firm fir8t ph35C in futllre mall
df,?vclopment. ,'l'hat master plc:m involves s,c-!veral major element~; closunJ of Galena street',
closure of the extension of Hyman street from Hunter to Nonarch and from C'oopcr street
up to Hunter str'cet,.GCJlcni'l from Cooper up to Durant. Kelnc' showed Coune,iT a map of
this master plan that will be the bRSis uponvlhicl1 the Mall Commission will proceed.
The first phase h<J.s Mall Planner Greg Cole working in prcliminurydcsign consideration,
what will go in these streets and what the mall will look like. This is for.budget
proposal to go before Council for final Mall construc~ion for these streets.
->.N;tll master
.. plan':
Cole presented some design sketches to Council that were the first pnss at dE'~dgns for
each individual street .in the I1'l2lll. The NaIl Commission will rev.icw these and comc up
with final recommendations to Council.
Mayor Standley recommended to Council to spend time in the planning office..lf Council
people had personal concerns about the mull, they should take them to Cole so they can
be included in the budget proposals.
ORDINANCE #37, SERIES OF 1975
'Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley closed
the public hearing.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance #37, Series of 1975; s~condedby Councilman
Behrendt. All infavort'rnotion carried.
ORDINANCE #37
(Series of 1975)
Ord. 37,75
City
Manager
vehicle
AN OHDINANCE APPROVING THE ENTRY OF THE Cn'Y INTO A LONG TERH LEASE
WITH DICK WHEELER, INC., FOR mE USE OF A 1975 CHEVROLP;T ONE,HALF TON
TRUCK WITH ACCESSORIES, FUHTHER PROVIDING THAT SAID I,EASE SHALL BE FOR
A PERIOD OF T'IiEN'rY,FOUR (24) HONTHS AND PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF
ONE HUNDRED FORTY,ONE AND 90/100 ($141.90) DOLLARS PER MON7'H, ALL AS
PROVIDED THEREIN
was read by the city clerk.
Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt~prdim:mace #37, Series of 1975 On second reading;
seconded by councilwoman Pedersen. <'
Councilwoman Johnston questioned the need for. a pickup for the City Manager's vehicle.
Mahoney answered it was warranted because of the, various sites, construction, filter
plant he had too go to in the winter ~
.
Roll call vote; Councilmcmbcrs Wishat-t, aye; Pederseh, aye; Parry, aye; JOhnston, aye;
Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Moti.on cal"ried'~
ORDINANCE #38,_SERlES OF 1975
r'layor Standley opened thcpubJic hearing. 'fherc were no comments. Mayor S L;1I1c1 ley clascn
t.he public !1Caring.
Councilwoman Peucrsen moved to read ordinance #'3B,' SE.~ries of 1975;second(!d uyCouncil-
woman Johns,ton. . All in 'favor, lOo~Jon co.rri cd.
ORDIN/\NCR #38
(Series of 1975)
AN OIWrNl\NCE l\N~.JEXTi";(; 1\ '1'f\;\C'J' 01:' L/\Nnm"lNED BY 700 HOrlaNS AVENUE
APi\1n'i\ll::N'J'S, ^ G!:\"En/\L P1U~'l'~~I::n;~l.lTP (SAID 'l'Hi\C'l' CON'J'ldN.H~G 2277 SQUi\HI~
FEE'f, M0HE OH Lf';SS) AN]) l\NNCXJ N(":; SAID PHOPEH'l'Y j\CCOIWJNG '1'0. THE
COL01V\!JO l'>iUNICIl'i\T, MWEX^'l'] ON l\CT
....';\S read by thc city ch!r.j;.
COUll(.'j Iman lh:-ht:"011dt. moved to i\c1opt OnLin.ll:lc(' # 38, Set." tC8 of J 975 on sc'conc1 J:cadirHJ;
seconded by Councihl()!ll,Jnjl'cc1cl'f;Cll. Holl c<lllvolc; Counci Imemi>ers Peders(~n, <'lYc';
Parry, aye; Johnston, ilYC'; Behrendt, nye; Wishal.t, <lYc; Nayor SL:lndloy, ('IYC. No.tion
curriud.
9}!Q:U:!!}.~S;E #..:.!9.~-:.~~I~J r::~~l?_Y_):..?.75
t-1.:tYO:r St';'llldlc~y op('lwd tlw public J1L'u.d,ng. ThQ1.'c were no conl1nc'nts. Hayor Standley clc)f;cd
UlC' pub.Lie hf'i!dllq.
~O\lnGj]lll':Ul nr~11n'ndt move,l to }"(',ltl Or'diTlt\llcP ff.l(),.~;('ric's of, .1()7~); SPCOIHh'<t by COllnc.ili':Ul\l,ll1
l'c';]C't");<'Il. A] 1 ill f,l\,l1t: I ll\oLioll C.:l n- ic(1.
';""<'\""~.'";,-,,....''''''''''''''
,",,,>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,'''~''.,~~,.,,,"-
'--.' ."'.''""'"'..".:.,.....c'':.."'''~,-..~'..,.,,..."''''''~.....~..,,~___.''''",,....,. .,..,.,.:~""'c.,,.<.
''''''''"-'''P''''''''.~''~'''"> :"'~""""""':':"".JY""""""""",,,,,,--=-,,,,,,,",.,..,...u~~:,,,~,,,,~,.,,,~.,...,..~,,..
..;;. .."......".F.
Use Dotcrminntions
County lIorsc torral
Site
"-..;.,.'
J
Rolla B. nill
St:'rb~1n. Hargin
Revfew
.J
.J
-1""\
,_.."""
-
,
L
~
Planning ahd Zoning 6/13/75
lIunt mov6,i'that the Planning and Zoning Commission "mend
the Pli111nin9 and Zoning Code to ilpprove in' the PU Public
clasc;ificatioll use of equestrian facilities subject to
rcv~c\-! of approval of the Plilnning and 20ning C0:-.'.:~'t.ission..
Otto sU<Jgest~',l tlrat conditiolwl tisc in PU zoning subject
to approval revi<;>w of Planning and Zoni.ng cquesti:ian ,USCS
and facilities be included
~lojo suggested. that the motion be read as foll0t1s: to
"include equestrian facilities conditional use in public
zoning.
Dobie seconded the motion.
All in favor, m6tion carried.
'OttG said tha.t they need a ~notion related to granting
C011ditional use on the particular site.
Collins suggested that some\o'here in the '-lot ion for it to
be considered to rcvie'd tho time \vhen the corrals S110uld
be checked.
Bun"'c movc;d 0 that the Planning E.: ZO!ling CC:7'.:\1issionapl.Jrovc
theCouI)ty application for conditional use of tho Pitkin
County Park. and Stable c~rGa subj ect to fixed revic.,o;
dates in the 'I:";onths ofl'~ugust and October of this :~lear ar
to be ,revic\..'ed I",'nonever a cO~lplaint f.rom neighboring
property is submitted to City Planning ctl.1d Zoning~
Jenkir~ssug~resl{.:d that a date be picked for tl:is YGar an:::
orl8 for next 'yGar arl0. if s::l.i.:isf;3.C::O~Y it ~1:0t:l<1 ;:;2 ::or-
~otten about. HUllt.bolieved t}~atif the ::CiS~1:)G~S~r8
co::.n:;.lain'ina a;)o1...1tit th~v shaul-::.-1 hG.\,.e a ch~l"'..ce to 6is'2Gn~
of their p~oblems. Chick Collins f el t t1:D. t the r€"']ie~ol
shculd be at a fixed time.
.
llU:1t moved that thepIDnning ar:d Zo~!in9 COL..;-::issio:n a p;>l." 0"'
the request fo)": Pitkin County Sta,ble aree to gl:'2.nt
C011ditional use .pn that si~e subject to re~icw of SGpte~1
of '__Cl75 alld. cr..Dl..-e-.~l)~~ 0" 1076 Jen'-l.ns ~''''''''c'o'li(~e(1 .....'.-..,.,.1-_
-' . ~ '- J:.: L. J.~L~ ':...... _ -'- ~. -;.... ., ,,-. _ ........ -. ,_.l- .r.:~ '-
;"oti.on.
Otte re-read the motion which states that it has been
m,?vEd nnc1scconded to grant condit.ional use for C(l;).estr.i~
f'acilitiesand purposes.on the Cou.nt.y Eorse and Corral
site subject to reviet"l. in September 1976 and September
of 1975. All in favor, 1t1o'cion carried. '
Hojo introducGc1 the Rolla B. nill Stream 1-ia:cgin Rpview.
They would like to add a porch 011 to the bltilding. The
building is l1S1 above the lc~vel of the river.. The r.caso
this is b8ing rcvic'oled is the~:{ need a buildingl.y..;rI:~it to
add a porch in front of the building, but since- it is
within 100' of ,the, river_~bqy, hayc.t() gc>, t.lD:"0l19h S1:.:r.0am
margin revie\Ol. Nojo said that he \....(~nt ~n2i. lo()kccl ai:. it
and cOI.-.ldn I t see> any problem from the PJ ~jnning f)c-partr."ten
standpoint... The a.pplicc'111t has Cltjrec;d to open his portio
of the land for f iShCl:n,an' s access.
lIun.t moved t:h:lt a StrcZl'"f1 Nurgin Hcview ilpprovDl b(; grant
co:.;:.1itionul \lpon.:1CJrc~c;.:,-:nt by the; [ll)plicc:nt". th.1t 2:.n"i
di8ruption of natura]. cover be repaj.l:c-d ,dJel lh.:l t: f .i.o~.;hcrjr
accc:.;~~ along t.l1c rive:!: be <J)~Cllltcd. Sccond6d by Collins.
~li in favor, motion carried.
llojo presented the 700 J!opJ,ins, COl1ccptual SuJ)(li\ti~don S<l
t,hilL t:hc bu.il(ling ht"f;, 15 units ranr!.ing from 1 bedroor.1 tc
3 bc'Grooms cun:ontly'occupied by 21 people; pocentinl
occup<nl(~j' i::; bc' t:H(~ci) ?on tlnd 29 p(~{)ple. 'rh(~conGcrn is
t.h:ll i\clcclllatc Pd1:kincJ L(i.;pro".Jj(~C!t.l On the :dte at: the rat
or (lJlt", l>:n~ld llrj :;P':1C'0 jH'r ]ICclr()()!ll .Hld U:.-;f.~ " t.hc l("il::('~; be
covered for () rn(;ilth:.~. 'J'llC~rc ir; pref:(~nt.Jy ~ll:;.vc:l j n Lllc~
propu~;c:d p.:u:}: inq np('c;_.e..
-2-
. ,-
......'
..
,"..:""''!.,"l c.r. ":!:~!lti>, ~,~. 1:;),
Regular Heeting
700 Hopkins
, C"once')tual
',. . ",.,,1_ .",::
Subdivis.1"6ii
j
.....
~lotion
'.
Sunny Park Circle
Condominiums
i
i
..
.'
"~
, ~~,..
"'.....:-
RE.ccftm OP PROCEEDINGS
100 Loaves
Planning u"nd Zoning Commi'sston
June 18,1975
Jenkins didn't l'ike theidea of, taking cars off the s'trcet
and putting them in a space \qhcre there can De grass. Hc
.said that about 21 cars can be put there. Hojo's argumen
'\vas that there are 15 units on 3 lots and that is :; times
the density that would be allO\',ed and there concern is
to get the cars o!-f the.street, The housing is local and
long term. Jenkins said that \.,hat they \.;ould be condonill
is continuous curb cuL. Jenkins would rather see it have
. grass_ ..and sidewalk then a parking space,
The other consideration for the 700 Hopkins Condominiums
is to have a 6 month J,ease, There \vas no problem \.li th
that.
Jenkins made a'motion th~t the Planning and Zoning
Commission accept the request for conceptual subdivision
and approve the request for condominimizing that we do '
not prov.ide for continuous curb cutin that area because
spaces provided off street and the ones eliminated on
street doesn't provide a viable reason fQr continuous
curb cut. Hunt seconded the motion,
Hunt retracted his second to the motion.
Jenkins amended t;he motion to include the statement tr:a.t
the condominium be covenant to a 6 months or longer leas'{
Bunt seconc1"cd: the motion.
Mojo suggested that the curb cut problerJ be dealt vlith ai
the preliminary. hear:ing and in the meant irae get- Dave
Ellis' 03 feelings.
.
l).llin fayor, motion carried.
.:Jenkins isintcresi.:ed in de"~relo?ing the prcper"-ty ~..Thich i~
on Sunny Park Circle into a hOL~sin'g area for local peoplE
The property .is- locat:cd belo'."l th~ salvation ditch \"lhic'h
a. mandatory PUD ar,ea Rndt'hc obj_ect ,in PUDiIlg is to get: (
the slopesanc1 down \vhcre i''c ,is .fJ_at for, housing. rl"'he
"exisingroacJs in the area are G:ibb'soi1, and Ki~9 St.:r."cet.
'I'here ilre ,"t,-]O builoings, 6 one b2drooms, 12 t\,:o bedrooms
and (number of three bedrooms notmentior:ed at J~:cctjng)
''l'he COndOII1.i:niurns" if possible I \-.~ill be going throc..gh .
Goodheim of the housing' authori ty. Jenkins. said tlw. t th:
is the last pi0ce of land that' s in the, County that doesl
belong to HcCullough. If this is favorD.bl" Lo the Plann:
and zonIng Cor::!!llssion; "f,irs:t ._p:J:_r:i:.__O-f____i_:t_v:ou.1d.ha_v(~_ to. be
annexed into the Cit); and second there \-;o11Jd have, to be c
approval or tho concept \-:hich v"o;'1~Lc1 place a ccrtu.1.n IJor't.
of. the project unuer Ordinance u45 \-lhich \\'ould make it: b:
pass PUD and pl'accthc next st~p subdivision on. t.he othe:
portion. Nojo suid that he pn)bClbly cou ldn' L <Jet Cl pUD (
one of: the portiom. but could b)'ing 1:\,'0 build.i ngs or pUD
exemptions very similar to it if 'Idant to be granted oui.;.
.Jenkin!, is looking ~()r pUD exemption fro11\ onoo.( the por.1
'and looking for conccp'.:ual appr.oval on a pun requc";t foL
by a subsC<juc:mt !>ubdivision on both. .1Tnl;.ins is to hr.in,
i;hc conceptual r;ul.xliv.i!don on two of hk.; bui.Jd.in(Jr~ dnd PI
oxemption c!nd that will be t:hc only fo,",,,,,l action that \-I:
be tilla":n fori.no/hile. l~i1nc said that\-.1}}id: \'J.i 11 ncetlto be
dOlle ist..he land \..d.ll llC(~<1 to l)c rC'l..oned from n.--l~~ 1:0 n.-I
\.len kif; s.:d ,1 t h~d,: the llr'll~;j t.y \'It:;.u 1..1 be l(':;~-:; hu t t h(~ j de\!
or bcdroo:a <It!li::it.y ;H~ oppo~.L'd to unit.. de);. j!;y J.:; iJ po ill L
t:lVlt il, bL,jll<J tall;('d about.
-3-
,
,
'J'll'_,i:'i:'.l::; Prop.
J\nllv:~i.liun
t"'\
.1""\
~
, '
d ,
He9ular He0.ting
A0pGIl CiLy COll!lCil
June 9, 1975
projl('rty (i.'Xc]u~;i.vC' of:,trvt,'t~,;, lti(n1\':dY~-': ,-uld dll('y~~) 1)I'UU')~;I'tl Lo lh' illlnc':.:,il i:-,; ul.':ll,'d
by t!i\. ,:jj)' or :\!'i'l'll, ,:1;J(: ,i~; nol :;()l,'l\' ,1 ))lll,)ic <:11,-';'\' (l) l"icjlll-of'-t,'.':lY, ci.l:Jc)f
\>:h.ich ,,"l:;dil, i()n~<, 1:"IJ-:c' l}p' ll',lt'l ,:liqihlv for <'\II!P::'\.<lt iun Il)' ordiniIlH_'" (viilh()Ul pl'i{\r
nolll;c' <illd JH,~,ll,jIHJ),iJ~; pn'~;(,'ril},,;d 1.;)' ~-;c'(.~t.iun :{J-H-1Ui.i(3) C.H.~>. ]IJ73.
RC'solu t.i 011 i: 2 <1 Wd~; n:,'iul in fu 1.1 by l he, Ci ty At tornc)y.
CounC':i.h:O:~!iln Pcuvrsc1l IT\ovc'cl to dppn)V(~ r:'(~r;\)lut. ion ;;24, Scrie~; of 1975; R0.cond('d by
Coullcil.,.,oil1itn .Johnston. AU ill f~lvor, liloLlon cd]')~:i",:(l.
I ,
Ord.#38 1975 Olm.~!:?iE1~_Jl}~~~,~~:I:~~~~J12
700'Hopkins
Apartments
~
J
Ord #39 1975
Fi.xe Exting-
uishing 5ys.
Res130 1975
t: 1 c;lct.ion on
L;:;d::; for Ho:::;p.
Councihloman Pedersen moved to rcad OJ:'dinance ;~38, Series of 1975; seconded by Council\'wman
Johnston. 1\11 in favor, motion car.ried.
ORDINANG' # 38
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINl\NCE l\NNEX:rNG Ii. 'I'R7\.CT; OF I..AND ONNED ny, 700 HOPKINS AVENUE APAH'l'Hf';N'l'S, A
GENERAL PAH'l'NE:~SHIf> (5i\1D 'l'HAC'f CON'rAINING 2272 SQUAHE FEE'I'r I.j{)HE on LESS) AND
ANNEXING SAID PROPER'l'):' JICCORDING '1'0 'l'l1E, COJ..ORADO MUNICIPI\L l\NNEXl\'l'lON AC'I'
waf'.
read in title by the City Clerk.
Co'uncihmnlc1l1 F,::c'lerscn moved to approve Ordinance ~f38, Series of 1975, on first reading,
seconded by Coc:ncilrnQ.n Behrendt. Roll call vote, Councilmc.mb(:rs Bch:rcndt, aYC:j ~lohnston,
aye; Parry, aye; Pedersen, aye; \vishc11.-t, aye; I>layor Standley, aye. All in favor, motion
carried.
2.B-!?lNl\N~..J.t}}2-,-gRIES OF .ll12.
Cou.ncilman Behrendt questioned Fire, !-1arshal 1\t.t HOqgland about having the entire Fir(~
Department's approval and'Chief Clapper's approval. noaglanu told Council this 'Ordin.'lnce
would put him in charge of extinguishing sys.tems \-.7i thin public b1.1.ildi n,gs and conllnerciaJ.
buildings and would give him t:he aut~horit.y t.O apPl.-ovC and test. fire nxt,in0uishing sy.:;tcrn:3.
The Fire Chii?f 4oc&~_;nothave t,he time t.o do these things.
Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance # 39, S0.riesOf 1975; seconded by #Councih.wman
Pedersen. p.ll in favor, motion carried.
OHDINANCE #39
(Series of 197.5)
AN ORDIN1\NCE Al'IS'::NDIN-G, SEC'l'ION 9-3 OF 'fIlE ASPI:N j-lUNICIPAL CODE SO AS '1'0 EXPAND
'j'HEENFORCEMEN'l' AU'l'HOlUTY OF 'l'HE FIRE l>V\RSlIl\L {AND CORHESPO~~DJNGLY REDUCE 'fifE
AU'l'I-IQRrl'Y OF THE prIZE CHIEF) '1'0 DH'1'ERMINE 1'HE TYPE AND NlnmER OF 1-'1 RE APPLIl\NCES
'l'HA'r HUST BE INS'rl\LLED (SPRINKI,CE, FlEE HYDHAN'I', STANDPIPE, FIrm ALARH ANn
POR'l'ABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHER SYSTEi'l) AND ,RESPONSIBILl'l'Y FOR INSPECTING IN,S'l'ALLED
SYS'l'EBS
was read in title by .the city 'Clerk.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance '4r39, Series of 1975, on ,first
seconded by Councilwoman <John8ton. Roll call vote; Counci.lmcmlJCl:s Johhston,
Parry" aye; Pedersen, aye; Wishart, <:lye; P,chrendt, aye; Hayor St:andlcy, ilye.
favor, motion carried.
r.eading;
aye;
1\11 il)
Councilman Behrendt moved to put Resolut.ion #30, Series of 1975, on the a9("nda; seconded
by Councllwoman i)edersen. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilmc.m Behrendt moved to r:ead Rel'jolution #30, Series of 1975; seconded by Councilwoman
Pedersen. All in favcl~, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #30
(Scl.-ics of 1975)
vlHEREl\S, there is scheduled for June 17, 1975, <In election for it dctermin,l.tion
as to whet.her bonds shall issue for t:hc consttucU,on of C\ l1ew 7\S\H':'n V.:l.lley Hospi tnl,
and
\..;'HEREAS, the Aspen City Council \....ishcs to make of rC'c(lrd it,:::; support of the
bond issue and to encourage the residents of the City of ABpon to 0ndorsc tile same,
NOi'l, 'tHEREFORE, BE X'.I' ImSOLVr;D BY TilE CI'l'Y COUNCIl. OF' TllE CITY OF l\SPEN.,
COLOH7\.DO that it does hereby uCL.i.v(~ly support issuance of tho propo~:('d bon(1
series necessary for tile dcvclorJ\nenl of c.\ nm,? l\spcn Valley llospituJ for Pitkin
County and the city of l\spcn residC'nts. .
BE I'l' FURTHER HESOJNED, that. it docs encouraqc its residents fo pClrticipatc
in the election 5ch('dlllc:d for .June 17, 197:>, <lnd at this time to approvl.': t_he bond
i:O;S\l0 to ful"t.IlC'r the \v,'Jf0.rc: of t..11(' coLti:':.:c]l'; ('If thin v~\ll('y.
....:j. j, ,II! t,n fu 11 l,y th" (' i I j' ,\ I t <'I'll'
C".I;' .11....
'. ~ ::. Ii 1:1"':.,,: ''''.',' ':',1.1\11 tOll ~~il, :~t'!i,." (\1
,\ I I ill ,IV" ,'", J! \, I \',11 [' I' ,,1.
, , \. ! , ! 1 , ':, ' \'" ~ 1 : \ ' i 1 .
ll"I'I
1:1_111 i.\'i Il,tl.\
:1,1'1 ,,\' ~ ; \ "ll1\! I,":' \.' " " 111' '~ '.",! l It.lt Ill" 111, 'd i.l 1"',1 1 I\, I ; 1 I hi .' i , " ~; \ 1 , ' ,I'; Ill. I 1 I '~< !l"I']']" ,Ii'(' Ull'-I",',))','
"I t h , .' ,. 1('clio)\ '" v,h,lt , t I j 01'. f'.1,IY01' :: !,;! n. I,.\, " I ::n ': t. d \ ,'d I \ It.'ill!],l !", q[,(\,1 t " ]'1 i JI<!
Olll t 11" J dl't I.lvll (In \ ~ du<..':; 11\'[. 11,1\.'(,' to hI> ,\ r"'l ':1 ;'r,.d \'"t vI 1,"1 t I, , .' " let:t J'lI).
'. ',',l
~
'~
r,~~.CC~"~D l/~'
~lCt. :~'~r.." ~;'\:C:'~~
-~'OD Lz:;av..':::
Hcqnl'::tl- j,jCC:tillq PJ.,~nni.n~r ~; (,on:i.Jlq C01C'lnis,;:-d.oll . Ll'un0. 3, l\Yr~;
_...__~.__.._ __'_._ ___._"" ..._________.__. ___"..._'_',____" "".'"...~..._...n'__ ,.~.._.._,,_....__..~._.. ~____.. ,..~._._.._______.._______....._,__,_..______._ ._.
.."..,--- --""--''',
-'''~--' --.. ._",,~..--....., -,"'"
7 ?:or.l !.ns! "10'0 lioj,'>k.illS
~ju:;'lc1Jn'" .
Rio Grcll1dc
Determination of
Uses
j
SC1Li.ffcl: tJj](] P & h 111C)il}..lC~X"S t.lhlt. due t.O the fact: Lllil't 'Jchc
, Pl~~nnin'J D(>pdrt:rnC~lYL V!('J:,')n I t. pl~cp,:,,:'~~(?d t.o P):Qf)(~nt. t.l1e 700
r.rCl..'.l-"': 'l"' Dl.'J.:1 ('Ii l"('f ":J')".l.t. -"'J,]'" \,1"8' (J(")"L'I"U 4____, '1-"-1V(:~ .t() L.e'
J I.... ... J ...' '.'~" .. .... ") L_ ,_~. L- ,,_.. ._' v... .,' _ L:> L_\:. . l',... _
tCl]jh,(i. '
StC:tnfoTJ Wi..lC.\C a prcr')ent,:~tion o:n th~~ (1(.,.tcrrn.ini'ition of i.1ses
for tIle Rio Gru])0c. St~lJ1[ard lold 1'1 & Z lllcmbers tl)at.
they arc trying to schedule a si:uo:r'''S(';Sfd,on ,wi th P f, Z
members and t,h8 Council to develop U final plan of \:h8 Ri
Grande. At t.his st.ndy sc:~~;sion Stanfo:n.1 said t:l)'::lt 11: was
go~ ng to prescmt a conceptual drill'li ng icJcntity.i ng the
genc~al" uses aJld tIle general J.ocations for the uses orl tt
Id.o Grande. Stdnford h;::tndc:d 01.1 t~ to Gael) nlc~rnL(-~r D. report
done by l\dam Krivat.sky. "t:anJ:ord malle cl crit..LCjue of UW
USQS and ran throngh t.he uses and gavE:~ cornmcnt.s of ,.:ha.t
tbe. Pl~nnin9' DCpGJ.~t~incnt thougJ:l.t:.. 11'}18 1.J~-;CS c1.nd c()~:rnr:c:n.ts
are as follo\,ts! Stanford first re2td the ObjE~C.tivc's from
the Krivat,;ky report which were 1) to providG needed pUr}
long t:erlTI and duy ski8r R",rking; 2) to' cont::CCJl the develc
ment of this last large piece of ra':J land "Ii thin t:he ci t'J
limits; ,3) to establish a visual und p8c1es.trian tic bct\ol(
1'...spen and the Hoaring Fork River; 4) -'co II... .cmbJ:acc 0.2
many of the 5.nrmedia.t(~ public r civic andco)'llrm,Hli ty needs
as possible. If; 5) to .regard the land as a "...future sitE
for public f~cilities..." and "... at the same time to
seeur8 a good source of revenue for the town." Stanford
mentioned l:hat: he had com8 to 1:l1e conclusion that, t:his
could irnplie mixed uses and pos~>:i_bly pr i vu.te eni:c:t:"pr ise i
6 ) identifies prograrfl requirern.ent:s throngl1a plannj.ng
process, in ot!lcr \Jords procedural things such aS1
a) alternate development concepts, b) llvariety of
architectural and si.te recollunendat_ions. H, c) resl,lts in
a plan that respects Aspen's ambition to remain a non-
urban place. Stanford interprets thnt as a non-intensiv
urban place, because 1:11E site is urhan and i.t 1 S not like
the Thomas Property., d) respects t,he fact t:hat land val
within the propc,rty are estimuted at an ave.rage of $5.70
SF \iith values up to $ 6. ~;O/"F, 0) involves def inite plan
for the relocation of the adjucent sewage tr~atm8nt
facility; Stanford agrees witl1 tIlls because this would b
further implem8n'tat.ion of the EOi1rinq Fork Greemn:w plan
as well as the urban runoff management plan, f) does not
necessitate the construction of an exp~nsive. mGltilevel
parking structure at thi.s time. 'l'his impli<,s re'taining
the option for a future milti-level use filcility if
needed, g) keeps tourist-orient8d business out: of t.he
site. Th8 following are the basic objc;etive,; which Kriva
developed from the list of uses:
1) Post Office 21,000 SF with p<:lrking up t.o 160 vehicles
and land area of up too 2 acres --- Planning ))c'p:n.tmcml
feels l:hat 2 acres shou.ld be t,he maximum size this eom8!,;
up to about 87,000 SF', t.he la,;\: 1'ro1'o,oal for sille to .the
City for the post office was for ]04,000 SF. After it
was tux.ned down the post office came back ,and ask8d what
we really wanted and '1hat we t:old them W,1S \112. would
really like to see is a branch post office ficility win
more \1arehou,;ing and sifting of the; mail loeatcd out at
the Airpox-t Business Center; the reason for: this is that
it gives us the uses that we want that will genm:a.le
people using the site and will support: the parkin9 dOWl1
there but wi.ll climina.tc the space requirement, for that
warehousing which we couldthen use for additional publlc
purposer,;. 1J00,'c"'vcr, aft"r tellinq t]1<'1II thilt t!H'y didn't:
buy UldL. '.I'he 1'1dnnincJ J)c'1'Llr:U", 'lit 'n fc'cLinc! i" t.JI;[I..: Ih(
bcst: use for t,hat property ir; for pm".t office use.
-5-
f
,
!
.u;~;,?
t1Zl.yor's deed
ZiCKS
J
Hcs.25,1975
700 HopJ,ins
l\nncxcJ.Lion
,-, ~
l~ i
,Rcgul<:u: Meet ing
Asp:cn City Council Nay 27, 1975
COUllCih./I.>ll,',ln p(.dc,c:('n 1 if;,t('dlv:'J" object.ion!.,;, (J) the {lU('~,tion of o'Wnr~r!;hip is l:'csc)lvl'd as
it r.ldy dff('(.'l 'lIH.'. .'1.LJo'",d,,](' dC:ll;,;lty (:~) furl!wl: infdnlldUoil be Ohl:dilh.:ll OJ\. the I"C',Ui..,f of
th<..' follO'.vil~~j~ldvl:r~:t,: il\l):.;!cLs (,1) jncn.'il::;C' of t:r:..1[fic on G.iI.)~iOn (b) .ICCC~~~:; of P,lr};.illq .'.l!.'C';:l
off (;.ib::Uli (c) l."t'cr(',:~l ion.;tJ, 'U::H._'~~"1.:,lY il,cn:O~'l:;l.: tTaff;.i.c on SI'\l~jrHJ strL'et (d) CJ:'or;.lO-ll f:ictor
on UK~ l:llopc- v:j,ll he incl..-c<ll.;(~d ((~) advC'n,....:: ViSll,d .l.mp';lcL of sol~H- collecl..ors ill -Lhe
l'csiu(~nLlal a.i:eu (3) an on-t;iL<..~ insp<..'cti.on wj Lh t.he stnlctur"(',:,; ~~L.lu_:d ~~hou1d'b(>. conducLecL
Councilm~m \\'.;:iJJ.5 l:;aid ll~ would In.::ludc those conunents in hi~; motion; CtJuncilwuman N~lrkDlun.=
sf>cond('d t:!lO.sC conUn(~nt5. All in fnvor, .111otion c.:trI-i0d.
N^YOH'S nEED
-------.-.---
Hayor St~ndley int.rodllcl.;.'d a r.1ayorl~; Deed to nObln:t\~. Zick for Lots K, '1., flnd M, block 14,
City and 'l'ownsi.te of !\!'~pen, ColoJ:.:ldo.
Counci.l\\'omi.:~n l'1arkalUlH'lR moved to Cl.uthor:izE!"l M.ayor Standl<_'y to eXE'cute thG Ma.yor's D(..~c:di
~,;ccondcd by Counei .lr.l.:ln w..111s. 1\11 in favor, mot icm C'<'.lrried.
~2;_~~~~1~~.2_~_.!~~) !~",_J)!:~._EX~! l.9ii .;. 7 0'0 Hop k i ns
,John I1aYC'f; pr.escntl:~d the propos(~d annexat:ion to the Council. 'I'he area i::-~ locuted on
Hopkins aVC;~1.18 ~lt Sixth stre<:.:t.. 'l'l1c r.mjo:i~ily of the pcu~ccl is alreacJy in t,b<...: city limits.
Coun<.:i lman \.]a115 mov<;:!d that if the City 1\tto1;I1CY' finds that t.he petition is i,n oruel:, then
the p8t:i,tion for annt'xation be accepted; secOl1cled, by counci.lwoman J?cdcrsen.
Councih-loJ'J<1n Narkalunas asked why not. <lnncx t.he whole blocJ~ rather than do the annexing by
piec(,lIw::'iL John !Jay(:~s said this annexation is ,or techriical ;r.equin:~mcnt as a prorcquisi to
to evcntt1ill~ubdivisj.on of: tlle property. These dre existing units nm'l and plan t.o be
condominiumized mainly to change the financi..:-d. arrangements. Councih.10IllQn Markalllllos aske,
if t.here ~\'as any reason not to annex the. entire blocks rather than two lots at a time.
City Attorney St.ullct" affirmed that unless the lot was an enclave, the annexation had to
be initiated by the lanc1ovmer.
All in favor of motion t.o ,~ccept the petit.ion, motion carriecl.
Councilman lrlal1s moved to read Resolndon '1125, Series of 1975; seconded by Councilwoman
Harknlull<:ls. All in favor, motion c.:lrri<:~d.
m;SOLUTION #25
(Scri~s of 197:>)
t\lW::n.EAS, thC):c has tl\,?E.'J1 filed on behalf of 700 Hopk.ins Avenue Apartments,
a general partner~;hip, a l'et:i.tion for l\.nncxation of the following described
tract:
A tract of land si'tuated in the' SE~ of See. ) 2 ,'1'10S r RBSt'l of the
6th P.N., Pitkin County, C010l:c:ldo, nnc1 bB:lng pZll~t of the Nary B.
1\0. 2 lode, mining claim, survey no. 19640, sai.d t.t'act is more
fully described as follows:
Beginning 4~t a point. on line 7-8 Aspen Townsite, being also on
t:hc t~'estl2.r ly I ine of Sixth Street "'-'hence the Northeast corn'cr
of Lot S, Block 19"Cj,ty of A~p~n l>oars N.14oS0'49" E. 91.00
lcr:t; thcns(' r-\.55018'18''l,-l. 95.(,8 .f('(~t ulonq f".aid line 7-8t-o
a point on the Westerly line of Lot Q said inock 1.9; thence
S.111050'49" t\. 41.49 feet' nlong the Southerly extension of the
t'icstcrly line of Haid Lot Q t.o a point. on the exLr>l\sion of t,lH:!
l~ortlwrly line of Host Jlopk:i.n~; l\VcnLl.(~; 1.:.1l(~ncc S. 75tl0911l" E.
90.00 feet illong si;-lid (;.'xten~>ion of the NOl:i.:herlylinc of h'es\:
Hopkins Avenue to a point on the extension oJ: -Lho h1cst.cr1.y line'
of Sixth street; thcIlce N. 14050'4911 E. 9.00 feet along saiJ
extension of Sixth Str"~('t. to the poiilt of bC<j:i.I1lling co~t.:tinin9
2272 zquarc f0at more or less, and
\-;BEHEl\S, f:aid pc't:.i U.on has b0ClI s iql\cd by GC'Or.ql~' r1~\d[;cn; Gene")':,,] 1 J'urtner,
-d~d:cdH.:lY 7, l~V/5, h~IS bCH.!n c(-)Hsic1<'n..'Cl by the' Aspen, Cit.y Coullci], .tmd !1,Js beC'I'
fC)lHld to be ill ~Llb~~t/ll1tirll ('~)T\it>l.J.inc(: wit.h t.h0 rc'qllJlemcllts of ~('ct:ion 3l..e-]07 (1)
C.H.S. 1973, t.he Colorado Municipal ^nnoxcitio'nAct, ilhd
hlli.-:HEf\S, it is rcq~lil'C'dby sdid ^ct the'lt Uw CO\1'\(.:; 1 dct:l'Untn':'IL.ion of
CQmplclincc of an illHlcxatio1'\ petit.icm be by Resolution and therefore of record,
t\...',\'.:, 'l'ilEJd:F01,:', fH'~ .1'1' 1{l:SOl.vn:J BY 'J'lll": C.1'J'Y COljNCl!.. OF Till:: CITY OF A~";I'EN,
COLO!Z,\DO:
L 'l'hat the Pelition [OJ: l\nllt'Xilti.O!"l d[\tcd I-luy "i, 197:;, sistnl..:'u by G<~or9<-'
l-ltld:,C:1, on behill! of 700 llupkin;;.I',v('n1le ^]>drtmcnt~;, d Gcn.'ral P~ll:tn('n,;llip, lH',
and lH~rcby is, d<..'"!tcrmincd to be in comp)0illC(~ \d,th UH.' l"cqujl.eJllC'nt:~; of S.....,ctipn
31-8-.107(.}) C.R.S. 1973, the colora(lo t-luldeip'-ll lmnl~xi:llion Act; i1ml
/.. 'J'h.:1t it fL11l'h(,~r h' d('L(~rlll'ill(",l, ';llld tilL' C.ity Co:tl)cil ",0 fi.nd::, th;lt.
not. less tJlan olv.-~,~l.xth of the perimeter of 'th(~ ~ln'il jll"OposccJ to l)(~ .\tIlHl:.:vd i ~
conti.~Jl.lo\H;,with the:- Cit.y of ^!'>p(~n,Clnd that. a COll\I\1L11l.lty of inb'r('nt cxi.~;ls
bC'l\v('CILUW t.erritory proposed to be ilnlH'xcd and tlle City of ^SP\~fl; th,lL thl~
tcrrilol..'Y propos(,'d for unneX.:ltioll is u:ru.Jn; and thilt the t.er.ritory to be anne-xed
is intcgrut.cd with the city of Aspen; und
3. 'l'hat the Ci.ty Attorney present for consideration at the l}(~xL rL'~Ju.1iu'
mect.inq an ordinallce ("lppr.opri.:\te to (:~ff('ctLl,lte ann('Xi.ltioll; illl<.1
4. 'J'ha-L t.he City P.l.lllllill\! .:llld ZOlli 11\] Commi.s:don COIl1111C.l\I,..'(~ pl"occ<,,'din~,s to
rezone Ud~; t.rdct <It i Uj e.lrlj(~l;t conVt'1l iCIl!:(!.
.
~.( ,(\
(~) v..... "~,,"
.1""'\
'-'.
lh"i:]ular ?1.!(,l ing
Asp,,'n City Coui\c it
f.1ay 27 I 1975
COllnciJm;11l \'1dl1s moved to ~\P[\)~ov(' i~',:'solnL.i()n ~2:i, fj"~l-i.CS of 197':'r ~,;ec()iKlc'dby Council-
woman !-1f\i:r.<lluna~l. All in favor, c(.\t.H)("ill1l~H1. Ih.'~hr('ndl: ilbslainvl:.l; motton ct\rrl,)u.
John llayC'r~ llIf'nt ionc(l to the! Council a 1-:>1:1.1.19(; that: w.::u~ offt_~l"('d [or !;~1'10. by~r. H. f~mit h.
'l'h\.~re Wu.~:; a- l.:~U:er 8uhuli,Ltcd "'lit.h ~\ tnn.d:IY optji.m to see if Lhl' City could U:$L' Ud[;
bridge in thp biJ.:c 01." foot paths. 'l'his bridge "i.s priced below market valu',.'. The bridyt:!
can sp.:J.n GO feet..
Ar~"irJi.0..!!.9..rL OF ~,!~CL^ VES
Councilm.::m Breasted suggeJ..tc<1 the Council look into annexing the enclaves \Vi thin the
City.. Aft(~r looking at a cit.y m~p (.lnd discussillt,.l the enGl<1vc~; on lh(~ 'wc~;t end of town,
the Council decj.dcc1 to CirCl.llatc petitions for Lots 4 und 5, block 1, Pitkin Neso.
'SulJdivisio!li Lot 7, Filing lA, iV'~st, 1\spoJn -Subdi.vi.sion; <:m<l t.h(~ odd tract .~'{e~~el~ly of
Red Butte l{()ad. Councilm,""1.n Behrendt ash~d if, the~ property h,)d to completely be all
enclave. Ci.ty Attorney ~;ai.d ilc.1id not hove to b(~ tot:ally surrounded. Council directed
City Attorney t.Q pick up illl the properties on the- west end that arctot.:llJy surrounded.
counci.lm~lll Bt'hrcndl nl'.)ved to circulate .:1. peti.tion for o.nncx':H.ion of those propcrt_ies
tot.(.llly surl':onndcJi seconded by Councilmdn BreC1st(~d. All in favor, motion carri(:d.
Councill\lun Beht-cndt m.:\c1e a motion to ini ti<'ltc peti lions on Pitkin Hcsa, ovc)~ on Gib~on
area and t.hc Her.ron P~l.rk areD; seconded by Councilwonlil.n Mark.alunas. All in favor,
mot.i.on corrie-d.
ORDINANCF. ..!G,h2.,,-RIES_OF _!o.975
Mayor Standley opened the public heilring. 'l'here w(~rc no comm(~nts. Mayor Stdndley
closed the public hearing.
Councilman De Gregorio moved to read Ordinance ff31, Series of 1975; seconded by
Councilman Walls. All in favor, .l:!.lotion ,carried.
ORDINANCE #31
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE AbOPTl.NG A S'l'ATUTE OF' I.I.NJ;'l'A'I'IONS rOR CIHINAr.. PIWSECU'I'ION
. :OF I>mNICIP^L CODE VIOr...h'l'IONS ,AND ESTABLISHING 'l'Hh'l' PE1UOD 01<' LIHI'l.'A'I'IONS
AS ONE (1) YEAR.
wa~ read by thQ City Clerk.
Councilman vlallsmoved to adopt Ordini:lllce #31,. SGrics of 1975, On second r.c:l.ding;
seconded by Councilwoman Harkalunas. Roll call vote, Councilp.H:.'mbcrs Behr(~ndt, aye;
Walls, aye; Markalunas, aye; .De Grego:rio, ay.c; Breasted, aye; Hayor Standley, aye.
Motion carried.
HOLY CROSS
City Hannger ~1uhoncy reraifldcd Council the city hnd employed sev(.\ra) consultant.s, lawyers,
engineers, the City J\tto~ncy, City Economist', and City Munagcr t.o pursue v<l1~iol..1s
avenues to Clcguirc tho properties of HolyCross. City Managt..;r Ha.honcy said he \~.ould
like th0. present Council and Lho:; futl.lrC Council <jC"ttogcther and review the alLcr.n<..lLives
for Holy C:ro5s<lnd take some legislative acti.on(~n this issue.
'rho. Council set up an executive session and special meeting for 'l'uesdny, June 3, 1975,
at 5:00 p.m.
SKI COn.P Ri\'l'E INCHE1\SE
------,--
Cit.y Hall<lgc:r. Nnhonc'y introc1uct:::d C1 lett.er he had w-ri.t:tcn to Mr. 'j'hOlll<1S Ev.:ms of the
Fd:cC'st SC)'vic0. ancl:r.€'qucst.cd Council's cndorscm,ent of the 10tter. City N~lll~\IJt..~r. r.l..\honr~y
said it wan hi.s belief thi1t thcrCC0nt ski tow pricing allowCll\ce by the F()re~;t
S0:rvjec is in th"."l public intl'rcst. Jt is further h.is .bellof Ul<)l. the IH:(Jccs~,;lo COUlt..!
to lh:i 5 decision W<.I$ not proper. Mahoney said he vJas not conLc~:;ting the c1L'cision
it€:.clf, he: v"as contesting tl_,e way th-:il t.he Forcf;t Service nrrivud at this dc'c.lsion.
City Natl<HJcr ~l,)honcy told Council how h.1.si1ctionf; h':lt1 C-()J:iH~ about, t1'ldL he h.:.\dLllk\_'u
to ZtllW Smith of thc' Forest Service in D('nvvr. 'l'1)r.~ Foru;tSt'l~vic(' 1),1\1 j)"c'l1 "k~;(~d to
rC;l<.:h a n.:~<\~;on.::d)lc pric~ for tov,' tiCK(!Ui ......ithouL t:1H~ exp(~rli~;t" 01. LlCiJit.:lt..:S to du so.
The public \,!,-n; ZlskC'd to <"lccept that clcC".1sion without the di~;clor;ur0 of .inforllldtion ilS
tv how they r....'<i.Clh'(l tile dcci 5ion,
City H;ln;I\!cJ' H,lhon0Y further t.old Council that h0 would lik" to first fiend thi5 h:l:te)'
t,) 'l'hOllhl.s EV<lllS informing :Ev~lns thut tlw City docs not <'l<Jn'(~ \-lith hi.s d\.~cL;j(m. '-)ri
n.:ply from Hr. Evnns, H~1honC'y would Like pClmi::;~ion to pUn;l1(.~ lhi.s is:H10 t.o adc.1it.ionill
lC'vels, \vhich is the' City's fldm:inj~:;tr"lt:ive rccotln,f.'. 'J'he City \olould like t.o CJct. this
i~~al~ to till! lhlLional l~vL'l \0:1)('1',-, j t \'It..,uld<jct t.he 0>:pc'rlisL: i L (k's('rv('~;.
Councilman Hf'hrcndt t.old 1('\:1Ullci.l he was not qU(~~;Uol\in9 l.lwCity'r; p,lrt.ic;p,lUon,
b0causc he thinks tht.: Cit'y ~')hould, but hn did object lothe..: la~';t. t.wo par'\l.Jr'1J)h~; on
p<lCJC two. 'i'he City is ql.ll~:',;lioning the m,enns vy v,'ll.ich the price is dctenniJl('d 01:
approv('d [IntI thl'HI:.' pur.l<Jl"i1phr; sound l.i }~('~ the Ci ty lhl~> COI1lt' to tlprC'clilptory conclu~ i on.
Ci ty f.1.-1.11':ltjer f.1,\honcy H.,id tlhi.t t.}H' deletion of t h..~~w lwopilr,lfp'ilph:--; WOll](] not. lnll'l
flw ]('tl.t'l". t-lilY()l. Stalll!)I'Y ,':<plililll'tl th;lt. Lucas, tlw rl'qiolldl 'F(II"",~:t Di'""c\"t)\', hdd
put t"mJf't.hrT il fOl:!nul,1 for f,ki :In',' lH';Cllllf. thdnq Lhi~1 fon\\\lln , t!a' fiqur\'~;
illl.!ic.:ILl.'ll on p,:H/O t.WO Wl.'tu ,:lrrivvd.IL.
.
.
Annexation
ofcll<.;l~\v('s
Ord.31,1975
Statute of
Limitati.ons
Holy Cross
-/
Sl:i' CO)"I) rat
i!ICrt';lSC -
admj n,i~.;Lr"It:.i
':Il)l.)('dl.