The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.gm.925 E Durant Ave.19801 --- m DTI • • r -I LJ 925 Durant Project Subdivision Exception INTRODUCTORY 1. Project Name: 2. Location: 3• 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9• Illy Parcel Size: Current Zoning District: Zoning Under Which Application is Filed: Maximum Buildout Under Current Zoning: Total Number of Units Proposed and Bedroom Mix Size of Units: Rental Restrictions: Projected Population: 925 Durant Project Lots F,G, H, I: Block 119 City of Aspen 12,000 sq.ft. RMF, City of Aspen RMF, City of Aspen 12 Studio units/24 Studio units with housing overlay rezoning 12 low-income studio units in one building Studio employee unit @ 425 square feet each Studio employee units rented in accordance with low income price guidelines as adopted by the City of Aspen 18-24 resident employees Hans B. Cantrup isP.O. Box 388 Aspen, Colorado 81611 25 September 1980 Ms. Jolene Vrchota Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Jolene: This application is made on behalf of Mr. Hans Cantrup with respect to four townsite lots located at 925 E. Durant Street. These are lots F, G,H,I, on block 119, located in the City of Aspen. An exception from the subdivision regulations of the City -of Aspen is hereby requested pursuant to a Section 20-19 of the Aspen Municipal Code in order to permit the development of twelve (12) multi -family price restricted units on these four Aspen Townsite lots. In accord- ance with subdivision exception requirements conceptual approval is also requested at this time for these twelve units that are deed re- stricted to low-income rental units. Approval at this time would allow for proceeding before City Council for final plat approval. These units were part of a winning G.M.P. application in 1978. They were awarded the residential development allotments and were authorized for construction pending this additional approval in Resolution No. 11, Series of 1978. Submission of plans were made in a timely fashion, in accordance with Section 24-10.7, but progress was delayed by the Park dedication fee language being amended by the city attorney's office. This amendment, resolved last week, now allows for proceeding with this application. The following grounds are offered in support of the subdivision exception request: First, the proposed project has been reviewed under, and approved for, residential multi -family dwelling units under the Growth Management Plan. Consequently, the proposed division of land does nothing in and of it- self to violate the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the City of Aspen, nor civic public services to be provided by govern- mental improvement programs, nor does it violate any of the stated purposes of the Subdivision Regulations as the same are described in Section 20-2 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Pi .7 Letter to Jolene Vrchota 25 September 1980 Page 2 Second, the property involved consists of four lots under a single ownership within the original Aspen Townsite to be used for multi -family dwelling units in an existing R.M.F. zone. Consequently, no additional purpose would result in requiring the owner of property to comply with the strict applications of the provisions of the City of Aspen Sub- division Regulations. Third, the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the area as any additional density on the site is not permitted under the current City of Aspen Zoning Regulations without going through a rezoning' application and review process. It is noted that the City of Aspen has recently approved and adopted the establishment of a Housing Overlay Zone through Ordinance 16, Series of 1980. City Council has also passed an exception from the Growth Manage- ment Plan for those projects which are divided such that seventy percent (70%) of the Housing constructed is deed restricted within the terms of • Section 24-10.4 (b) (3) by way of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1980. As a result, it is intended that a new application will be submitted in the near future for an additional twelve units on the Durant property. These units will be matched with five free market units on the 500 S. Galena project site. The forthcoming application will utilize the housing overlay zone as well as the 70:30 program. The Durant and Galena sites constituted one G.M.P. application that was approved in 1978. This subdivision exception application is made separate from the forth- coming applications for timing purposes. While it may have been easier from a general concept view to have combined these applications, the long delays already experienced and the oncoming winter season require immediate review of this application if we are to begin excavation and construction this year. It is the intent of the owner to begin exca- vation and construction of these first employee housing units as soon as approvals are given. The combining of the two applications would further delay the construction functions of these initial twelve units, and is the reason for maintaining separate applications. • • Letter to Jolene Vrchota 25 September 1980 Page 3 Along with this letter is a check in the amount of $50.00 representing payment of the subdivision exception fee. In addition, attached is the information necessary for conceptual review and approval as re- quired by Section 20-10 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. As time is of the essence, your immediate consideration and review of this subdivision exception would be greatly appreciated. Should there be any questions or more information desired, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours Mark A. Danielsen • r1 U THE 825 OURANT AVENUE PROJECT COPLAN0 14AOMAN YAW LTD AA6MI486T9 t r' • 0 ROARING F i i.N•'. to .... �. �i •,,N.N• /N i� ii .1 • i:..i • HI N • so •�� 925 , • nt Project n/. M • uu 1i i •• iiii •�•uwi'w: 1'.� � M•.. N./N••N • I _ I i ''r` ,.Uti RUBE WAGN! PROJECT LOCATION MAP 0 200 400 �'00 Galena 0 • • �i • TYPICAL UNIT PLAN R 925 DURANT PROJECT 425 8.R PIER UNIT 0 0 L� 0 CITI 130 s a s p e r January 25, 1978 Mr. Larry Yaw Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd P.O. Box 2736 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 925 Durant Project Lots F, G, H, I : Block 119 Dear Mr. Yaw: PEN treet 11611 It is my understanding that the 925 Durant Project is the Employee housing portion of a Growth Management Plan Submission and as such includes 12 studio units. The project site is served by a 6" C.I.P. water main along Durant Avenue, which terminates approximately 130 feet east of the project site, on Durant Avenue. Two existing hydrants, No. 105 and No. 106, are located approximately 215 feet and 150 feet, respectively, from the project site, and they have tested static pressures of 90 psi and 82 psi, respectively. After reviewing the development proposed for this project, it is my determination that an acceptable level of water service can be provided by the existing system. Ja ry trul yours, mes J. Markalunus • January 25, 1978 Mr. Larry Yaw Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd P.O. Box 2736 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 925 DURANT PROJECT LOTS F, G, H, I: BLOCK 119 Dear Mr. Yaw: I have reviewed the development proposal for the above referenced project with regard to fire protection. It is my understanding that the Project is the employee •housing portion of a Growth Management Plan submission �J which will include (12) studio units on two levels. The two nearest fire hydrants, No. 105 and No. 106, are located within 200 feet of the project site and have tested static pressures of 90 psi and 82 psi, respectively. The location of fire hydrants relative to .this project permits good fire coverage with adequate pressure levels. The site plan indicates that fire vehicles will have good access to the Project from both Durant Avenue and the alley behind the Project. The location of the Project relative to the fire station permits the prompt response time necessary to deal with fire related problems. It is my opinion that the development proposed for this site poses no foreseeable deficiencies related to fire protection. Very truly yours, • Wi l� and C . C apper Chief, Aspen Volunteer Fire Department ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT P. O. Box 528 Tele. 925-3601 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 0 January 30, 1978 Mr. Larry Yaw Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd P. 0. Box 2736 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: PROPOSED 925 DURANT PROJECT Dear Mr. Yaw: I have reviewed the subject project with regard to the quality of sewer service available to the proposed building development. It is my under- standing that this project is the employee housing portion of a Growth Management Plan submission and as such, is comprised of (12) studio units. The project is presently served by an 8" sewer line, in serviceable con- dition, located in Durant Avenue adjacent to the project site. The pres- ent sewer plant capacity is 2.0 million gallons per day (M.G.D.) of which capacity is presently utilized to the extent of 1.569 M.G.D., or at 75% of capacity. A new addition to the plant in 1980 will increase plant capacity by an additional 1.0 M.G.D. Applying the Colorado State Department of Health standard of 100 gal/day/ person to project occupancy standards of 2.0 persons per studio unit, the total project would generate 2400 gallons of waste water per day. This would add less than 1/7 of one percent to the utilization of present capacity. Due to the uncertainty of the total number of proposed units and their locations under the Growth Management Plan, the total impact of the approved units on the collection sewer lines can not be evaluated until such time as the information for all projects under the Growth Management Plan is available. There presently exists sufficient plant capacity to treat the proposed project. If there are any questions, please contact this office. Very truly yours, }.� 4e - Heiko Kuhn District Manager, • Aspen Sanitation District STLWART TITLE 0 ASPEN, INC. HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office that thO ownUr of • • Lots F, G, H, and I, Block 119, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN Situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, appears to be vested in the name of HANS B. CANTRUP and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following: Deed of Trust from Hans B. Cantrup to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use of Garfield and Hecht to secure $104,942.67 dated February 21, 1979, recorded February 26, 1979 in Book 363 at page 940. Although we believe the facts stated are true, this Cr:-t if ic;;tr is ;;,)L to L_' construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of tit e, nor rl ,,^u.:rrnt. of title, and it is Understood and agreed that Ste':.,art Titl(- (,i neither assumes, nor will be charged with any financial oblif;ation or licibil-ty whatever on any statement contained herein. Dated at Aspen, Colorado, this 17th 19 80 at 8:00 A.M. day of September A.D. 0 STLWART TITLE OP ASPEN, INC. • ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES County 00100 — 63711 09009 — 00000 Subdivision/PUD 63712 Special Review 63713 P&Z Review Only 63714 Detailed Review 63715 Final Plat 63716 Special Approval 63717 Specially Assigned City 00100 — 63721 09009 — 00000 Conceptual Application 63722 Preliminary Application 63723 Final Application 63724 Exemption 63725 Rezoning 63726 Conditional Use PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00100 — 63061 09009 — 00000 County Land Use Sales 63062 GMP Sales 63063 Almanac Sales Copy Fees Other Name: I'WH u Project: W Address: �O` "� Phone: Check No. Date: 7 Receipt No. P TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Sunny _Vann, Planning RE: 925 Durant mployee DATE: March 3, 1980 MEMORANDUM Office Housing Project, Request for Building Permit On February 1, 1980, construction plans were submitted to the City's Building Department in order to secure a building permit for the 925 Durant project. This project is the employee housing portion of the 500 S. Galena/ 925 Durant residential GMP submission which received a development allotment in May of 1978. In reviewing the applicant's plans, sufficient deviation from the original GMP submission was found to warrant notification of the Planning Office and denial of the requested building permit (see attached memorandum). Section 24-10.7(b) of the Municipal Code states: "Should an applicant previously awarded a development allotment deviate from any essential element of his proposal, or fail to satisfy any material condition imposed on the allotment received... the planning office shall notify the city council which may, after hearing, recind all or any part of the allotment...." As the Building Department's memorandum indicates, the plans submitted in February differ radically from those approved under the Growth Management Quota System in 1978 and therefore fail to satisfy the conditions under which the original allotment was granted (i.e., if scored today, P & Z's allocation might significantly differ). The principal reason for the design changes, according to the applicant, was to allow for expansion of the project utilizing the proposed "Housing Overlay." In order to maintain this flexibility and to resolve the problem of a substantially different project, the applicant is proposing to further modify his February submission to mitigate any potential point loss which might have occurred. The appli- cant is prepared to present these revised building plans at the March 4 Council meeting. The Planning Office recognizes the variety of considerations under which an applicant might wish to modify a GMP submittal, particularly now that Coun- cil has extended the deadline for obtaining a building permit (Ordinance 84, Series 1979). No real mechanism for modifying a submittal, however, is currently provided in our code, a problem which the Planning Office intends to address in our review and possible streamlining of the GMP process. In the interim, the disposition of projects with substantial changes is the responsibility of the Council under Section 24-10.7(b). This memorandum is intended to give you a brief overview of the 925 Durant problem. The Planning Office is prepared to provide additional details with regard to this project and to discuss the various issues which arise from its disposition at Monday's Council meeting. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, City Manager, Planning Office, City Engineer, City Attorney FROM: Building Department, John Stanford RE: Rejection of Excavation Permit Requested for the 925 Durant DATE: February 12, 1980 Applicants for the 925 Durant project have requested an ex- cavation permit. The present drawings differ substantially from —the -application as -submitted and approved under the Growth - Manage- ment Quota System (Article X - Municipal Code). The extensive changes provide sufficient cause to refuse to grant the excava- tion permit. Section 24-10.7(b) of the code states: "Should an applicant previously awarded a development allot- ment deviate from any essential element of his proposal, or fail to satisfy any material condition imposed on the allotment received.... the planning office shall notify the city council which may, after hearing, recind all or any part of the allotment....". Also such an extensive change, conflicts with Section 24-10.4(g) affecting changes prior to allocation of quotas: 'No applicant shall.... amend, modify or change his applica- tion except in insubstantial part and for purposes of clari- fication or technical corrections only." Recent informal discussions between the applicant, the Planning Office and the City Attorney established the verbal agreement that changes in the application can be made provided the criteria on which the allocation quotas are based are not altered. Two criteria, in the opinion of this office, are changed - parking and energy. 1. Parking - The original design provides alley access to twelve 90 degree parking spaces; the new design provides six angle spaces off the alley and seven sub -grade spaces beneath a new building with access from Durant Avenue by way of a ramp. The quotas alloted under the new parking design would likely be different due to: 1. a different visual impact, 2. a different amount of paved surface and 3. affected convenience and safety. The average quota for parking design by the P & Z was 2.4 points; City Council agreed with P & Z's score. Also P & Z granted i J - ad :I Page 2 Re: Rejection of Excavation Permit Requested for the 925 Durant 2 bonus points, in part, for parking design. 2. Ener - The new building design does not maintain the former window orientation of the 12 units to sunlight. The application states "Consistent.with the solar geography of the site, all pro- ject construction will be designed and built to maximize solar utilization and to minimize heat loss.... Architectural design configures building to optimize thermal characteristics of the project. Exterior wall exposure is minimized by maximum unit adjacency (common wall).... All buildings are oriented with high use interior spaces to the south to achieve view while maximizing passive solar heating potential." The new structure is designed to have four units on three floors, and half of the units are located on the north side of the building with minimal, if any, potential for passive solar heating. The energy criteria received an average of 2.8 points from the P & Z, and subsequently Council increased the score to 3.0. --i • dtUti,on---ta-parking- desig=--ancl - energy, -tire --poi rrt- a1ioc tion would likely change on two additional criteria: recycling facilities -and handicapped design features. The original appli- cation provided a recycle facility adjacent to the alley, and the revised drawings do not indicate any recycle facility. P & Z awarded 1.6 points for the recycle facility, and City Coun- cil increased the points by 0.4 to 2.0 points. The original design gave handicapped access to six of the units located at grade. The revised project provides only four units at grade. Scoring for handicapped design features was 1.8 points, and City Council increased the score by 0.2 for a total of 2.0 points. The project submitted for an excavation permit differs so radically from the plans approved under the GMQS that it would be improper for this department to grant the permit. Based on the section 24-10.7(b) the project now deviates from the essen- tial element of the original proposal and now fails to satisfy - the conditions on which the original allotments were granted. The permit can be granted only after City Council reviews and approves the revised plans. 71 w r --•��. r . z T JIW Regular Meeting Aspen Cit;, Council March 10, 1980 REQUEST FOR BUILDING PEPN2IT - 925 Durant Employee Housing Project Sunny Vann, planning office, told Council that 925 Durant is the employee housing portion 1, of a project which received residential GMP allocation in 1978. Their allocation is I P,equest for about to expire and they submitted construction drawings in order to secure a building building permit permit. In reviewing the request for a building permit, the building department noticed. 925 Durant t differences from the original submission; held back on the permit and referred the project' Employee to the planning offices. Vann stated the code reads that any applicant awarded development housing allotment deviating in essential elements from the original proposal, the planning office shall be notified and shall notify Council. Vann said the question is what is an essential element; the Code is not specific. The planning office has agreed that those items scored;; or received points constitute essential elements. The building department identified various essential elements. The areas that have changed are parking, energy, handicapped;,!• the entire building has changed as far as overall design. City staff met with the applicant to discuss these changes, they asked for an opportunity to mitigate some of the changes. The planning office has no real problem with some of the changes as long as the end result would not have changed the score and a detriment to the process itself. The planning office does have some problem with the fact this is a I; completely different building. Vann pointed out that design itself is not scored as part .I of the residential process; however, he is of the opinion that it cannot be separated from, that process. Vann told Council that originally the applicant did not receive sufficient points; they appealed to Council and in the appeal process the score was raised in certain, areas to kick them over the minimum. Vann told Council there was not another applicant I� close enough. I Ashley Anderson, representing the applicant, told Council they have been trying to maxi- mize the number of units for two years. They wanted'to preserve the ability to build 12 additional units under the housing overlay. Anderson stated they were not before Council for an extension; they are ready to start digging. It was suggested they move the building on the site; this caused some changes which they do not feel are important. Anderson told Council these are not free market units. Councilman Van Ness said he felt two things! are important; (1) the reason for the changes, and (2) whether the changes in terms of GMP scoring criteria are beneficial or detrimental - whether the project would get more or less points. Councilman Van Ness said he felt that putting half the parking underground would have a different visual impact but would be a beneficial change. Anderson told Council on the energy change, when the building department reveiwed the plans, the units I were facing east and west. Now the units are all facing south like they are supposed to. I Councilman Van Ness concluded unless someone could claim this would get less the score on li GMP grading, these changes are beneficial. Ms. Smith stated Council has to decide in each circumstance whether it is a beneficial change and whether it would have affected - how the applicant scored. Councilman Van Ness asked if these changes would have decreased,' or increased the GMP score. Vann told Council the planning office is of the opinion in working with the applicant that the changes can be mitigated such that, to their satis- faction, the applicant's score would not be changed to the detriment of another applicant.ii 1 Vann said the broader question is the code does not address design of the project in the scoring process. The original building occupied all the site; the new building is on one corner of the site allowing for another building which would accommodate 12 more units;! Councilman Isaac moved to approve the changes; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in �I favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #80, SERIES OF 1979 _ W.H.O.P. Annexation and Rezoning li City Attorney Stock told Council this could not be addressed until the Opal Marolt ii Ord. 80, 1980 W.H.O.P. annexation is completed as there is a problems with contiguity. i Annexation Councilman Van Ness moved to continue the second reading until. April 14, 1980; seconded bill Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #7, SERIES OF 1980 - Water Plant Housing SPA Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Pro Tem Ord. 7, 1980 Behrendt closed the public hearing. �� Water Plant Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #7, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman Parry.' SPA All in favor, motion carried. II ORDINANCE #7 I� (Series of 1980) AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE WATER PLANT SITE ACCORDING TO AN APPROVALED SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA MASTER PLAN FOR THE SITE,•THE ELEMENTS OF WHICH MASTER PLAN WILL CONSTITUTE THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE AREA ALL AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE was read by the city clerk Housing Director Jim Reents told Council this is an application by the city for 80 units of rental housing on city -owned property adjacent to the hospital. The SPA as approved allows for the R/MF area to cover the site proposed for the housing. The ::est of the site will be Public For the water plant and open space. Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #7, Series of 1980 on second reading; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Isaac, aye; Michael, aye Parry, aye; Van Ness, aye; Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt, aye. Motion carried. Reents reouested Council approve subidivision exemption for t':,t project with the condition that if at any point in the future the project co:�.es in for condcminiumizat ion, it be required to meet the full subdivision rec-uire7ents. Ll • n1 n5 , a rtc i c?p- e-�c . r(t pace Aq a r\ i o Sr i i\a0 G.�P -�� Q qr> a;�- •(r vc��o`� U a PPf-o LA-6 rn.® C4 ,�r �' �. o prf--' of (d o--� Lro w r c.� l,e,7 `�' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No. 82 7 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colo- rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state.. yotr views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: July 22, 1982 Time: 4:00 P.M. Name and address of Applicant for Variance: Name: H.B.C. Investments Address; 450 S. Galena St. Suite 202 Aspen, Co. 81611 Location or description of property: Location: Lots F.C,H,I, Bloch: 119 City of Aspen 925 East Durant Street Description: This appeal is made under Section 2-21 (3) of the Aspen Municipal Code (P.153) for a three foot height variance on the R.B.O. portion of the project. Variance Requested: Moritorium Dec. 22, 1981 reducing height in R/MF zone from 28 to 25 ft- Ordinance 82-11, passed May 24, 1982 reduced height maximum from 28' to 25'. Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one) Permanent Will the applicant be represented*by Counsel ? Yes X No THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY Remo Tavagnino Chairmnn Virginia M. Beall, Deputy City Clerk �11'�trii..•1 L��r"I►,I-� OF LU,I I N6 ADJUS 1,** T CITY OF ASPEN DATE Hay 20, 1982 CASE NO. APPELLANT _H.B.C. Investments ADDRESS 450 S. Galena St. Suite 202 A'sTmrr , eUtUTadu 8 i !1 _ PHONE OWNER _ Hans B. Cantrue ADDRESS P.O. Box 388 Aspen, Colorado 81612 LOCATION OF PROPERTY Lots F,G,H,I, Bloxk 119 City of Aspen 925' East Durant Street •'(Street- b "dumber of Subdivision 61k. & Lot Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of CASE NO. THE BOARD IdILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. DESCR I f TI C;, OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION' S1101, I 1;C JUST I r I CAT I P;;J" This appeal is made under Section 2-21(3) of the Aspen 'Municipal Code (P. 153) for a three foot height variance on the R.B.O. porti,)n of the project. This low income employee project has been master- pl_anned to accommodate a total of twenty-four (24) employee units since 1978. Planning and Zoning Resolution 81-18 initiated new height <ind open space requirements in the RMF zone, reducing the height limitation from 28 feet to 25 feet. The projects,initial twelve (12) units were exempted from the moratorium that led •to Resolution 81-18. Please refer > o the attachments which are an integral part of this application. i11 you be represented by counsel ? Yes x SIGNED / I pei tr t Isans G. Cantrup PPOVISI;',';S OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE 'Nr �%cer - r Q E 6UILDI.,_ I�. ..0 TO F0P'!t-,RD THIS 'kPPLICATION TO THE 60ARD OF ADJUS1MEP�T AND REASO'; FOR NOT GRr'4 ; : NG : nn e Status PERMIT REJEC1ED, DATE DECISION DATE APPLICATION FILED DATE IF HEARING NAILED SECRETARY -- E APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT CITY OF ASPEN Appellant: H.B.C. Investments Owner: Hans B. Cantrup Dear Chairman: Appellant/owner Hans B. Cantrup, DBA H.B.C. Investments, owns lots F,G,H,I of Block 119, City of Aspen, Colorado. Located next to the site of Alpina Haus, this property was the subject of the 1978 Residential G.M.P. application for twelve (12) low-income, employee units. This was the maximum number of units allowed on the 12,000 square foot parcel at that time. The Durant parcel• was part of a two site G.M.P. application, the other site being the 700 South Galena ' Street project. The 1978 application won the residential G.M.P. compet- ition, and was awarded the appropriate quotas in City Council Resolution No. 11, Series of 1978. During that time, and throughout 1979, substantial discussions, planning and reviews were made by the Planning Office, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to incorporate a Residential Bonus Overlay (R.B.O.) zone. The intent of the R.B.O. zone is to promote development of (low, moderate and middle income) employee housing by allowing an increased (doubling) residential density, therefore, a substantially re- duced per unit land cost. The R.B.O is for those developments that have one-half or more units on the site deed restricted to the appropriate emmployee guidelines (as given in Section 24-11.4(b)(3). The 925 East y • •. Appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustments City of Aspen N.B.C. Investments Page 2 Durant Project well meets those guidelines, as approved under the Subdivision Agreement for the Project (see attached). As such, the 925 East Durant Project contributes a significant amount of much needed employee housing and furthers public policy and land use goals as described in the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen. This R.B.O. Zone Code Amend- . ment was approved in Ordinance No. 78 Series of 1979, by Aspen City Council. Throughout this entire period, the applicant had been trying to maximize the number of units that should be placed on the site via the R.B.O. zone, therby, providinq 24 employee units. On March 10, 1980, Aspen City Council approved the design change in the site plan to move the orginal 12 unit G.M.P. building from the center of the site back to one corner of the site, so as to allow for another building which would accomu—,odate the additional 12 units received via the R.B.O. zone. 0 Included in the design change was a conversion from surface parking areas to a 22 space underground parking garage, located beneath both buildings. As such, both buildings must be the same height. The height as permitted during these years was 28 feet. in August of 1981, Aspen Cis Council enacted a construction moratorium in the PJIF zone. Since the.925 East Durant project was so far along in the planning and design stages and had already received an allocation, it was exempted from the moratorium. It was this moratorium that gave rise to a proposed reduction of height limitation for buildings in the R14F zone and implementation of the 35 open space requirement. Approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in resolution No. 81-18, the height limitation was reduced from 28 feet to 25 feet. The resolution, yet to be approved by the City Council at the time of this writing,does not allow permits to be issued that would y Appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustments City of Aspen H.B.C. Investments Page 3 be non -conforming under the new requirements of that resolution, adopted on December 22, 1981. The project, with the R.B.O. units,does meet the new open space requirements. While the 925 East Durant Street Project has been exempted from the moratorium and the new requirements as found in Resolution 81-18 for the G.M.P. units, the units created from the R.B.O. zone have not been exempted. As the R.B.O. portion of the project has been anticipated, pjAwiad and designed for several years, the recent change in require- ments creates an undue hardship for the owner that did not result from any actions of the applicant. Inasmuch as City Council approved a design change to allow the R.B.O. units some two years age, which included improving the project by placing twenty-two (22) parking spaces under- ground, it is clearly seen that these are special and extordinary circum- stances that apply only to this particular site and do not apply to any other properties in the same vicinity or zone. The granting of the variance is, therefore, necessary to carry out the plans and design changes already approved by City Council that permit the R.B.O. units and underground parking garage to be placed on the site to complete the Master Plan of the project. As the excavation pennit was issued September 25, 1981 (the permit is still active) the change in height limitation made December 22, 1981 would effectively prohibit the project from being completed. The underground garage cannot be lowered an other three feet and still be accessible, and the units cannot have the ceiling height reduced and still meet standard code require- ments. Consequently the granting of this variance is essential to the enjoyr;ent of a substantial property right but is currently denied because of the above special and extraordinary circumstances. As the granting of this variance will allow the continued ability of the appellant to provide additional low income employee housing units, such approval will enhance the general purpose of the comprehensive general plan and the public policy goals of this cormunity. 0 0 • 0 Appeal to the Board of Zoning adjustments City of Aspen H.B.C. Investments Page 4 Due to the above facts and special circumstances outlined above, it is respectfully requested that a three foot height variance be granted by the board for the north side of the 925 Durant Street site. Thank you for your time and attention on this important matter. Sincerely yours, Mark A. Danielsen • y 1 •. • 1 Fore 18-8 The Aspen Times September 3, ) 98 ) 17 V" 0, e rri P" projects e... pts T o u n 6: r e e s trom construl ion m ratori u r 2 Three projects were exempted from the construction moratorium in the city's RNIF re- sidential multiple family) district and one was tabled during a con- tinued regular city council meet- ing last Friday. Projects exempted by the coun- cil were the 1015 East Hvman pro- ject with five units total, the 925 East Durant development with 12 employee units. Both projects had previously been scored by the planning and zoning commission for GI`IP allo- cations and had received their al- locations from the city council. A Leo given an exemption Friday was the Ed Baker duplex on Hyman Avenue adjacent to the Chalet Lisel. It was explained that Baker had amended his pl ams to reduce the height and bulk of the structure. Tabled by the council was an exemption request for the Ute City Place, a 22-unit structure at 909 and 923 East Cooper, which had also previously received a GMP allocation. The council was told that the applicant, CM Clark, was in the process of reevaluating the de- velopment and asked that the exemption application be tabled until the Sept 14 meeting. Also approved for the 1015 East Hyman project was subdivision exception to exempt the two emploveeuniLs from the G.N1Pat)d to permit condominium conver- sion. The development covers addi- tion of two two -bedroom unit; and one studio to the two two-bedrex)m units that exLit on the prvherty. The studio and one two -bedroom apartment would be deed re- stricted for low-income employee housing. A request from Gideon Kauf- man, attorney for the applicant. that the free-market unto: br ex- cused front payment of the park dedication fee with the ?mplri ee units was denied. Alsodenied bvthecoumil wa.a request on behalf of Nana C:+n- trup, applicant for the 925 East Durant project, for final subdivi- sion plat approval with a mudified deed restriction for employee housing. When the project received its GMP allocation in Mav 19 i A. the required deed restriction was for five years. However, the cod.- was later changed to mandate a 50- year deed restriction for empluve e housing. Cantrup had original]• asked the council to retain the five-vear deed restriction under which his project had received GMP ap- proval, but e.1id he would accept the 50-year restriction if the unit -- would revert to free-market i suttus after five years in case of forrcl o..0 re. At a previous meeti ng the coun- cil had expressed di�::pproval of the proposed deed restriction qualification and Friday voted t final plat approval with a straight 50-vear deed restriction for the 12 unit., of employee housing. r.,w„�K`""tgR'E�0''7T: �R'Tn!'^r=�"^"�`w"gris��.�,,,.,'R'1'�►�vr-�s �t�>+.x��. �.. �,,.. �;*�. .-s+. �.---+.�!a*.Y 1Z.-- u I is 1, ter, t i ri, I A,; J)Q 11 City Coon: M: i 10, I '!.-- Coutl(-i (.11 jo.1 !:joir vod to ciuost the t.If f 0 i iti t ' re: ontin 1 for t Cr %.0 ritent Lxj I i I-y J that It t I, e tztk*(., t It-, f. orm (.-it roisocpt "Al. IPj0- J,y Coancilman Parry. All in favor, motion carrivd. TIME S-11A1,ING DISCUSSION ,- Jerry llc-wey, r.innacle-r of Aspen All,%, told Council he has till srnato 1,i 1�z 1:1,1 !1.C,t Time sharing bills of intcrc--.t which pertain to the condo-miniu;.1. illC11till-LI-1. S.R. 1 3 2 Ll i r. -us t:i, ij sharing zvnd would have al low,,9 owners to time sharc, on in.flvicl;ial unit- This wo,:' 11 make it. di!Ficult for condoni i It i 'I'LL manac,,(-rs; this W:; t!;truck fromth,- hill. 11)l Council tilir. bill did reF--trict municip,11ition frc,fretlo.-At.latinq tfitto sh.trinq. llt..Wk said people in the condominium business have told 1cqisl;,t0rS they would I I I-- t(- on the bills arld IIJV(-' hills that are handleable for conclortinitint wana-;crs a-,d both. licwey stated he was of tht-, opinion that if tij!to sharing is J,.'.!,- ri,_:'jt, _iL a good thing. Stock ;;aid tic! felt it is ilitipor-Lant that this group taken k-n (if th-0 responsibility in front of the legislature. This grotip was instrun•rita I in tcstitvir.,-. on the bill and having it modified. Council thanked llcwey for h-is tinto and intvirt-z".t. jf6tj.4;7NC, OVFRT.AY - IPOI 10,107 up, reviet4 'brdinArieO outlines Karcri Smith, planning director, reminded Council they havehad stV 1' .. .1 S 1 0 it s on t 1h frAming and the planning office would like sonic, direction in drafting ordinance - - 'i'he 1:inninu that bandit units and rnalidaLory n( an office has recommenced plari,.,n..1-.,.-nts an.i c-,-;,- at thi-, time1juL will be discussed with gro-,.,'Lh mainagc-merit streamlining. Thc- first ordinance regards ca r c tal: e r units which "ch is i S i c,I 1. to single family lots and would involve a small, limited in size, attached unit. if there ate existing e-Lachod structures; these would be (Drandfathorc,!- I Ms. SMith hat could be tO C7ni'lc-Vce- u!.� 4 out thrrro are existing structures all over town t with little impact. For new construction, attached structures would ljo yes impact.in- both visually and land use -wisp. iliv procc,I; decidedU1,011 for carct�.': units %,11' the conditional use process.; the review criteria would be that in the CO: (17 use section. Council may want- to add that for dc-tachod structures r.r F.A.R incrt,, be illowc,r], buL :substantial remodelling could be clone. A crieria teatshoald he addc,:' is that these be deed restricted. Mayor Pro TUM It('hrCI1olt S,i d lIu felt the Ippyt),Lch on this wil., to take' each it through :lowly to 90t Public iriput and not cittompt to redesign the C, uru:l it i . 1' 30 days. Ms. Smith pointed out site liad brokcit the various recommendatic'-.1s into ordinance:: and did riot soc any P1.0blCnis in proceeding with the fir:t .4 ordin:nCes at 011CC. These 3 clot jligjl out of the cominunity housing workshop. %-�,unciliran %'-:I- Nesnas—cl if tht:sv propos,,J orclinanot.,.,; are talking about dcn!*;tY Fmit%: said y(!-;, this would Ito- allow tWO ullit!l "I it IN'll*C01 wlticli orlo. Ms. Smith ne-)t(,d in ordinance I (carotakvr units) the area and bull: I-( (it' i7c:!'unt'; WOU Ip,(: a!; the zoni- requ i I i n , -it L j�jl qu�-s;L ion i:: wht' 'It' t :111 ow be the ,., -minendation is not to at. ttilt::f i ct! rec.o units. on dtjl)l(,x lots; file pl;,rinina, of tho propo.--,rd t it for point. I ,,A" i -I of I i 17t t 1-6 11 1 to id, lit y al 1 1 lie city wil I -t- incre,o--inq 1!rlw ill.-tny wane. Vs. Smith said th,., thc,�!-- is Ne.'s !;,1id 11'�- 6irl licit wil-it the, incentivo oil thin; vin,; in the TIOUL;0, 1"'i'19 tllc' f"C." t t: !;oinc, lit,oill- 11-Y not wi.'-.11 to h-0/6' MS• but may al live i n it Lit, i t In(] ki-c-p watch (M L'10 111-1 1 0 - facilities Oil servicos; this will ho said the city will hA to, at the imp;xt on f, - L s oil the number of LWitS to hC-- rjOljitrjI-Lcl itt,d LEC CoujWil could put toll F-t I iV-1t ta i tied i it -ciric y-,-i r . ,rhe I:croti,l prt)j-;' orc, i it don-ity b0tiW1, fill one acre and 1:!r(-,('r in sitic7lo ht. i to 15 in ti.. r-i- f"Imily .it(.l; it, i ::aid there may hrj%.,c-v.r, Lhil; will cnm(. ilito play %,.,hvII XI!ILX1119 1011d to "C: City' -ine. uses if 70 per cent or raz.)rc cf townhouses will. tic: siltr7lc. f.11-1ily, (111pirx, multi -felinity, unit:; art, dt-od restricted, the rt,vik,w procedure would be revorling with subdivisic-,n or :1 (Iexc(-pt ion -di-re The review criteria would be the !3n("Yi'I prop,.;ed in Oldi VC0478. TI 13ajljil, office recommends adding I(!/ criteria to somt: Council asked that criteria be dropped. Thy n encoj!., ,, -ncr. .1c., c?-oj,iIiuri of ou ship lillits, area a(A b"Ill, Will ljo, v'Irivd 1!; ii., the oriciiiial ordinance. r, difference from the oric., - ordin.vic:e is tivit- the lot area per civollintj unit would be subject to a maxiinun-. -rocluction, %�,Jjjcjj moans. I potelitial. 50 per cent. increase in density. Tito 50 poi cc--iLt variation in lot widt.11, SethJCks, open space, etc. would be varied as they now arm in n pl,inni-cl unit. 'j(.�VC'lUj1L1ICllt. U,tch unit cannot. -be setback under the guidelines of the zo- di,:tricl or- thr.-I-c will not he cliu;t(!rinq. Ms. Smith said this ordinance does not touc!,. the F,/mv A (ItiosLior. cam, up wricther to allow redevelopment or non -vacant land, and the plrnilvi off ice recommended no; it is not worth getting into the unknoi..; -i right now. '1114, ordil %..ill only L,,, all()w,.cl on vacant land. Another question was whether to allow durm5,, jillcl the planning oftic- cl(l,litl recul"I'v`11oled no. Thr, thirdc)j-dirIjlloi- is propo.-;od donsity hoill-cs in CC, S/C/j, 14/C, C-1, C-L, L-1, L-2 pul.lic, 0, an,l K/,IlF to , in(i- lfamily, duplc:t, multi -family, townhouses and dorms � if 70 l,c-r co:nt deed rv!-.Lrictc-cl. The 1-cvic!,..j proccs,; would be the same as ordinance 2 I),. t,ll(. rritrria. The area and bit]k- roquirenicrits could bo- varier} an in its },,ter r.,j tin wou urdinnnc--�, 11A the ininintim lot' area l. bo .( C, 0, it loi) I.(,)- cont retLictiun, which would allow twice its 1"*'ny unit`;. liv-,, evc- r (4 t. TjIiL; means a dcubling Of the tilt- P/A, i !, () I 1�. to I �15 tier cent increa.;(, of tillit.. wit}. ()Illy :,7) put Cent irlereast. in I ink. M.s. ".naith a.-Ard if Council .,aritcl to and lurk zone. Council smid to del( -Le it in bOtl!- Ms. SmiLl: told Co'. I:,.,: i It, 10 1 i I;( todraft. the o:- (I in d and clarify the Point would peopl. t! to iclon-,�i liloti'llit out In ; I ioll. irl she with lhcsc 1!; -POY.It'• oldil-1,111-c!; and would like Lh,�,in presented separately. CO'Inc i I n t%4r) to qo tL1q(-t)ICr. 11,011 ('Ildt Nc,!� r, mrjvf-d tn rr,I,-,jt4-r all il(' I- -a Couticilman van theL (.Xeept jC,11 *j �jj Y n t- j o -) (-,-i r r rl ':qular Movttnq A^I+c•n City C'r+u:lc•il ILS'1' cult bU1LU1NG pimWIT - 925 Durant Laxployee Housing YrOject • • tiarch 10, lc180 unny Vant•, plannincl office, told C�+urtcil,tha]lo ,t`�ttnlilt 11. 1111+,i1 alie��atien iortian f a projJ -ct which rect'1\v(. S,'::ldt`n.7c11 11h:J:; ill e+nl,•I' to Reedit, it bullllinq bout to vx},i re irrul tlrry !•ul i.•l t tree e e 1 .t rnct inn dr. l,•r i ltlinq cell+at tr.,t ntnot 1c, .! ermit. In re•vicwinq the r nnest for a t•tliI'd i:((I 1`e'r:11it, tL. iffcrence!; irom tFlo oriclirl :l Sul,rni::::ion; hold bac}. on th.. 1`vr:: it artcl referre•.i th. l,ro.lect o the planning office::. `-':nn ::talt_cl the rode ro;d!; that any opplicant awarded dcvc`lcalr.•_nt llotment, deviati.n(3 in e:t�t+t•tizil elcnlrnt:c front th.• original I+ro ur::tl, t.hc• planning erf:.e hall be notified an,; )till hnu all ut.ify Cnn_i.l. Vann e;"t4(1 tl:c cruv.ticin ir. what is an essential lenient; the Corte is not specific. 'Pile {planning office: h0f, ngrt`e.! that thol:C ite-t, scar•:.: :r received points cona:ti t.ot e r�:s(:ntial r It mrnts. Thc hail iin.l c°, p; rt m.�Itt idt nt i i iod •arious OSSellti<ll elcateniS. The areas that: have chal(y+• l erne 1+a1ling, t ner:(y, ha .dicai�eCl: :he en(irc building has ch.-ln]ed as far Is ovcrall cie::i :n. 'ity staff met with the applicant to discuss these charl:rt _:, tht•y irked for an of po� tunit y :o mitigate some of the c har.•7u::. The planning off ice t:an not rv.l l h 01,10 :1 with r (`:rr e• i :he changes as long as th.- (till re.;ult would not hav(• ch.jmlcll tl,:• :.c•orr and ,t drtrir.cl:t• to -he process itr el f. The plrtnni ncl office' (toes havt' s(r:+(` pruhl(rr with tho f.t. t :ompletl>.ly different buildirttl. Varin pointed out that de::ian itr-If in riot `'` �iflr.lt 'i: •Set ' )f the residential process; however, tie in of the opinion that it cannot l.t. ;hat process. Vann told C:rrutcil that originally tilt. ::1)plicant dice not rec. ,vc .pints; they appealed to Council and in the appeal process the !:earl wtl .reas to kir_1: them over till' minimum. Vann told Cr,unci l there- wa!: not 3110tht•1. -1 ' t"•' :lose enough. Ae' Ashley Anderson, representing the applic.nt, told c'ounc•il they have be :l train.; tt+ n.tx1 r.izc the numb(:r of units for two years. They want t:ti t o preserve the �.}:i 1 t t to l u : •,i 1 ' additional unit:; under the t.ourting overlay. Andernon stated they (:ere not b(•for, Pool.: it for an extension; th(.y are ready to start eiq,tin(,, it. was suge�(stvd t11.'y r..ov. tl iira this caused soa.1e chanrles which they do [lot fee,leeon ,le on the site; rket units. ir.l+ortartt. .,nd,'r`u:. Council those are not f.rce ma Councilman Van Ness laid he felt two toldsite; this.<: are important; (1.) the reason for the changes, and (2) whether the c h` cteS``r,cfe GMp :;coring criteria are t>rr,eficial or detrirterltal - w•hc`the'r the l , or less pointt:. Counci'matt Van Ness said he felt that putting half the par1i rl(; ill:..r•rcr,::7::d would have a different visu:ll inlf,nct ljut 4r(')uld t7r a tlunl+ficiai c!:�ntle. pl,tris, l te�lei pl.:n�, th,� ttr.;tom Council on they enl:ryy chan,,c , when the h:lildint; del+3r tnx:nC rev(+li: -k' the i acre facing cast and west. r,,ow the` unit.:: arc all tacinq sloth li}.( t!try Councilrrart Van "leis conr.lnclyd unlc•:s :;07-0110 cuuld claiul this world (;vt It-s file ^en+e• on L'1.1P grading, t},(:r;r cl:au•a(•:; arc• hcrieficic,l. r.";. Smitt. !.tatcd Council h:1r: t(+ decide in each circumst utre whvttler it ir: a here fie ial chancre and vhethor. it t.ou'd h.,.'t' aftert '(1 how the applicant Scored. Councilnl,ln V,Jn aske-i it the:;e chrtnges w'e/tll(1 have decr,`a-ed or increased the GaP score. Vann told Council the p?t(nning office is of the opinion in tis- working l:'ith ttti: applicant that the chr7ngrs call tic! nlitigatcd :uih that, to their Zr aliCant. faction, ttu applicant's n<or0 would not he ch.utelc`ci t.o the cletrim( nt of allnthcr�`L[4in Lite V?knn-•acid+the broader question is the code doer 1►uL o(Iclrtsy�► alaisiyr► of 41te-{>Au! scorinq princess. The oridinnl buildinq occupi(,d all the site; th(' new buildinc, is on one.coruar of the sit!+ alleving for anot.h^r bui ldind which would uucww(w.ials -11 [nore unit. CbW.%;i3msn lsaoc: moved to approve the changes 7 second -id by Coune i 1w6nati1 MfChdcI . ' All in tav r;- maLicat Of:U_IIIA_IdC;: 01' 197..9 W.11.U.I Annvxat ion and F:c'zoII I City Attorney :stock told Council this could not ht ddrt'ssed unt i 1 the` 01:,l M:trOlt annexation is completed as there i:: a F,ruhlc•n(:: with c„ntiguity. Counci ltnan Van l.t•rs rrlovorl t o continuo the -Wc:ontl r(sad i ng until itpr i l 1 Q , 1980; scconcied by COU[1Ci1WO:ran t;ichaol. All in favor, motion carried. OkDl!:.A?:CE #7_ SERIES OF-1c1R0 - Watrl: Plant Ilousing SPA ------- ~-- - - Thc•re were: no colwnents. Mayor 1'r.o ".'Cm Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt opc•rled tlu' Public hcaring. Behrendt, closed the public licoriny. Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #7, Series; of. 1980; seconded by Councilman Parry. All ill favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE 17 (Series of 1980) AN ORDINANCE REZONING 111E WATER PLANT SITE ACCORDING TO A", APPP.OVAr.CD SPECIALLY PLA`N1.1) AREA MASTEP. PLAN F(ni THE: Suet, TFIF. FlYMINTS OF MITCH MASTER PLAN WI1.I. C'C11\`�1'I'1'U'1'1: ' !0—: DEV1:1.orru:NT REGULATIONS FOR THE AREA AT.L AS PROVIDED BY M(TICLE VII Ov CHAPTER 24 OF THE: ASPEN HUNICIPAI, CODU was read by the city clork Housing Director Jim 1'.•_'rntl; told Council this; is c+' application t+y the city for 80 units of rental hou.,i ny on ci t•; eras::(d prnr ('r ;i trei arc �o°a ci Iforethe^hoe ing.TtlTheprc•st bfF,theed all(,„s for. the• k.'MF area to C(,vcr. till F l + site' will b(• fill)) is for the w; ter plant. and ol(en ice. ' l Cuuncilt•(r;r.ar 'lichael r..Ovf_(l to elclopt. Orrlinanc:e 17, St•rici of ]98A on second reading; scrond,xi t,y C'.;nncilm-in P.(r7g. !'nl] c••111 vote; Councilmot,;hrr� 7(aat, aye; Michael, aye i Pa1'r!, ay(,; V•111 Ness, aj•; i::1yC(T Prc, 'l•(':It I:c`tlrl'Itdt, aye. Elot ion carried. 1tt•cnt:; rer.ue!.tI-d Cnnnri] ;:l,l r(r:. r.ul,i(li i :inn (;:r`mptir:t for the projc`ct• with rile condition t:,:;t if :t :,r, {r•i:;+ is t!t. Enrol. tl, lretirr't eel.: for: cOl1(1Omi.r:it;mization, it ve' l.,;uitc•i to 1. •L tr;t .tell �tlnlivi::in1, r�•c.uire•n.rntl;. e r CITY OF ASPEN 130 south balena street aspen, colorado.- 81611 A G E N D A BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT July 22, 1982 City Council Chambers 4:00 P.M. I. MINUTES II. NEW -BUSINESS Case # 82-6 Red Roof Inns, Inc. Case # 82-7 H.B.C. Investments III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS IV. COMMITTEE COMMENTS V. ADJOURN a RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C. F. MOECKEL B. B. a L. CO. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 1982 The Board of Zoning Adjustment held a regular meeting on June 24, 1982 at 4:00 PM in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Remo Lavagnino called the meeting to order with members Francis Whitaker, Charles Paterson, John Herz and Fred Smith present. Case # 82-5 Eleanor Brickham Remo Lavagnino stated the variance requested; Sec. 24-3.4 (6) (R-6 Zone) Required rear yard setback for dwelling is 15'. Setback shown on Plat plan is 3'. Would require a 12' rearyard setback variance of 12', to add garage to dwelling. Lavagnino asked the applicant to give a presentation on why the Board of Zoning Adjustment should grant the variance. Eleanor Brickham stated that there is no "off-street" parking at all right there, now, and the Cdde, now requires that they have a parking space. Brickham said they couldn't park because there isn't enough room and they would like to have a driveway and garage. Remo Lavagnino reminded the applicant that the reasons that the Board grants variances are based on practical difficulties and hardships. Eleanor Brickham said that there is a hardship because of the plows in the Winter and there is no off street parking right now. Charles Paterson asked the applicant if the car could be in the place where the garage would be built? Loreen Brooks responded to Charles Paterson's question by saying that it would be on the lawn. Brooks said that if at all possible theywould like to leave a car here during the Winter but she does not want to leave the car on the street. Francis Whitaker said he thought that there was a driveway and garage at one time. Fred Smith said that one of the problems is that if the applicant builds that close to the alley then there is no room for the snow plow to push the snow. Sue Sheridan said that this structure would be inside of a utility pole that exists in the alley. Remo Lavagnino said that it is difficult to grant this variance because the applicant really needs to show a unique situation in the case. Lavagnino said that everyone in that same vicinity and zone is affected similarly and unless the applicant gives some reason that their case is a unique situation. Sue Sheridan said that having a car on the street all Winter is really an inconvenience for the City. Charles Paterson is in agreement with Remo Lavagnino. Paterson said that anyone in the City of Aspen could build right up to the alley for the same reasons that this applicant is asking because they want to take their car off of the street. Paterson said that the Board cannot intrepret that as a practical difficulty or hardship. Fred Smith said that he couldn't add much to what Lavagnino and Paterson have said except that the applicant couldn't leave the car on the street unattendzd all Winter anyway. Smith said that the applicant purchased the house without a garage. Loreen Brooks said that they assumed that they could add a garage. Fred Smith said that obviously that was not a correct assumptiou, but it is not the Boards problem to allow the applicant to build a garage because the previous owner converted a garage into a bedroom. In other words the applicant has the option to convert the bedroom back to a garage. I I : Francis Whitaker said that the applicant does have other space, it may not be what they desire most but there is ample space on which they can build. John Hera said that he likes the idea of people trying to get their cars off the street in that area; if there would be some one she could move that garage back and put a skylight in there, he would commend her for that. Remo Lavagnino asked if there were any other comments before he closes the public Portion of the meeting. Lavagnino closes the public portion of the meeting. Fred Smith moves to decline a request for the variance because practical difficulties or hardships have not been demonstrated,. Francis Whitaker seconds. Francis Whitaker AYE Charles Paterson AYE John Herz AYE Fred Smith AYE Remo Lavagnino AY:? The requP st for a variance for Case # 82-5 Eleanor Brickham is denied. - 2 - Remo Lavagnino opened discussion on the information pamphlet and procedures involved in applying for a variance through the Board of Zoning Adjustment. Gary Esary stated that the information the Board members have received is the first draft. Esary said that he has some additions and feels the Board should comment on the packet so that the Changes can be made to come back with a finished document by the next meeting. Remo Lavagnino asked the Board for comments or questions. Lavagnino has one regarding the language; he said that it is a little redundant in the procedure number two, it says "to complete the application completely." Fred Smith asked what the significance of the underlining would be. Smith would like to see a definition of practical. difficulties because to the "layman" it means any problem they have is enough reason they will be granted a variance. Gary Esary said that the real definition of it is what the Board of Zoning Adjustment says it it, and it is impossible to define. Esary said that the language that he is adding is after section eight and he would like to say the the applicant has the burden of going forward, the burden of proof, they may wish to research the minutes of the Board of Adjustment to see what sort of fact situations in the past were either accepted in the past were either accepted or rejected as practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships, the applicant must give definite well thought out reasons why his or her situation falls within the re- quirements of this section, it is not enough to state that the situation falls within those categories or that the change requested is merely desirable. Esary said that he will do his best to give the applicant as much help as he can to say that they have to show up and have to make their case and they just can't reason cir- cularly. Fred Smith said that he might include that the Board does not normally grant requests that are based solely on the convenience of the economics involved. Remo Lavagnino said that he has one more objection on page 2,#8 procedure. It doesn't include that they must show hardship or practical difficulties. Francis Whitaker feels that it should be stated that the "burden of proof", practical difficulty or harship rests with the applicant. Gary Esary said that . Bill Drueding of the building department asked him to say that the building department was ready to recommend to the board and ask the board to rec- ommend to City Council that the fees for the Board of Adjustment be raised. Esary said that it was suggested that it be raised to $50.00 for a Use variance and $25.00 for a Non-use. Patsy Newberry, of the Building Deaptment said that the present fees do not cover the clerical work nor the mailing fee. Remo Lavagnino suggests that Patsy Newberry and Kathryn Koch get together and prepare that cost justification and then present it to the Board of Adjustment. Lavagnino asked if there were any other questions regarding this packet. Francis Whitaker moves to adjourn. Charles Paterson seconds. All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned. Vi inia M. eall Deputy City Clerk NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No. �. BEFORE THE CITY.OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colo- rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at 'such meeting, then you are urged to state yoir views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: July 22, 1982 Time: 4:00 P.M. Name and address of Applicant for Variance: Name: Charles Podolak Address: PO Box 8850, Aspen, Co. 81612 Location or description of property: Location: Red Roof Inn at Aspen, 22475 West Highway S2, Aspen, Co. 81611 Description: Applicants request a variation to permit a larger ground sign at a reduced height, and a set of non -illuminated wall letters to aid the travelling public in finding and Variance Requested: reaching the site safely from the highway. SEE ATTACHED *** ** Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one) Permanent Will the Applicant be represented by Counsel ? Yes X -No THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY PQmo Lavaninoi Chairman Virginia M. Beall, Deputy City Clerk M Note exact size of sign letters must be established by the applicant as well as size of signs to determine variance requested. The building department has scaled the drawings and to aid this hearing has given approximate sizes and vari- ance requested. • Sec. 24-5.10(2) (Twenty (20) ) Square feet of sign area is maximum allowed on any one frontage - applicant appears to be asking for approximately 65 sq. ft. of sign requiring a 45 sq. ft. sign area variance. Sec. 24-5.10 (3)(a) Free Standing sign cannot exceed 10 sq. ft. - Applicant appears o be requesting a 30 sq. ft. free standing sign requiring a 20 sq. ft. variance. Sec. 24-5.10(3)(c) Wall sign cannot exceed 10 sq. ft. - Applicant appears to be asking for a 35 sq. ft. wall sign requiring a variance of 25 sq. ft. of sign. e Sec. 24-5.3 Letter size limitations are 18" first letter and 12 " all other letters Applicant appears to be requesting letters on the wall sign of 30" and 40" requiring a variance of 12" and 28" maximum letter size. The free standin sign appears to be slightly over the maximum size. "ITY 01' —P'�;1 )DATE ,,,,,�8, 1982 CASE NO. APPELLANT Charles Podolak ADDRESS PO Box 8850, Aspen, CO 81612 PHONE (303) 925-8603 OWNER Red Roof Inns, Inc. ADDRESS 4355 Davidson Road, Amlin OH 43002 L(614) 876-9961 LOCATION OF PROPERTY Red Roof Inn at Aspen, 22475 west Highway 82, Aspen, CO 81611 ••' Street•& Number of Subdivision Elk. & Lot No. Building Permit- Application. and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made part of CASE NO. THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS I 1 QUEST I kY1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCFTI ON SHU( I NIG JJS 1-T FI CAT IONQ : eJ Present sign code, as applied to this property, results in undue hardship for applicants and deprives them of the best and highest use of the property. Pertinent conditions of this site are; property line is setback 140+ feet from roadway, building is setback 200+ feet from roadway, building is under new ownership and name has been changed. The inn, being in the motel business, is.dependent on the travelling public, as opposed to local residents, for its livelyhood and the site requires visibility from the highway for adequate identification.. Applicants request a variation -to permit a larger ground sign at a reduced height, and a set of non -illuminated wall letters 'to aid the travelling public in finding and reaching the site safely from the highway. Site is in a special zone and.considered part'of the commercial core, where conditions are very different. Si n code was written for core conditions and IIiIY y, Yde tr t,�11�s p l c8able. Also, ti s ze of the sign al ved y co e conditions !'t" by counsel �I Yves x No for traffic purposes on Highway 82. Cars are unable to see a sign that SIGNED: U size from a distance making them unprepared P pe 1 1 a n t tTr-tilrrr--ttrFr of � V--traff�m-ob+ems- ff.OVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE_ BUILDING INSPECTOR +Cl FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF AUJUSTMENT AND REASON FOR NOT GRANTING: `z Si geed URMIT REJECTED, DATE _ DECI�'014 M DATE r` UPLICATION FILED DATE IF HEARING . _ -SECRETARY.-- CITY OFASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925-2020 MEMORANDUM .TO: Kathryn Koch FROM: Gary Esar��. RE: Red Roof Signage Appeal DATE: June 28, 1982 neu�S, Bad I'm afraid. It is my opinion that we must send notice to all the people on the list submitted. e Although Red Roof Inns is erecting the sign and Red Roof occupies only a small portion of the Golf Course Subdivision (namely, Lot 2), one of the actual signs will be on Lot 1 on a sign easement pursuant to Section 1(A)(v) of the City -Red Roof lease. There- fore, since the sign itself will be on the City's Lot 1, we must notify the landowners adjacent to Lot 1, who are on the gigantic list. Lots of work for �10. As an aside, at Thursday night's Board of Adjustment meeting, the Building Department suggested raising the fees for these riodifica- tions. Patsy :Newbury said the fees hadn't been raised since at least 1968. Some proposals were (1) a straight doubling of fees, (2) a flat fee plus actual postage costs, (3) a flat fee plus $1.00 per notice mailed. This seems like a good time to get your input on the fees. GSE/mc F i •` RED ROOF AT ASPEN P.O. BOX 8850 Aspen, Colorado 81612 925-8603 June 11, 1982 Colette Penne Planning Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Colette: Please find attached the necessary papers to Appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustment for a larger sign at the access to the old Plum Tree Inn which is now Red Roof Inn. If you have any questions, please call me. Thank you, �&rv' P Deborah VanCott j, 1 n C. on Y� � CITY OF APEN 46 MEMO FROM ALICE DAVIS g a s j�uran-E � a loco i n c �� Pp�a�cled << � 00 S, hov �� a I(� --Frees Mkt aperoc-r-,:14 1_ Ergpl L",a F " rclvac �i C10. of 1, +o4-a I all�wir�c, �0 3� Oc7t I 1 q 7 1? (Pg 2-� s-3) `�h �� o s(60 -fvr (. ni l QXT �Ur��G'1� J ex y -' orlon fr'-Om Fe- JE?ad t cq C- J iU c Q O y CLII"61 L f'Qr�� Lbuncd dl do -�- hQ-L�O- 10 pAk-)e r- k-) ckk e-nd • d i rLo C{-Pd c 9 . fo drz)-cv "F aR -k-) aUow c(�- mgkp an W,4e-nor. 07 � - 1 °l &6 - 0r �� - �o(� - o��e n i�d a .S - cwc,sa-�- Wrcprla�. bncY maOce4-� 2 yrs loo-p f- (n a rdkcc. ( re rrt�i (2 C Lq (OK rt�O(,Pea hL,()IJlr7 o(ica�t�y1 Cx /C)( --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C�c-q 'VO - F4 Z (c,nc)�(-3�ua ( affriova/ emu. ll I 1g80 J Fir na Plat Q2,�- -/060 apauq� Cmc A N in 1'777 oppliCant 5QbMrf plans 5u- rClef-( r b�1ilcfin�rmc-� mad i nE'_ 4D d� r c)-) k ck a (�Df �r �f ck--qs P-, CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street • aspen, colorado 81611 Council 49e#da I fl:�ieV ostcQ�)(. -t)� Or 01 old • ti.; ........ Ora a- 17/ u 'pKet rt - au5e(c (Ov 4- Next Regular Meeting / 2 -7 ��79 2-11 Ck vl� 7d oLo n d-y-ood itio -(Or- j-�,e cttt)4*v* CITY OF ASPEN 4* MEMO FROM ALICE DAVIS a-) �d ( . -�c o rl-s --b apt(-Ovct( q ---) c7 . pct(o t2�— d� ac c 0rck c ` / �? 1-(--) Sic 2A- Ll. Z0 l ca a�n prow( � h a ALL +L CL . J I; MEMORANDUM 4 MAR 2 1982 ASPEN / PITKIN CO. pi QNNING OFRCE TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney FROM: Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer DATE: March 1, 1982 RE: 925 E. Durant Avenue Exception Plat, Lots E, F, G, H, and I, Block 119, O.A.T. I have received mylars of a revised plat for a multi -family structure proposed by HBC Investments on East Durant. I have also reviewed the subdivision agreement attached to your memo of January 19, 1982 and offer the following comments: 1. The agreement would appear to be in order with regard to the comments in my memo of October 14, 1980 requesting sidewalk construction and provision of a trash/utility area adjacent to the alley. I have also received the attached letter from Mr. Cantrup assuring construction of the sidewalk. The estimate of $3,000 is correct but I leave to you whether the letter is sufficient assurance by the developer. 2. The plat is adequate with the exception of the title which should be 925 East Durant. It should further be noted that sale of the unit would require recordation of a condominium plat following construction. This plat is not adequate for condomin- iumization purposes. If I can supply any further help toward getting this plat recorded, please call me. JH/co Enclosure cc: Alice Davis, Planning Office ` • • H.Q.C. INVESTMENTS P.O. BOX 388 ASPEN, CO 81612 February 5, 1982 Mr. Jay Hammond City of Aspen Engineering Dept. 130 South Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 925 East Durant Project Dear Jay: The City Council has given final plat approval for the 925 E. Durant project. Preparations are currently underway to record the final plat and obtain the building permit for construction of the project. The project shall include construction of a sidewalk along the Durant Street frontage. Given the 120 foot frontage, construction of a sidewalk five feet wide that meets code requirements is estimated to cost some $3,000.00. This shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City of Aspen. B4res, 7 �'Ha.trup HBC/sdv • CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 5, 1982 TO: Alice Davis, Planning Office FROM: Gary Esar�* RE: 925 East Durant Attached hereto is a draft of the agreement contemplated in your memo to us of January 26, 1982. We think it should be a separate agreement and should be executed fairly soon, now that the 700 S. Galena project has received preliminary plat approval. Please let me have your corrections or additions at your earliest convenience. I've sent a copy to Spence Schiffer. GSE:mc Attachment AGREEMENT TO EXTEND A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ALLOTMENT DEADLINE Pursuant to Section 24-11.7(a), Aspen Municipal Code, WHEREAS, HBC Investments received a Growth Management Plan (GMP) Allotment in 1978 to build the joint project known as 925 Durant and 700 S. Galena and that allotment has expired or is in danger of expiring as of February 1, 1982; and WHEREAS, HBC Investments applied to City Council at its meet- ing of January 25, 1982, for an extension of time on the deadline of said allotment; and WHEREAS, City Council has the authority and sole discretion to grant the requested extension upon good cause shown, pursuant to Section 24-11.7(a), AMC; and WHEREAS, City Council has voted to grant the requested exten- sion subject to certain conditions; NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by the parties undersigned that HBC Investments is granted an extension of time on the said allot- ment for the said joint project to and including May 1, 1982, subject to and in consideration for the following terms and condi- tions: 1. The 925 Durant phase (employee housing) of the project must be under construction as of June 1, 1982, must be at least eighty per cent (80%) completed by December 1, 1982, and must be completed and ready for occupancy within a reasonable time after December 1, 1982. It is agreed by the parties that the City Manager of the City of Aspen is to be the sole judge, with abso- lute discretion, of the occurrence or non-occurrence of the facts hereinabove referred to, i.e., "under construction", "80% com- pleted", "ready for occupancy", and "reasonable time". If condi- tions beyond the control of HBC Investments (weather, strikes, Acts of God, etc.) prevent HBC Investments from meeting the dead- lines in this paragraph, HBC Investments may apply in writing for extensions of these deadlines, for good cause shown, to the City Manager, who shall have the sole authority and discretion to grant, deny or modify any requests for extensions. 2. It is agreed that in the event that any of the condi- tions of Paragraph 1 are not met by HBC Investments, the allotment extension granted herein shall be null and void and the GMP allot- ment and any issued building permits for the 925 Durant and 700 S. Galena project shall be deemed to be expired and unrenewable. Further, it is agreed that any of the conditions of Paragraph 1 are not met by HBC Investments, HBC Investments will immediately move to demolish and return to grade any construction in the pro- jects actually built, all at its own cost pursuant to Section 7- V 141(d), A.M.C., , and releases, discharges and holds the City of Aspen harmless from any claims of damages or actions in equity arising therefrom, including claims based on reliance or part per- formance theories. Done this day of , 1982. LIM ATTEST: CITY OF ASPEN HBC INVESTMENTS CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 19, 1982 TO: Planning Office Engineering Department FROM: Paul J. Taddune RE: 925 East Durant Project PLANNING OFFICE Forwarded for your information and comments please find a copy of the proposed subdivision agreement regarding the 925 East Durant project. Please review this agreement with regard to the term and conditions imposed on the approval and provide uie with your com- inents at your earliest convenience. Additionally, I note that Section 20-16(c) of the Code requires that the subdivider must agree to make and install the required improvements according to a specific scheaule and to provide a guarantee for no less than 100% of the then current estimated costs of the improvements as computed by the City Engineer, and I have informed the applicant that I will insert language to this effect in the agreement. Paragraph "1" states that the improve- ments must be completed prior to the issuance of a CO. If this is acceptable to meet the schedule requirement, I still need an esti- mate of 100% of the current estimated costs of the improvements from the Engineering Department. PJT:mc Attachment SUBDIVISION AGREUMt;14T THIS AGRE'EMEWT, made this day of 1982, by acid between t1w City of Aspen, Coiorauo (i ocei.natter. referred to as City) and 1113C Investment. (here.inafter rc�ierr(,ci to as Subdivider) W X T N t; S 5 E T H: . WHEREAS, the Subdivider has submitted to the City for approval, execution, and recordation, a final plat (he,t:c�i.naftc,r the Cl referred to as the "Plat") concer.niny 2VE1)L C-.tent rc na employee housing project: known as the "925 t:ast_ uarant Project" on a vacant parcel of real property owned by the Sub'ji.vi.der, Ind located at 925 East Durant Avenue, and formally .described as Lots F, G, .11, 1, Block 119, City of. Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, on August 28, 1981, tree Aspen City Council granted final plat approval for the Project subject to certain specific conditions; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council will approve, execute, and accept for recordation the plat on the further condition that Suo- divider execute this Agreement formally acknowledy ing its accept- ance of all the conditions and requirements imposea by the City. I•JOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, c-ovenants, and conditions containeu herein, and the approval, execution and acceptance_ of the plat for recordation by the City of Aspen, it 'is mutually agreed as follows: 1. The Subdivider. will construct a sidewalk in front of thc� property along Durant Street which shall extend from thc. pro �,err-y line on the east to the property line on the west and Shall a trash facility on the property acljac;ent to tl)e allay along the south property line having dirnensi.ons of no less than 10 feet deep and 25 feet lone. Said improvewents shall -be, installed and constructed in conjunction c1i.th the construction of the Pro- ject and shall be cofapleted prior to the issuance of a certific-ate of occupancy for. the project. 2. With respect to the i.mproveinents to be constructed by Subdivider as set forth in paragraph "1" her.ei.nrbove and in accordance with Section 20-16 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Sub- divider agrees to provide a guarantee for no less than one hundred (100) percent of the current estimated cost of the illlo ovei,lent.s as rofaputed by the City Engineer, retlecteu in Exhibit "A", annexed hereto and incorporated herein. The guarantee shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a build my per,;lit for the I. i project and shell be in tale form of it Bash esc tow with the 'Cit.y, or, a bank or: savimjs and loan asoc:iat.ion, or, an ir.revot-:abie sicJlrt draft or lc!tter: of c:onuai.tnl(!nt froiu it financ:i.ally responsi.r)lc_ lender; and shall give the City tale uncorndi.t-ional right., upon default by the Subdivider, to withdraw funds upon d1cl.,r.,nd to par- tially or fully completo and/or pay for. any Or pay any outstanding bills for work clone thereon by any pzirty. In addi- tion, Subdivider hereby agrees to 0ar.r.ant all i��ij�ro.•t�,.r�nts for a period of one year after acceptance by the City. 3. Subdivider agrees that all of the units Within this employee housing project shall be: subject to res, rictive covenants for a term of 50 yNars ffom the data of r.e:corciatic;,n tne:reof wilic.11 covenants shall provide that said employee 11OUF i.nkj 'units will not be ranted or. sold -except. in accordance with the lo_ inco.:ie guide- lines established by the City o£ Aspen as the same ;:ray De modified from time to time by the City of Aspen. Said restr.io.tive cove- nants shall be recorded simultaneously with the recording of- the final plat. A. The provisions hereof shall be binding. upon and shall inure to the benefit of the Subdivider annd the'City and their respective successors and assigns. 5. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of tide State of Colorado and the Munici- pal Code of the City of Aspen. 6. zf any of the provisions of this Agreement_ or any para- graph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section or the applica- tion thereof in any circumstances is invalidated, suci: i.nval icii.t:.y shall not affect the validity of the' remainder of this Agree:aont and the validity of any such provision, paragraU:z , se, ten , clause; phrase, word or section under any other. ei.reu_..stance shall not be affected thereby. 7. This Subdivision Agreement contains the entire under- standing and agreement between the parties herein with respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder. and may be altered or amiended from time to time only by written instru:;ient executed by each of the parties hereto. 8. Any notices required t...V be given to the oarti.es -to this Agreement shall be dee;ned to have been given if personally given or deposited in the United States mail to the parties by regis- tered or. certified ,trail at the addresses indicated below. City of Aspen: Subdivider or its Successors City Manager or Assigns: 130 South Galena Street 1113C Invest,trents Aspen, Colorado 81611 Y.O. Box 388 Aspen,. Colorado 81 612 2 y f 'ti VIIIERLUPI tfw parties 1wreto liave neretinto c. xeouteci t on the year ar)cI clatc, herein'.'AL)OV0 Set fr,)T-t1j. CITY -OF ASPI-,N, a Colorado plunicipal Col.-poration By flerman L _d e1 liarorrx:11, City Clerk City Attorney IJBC INVESTMENTS- By--ZL Han B. Cantrup ss kin 0 j. D 9 Subdivision Ajreement was worn to and ac.7 r)o-...,— isle this 0- (lay of '1982, C f7 MY HAND AND OFFIC.T.AL SEAL. ion expires JL_ / )r_ NotarVy Public Address: t 1 3 0 STATE OF COI,01-',ALX-) County of Pitkiri The foregoinj Subcjivj.Si-On Agreeiaerit 5�,*Oi:n to and acknow— ledged before jije tllj.s -- azly of -- r 1982, by -Lu CIL WITNESS MY HAND ANDT�IPTICTAL SIAi;. My commission expires: •Notary Public • Address: '7 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney FROM: Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer DATE: March 30, 1982 RE: Sidewalk Estimate at 925 E. Durant ------------------------------------------------------------- I am -in receipt of a letter from Mr. Hans Cantrup dated February 5, 1982 estimating the cost of construction of 120 feet of sidewalk, 5 feet in width, at $3,000. We find this estimate reasonable and in line with current concrete prices. JH/co i EXHIBIT "A" MEMORANDUM TO: Planning File FROM: Alice Davis, Planner, RE: Time Schedule for 500 S. Galena DATE: November 9, 1981 As has been discussed with Mark Danielson of HBC Investments, the following is the proposed time table for the processing of the application for the 500 S. Galena project. This schedule shows the greatest expedience possible by the Planning Office in order to provide the utmost cooperation in allowing HBC Investments to meet their February 1, 1982 deadline for obtaining a building permit for the project. If this deadline is not met, the GMP allocation of 16 free market units and 1 employee management unit will be forfeited by HBC Investments unless further action by Council extends the deadline. It should be noted that this is a very tight time schedule and can only be met if there are no decision delays by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council or delays in necessary submissions by HBC Investments. Nov. 9-Dec. 7, 1981: Planning Office review to determine effects of amendments to the 1978 GMP application. 11 Dec. /, 1981: Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Commission will consider the amendments to the 1978 GMP application and will give conceptual review to the amended application as part of the subdivision process. The Commission must rescore the 1978 GMP application and make .recommendations to Council regarding (1) the 1978 GMP allocation and (2) any new conditions resulting from the review. J.ec. 1,!, 1981: City Council meeting to review the P & Z recommendations regarding the amendments to the 1978 GMP application. Council will hold conceptual subdivision review on the revised application. Dec. 1:;, 1^ul: Submission of the preliminary plat must be made in order to have the plat reviewed at the January 19th P & Z meeting. Dec. i.,, 1981- Jan. 18, 1982: Planning Office review of preliminary plat; 30 day period for referrals to necessary departments and 15 days notice for the January 25, 1982 public hearing. Jan. 19, 1982: Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and public hearing for preliminary plat subdivision review. Jan. 20, 1982: Submission of the final plat must be made in order to have the plat reviewed at the January 25th City Council meeting. Jan. 25, 1982: City,Council meeting on final plat subdivision review. All necessary agreements should be completed at this time. 1 t PROMISSORY NOTE FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, HANS B. CANTRUP, promises to pay to the order of THE CITY OF ASPEN, Aspen, Colorado 81611, or such other place as the holder hereof shall designate, the principal sum of an amount equal to: the Park Dedication Fee calculated at the time this Note is due as if the units described below were free-market units and payable as follows: Due five (5) years from the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on the twelve (12) GMP employee housing units located at 925 Durant, Aspen, Colorado. j The undersigned shall have the right at any time to prepay this Note in whole or in part. The maker of this Note hereby waives notice of demand, presentment for payment, notice of non-payment and protest, and any and all notice of whatever kind or nature, the exhaustion of legal remedies herein, all exemptions, and any homestead rights. If more than one maker shall sign this Note, the obligations of all of said makers shall be joint and several, and the liability of each to Lender shall be absolute and unconditional and with- out regard to the liability of any other party hereto. The terms, conditions and obligations under this Note cannot be changed, modified or terminated except by a writing signed by the payee hereunder. This Note shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Colorado. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Note is executed and delivered the day and year first above written. MANS B. CANTRUP * An amount equal to the Park Dedication Fee calculated at the time this Note is due as if the units described herein were free-market units. DECLARATION OF RES`1'RICTIONS HANS B. CANTRUP (covenantor), for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns hereby covenants with the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, that: 1. He is the owner of the following described property together with the improvements thereon: 12 residential units located on Q �� J ` `' '')'- 2. The above -described property shall be restricted to six (6) month mininLam ]eases with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies in any calendar year. 3. For a period of five (5) years from the date these covenants are recorded the above -described property shall be restricted to rental and sale price terms within,Ihousing price guidelines as the same may be amended from time to time for low income housing by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado within the provisions of Section 24-10..4 (b) (3) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado. 4. The covenants contained herein may be changed, modified or amended by the recording of a written instrument signed by the record owners of the property and the Mayor of the City of Aspen pursuant to a vote taken by the City Council.. 5. The covenants contained herein are to run with the land and shall.be binding on all parties and all persons 4L claiming under them for a period of five (5) yea A from the date these covenants are recorded. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Declaration has been duly executed this day of , 1980. u • MEHORUDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office RE: 925 E. Durant Employee (lousing, Exemption From Growth Management DATE: September 21, 1931 As the attached letter indicates, the applicant is requesting exemption from compliance with the allotment procedures of the Growth Management Quota System pursuant to Section 24-11.2 H of the Hunicipal Code. The applicant proposes to construct 12 studio employee housing units of approximately 425 square feet each at 925 E. Durant (lots F, G, Ii and I, Block 119, Aspen Townsite). The units constitute the employee portion of the applicants 1973 residential GIIP allocation and will be deed re- stricted for a period of 50 years within the City's low income housing guidelines. The applicant received the Final Plat and Special Review approval from City Council on August 23 subject to the above restrictions. Should Planning and Zoning find the 50 year restriction and low income guideline inappropriate, the applicant's request for Special Review Exemption will be re-evaluated by City Council. Should you concur with the 50 year low income restrictions, the appropriate motion is as follows: "I move to recommend to City Council that the applicant's request for exemption from Growth Hanagement for the construction of 12 studio employee housing units of approximately 425 square feet each to be located at 925 E. Durant be approved subject to the deed restriction of all 12 units for a period of 50 years within the City's low income housing guidelines." • RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW V. HECHT CRAIG N. BLOCKWICK K. ROULHAC GARN RICHARD Y. NEILEY, JR. SPENCER F. SCHIFFER GARFIEfl D & HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 September 2, Mr. Sunny Vann, Director Aspen Pitkin County Planning Dept. 506 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 301JJO JNININVId 1981 '00 NNIld / N3dSV 1861 C 0 RE. 925 E. Durant - 500 Galena Project Dear Sunny: TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS "GARHEC" On behalf of Hans B. Cantrup and HBC investments we hereby request a Special Review by the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider this request that the employee housing portion of the referenced project, consisting of 12 studio units, be exempted from complying with the allotment procedures of the Growth Management Quota System pursuant to Section 24-11.2 (h) of the Municipal Code. As you know, this is a split site project consisting of 16 free market and 1 employee housing unit to be located at 500 S. Galena, and 12 studio employee housing units of approximately 425 square feet each to be located at 925 E. Durant (Lots F, G, H, I, Block 119, Aspen Townsite). The 925 E. Durant site contains approximately 12,000 square feet. In accordance with previous requests from the City we would be willing to restrict the units to the low income price guidelines. Although, we have been urging the City to reconsider the imposition of a 50 year deed restriction which is at variance with the 5 year restriction approved under the GMP application, we are willing to relent at this time and accede to the City's wishes. I understand that this matter will be on the P&Z Agenda September 22, 1981. Prior to that time I will give you the site plan you requested. Thanks for your cooperation. Very my yours, GARF LD & HECHT i Sp n er F. Schiffer SFS/mis GARFIELD & HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW RONALD GARFIELD VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING ANDREW V. HECHT 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE CRAIG N. BLOCKWICK ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 � K. ROULHAC GARN ti��G�- RICHARD Y. NEILEY, JR. August 20; 198 C� Q3 SPENCER F. SCHIFFER QP Mr. Sunny Vann Director Planning Department City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 925 East Durant - 500 Galena Project Dear Sunny: TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS "GA R H EC" At the City Council meeting on August 10, 1981, you stated that since no application had been made for an exemption of the 925 East Durant Project from GMP, if an application would now have to be made the 50 year deed restriction should apply. In a subsequent conversation with you and Alan Richman you explained that the procedure to which you were referring was within the purview of §24-11.2(h). You stated that this was typically done in the subdivision process at preliminary plat approval, and was essentially a mere formality. The reason that this was never done or required to be done for the 925 Project remains unexplained. I must respectfully disagree with your position. Section 24-11.2 provides "The following development activities shall be exempted from complying with the allotment procedures hereinafter provided for..." Since the 925 Durant Project has already gone through all of the allotment procedures pursuant to which it was awarded an allotment by resolution No. 11, Series of 1978, it would clearly be incongruous to require that an application now be made for an exemption from those very same allotment procedures. I appreciate the fact that you said you would have to take another look at this in view of the history of this particular project, and I would very much appreciate your doing that and advising me accordingly at your earliest GARFI LD & HECHT convenience so that we can determine precisely how to proceed. Thanks for your continued cooperation. Very „truly yours, ELD & HECHT r F. Schiffer SFS/pp cc: Hans B. Cantrup Mark Danielson Paul Taddune, Esq. 925 E. Durant - 12 Employee Housina Units Chronology 1/78 GMP Application submitted 5/78 GMP Allotment for 12 low income employee units 12/79 RBO ordinance first reading 2/79 5 year deed restriction changed to 50 year restriction 1/80 Building permit application submitted 2/80 Memo from building department to Council requesting review of plans which had been revised to accommodate RBO 3/80 Council approved revised plans 5/80 RBO ordinance adopted 9/80 Subdivision application submitted 10/80 P&Z grants subdivision exception, conceptual and preliminary plat approval 11/80 Public hearing on final plat approval at which time Council requests that applicant accept a 50 year deed restriction as a condition to final plat approval CITY OF ASPEN 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office -� DATE: October 14, 1980 RE: Subdivision Exception Application Lots F, G, H, and I, Block 119 (925 E. Durant), Aspen Townsite Having reviewed the above subdivision exception application to construct a multi -family dwelling, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: This application to construct twelve studio units in a 12,000 square foot lot falls within all RMF requirements in terms of lot area, setbacks, etc. The only further require- ments that should be included in any subdivision agreement would be as follows: 1. Some assurance that the owner/applicant will construct sidewalk along the Durant Street frontage. 2. Provision of a trash facility adjacent to the alley in conformance with Section 24-3.7(h)(4) set parallel to the alley ten feet deep by twenty-five feet long. The facility shown is inadequate. The Engineering Department recommends approval of the 925 E. Durant Subdivision Exception provided the owner/applicant complies with Items 1 and 2 above. E MEMORANDUM • TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office RE: 925 E. Durant - Final Plat DATE: November 18, 1980 APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR CITY COUNCIL: (� The Planning Office presented this reque�t tor Final Plat' approval for 12 studio units which had previously been givo a GMP allot nt (1978) and Conceptual/Preliminary Subdivision appro 1 (P&Z, October 21, 1980). City Council tabled the request on November 10 in order to allow the acting City Attorney to determine whether the five-year price restrictions on the units can be increased to fifty years. Bob Grueter is completing research on the question and will be present on Monday to make a recommendation. SEE CITY COUNCIL PACKET FOR NOVEMBER 10, 1980, FOR COMPLETE INFORMATION ON THIS APPLICATION. • 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ✓ Aspen City Council FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office RE: 925 E. Durant Subdivision - Conceptual/Preliminary DATE: October 15, 1980 APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR CITY COUNCIL: Zoning: R/MF Location: 925 E. Durant (Lots F, G, H, I; Block 119, Aspen Townsite) Lot Size: 12,000 square feet Request: This multi -family project, consisting of 12 employee price -restricted studio units, received a 1978 GMP allot- ment in conjunction with free market units to be located at 500 S. Galena. While P & Z saw the Conceptual appli- cation at the time of GMP, it has been revised and shown only to City Council. All multi -family developments are required to gain subdi- vision approval prior to receiving a building permit. The applicants at this time are pursuing such subdivision appro- val. They requested an exception from full subdivision (Conceptual before P & Z, Final Plat before City Council). Note that the applicants will separately, in the near future, pursue a Residential Bonus Overlay rezoning for this property in conjunction with a 70:30 project to be located on the same two sites. The RBO rezoning has lead to the change in siting for the building at 925 E. Durant. This subdivision approval is requested separately in the interest of time. Engineering The Engineering Department recommends that the applicants Comments: be excepted only from City Council Conceptual approval so that a public hearing will be held and referral com- ments obtained at the P & Z Preliminary phase. Exception approval recommended subject to conditions in attached memorandum (October 14, 1980). Attorney's No comment received. Comments: Rocky Mtn. No problem. Gas in Durant St. available to project. Nat. Gas Comment: City Water Dept. No further comments necessary. See letter dated January 25, Comment: 1978 in application. Miscellaneous: No new comments were received from: Housing Director City Electric Mt. Bell Planning Office The Planning Office recommends that the P & Z grant an Recommendation: exception from full subdivision, excepting only Conceptual approval before City Council. The Oct. 21 P & Z meeting was set as a public hearing for Preliminary approval. Further, the Planning Office recommends the P & Z grant Conceptual and Preliminary Plat approval subject to the Memo: 925 E. Dur Subdivision October 15, 1980 Page Two Planning Office Engineering Department conditions: Recommendation, cont.: 1. The applicant shall assure construction of a side- walk along the Durant Street frontage. 2. The applicant shall provide a trash facility adjacent to the alley in conformance with Section 24-3.7(h)(4). P & Z The P & Z, at a regular meeting held on October 21, 1980, Recommendation: approved exception from full subdivision, waiving concep- tual approval by City Council (justified particularly because Council had previously seen the revised building location and configuration). P & Z then held a public hearing to consider preliminary plat. Two citizen comments were entered in writing (see attached) and their concerns were considered. 1. Access to parking is from Durant. 2. As much or more noise is generated by tourists as by the residents. 3. Occupancy is restricted under City rental/sale guidelines. 4. P & Z did not feel fences were necessary. The applicant agreet to satisfy both Engineering concerns. The trash area had been redesigned (10 feet by 20 feet, preempting one handicap parking space) to meet Engineering approval. A sidewalk will be constructed. For clarifica- tion, twenty parking spaces will be provided underground. Suggested City Council Motion: Move to approve Final Plat for twelve low-income price - restricted employee studios in a structure at 925 E. Durant (Lots F, G, H, I; Block 119, Aspen Townsite) subject to Engineering Office approval of the following: 1. Owner/applicant shall assure that a sidewalk will be constructed along the Durant Street frontage. 2. An adequate trash facility shall be provided. GARFIELD & HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW GARFIELD RONALD ONALD VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING TELEPHONE ANDREW V. HECHT (303) 925-1936 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE :TELECOPI ER CRAIG N. BLOCKWICK ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-3008 K. ROULHAC GARN CABLE ADDRESS RICHARD Y. NEILEY, JR. August 26, 1981 "GARHEC" SPENCER F. SCHIFFER J, The Honorable Herman Edel, Mayor Aspen City Council City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611'— RE: 925 E. Durant Project 12 Employee Housing Units Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers: At your meeting of August 10, 1981 I appeared on behalf of Hans Cantrup and HBC Investments regarding the application of the proposed moratorium to the referenced pro- ject and regarding a proposed compromise solution to the prob- lem of whether a 50 year or a 5 year deed restriction should be imposed in view of the history of the project. After a discussion during which some concern was ex- pressed as to our objective and the mechanics of the proposal, it was tabled. Since this matter will come up for further discussion at your special review on Fridav, I would like to take this opportunity to elaborate on the proposal and address your specific questions. 1. Why even consider a 5 year deed restriction when the Code currently requires 50 year restrictions? If you would please refer to the attached chronology you will see that this project received a G21P allotment in May of 1978. In anticipation of the proposed RBO ordinance which would have permitted twice the number of employee units, the applicant delayed further processing of the application. This was done not only with the consent, but with the encouragement of the Planning Department anJ Council which, on March 10, 1980, approved new plans specifically designed to accommodate the additional RBO units. The applicant received the GMP allotment and all ap- provals, including subdivision excention and conceptual and preliminary plat approval based upon a 5 year deed restriction. Despite the fact that the requirement for a 5 year deed restriction was changed to 50 years in February, 1979 it was not until November 24, 1980, 21 months later, at the public hearing on final E • GARHELD & HECHT Mayor Herman Edel August 26, 1981 Page Two Plat approval that the applicant was requested to accept the imposition of a 50 year restriction. He did not accept and the matter was tabled. It is our _Position that the law in Colorado as aoplied to the facts of this case preclude the change in the requirement from a 5 to a 50 year restriction. Apart from the legalities, we submit moreover that it is simply unfair and inequitable. To condone and even encourage a delay and then to penalize for that delay undermines the integrity of our systems and processes. 2. What are we proposing? We are proposing that Council either (a) acknowledge our right to a 5 year restriction; or (b) impose the 50 year restriction with the condition that if, after the first 5 years, there is a foreclosure sale to any 3rd party unrelated in any way to the applicant the unit or units foreclosed would revert to free market status. 3. Whv do we want the 5 year restriction or the compromise proposal? In order to finance the project the applicant needs tc borrow from an institutional lender. Such a lender would make a loan based upon the appraised value of the units. Currently, the difference in appraised value based upon a 5 versus 50 year restriction is approximately $53,000 per unit or $636,000 for the project. The compromise proposal would effectively permit a lender to view the project as if there were only a 5 year restriction since its concern must necessarily be focused on the value in the event of foreclosure. 4. What are the practicalities? From a pragmatic point of view there would be no difference to the City between an outright 50 year restriction and the compromise proposal of a 50 year restriction with the condition that upon a foreclosure the units revert to free market status. In the highly unlikely event that a foreclosure sale actually took place the units could not revert to free market status prior to the expiration of the initial 5 year period. Thus, in the very worst Possible case the City would end up with the effective imposition of a 5 year restriction which is all it would have had in the first place, and we submit all it was legally entitled to anyway. GARFIELD & HECHT Mayor Herman Edel August 26, 1981 Page Three 5. Could the City prevent the reversion to .free market status? Yes. In the unlikely event of a foreclosure sale the City would be given adequate notice to cure a default and even the opportunity to redeem the units. 6. How can we be sure that "the nanerwork won't get lost in the shuffle" and the City will actually get notice? Colorado statute requires that notice be given by publication and mail prior to a foreclosure sale by the public trustee. Even after the actual_ sale the grantor of the deed of trust (the applicant) would have a period of 75 days within which to redeem the property. our proposal would require that the deed of trust contain specific provisions requiring that the public trustee send all notices to the City of Aspen as well as to any other parties required to be given notice. If there were a foreclooure after notice and the grantor (applicant) redeemed the units they would still remain deed restricted. If the grantor did not redeem, the City of Aspen would have the opportunity to redeem. Since the deed of trust would be filed for record there would be no possibility for the "papers to get lost in the shuffle" or for anything to happen without the City first having notice thereof. 7. One councilmember expressed concern about collusion or an arrangement whereby the applicant could acquiesce in a foreclosure so as to circumvent the deed restriction. Is this a real possibility? No. it is absurd to assume that an institutional lender of the stature that the applicant typically deals with would even consider taking part in such a scheme. nevertheless, even assuming that such a lender and the applicant would be so inclined, the fact that the City could cure a default and even redeem the prop- erty would preclude such a possibility. Simply stated, it would not be worth the risk. Furthermore, if at any time subsequent to a foreclosure sale the property came into the hands of the applicant or any person or firm with which he was in any way re- lated, the deed restriction could be enforced by the City. In conclusion., we feel that st)ecial circumstances require special handling of this matter. In our view the City is not losing_ anything and is merely making an accommodation for the legal rights GARFIELD & HECHT Mayor Herman Edel August 26, 1981 Page Four of the applicant while preserving, the public policy. We trust your questions and concerns have all been addressed. If you have any further questions or comments I would be han_py to discuss them with you prior to or at the meeting. Thanks for your consideration. Very truly yours, GARYIELD & HE Sp'e�fcer F! Schif/f.6r SFS/mis cc: Paul Taddune, Esq. Wayne Chapman Sunny Vann Alan Richman • 925 E. Durant - 12 Employee Housing Units Chronology 1/78 GMP Application submitted 5/78 GMP Allotment for 12 low income employee units 12/79 RBO ordinance first reading 2/79 5 year deed restriction changed to 50 year restriction 1/80 Building permit application submitted 2/80 Memo from buildinq department to Council requesting review of plans which had been revised to accommodate RBO 3/80 Council approved revised plans 5/80 RBO ordinance adopted 9/80 Subdivision application submitted 10/80 P&Z grants subdivision exception, conceptual and preliminary plat approval 11/80 Public hearing on final plat approval at which time Council requests that applicant accept a 50 year deed restriction as a condition to final plat approval 0 0 XJL_"'�T 130 ti€►:_t.. ,;..Se.,a street aspen, goal ado 81611 363- 925 -2020 MELAORAN DUM DATE; August 10, 1981 TO: Members OIL: City COullcil FROM: Paul Taddune �\ RE: 925 Durant On the basis of discussions witll Sunny Vann, my understanding of ti-le history relative to the Durant project is that a growth manayc.u,ient ailot,nent was received at a time when the employee housing deed restriction requirement was only five years: Follow- ing the original GMP approval, the applicant then sought and received an amendment to his original application and delayed mak- ing the appropriate applications for approval of subd iv is ion and exemption from growth management for the employee units. During the interim, the employee housing deed restriction requirel:lerit was increased to fifty years. By letter to acting City Attorney, Bob Grueter, dated Novemuer 20, 1980 (a copy of which is annexed), the applicant's attorneys protested the fifty year deed restriction requirement to the project, asserting that the application was governed by the five year requirement in .effect at the time of GMP approval and that the applicant had expended substantial suns of money in reliance and in expectation of a five year restriction. At the Council meeting when this issue was last discussed, the applicant agreed to the fifty year restriction, but indicated that tinancin.j considerations dictated that the property be subjected to a mortgage or soave other encumbrance. In discussing the matter with the applicant's attorneys, I was informed that the terms of any encumbrance would require that the units revert to "free mar- ker." status in the event of foreclosure. Obviously, the applicant would be able to oar_ain greater financing on free laarket units which would generate a higher value on resale than employee. units. As City Attorney, I have objected to the placement of encu,abrances which, in the event of foreclosure, would detest and circumvent the intent of Code requirements. In this application, however, there is a dispute over which requirement should apply. As a middle ground, and without. conceding the applicaollity of the fifty year requirement, the applicant is willing to deed restrict Memo to City Council Auyut 10, 1981 Page Two for titty years, with the provision that if the beneficiary of any deed of trust foreclosures, the property will be subject to the five year restriction only. itiore specifically, as outlined in Spencer Schiffer's correspondence of July 16, 1981 (a copy of which is also annexed), the following conditions would pertain in the event of foreclosure: 1. The City would have the option to redee,a the property by pay- ing the note and retaining the employee status throughout the course of the entire fifty year period. 2. If the property is purchased by the beneficiary under the deed of trust at a foreclosure sale at any time after the five year period, the employee housing restriction would ter- minate and the property would revert to free market status. If purchased during the five year period the property will be subject to the five year restriction until the five-year per- iod expires, at which time the units will revert to free mar- ket status. 3. If purchased by any party other than the oerieficiary, the fifty year restriction would continue. Rather than enter into agreements or letters of understanding, my policy is to bring such matters to Council for advice and consent. The much discussed issues of reliance and estoppel loom in the background, and the solution proposed would avoid these issues. On the other hand, since all approvals have not been finalized and no building permit has been issued, there is room for Council to adh-ere to the position that the applicant must absolutely comply with the f if ty year restriction. If Council is amenable to the compromise, I would recommend that the restriction also indicate that the beneficiary of the deed of trust cannot have any connec- tion with the applicant and tiiat if the applicant or any corpora- tion in which the applicant has an interest should repurchase the property theft the tifty year restriction should apply. PJT:mc Attachments RONALD GARFIIiLU AIDREW Y. IIF.('IIT ASHLEY ANDERSON CRAIG N. HLOCKWICK K. ROI'LHAC GARIN ROHRIE .I() QI'1+1HY ODMITIED IN Ill I\UIS ONLY) RICHARD Y. NEILEI'..IR. Paul Taddune, Esq. Aspen City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 GAR'I'II:LD & tlt;GtlT 'ItfJ AT FOI(NI:.YS AT LAW VICrOMA SQUARE BUILDING J U L l l 1981, TELEPHONE 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (303) 923-1916 MIY &,TTOPNl y', OFFICE TELECOVIER ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS .711-1 .)r 16 , 1981 "GARHECLAW" Re: 925 Durant Project Dear Paul: Several weeks ago we discussed the referenced project with respect to the question of whether or not a fifty year or a five year deed restriction should be applicable. It was your position that under no circumstances would City Council grant final approval without a fifty year restriction. In response to my suggestion that a fifty year restriction might be acceptable to our client provided that the units would revert to free market status upon a foreclosure, you indicated that such would not be acceptable to the City. ,. As a compromise alternative, however, you suggested -an approach whereby a reversion to free market status upon a foreclosure would be permiss- ible only after the expiration of five years from the date of the initial conveyance and during which five year period the reversion would be prohibited under any circumstances. As you know, our position is, and always has been, that the five year restriction should apply to this project. It.was imposed and accepted by our client on May 8, 1978, the date on which the GMP application was approved by the City, and since that time he has spent substantial amounts of time and money on the project in reliance on that five year restriction. I am enclosing a copy of a letter dated November 20, 1980 to the then acting City Attorney, Robert Grueter, from Andy Hecht which states that position in detail. Although we still maintain the position set forth in that letter, in the spirit of cooperation which I have previously expressed to you on behalf of our client, and in the interest of resolving this problem without further delay we are willing to accept the compromise which you suggested. That is, as a nonditipri to Final Plat approval, our client will acce t the imposition of the fifty Vear deed restriction pro iv ded that the deeds and anv dee s o rust against the employee r housing units contain the following conditions in addition to the restriction: E • GARFIELD & HECHT A. If at any time foreclosure proceedings are commenced against the property, the beneficiary under a deed of trust com- mencing such proceedings shall be required, simultaneously with and in the same manner that notice of election and demand for sale is given to the public trustee, to give notice thereof and all other notices required to be given to the City of Aspen Housing Authority. Thereafter, if the property is sold pursuant to the foreclosure proceeding and not redeemed within forty-five days from the date a judgment of foreclosure is entered, the City of Aspen shall then have the remainder of the statutory period within which to redeem the property. If the property is redeemed it shall remain subject to*the deed restriction. If it is not so redeemed, then: (1) If it was purchased at the foreclosure sale by the bene- ficiary under the deed of trust at any time subsequent to the expir- ation of five years from the date of the first conveyance of the property, the restriction to employee housing under the low income guidelines of the City of Aspen shall terminate on the date the judgment of foreclosure was entered. (2) If it was purchased at the foreclosure sale by the beneficiary under the deed of trust prior to the expiration of five years from the date of the first conveyance of the property, the restriction to employee housing under the low income guidelines of the City of Aspen shall continue until the fifth anniversary of the date of the first conveyance, at which time it shall terminate. (3) If it was purchased by any party other than the beneficiary under the deed of trust, the restriction to employee housing under the low income guidelines of the City of Aspen shall continue for the remainder of the fifty year period. I think this proposed solution is a fair compromise in that the City would be obtaining, at a minimum, an absolute five year restriction, and for all intents and purposes its full fifty year restriction, while at the same time providing to our client some relief with respect to financing. If you feel that this needs to be presented to Council for thier approval, I would appreciate your placing it on the agenda for the next regular meeting on July 27th. In any event, I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience and suggest that we get together as soon as possible prior to that next meeting. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Very t my yours, GARF GELD & HErCHT. r F/ Schiffer SFS/pp cc: Sunny Vann Hans B. Cantrup • GARFIELD & I11:C11T • ATTORNEYS AT LAW KON,ALD GARFIELD VICTORIA SQUARE BLIM)ING TELEI'lil�XF: ANDREW V. HECHT 601 EAST HYMAN AVEtiiRi (303) 925.1936 ASHLEYANDERxuN TUrCOPIER ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 (303) 9.5-3008 CRAIG K. HLOCKWICK CABLE ADDRESS K. R06,11AC GAR.K November 20, 1980 -GARIIECLAW" Is(mBlF. JO 014MBY ")ArtTla> Ir II.11miti RICHARD Y. NEILEX JR. _ HAND DELIVERED Robert P. Grueter, Esq. City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street' Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: 925 E. Durand.: Project Dear Bob: This letter is intended as a request that the City of Aspen not apply a fifty (50) year employee housing restriction on rental and sale price terms (§24-10.4) to Cantrup's 925 E. Durant Project. At the time the City approved Cantrup's GMP Application on May 8, 1978, a five (5) year employee housing restriction was imposed and accepted by Cantrup. Since that time Cantrup has, in reliance on. the five (5) year restriction, expended substantial amounts of time and money on the project, including; among other things, the preparation of all plans and specifications necessary for Cantrup's subdivision application and subsequent. application for a building- permit, submitted on January 29, 1980. As a consequence of Caritrup's reliance on the 1978 approval, no alternative plans or uses were considered for the property; and for over two and one-half years no other applications were submitted to the City with respect to the restrictions. and requirements imposed upon that property. Had the fifty (50) year restriction been a requirement of the initial approval, Cantrup would not have proceeded as he has, and alternatives to the existing.. plans would have been pursued. The imposition by the City of a fifty (50) year restriction at this late date would be contrary to established principles of law recognized by the courts of Colorado. 8pedifically, the doctrine of equitable estoppel, is applicable to the actions of governmental agencies. Denver v. Stackhouse 135 Colo 289, 310 P2d 296. This doctrine bars a municipal body from taking a position contrary to a previous representation made to a party and relied upon by that party to its detriment. Franks v. Aurora 147 Colo 25, 362P2d 501; Crawford v. McLaughlin 172 Colo 366, 473 P2d 725. The doctrine applies whether or not.a building Permit has been issued; the issue of detrimental reliance is the focus of the inquiry as to whether GARFIELD & HECHT the doctrine should be applied. In the situation with which we are presently presented such reliance exists, thus, the doctrine is applicable. See Miller v. Board of Trustees of Palmer Lake 36 Colo app 8534 P2d :1132. The circumstances of_, the instant case clearly reveal substantial reliance upon the representation of, the -City that a five (5) year restriction was acceptable, the inequities attendent to the imposition of a fifty (50) year restriction by the City some two and one-half years after initial approval are manifest. In addition, the City is required to apply the zoning ordinance and zoning requirements in affect at the time Cantrup's application was made. The retroactive application of a more restrictive ordinance Is impermissible. See City and County of Denver v.' Denver Buick, Inc. .141 Colo 121_,_347 P2d 919. We respectfully submit that the imposition of the in- creased restrictions on rental and sale price terms to the 925 E. Durant Project would be unjust and would exceed any permissable legal authority. Very truly yours, GARPIELD & HECHT Andrew V. Hecht AVII/pp LAW OFFICES AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUITE 205 RONALD D. AUSTIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR. (� AREA CODE 303 WILLIAM R. JORDAN 111 August 19 , 1981 TELEPHONE 925.2601 B. LEE SCHUMACHER City Council City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Edwin W. Baker, Jr. Settlement of dispute with reference to building permit application Dear Mayor Edel and Council Members: In order to resolve the issue with respect to the building permit application of Edwin W. Baker, Jr. for the duplex in the RMF zone, we propose that the City amend Ordinance No. 50 to include a Special Review provision for those projects that are presently in the process and would comply with the City Code for a building permit but for the imposition of the moratorium. We suggest that the Special Review be limited to the issue of whether or not the projects are in general compliance with the likely changes in height and FAR in the RMF zone as presently contemplated. This takes in account that the Council has not made any final determinations as to what those changes would be, if any. We further propose, and in fact insist, that the Special Review take place on Wednesday, August 26, 1981. Reserving all of our rights that presently exist as relate to our claim that a building permit should have already issued to Mr. Baker, we submit as our application under such a Special Review the following: 1. The height of the structure will be reduced three feet, which will bring it within the maximum allowable in the residential zoned districts in Aspen, with a height of 29 feet; 2. The building will be reduced in bulk by 12 feet on all sides, or a net width reduction of 3 feet, and a net length reduction of 3 feet. This will reduce the square footage area from 9,000 square feet to approximately AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN City Council August 19, 1981 Page Two 8,200 square feet. This will further create a side yard setback of 142 feet on each side as opposed to the 5 feet allowable setback in the present Code. This also will provide open space of approximately 50`/0 of the lot; 3. Upon approval by the City of this appli- cation and the underlying building permit, and the issuance of the building permit during the week of August 24 - 28, 1981, Mr. Baker will withdraw his objections to the passage of Ordinance No. 50 and the interim passing of Resolution No. 37, and will refrain from filing a lawsuit or taking other legal action against the City, including the possible claim for punitive damages. As you know, we view this as a substantial compromise on the part of Mr. Baker inasmuch as we believe that a building permit should have been issued under the present Code and the application as it currently stands. We believe this addresses the concerns of the neighborhood, allows the City Council to proceed in an orderly fashion to review the height, FAR and other requirements in the RMF zone and also treats those applicants presently in the process in a fair and even-handed manner. This should satisfy all of the concerns of the members of the City Council. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN By Ronald D. Austin RDA/ j s cc: Paul Taddune, Esq. Mr. Sunny Vann Mr. Herb Paddock y MEMORANDUM 10: Aspen Planning and Zoni ny Co11ani ssior, V Aspen City Council FkOM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office RE: 925 E. Durant Subdivision - Conceptual/Preliminary DATE: October 15, 1980 APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR CITY COUNCIL: Zoning: RJMF Location: 925 E. Durant (Lots F, G, H, I; 131oc1: 119, Aspen To�ransite) Lot Size: 12,000 square feet Request: This multi -family project, consisting of 12 employee -restricted studio units, received a 1978 GMP allot- price ment in conjunction with free market units to be located Z the Conceptual appli- at 500.S. Galena. While P & saw cation at the time of GMP, it has been revised and shown only to City Council. All multi -family developments are required to gain subdi- building permit. The vision approval prior to receiving a applicants at this time are.pursuing such subdivision appro- val. They requested an exception from full subdivision Final Plat before City Council). (Conceptual before P & Z, Note that the appl-icants will separately, in the near Residential Bonus Overlay rezoning for future, pursue a this property in conjunction with a. 70:30 project to be has lead located on the same two sites. The RBO rezoning in siting for the building at 925 E. Durant. to the change This subdivision approval is requested separately in the interest of time. Engineering The Engineering Department recommends that the applicants royal Council Conceptual approval Comments: be excepted only from City that a public hearing will be held and referral com- so ments obtained at the P & Z Preliminary phase. Exception in approval recommended subject to conditions attached memorandum (October 14, 1980). Attorney's No comment received. Comments: Rocky Mtn. No problem. Gas in Durant St. available to project. Nat. Gas Comment: City Water Dept. No further comments necessary. See letter dated January 25, Comment: 1978 in application. Miscellaneous: No new comments were received from: .Housing Di rf,ctor City Electric Mt. Bell Planning Office The Planning Office recomiucrids that the P & Z grant an Recommendation: exception from full subdivision, excepting only Conceptual approval before City Council. The Oct. 21 P & Z eetinJ was set ,; a nhli� hnaring for Preliminary approval. Further, file I' i.,;u, i; . I ict. ► u:..:. r,cjs the P & Z grant Conceptual anc! F'rel i.ui1t,11y PI,,L ai piuVal subject to the MOM 9Z5 L. Durant Subdivision October 15, 1980 : • Page Two Planning Office Engineering Department conditions: Recommendation, cont.: 1. The applicant shall assure construction.of a side- walk along the Durant Street frontage. 2. the applicant shall provide a trash facility adjacent to the alley in conformance with Section 24-3.7(h)(4). P & Z The P & I., at a regular meeting held on October 21, 1980, Recommendation: approved exception from full subdivision, waiving concep- tu,il approval by City Council (justified particularly because Council had previously seen the revised building location and configuration). P & Z then held a public hearing to consider preliminary plat. Two citizen comments were entered in writing (see attached) and their concerns were considered. 1. Access to parking is from Durant. 2. As much or more noise is generated by tourists as by the residents. 3. Occupancy is restricted under City rental/sale guidelines. 4. P & Z did not feel fences were necessary. The applicant agreet to satisfy both Engineering concerns. The trash area had been redesigned (10 feet by 20 feet, preempting one handicap parking space) to meet Engineering approval. A sidewalk will be constructed. For clarifica- tion, twenty parking spaces will be provided underground. Suggested City Council Motion: Move to approve Final Plat for twelve low-income price - restricted employee studios in a structure at 925 E. Durant (Lots F, G, H, I; Block 119, Aspen Townsite) subject to Engineering Office approval of the following: 1. Owner/applicant shall assure that a sidewalk will be constructed along the Durant Street frontage.. 2. An adequate trash facility shall be provided. GARFIELD & HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW RONALD GARFIELD VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING ANDREW V. HECHT 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE CRAIG N. BLOCKWICK ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 K. ROULHAC GARN RICHARD Y. NEILEY, JR. August 26, 1981 SPENCER F. SCHIFFER The Honorable Herman Edel., Mayor Aspen City Council City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RE: 925 E. Durant Project 12 Employee Housing Units Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers: TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS "GARHEC" At your meeting of August 10, 1981 I appeared on behalf of Hans Cantrup and HBC Investments regarding the application of the proposed moratorium to the referenced pro- ject and regarding a proposed compromise solution to the prob- lem of whether a 50 year or a 5 year deed restriction should be imposed in view of the history of the project. After a discussion during which some concern was ex- pressed as to our objective and the mechanics of the proposal, it was tabled. Since this matter will come up for further discussion at your special review on Fridav, I would like to take this opportunity to elaborate on the proposal and address your specific questions. 1. Why even consider a 5 year deed restriction when the Code currently requires 50 year restrictions? If you would please refer to the attached chronology you will see that this project received a G11P allotment in May of 1978. In anticipation of the proposed RBO ordinance which would have permitted twice the number of employee units, the applicant delayed further processing of the application. This was done not only with the consent, but with the encouragement of the Planning Department and Council which, on Plarch 10, 1980, approved new plans specifically designed to accommodate the additional RBO units. The applicant received the GMP allotment and all ap- provals, including subdivision exception and conceptual and preliminary plat approval based upon a 5 year deed restriction. Despite the fact that the requirement for a 5 year deed restriction was changed to 50 years in February, 1979 it was not until November 24, 1930, 21 months later, at the public hearing on final C� J GARFIELD & IIECHT Mayor Herman Fdel August 26, 1981 Page Two plat approval that the applicant was requested to accept the imposition of a 50 year restriction. He did not accept and the matter was tabled. It is our _position that the law in Colorado as applied to the facts of this case preclude the change in the requirement from a 5 to a 50 year restriction. Apart from the legalities, we submit moreover that it is simply unfair and inequitable. To condone and even encourage a delay and then to penalize for that delay undermines the integrity of our systems and processes. 2. What are we proposing? We are proposing that Council either (a) acknowledge our right to a 5 year restriction; or (b) impose the 50 year restriction with the condition that if, after the first 5 years, there is a foreclosure sale to any 3rd party unrelated in any way to the applicant the unit or units foreclosed would revert to free market status. 3. why do we want the 5 year restriction or the compromise proposal? In order to finance the project the applicant needs to borrow from an institutional lender. Such a lender would make a loan based upon the appraised value of the units. Currently, the difference in appraised value based upon a 5 versus 50 year restriction is approximately $53,000 per unit or $636,000 for the project. The compromise proposal would effectively permit a lender to view the project as if there were only a 5 year restriction since its concern must necessarily be focused on the value in the event of foreclosure. 4. What are the practicalities? From a pragmatic point of view there would be no difference to the City between an outright 50 year restriction and the compromise proposal of a 50 year restriction with the condition that upon a foreclosure the units revert to free market status. In the highly unlikely event that a foreclosure sale actually took nlacle the units could not revert to free market status prior to the expiration of the initial 5 year period. Thus, in the very worst possible case the City would end up with the effective imposition of a 5 year restriction which is all it would have had in the first place, and we submit all it was legally entitled to anyway. • GARFIELD & HECHT Mayor Herman Edel August 26, 1981 Page Three 5. Could the City prevent the reversion to free market status? Yes. In the unlikely event of a foreclosure sale the City would be given adequate notice to cure a default and even the opportunity to redeem the units. 6. flow can we be sure that "the paperwork won't get lost in the shuffle" and the City will actually get notice? Colorado statute requires that notice be given by publication and mail prior to a foreclosure sale by the public trustee. Even after the actual_ sale the grantor of the deed of trust (the applicant) would have a period of 75 days within which to redeem the property. Our proposal would require that the deed of trust contain specific provisions requiring that the _public trustee send all notices to the City of Aspen as well as to any other parties required to be given notice. If there were a foreclsoure after notice and the grantor (applicant) redeemed the units they would still remain deed restricted. If the grantor did not redeem, the City of Aspen would have the opportunity to redeem. Since the deed of trust would be filed for record there would be no possibility for the "papers to get lost in the shuffle" or for anything to happen without the City first having notice thereof. 7. One councilmember expressed concern about collusion or an arrangement whereby the applicant could acquiesce in a foreclosure so as to circumvent the deed restriction. Is this a real oossihility? No. It is absurd to assume that an institutional lender of the stature that the applicant typically deals with would even consider taking part in such a scheme. Nevertheless, even assuming that such a lender and the applicant would be so inclined, the fact that the City could cure a default and even redeem the prop- erty would preclude such a possibility. Simply stated, it would not be worth the risk. Furthermore, if at any time subsequent to a foreclosure sale the property came into the hands of the applicant or any person or firm with which he was in any way re- lated, the deed restriction could be enforced by the City. In conclusion, we feel that special circumstances require special handling of this matter. In our view the City is not losing_ anything and is merely making an accommodation for the legal rights GARFIELD & HECHT Mayor Herman Edel August 26, 1981 Paae Four of the applicant while preserving the public policy. We trust your questions and concerns have all been addressed. If you have any further questions or comments I would be han_py to discuss them with you prior to or at the meeting. Thanks for your consideration. SFS/mis cc: Paul Taddune, Esq. Wayne Chapman Sunny Vann Alan Richman Very truly yours, GAR IFLD & HF HT S_epcer F! Schif_ er t/ / , GARFIELD & HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW RONALD GARFIELD VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING ANDREW V. HECHT 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE CRAIG N. BLOCKWICK ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 K. ROULHAC GARN RICHARD Y. NEILEY, JR. August 10, 1981 SPENCER F. SCHIFFER The Honorable Herman Edel Mayor Members of the City Council City of Aspen, Colorado TELEPHONE (303) 925-1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS "GA R H EC" Re: 925 East Durant - 500 Galena - Residential Project Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of Hans B. Cantrup and HBC Investments we hereby formally protest and object to the adoption of Ordinance #50, Series of 1981, as it applies to the referenced project. Our objection is based on three grounds. 1. The specific problem which created the controversy leading to the proposal of the Ordinance in question was an apparent abuse of the then existing F.A.R. requirements in the RMF District by the construction of "excessively large" duplexes. The record does not indicate, nor are we aware of, any objections with respect to the construction or proposed construction of multi -family projects in that zone district. To impose the moratorium upon multi -family projects which have proceeded, or of necessity must proceed, through the GMP and/or subdivision process-i§ unfair, unnecessary, and clearly inequitable. Since those projects must proceed through a review process, there is a failsafe'mechanism already in place to prevent abuses. Whereas argument could be made on behalf of the necessity for a morator iuK ith respect to duplexes which, if they are on townsite lots, are exempt from the GMP and which are not necessarily subject to the subdivision regulations unless they are condominiumized (which could take place after construction is com- pleted), no such argument could effectively be made with respect to multi -family projects. Moreover, the application of the moratorium to multi -family projects is counter -productive in the sense that it would effectively preclude the construction of much needed low-income employee housing. Specifically, with respect to the 925 East Durant project we would loose 12 low income employee housing units for at least another year and possibly forever. This is clearly contrary to public policy, and should be given much serious consideration. 2. Under Colorado law, where an application has been made for a building permit and prior to the issuance of the permit, the zoning is changed, the applicant is entitled to have his application considered under the law in force at the time of the application (City and County of Denver v. Denver Buick, Inc., 141 Colo. 121, 347 P.2d 919). Not only did the applicant here apply for a building permit in January, 1980, but it began the process of approval by submitting GARFIELD & HECHT a GMP application in January of 1978. Consequently, even if the zoning code were amended pursuant to the moratorium, it would have no effect on this project. Clearly then the application of the moratorium to this project would be arbitrary and capricious. 3. The application of a moratorium to this project is particularly onerous in view of the chronology of events which have resulted in a delay of more than three years since the GMP allocation in 1978. Following the receipt of a GMP allotment for 12 low-income employee units at 925 East Durant and 16 free-market and 1 employee at 500 South Galena the applicant postponed construction in antic- ipation of the passage of the Residential Bonus Overlay Ordinance, which would have permitted the applicant to provide twice the number of employee housing units. Subsequent to the adoption of the RBO an application was made for a building permit on January 29, 1980. However, since the plans had been revised to accommodate the applic- ation of the RBO the building department referred the matter to the City Council. On March 10, 1980, the City Council approved the revised plans. The applicant was then advised that it would have to comply with the subdivision regulations before a building permit could be issued Prior to that time the applicant had been under the impression that s a matter of course, employee housing proje is did not come under the purview of the subdivision regulations. On <27 September 26, 1980 a subdivision applicaition was submitted a on October 21, 1980 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the 925 East Durant employee housing project fora subdivision exception,; conceptual plans, and preliminary plat. On November 24, 1980, the City Council requested as a condition to final plat approval that the applicant agree to the imposition of a 50 year deed restriction on the employee units. Since the applicant had spent considerable time and money on the project in reliance on the 5 year restriction he was unable to accept that condition. Since that date in November of 1980 the applicant has had several discussions with the Planning Department and the City Attorney to arrive at an acceptable compromise solution to the apparent dilemma. Ironically, a reasonable compromise is being presented to you on the very same agenda which contains the proposed moratorium ordinance. In view of the nature of, and circumstances surrounding this project, it is respectfully submitted that the application of a morat- orium which would effectively prevent the project from being built this year and possibly forever is unconscionable. We would therefore request that the ordinance be modified prior to adoption to specifically exclude this project. It is also submitted that it would be the better practice to also exclude any projects which have either gone through or would be required to go through either GMP or Subdivision processing. Very truly yours, GAprney E T . chif r A Han B. Cantrup and HBC Investments cc: Paul Taddune, Sunny Vann, Wayne Chapman 0 • RRADFORD ►UOLIYIIIf4G CO.. D[NYGR R F C OR D OF P R O C E E D ING S _..— ' RESOLUTION NO. 18 (Series of 1980_7 WHEREAS, the City Council is required to establish housing price guidelines in October of each year for consideration in granting points within the terms of the Growth Management Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That within the terms of Section 24-10.4 (b) (3) the following housing price guidelines are adopted for housing which is approved under Section 24-10.4 (b) (3) after the effective date of this resolution until October 15, 1981: Low Moderate Middle Income Income Income Rental Price Sale Price $ .48/sq.ft.. $60.00/sq.ft. $ .63/sq.ft. $71.00/sq.ft. $ .78/sq.ft. $82.00/sq.ft. That within the terms of Section 24-10.4(_b) (3) the following housing price guidelines are adopted for housing which has been approved under Section 24-10.4(b) (3) from October 9, 1978, until the date of adoption of this resolution. Rental Price Sale Price Low Income $ .42/sq.ft. $49.00/sq.ft. Moderate Income $ .55/sq.ft. $58.00/sq.ft. Middle Income $ .68/sq.ft. $66.00/sq.ft. For purposes of condominiumization of existing structures pursuant to Section 20-22, housing price guidelines shall be as outlined in Section 2 above. Housing price guidelines. for new structures shall be the same as outlined in Section 1. • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves C. T. Mn r"`s - -- -= — --- That the above adopted rental price teems do not include utility costs. A landlord may assess utility costs in addition to the rental price adopted. Section 5 That the above adopted rental price terms include the base property tax assessment. Increases in property taxes above those assessed in the base year may be assessed, pro rata, in addition to the rental price adopted. For the purpose of this section the property taxes assessed in the base year will be defined as the property taxes due and payable on the third year following GMP approval on the project or the property taxes due and payable on the second year following the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the project, which- ever is greater. cpn+-; r-ln a The effective date of this resolution is October 15, 1980. As the price guidelines in Section 2 are modified from year-to- year, they shall, as modified, apply to low, moderate and middle income housing previously approved, but Section 1 shall be adopted for applica- tions seeking approval under the Growth Management Planand Condominiumi- nation. Adopted this Q 1 day of 1980. ,- ZC Heinnan Edel, Mayor I, Robin R. Berry, .duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held (��CiPI� , 1980. pz U� P. Robin R. Derry Deputy City Clerk RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW V. HECHT ASIILEY ANDERSON CRAIG N. BLOCKWICK K. ROULHAC GAIN ROBBIE .10 QU IMBY (ADMITTED IN WITNOIS OSI.Y) RICHARD Y NEILEY. JR, Paul Taddune, Esq. Aspen City Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 GARFIELD & HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIA SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 Re: 925 Durant Project Dear Paul: July 16, 1981 0 JUL 171921 ASPEN / PITKIN CO. PLANNING OFFICE TELEPHONE (303) 925.1936 TELECOPIER (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS "GAKHF:CLAw"' Several weeks ago we discussed the referenced project with respect to the question of whether or not a fifty year or a five year deed restriction should be applicable. It was your position that under no circumstances would City Council grant final approval without a fifty year restriction. In response to my suggestion that a fifty year restriction might be acceptable to our client provided that the units would revert to free market status upon a foreclosure, you indicated that such would not be acceptable to the City. ,As a compromise alternative, however, you suggested an approach whereby a reversion to free market status upon a foreclosure would be permiss- ible only after the expiration of five years from the date of the initial conveyance and during which five year period the reversion would be prohibited under any circumstances. As you know, our position is, and always has been, that the five year restriction should apply to this project. It was imposed and accepted by our client on May 8, 1978, the date on which the GMP application was approved by the City, and since that time he has spent substantial amounts of time and money on the project in reliance on that five year restriction. I am enclosing a copy of a letter dated November 20, 1980 to the then acting City Attorney, Robert Grueter, from Andy Hecht which states that position in detail. Although we still maintain the position set forth in that letter, in the spirit of cooperation which I have previously expressed to you on behalf of our client, and in the interest of resolving this problem without further delay we are willing to accept the compromise which you suggested. That is, as a condition to Final Plat approval, our client will accept the imposition of the fifty year deed restriction provided that the deeds and any deeds of trust against the employee housing units contain the.following conditions in addition to the restriction: GARFIELD & HECHT A. If at any time foreclosure proceedings are commenced against the property, the beneficiary under a deed of trust com- mencing such proceedings shall be required, simultaneously with and in the same manner that notice of election and demand for sale is given to the public trustee, to give notice thereof and all other notices required to be given to the City of Aspen Housing Authority. Thereafter, if the property is sold pursuant to the foreclosure proceeding and not redeemed within forty-five days from the date a judgment of foreclosure is entered, the City of Aspen shall then have the remainder of the statutory period within which to redeem the property. If the property is redeemed it shall remain subject to the deed restriction. If it is not so redeemed, then: (1) If it was purchased at the foreclosure sale by the bene- ficiary under the deed of trust at any time subsequent to the expir- ation of five years from the date of the first conveyance of the property, the restriction to employee housing under the low income guidelines of the City of Aspen shall terminate on the date the judgment of foreclosure was entered. (2) If it was purchased at the foreclosure sale by the beneficiary under the deed of trust prior to the expiration of five years from the date of the first conveyance of the property, the restriction to employee housing under the low income guidelines of the City of Aspen shall continue until the fifth anniversary of the date of the first conveyance, at which time it shall terminate. (3) If it was purchased by any party other than the beneficiary under the deed of trust, the restriction to employee housing under the low income guidelines of the City of Aspen shall continue for the remainder of the fifty year period. I think this proposed solution is a fair compromise in that the City would be obtaining, at a minimum, an absolute five year restriction, and for all intents and purposes its full fifty year restriction, while at the same time providing to our client some relief with respect to financing. If you feel that this needs to be presented to Council for thier approval, I would appreciate your placing it on the agenda for the next regular meeting on July 27th. In any event, I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience and suggest that we get together as soon as possible prior to that next meeting. Thank you for your continued cooperation. my SFS/pp cc: Sunny Vann — Hans B. Cantrup GARFIELD & HECHT ATTORNEYS AT LAW RONALD GARFIELD ANDREW V. 11F.CIIT ASHLEY ANDERSON CRAIG N. BLOCKWICK K. ROULIIAC GARN BOBBIE JO Q11114flY (ADA TED W IMM)IS 0M.YI RICHARD Y. NEILEY. JR. Robert P. Grueter, Esq. City Attorney City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Bob: VICTORIA SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 November 20, 1980 _ .a Re: 925 E. Durant Project HAND DELIVERED TELLP110SE (303) 925-1936 TELECOMER (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS "GARIIECLA W" This letter is intended as a request that the City of Aspen not apply a fifty (50) year employee housing restriction on rental and sale price terms (§24-10.4) to Cantrup's 925 E. Durant Project. At the time the City approved Cantrup's GMP Application on May 8, 1978, a five (5) year employee housing restriction was imposed and accepted by Cantrup. Since that time Cantrup has, in reliance on the five (5) year restriction, expended substantial amounts of time and money on the project,. including, among other things, the preparation of all plans and specifications necessary for Cantrup's subdivision application and subsequent application for a building'permit, submitted on January 29, 1980. As a consequence of Cantrup's reliance on the 1978 approval, no alternative plans or uses were considered for the property, and for over two and one-half years no other applications were submitted to the City with- respect to the restrictions and requirements imposed upon that property. Had the fifty (.50) year restriction been a requirement of the initial approval, Cantrup would not have proceeded as he has, and alternatives to the existing plans would have been pursued. The imposition by the City of a fifty (50) year restriction at this late date would be contrary to established principles of law recognized by the courts of Colorado. Spedifically, the doctrine of equitable estoppel, is applicable to the actions of governmental agencies. Denver v. Stackhouse 135 Colo 289, 310 P2d 296. This doctrine bars a municipal body from taking a position contrary to a previous representation made to a party and relied upon by that party to its detriment. Franks v. Aurora 147 Colo 25, 362P2d 501; Crawford v. McLaughlin 172 Colo 366, 473 P2d 725. The doctrine applies whether or not a building permit has been issued; the issue of detrimental reliance is the focus of the inquiry as to whether Oz. GARFIELD & HECHT the doctrine should be applied. In the situation with which we are presently presented such reliance exists, thus, the doctrine is applicable. See Miller v. Board of Trustees of Palmer Lake 36 Colo app 8-5.34 P2d 1232. -The circumstances of., the instant case clearly reveal substantial reliance upon the representation of. the -City that a five (5) year restriction was acceptable, the inequities attendent to the imposition of a fifty (50) year restriction by the City some two and one-half years after initial approval are manifest. In addition, the City is required to apply the zoning ordinance and zoning requirements in affect at the time Cantrup's application was made. The retroactive application of a more restrictive ordinance is impermissable. See City and County of Denver v. Denver Buick, Inc. 141 Colo 121, 347 P2d 919. We respectfully submit that the imposition of the in- creased restrictions on rental and sale price terms to the 925 E. Durant Project would be unjust and would exceed any permissable legal authority. AVH/PP Very truly yours, GARFIELD & HECHT Andrew V. Hecht i I/ro xo iA 4� Ccwf a z S E, - O �� `)) r i� �� - / vim-¢/�yt lJ s 4-P j 2 � o�- � Q'Z�;- [ - DL" aL f TI) CE) �� Zg Bo j Z - to i U lh_1I.d Ice CCU J , Ae57Yi �i l) -- lz4- • ,`��_ �. fur �nf _ io.__�Cpfr_�`�-_l4rp_(1co�v;� --- � GCti T)w—OoZ� ----- ..�� k(3C, d`-_.._._ 7C -(�1c- _._ _I-CglYl+s rcct-1 _nos {O(Ict C� FU 5L.cb � fllo�., �rtcbash as(�r� �r 613grL- _._ o rt _ ._ . _. �j PariCirc� . _ �� rc ccc� CO Lk V� c i 1 ►'yl i n c.2 t-es -+; ► I J Z s E. G lr o ci 4 s -- p L cc+ -For- kale - ._ ��n��rt� . _ . a��l icc�f{crl a(��c� ;�t _ fGc�c c•�prc�va evr1 r CL(A _._7 cCu61e_ ccl r�f(My 6n SU v5._�_ _�tr__._..e�d rP FL, CU6YiSc� tqa-y,_ __v\,et-z $766 .{q_-_... - _ ?11G1F��"e Mr -f'Gr-e.C�S Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Resoltuion #19, Series of 1980, as Councilman Isaac. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Motion carried. SLEIGH RIDES ON GOLF COURSE November 24, 1980 it read; seconded by Parry and Collins. Bob Goode and John Camp had submitted a proposal to have sleigh rides on the golf course. Mayor Edel asked about ruining the golf course. Goode said there would have to be a foot of snow on the course to run a sleigh. Councilman Behrendt asked what happens if damage does occur. City Manager Chapman said they have agreed they will not run the sleighs unless parks director said it is all right. Mayor Edel said he would like this in a limited area of the golf course and also have them post a bond, which would be return- able if there is no damage. 11. Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the contract based on negotiations with the city I manager; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Councilman Behrendt said he would like the staff to make sure there is no conflict with cross-country skiing at the course. All in favor, iI motion carried. ORDINANCE #58, SERIES OF 1980 - Occupation Tax/Liquor Licenses i Mayor Edel related these fees had not been changed since 1974, and that all the city �I permits, fees and licenses should be looked at. Any increases should be related to CPI or cost of living or something. Councilman Isaac agreed this should be consistent and rationale. Mayor Edel said the same formula should be used for all increases. Councilman Parry said the Aspen doubles the occupation tax, the fees will be in line with towns that i have year round businesses. Council set the taxes it $750 for three-way and tavern and club; $500 for beer and wine; $500 for retail and drug; $100 for Arts licenses; $200 for any 3.2 beer license and $150 on extended hours. (Councilman Isaac left Chambers) Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #58, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #58 (Series of 1980) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 4031 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TO RECLASSIFY OPERATORS SELLING AT RETAIL FERMENTED MALT AND ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR AND AMENDING SECTION 4-32 PROVIDING FOR THE INCREASE OF THE ANNNUAL OCCUPATION TAX REQUIRED TO BE PAID PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A LIQUOR LICENSE was read by the city clerk I� Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #58, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried. FINAL PLAT - 925 E. Durant Jolene Vrchota, planning office, reminded Council this project for 12 studio units received a 1978 growth management allotment for employee housing. The final plat has been before Council, after receiving P & Z approval; and Council requested staff find out if the j five year deed restriction could be extended to 50 years. Bob Grueter told Council the 1978 allotment was done as a February 1st date, rather than January 1st. Section 24-10.7 provides an application will lapse if it is not done within two years. In October last year, the applicant came in with a request for an extension.of time to build this project. There is no provision for this in the Code, and Council directed staff to draft an amend- ment to that section allowing for an extension of time. This ordinance was passed i January 28, 1980; this project would lapse February 1st. It was asked that the ordinance be made an emergency ordinance; Council decided it was not an emergency and would take effect February 5th. This left the applicant no procedure to apply for an extension. The Code states in order not to lapse an applicant must submit building plans sufficient for a building permit to be issued. On January 29, plans were filed by the applicant. One opinion of the building department is that the plans were not sufficient to issue a permit. The applicant feels they are adequate. Grueter said if Council takes the position that the plans were not adequate, that is the end of it. The applicant will have to reapply and go through the entire process. Grueter pointed out subdivision has not been granted; building permithas not been granted. The applicant has written letters with j �I his position why the project should continue and why they are entitled to a five-year restriction on the units rather than 50 year. Grueter said some other projects got in with five-year restrictions; Grueter's position with regard to this project is that they were not far enough down the line. IiAndy Hecht, representing the applicant, pointed out plans were submitted with reliance those plans could support the issuance of a building permit. Hecht told Council the applicant kept putting this off because they were relying on an ordinance for a density bonus to double the units. Staff kept telling the applicant this ordinance was imminent. Council told the applicant not to rely on this and to proceed through the process. Hecht said this project went through the process when the requirement for deed restriction was 5 years. The deed restriction requirement is not in the subdivision code, .chic' is where the project is now. Ms. Vrchota told Council the plans were changed in April, and they were changed for the potential of putting an additional structure should they get approval for a density bonus overlay. Councilwoman Michael said she did not feel Council was in a position to judge what Fred Crowley said regarding the sufficiency of the building plans. Hoc`told Council he had a memorandum from the building department; their concern was areas in which the plans deviated from GMP approval. The Council had to review and approve the revised plans in ter-:.s of grcath a--=_rovai. _ .a were not cer. __.. d, at t^at time, =.. plans being sufficient -for a building permit. Councilman Behrendt said with ayfive-,:ear , this ..ea_ _ _s e- - _ ft 29t) Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 24, 1980 i Councilwoman Michael pointed out the Council is constantly put in the position of sitting and judging whether to protect staff or not. Councilwoman Michael asked Grueter to address the question of reliance. Grueter said the document of reliance says you have to be fair; if the city tells someone they can do something, the city cannot come along in the middle and change their mind. Grueter told Council most of the cases in Colorado deal with situations where a building permit was issued. Grueter told Council he had not read all the Colorado cases cited by the applicant's attorney. Grueter said the applicant is relying on the expenditure of funds for architects, etc. along the line. Grueter opined they have not gone far enough through the process to rely on detrimental reliance. Grueter said there are two ways this can go; the applicant may get sent back to square one or the city can try to negotiate. Councilman Behrendt said if the applicant would not change to i 50 year deed restrictions, his vote would be to deny. Councilman Parry pointed out the city approved the project with a five-year restriction and that is how the applicant I continued to plan. Hecht pointed out to Council if an applicant comes in under GMP and l _does not have to go through subdivision, they are home free. Councilman Behrendt moved to table; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION #20, SERIES OF 1980 - 1981 Commercial GMP Allocations Councilwoman Michael moved to read Resolution #20, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Behrendt and Collins. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #20 (Series of 1980) WHEREAS, in accordance with Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1977, September 1, 1980 was established as a deadline for submission of 1981 applications for commerical and office development within the City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, in response to this ordinance, three commercial projects, totaling 40,420 square feet of commercial and office space, were filed for the 1981 � commercial allotment of 24,000 square feet, and WHEREAS duly -noticed public hearings were conducted before the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission on September 23, 1980, and before the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 7, 1980, to consider the Growth Management applications and evaluate and score these applications in conformance with critdria established in Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1977, and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission did evaluate, rank and score the projects submitted in the following order: P and Z HPC Average Average Total Park Place Building (8800 square feet) 18.6 12.6 31.2 Ajax Mountain Associates, #2 (11,120 square feet) 19.5 11.5 31.0 Mill Street Station Mall (20,500 square feet) 18.7 11.7 30.7 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-10.3(a), the Planning and Zoning i Commission has recommended, and City Council concurs, that additional commercial square footage in the amount of 6,000 square feet be added to the 1981 commercial quota, and WHEREAS; City Council also wishes to utilize 10,420 square feet of prior years'I unallocated quotas in order to approve all three projects, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, hereby allocates commercial development allotments to the Park Place Building in the amount of 8,800 square feet, to Ajax Mountain Building, #2, in the amount of 11,120 square feet, and to Mill Street Station Mall, in the amount of 26,500 square feet, and that these projects are authorized to apply for any further development approvals required by the City of Aspen to secure building permit AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 4,719 square feet of addtional commercial construction authorized in accordance with Section 24'-10.3(a), in conjunction with the 1980 allotments, be subtracted from the remaining unallocated quotas of prior years. ij Councilman Parry moved to adopt Resolution #20, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Collins and Behrendt. Motion carried. I ORDINANCE #54, SERIES OF 1980 - Nicholson Rezoning to RB i Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the public hearing. Sunny Vann, planning office, pointed out the Council had requested the unit be deed restricted to "low income"; this has been changed in the ordinance. Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance #54, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE 454 (Series of 1990) AN CR IN ;'C D I?;G DISTRICT �12AP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, SEC. "_'4-2. 2 BY CHANCING THE Z=:1NG OF LOTS C, D, AND THE WEST 1 /2 OF E, BLOCK 61, CITY :..._ =C, _.___.. __7 FROM R/MF to R/MF RB • r • CITY01.7 ASPEN 130 sioui i ;;alena street aspen, colorado 81611 303-925 -2020 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 21, 198i TO: Members of City Council Wayne Chapman, City Manager Sunny Vann, Planning Director FROM: Paul Taddune RE. Proposed Aiaendwent to R/MF Zonc Moratoriura Crdinancz (No. 5u) to Provide Special Review for Pending Applications in the Approva- Process As you know, several applications presently in and substantially through the approval process will be affected by the imposition of the moratorium in r_ne-RIMF zone anu any resultant changes in the underlying height, area and caulk requirements. These applications fall basically into two categories: 1. Multi -family projects such as Ute City Place, 927 Durant and 1U15 East Hyman Avenue which have received Growth Management allotments and are pending finai plat approval in the sub- division and/or PUD process. 2. Single-family and/or duplex projects, such as the Ed Baker project, which are riot required to go through Growth Manage- ment, subdivision or PUD approval procedures and were submit- ted to the Building Department for permits prior to the pas- sage of: the resolution authorizing administrative delay. All of the above applications were designed and submitted in expectation that the projects would be governed by the height, area and bulk requirements in effect at the time of their subinis- si', and a change in these requirements at such a late stage in the process would dramatically affect the projects in terms of financing and redesign costs and, in some instances, providing employee units for the City. The Planning Diiector nas advised me that since the R/MF zone has been designed with the idea or facilitating multi -family project, many oL which will provide employee units, and since the multi -- family projects, by necessity, undergo extensive 'review through 0 Memo to City Council, Wayne Chapman, Sunny Vann August 21, 1961 Page Two the Growth Manayeiucnt and subdivis ion/PUD pros-ss he i«ost likely would not reco,iimend substantial changes in the R/MF zone require- ments as they pertain to multi -family projects. In this sense, the multi -family projects whicn have been reviewed to date would satisfy not only present but, with little modification, probably tuture R/MF requirements. On the other hand, the residential/ dupiex projects which are not required to go through an in-depth review process and at present may take advantage of area, height and bulk requirements intended for multi -family projects, are becoming inappropriately bulky. Future requirements as to these projects should be orougnt more in line with the requirements presently in effect or contemplated in the residential zones. You have previously received my advice that land use legal issues such as equitable estoppel, vested rights and temporary taking giving rise to compensatory and possibly punitive damages are evolving in the courts. Depending on the way such issues are structured in the light of a particular factual situation, your actions in abruptly halting a pro3ect which is substantially througn tii,! process miynt arise in liability on the part of the City. Underlying these concepts is the attitude expressed by the courts that governing Bodies must act fairy in regulating land use and that the judiciary must intervene in such matters to pre- vent perceived injustices. Additionally, it must be -recognized that a property owner nas a clear right to make reasonable use of his land and, with this, goes the right to construct improvements. Absent a complete change in the district, which would make most of the existing dwelling non-contorming, any future underlying height, area and bulk requirements must allow a property owner in an R/MF zone to construct some type of residential dwelling. As a means of fairly accommodating those projects presently in the process, several people have suggested amending the moratorium ordinance on second reading, to establish a special review exeiipt- iny those projects which are substantially compatible with the needs of an R/MF zone. One of the persons proposing such an amendment is Mr. Al Bloomquist, a member of the P&Z and a profes- sional planner, who is one of the tew residents in the R/MF dis- tel-ut wno appeared at the public hearing and enthusiastically spoke in favor of the moratorium. Annexed in this regard is a letter from Mr. Bloomquist wnich recently was published in the Aspen Times. Similarly, such an amendment has also been proposed by attorney Ron Austin on behalf of his client, Ed Baker, as appears in his letter to Council dated August 19, 1981. In anti- cipation that a special review exemption is allowed, Mr. Austin • • Memo to City Council, Wayne Chapinan, Sunny Vann August 21, 1981 ' Page: Three has also submitted an application for special review, which pro- poses to substantially reduce the bulk of the building one and one -halt feet on all sides and lower the height in line with what is presently allowed in the residential districts. This would create a side yard setback of 14 1/2 feet on each side as opposed to the 5 feet setback currently allowed. In view of the fact that Mr. Baker's design plans have already been drawn and submitted, I perceive this to be a ma3or consession on his part and a viable means of avoiding the uncertainty of litigation. Should you desire the proposed amendment, I have redrafted Ordin- ance No. 50 so as to include an exemption upon special review. In Mr. Baker's case, I have been told that time is of the essence and I would suggest that Councii hold a special meeting at the earli- est possible date to consider whether his modified application, as well as the other pending applications, should be exempted. You should also note that I have excluded the subdivision of land from the moratorium language and suggest that you also incorporate this proposed amendment into the ordinance on second reading. PJT.mc Attachments 3 • RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Fact m C. r. HOECXFL e. e. a L. co. ORDINANCE NO. 50 ( Series of 1981) AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING A THREE (3) MONTH TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE THE CONSTRUCTION AND/OR EXPANSION OF ALL BUILDINGS WITHIN THE R/MF ZONE DISTRICT WITHIN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, the City Council is in receipt of a petition from residents of the R/MF zone district of the City of Aspen, com- plaining that structures within the R/MF zone district are being constructed with excessive bulk, area and height, and WHEREAS, the -City Council has conducted a site inspection of the R/MF zone district and has determined that the existing bulk, area and height requirements for said district may be inappropri- ate, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City of Aspen to review the existing provi- sions of the zoning ordinances of the City of Aspen as they per- tain to the R/MF zone district, and WHEREAS, the establishment of a moratorium on the construc- tion and/or expansion of all buildings in the R/MF zone district for a period of three (3) months will enable the Planning and Zon- ing Commission and the City Council to study and, if necessary, consider changes to the zoning ordinances of the City of Aspen as they pertain to the R/MF zone district, and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to impose a three (3) month temporary moratorium on the construction and/or expansion of ail buildings in the R/MF zone district pending its review of the present requirements of the R/MF zone district and the considera- tion and implementation, if necessary, of any changes therein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: RECORD OF PROD' EEDINGS 100 Leaves Fo % C. I. MOECXFL S. S. A L. CO. That for a period of three (3) months from the effective date hereof, a moratorium is hereby imposed.on the construction and/or expansion of all buildings located within the R/MF zone district. That pursuant to aforesaid moratorium and during a period of three (3) months from the effective date hereof, the Building Inspector is hereby airected not to issue any permits to construct and/or expand any buildings located within the R/MF zone district of the' City of Aspen. con+- i r%n 2 The City Council may by resolution exempt a pending applica- tion from the restrictions of this moratorium if, .upon special review after considering the recommendation of the Planning Department, the City Council finds that the bulk, area and height of a proposed new building or expansion of an existing building is reasonably compatible with the needs of the R/MF zone. It is the intent of this section that the multi -family projects be reviewed in the context�of existing multi -family requirements and that the single-family and/or duplex projects be reviewed in the context of existing requirements in the residential zones and contemplated changes suggested by the Planning Department in the height, area and bulk requirements for such single-family and/or duplex pro- 3ects in the R/MF zone district. Section 4 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or por- tion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconsti- tutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves POW V C. E. MOECNEL I. B. A L. CO. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1981, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by law by the .City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its regular meeting held at the City of Aspen on , 1981. Herman Edel Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved on the day of 1981. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch City Clerk 10, Herman Edel Mayor 3 q-8 The Aspen Times Oust 20, 1981 ` • Page 2 i our no oa rs �, * a • rmf moratorium ments in all residential zones. These representatives should each be ready to work hard during xt three months to make Dear Editor: the ne The ordinance creating a sure the new bulk requirements moratoriutn of three months in are appropriate to each and every d. the RNI Zone should be amended Aspen neighborhAl an Blomquist f to exempt projects that have Aspen, Colo :) cleared the GJIP process, with those projects specifically named , in the ordinance upon recommen- i dation of the planning staff and concurrence by city council. The moratorium is just for the RMF Zone, and clearly justified because that is where the developer/builders have concen- trated their efforts and where the results can now be seen. However, there is also some activity in the R-6 and other residential zones, and the lax bulk regulations in all R zones should be corrected dur- ing the moratorium. The problem needing solution is less the problem of density (units per acre) than it is the problem of bulk (size, height, blocking sun c and views, site coverage). ! There seems to be a small but steady market for duplex units i and single family units in the 1 three-quarter million dollar price l range. For a duplex grossing one 3 and one-half million dollars the developer can thus afford to pay - up to one-half million dollars for the site. - This economic fact is the cause r of the current problem and trend 3 to buy up Victorians and anything - else under $500,000, bulldoze them, and build new duplexes big i enough to attract the second home buyer with three-quarter million. The answer is, within the city, to zone for smaller buildings (less i bulk) on our small city lots, and I force such big residential build- ings onto bigger lots (two acres or F more) elsewhere. That is what the RMF Moratorium is all about. The city council has toured (on foot) the "Shadow :Mountain 1 neighborhood" and experienced 3 the new bulk levels in both the I RMF and R-6 zne. Council under- stands. However, the developer/ s builders appeared in force last . i Monday with lots of eloquent lawyers, and only a handful of neighborhood folks showed up. I s don't urge a mob scene at the next o council meeting, but I do urge each neighborhood to study the 1 trend, consider the problem, and s have an informed and rational g representative present at the next ' mur.cil meeting to support pas- sage of the RNIF .'..ontorium, and e the revision of the bulk require - le • • • 925 Durant Project Subdivision Exception INTRODUCTORY 1. Project Name: 2. Location: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Ila • Parcel Size: Current Zoning District: Zoning Under Which Application is Filed: Maximum Buildout Under Current Zoning: Total Number of Units Proposed and Bedroom Mix Size of Units: Rental Restrictions: Projected Population 925 Durant Project Lots F,G, H, I: Block 119 City of Aspen 12,000 sq.ft. RMF, City of Aspen RMF, City of Aspen 12 Studio units/24 Studio units with housing overlay rezoning 12 low-income studio units in one building Studio employee unit @ 425 square feet each Studio employee units rented in accordance with low income price guidelines as adopted by the City of Aspen 18-24 resident employees • • Hans B. Cantrup • P.O. Box 388 Aspen, Colorado 81611 25 September 1980 Ms. Jolene Vrchota Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Jolene: This application is made on behalf of Mr. Hans Cantrup with respect to four townsite lots located at 925 E. Durant Street. These are lots F, G,H,I, on block 119, located in the City of Aspen. An exception from the subdivision regulations of the City.of Aspen is hereby requested pursuant to a Section 20-19 of the Aspen Municipal Code in order to permit the development of twelve (12) multi -family price restricted units on these four Aspen Townsite lots. In accord- 0 ante with subdivision exception requirements conceptual approval is also requested at this time for these twelve units that are deed re- stricted to low-income rental units. Approval at this time would allow for proceeding before City Council for final plat approval. These units were part of a winning G.M.P. application in 1978. They were awarded the residential development allotments and were authorized for construction pending this additional approval in Resolution No. 11, Series of 1978. Submission of plans were made in a timely fashion, in accordance with Section 24-10.7, but progress was delayed by the Park dedication fee language being amended by the city attorney's office. This amendment, resolved last week, now allows for proceeding with this application. The following grounds are offered in support of the subdivision exception request: First, the proposed project has been reviewed under, and approved for, residential multi -family dwelling units under the Growth Management Plan. Consequently, the proposed division of land does nothing in and of it- self to violate the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the City of Aspen, nor civic public services to be provided by govern- mental improvement programs, nor does it violate any of the stated purposes of the Subdivision Regulations as the same are described in Section 20-2 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. 0 • Letter to Jolene Vrchota 25 September 1980 Page 2 Second, the property involved consists of four lots under a single ownership within the original Aspen Townsite to be used for multi -family dwelling units in an existing R.M.F. zone. Consequently, no additional purpose would result in requiring the owner of property to comply with the strict applications of the provisions of the City of Aspen Sub- division Regulations. Third, the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the area as any additional density on the site is not permitted under the current City of Aspen Zoning Regulations without going through a rezoning' application and review process. It is noted that the City of Aspen has recently approved and adopted the establishment of a Housing Overlay Zone through Ordinance 16, Series of 1980. City Council has also passed an exception from the Growth Manage- ment Plan for those projects which are divided such that seventy percent (70%) of the Housing constructed is deed restricted within the terms of • Section 24-10.4 (b) (3) by way of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1980. As a result, it is intended that a new application will be submitted in the near future for an additional twelve units on the Durant property. These units will be matched with five free market units on the 500 S. Galena project site. The forthcoming application will utilize the housing overlay zone as well as the 70:30 program. The Durant and Galena sites constituted one G.M.P. application that was approved in 1978. This subdivision exception application is made separate from the forth- coming applications for timing purposes. While it may have been easier from a general concept view to have combined these applications, the long delays already experienced and the oncoming winter season require immediate review of this application if we are to begin excavation and construction this year. It is the intent of the owner to begin exca- vation and construction of these first employee housing units as soon as approvals are given. The combining of the two applications would further delay the construction functions of these initial twelve units, and is the reason for maintaining separate applications. • • Letter to Jolene Vrchota 25 September 1980 Page 3 Along with this letter is a check in the amount of $50.00 representing payment of the subdivision exception fee. In addition, attached is the information necessary for conceptual review and approval as re- quired by Section 20-10 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. As time is of the essence, your immediate consideration and review of this subdivision exception would be greatly appreciated. Should there be any questions or more information desired, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours Mark A. Danielsen C. C] • • RKE 'STAT104 M7LIGE STKTION H16HWAY SZ� �� tINN STKE INEX15T1N& MALL v Rule' rAKK �kmo \\ FOIfTE Q Yl2f 2�d�Yb �fzi:��S'6$ i „- GOMMEKCIAL COKE 91 KE` (EWTX/MXTI-FAMILY sm KC --A PF J A- (o ® KE51GEWA_ 15 • 1 M PffxirUN.0 Vicinity Map o�-p 400 -1 END 5T. DJ5 STOP fTTfMnT.iiiT1TV f 1 _...i..,F �IG4fT AVENUE i ncQj fT 51TE III I I I I KCJWIW9 FOKK II 0 —GLM HA.E PARK PKorMED GIN T"L • a is �\•Jrti+�r� K Jx .. � III �.. •.�••\ r � rt-rr �. RUBI ~� ti X WAGN! r! v 'I _ m num PROJECT LOCATION MAP 0 200 400 800 ALPINA HAUS 25 Durant Project HOLE 500 So. Galena Project • 0 TYPICAL UNIT PLAN OFi 925 DURANT PROJECT 425 S.F PER UNfT �1 1 u w u a 0 2 4 J 0A f 0 L) m CL SOUTH ELFVATIC)N a 0 5 10 15 25 40 CIT� 130 s riper January 25, 1978 Mr. Larry Yaw Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd P.O. Box 2736 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 925 Durant Project Lots F, G, H, I : Block 119 Dear Mr. Yaw: It is my understanding that the 925 Durant Project is the Employee housing portion of a Growth Management Plan Submission and as such includes 12 studio units. The project site is served by a 6" C.I.P. water main along Durant Avenue, which terminates approximately 130 feet east of the project site, on Durant Avenue. Two existing hydrants, No. 105 and No. 106, are located approximately 215 feet and 150 feet, respectively, from the project site, and they have tested static pressures of 90 psi and 82 psi, respectively. After reviewing the development proposed for this project, it is my determination that an acceptable level of water service can be provided by the existing system. V ry trul yours, ames J. Markalunus 0 January 25, 1978 Mr. Larry Yaw Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd P.O. Box 2736 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 925 DURANT PROJECT LOTS F, G, H, I: BLOCK 119 Dear Mr. Yaw: I have reviewed the development proposal for the above referenced project with regard to fire protection. It is my understanding that the Project is the employee •housing portion of a Growth Management Plan submission yJ which will include (12) studio units on two levels. The two nearest fire hydrants, No. 105 and No. 106, are located within 200 feet of the project site and have tested static pressures of 90 psi and 82 psi, respectively. The location of fire hydrants relative to .this project permits good fire coverage with adequate pressure levels. The site plan indicates that fire vehicles will have good access to the Project from both Durant Avenue and the alley behind the Project. The location of the Project relative to the fire station permits the prompt response time necessary to deal with fire related problems. It is my opinion that the development proposed for this site poses no foreseeable deficiencies related to fire protection. Very Truly yours, (Willard C. C apper • Chief, Aspen Volunteer Fire Department AMEN SANITATION DIS*ICT P. O. Box 528 Tele. 925-3601 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • January 30, 1978 Mr. Larry Yaw Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd P. 0. Box 2736 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: PROPOSED 925 DURANT PROJECT Dear Mr. Yaw: I have reviewed the subject project with regard to the quality of sewer service available to the proposed building development. It is my under- standing that this project is the employee housing portion of a Growth Management Plan submission and as such, is comprised of (12) studio units. The project is presently served by an 8" sewer line, in serviceable con- dition, located in Durant Avenue adjacent to the project site. The pres- ent sewer plant capacity is 2.0 million gallons per day (M.G.D.) of which capacity is presently utilized to the extent of 1.569 M.G.D., or at 75% of capacity. A new addition to the plant in 1980 will increase plant capacity by an additional 1.0 M.G.D. Applying the Colorado State Department of Health standard of 100 gal/day/ person to project occupancy standards of 2.0 persons per studio unit, the total project would generate 2400 gallons of waste water per day. This would add less than 1/7 of one percent to the utilization of present capacity. Due to the uncertainty of the total number of proposed units and their locations under the Growth Management Plan, the total impact of the approved units on the collection sewer lines can not be evaluated until such time as the information for all projects under the Growth Management Plan is available. There presently exists sufficient plant capacity to treat the proposed project. If there are any questions, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Heiko Kuhn District Manager, • Aspen Sanitation District • Oct 13, 1980 Planning and 'Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena Street City Hall Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Commissioner; This letter is with regard to the hearing to be held at 5:00 pm on Tuesday October 21, 1960 regarding the request to have 12 price restricted studio employee units at 925 S. Durant Street. I havebeen an owner of an Aspen SilverGlo condominium unit since it was built in early 1971. This complex is,A2mctb�t directly behind the proposed site for the twelve studio units. I recognize the Need for employee housing in Aspen but I would hope that the Commission would take steps to minimize the potential Negative aspects that could take place by having such a complex almost immediately opposite the Chateau Snow, North Star and Aspen SilverGlo complexes which offer rentals to those visiting this fine city from throughout the United States and world wide. Specifically if this request is approved I would hope that the Commission would insure that the following is adhered to: 1. There is an occupancy restriction for each of the twelve studio units. I presume that there is a maximum of two occupants for each unit unless there shall be a family with a child. 2. insure that the parking plan for the studios enters and exits on S. Durant Street and not E. Dean Street. 3. provide a remedy for noise problems in the event that there are late evening parties and 4. require that the complex has a fence so that tourists renting the above mentioned complexes may have privacy. I would also hope that if this project is approved that the o,ener would work closely with the builder of the twelve unit - to insure that there would be a minimum of windows in the project facing the complexes named above so as to minimize any noise Problems that -may occur. I am sorry that I am unable to be present for the meeting. I hope serious consideration will be given to the concerns outlined above. Si e 1 y Robert A Dean Ph-D P.O. Box 80953 San Diego, Ca. 92138 0 • • 0 CONDOMINIUMS P.O. BOX 9260,"ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE: 303/925-8450 Planning & Zoning Commission City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 61611 Gentlemen: October 20, 1980 This letter is being written to you on behalf of the Silverglo Condominium Association in reference the preliminary subdivision application for 925 S. Durant. We support the employee housing application. However, as an adjacent short-term tourist facility, we would like to see esd �ign considerations that would minimize any negative impacts on our owners and guests. Our concerns are as follows: 1. Parking and access Our dumpster is located at the end of a dead end a ey which we share with North Star Lodge and Chateau Snow. We would like to see access to parking for this project off of Durant Street versus the alley to guarantee clear access by Aspen Trash. 2. Privacy Our facilities include an outdoor heated pool. We are constantly "visited" by our neighbors in the surrounding residential ape.rtments who attempt to use our facilities. We are planning to fence the perimeter of the property. We would like to see the same requirement for the Carntrup project. 3. Noise As a tourist facility, we maintain a management (lice on -site. If any of our neighbors have problems with our guests, we are the point of contact. Vie are naturally concerned with the reverse situation. We would like to be protected as much as possible from noise impacts. This could be explored in the unit designs themselves. At the very least, we would. like to see a resident manager with whom contact could be made in case of disturbances. 0 0 - 7 - In general, we see a conflict of mixing tourist and non-toursit use. In this case we are particularly concerned because of the proximity to our property. However, we support this project because of community need but would appreciate the cooperation of the Cantrup's and the City government to see that our interests are protected. Sincerely, Neil J. Benn t Managing Agent M■ • • Aspen/Pitkara Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, e0lnrado . 81611 November 3, 1980 Mark Danielsen H.B.C. Properties 420 S. Galena Suite #2 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: Residential Bonus Rezoning and 70:30 Exemption Application for the 925 E. Durant and 500 S. Galena Projects Dear [lark: This memo is issued to confirm the items discussed and conclusions reached during our meeting on October 30, 1980. The Durant and Galena sites have always been considered as one project, the Durant site serving as the employee portion of the total application. The Durant site is zoned R/HF, and the Galena site (zoned L-2) allows residential multi-family.diwellings as permitted uses. These sites were the subject of a 1978 GMP application for 12 low-income employee studio units at Durant Avenue and 17 units at Galena Street consisting of one employee and 16 free market units, The GMP application was awarded the residential development allotment requested and was authorized to proceed with construction via the appropriate review process under the City Council Resolution No. 11, Series of 1978. It is understood that HBC Properties has recently been given approval for subdivision exception, conceptual plans, and preliminary plat by the Aspen P&.Z Commission for the original 12 units on the Durant site. City Council will consider final plat approval at its November 10, 1980 meeting. The Planning Office understands that, as stated in your Durant subdivision exception application, it is now your intention to apply for an additional 12 employee units (to be price restricted for 50 years) on the Durant site (for a total of 24 units there) in conjunction with an application for 5 additional free market units on the Galena site. This application is made possible by using the Residential Bonus (R.B.) Overlay (under Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1980) rezoning and the 70:30 exemption process (as allowed under Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1980). These ordinances now allow for the appli- cation to be reviewed and processed in the following manner: 1. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1980: Residential Bonus Overlay: A. Determination of number of units using minimum lot area required per dwelling unit, section 24-10.5(b)(5). Mark Danielsen November 3, 1980 • • Page 2 1. Durant site, RMF zone, 12,000 sq. ft. lot, 500 sq. ft. require- ment per studio unit. l2000i5OO = 24 studio units allowed. 2. Galena site, L=2 zone, 21,600 sq. ft., 500 sq. ft./studio, 625 sqo ft./one bedroom. 21600=625 = 34 one bedroom units allowed. However, it is understood that this applica- tion requests 21 one -bedroom units of approximately 1262 sq. ft. each, plus one employee studio unit of 500 sq. ft. B. Determination of size of units using external FAR requirements of 1.25:1, section 24-10.5(G)(5). 1. Durant site, 12000 sq. ft. X 1.25 = 16,000 sq. ft. usable FAR less the 12 original units totaling 7,000 sq. ft. leaves 9,000 sq. ft. for the remaining 12 units of this application. 9000:12 = 750 sq. ft. per studio unit allowable size later limited by Housing Price Guidelines. 2. Galena site, 21600 sq. ft. X 1.25 = 27,000 sq, ft. usable FAR.less 500 sq. ft. employee unit = 26,500y21 one bedroom units = 1262 sq. f+o per one bedroom units allowed. 2. Ordinance No. 20, Series 1980: Exception from GMP requirements for projects that provide for deed restricted units in a 70:30 ratio: A. Minimum 70% deed restricted units under price guidelines required. Durant site: 12 deed restricted units. Galena site: 5 free market units. Ratio 12:5 = 70:30. This ratio meets the requirement of the ordinance. B. Recommendation only, for minimum 50% floor area devoted to deed restricted units. Durant site: 12 deed restricted units totalling 7000 sq. ft. Galena site: 5 free market units of 1262 sq. ft. totals 6310 sq. ft. The deed restricted portion of the total project thus exceeds the floor area recommendation of the ordinance. C. Recommendation only, for maintaining an average of 1.5 to 2.0 bedrooms in the deed restricted portion of the project. The Durant site consists of 12 studio units which minimizes impacts on the particular parcel of land and surrounding neighborhood. The Durant site also addresses itself to a segment of the market (those who prefer studio units) that has not been addressed fully in other projects, such as Hunter Long - house and the Water Plant project. These considerations are seen to be overriding factors in terms of the ordinance's general recommenda- tions. D. Compliance with adopted housing plans. The Durant site addresses itself to the need of studio units as stated in the adopted housing plan. No one project can address the needs of the entire community; rather, it is preferable in terms of cost efficiency, to aim indivi- dual projects to particular segments of the market, in this case to employees desiring small low-cost units, Mark Danielsen November 3,1980 • • Page 3 3. Housing Price Guidelines and units size requirements stipulating maximum unit size for which rent can be charged. Studio units Low Income Rent Unit Size 8 sq. ft.� 400-600 sq. ft. The deed restricted Durant studio units of 455 sq. ft. meet these require- ments. Summary: Consequently,the 1978 GMP approval coupled with the new application meets the requirements of Ordinances No. 16 and 20, both series of 1980. As the appli- cation meets the specific requirements of the Overlay and GMP exception as herein discussed, you may continue with the application for the required review approvals. Such application shall include discussion of all other aspects of the ordinances. There are three ways to handle the application under the review process. Subdivision exception could include only conceptual presentation and approval by the Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Commission, immediately followed by final plat review and approval by City Council. This method is feasible, but not likely to be approved, as indicated by the P&Z on Tuesday, October 21st, when the commission reviewed subdivision for the first 12 studios on the Durant site. P&Z approved this subdivision exception (waiving only conceptual before City Council), but also strongly stated that more detailed review would be required in any future applications. The second application is a modified subdivision exception review. A modified exception process could allow for the waiver only of conceptual review before City Council. The procedure would be Conceptual review and approval by P&Z, Preliminary review and approval by P&Z, and final plat review and approval by City Council. This method is possible, but also not probable, as indicated by the P&Z in that meeting. Based upon P&Z comments, the most likely process to be approved would be to go through full subdivision review. This method requires conceptual review and approval by P&Z, and City Council, Public Hearing and Preliminary review by P&Z and, Final Plat review and approval by City Council after first and second reading for rezoning to Residential Donus Overlay. I hope this clarifies the interpretation of the ordinances as they will be applied to your application, and outlines the probable review process required. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, Jolene Vrchota Assistant Planner Aspen/Pitki N.I} -ming Office 130 south galena street aspect, colorado 81611 November 3, 1980 Mark Danielsen H,B.C, Properties 420 S. Galena Suite #2 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Re: Residential Bonus Rezoning and 70:30 Exemption Application for the 925 E. Durant and 500 S. Galena Projects Dear Mark: This memo is issued to confirm the items discussed and conclusions reached during our meeting on October 30, 1980. The Durant and Galena sites have always been considered as one project, the Durant site serving as the employee portion of the total application. The Durant site is zoned R/11F, and the Galena site (zoned L-2) allows residential multi -family dwellings as permitted uses. These sites were the subject of a 1978 GMP application for 12 low-income employee studio units at Durant Avenue and 17 units at Galena Street consisting of one employee and 16 free market units. The GMP application was awarded the residential development allotment requested and was authorized to proceed with construction via the appropriate review process under the City Council Resolution No. 11, Series of 1978, It is understood that HBC Properties has recently been given approval for subdivision exception, conceptual plans, and preliminary plat by the Aspen P&Z Commission for the original 12 units on the Durant site. City Council will consider final plat approval at its November 10, 1980 meeting. The Planning Office understands that, as stated in your Durant subdivision exception application, it is now your intention to apply for an additional 12 employee units (to be price restricted for 50 years) on the Durant site (for a total of 24 units there) in conjunction with an application for 5 additional free market units on the Galena site. This application is made possible by using the Residential Bonus (R.B.) Overlay (under Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1980) rezoning and the 70:30 exemption process (as allowed under Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1980). These ordinances now allow for the appli- cation to be reviewed and processed in the following manner: 1. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1980: Residential Bonus Overlay: A. Determination of number of units using minimum lot area required per dwelling unit, section 24-10.5(b)(5). Mark Danielsen November 3, 1960 • • Page 2 1. Durant site, RMF zone, 12,000 sq. ft. lot, 500 sq. ft. require- ment per studio unit, 12000:500 = 24 studio units allowed. 2. Galena site, L'2 zone, 21,600 sq. ft., 500 sq. ft./studio, 625 sq. ft./one bedroom, 21600a625 = 34 one bedroom units allowed. However, it is understood that this applica- tion requests 21 one -bedroom units of approximately 1262 sq. ft. each, plus one employee studio unit of 500 sq. ft. B. Determination of size of units using external FAR requirements of 1.25:1, section 24-10.5(G)(5). 1. Durant site, 12000 sq. ft. X 1.25 = 16,000 sq. ft. usable FAR less the 12 original units totaling 7,000 sq. ft, leaves 9,000 sqo ft. for the remaining 12 units of this application. 9000-12 = 750 sq. ft. per studio unit allowable size later limited by Housing Price Guidelines. 2. Galena site, 21600 sq. ft. X 1.25 = 27,000 sqo ft. usable FAR.less 500 sq. ft. employee unit = 26,500s21 one bedroom units = 1262 sq. ft. per one bedroom units allowed, 2. Ordinance No. 20, Series 1980: Exception from GMP requirements for projects that provide for deed restricted units in a 70:30 ratio: A. Minimum 70% deed restricted units under price guidelines required. Durant site: 12 deed restricted units. Galena site: 5 free market units. Ratio 12:5 = 70:30. This ratio meets the requirement of the ordinance. B. Recommendation only, for minimum 50% floor area devoted to deed restricted units. Durant site: 12 deed restricted units totalling 7000 sq. ft. Galena site: 5 free market units of 1262 sq. ft. totals 6310 sq. ft. The deed restricted portion of the total project thus exceeds the floor area recommendation of the ordinance. Co Recommendation only, for maintaining an average of 1.5 to 2.0 bedrooms in the deed restricted portion of the project. The Durant site consists of 12 studio units which minimizes impacts on the particular parcel of land and surrounding neighborhood. The Durant site also addresses itself to a segment of the market (those who prefer studio units) that has not been addressed fully in other projects, such as Hunter Long - house and the Water Plant project. These considerations are seen to be overriding factors in terms of the ordinance's general recommenda- tions. D� Compliance with adopted housing plans. The Durant site addresses itself to the need of studio units as stated in the adopted housing plan. No one project can address the needs of the entire community; rather, it is preferable in terms of cost efficiency, to aim indivi- dual projects to particular segments of the market, in this case to employees desiring small low-cost units. Mark Danielsen November 3, 1980 • • Page 3 3. Housing Price Guidelines and units size requirements stipulating maximum unit size for which rent can be charged. Studio units Low Income Rent Unit Size '8 sq. ft. 400-600 sq. ft. The deed restricted Durant studio units of 455 sq. ft. meet these require- ments. Summary• Consequently -.the 1978 GMP approval coupled with the new application meets the requirements of Ordinances No. 16 and 20, both series of 1980. As the appli- cation meets the specific requirements of the Overlay and GMP exception as herein discussed, you may continue with the application for the required review approvals. Such application shall include discussion of all other aspects of the ordinances. There are three ways to handle the application under the review process. Subdivision exception could include only conceptual presentation and approval by the Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Commission, immediately followed by final plat review and approval by City Council. This method is feasible, but not likely to be approved, as indicated by the P&Z on Tuesday, October 21st, when the commission reviewed subdivision for the first 12 studios on the Durant site. P&Z approved this subdivision exception (waiving only conceptual before City Council), but also strongly stated that more detailed review would be required in any future applications. The second application is a modified subdivision exception review. A modified exception process could allow for the waiver only of conceptual review before City Council. The procedure would be Conceptual review and approval by P&Z, Preliminary review and approval by P&Z, and final plat review and approval by City Council. This method is possible, but also not probable, as indicated by the P&Z in that meeting. Based upon P&Z comments, the most likely process to be approved would be to go through full subdivision review. This method requires conceptual review and approval by P&Z, and City Council, Public Hearing and Preliminary review by P&Z and, Final Plat review and approval by City Council after first and second reading for rezoning to Residential Bonus Overlay. I hope this clarifies the interpretation of the ordinances as they will be applied to your application, and outlines the probable review process required. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, Jolene Vrchota Assistant Planner • CITY OF Dom, 2, 3/ (qgo MEMO FROM JOLENE VRCHOTA �, 2!5� -,,6 L- ASPEN ;* • 3 . G� / s -� Ao--� �{ z w� -u,-4 C7::�5 — P.� .9, S 0 i3 p IV t S1 o�j .4- Pre 0 • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Aspen City -Council FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office RE: 925 E. Durant Subdivision - Conceptual/Preliminary DATE: October 15, 1980 APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR CITY COUNCIL: Zoning: R/MF Location: 925 E. Durant (Lots F, G, H, I; Block 119, Aspen Townsite) Lot Size: 12,000 square feet roject, consisting of 12�employee Request: This multi -family p price-restricted studio units, received a 1978 GMP allot- ment in conjunction with free market units to be located at 500 S. Galena. While P & Z saw the Conceptual appli- cation at the time of GMP, it has been revised and shown only to City Council. All multi -family developments are required to gain subdi- vision approval prior to receiving a building permit. The applicants at this time are pursuing such subdivision appro- val. They requested an exception from full subdivision w� (Conceptual before P & Z,JFinal Plat before City Council). Note that the applicants will separately, in the near future, pursue a Residential Bonus Overlay rezoning for this property in conjunction with a 70:30 project to be located on the same two sites. The RBO rezoning has lead to the change in siting for the building at 925 E. Durant. This subdivision approval is requested separately in the interest of time. Engineering The Engineering Department recommends that the applicants Comments: be excepted only from City Council Conceptual approval so that a public hearing will be held and referral com- ments obtained at the P & Z Preliminary phase. Exception approval recommended subject to conditions in attached memorandum (October 14, 1980). Attorney's No comment received. Comments: Rocky Mtn. No problem. Gas in Durant St. available to project. Nat. Gas Comment: City Water Dept. No further comments necessary. See letter dated January 25, Comment: 1978 in application. Miscellaneous: No new comments were received from: Housing Director City Electric Mt. Bell Planning Office The Planning Office recommends that the P & Z grant an Recommendation: exception from full subdivision, excepting only Conceptual approval before City Council. This meeting (Oct. 21) has been set as a public hearing for Preliminary approval. Further, the Planning Office recommends the P & Z grant Conceptual and Preliminary Plat approvalvsubject to the eiccad Memo: 92!) L. Durant Subdivision October 15, 1980.• • Page Two Planning Office Engineering Department conditions: Recommendation, cont.: 1. The applicant shall assure construction of a side- walk along the Durant Street frontage. 2. The applicant shall provide a trash facility adjacent to the alley in conformance with Section 24-3.7(h)(4). z U rL PI& d T� � rq" _S / L �G _ oc�l' •a �Oa—�� . LLJ�, ��z.e..� �r�L/K�`-�-G' rah G� 2- 16 -3 0 • 130 so '" >tree aspen, 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office .� DATE: October 14, 1980 RE: Subdivision Exception Application Lots F, G, H, and I, Block 119 (925 E. Durant), Aspen Townsite Having reviewed the above subdivision exception application to construct a multi -family dwelling, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: This application to construct twelve studio units in a 12,000 square foot lot falls within all RMF requirements in terms of lot area, setbacks, etc. The only further require- ments that should be included in any subdivision agreement would be as follows: 1. Some assurance that the owner/applicant will construct sidewalk along the Durant Street frontage. 2. Provision of a trash facility adjacent to the alley in conformance with Section 24-3.7(h)(4) set parallel to the alley ten feet deep by twenty-five feet long. The facility shown is inadequate. The Engineering Department recommends approval of the 925 E. Durant Subdivision Exception provided the owner/applicant complies with Items 1 and 2 above. • • 925 Durant Project Subdivision Exception INTRODUCTORY 1. Project Name: 2. Location: 3. Parcel Size: 4. Current Zoning District: 5. Zoning Under Which Application is Filed: 6. Maximum Buildout Under Current Zoning: 7. Total Number of Units Proposed and Bedroom Mix: 8. Size of Units: 9. Rental Restrictions: 10. Projected Population: 925 Durant Project Lots F,G, H, I: Block 119 City of Aspen 12,000 sq.ft. RMF, City of Aspen RMF, City of Aspen 12 Studio units/24 Studio units with housing overlay rezoning 12 low-income studio units in one building Studio employee unit @ 425 square feet each Studio employee units rented in accordance with low income price guidelines as adopted by the City of Aspen 18-24 resident employees i 0 • 2.5 September 1980 Ms. Jolene Vrchota Planning Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Jolene: Hans B. Cantrup P.O. Box 388 Aspen, Colorado 81611 This application is made on behalf of Mr. Hans Cantrup with respect to four townsite lots located at 925 E. Durant Street. These are lots F, G,H,I, on block 119, located in the City of Aspen. An exception from the subdivision regulations of the City -of Aspen is hereby requested pursuant to a Section 20-19 of the Aspen Municipal Code in order to permit the development of twelve (12) multi -family price restricted units on these four Aspen Townsite lots. In accord- ance with subdivision exception requirements conceptual approval is also requested at this time for these twelve units that are deed re- stricted to low-income rental units. Approval at this time would allow for proceeding before City Council for final plat approval. These units were part of a winning G.M.P. application in 1978. They were awarded the residential development allotments and were authorized for construction pending this additional approval in Resolution No. 11, Series of 1978. Submission of plans were made in a timely fashion, in accordance with Section 24-10.7, but progress was delayed by the Park dedication fee language being amended by the city attorney s office. This amendment, resolved last week, now allows for proceeding with this application. The following grounds are offered in support of the subdivision exception request: First, the proposed project has been reviewed under, and approved for, residential multi -family dwelling units under the Growth Management Plan. Consequently, the proposed division of land does nothing in and of it- self to violate the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the City of Aspen, nor civic public services to be provided by govern- mental improvement programs, nor does it violate any of the stated purposes of the Subdivision Regulations as the same are described in Section 20-2 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. Letter to Jolene Vrehota ' 25 September 1980 Page 2 Second, the property involved consists of four lots under a single ownership within the original Aspen Tcwnsite to be used for multi -family dwelling units in an existing R.M.F. zone. Consequently, no additional purpose would result in requiring the owner of property to comply with the strict applications of the provisions of the City of Aspen Sub- division Regulations. Third, the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the area as any additional density on the site is not permitted under the current City of Aspen Zoning Regulations without going through a rezoning' application and review process. It is noted that the City of Aspen has recently approved and adopted the establishment of a Housing Overlay Zone through Ordinance 16, Series of 1980. City Council has also passed an exception from the Growth Manage- ment Plan for those projects which are divided such that seventy percent (70%) of the Housing constructed is deed restricted within the terms of Section 24-10.4 (b) (3) ey way of Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1980. As a result, it is intended that a new application will be submitted in the near future for an additional twelve units on the Durant property. These units will be matched with five free market units on the 500 S. Galena project site. The forthcoming application will utilize the housing overlay zone as well as the 70:30 program. The Durant and Galena sites constituted one G.M.P. application that was approved in 1978. This subdivision exception application is made separate from the forth- coming applications for timing purposes. While it may have been easier from a general concept view to have combined these applications, the long delays already experienced and the oncoming winter season require immediate review of this application if we are to begin excavation and construction this year. It is the intent of the owner to begin exca- vation and construction of these first employee housing units as soon as approvals are given. The combining of the two applications would further delay the construction functions of these initial twelve units, and is the reason for maintaining separate applications. el 0 • Letter to Jolene Vrchota , 25 September 1980 Page 3 Along with this letter is a check in the amount of $50.00 representing payment of the subdivision exception fee. In addition, attached is the information necessary for conceptual review and approval as re- quired by Section 20-10 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. As time is of the essence, your immediate consideration and review of this subdivision exception would be greatly appreciated. Should there be any questions or more information desired, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours Mark Mark A. Danielsen i } ' I 7-77-771 rM '5TAT'04 rCuCE %Aro4 H194W Emm* MAU $K� NO. L LjKl Oft MIN, WAbtrcX MICK % -,CtRX N T ERD ST. 11 M STor RMT AvEwLr= ftjMT 5tTT-: OAM* FOKK If OtM HaZ rA-K rrDrv-r-p CITY -Ty TrAIL GOMMErmAL coKE KE9DEfTrX/NULTt- FAMILY KENCDrA- Ir, Vicinity Map ado 800 4.. 'A i ROARING Ft In ---_ j --- :.,: 925 Durant - Projoct —77 W; �1 GLORY HOLE _ _Ll_U L___L_12`L•• • yr � PROJECT LOCATION! MAP 0 200 40v 800 h • 1 • .j 7 _ .II`! WEST END ST. Site Plan 925 DURANT AVE. PROJECT 0 10 20 40 so -1 OLD ONE HUN R(D 11 1 1 CONDOMINIUM 0 0 K TYPICAL UNIT PLA OR D 1 234 U 10 15 925 DURA. VT PROj ECT 425 B.F. PER UNfT II r. r. CITY't"'`..� SP 130 sstreet . aspen y: �: .�;� 81611 January 25, 1978 Mr. Larry Yaw Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd P.O. Box 2736 Aspen, Colorado 81611 e RE: 925 Durant Project Lots F, G, 11, I : Block 119 Dear Mr. Yaw: It is my understanding that the 925 Durant Project is the Employee housing portion of a Growth Management Plan Submission and as such includes 12 studio units. The project site is served by a 6" C.I.P. water main along Durant Avenue, which terminates approximately 130 feet east of the project site, on Durant Avenue. Two existing hydrants, No. 105 and No. 106, are located approximately 215 feet and 150 feet, respectively, from the project site, and they have tested static pressures of 90 psi and 82 psi, respectively. After reviewing the development proposed for this project, it is my determination that an acceptable level of water service can be provided by the existing system. V ry trul yours, Ames J. Markalunus • January 25, 1978 Mr. Larry Yaw Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd P.O. Box 2736 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 925 DURANT PROJECT LOTS F, G, H, I: BLOCK 119 Dear Mr. Yaw: 0 A I have reviewed the development proposal for the above referenced project with regard to fire protection. It is my understanding that the Project is the employee housing portion of a Growth Management Plan submission which will include (12) studio units on two levels. The two nearest fire hydrants, No. 105 and No. 106, are located within 200 feet of the project site and have tested static pressures of 90 psi and 82 psi, respectively. The location of fire hydrants relative to .this project permits good fire coverage with adequate pressure levels. The site plan indicates that fire vehicles will have good access to the Project from both Durant Avenue and the alley behind the Project. The location of the Project relative to the fire station permits the prompt response time necessary to deal with fire related problems. It is my opinion that the development proposed for this site poses no foreseeable deficiencies related to fire protection. Very truly yours, Wiltard C. Clapper Chief, Aspen Volunteer Fire Department �I 1� i J 01 ASION SANITATION DISTOCT 11. O. Bo: 528 Tele. 925-3601 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 January 30, 1978 ' Mr. Larry Yaw Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd P. 0. Box 2736 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: PROPOSED 925 DURANT PROJECT Dear Mr. Yaw: have reviewed the subject project with regard to the quality of sewer service available to the proposed building development. It is my under- standing that this project is the employee housing portion of a Growth Management Plan submission and as such, is comprised of (12) studio units. The project is presently served by an 8" sewer line, in serviceable con- dition, located in Durant Avenue adjacent to the project site. The pres- ent sewer plant capacity is 2.0 million gallons per day (M.G.D.) of which capacity is presently utilized to the extent of 1.569 M.G.D., or at 75% of capacity. A new addition to the plant in 1980 will increase plant capacity by an additional 1.0 M.G.D. Applying the Colorado State Department of Health standard of 100 gal/day/ person to project occupancy standards of 2.0 persons per studio unit, the total project would generate 2400 gallons of waste water per day. This would add less than 1/7 of one percent to the utilization of present capacity. Due to the uncertainty of the total number of proposed units and their locations under the Growth Management Plan, the total impact of the approved units on the collection sewer lines can not be evaluated until such time as the information for all projects under the Growth Management Plan is available. There presently exists sufficient plant capacity to treat the proposed project. If there are any questions, please contact this office. Very truly yours, Heiko Kuhn District Manager, Aspen Sanitation District '�i � 6 0 - L"� x & I, �- - �'� --- I � / Z- r �o 6zs i • j 92S��..v S-f: /rll�ro O,WWL-::-j -+ � 4 1 2- �p1 1, Z5 • .0 1. DATE SUBMITTED: qI Z 2. APPLICANT: CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen r No. 5S- cl✓ STAFF: �OI��e UrC� ova 3. REPRESENTATIVE: 4 DM1dSWi -- 4. PROJECT NAME: %LS , 5. LOCATION: 9 Z5 E 1) 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning P.U.D. Special Review Growth Management HPC 7. REFERRALS: _Attorney Engineering Dept k Housing Water X City Electric X Subdivision Exception Exemption 70:30 Residential Bonus Stream Margin 8040 Greenline View Plane Conditional Use Other Sanitation District School District Fire Marshal Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Parks State Highway Dept. Holy Cross Electric Other _Mountain Bell 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: �� Cc kLC- - 2a 0-(� E t, al PLLJ!�: 1 9. DISPOSITION: / •� q P & Z Approved V Denied Date Of: Z . ! 9 C—) 'lYc'tit..- .411 1 -SiJh j6V / sq 41✓ /fay Council Approved Denied Dates 10. ROUTING: _Attorney X Building X Engineering X Otherovs�� Ceti <; • e� U Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Water, Jim Markalunas City Engineer, Dan McArthur City Electric Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Mt. Bell City Housing, Jim Reents FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office RE: 925 E. Durant Conceptual/Preliminary Subdivision Application (Subdivision Exception) DATE: October 1, 1980 The attached application requests subdivision exception for a 12 unit, price - restricted multi -family structure at 925 E. Durant (Lots F, G, H, I of Block 119, Aspen). Hans Cantrup received a GMP allocation for this project but it never received subdivision approval. The exception procedure which P & Z will be asked to approve will include con- ceptual and preliminary plat before P & Z, teen final plat before City Coun- cil. This item has been scheduled for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on October 21, 1980; therefore, please submit your written. comments no later than October 14, 1980 (Monday). Thanks. /ttrC"f-4 "_�r ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: JOLENE VRCHOTA - PLANNING OFFICE FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS SUBJECT: 925 E. DURANT CONCEPTUAL/PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION DATE: OCTOBER 8, 1980 No further comments necessary. See my previous letter of January 25, 1978, which is included in the applicant's package. • ng Of f ice ,reet 1611 TO: City Attorney City Water, Jim Markalunas City Engineer, Dan McArthur City Electric Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Mt. Bell City Housing, Jim Reents FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office RE: 925 E. Durant Conceptual/Preliminary Subdivision Application (Subdivision Exception) DATE: October 1, 1980 The attached application requests subdivision exception for a 12 unit, price - restricted multi -family structure at 925 E. Durant (Lots F, G, H, I of Block 119, Aspen). Hans Cantrup received a GMP allocation for this project but it never received subdivision approval. The exception procedure which P & Z will be asked to approve will include con- ceptual and preliminary plat before P & Z, then final plat before City Coun- cil. This item has been scheduled for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on October 21, 1980; therefore, please submit your written comments no later than October 14, 1980 (Monday). Thanks. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: Preliminary Subdivision Application - 925 S. Durant NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, October 21, 1980, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, City Hall, Aspen, to consider a preliminary subdivision application for a multi -family structure (12 price -restricted studio employee units) submitted by Hans Cantrup for property located at 925 S. Durant. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 298. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION s/Olof Hedstrom Chairman Published on October 2, 1980 in the Aspen Times. Bill to the City of Aspen account. TO: Clayton Meyring FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Offic RE: 925 South Durant (Hans Cantrup) DATE: September 16, 1980 As I understand, Hans Cantrup has applied for a building permit for 925 South Durant -- 12 studio units to fall under the County's housing price guidelines. The definition of subdivision includes: 20-3(s)(2) "A tract of land including land to be used for condominiums, apartments, or any other multiple dwelling units." A permit should not be issued until a final plat has been completed and recorded, THE 825 OUHAI`1 AVENUE' PRGJECT� COPLAND HAGMAN YAW LTO. ARC-HITECT9 �` • to 925 E. Durant Project 1. Old Hundred Condominiums Contact: Olaf and Carolyn Hedstrom P.O. Box 4815 Unit 107 Building C Aspen, 00 2. Vagabond Lodge Brass Bed Associates DBA Vagabond Lodge 926 E. Durant Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 3. Sepp H. and Jane Kessler P.O. Box 33 Aspen, Colorado 81611 4. Westside GondonUxdums Nathan Landow 4710 Bethesda Avenue Bathesda, Maryland 20014 • i�•� • - • o+•"d • - 5. North Star Partners D.B.A. North Star Lodge 914 Waters Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 6. Silverglow Condominiums Silverglow Condominium Associates P.O. Box 9260 Aspen, Colorado 81611 7. Alpine Haus c/o Hans Cantrup P.O. Box 388 Aspen, Colorado 81611 8. Chateau Snow a) Walter O. Wells 21550 Lake Street Cassopolis, Michigan 49031 b) Alta Loma Investment Company Raleigh Enterprises 8560 Sunset Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90069 925-7279 16 units � after 6 p.m. or before 9 a.m. Re: Chateau Snow Condo Unit #101 Condo Unit #102 9 apart Tent units �. oNc Owout& 8 rental units total - under one owner. 24 lodge rental units 24 condominium units 7 condominium units Adjacent Property Owners* Page 2 • c) Thomas A. Spain Old Orchard Road Armonk, new York 10504 d) Avilla B. Bates 15 E. 2300 Riverside Drive Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114 Unit #201 Unit #202 e) Bates Lumber Company Inc. Box 7095 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104 Unit #203 f & g) Hooligan Properties Unit #301 23880 W. Eight Mile Read Unit #302 Southfield, Michigan 48034 Ccn-E in 5 Jc kbctl v i5 too �KC� ��lvr1 APpI I Ca-�for Coc oo-c( 5l sec - P*- Z h �-(ep -6-on A(2Prov41 be-+lar- on Ka) 1- -703n acli ocpi+ lartdowrier le-Aer Ci fy fi--+tom-�y M-evno 4c — va1 9M E rnorccfory'u#j l-efcLOM(6� on _sv os s y r. aCQ?d rfs-Er i CH'vcl 16 r O-mp I , cart i 6 oZ►nF H i3 c otqect csr c(riorata C(Uw�LI iml n u1�5 b n 5 Lkb. tale p-h o� P-QsoLc.eh'c)n +o ex-enj p-(= q2s t{ -(row 2 nF- mo(a6rlce4r,,- w W G" C.S- w E. G SEWER MAN HOLE 13ASIS OF D6ARNG C40.0 ) CG000') 90,08 �-MANKE 68�08> I pISTuR�ED CITY MoK I_ 0 -r 1= 4 7 w DURANT, AVE. s 5 e, vcP s CN75- C>q' 1\"VV I20.00 ) 12.0. lro T.13-M O -,F- L OT F I LOT G �,♦�,♦I• I ♦ up 40 �- ♦ ♦ I . i h Q 2 3 1 111 1` �36 I 34 G. coop- 0 z w o �� pU R/aNT AVE. iili Tl r I VVATL•RS AVE . l VICINITY MAP TRACE? 1-RON\ ANNEXATION MAP, ASPEN, COLD. SCALti 1" = 400' CONDOMINIUM MAP OF 925 DURANT AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS A PROPOSED 1y UNIT CONDOM1t-11VM SITUATED ON LOTS r, G,t-A [ M \N 131-OCK 119 ASPCN TOWNSITE, CITY OF ASPEN, CAl-O RA00. LOT H / LOT I I • I • • I ,o t InIL OF osMr P � P Ei,EC. TFLE f CApiE T.V. PESMAN S. CLEVELANO ST V A G A7-U--T 0 7 r, 0 0 J 0 0 m 0 p W 0 T 0 Q T SCALE I INGH = 10 FEET o 1O 20 a e as LEGEND & NOTES FOUND SURVEY MONUMENT -.5 RE6AR AS 0ESCRIf3Ep $ TOWER POLE WATEt2-.IN1r : SIZE E L,OGATION FROM MASTER MAP S— SEWER LINE- FIELtc) l OGATED —,O GAS LINE- S17-E 4 L.00ATIori FROM ROCKY M rM. NATURAL- GAS CO- CAL.t,S IN ) ARE RECORD r-ROM 1959 OFFICIAL pt,AT OF THE CITY Or- AsPEN SUTZVF-y ORICN7F-0 \NI`YH FOUND MONUMt=NT>S t SET SP1K-H --T.125-M. 100g - ELEVATION IOATUNI PLANE AROtTTiAtiY - CON-roUT2. I NTERVA6_ 1 , FOOT". i. -' -.. 'e:.: �g�� 2 -.- ': >_. -., e ..., _......_ .., ., .,.., .n, ,.. , r ;._.. , c_. ,. .v.:.::, r s- .. .. :. ...�- .. is 3 ... ..,.: OWNER'S CERTIFICATE HANS B. CANTRUP AS OWNER(S) OF LOTS F,G,H, 8 T BLOCK 119, CITY 8 TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT OF THE 925 DURANT AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PURPOSES STATED IN THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR SAID CONDOMINIUMS DATED THIS DAY OF AND RECORDED IN BOOK _. ON PAGE OF THE RECORDS OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF PITKIN , STATE OF COLORADO. STATE OF COLORADO OD S.S. COUNTY OF PITKIN THE FOREGOING OWNERS CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF O 19_,BY HANS B. CANTRUP AS OWNER(S). Q — cO or� O O rr) WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL _ Lr) N J O � MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: NOTARY PUBLIC U N X cy) DATE O Z m W O cn O v SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, DAVID W. MC BRIDE (SURVEY ENGINEERS, INC.), A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR, HEREBY CERTIFY AS FOLLOWS IN NOV. 1979 A SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION, OF LOTS F,G,H &L BLK. 119, ASPEN STATE OF COLORADO, AND FOUND THEREON AM (TO BE SURVEYED ) LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES OF SAID DESCRIBED PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THIS ` PLAT (BASED ON THE FIELD EVIDENCE SHOWN AS FOUND). THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF THE V BOUNDARY LINES, BUILDING, AND IMPROVEMENTS, IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN ON THIS MAP, AND THE MAP ACCURATELY AND SUBSTANTIALLY DEPICTS THE LOCATION AND fHF HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL MEASURSEMENTS OF THE BUILDING, THE CONDOMINIUM UNITS THEREIN, THE UNIT DESIGNATIONS THEREOF, THE DIMENSIONS OF SAID UNITS, AND THE ELEVATIONS HIED FLOORS AND CEILINGS. DATE DAVID W MC BRIDE, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY 0 161 _9 ; ((l-1•/ STATE OF COLORADO s s. COUNTY OF PITKIN THE FORGOING SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE_ ME THIS DAY N Lli , 198_ BY DAVID W. MC BRIDE z— WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL MY COMMISION EXPIRES:_----- _ NOTARY PUBLIC I �� DATE PLANNING & ZONING APPROVAL W THIS PLAT OF 925 DURANT AVE. CONDOS. CITY OF ASPEN, WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING 8 ZONING COMMISION THIS _ DAY OF—,---,, 1980. -- AAA— — IJj ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL A > Ir- THIS PLAT OF 925 DURANT AVE. CONDOS. ,CITY OF ASPEN, WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN THIS __ _ DAY OF __ _._ , 1980. ATTEST ---------- J CITY CLERK MAYOR CITY ENGINEERS APPROVAL THIS PLAT OF 925 DURANT AVE. CONDOS. ,CITY OF ASPEN, WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING, THIS --DAY OF _ _ 1980. r rn TY ENGINEER CLERK & RECORDER'S ACCEPTANCE W V LL ACCEPTED FOR FILING IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF W PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO, AT OCLOCK—.M.,THIS .--DAY OF _—,198-- � IN PLAT BOOK _ AT PAGE RECEPTION NO. CLERK AND RECORDER INDEX SF-IEET 1 - GERTIFIcgTES CXISTING SITE CONL71TtONS \/1 GIN 1TY 1\/1A5� C SEE DRAWINGS 1=0i2 PROPOSLO SITE Pt AN e 1=LCCR. Pt_.ANS, F-LaVATIONS QRC- PARE iJ 9 %3 D/ ec, JOB NO. SHEET I OF 1 1 9a2`f-g I` i 'm ALLE>' MOTE: ' FC e' L177?- /7y f/Op E - Up SEE �ECf/�N/Csl L 5f/EE7" M- / _SITE PLAN R SCALE: 1 /8 1 -0 O H /ssU� 4 -25 -80 AM3 w PESMAi�I O 24 GLEV ELAND ST. VACATED )T H I L 07 I DOWER POLE