HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.925 E Durant Ave.1980
.,
0~'._: .
.",'\,../ ~ -t
..... "
.~,
Regu lar t-leet ing
Aspen City C0UllCil
!'-!arch 10, 1980
REQUEST FOR BUILDING PE;.~HT - 925 Durant Employee EOllsing Project
Sunny Vann, planning office, told Council that 925 Durant is the employee housing portio"}
of a project which received residential Gr>1P allocution in 1978. Their allocation is
about to expire and they submitted construction drawings in order to secure a building
permit. In reviewing the request for a building permit, the building departmentnQ~iced.
differences from the original submission; held back on the permit and referred the project:
to the planning offices. Vann stated the code reads that any applicant awarded development
allotment deviating in essential elements from the original proposal, the pianning office
shall be notified and shall notify Council. Vann said the question is what is an essential
elementi the Code is not specific. The planning office has agreed that those items scoredj
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. jl
I
,
PJZ!qUest for
building permit
925 Durant
Elnpla.fce
halsing
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 havo changed the score and a detriment to
the process itself. The planning office does have some problem with the fact this is a
completely different building. Vann pointed out that design itself is not scored as part .i
of the residential process; however, he is of the o~inion that it cannot be separated fromi
t.hat process. Vann told Council that originally th(~ applicant did not receive sufficient ~i
pointsi 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 :1
close enough. 1
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. Coun~ilman Van Ness said he felt two things:
are important; (1) the reason for the changes, and (2) whether the changes in terms of ~j
GMP scoring criteria are beneficial or detrimental - whether the project would get more :1
or less points. Councilman Van Ness said he felt that putting half the parking undcrgroun8
would have a different visual impact but would be a beneficial change. Anderson told
Council on the energy change, when the building devartment reveiwed the plans, the units
were facing east and west. Now the units are all facing south like they are supposed to.
Councilman Van Ness concluded unless someone could claim this would get less the score on
Gt-1P grading, these changes are beneficial. Ms. Smith st<J.tcd Council has to decide in
each circumstance whether it is a beneficial change and whether it would have .1ffectcd
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 I.
working with the applicant that the changes can be mitigated such that, to their satis-
faction, the applicant I s score would not be changed to the dGtrimcnt of another applicant-:!
Vann said the broader question is the code does not address design of the project in tllE'
scoring process. The original building occupied all t_he site; the new building is on :1
one corner of the site allowing for another building which would accorrunodate 12 more units'~
I'
All in il
"
!,
"
!i
"
I
,
I
j
"
Councilman Isaac moved to approve the changes; seconded by Councilwoman Hichael.
favor, motion carried.
~~INANCE #80, SERIES OF 1979
W.H.O.P. Annexation and Rezoning
City Attorney Stock told Council this
annexation is completed as there is a
could not be addressed until
problems with contiguity.
the Opal Marolt
Orc!. 80, 1980
W.H.O.P.
Annexation
Councilman Van Ness moved to continue the second reading until April 14, 1980 i seconded b.i::
Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #7, SERIES OF 1980 - Water Plant Housing SPA
Mayor Pro Tem Behrendt opened the public hearing.
Behrendt closed the public hearing.
There were no comments.
Mayor Pro Tern
Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #7, Series of 1980~ seconded by Councilman
All in favor, motion carried.
I;
,I
"
Parry -:~
Ord. 7, 1980
Water Plant
SPA
ORDINANCE n
(Series of 1980)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE 'vATER PLANT SITE ACCORDING 'I'D AN APPROVALED
SPECIALI,y PLANNED AREA HASTER PLAN FOR THE SITE, "THE ELEMENTS OF WHICH
MASTER PLAN WILL CONS'rITU'fE THE DEVElrOPNENT REGULATIONS FOR 'fHE 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 npplicatioIl by the city for 80 units
of rental housing on city-owned property adjacent to the hospititl. The SPA as approved
allows for the R/MF area to co\~er the site proposed for the housing. The ::est of the
site '~:ill be Public i:or Lhe ".:c:tcr p13Lt. ana open O'_);,lCe.
Council\-\7oman Michael movECd t.o ad0~)t Ordinance 47, Series of 1980 on second readingi
seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll caJ 1 vot.e; CC!llJ:cilner:1bers Isaac, ayei Michael, aye
Parry, aye; Van Ness, aye; i'1ayor Pro 'l\-,;n Eehre:Lit, A.ye. Motion carried.
Reents re01..1est_ed Counci 1 aD'L~ 0'..'2 s'..:bidi_':i s on e;':(';'~)L j,on for .,:- c' proj ect \d th the conci t.ic:1
that if at any poi:>t i:-; tLe- '.;t-,i1"e the :;'1-0 ect C"C":0S i:: for cC;16c;7",i;-:,i.l-"~iz~tion, it be
rcc~uired to ::~ect. tl:e :<.111 su ji\:ision I'C"'..] r(":-:"(-.,,'
'"
'"
......
....J
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 requesLing
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..
yo~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
1
I
,
,
Location or description of property:
Location: L F r. H Ill' 1 9 '
. . ots. ", , , B oc. 1 C1.ty of Aspen 925 East Durant Street
Descr:Lpt:LOn: 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)
Te~srary Permanent
Will the applicant be represented 'by Counsel ? Yes X No
THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
BY Remo l,avarrnino r."';::lirm:ln
Virginia M. Beall, Deputy City Clerk
..I. .
APrfl\i./"") [;JI\~Li or lO:lJ UG I\DJUS I iY""j r
" -~
CITY OF ASPEr!
DA H f'lay 20, 1982
CASE NO.
APPElLArn H.B.C. Investments
ADDRESS 450 S. Galena St. Suite 202
-~ven, Culuradu B16!1
Hans B. CantruD
PHOIIE
ADDRESS P.O. Box 388
OWNER
Aspen, Colorado 81612
LOCATIO~j OF PROPERTY Lots F,G,H.I, B10xk 119 City of Aspen
.0<
925'East Durant Street
"Street' '" ';umber of Subdivision 81k, ? I t I' )
\ - .0'--;0.
Building Permit Application and prints or any other gertincnt
data must accompany this application, and will be made part of
CASE rIO,
THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT ODES NOT CO~;AIN
ALL THE FACTS I N QUEST IOrio <
DESCRIPTIO:: OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOHIr!G JUSTlFICATln;'IS:
.
This appeal is made under Section 2-21(3) of the Aspen Hunicipal
Code (P. 153) for a three foot heigh't variance on the R.B.G< porti'~n
of the project. This low income employee project has been master-
planned to accommodate a total of LWenty-four (24) employee units since
1978. Planning and Zoning Resolution 81-18 initiated new height and
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
.t:9 fhe attachments which are an integral part of this appl~cation<
10111 you be represented by counsel ? Yes_2~_)I(l_/__ ,< < . /
SIGIIED:A~k'~> .f; ('--I' t v/~ /-'
< peTIdilt Hans 8< Cant~up- I
.. ==:;
PROVISIO~S OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDI~G 1~~rEcr~R
TO FOR~~RD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASO':
FOR NOT ~~~:.1:NG:
\~ ~ ~~\ll\&' M~~lJ-':" ~(~~ 2-d~J...
~ ":l..y. -+0 d-S-~, O~ 'b-2.-\ \ ) ~~cO UA"'-',. 2.'-11 ('li-'L
~ ~\J-~ ~ -:L<ir' \.-v L~'
,
~~.
StJtus .
~
PERMIT REJECTED, DATE
APPlIC~TION FILED
DECISION
DATE IF HEARING
~DA TE
MA lL E D
-
.
SECRETARY
,.....
.""..,..
.-...
-
APPEAL TO TIlE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTNENT
CITY OF ASPEN
Appellant: H.B.C. Investments
Owoer: Hans B. Cantrup
Dea r Cha i rman:
Ap<pellant/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 t\~elve (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 hlo
site G.M.P. application, the other site bein9 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. II, 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
employee guidelines (as given in Section 24-11.4(b)(3). The 925 East
-
{
i
, i'
, .
< ,.
<'
--
"'-'
--..
.."",,
Appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustments
City of Aspen
H.B.C. Investments
Page 2
Durant Project well meets those guidel ines, 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, providing 24 employee units. On Harch 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 accommodate the additional
12 units received via the R.B.O. zone.
.
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 City Counc~
, ..-t ,hi.. t>& ~~
enacted a construction moratorium in the RMF 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 ro~F zone and implementation of the 35%
open space requirement. Approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission
in resolution No. 81-18, the ~eight 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
f
1'1
.
, ,.
"
,,-...
'-
-
--
Appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustments
Ci ty 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.a. 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.a. zone have not been
exempted. As the R.B.a. portion of the project has been anticipated,
planned 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.a. units some two years age, which included
improving the project by placin9 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.a. units and underground
parking garage to be placed on the site to complete the ~laster Plan of the
project. As the excavation permit 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 enjoyment
of a substantial property right but is currently denied because of the above
special and extraordinary circumstances. As the granting of this variance Vii 11
allow the continued ability of the appellant to provide additional low incon:e
employee housing units, such approval ~Iill enhance the general purpose of the
comprehensive general plan and the public policy goals of this cor:munity.
.
j
I
i
(
n
,
.
, ..
"
"
,,,....
~
Appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustments
City of Aspen
H. B. C. I nves tments
Page 4
Due to the above facts and special circumstances outlined above. it
is respectfully requested that a three foot height val'iance 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,
~~ /7 .{~#~
. ----
Mark A. Danielsen
.
f
,
. ,
"
,
<'
::.',
't
-\
"
-~'
,
i
:-:-,
,
.
- .-._-"j<. '- ..~,.~~~",...::.. - ..... ""'- .,
.,^,.
-..
'-'
.....,......
-.-.:, . ~. ,-.
.i.... ___~ ""^ '~".4~--",'-"_.'"
~.~ .;.:-:.......-.
""" '.... ... ,~" "m<, _m~", "" . \
Council exempts three proiects
from construction moratorium
Three projects were exempted
from the construction
moratorium in the city's RMF re-
sidential multiple family) district
and one was tabled during a con-
tinued regular city council m~t~
ing last Friday,
Projects exempt.'<l by the coun-
ci I were the 10 15 East Hyman pro-
ject with five unit. wtal, the 925
East Durantdevelo;>ment with 12
employee units.
Both projects had previously
been scored by the planning and
zoning commission for GMP allo--
cations and h..'ld recei\'ed. their al.
locations from the city council.
,
AL.:;o given an exemption Friday
was the Ed Baker duplex on
Hyman Avenue adjacent to the
Chalet LiseL It was explained
that Baker had amended h is pi ans
w reduce the height ad 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 Rlso pre\'iously received a
GMP allocation,
The council w,. told that the
applicant, CM Clark, was in the
pro..;ess of reevaluating the de-
velopment and asked that the
exemption application be tabled
unti 1 the &:opt 14 ml'"eting.
Alsoapprovcd (or th~ 1015 Eost
the 50-vear Tl'::itriction if the unit~
would' revert to fr(>e-markei t
st~ltU::, aft.t:'r five years in casl' ('.,;
fo:'('clo...ure. \
At a previous meeting th{'('Oun-
cil had expr....:-:">ed di~~lpproval of }I\
the propo~t..d deed rt::i'triction ,
qUitlification and Friday votL>d \
final plat approval with a straight ~
50-yt:';1r deed restrict llHl for the 12 f
unll.." (of t'mplnyee hou~lllg. t
i
r-""~".,..-.,.,........~'r-----~---~...~.
Hyman p~oject was subdivision
exception to ~xempt tht.' two
employeeuniL..; [r("lm the G~IP aqd
to permit condominium conver-
s ion.
The developmt:'tlt co\"er~ addi.
tionoftw'ltwo-ht.Jroom unit:,- and
one-studio to the twO two-bl-.G.rO(Jnl
units that exi~t on the prup,,">rty
The stud io and O'1e two.bt">droom
apaTtnu>nt WQU Id })(' dt't"d re-
strictt.-d for low.incon~t.' €'mrlo~'el'
housing.
A reque~t from Gick".m Kauf- !
man, atto:-ncy fur thl~ Hp~':'('"dnt. ".
that the frf..'(.'.markt.t unn~..; bt, ('x- t
cused frein payrnent of the p~irk l
dedication tl..'e With the ~mrl(,yec \
units wa~ denied t
AIsoderl iN by.the counul W,:I"; a
request on bt:'half of Han...; Cln- i
trup, applicant fvr the 92f> E..:.;t t
Durant project, for fmal subdivJ- t
sionpl;ltapprovalwi{hamuddif'd I
deed r~strict ion for employt:e
housing,
\\'hen the proje-rt r(;o("eiv~.'d j tc.,
GMP allocation in Mav 19-; t-I. tht_, t
required d(>{>d re::itriction WdS for f
five years. Howevf>r, the cf)dl>' wa.. t
later cbanhed to mandate a 50.
year d~d re::itrjetion for t:mplu}l.'t> t
housing:.
Cantrup haj origimdly 2skpd
the council to rcuun thf> fli:e.Yf:<lr \.
deed restnction under which hi...;
project had received G~IP ap'
proval. but ~aid he wot..Jd accppl
.
..
'"
; _.~.-~~>."'T' ~ .' ,K ..,~_..-"''''_ .,... ~.""""I"' ~''''''''''''''''_'''-''''''''''''''''~'''':'~1':<''-' _.....,.,.......",.._T""f...".,....
;:.>,......".
f
T
1
"
,.
.
1.'imc r.har ing
~in:J :7"1"
9v""J~;{
~60
.
"'"'
.),
'- ~ )-:
'-<,....
-
.....,t
I~' '(Ju 1 il" tj(.,t i fl'l
^~;IJ...n city Cll~lrl..'ii
t.~.n'i.'ll 10, 1'1Q.,.,
COUIl,'ilh'(IM,HI !,'ir'!~ 1C"1 r:10\'..-.d lo r,'~]lll'st th~ '~;t,lff to il~~t.i It..' rt-..,'(~:~i.:ll for' t:.
ment L,ci 1 ity ;111..1 th,lt tI'e re,!llt.'!;~ t~d~e th,-' (OrtH (11 ''''IH'\.'f)tILll di!;'~"'\' 11 ."I:.-~
proc"('~;,;; .!:;c'C'I)lHlv.:l l,y COLlncill:kl:1 r.u'ry. ;\11 ill f.;lvor', l'IOlic>Zl C"dLTil...d,
~.~'.: (: :~=--~
: ..'~, I . . ~ l . '
'I'UtE ~;liAHnlG Dl;,CLl~~~itON
-.--.-. ..----------.. --,
ii
"
~
I:
f,
Ii
I'
J
!
I'
.,
"
,
Jcn.y !lc'wey, r.l.)l\,1fJ(.r of .l\spcn I\ll's, lold Council lw hns [0110'..'1..'..; sr':),1h" 1'1! 1,:-' ,,:~,l :"",~'
billf; of int(,l:c~;t ,..:hich perU'!.in to the cl'm;(,:'!,dniui.1 in,i\I~;~,l-"" S.D. 132 d1i':...._l:o~~:i
shoJring .:>nd would hav(' .:.1lIO\':l~,i o\<.'nr~rZ to t iH'l~ slhl1"C' en in.-ti,..icLl.--ll l~!~its. 1:1i.~: ...:C":
make it cli:.f.icult for' conclo:nilltUm 1:\ClnilC,a'r~; thi.~; ....',IS ~;tru('j.;. fro!:1 lilt' }>ill. l1e,,',.,: t );
Cou~lcil tlli!"; bill did restri.ct ~luni.cji",l]iti('~ [1'(':,' ]c',~i~.]"ltinq tiLl" ~!._l:'i:h;. l!l,'~," Y
said pcoplc in the condominium bG,;inC5s h..1VC told h:~J.i ~~].:.tCl'~ they \.....H.,ld 11 ~'.t' t (I \....::'~-~:
on thE~ hiUr; ~\nJ !J.JVI..' hills tr..Jt arc h:"tlldlp.:lblC' for l'dn(k;:tinitl;":ll\\.l;~.l,;('r:. ,1.'.d C(":I' .t.,-~:,
both. Hewey st"lt~(l he WZlS of th._~ opinion lh.:lt if til~\0 SIL"'1rinq is ,1\'::,~ ri..:\,t, it ::':- ~,
good thing. Stock ~did he felt it i~ imIH.'d,tlllt th.it thi.s 'Jro~lp I:.l:~ t;lb..~.\,t1 ~C':::. \': ti~('
responsibility in front of UW lcgis)atu1"('. This CJrC'ut-J was instnl;; 'nt~l: in te~;ti!\'J:~-:
on the bill and having it modi fied. Council thanked lil..'Y;('j' for hL. t 11',,-' al].] intc-n';'.t.
H~lS1N~ ~RT,~~ - FolfoW up: 'rcvip~'6rdin^n~~ outli'n~~
Karc:n Smith, plilllnin(J direclcJr, rCl'linc1cd council th.-~y h:t\"L' h.lll stt: :',: ~',(':~:'.i(l:~f; C'n th;:~
and lh(~ planninq offic<"' ",:ould likC"' some dir0cliort in ch;~,f~in0 on1i-.H,,('.'-:. The ;'ll:1:'li:"l(!
office ha.!:; rccon;..ll;('!lc;cd that bdl~dit units and m,lndaLor',:' l'J\\plol'l'e :".,;1 i ~1,: !1(' J.,,' t:i, '"
at thi~: Lime: lJuL ,.:ill be c1i~;cusst'd ...:ith qrC).:Lh m.J.na,--l':'f1".l:,nt pl.J:1 <tr:..,:~~:-,.-"ts .-":'.: (':.:'],:.
stn_~ur:dinin9. 'l'hc' finjL ordin.:lnc.~ rcqurd.s cllrct.:lJ:er units which is :,.\f;ic<:l~y ~:n;.li,-:,'!,
to single f<Jmily lots and \..o;'11e1 involve a small, limited in size, ~ttt.J,~1\'d u:li~. r:
there ar:c E.xistin(j e'.-'lachcd ~~tnlcture~~i tbcs(! would be Sn)ndL,thC'r'~,:. ~,~c:. ~~~itr ;,')i:-.._.:
out th('rl.~ arc existing strtlcture~; illl O'JC"r to...m th.:Jt coeld be CN1\'l':": ~~_1 to ~-:-:-.i'lc'~'Ct~ U'. ~. .
with little impact. For ne\>l con~;truction, L1tti'lched structures \~'C'ultl L.:.' 1('::;0; iI;,?~1clir~'
both vi:,u.:dly and land usf'-.....i~;..." The' pro(,"l':;~; dcciOCtl \.I1h)1l for C,IJ'ct..::,':' llnlts \>,"ll1ld ;,',..,:
tli(' conditional \u;(' pr0c(,~~:'.; the rr-vie"' critE~ria ,,:auld Le th.:lt l.'xi,-::li;~'.J in t.he cu: :i:. i
use sccLlnn. Council may \-'ant. to add lIut for d(.tacl'l'd f;tL'uctllr.'t.'f: !;(- F'.!,.R inc~,""',~~~,('l "''-
be allO\,.'(~rl, bul ~;llb:..;tanti.al n'lHodcllilhJ could be done. r\ cri, cI"ia ,--'\.:!t s~~o',.l{.l be <"1~1\.~,~,:
js that thC'fH' be dr_'c'd restlictc'cl.
Mayor Pro 'l'l'fI p,"hrcnclL s:drJ. hL' tell lhv "!-'!ll'UdCIl c'n t1d~, Wil:; Lo t.~k,' ('.'"!clI ,"'1.',1 ;11~(1 \.
it throu'Jh ~,l(l'~:)'/ to get IJublic iTll,ut a!~d not cd:.tcnpt to redesign tl;c cO!".t:;'.l';:lity irl 30
day!;. H~;. :-:,:ai Lh JlO i nted Oi.lt she had I\rr,k('ll t lll' vari OtlS reco!nf.lcn<Llt i.c.:~.s int,,) "'C'iP t."": r.:::'
onlinclDC(~~; und djd not sC"c ~HlY !lL0UI('::\:, in proc,.','(lin'J \,'ith the first 3 or0i!~:nl"(,s .....t
c.mce. 'l'ht~se 3 (jot hi9h ('on~.r'n~;llS out of the C(!r:~,Hl~mity hOtlsin(j \\'o)'ksl:()'i). C::-,l1ncil!';,',:~ '.'.3.:
Np~;!; ild'pd if ll1c:;p l1rni\('~I'd ol'(lin'llh";_~:; il!'C tal}:in9 OlKHlt dC'n~'ity :in,-:~C"~~;(';.. r"!s. ~~1:~~:
si!id i":;' this ......ould ltC'''.' dllo\\' l\:o llllil~; ()II a 1'~11-Cl'1 v..hi(.'h I'r('vi(m~;l'~ a) 1.."...-, J 1.l1l'~o
~h:. Smith n0!.ccl in on1,inancl' .1 (C,lrf't:lj.:r'r unit:.;) ttoC' uren and bull'. nqllj'rl.:,...:nt~; \":cJl':d
Lc Lhe' r..I!II(: ~I:; till' :,'.\'11" r(''lui I( 1:"jlL:;. hil l\tll',':,nl\'I',l q\:,'~;Li(ll~ i:; ....'l1t'i.'\1'1. l,' .-ll10....' ,',,~;, t.
unit:,,; c'n dupl('x )olf':; thr- pli1rl!linq o[ficl~ rc(;oj~'..'1i('nd~lt ion is not to a11<.,',,/ lh, .>..' .:It lh\.,
point. '1'11" !JldllllilJ'1 olJi':L' I:. t,'yill-r tll itlt'~llily ~Ill th.' prol'(l::,--"ll,'C'tli ;",,";: f{"-
jncn'<l~~inq I'rnpl.,'.'"" "(JIl~;i!l'J ,lnl1 !'''OJ,,.ct hr.,,' J\l:my unit:- tile city \>;ill ,....L. C('lll'::-il"~'t'
Ncr;~; :;"id 11..-.. (;id llot :;f'(' \.:lj,-d tll.:' i:1n'n1 ivl' OJI thi~; \>:i'I~;. ~~~. [;:nith said tho.' lh(','~-'. 1~'
l;01n(' IH'OP]" 11\.1',' !lot wi~~h to liol'''''' , ~;(llllt'(ll\t' (.1;;,' livin.l ill the I:Oll~.C', \1~;inq t!lC' ["eil'it i.,.
but nl''\'1 illlo'.~' ~'()r'l('(iI~" 1.0 11\,(' in a ~:.."lJ'lr"ltt' un,it ,1(\(1 ~.,..('p .....i1lch on l';r< h.....'-:~0. n.... ':'
f'.:.Lid the city v.'; 11 h~,\'c tc.- j(l();'. at the- imp,'.ct on facilitic~ Oll 5C:\'~C~'s; tr.is ...."ill ;-'i~
I'lonitr.Jl'(.'(l "u,d ll.c Cnullcil could put t<,)P ~~v: lif.:~ts on the ni.l:1iL0l" of ll::its t.o b.:-: (':,~(-r"
tai Ilcd ill 'OIlC' Y"oll.
'j'jl(' J;('("uld i,n,:",::"..! (In'ill,dlCl' i!; a CI'n' ity bonll~: fill 0:1(' acre .wc; l. r,~('r ~:L zinr;-l('
f.'m.i.1y ',it<,~: ir. i (, ZC1\( tllrc.,"qh i:-.10. ~;:;. :;:nit.h ~:.:dd lhC'rl" r:'.:1Y ~H. 10 to 15 irl tl., ('J'
h(l'.:c'v,"--, lhi~; ".,.i I] ('on:(' into Id;lY W:ll'l'l J:I!lCX111g 1"lnd to th(.' city. The_' r;::::::-:7,i~ tcJ t: ".
\'/jJl be: ~,iI111(' f'-lnily, chtp10X, n:u)ti-f,!I~ily, Clod townho:1scS if 70 Fer cent or r..-:'l)'C ::-:
l1ni::~; "In' ul'('d T('~tl"icl('l1. '1IH.' rl'vivw p['oc('(lun~ h'ol.lld be rC:lonin':1 .....ith slll>c!ivi.~~i<",;\ <.1l"
~ubdi\'i~.j()l1 e}'C'.'pl iUII ',.h"r(' ~1!!I'Jj(".-lL,J.... rl'h(' 1"0V1('\>J clitprLl wou)d b..:- the ~:<.lmo ,"'1:: oliq;'
propr.)3C'd ill nldill,::l~("e t78. 'l'hf' p)anllin'J office r('C'or:ll,lr~nch; uddinq nv\'" crit-.:'ri,1 to "O,'~l:
cnCO\!~d(J"--' crl'ill:iu:I of: n''''I\(.'r~;hip units. COllocil askcrl lhat criteria b<" drc'ppcd. Tll,,-
arc-a ,lr1d b\llk Hill b(~ \"lril'd ,,!, in the oriq'nnl on.1i:li;n~~e. i\ difference fn)m t:~c oric:~'
ord.in,I~IC:(' j!~ tlhll lll{; l!,Udl''1IJg lot arc,\ PC'1"' dv!C'lli!\tJ tlt1it lto'ould bc !:;ul.jcct to a maximu;".
SO W't" ccrll'rl,c111CUOII, ~.'hh:il :nt~dn~; a {'0l('ntial 50 pC'r cent increase i:l densit.y. Till'
vd,:iaLion in lot wiclt.l1, [;(>tb':'H:}~5, OP<"1l sp..\CC, etc. would ~"'1C v..lricd af' they n0\'" c~<.;:- in
pl.:ton;-el \Irlit dl'v(--'!uI1uenl. Each unit cannot: bc setbacl: under lhe guid(!lincs of tllC :~('1:1r~
di~;tricl 01' thr:n' will 110t 11(' c'lU:.;t(~l:if\\.J' Mf~. Smit.h $.:Iid thjs orc1inar-,ce ci(lC'~ net touc~'.
tbC' HI:'ll" 7\.."C. A qut!sLior. earn\.! up v:l:cthcr to allov.' 1"l:,devclopJnC"nt of nC'l1-\'i:'1.cant 1;101.1,
and ttlC' pl,Ulil;'! ulfic:e rC'cnmr,1cnded no; it if; not .....orth getting into the unkno\,,"1 right
nOIl1. '1'111' onlilloll\f't' \:ill only b,~ <:tl1(1.....dl 01\ vaciJnt L'"!nc1. Another question was \...h<"~thcr
t.o allow JU~T,~, .~lld tIt(. Vltllllling ortie.... uq,dll l'L'CUI\1ill'.'!\(i<.~tl no.
.>
(
)
'I'he thin} r,rJiTlJll("A i." prop0::l.....d denf:ity h~"l:lu~:cs in eel SIC/I, N/C, C-l, C-L, L-l, L-2
PUI,ljc, 0, ;IO..t L/:i!' tu :::110'.: !..,inqlp fc11:1i1,/, duple:{, n:Lllti-far,lily, l0',mhouses and. dorr.:.s
if 'ID I,(or c:.:nt (l('hl rc~~t:rict.C'cl. ')'l1e l"cvic'..J proc("s!; .....ould be the san0 iJ.:" ordinance 2
iJ$ ....f)\:lLl b,' tll( l",--,';it".": ("rit(~l'id. 'I'he arc.;' ,inrI bull~ n'''i.uirf'tTlcnts ,,,\lId b" variC'd a,;. in
thi' (J1Jqill<l1 11',.<]' iw) "'...,_nL"lJ' upJinnnci:, ,lld1 thC" mirlirum loL' area p....{" d.....r-.11ir:::J tl:1il ....'_H:l
be :',~;\"j((" tr, i1 l(Jd }'('1' cl'nt rc,l;lction, \<.'llich would allow t.....icc <15 !':":'lny unitt;. 110....'..:.../(.:
tltl' l'f.l~ i~; cilly ~,~ll)'it,C to a 2:, pc.'r ('{'lIL il~cr<.::a:;(~. 'l'hi:.; roC<1as a ckul)lin\] of thC' IlU~Lh';
of uZlit,~ \-:ill. l'111J' :.:-, ~'l'l cunt in('n'.1.~;t. in lulk. rob. ~:mitlt a~:k0d if COU1ICil '.'.Inlr',] to
c(Jll~:i~lL'f ':hi: ill ;~',111f'1"l1(' ~lr,d I"ld: 7.0111'. counr::il ~;,lid tc.1 dcl(.tc it in LoU~. 1-1:~. S:rtill:
tcdd ('o'.l::,:iJ '.1;, \:,):Jl\l jih ~~) dr,lft th(' p~:(1jn'I11C(~~;'d[; di!>C"u!",!"('d (lnel clal-if~' 1'10 poin"~
bl'i'lll,;!d nllt }{I (:i:~("l~'; ;\<'n, C(lll!l(:il',',{"'~lll r,~ichdcl :;~dd ~;hc .....ollld ld_t' pC"()pL~ to iclC'r:.~l~
....'itll lIIL:;(' ,,~: "i>,ll ::,. c.>ldin,:li""'; ao(1 \.'l'wld JlJ.:e th'_'m 11r~:;0nted sq)dratc}y. C::'HJncilr;,:l:l
E('Jll('l1dt ~,\;d !,.' \.,.'ulli li~J' t:l" ~:lc,.!.1 t\~(j to qn t~')t.;r~th(:r.
tn rnl\"':ir'....~. :,'1 iiil'('C" r;.0:".)~:(>tl~nTdinQnC(~lo ,,\,.-0;-.":(; G':':0~"~:..~~
i", (-,','("'1f, \.o.';th th~ ('xt.4e-ptu"1l oj ,.ilIY'))" *'1"; .~.::l t.,I,:.:.....:I~~~".
(;(11.111': .ll:lldn V<tn f'-!('r.f; mco'.'r'd
I,.' C("'lir:i lr:,'" T'1t I Y ,\11
~~~)l' j (in r-;'~rr i " (1.
!'
'.
-
'-
~
"~CjtJl(Jr ~h.'l'L i. Wl
A~I,('n Ci l)' ('l'u:lci 1
~t,'Hch 10, lC)(lO
:~I.-;S'1'__1"~Jt. bU1LIJINli YJ::ltMl'l' - 925 Durant l::mployee Housing Pr9ject
;ur.ny Vanl., f'1.1nninCJ office, tnld C(JUll('i1 th<lt '175 lJ~lLH\l j~; tl:'_' cll\~)l')':'l'~' h0\:~inq l'Ol't.iC>1l
'J; ,I I!re>je,cl \-.hich rt.l:','j\...."~ l,.;;ilft.-'oti,d 1"~i' ,dlCl;:ll;,i\ ill }l)7H. '1'::,-11 ,111,),',lti011 i~. r""p.:.'_it. f,':"
lboul if) v:.:pir"c ilnd tll"Y ~.~::,'llt("'(l c(l~,lrllctin!l dJ",'.'il"J~; ill ,'1-,1.-1 to :~('C\:-j.';1 bui]{lin',
'C"rrrtit. In rC'vi<.'wjnr; thf' I,'ql\('~;l for ~1 j,jlildi:I',l I'~';illtt, ~:.~' l"iildillO ,-It't,.\lt::,I'lltthlll(,,,'''~
;i1f(..'Tenc;C':; LrolO ttl\: oriljiJ,':l ~\,;hflli:;:;i{ln; ~l(dd 11;IC}, on tho' rl..'l::it .1:\(.1 :"('f('tre.::l llh' P!"O.lccl
:0 ttH~ pL1l11ling o(fic('~'. "::r",n !~t,lt(}:~ the ("ode r,",~,~~; th."lt .:1ny ~~:'rjliC'"llt .:1.\o;;H{~C'd d(.,'\'~'l('i;,..-"t
:llott1ent. dcviutirl'J ill f'!;~\'I,~i<Jl C"lC1at'IlL~ fro:n Ll,~' urjqi!ldI ['ri:':u!;,ll, ~h(' i'l:lnllitFl (,fl:__~('
chall be notifieu and !;h.:dl t1utify Cl,lur:,_'iL V,lnn s.ill l\;.,:'~ C~\lI::t in:l l!', .....~l.lt if, <l.O \''''~sl,}ntl:\l
:'If_'p'lC'nli the cor1C' is 1I0t ~;r(:('j fico '1'11(,' I'L10ninCj offic~ ~l.lS ,1rH\'l,: tll.Jt lh(:~;c i::C':":1:-> s.:nr.,
)r r<:ceived IJoints con~tl lId I' t..s!;(~nti.ll c-ll:'!;1l'nl f;. 'l'tw b~lil,llnJ (','!~:.t't IT,,~nt idt'lll i. (ic'd
.'ario'.Js csscnt i ill cl(.'~cnt!'>. The .:1r{,i1~; th.J1 h"vC" Ch,"lI"I' 1 ,;; t'(.. !,.ll J: 1:1'), t.,n('r.,,;:-,, ha"_JiC.:1I.'r."'d;
~hC' C'r.~irC' Luildin'] h<lS c1~,-I~\'JPU i:l~; far dS o':e:..:rall (h':;l. ;:":
:ity staff net with th0 ,'PJ,licclflt to di5C\1!.~ these' Ch<l~l:h,.'. tht'Y ,,~;k(',l fc,r ,"'!.t1 0!'1'~'~-ll.lI1d~'
to miti'Jatc sor:le of the d,,"\r,'Ju~;. 'rhe pLlllninq o1-fi,'(' L~I" no red l'n'1t,ll'l:1 ..,,:itll ~":~'(' ,-'.
the chan(Jc5 as long as th'" ('lId rc!:;ult wO:lld not h:tVl' ('h,''l!:q(,l~ t 1,,--' ~-cnrt" <1:"ld i\ {h'tl-j;;C::t to
~hp procc!;S itr.elf. The i'l'-llminCJ office do('~ h...lvt.. l,ll::''..' ~ltoh1~T' \,.jth lh,' [.1,'t tl~l', 1:; ;1
complctt~ly diffC'r(~nt buildill'J- ViHin pl'dntf'u out. th:lt U(',;lQn il~~t'li i~ not :'~'(,l-\'J .,:' :',l!"t
of the rC~jid~ntlul procc!>s; 'howcv0r, he i~ of the' o!,inioll lh,ll it (',l.:ll\ot h.... ~;,':~,l!-_lt._'C: ..
that process. Vilnn told er':lllcil that oriqin<:1Jly tllt~ =:pplic,l11t did llut n'c~";\'~' ~;~,:f',"c'.'_
~'Clintsj they .:ltJP0alr>d to (\_lunci 1 and in the arrc'.11 !'r(h.'('~>S the ~;("<'r(' \..1:'. Ll.l :;t-,~1 i 1'. ,'.,'1-',':':
:!rC,1:'; to };i.ck them ov(~r tbr I'linin-,urn. V,tlHl tolci Cn._lt'ci 1 th('r(' .....;t~; IH.t an,"th,-l .1i ,,', I".'
close enouCjtt.
J..shley l\nd.:;rson, rC'prcscr\tinC) th(' appli.c,tnl, told {\'lI!;cil lht.'Y h,\Vl' lJ~'~':l tl-/'il;'; {<' r',1;.;1
;~,izc the nunibc'r o( unit::; (flr l\\"o Yl.~i1n;. 'l'hny .....,'1l1t\.~: to p~-cscr\'"f' the oflLilil'\' to J:.l.l ',: 1-'
.:.:dditiO:1al unit:; und....r th:' t.OiJ:.iIHl ovr'rlilY. Alld('r:;o:i 5l<lted L1wy ....;ere not ~\vf('r, \'m~;,,~ll
~or an extt>nsic'l1i thC'y <"In:> :-(,<1dy to ~;lart diq'.f.~n(:- 1\ ">',l~i ~ll(;uv"tC'll t.11<.'Y :',{we- tl,-' kli1,;1!'..'
nn tbe site; this C,IU5C:U !..i-:)),lC cn.-:tnq0s .....hiclllhp]' d0 nol [('('1 .'In' lI:-!,Ol't,).,t. ;'.:ld_'r~"ll:'.
t.old council thesp an"" not fr<;>(~ m<l.ri-:t.'t unils. Cl"1uncilr.;:lil V.H1 r\C'SS !;..,i,'l Ill" {1.It t~;O thi:.';:-,
arc' i::-.liortunt; (l) the n~(\~;0n for the ChaIH)l)5, ,.nc1 P) \~'hC't-h('r the Ch:"1.WjL'S il~ tl'r-::-':' c-f
C~Hj.> !;co:cirlrJ criU'rid at(. b~"h('ficial ()r ch,triracnt,l.l - .....hrthC'l thl.' I'1'Pjl"Ct \,:~-),11J l.,..t 1: ,,-('
cr less point~;. Counci 1 Ill':-., I V"n N\J5S ~;ili(l he fe-It th:lt puLtil'(J h.:-tlf t.lw ~!,",il-kin\i l1j:,:t'~";;"',l:i~
',,'ould have i1 diffcrc,nt..:. Vi~;ll'll ilnf)..ct lAlt '.:nu1c1 bp a l.h:npficiai c::"ln'lc. i\:l~kr~'Y. tnh:
C:onnC'i 1 on l h\~ cn,:r9Y Ch;Jll':'- , \o!!t(':1 ltw b'..l i 1 c1i n{, d('p.;l 1 tl,ll:'n l 1-(>\'(' 1\-:'-'cl t :ll' !' L; ~l~, t h,' Ill'. t ='
'.!('rc fac:in'J (:il:-;t and ......c;;t. t~{JW tll'.' uniL~: .:l.l-~'" ,]11 tilCinq scuLh 1 iLl' t!lt"'Y dn'. ~alJ'i ,;_',1 t.,.
.
\
\
)
C(Jlln('ilr~i:tn Van ~le:,;~; conr.Jlltlvd unl('r:s SO!T\("'0np ("otllc1 eJ,lim thi~; would 'j\.:'l It.~~s th.... ,~(."(".t' O!l
':~!-1P (Jradiny, tll(~;';r:: ch;:lIl'~J\'~; ,IT(' h('n(,(jci.~ll. ~.:". SmitL ~;t.:-ltul ('ou~lCjl h,~:; tll <l('("ide 1;,
eilch CirCU1L:~;t'll\r(, ItlhL'tlP'l' il i~; it helH'fjci<11 dl,:1nnc :ll,d \o:h0lh0[ :it. ..,()1.;'d !\.t':(~ af.(('\.'ll'd
;10..... the i1t--'1-'lic;.;nt. ~;c(JLed. CO~1TIcill:\<l1l V.HI t~l"SS <1skc'l it t.he",' Ch;l!:c;es .....tllll,l h~v(' occrt..-'<1,('c1
or ir,crcas('(l the G!U' scorC'. Vann told Council tile' pJ;:nninq officp if' of the' ol.,illion in
'....orking t,..ith tIll' applicanl th'-I'L tilt" Ch,.lllq('~. Cdll bc' Tlliticj.1tcc1 ;.lI(:h t!l,lt, to th(~ir ",.)ti~.;-
fa('t.~on, tlw applll'C\r,tl~; ~;('on' .....ou1e1 nut he Ch.ll\fl('~l t.o ttw (h~trim"llt of another' ~l'!)lil''''l':t.
Vann--'!t4-id,.the hI' oehler quest..ion is the code doe'S HvL c.Hju.n::~:;a _o~siyll OJ: UI~-P)i"Oj~cl. -_in the
scoring" process. Th~ oriClinal bnildinr'J oC""~tlpl("tI .!Ill th!' !'iitC': t!'\p f'lC'W buildinG js on
one cC>.tner oi th0 !:itlC" .:'lllc\1inlJ for .1f'lot.ho::"r but lrling which ....oulu ac.;;Utw~.,-u-..l.l lUOY:'f" unitti.
\
\
\
i
I
i
,
!
counci-lmen le4d.C moved to .approve the chnnqes, ~ccond~d bY Count'i h,'c,m~n "Hch.1t:'l.
favor i~ moLiol~ L;..l;:r ic..J..,
"11 in
~~~~n!~~.~~ ~~~J:_i;l.j'~~X:.2_~)J' 1 97.?,
\'1.1I.0.P. J\llnV:{;lt i<lll "nel r:C;':Ol1iWl
City 1'.t_torJ1C'Y Stock told CO'lnc-i! thi~: ('oule1 npt lw ,,(ldn'!~s(,ct 11~lt i 1 t h(' Oi'id Kl.l'olt
ilnnc:-:"tior. i~: cOlilplcted i1S then.. i~'. i, I-'rtlld('[H~; with ('unli<Juity.
C(,H1:i~ilT;lan Van lit'!,:) Plov(,d In c"mtiLHl'~ the sv.:onJ rVi"l{ling until ]\pl'il 14, ]080; g(~COll(.i0J by
Councilwo:nTlf'l ti.ict"l{.l. All ill [,lVOl', I~lc,lion ('dl'r.ic'(l.
OH!JF;~~i.C.f-1?_.__~.~!n!::;,_.s>!~--}..~-~~ - N.:tlVL l'li.lnt lIou!;in<J f.l'A
Ha)'o:r Pro T('ffi I1chrenrlt. ope.ned tlH' publiC' l1'~,ll'in\J.
Dt'tlrcndl closed the pulllic tle.1riny.
'l'!l('rc \olcre no COI:1ll\C'lll5.
Hayor 1'1:0 ';,'L'fT'.
Counr.ilman 15~il.C moved to n.'(ld Onlinilllcc #7, St.ries of 1980: s(,colldcd by councilman Parry.
All il) favor, motion cdrricd.
ORnINl,~CF. P
(5('ries of 1980)
l!CJllSll1<j DjrC'clor ,Jim r~'~'C'I.t~; told Council thh:i!> ~1' .1pplicat1on by the city for eo units
of n'lltal hOU:,11'<;I on c.:.il' ()',-:;;cu proi-'c~rly ih1j.J.cl'nt J fhe' hOGjJital. The SPA il~; aPiJrovccl
illlo....s for: the H't,W (I)'{:.1 to c;('vet: tilt' !:i It.' pn)po~:t.(l (or the bOl\::.;ing. 'l'lle rest of the
l.;il\' 't,;i11. lw Pl1hJic fGr t!)l' \.:.-n'r p],mt. .,nel O!,C!1 ~~p,H~(,.
AN OnDINf\NCE Rr:Z()~llHG 'UIE \\'{\'l't-:H PLANT SITE ACCORDING '1'0 A!': APPROVA.T,r.O
SPEC1AJ.LY PLr,~W].n ARf:A l'1M~1'J;r~ t'LJ\N FOil '1'111: 51'1'1::, 'I'HE ELf:nr:NTS OF \":!IICll
HAS'U:H PLAU WILL COr..STI'1'U'i'l; 'l':i!': DrVI:LOrr-il:r:T Ri:(;HI.l\'l'IO~lS FOR THE Am:A ALL
}\;, rr.O\'ll1ED BY f\H'rICT,E VIr 0;" CII/\PTt:H 24 01:-"' TilE ASPEr: ;,ttTNICIPAI~ CODE .....as
rC.Jd by the city c:lC'rk
('O~l:lci h'(.::"ll' :~ i ch:lvl r:;nVt ,,1 to M1(lpt onli fj.l0C:C #7, f,\'dc'~ of 1 ()fl(l on ~'.C'c(}nd rc,itding:
s('ro;:d,,:,c1 hy C-ill"lcilmlll i'.:rl';. 1:(,1] (',dl voL"; councilr.h":\;\l(~r:.i 1!'<l,lC, .:LYC; f'otichncl. .:lye
11,lrrl', "'1('; V_lll i~('~;~", .I; .; ::,,11'('1' I'lel 'l'l':~l Ll'hn rltH, (li'.... Hotion c.1,'ricd.
1"'C!lt~: f('(::ll':.t, 1 C(I\lrH'il i~!':o1"''''- ~~\l~,i(ll"i'~i('n '.;:"'f.\pth':1 for the l'roi(.ct. with the condili('l\
t~,::t if ,~t <,';':' I"il;t i:l Ill" f\ltl~l" ll,' J':-\l\..('t CI"','~' 111 f(ll' (:ol!(l"miniw!\iz,l.~i(Jn, it DC'
1";\\11('--1. \1'1: 'L t'lle 11111 'I;' :''\'i:'l':oIl l",'dirc'r:,t'lll!;.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
,
,"
CITY OF 'ASPEN
130s()uth galena street
aspen, colorad~:'81611
AGENDA
BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT
.
July 22, 1982
City Council Chambers
4:00 P.M.
MINUTES
NEW ,BUSINESS
Case # 82-6 Red Roof Inns, Inc.
Case # 82-7 H.B.C. Investments
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
ADJOURN
,J
~ r,
"-' "
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
'011'" It C.,. ~OECK[L B. 8. 6 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 Cdae, 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 Brocks 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 unattend2d 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 assumption, 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. , .:'
Francis Whitaker .said that the applicant doe's have other space, it may not be what
they desire most but there is ample space on which they can build.
John Herz 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 neeting.
Fred Smith moves to decline a request for the variance because practical difficulties
or hardships have not been d~onstrate~.
Francis Whitaker seconds.
Francis Whitaker AYE
Charles Paterson AYE
John Herz AYE
Fred Smith AYE
Remo Lavagnino AYE
The re'l""",t for a variance for Case II 82-5 Eleanor Brickham is denied.
- 2 -
c ::
Remo Lavar,nino 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 membe~s 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 thanges can be made to corne back with a finished document
by the next meeting.
Remo Lavar.nino asked the Board for comments or questions.
Lavar,nino 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 i~, 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 Lavar.nino suggests that Patsy Newberry and Kathryn Koch get
prepare that cost justification and then present it to the Board
Lavar.nino asked if there were any other questions regarding this
Francis \?bitaker moves to adjourn.
Charles Paterson seconds.
All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned.
.
together and
of Adjustment.
packet.
~A/~~
Vi inia M. eall
Deputy City Clerk
,.....
''-
'"'
",""
~t
~l
~
NarICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Case No.
Q') f;.
BEFORE THE CITY. OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE
DESCRIBED BELOW:
"
t
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
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.
yo~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.
I
4 I
I
I
'The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows:
Date and Time of Meeting:
Date:
Time:
July 22, 1982
4:00 P.M.
.......-....
Name and address of Apnlicant for Variance:
Location or description of property:
1
\
Name: Charles Podolak
Address: PO Box 8850, Aspen, Co. 81612
Location: Red Roof Inn at Aspen, 22475 West Highway 82, Aspen, Co. 81611
Description: Applicants request a variation to ;ermit 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)
TCillp'el!BFY "FermaneTIt
Will the Applicant be represented by Counsel? Yes X -No
THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENr
BY --fy-~~agnino, Chairman
Virginia M. Beall, Deputy City Clerk
.'
*****
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
anyone 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 Stan?ing 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)
be asking for a 35
sign.
Wall sign cannot exceed 10 sq. ft. - Applicant appears to
sq. ft. wall sign requiring a variance of 25 sq. ft. of
4
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 standing
sign appears to be slightly over the maximum size.
.
~n~-~l ~~ .,.,~ O.~
,Irn:'tl ;:.; ..J'~illI,j "
-
- ',:ny OF
-..,..,-
I. ljl; i 1'.l.J
~c:r"'l
"" _I
'II' J'I~T"[ll~
I I, _~ I' _ I
,....,!'~
,...,J'
Ihl\) DATE, .lunA 8. 1982
"f' .
APPElLANT Charles Podolak
. CASE 110.
JlDDRESS PO Box 8850, Aspen, CO 81612
PHONE
(303) 925,8603
OWNER
Red RO(;)f Inns, Inc.
ADDRESS 4355 Davidson Road, Am1in OIl 43002
. f614J 876-9961
LOCATION ~F PROPERTY
Red Roof Inn at Aspen, 22475 West Highway 82, Aspen, CO 81611
..'
Street, & Number of Subdivision Ellk. & c.ot No.
Building Permit'Applic~tion'and prints or any other pertinent
data must a~company this applicatioh. arid will be made part of
CASE flO.
THE BOARD WIll RETURN THIS,APP(ICATION Ir IT DOES NOT CONTAIN
AU: TilE FACTS IN QUESdO:I.
"DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXC~PTION SfJQ;.IING JUSTIFICATImIS:
ltll 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 fr.om roadway, building is under
new ownership and name has beeD changed. The'inn, being in the motel business,
is ,dependent on the travelling public, as opposed 'to local residents, for its
1ive1yhood and the site requires visibility from the hi~hway for adequate
identification. Applicants request a variation 'to permit a larger ground sign
at a redueed height, and a set of non-illuminated wall letters 'to aid the
travelling public in finding and reaching the site safely from the highway.
.
.
t~i 11
Site is in a special zone, and. considered part 'of the commercial core, where
conditions are very different. Sign coile was writt~n for core conditiol}s and
.Yli'ifeb'eotr6~Vl!'s~~8a~y' coAJ~~efh? V~~ or tl~eo slgn a~ed y?Nzo .~ un-safe
for traffic purposes on Highway 32. ~ (J~ ~
Cars are unable to st!e a sign that SIGNED:. . U:
size from a distance making them unprepared pell ant '
'JL....l.w.1L...... IJIf-'rpr()~t~ (C1u~inq Lrarril. !)rubl-em-s.
. PROVISIONS OF THE ZONI~G ORDINANCE REQUIRI~G THE BUrlDING INSPECTOR
TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARO OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON
FOR NOT GRANTING:
ill,
J.
0~~
.
.
-
"
.
.~
~ J\v\:/:e-d
It -:, ~ -~~. .
PERMIT REJECTED, DATE
APPLICATiOn FILED
-
.
"
DECISiON
DATE IF HEARH,G
.
. DATE
-
i'it, I lED
,,.
.
SECR,ETA!!Y
"""
-.......
,
,I.,
o
CITY OF'ASPEN
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
303-925-2020
MEMORANDU~l
~O: Kathryn Koch
FROM: Gary Esar~
RE: Red Roof Signage Appeal
DATE: June 28, 1982
~
Bad I'm afraid.
all the people on the
It is my opinion that we must send notice to
list submitted.
.
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 l(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 modifica-
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
~
1,
I
i
I
,
.'
.
.
.
, ..
c
:)
RED ROOF AT ASPEN
P.O. BOX 8850
Aspen, Colorado 81612
925-8603
June 11, 1982
C()lette 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.
4
If you have any questions, please call me.
Thank you,
))w~p ~
Deborah VanCott
f
'I.
,
.
,>
, ,
.
1
([)
,
-e-e -
4-7'5 -
A-dd(.
1:-60
-lOr 70~ 3:J ?
@ ftQl(Jht
6;
d- CZ fu .:l- ~
(O~Y
- I, S io ?, 0 el per deed - res-{.r,
{f::ec on Ly')
(An i-t - he lie ~dl'C!5
i cJ-ecd. re>7rrcled' )'Iczo
~(7 .1 -+ (;) +- (2 = 25 = ~
k~ ?Vllet -7 1(" + 5'- 2( 'tr."l6
@ ttv'
'--...
"
\
CITY OF A"PEN .
MEMO FROM ALICE DAVIS
Cj~;
()uT ~, iT
I~
II
It
Ci.v0"~ued
PI Jfv:.o'iJd
\)
I
\'-' ,()
I, / jut L
c q
1- - ---' )( '/
-1
J--
~ I _-2 I, t-\
~,\ \)( ~\(\I-1
r L
n \\ \ _ Jecv(
'( \-' tJrOG'l? -(
-
.)
\
\ '
d\
'\
.;
1
t
J ~
\./
\l 0' Ct J~""~
1'1 errv\ \j
cB
-( rte IffJt
@
I ~I,
+Dtt:ll
)1\
71070 of
10',30 '1'
'-' ' .{
\ \ I L :L.~-
I ~; 5" l - 2- t,.
~"
I
'::\~
). \< (~ ..J
'-Ic.,
.,,'n.. _ ....""'ff._. ,.....~.._._. ......--~ ...,..,.",....,....-.--.~- "~ iF.....'V....... -.....-.'------". ~------.
Od crt /Cf7Q &3 2/5'3) fi~cJ\tey as(U~f -f01 ~mpc~
und ~:l..,) t Durdnf ex{~{).s/on Rom ~C'.b C 19~O
I )
cAe{lr1.l In Q - 0 (: jJ l cD [3 Y CCLl{U{j L
ad. 22.' ICf1!l (1sAIQY ~qLte0-feQ QXk.nstOrL {or
fre..Q IrClr Iud- . <-{ncb ctt- 7LU S, c:oo(eno..., c./f y
Loured c/lcJn -t- AJ-~ -to pc.cu?-r 10 ~<<,-nci ~
d!rQtf-~::d (4. TO d(d-i..U up t1Jt crdin:2fl(('
'to CdLOw LC h ~ on ~-t.ens(on.
.
Dee 17/ /071 ~
ch,{e -k-;
O'd -- czi.f
2+- If \V'
- I sI I<:ecdirg - ckflJe1
Jf if1ud -.zit C(I ~
De c 21, {Of? 1 - {ref qL1 - I c.;t R8cdf!J- A fpmu3:(
,
f' :).',(;(r7
Tan I Lt, I q 8"6 - 0 rd , 'i{cl - '2rC{ Kef;] - c1'f! n !("d 4) ;'-1-
uJould ";;;L~ pe-en Of[ ell'1erqency {wolrn )r:r3? +-
~-l w~sfl+ cprropria.fe .
< Tan 2'6, (C{g() - Passer:{ ore/.- 'de;- - 4. Vcrs I-r--ee
f(ldr{C (i+t 2- ,/;(5 '<?mpi- - 2 <(1.5 fur jOln{-
Irvl-t} r- eVYlp 1 .
I / .. - - <.
\ f' (iXV\ checL
f!I () reA _ 10, I C(66 (p :29tfl{) . - Peel [d I j fcrll1! +-
r'i2{ec f-<{'d d u'€+O cmrqes {{bf(1 0 I'll f
QppU CQ&IOf1 , n10(J(J~ t!LA I Idl (1~~i arG'f/<tZr
loe () +-lCJh - 'f\f':(;'
"
JLl[V N, Iq~Q - f+shlf\! -- Ee!Or(? e-cX'.
c\... ;-)l!ci/d;rq f?erm[f-I wrk oied.ICC(Nm
612 resolutd ' (j{J-fenr-eo1S 'Jr.s
PC{ y (, r:k~ (YIlt {-eo f- C(f-<!
qv+ m{)(V;J /(.
CQn. ~
I :js~(E /YJ1/3!
70 --(-h~lcf
euou (o(
,,_..~,..~ _.......--"".,....'~...._.....__.,-
.
Od. ''6'0 - P. L {()(lCtrt-ua ( o..fftoua!
!Jou II, nRQ -.-: F((\ol P(d-.1 -fef Q'2!;' -to.H{Jq
,
r+u~ 2F, IQ!?I," C('fi2.fYlp+ed 1:=1 i2.mp[ u.(\(-L') --tr'br0 e:J((f
t -n (\::Ll ~ll+ o.PffDuq I,
UJO({t1 ~ in ICf77 ~
AppU(':()(nf 1/ shatf sGtPmrr p!df1S 5uff;'(ient- ftr
bLAddi~ permit Issuetnee ,wi-fhin C\. pszr{CC!
&'6i f\q Dr\ -t~e 2rd. orhe Lef5d ry Df- -(he
OeDdfirE.- -0, SUbnlIS~;(cn of -!-he. qpp{t'(qj-;()~
-tor whicJ, {De.. o(lotmertf 0A6 ~Q,"
o
o
"
CITY OF ASPEN
130 south galena street . aspen, colorado 81611
COllneil Agenda
0' . (L()~lev 051L~, -f:,r emflcY~
Oc-f, Cf, ~q - ~1S9 - 'I1(i-eilsi()\-1 ([0 O\ppJ
I ' c-
@ 9ct '2~' 13 - 1=re.e. f'{\f'+ fl(i-ensiof\ - Ud1reckq
C. t4-tt -to rrrke Or 01 ' CJ/lQ't?5 _J "( (.,:y v
CC --+0 q;Jnt eK-Rnsion, 'J /' rd
@ d-~y u: J /'_J )
~ s-t- O~, J!tCi' A~.rJ ~t-r: I w rl ,'; LOl~
;-- r~\lnJJ 1':L {7 f ( - VL~rI4-t--:_HJ>.:.
-1 I~ {(,~ ,f1k - (2.(27 1~ - o;!.Y- -"'I' j ,
1JlPe)~Y~ PAd'tj \!ltfl~oh0I.~4 "{fS -foc -Pre!?- fY\k1-
("'- rh ~ r " '~ " C-.I.f ' ( ~,r, pI
0) "cd) ~ ,or e". "---
q'1.. "L (/ A J
,: _?rcl' }.~ ) i~q( '?SO ~ PO 55eeL tXc{ ~ r-
81-~'l-l o~ 3/101'ifO 6d~ Pe,.-nd K"'}. I
,rf L? 01 u '0 -,~O t ~5 -{}rcY1l- 0 m P 0{ p~
CUY\OVQ... 1o~D, '\ (1l-0.{ S~l' .:tbou.+ \
~ ) 4:(' eYp\ re _ ,u~l"G'(/ '::> )
P<J l~
@ 7 ( ( L-{ { ?fJ - [I I..d or~ UJt. (0-/"- ~t t+-
vd q \x2 y Vrl' l ~ ~:'k: d.<<t \ r Q:' , .)\ ~
S sHd. ~ I. ...,...../
~e+<{(ceJ \. '--' \ :> ~( 5, 5"5 v. e ^' r-t''":0\. v~
CJ../~-:"? /f)f!t -e rv or{ :5 yr S, ~ J _Jv~~ ( /
Pn I :{ '1 ~ " . . , I
~', ~
GV'tt l ()P~' It. , C'
- \. : ~~ J rt J1
I '
I
Next Regular Meeting
11'\ d>( t~
V~D~
/
~)
"--
/".. I . "../ ~
r<r2 -> opp; Lor T- Qre.llm
o O'
1/ IcO I ?O - /<''''1 t;(\(7 (~h-!-- .
fOr q2~-. 7-dtl(ld \
) {Oil C(Jd.{j(f /
/lJo e.urdf?IYt of;/ CL ~!fJ(i
-(or 12 ~. (su I). Pre
~
,.n '2r/-f?--,
nU1 0--7-
..
1(0
I
f2-S-
(. {
?~
_I, I I
a/I o. '~71:!
V {f'
-c~ 12../ Lih? ~ drc! 2;4- fQ5~
'1J
~ g
@ ~h 2.1/ khl'>(rf- .pi '\nJ ,u{+ {},r.0
p-erw f- I ~~~ wi f V\.. ex.. pqr ~~
(}i'L. 2Yd CtV\n I ve~ of-- 'ft.e. c1:&;X::I1,~
for .H.(...b~)lo,^- 0+- -\l-.e. P(ffUcq-l-lon.--. rev-
..v~h.... ~ Q1.b~-- ~ K>A:J~
I
r
CITY OF ASPEN ..
MEMO FROM ALICE DAVIS
Condl-f::!,ons -10 C{'2S- t pG\.mnt-
iApproucd
l) 5id-QwoJfS . < ,
2~ A J~q ~ (<<0/---
J) 5J 't tr. c:J.eed rfm at-
/
LOw (i'\ (cvn.e
4\ ty-~cukor\- of de<<:i vednctf1\
r D1fv2<r OQ(V-el'j'Y\errt:J PI" r (J,
CD Ie coroJA-HOt\. ,
~-') III OL(ord-CZhC~ CUi
S e.( '2..4. - U' l 0.,\ ~ Si-c')~
f~ 7- no+- COI" (!.Ar ~I cCs
op (Jr 0 J ct/ -th ~r\ 0\ rr. Cc 0.. -{-uJV'\..
Should qo /:;aCt. -Ju p+c.A-
bacLc to cC,
.
,r' ..".
"
MEMORANDUM
1~F~~i&
~t MAR 2 1982
UL,-_
ASPEN / PiTKIN CO,
Pi 6NNING OFFtCE
.~
TO:
Paul Taddune, city Attorney
Jay Hammond, Assistant city Engineer~
FROM:
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
,.
(
.
c
H.B.C. INVESTMENTS
P.O. BOX 388
ASPEN, CO 81612
February 5, 1982
Mr. Jay Hammond
City of Aspen Engineerin9 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
buildin9 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.
,-', "9 d,. t. U1
Cantrup
HBC/sdv
,
.
"",,.,.
~.""",.
CIT
PEN
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 'ra 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 ex ten-
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 authoLity 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 cos~pursuant to Section 7-
'"
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.
CITY OF ASPEN
By
ATTEST:
HBC INVESTMENTS
By
~--"-----'-"~~~'.'~-~'''''--~~'''''''-'-'' .--
...
PEN
I
130
asp
--~".,I!
t..,-..
JM l6 m~ .if
~;:~ ---= .;.'
"'~ I; I'li~'N ee
~LANNING OFFICE
NEMORANlJUM
DATE: January 19, 1982
TO: Planning Office
Engineering Department
FROM: Paul J. Taddune
RE: 925 East Durant Project
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 me with your com-
ments 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 schedule 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 tne 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
-~.~---
1""',
'-,.-"
~ -~
SUBDIVISIUN ^UKC~M~NT
TillS J\CIWI::NlmT,
1902, by a~~ between
~efecred to as City)
as SUbdivide.:)
llti.de ~:'hh; _lj?_, day of /}1~"",,,~/
tile CJ.ty at /1'jl'''ll, COiar,lUO (n,>c,,),ndtt(,r.
and JIBe lnvesl.j\lent~-; (h0.t:'ciilc:IttP.t" r~e(c'Crcd
,
La
WIT N I:: SSE T H:
\'1IlE1(1:;/IS, the Subdivider has ,;uumittee! to tile" City for
aiJpl:oval, execution, ane! recol:dation, a finiLl plat (llt,,:ein.Jfter
refe~red to as t:hc "Plat'l) COJlcerpi'l~ tile d~v~l()p.~ent o( an
employee housin':) project knO\'in as the "925 I::ast_ [),IT:ant l'r.oject" on
a vacdnt parcel of r.eal propet-t_y owned by the SubUiviucl: and
located at 925 East DUI:ant hvenue, and fot'.nally cks,~t'ibed as Lots
F, G"ll, I, Block 119, City of,Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of
Colot'ado; anp
~~
.~~:,~~ .
'n':~k
.":':~:-':-
>.~
;..;)'~
~--:'-<'-
L--i.
IVHEREAS, on August 28, 1981, toe Aspen City Council gt'anted
final plat appr.oval for the Project subject to cet'tain 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 acknOl<iledOl in9 its accept-
ance of all the cond i tions and r.equi relaen ts imposea by the Ci ty.
NO\'1, THEREFORE, in considecation of the }lremises, covenunts,
and conditions contained herein, and the apPt'oval, execution and
acceptance of the plat f6~ recordation by the City of ^spen, it 'is
mutually agreed as follows:
1. The Suodivider will construct a sidewalk in front of the
property along DUI:ant Street vlhich shall "'x tend ft'o," the pr.op2rty
1 ine on the eas t to the proper.ty 1 ine on the wes t and sh<,ll
install a trash facility on the propel:ty adjacent to the alley
along the south property line having dimensions of no less than 10
feet deep and 25 feet long. Said iillproveldents shidl be installed
and constructed in conjunction with the construction of the Pr.o-
Ject and shall be co~pleted prior to the issuance of a cectificatc
of occupancy for the project.
2. \'lith r.espect to the improveil1ents to be constl:ucted by
Subdivider as set forth in paragraph "1" her.ein~bave and in
accordance with Section 20-16 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Sub-
divider a9~ees to provide a guarantee for no less than one hundr.ed
(100) percent of the current estiIiICtted cost of the illtpl:oVeJ,lents as
cOlllputed by tJle City Enyineer, reflecteu in Exhiuit "j,", annC'xed
hereto and incor.porated herein. The gual:antee shall be prov ided
to the City priot' to the issuance of a build ins per.,ait for the
."'
,;,
r
(
\
"
(
..
.
-
'-
-
-
projpr.t i",d shall be in the fonn of a r.ash e~jC:l:O'.O \-lith the "City,
O~ a bilnk Ot: S~tvj.[,~S and lOdn asol:iiltic)n, 01: iln ir:rcvo~ilbl(~ siU11t
eJt'clft or. lettel: of conUilitlll(~nt fl:OJiL it finLltll-:iall'.l 'f.-es~on~:;iLJl(~
lende>:; and ~;I)a,L1 9ive the City the, unr.op,litional ri~ht, upon
default by tll(, Subdivide':, to wiU)d':<tH funds upon d'-,;\:ll1d to P:H'-
tidlly or fully c:olnplete ano/OI: [JLlY for. any Lnprv"'e..,ent or. pelY dny
outstandiny bills for wor.k done ther.evn by any par.ty. In addi-
tion, ::lubcJiviclel: her.eby il~r.(:es to \'''ilr:CdPt. all illlt)I:O'~'....~;.lf-:nt$ i"at: a
pl'riod of one yea': after ilr.r.ept<wc:e by the City.
//
3. Subdivide>:, ag>:,ees that all of the uni,ts within this
eJnployee housif19 [}r.Ojl~ct shall oe subject to r.cstcictivc COVenilr\ts
fOl: i.t tel::a of ,:)0 yeal..~s [Eom the dClt"_...~ of r.(;:COI:Udti0" tT:.et"~:ot Wi1il,,:,h
cov(,nants shall pr.ovide that said er.)ployee hou,,>ilhj 'units ,....ill not
be n,nted or. solei except in ilr.r.OI:dance with the 10'"' inco,ae <Juic1e-
1 ines es tab 1 ished bY the Ci ty of. Aspen as thc saw? ;:laY ue l~od if ied
ft:ol;( ti1l1e to tir.1e by the City of flSiJcn. Saj,d r.estr.ictiv,~ cove-
nants shall be r.ecOl:ded simul taneous ly with the r.ecocci il1g of- the
final pIa to
~~: i~
.~~t
:',,'i;
", .\;Jf.
:~5~
-....'~'r
;:;.,,;.
:"~
4. 'l'he pr.ov is ions her.eof shall be bind in':l, ui,Jon and shall
inUt:e to the benefit of the Subdivider. annd the' City and tl1eir.
respective sucr.esso~s and assigns.
5. This Agr.eement shall be subjer.t to and const>:'ued in
ar.r.ordahce with the la~1S of tne State of Color.acio and the Hunici-
pal Code of the City of Aspen.
6. If any of the pr.ovisions of this Agr.eement O~ any 2aca-
graph, sentence, r.lause, phcase, \~ol.'d o~ s ec I:,ion a>:' the appl ica-
tion ther.eof in any r.ircurastanr.es is invalidateu, such invalidj,ty
shall not affect the validity of the' reHlainde>:' of this l,gl:ee:.wnt
and the validity of any sur.h pr.ovision, pa>:'B':Iraph, senten~e,
clause; phr.ase, word or. se~tion under. any 01:1)(>>:, cj.l:cu...sti!n~e shall
not be affer.ted ther.eby.
7. 'I'his Subdivision Agr.eement contains the enti""e unc1er.-
stilnding and a9r.c'ement between the pa>:'ties !l('t:ein \,'it;, >:,espect 1:,0
tile tr.ansact:ions r.ontemplated her.eund,~t: and may be al tet:ed or.
a,,,ended f~om till1e to time only by written inst>:,u,.1cDt exe,~uted by
ear.h of the par.t.ies her.eto.
8. Any not,ir.es r.equir.ed t',\1 be <jiven to tl1e ~actie's :to this
Agr.eelllent shall be deeined to have been given if pe>:,sonally 9 iven
a>:' deposited in the United States mail to the parties by r.e':lis-
te~ed or. cer.tified mail at the addr.esses indicated beloH.
City of llspen:
City 1:ianilge>:,
130 South Galena Str.eet
llspen, Color.ado 81611
Subdivider. oc its Sucr.essocs
or Assigns:
BIlC InvestJl\ents
P. O. Box 388
Aspen"ColOt:ildo 81612
2
,"
1
,
'.
"
?
+
i
J
~
t
1
l
.~
,
J
~
'i
i
I
1
l
l
i
~
-i~
1
1
~
t
j
"
.1
:-l
'J
-'4
,}
~
'i
^~.
J
.,
.,
'1
'I
.
.~
i
1
-f
4
~
:~
I
i
~
~
j,
J
3
4
,
r..
"<.v
..
J
:!;S 11I11::tu;U[', 1'.11(, ['".:ties lwt:<,to lIave :wr.eunto executec!
.d", 011 the yeat:" and date hei.0.jn..1iJ()\"P set focth.
CJ:l'YOF ASPEN, il Colot:ildo
Municipal Cor.pot:ation
By
'iler.IllC1n [;(i(-~l, l-l0.YOt-
,,(;~;-'(;n-YCl (": l~--
.'
\.~
.",
~f.
:.,;.~
:'CJ FOiUl:
.. __ v
~"',:}[)e r City i\ttor.ney -
lIBe
INVES'r~lEUTS,
. Ai a,-,~---
_"..;~ '.;"'"T"
. - _.---~-,
,. -...--
~ -.....-..:. ...
',' :,!{J\DO
)
)
)
55 ~
;j:iCl
,;"..' ""Join9 ~ubct}vi';ion A9l:eewel.J1d;('S s',;,n:n
. /, hW tins J /}- ddY of (i' .r!/i-!
=~- ';l.' ~~ ~Ol~;~1u7f)-/~f~){;-:' .-{ ,f,,.<.-~
" '.~..- .\.lY HhND l\ND OF'FICIAL SE!\L.
t.o and lie ;-~IlO'~':-
, 19<12,
,..
,'.:;S ion expit:es: _11) ';).- \<::~
~0;p:~A_ U-f]A--/
Nota0.y 1 ubllC
i\ddr.ess: ~/f~r-'~I f/Y/?t!.;;=4
.....
"
3
(
"
.
';
-
,
-.
S'l'lI'rt:: OF COLOl,^[)()
)
) .55.
)
county of pitkin
'Ilh(~ [ot:e~oi.ntJ SUbuivi.sion ;\ljr.eelllc-:nt \olliS S\','Ol:n
l(:d~p.d b(,for.e J~(~ tld,S Oily at
by /lan.5--H.--emrtct1E~'0r. -l1,tlG-THves L;j\CI1l:.s"
flt'JIf\II/I t'vLU., I /JI1/1 ",;//. Cc f^r '()/15 ;='_~
~H'J'nESS HY 1IIIt<o IIND bFfJCIId_ SI;!\L.
11y c:ol1ulliss ion expi l:€'S:
Notilr:y Publ ic:
/~...
Addr.ess:
/
4
.,
..
to and <Ie: kllOv/-
, 19tJ2,
:
(
'::;~j.
. ". ~'-;"
::f~
?/":'::f
.~,;~
_..~..'
~"";.}. .
.~.
,"
l
,
I
!
'i
,
I
I
i
.....,
" ."
'''4......''''
MEMORANJ)ml
TO: Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney
FROM:
Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer r
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
EXHIBIT "A"
f
'I
I
<
.
.,.
".~,..,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning File
FROM: Alice Davis, Planner,JU)
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:
I'
Dec. 11, 1981:
Planning Office review to determine effects of amendments
to the 1978 GMP application.
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and public hearing.
The Commission will consider the amendments to the 1978
GMP application and will giv& 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.
Jec. 14, 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", 1931:
Submission of the preliminary plat must be made in order
to have the plat reviewed at the January 19th P & Z
meeting.
Dec. b, 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 Corrmission meeting and puolic 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.
i'
. L."
, ,
PHOMISSORY NOTB
~ j,
,
I
11
Ii promises to pay to the order of THE Cl'/{ OF ASPEN, Aspen,
i'
Colorado 81611, or such other place as the holder hereof s11:\11
FOR Vl\LUE HECEIVED, the undersigned, Hl\NS B. Cl\N1'RUP,
designate, the principal sum of an amount equal tv the Park
Dedication Fee calculated at the time this Note
L
,
"
I,
I,
,
,
is due as if
the units described below were free-market units and payable
as follOl"s:
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.
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, tind
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.
I
I delivered the day and year first above written.
II
'I
,
I
I
I
II
II
I,
i!
Ii
,
i
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Note is executed and
HANS B. CANTRUP
* An amount equal to the
time this Note is due as
free-market units.
Park Dedication Fee calculated at the
if the units described herein were
~"
",
"
DECLARl\'l'ION OF RESTRICTIONS
--~----------
HANS D. CAN'l'RUP (covenantor), for himself, his
heirs, executors, adminis.trato.es I and assigns hereby coveniJ.nts
with the City of Aspen, pitkin County, Colorado, that:
1. He is the OI-mer of the following described
property together with the improvements thereon:
12 residential
units located on
2. A \~he above-described property shall be restricted
to six (6) month minilllUlU :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
IrJi~J. !!,- 't. C
be restricted to rental and sale price terms within~housing
price guidelines as the same may be amended from time to time
".c.""
~
'f
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 instru~ent
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 ''lith
the land and shall be binding on all parties
and all per~ons
(#~".)
year's^ from~
claiming under them for a period of five (5)
the date these covenants are recorded.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Declaration has been duly
executed this
day of
, 1980.
o
~
rml0RA,mUi1
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: 925 E. Durant Employee 1I0using,
Exempti on From Growth t1anagement
DATE: September 21, 1931
As the attached letter indicates, the applicant is requesting exemption
from compl i ance V/ith the allotment procedures of the Growth flanagement
Quota Sys tem pursuant to Secti on 24-11. 2 H of the' 11uni ci pa 1 Code. The
applicant proposes to construct 12 studio employee housing units of
approximately 425 square feet each at 925 E. Durant (lots F, G, 11 and I,
Block 119, Aspen Townsite). The units constitute the employee portion
of the applicants 1978 residential GMP 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 28 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 appl i cant's request
for exempti on from Growth 11anagement for the cons tructi on of 12 s tudi 0
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 peri od of 50 years \~ithin the Ci ty' slow income
housing guidelines."
o
o
GARFIELD & HECHT
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V, HECHT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUIL1?\NQ
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
Mr. Sunny Vann, Director
Aspen Pitkin County Planning
506 E. Main St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Dept.
3:Jl~~0 8NINN\ild
1981 'O:J NI>flld I N3dS\i
~I I. ;6l GO d3S 1\~
I:: )1\,
I . ~ J !.I
'I ,---, ., 'r'-~-" - -- .
", " ~ t. ') ,I 1:1
, ~ -'~, '! \r' ...'. .." <..1
L..-.._,U_J........JL_.1L-' ___.\.._..
TELEPHONE
(lOll 925-19l6
TELECOPIER
(lOll 925.l()()g
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
CRAIG N, BLOCKWICK
K, ROULHAC GARN
RICHARD y, NEILEY, JR,
SPENCER F, SCHIFFER
September 2,
RE, 925 E. Durant - 500 Galena project
Dear Sunny;
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
your s ,
HECHT
SFS/mls
o
o
GARFIELD & HECHT
CRAIG N, BLOCKWICK
K, ROULHAC GARN
RICHARD y, NEILEY, JR.
SPENCER F, SCHIFFER
August 20,
TELEPHON E
(303) 925-1936
TELECOPIER
(303) 925-3008
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V, HECHT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
-
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:
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-ll.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
o
o
,
GARFIELD & HECHT
convenience so that we can determine precisely how to
proceed.
Thanks for your continued cooperation.
Very~trulY yours,
GA ELD & HECHT
SFS/pp
cc: Hans B. Cantrup
Hark Danielson
Paul Taddune, Esq.
1/78
5/78
12/79
2/79
1/80
2/80
3/80
5/80
9/80
10/80
11/80
~ .__..__,_>.._"....._______"_.,w__"'._.~. ~._...._.'~;___.____""
'"
,
925 E. Durant - 12 Employee Housing units
Chronology
GMP Application submitted
G~W Allotment for 12 low income employee units
RBO ordinance first reading
5 year deed restriction changed to 50 year restriction
Building permit application submitted
Memo from building department to Council requesting
review of plans which had been revised to accommodate
P.BO
Council approved revised plans
RBO ordinance adopted
Subdivision application subMitted
P&Z grants subdivision exception, conce9tual and
preliminary plat approval
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
-
"
'_N"
CITY
130 s
t re e t
1611
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.
,-,
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:
tI
The Planning Office presented this reque t
studio units which had previously been g.v
Conceptual/Preliminary Subdivision appro 1
approval for 12
a GMP a110 nt (1978) and
(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.
-
-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
v 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)
Request:
12,000 square feet
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).
Lot Size:
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
Comments:
The Engineering Department recommends that the applicants
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
Comments:
No comment received,
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.
Mi sce 11 aneous:
No new comments were received from:
Housing Director
City Electric
Mt. Bell
Planning Office
Recommendation:
The Planning Office recommends that the P & Z grant an
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
Recommendation,
cont. :
Engineering Department conditions:
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
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V, HECHT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
CRAIG N, BLOCKWICK
K, ROULHAC GARN
RICHARD Y. NEILEY, JR,
SPENCER F, SCHIFFER
,August 26, 1981
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-1936
jr'ELECOPIER
(303) 925-3008
CABLE ADDRESS
3')' " "GARHEC"
\
J'
lr' ,I i
i
, ' ,: ,,Ii
. ,) ,.'. .,.~ ',. lJ l
\;....,........"".,.-......j-----"'-"...............~~.. >
The Honorable Herman
Aspen City Council
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
J;:del, Mayor
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 ~he
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 Friday, 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 GtW 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 March 10, 1980,
approved new plans specifically designed to accommodate the
additional REO 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 late-r, at the public hearing on final
.'"
GARFIELD & HECHT
Mayor Herman Edel
August 26, 19B1
Page Two
plat approval that the apolicant 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 preclu~e 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 intearity of our
systems and processes.
2. Nhat are we proposing?
We are proposing that Council either (al acknowledge our
right to a 5 year restriction; or
(bl 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. Nhat 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 initialS year period. Thus,
in the very worst possihle case the City would end up with the
effective imoosition 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 Ede1
August 26, 1981
Page Three
5. Could the City prevent t~e 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 ~aperwork 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 requirinq 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 din 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 anplicant 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
special handling of this matter.
anything and is merely making an
that special circumstances require
In our view the City is not losing
accommodation for the legal rights
----~-.,~--~.,-,,---~.---~.-.------' -----
-----,".,-~-_.-,...__.--,,-~--. ----._~--
, ,
GARFIELD & HECHT
Mayor Herman Edel
August 26, 1981
Page Four
of the applicant while preservina the public policy.
We trust your questions and concerns have all been
addressed. If you have any further questions or comments I
would be happy to discuss them with you prior to or at the
meeting.
Thanks for your consideration.
Very ~ruly yours,
SFS/mls
cc: Paul Taddune, Esq.
Nayne Chapman
Sunny Vann
Alan Richman
1/78
5/78
12/79
2/79
1/80
2/80
3/80
5/80
9/80
10/80
11/80
-"..,-~~~,.~~^-
925 E. Durant - 12 Employee Housing units
Chronology
GMP Application submitted
GMP Allotment for 12 low income employee units
REO ordinance first reading
5 year deed restriction changed to 50 year restriction
Building permit application submitted
Memo from buildin9 department to Council requesting
review of plans which had been revised to accommodate
RBO
Council approved revised plans
RBO ordinance adopted
Subdivision application sub~itted
P&Z grants subdivision exception, conceptual and
preliminary plat approval
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
,-<
.."',....,
~f
.I~~ 1T r-'.:n y, T
-, ,,;1\ I
t ," . <
\~ l~ ~_J " l
~/;;"_ n._ .Ji.
r-'<
t ",,--..' ~"""""'" '"f!~ 'v'\. T
,-1,<< (<,< <,<.: \1\'<'" '1''\ <
,< . <w-lC,J ",
'.' ~. "-. 'J . ,,-, ,.
/.', ~ -.- ,. " . J
,L " r__" J.'- ,.J "l
130 SHU~:; .,;:':.:t ';[1'ee(
a s [) e r~" r'; i.~ ( ~.~ (~n & 1611
303'925'2020
._----~~ -.--- .-
HEl\1CRi\N DUH
DATE:
Au~ust 10, 1901
'l'0;
lViErnJ:h.:rs ot Clt_y COUIK:il
, ~--_.-
P"tul rraddune ~ \
FROJ1;
RL::
9L5 Ducant
On 1':'118 l.)(:~S1.S of discussions wit.h SUllny Vanni lfiY understanding of
th~ history relative to the Durant project is that a growtn
manz.'jC,>'lent dJ.lotlnent was received at a time when the employee
housing deed res~riction requirement was only five years; Follow-
ing the orig inaJ. G~lP approval, the appl icant then sousht and
received an amendlnent to his oriyinal application and delayed mak-
ing t,he appropriate. appJ. ications for approval of' subel iv is ion "nd
exemption fcolll grO\vth manayeme,nt for the employee units. IJucing
tl)e interiD, tile employee hous1ng deed restriction requi.ren..:nt "as
increased to fifty years. By letter to acting City Attorney, Bob
Gru<2ter, dated Novellloer 20, 1980 (a copy of which is annexed), the
applicant'S attorneys protested the fifty year deed restriction
requireillent to the project, asserting that the application was
Soverned by the five year requirewent in .effect at. the time of G11P
ap;)roval a.no that the ap?l icant had expended substant.ial su,ns of
money in reliance and in expectation of a five year restriction.
At. the Counci~ meeting when this issue was last discussed, the
applicant agreed to the tlfty year restriction, but indicated that
financin~ consiuerations dictated that the property be subjected
to a lUortyage or sotne other encull1orance. In discussing the lItatteJ:
with the applicant's att.orneys, I was infor.-med that the terms of
any encumbranc,,, \wuld require that t.he units revert to "free mar-
ket" status in the event of foreclosure. Obviously, the applicant
would be able to ootain yreatel' financing on free l"arket units
which WOULd 0enerate a higher value on resale than elnployee,
unit.s.
As ,Ci ty At t,orney, I l1ave ob jec t:eo to the placement of encmnbrances
which, in the event of foreclosure, would defeat and circumvent
tl1e intent. of Code requlre;;tents. In th is appJ. icat ion, ho,wver,
there is a dispute over which cequirement should apply. 'As a
middle 91.-ound, aild wi t.hout conced in<; the appl icao 11 i ty of the
tifty year requirement, the applicant is willing to deed restrict.
t.lefi\o to City Counc il
Au~ut 10, 1981
Page Two
for tiity years, w1th the provis10n t11at if the beneficiary of any
deed of trust foreclosures, the [In)pertj wL!,l be subject to the
:t ive year r~s tc ict iOll only. l\1or'e spec it iC.J.l1y I as out:l inca in
Spencer Schiffer's correspondence of July 16, 1981 (a copy of
which 1S also annexed), the tolHJwiny conditions would pertain in
the event of foreclosure:
1. '1'he City would have t11e opt lon to recke." \:11e property by pay-
ing the note and retaininy the ewployee status throughout the
course ot the ent1re fifty year per10d.
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 pro~erty 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 t~De the units will revert to free mar-
ket s tat:us.
3. If purchased by any party other tnan t.ne oenef ic iary, the
fifty year restriction would continue.
Rather than enter into a<;jreclllcnts or letters of unders tand in9, rny
policy is to bring SUctl matters to Council for advice and consent.
'I'he much discussed issues of reliance and estoppe.l loom in the
background, and the solution proposed wou+d avoid these issues.
On the other hand, since all approvals have not been final ized and
no uuilding permit nas been issued, there is room for Council to
adhere to the position that t1h, applicant must absolutely comply
with the fitty year reStl:iction. If Council is amenable to the
compromise I I wOLlld recoHlfflend that the res t~ric tion also ind icate
that the beneficiary of the deed of trust cannot have any connec-
tion \~ith the applicant and tilat if the applicant, or any corpora-
tion in which the applicant has an interest should repurchase the
property then the fifty year restriction ShOlUd apply.
PJ'l': me
Attachments
r^' ~
"
BOS:\I.D GAlmEI.!)
J..\Dl{F\if\". m:rtrJ
ASlll.E" A!\DEl<SO;\
AH(li,\I:Y~ .\T 1.,\\\'
Vie rom,1 SQl',IRE Bl'Ii,D!:,G
601 EAST I!Y HA~ A VE~t1E
ASI'E~, COIOIIADO 81MI
f'~ECEIVED
JUL 1 7 1981:
TEU:I'II(l:\E
(303) 9Z',-19Hl
TEtECOI'lH:
(303) 92,,1"""
CABLE Al)I)HFS~
"'GAI{IIECLA K"
GAI\FlELD &. HECHT
Cli Y~nORWY'.~ OFfICE
CBAIG N, HWCK\\'"ICK
K_ Iwrt.llAC {,,\It''i
BOI-um: .10 {)rL~\l\r
(.\D.'\ITllD 1:\ lI.1I\OlS tl\IYf
HlClIAl<l) Y. !\Ell.Er..I1{
July 16, 1981
Paul Taddune, Esq.
Aspen City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
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,
iYOU indicated that such would not be acceptable to the City. , As a
comprO~i.se alternative, however,. you suggested, an approach whereJ;>y a
reverSlon to free market status upon a foreclosure would be perm~ss-
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
land 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 conr1ihmi to FinAl Plat approval, our
client wi~l accept" the imposition of the fifty year deed restriction
provided that the deeds and any deeds ot trust aaainsr the employee
housing units contain the following conditlons in addition to the
restrictiDn:
_."-~~-^"--
p'-""
"--''""
GARFIELD & HECHT
A. If at any time foreclosure proceedings are cormnenced
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 wi thin forty-five days
from the date a judgment of foreclosure is entered, the City of
Aspen shall then have the remainder of the stat,utory period wi thin
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 ter~inate 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
I
I
!
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 i;fUlY yours,
GARF ~LD , H7h';,/~
er F 1s:::tfer
SFS/pp
cc: Sunny Vann
Hans B. Cantrup
,~
C' "-)I'lF' I' II"C'II'f
J.i\ ~" ...1... i E, < l~ 'l
tHJ~Atu li^Ht"lEI.D
,M-iO:U:Vv.m:rllT
^:-;HU: t ^NDEH..'-;ON
M!':jH1~l::YS ^T U,'",'
VICTOH!}-. SQt!Ar<E Bl rlLDl:\G
^Si'EN. COLORADO 81611
HLU'Ull!\t
(loll 92S,I<J16
1 nt:COPIEK
(Joll 92S. lOo'
CABl~ AllIlHL\S
o-GAHlleCl^ \r
601 F/5T IIH\AN ^ YE~UE
OtAIG N. IlWCKWICK
K. RUL'tll/.C GAIC~
hO>>lU~; JO QII!.'1KY'
(AOnrrn:n IN n.lJNHtS UM'!')
KIClIAXO y, ~~ILf.Y, JK,
November 20, 1980
. .
HAND DELIVERED
Robert P. Grueter, Esq.
City Attorney
city of Aspen
130 South Galena Street'
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: 925 E. Durant 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 (524-10.4) 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 cll!\Ounts of time and money on the project,
includingj 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 Catitrup'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 existin'J'
plans would have been pursued.
The imposition by the City of a fifty (50) year restriction
at this late date would be contrary to establisred principles of
law recognized by the courts of Colorado. Specifically, the doctrine
of equitable estoppel, is applicable to the actions of governmental
agencies. Denver v. Stackhouse 135 Cola 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 Cola 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
..r:;
",,"""",
".""'..
GAI~FIELD & !lECIIT
the doctrine should be applied. In the situation with which
we are presently presented snc:h reliance exists, thus, the
doctrine is applicable. See Miller v. Board of Trustees of
Palmer Lake 36 Colc app BS;:-531 P2d-Ti32. -The circumst.ances of,.
the instant case clearly reveal substantial relian~e upon the
representation of. the ,city thi't 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 ~re manifest.
In addition, the City is required to apply the zoning
ordinance and zoning requirements in affect at the time Cantrup's
application was ~ade. The retroactive application of a more
restrictive ordinance is impennissable. See City and County of
Denver v. Denver Buick, Inc. 141 colo 121-;-34'"/ 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 permissab1e
legal authority.
Very truly yours,
GARFIELD & HECHT
, .~/2~;~~?/.
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH/pp
"
I:
. .
LAW OFFICES
AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS AVE:NUE
SUITE 205
RONALD D. AUSTI N
.J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR.
WILLIAM R. JORDAN m
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
August 19, 1981
AR~A CODE 3(),3
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 WednBsday, 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;
.
I
!
i
i
I
t
I
I
I
!
2. The building will be reduced in bulk by l~
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 147, 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% 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 R}!F 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
.
:'
,
,
,
,,t
}'
ME~lORl\NDur'i
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoniny COil',nission
V 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. DUI'ant (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 G~1P 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 Counci 1.
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 re'1uested an exception from full subdivision
(Conceptual before P & Z, Final Plat before City Council).
Note that the applicants will separately, in the near
future, pursu~ a Residential Bonus Over1ay 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
Comments:
The Engineering Department recommends that the applicants
be excepted only from City Council Conceptual approval
so that a public heari,ng will be held and referral com-
ments obtained at the P & Z Preliminary phase. Exception
approval reconnnended subject to conditions in attached
memorandum (October 14, 1980).
Attorney's
Comments:
No comment received.
Rocky Mtn. No problem. Gas in Durant St. available to project.
Nat. Gas Comment:
City Water Dept.
Comment:
No further comments necessary.
1978 in application.
See letter dated January 25,
r'li sce 11 aneOU5:
No new comments were received from:
Housing Dir~ctor
City Elcctl'ic
l~t. Dell
Planning Office
Recommendation:
The Planning Office l'eCOJii!llends that the P & Z grant an
exception froln full subdivision, excepting only Conceptual
approval before City Council, Th~ Oct. 21 P & Z meetins
v:'~~, crt :'; ,1 I",!'l fr hr1rinq for f'rel illlinary approva'i.
FutLht!r~ tile: I ,,,,iil i,,-, \.)1 i -;L\.~ 1 ,~: ,"/ : \:~) 1.\1:: j1 {.. Z SJrant
Cr)(iCl'iJtUt11 dlld iTt.'j II:!;;:"] /' l1"L di;jn 1'/;':1 :)uhjr:(t to the
r'~,',"''','': n".~r:, r... t, ~, ~ . I, "
. . - ',..- ;~.!l ( r - ,-..::!, , ': .; v i~; ;' ("
UctobCT ] ~, 190G .'"
f'i\,jC Two
!
Planning Office
Recommendation,
cont. ;
P & Z
Recommendation:
Suggested City
Council Motion:
/..'......
Engi necri n9 [)epi\rtn:cnt condi t ions:
1. The i\pplicant sholl assure construction. of a side-
Will k along the JU1'i\nt Strel?t frontagl?
? 'Iii:' i11'plie':lt sh"ll pl'ovidc a trash facility adjacl?nt
to the alley in conformance \vith Sl?ction 24-3.7(h)(4),
The P & 1, at a reg~lar meeting held on October 21, 1980,
';pproved exception from full subdivision, waiving concep-
tlJ,lpproval 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. T~lo citizen comments were entered in writing (see
attached) and their concerns were considl?red.
1. Access to parking is from Durant.
2. As much or more noise is generated by tourists as
by the residl?nts.
3. Occupuncy 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 pal'king space) to meet Engineering
approval. A sidewalk will be constructed. For clarifica-
tion, twenty parking spaces will be provided underground.
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 Str~et frontage.,
2. An adequate trash facility shall be provided.
:3 5'r .JJdL;/-_~
? ~'"TL +U-~
.if '2 <1- -// -<- (i,)
'.'.,
GARFIELD & HECHT
CRAIG N. BLOCKWICK
K, ROULHAC GARN
RICHARD y, NEILEY, JR.
SPENCER F, SCHIFFER
A TIORNEYS A T LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
.!\ugust 26, 1981
TELEPHONE
(lOl) 925.19l6
TELECOPIER
(lOl) 925,l008
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V, HECHT
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 Friday, 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 GHP 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 an~ 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 exce~tion 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
"'....
'",......
,
,
GARFIELD & HECHT
Mayor Herman Edel
August 26, 1981
Page Two
plat approval that the apnlicant was
imposition of a 50 year restriction.
the matter was tabled.
requested to accept the
He did not accept and
It is our position that the law in Colorado as
a9plied to the facts of this case preclune 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 (al acknowledge our
right to a 5 year restriction; or
(bl impose the 50 year restriction with the condition
that if, after the first 5 years, there is a foreclosure sale to
any 3rd party unrelaten 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 unon a 5 versus 50 year
restriction is approximately $53,000 per unit or $636,000 for
the proj ect.
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 possihle case the City would end up with the
effective imnosition 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 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 requirina, 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 din 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 anplicant 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. Further~ore, if at any time subsequent
to a foreclosure sale the property carne 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
special handling of this matter.
anything and is merely making an
that special circumstances require
In our view the City is not losing
accommodation for the legal rights
,
r '."
,
GARFIELD & HECHT
Mayor Herman Edel
August 26, 1981
Page Four
of the applicant while preservino the public policy.
We trust your questions and concerns have all been
addressed. If you have any further questions or comments I
would be ha9PY to discuss them with you prior to or at the
meeting.
Thanks for your consideration.
SFS/mls
cc: Paul Taddune, Esq.
wayne Chapman
Sunny Vann
Alan Richman
yours,
.,....,
....,_J>'
GARFIELD & HECHT
,
RONALD GARFIELD
ANDREW V, HECHT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
August 10, 1981
TELEPHONE
(lOl) 925-19l6
TELECOPIER
(lOl) 925-3008
CABLE ADDRESS
"GARHEC"'
CRAIG N, BLOCKWICK
K, ROULHAC GARN
RICHARD y, NEILEY, JR,
SPENCER F, SCHIFFER
The Honorable Herman Edel
Mayor
Members of the City Council
City of Aspen, Colorado
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 pr9~sfFl unfair, unnecessary, and
clearly inequitable. Since those pr jects must proceed through a
review process, there is a ailsa mechanism already in place to
prevent abuses. Whereas ar ent could be made on behalf of the
necessity for a moratorium lth 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 REO
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 ~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 pro~'e ts
did not come under the purview of the subdivision regulations. On
September 26, 1980 a subdivision applicaition was submitted a on ~
October 21, 1980 the Planning and Zoning CommisS~9J1.apf>rOVe'cr-the __C>
925 East Durant employee h?u:ing project for ~ subdivision excepti~~j)
conceptual plans, and prellmlnary plat. On November 24 , 198'0-, 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.
yours,
A
and
cc: Paul Taddune, Sunny Vann, Wayne Chapman
Cantrup
.r-
.'-."
/"."
---
.""'0"0"0 I"UI!lLlIHllNo;;; CO., DLNYl:ft
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
"
RESOLUTION NO. 18
(Series of 1980)
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 $ .48/sq.ft.. $ .63/sq.ft. $ .78/sq.ft.
Sale Price $60.00/sq.ft. $71. OO/sq.ft. $82.00/sq.ft.
Section 2
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.
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Middle
Income
Rental Price
$ .42/sq.ft.
$49.00/sq.ft.
$ .55/sq.ft.
$58.00/sq.ft.
$ .68/sq.ft.
$66.CO/sq.ft.
Sale Price
Section 3
For purposes of condominiumization of existing struc~ures 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.
-
.
c
-
-
~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
-
100 Leaves
'011_ If t.'. "<'lrr._n I.... l. ~,l.
Section 4
That the above adopted rental price terms 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.
Section 6
The effective date of this resolution is October 15, 1980.
Section 7
As the price guidelines in Section 2 are modified from year-to-
year, they shall, as modified, apply to low, moderate and middle income
'i
:1
'I
fj
:j
i
:1
q
,
,
i
housing previously approved, but Section 1 shall be adopted for applica-
tions seeking approval under the Growth Management Planand Condominiumi-
zation.
{l
Adopted this ~7--day of
CJ (1-01~ , 1980.
.f;C:ft/~
Herman Edel,
Mayor
I, Robin R. Berry, 'duly appointea 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
() c.i-o'beA:.
, 1980.
~ R. &ML
Robin R. Berry (f=
Deputy City Clerk
Ii
,
, '
""--,,,.,...,.
,-",",
R()~ALD GARm:LIl
A~DR~w \: HWIT
ASIlLEY ANOEI{SON
GARFIELD & HECHT ..-
A rr()RN~YS AT LAW
VICTORIA SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HYMAN A VENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
CRAIG N, BUlCKWICK
K. ROUl.HAC GJ\KN'
BDBBIf. .I() QI'IMBY
(.\IJMmm IN 1I.u~OIS U:"U)
RICHARD r N~IL~r. .JR,
July 16, 1981
Tf.L~~JJ()N~
(l03) 925.191&
nL~CO~I~H
(l01) 925.3008
CABL~ ADDH~SS
'GAHH~CLAW'
Paul Taddune, Esq.
Aspen City Attorney
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
JUll 71981
~
ASPEN / PITKIN CO.
PlANNING OFFICE
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 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:
-r "".......... ..,.,...._
"'"'I
.....,
GARfIELD & HECHT
A. If at any time foreclosure proceedings are commenced
agai~st the property, the beneficiary under a deed of trust com-
menclng 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.
SFS/pp
cc: Sunny Vann .,-
Hans B. Cantrup
.,-.._-,_._~-~,"--~
'" '.
./- ",>- GARfIELD & BECHT
KUN^LI> G^Kflf.1.O
^NllKt:Io'V, IIf.nlT
^-~HLf.Y AAOf.KSUN
^TTUIlNf.YS ^T L^Io'
VICTORIA SQUARE BUILDING
601 EAST HY /'IAN AVENUE
ASPI:N. COLORADO 81611
-.,
.......
,
CR.\IG II. BWCKIo"CK
K, RUlJUI^C G^R/1
BUBBly' JU QI""'RY
(AD"rrtEl) III UJ.J,..tt" UNtY)
KIClI^KO 1. NEIIEY. JR,
November 20, 19BO
Tlll:J'IIU~l:
(JOl) 9~.19lb
UUCOrlf.H
(JOl) n'.l008
UBU' ^OOHESS
-Go\Kllf.CUIo'''
- .
HAND DELIVERED
Robert P. Grueter, Esq.
City Attorney
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado B16ll
Re: 925 E. Durant 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 (S24-l0.4) to Cantrup's 925 E.
Durant project. At the time the City approved Cantrup's GMP
Application on May B, 197B, 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 a~ounts 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 existin9
plans would have been pursued.
The imposition by the City of a fifty (50) year restriction
at this late date would be pontrary to established principles of
law recognized by the courts of Colorado. Specifically, 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
"
..
.
.:r"-.""".___~_..
""'
-
'".,/
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 SS;-534P2d 1232. -The circums~ances 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 Cola l2r;-347 P2d 919.
Werespectfu1ly 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,
GARFIELD & HECHT
._ ..:___...~ :/_"..__.-:.:.._.-,:.:-:,/~'" ...f".
, ' --:--~---~-~/"
~~-::-----~......------- .:
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH/pp
"
I;
, ,
II(to(~D
GCt:J {~J
C{ -z- s- E, ~ - r::i ",d ?I;;vf
LJJ ((:tCe -/lP--<~JY/ci0-~ ~ (j-2-,.(;ct-~
. {2- s wrli' crW +0 fi-pk,,:-c( fz;, 53 f~
fec;,u:J p~)JcL~4--h.o>-- ~ ~.frrr 5-;r/
rrJ-. -
1;113 U~
C(z..s: ~,DJrClL-<-t
GITY CD vl0CI L
1I/7-1/BO
,
I" /17f!, 0/i(J ~'Z~/- F~ b r I rr78
, )
',7-1-/o,pl ~~ ~crfr-..J ~ 2- ~ FL~/( )780
, OCt- I, 7'1 /I-R~ --'-~~:Eh~J CC ~~d~
i -h--r ~ ~'cn-- Fut- S-) /'18=
ii :/ Cjjr'C c..J t:c'~c1 J /"U'r~~-A-s~'-
, ' U (~cr-lcf /U ~' !-eCL,J -1<-, Lu-~ btf~ "r -,
/,/~4 fey ~/~J r~> (
, I f c~~/ c~ rfYD ~c1
"r' . i~VLM-, I, )/l2~I'~ - rlJ C~'=~6'- dpo.c/
!4<!iJ"-" ;CtiJAf d{d-$~ I-..<J _'J-oTr<"a!A-..
'1-,', 1..( pro02.RcJ (-~ 5 J / Msfyla~ k l~e ~c)Jn
; 1'~6LED fb-r jkcJc+ /1Y ft~ fo C~!vtJf
:1
,
,
j.
__________j2~__ _,.J::Lm' pL:Lt~a{\t
----~--~ -_.__._------~--- .-------- -'....-...- -..--- ------------ --'---
'.
"'
- - _._._.~ ,..-. -"-'-'--'-.-"'--- -,-.- --..--." ......- -.---~_.~.-_._,,'-'-----"'-'---- -.--.----.
.. _ZeoL_S,0___2V-bd:ti.Ji5JO'L___'(LK(~p'ICQ'1____flFP(lco,f-!Dn ------~.- --'c--.-
_..:1Ld8ICSQ___,~dtJo.d___,5v.mmo.ry. 5hee+-___"Pe:(ero,(5___,__ . .. ___,
__-'QICfL'ZCJ ___e.~?,-__~5(A_h-L'UC€p__qrpl . ,wi (CnOi-t-fC>tc
.
. ,__________________\) ccl1.Sfc,c..+-___5lO--t.LvCclL<.;, .60. DlAP1rH-
___________, ,_..__:z-\_~k&$I~u+c:cCi L~ t.-V
__' t l / 3/f50 . _ . J~I_:- ., P,Q:... . .eL) . ... . . mod:: ... P C(V\! 0( I O{)rt . C.( t (C'z..
__,.,_________,DI'L,RB6 r,.. 70 :5() ..2X'2"'1,ph:iI prO(Z".';;, - I. \..{V't' lilt-
___,._____, t'\'1f5 me.. __ Cl2.QIY1+5 '.f j1CL<J f\~S -flv:.. ((.l((ctc.rlu;. nIL'! t'tc)~'
cnLc( J.:> {-~"i.~> "or-j,-,!-\
._____ _ __" /~ po:,,,iHu SujJ, t-;xC'Eptton (e11b11- (C'Il(~(L2J (J-c)
LV l\ ()yl
____ ____, _ _ _ \ ) F u.11 5ub Re.ui 'e.'-U _
____w_.__ ___ ___, _ ~
,.__,'w ""-<"silve'Slo . ...
lol20/~6.<f+djCJ.(fj[tt-4 (()ncb D,7;{:L-, I a.5((~q fJ, dJql1 -{a help cJ/
_.. ....,<,_4,dc(ot'lCerdl> on ...<1) fczr{dnq. (?_Jpr(cc(cy ~J !.U(:;c,
l;(((;{ 4"" -r"'~le<~ . -(-,,-,:...1
-<iI )__,_{(~6 _ C()lA.hcll . t'YHI'lv'\.1--e.?+C\.iolfl'\j' t:C25" I':O".'101t5 (J 'Ty (ll~
for tt~CVct- t;(., -'<'-<It t-o <'"-,,,.1,,-<-<('
" ... __ ._~. H_.. _. .... _ _ _
'.J- conc2c C}(k.,,-,{t-
'__15h-t !'D! Mt\'V1[) pCz(~ Ta.ddw1(Z 6k(/H'h:y i) ('ou.ncil or--
.__.B__B,_,__.._<.ef:~i'\L0i0B. czpp{tUc({O([ dr-eodc; ;n -(h'<? afprOU4. I
___.__.._,___ .P(CX~55 -((<:;::111 {-he f.l/r/F. mcr-o{or'/uir',
_"-~/;~(~!_: L;;H:t2L ~:: :H;~C ' 10-_',. p' ~ ~ ( Tc0c{ tA(,1c Ci ~ fl-ft"J1y
___ _wn__' ,___Ql'l______g:O_, ~5.:~'-tL,. d~.i'J_~Jr(JS tc .. for-.tfte (L
,__.._ ______.C-()~\'\P\-O,1,\;')f.'~lfrlay If'\eue.-t-: to,.. . ~... nl.C\,--b,'f-
.......___,<< ~w (L#.- .. S- \'f(':L_lt _C1.. ,,:f'Cr"e.Ctc5u.tC', '
"-f1lLf1- (.<!l 1-(:5
if_
\-:,172f)(81.~ 46~ . LiI)~t~~,C ~
\ ~\- w'\(t<)
.\ ''- {] _. I I.
w/PU
. c(J 0 f'\.
re.u[ e.lAJ6 f
,/I
/
I r1'r"A
, '
"
2996 . '
'-....
-
s
Regular Meeting
__~~~~~_.<:~_t?__C_ounc il
November 24, 1980
Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Resoltuion 119, Series of 1980, as read: seconded by
Councilman Isaac. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmew~ers Parry and Collins.
Motion carried.
SLEIGH RIDES ON GOLF COURSE
II
1
!I
~
II 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
I to make sure there is no conflict with cross-country skiing at the course. All in favor,
II motion carried.
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~1
able if there is no damage. \
ORDINANCE #58, SERIES OF 1980 - Occupation Tax/Liquor Licenses
Mayor'Edel related these fees had not been changed since 1974, and that all the City
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 useG 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
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.
1,
, ,
1
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 I
Council, after receiving P & Z approval; and Council requested staff find out if the
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
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.
'1
The Code states in order not to lapse an applicant must submit building plans sufficient ,I
for a building permit to be issued. On January 29, plans were filed by the applicant. :1
One opinion of the building department is that the plans were not sufficient to issue a II
permit. The applicant feels they are adequate. Grueter said if Council ~akes the i
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; buil~ ~thas not been granted. The applicant has written letters with
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; Grueter1s position with regard to this project is that they
were not far enough down the line.
Andy Hecht, representing ~he applicant, pointed out plans were submitted with reliance
t~eplans 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 re$triction was 5
years. The deed restriction requirement is not in the subdivision code, ~...hic~ is ,.'~ere
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.
,
Councilwo~an Michael said she did not feel Council was in a position to j~dge w::at Fred
Crowley said re~ardinq the su~~iciencv of the builji~0 ~lans. Hcc~~ teld Ccun~il he ~ad
a memoranduill from the -building depan:.ment; their o;;onc~r~ was areas in whio;;h the plans
deviated from GMP approval. The Council had to revie",. 3:1d a prove the revised :'ans in
':e=:-:.5 cf C::'T,~:~h ::-.2.:~.J.-::- :7"_2=-:':. ,3,;::' =~':a-,-. _.,~ '.,.ere no:. ;:0:".:::2::':'.':: , a:: ::::3.":: ti.-:,.e, ..... .. _..~
plans beir;g sUfficie; for a ;;.ildinq perr:-:it. Council:::an 3e rendt said with a i\"e-year
,.-.,- -"~ ,.' .~'-" ..--
..- _.- -.,..
..."'; ~ .- -, ~
.__._'='- ~~.::. -'
,I!""''>.
",."
--
29~7
.'
.
"'-'
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
November 24, 1980
,~ Councilwoman Michael pointed out the Council is constantly put in the position of sitting
l 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 som~thing, the city ca~not 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 applicar.t
~s relying on the expenditure of funds for architects, etc. along the line. Grueter opine<
they have not gone far enough through the-process to rely on detrimental reliance. Gruetel
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 woulS not change to
il 50 year deed restrictions, his vote would be to deny. Councilman Parry pointed out the
1::. city ap.proved the. project with a five-year restriction and that is how the applicant
continued to plan. Hecht pointed out to Council if an applicant comes in under GMP and
, _4oes_"not have. to go through sUbdivision, they are home free.
Ii Councilman-Behrendt moved to_table: seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor,
motion carried.
RESOLUTION *20, SERIES OF 1980 - 1981 Commercial GMP Allocations
U Councilwoman Michael moved to read Resolution #20, Series of 1980~ seconded by Councilman
~ Parry. A~l in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Behrendt and Collins. Motion
-I! carried.
RESOLUTION *20
(Series of 1980)
~
I
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 wit0in 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 19H1
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 criteria established in ,
Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1977, and II
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and_ Zoning Commission
did evaluate, rank and score the projects submitted in the following order: il
' I,
P and Z HPC
Average Average Total
Park Place Building
(8800 square feet)
Ajax Mountain Associates, *2
(11,120 square feet)
Mill Street Station Mall
(20,500 square Jeet)
18.6
19.5
12.6
11.5
11. 7
31.2
31.0
30.7
18.7
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 24-l0.3(a), the Planning and Zoning
-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, r
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 20,500 square feet, and that these projects are authorized to apply for any
further development approvals required by the City of Aspen to secure building perrnit~
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.
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Resolution #20, Series of 1980: seconded
Michael. All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Collins and
carried.
by Counc i 1 woman
Behrendt. Motion
~
ORDINANCE #54, SERIES OF 1980 - Nicholson Rezoning to RB
Mayor Edel vpened 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 incorne"~ 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.
ORDIN,',NCE # 54
(Series of 1980)
A~ CR:)!::.;':--:':;: ';:-:=:\=:2::;;; ':'::i'::; ::.:.'
SEC. 24-2.2 BY CHA~;GI:\G THE
61, CITY .~.:::J ':'C:";:;S:':'E CF :~t:;.
=::G
IS~~IC? ~SP OF ~~~ CITY OF ASPE~, COLORADO,
OF LOTS C, D, A':D THE WEST 1/2 OF E, BLOCK
:=r:::::-~:)E:~':E: S'..."3::',":::8:0:-: FRO:'1 R/:-1F to R/MF RB
('",iI);
"" ...
,
'.
I
'f/v n n-^;y
.---/1
c
, ,
,
j\
. .
. \
CITY GF ASPEN
130 souih galena street
aspen. colorado 81611
303-925 -2020
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 21, 198~
TO: Members of C~ty Council
Wayn~ Chapman, City Manager
Sunny Vann, Planning Director
FROM: Paul Taddune
RE. . Proposed Alilendment to R/Mr' Zone Moratorium Ordinance (No. 5U)
to Provide Special Hev~ew for Pending Applications ~n the
Approva. Process
As you know, s~veraL applications present~y in and substantially
througn the approval process will be affected by the illlposition of
tn~ morator~um in t:ne'R/l'lF zone ana any resultant changes in the
under ly in9 heJ.<,jht, area and Dulk requ~ remEmts. These appl ications
fall basicalLY into two categories:
1. MUlti-family projects such as Ute City Place, 927 Durant and
1015 East Hyman Avenue which have received Growth Manayement
a~lotments and are pending final plat approva~ in the sub-
division and/or PUD process.
2. Single-family and/or duplex proJects, such as the Ed Baker
proJect, which ar~ not required to go through Growth Manage-
ment, subdivision or PUD approvai procedures and were submit-
ted to the Building Department f~r permits pr.or to the pas-
sage ot the resolution authorizing administrative delay.
Ali of the abolle appl~cations 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 submis-
sion, and a change in these requirements at such a late stage in
the process wouid dramatically affect the projects ~n terms of
financing and redesign costs and, in some instances, providing
empLoyee un~ts for the C~ty.
The Plann~ng Di~ector has advised me that s~nce tne R/MF zon~ has
been designed with the idea of facilitating mUlti-family project,
many ot wnich wili prov~de empioyee units, and since the mUiti--
fal.uiY proJects, by necessity, undergo extensiv~ 'review through
;,;,
"
~
~..-..".-
'-.c_."
. .
. ,
M~mo to City Council, Wayn~ Chapman, Sunny Vann
Augus t 21, 1911l
Pa':! e 'riolO
,
the Growth Managemc:nt and subdivision/PUD proc,-ss ru: illOSt likely
would not recommend suostantial 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 dat~ would
satisfy not only pres",nt but, with little modification, probably
future R/MF requireUlents. On the other hand, tne residential/
du~lex projects which are not requlred to go through an in-depth
review process and at present may taKe advantage of area, height
and bulk requirements lntended for multi-family proJects, are
oecoming inappropriatelY bulky. Future requirements as to these
projects should oe orought more in line with the requirements
presently in effect or contemplated in the residential zones.
You ,have previous~y rec~ived my advice that land use legal issues
such as equltable 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 project which is substantially
througn th..: procc:ss mignt arise in llability on the part of the
City. Underlying these concepts is the attitude expressed by the
courts that governing uodies must act fa~rly 1n regulating land
use and that the Judiciary must intervene in such matters to pre-
vent perc~ived 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 cOr.lplete change in the district, which would make most of
the existin':l dwell1.ng non-contorming, any future underlying
height, area and oulk requirements must allow a'property owner in
an R/MF zone to construct some type ot residential dwelling.
As a means of fairly accommodating those projects presently in the
process, several people have su':!gested amending the r.lOratorlum
ordinance on second readlng, to establish a special review exeiilpt-
ing those projects which are substantially compatlble with the
needs of an R/MF zone. One of the persons proposing such an
amendment is Mr. Al Bloomqulst, a memoer ot the P&Z and a profes-
sional planner, who is one of the tew residents in the R/MF dis-
tr:'lt:t wno app~ared at the public hearing and enthusiastically
spoke in favor of the moratoriwn. Annexed in this regard is a
letter from Mr. Bloomquist wnich recent~y was published in the
Aspen Times. Similarly, SUCh an amendment has also been proposed
by attorney Ron Austin on oehalf of his client, Ed Baker, as
appears in his letter to Council dated August 19, ,1981. In anti-
cipation that a special review exemptlon is allowed, Mr. Austin
-~r
. '
.>:
""- ..--
,.,,--,
--
Memo to City Council, Waynt:! Chapman, Sunny Vann
August 21, 19tH
Page Three
.
has also sUbmitted an ap~lication for special review, which pro-
poses to substantially reduce the bulk of the building one and
one-half feet on all sides and ~ower the ht:!Lght in ~ine 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 desiyn plans have a~ready been drawn and submitted, I
perceive this to be a maJor consession on his part and a viable
means of avoid in;; the uncertainty of litigation.
Should you desire the proposed amendment, I have redrafted Ordin-
ance No. 50 so as to lnclude an exemption upon special review. In
Mr. Baker's case, I have been told that time is of the essence and
I would sug~est that Councll hold a special meeting at the earli-
est possible date to conslder 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
frolll the moratorium lan':juage and suggest that you also incorporate
this proposed amendment into the ordinance on second reading.
PJT:mc
Attachments
'--- '"f
. '
;r,
\
r"
-....,,,,,'
'-,,'
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
.
100 Leaves
'_11 (.'.1l0ftl(fl..... 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 d'istrict 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
all 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:
If
,."..>,
"
,~";>'
--
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
.
100 Leaves
'OMI... C.'.HClECKrLl.I.I:l.to.
Section 1
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.
Section 2
.
That pursuant to aforesaid moratorium and during a period of
three (3) months from the effective date hereof, the Building
Inspector is hereby directed not to issue any permits to construct
and/or expand any buildings located within the R/MF zone district
of the' City. of Aspen.
Section 3
The City Council may by resolutiQn exempt a pending applica-
tion from the restrictions of this ~oratorium if, ~pon 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 requi~ements 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-
Jects 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
'0Il'II" C. F. 1I0rCUl I. I. " ~. co.
Section 5
A public hearin9 on the ordinance shall be held on the
day of
, 1981, in the City
Council Chambers, Asp~n 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.
Herman Edel
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch
City Clerk
'"
3
Page 24-8 The A.pen Time. "
;.lust 20, 1981
, '\
,
'I
\
,\
'" I
~p:oa I ~
"" '" I\.
'..,,,",,
our readers
rmf moratorium
ments in all residential zones.
These representatives should
each be ready to work hard during
the next three months to make
sure the new bulk requirements
are appropriate to each and every
Aspen neighborhood,
Allan Blomquist
Aspen, Colo
Dear Editor:
The ordinance creating a
moratorium of three months in
the R!,IF Zone should be amended
f to exempt projects that have
) cleared the GMP process, with
. those projects specifically named
I 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
developerlbuilders 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 wnes,
and the lax bulk regulations in all
R wnes 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
and views, site coverage).
There seems to be a small but
steady market for duplex units
I and single family units in the
I three-quarter million dollar price
I range, For a duplex grossing one
. 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
, of the current problem and trend
" to buy up Victorians and anything
_ else under $500,000, bulldoze
, them, and build new duplexes big
enough to attract the second home
buyer with three-quarter million.
Tbe answer is, within the city,
to zone for smaller buildings (less
bulk) on our small ci ty lots, and
foree 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
I neighborhood" and experienced
. the new bulk levels in both the
i RMF and R-6 zne, Council under-
- stands,
However, the developer/
. builders appeared in force last '
\ Monday with lot. of eloquent
" lawyers, and only a handful of
neighborhood folks showed up, I
. don't urge a mob scerie at the next
o council meeting, but I do urge
. each neighborhood to study the
I trend, consider the problem, and
s have an informed and rational
g representative present at the next
'. cour:cil meeting to support pas-
sage of the R:\<1F Moratorium, and
e the revision of the bulk require-
11
".
9.
10.
1'"
" "
925 Durant Project
Subdivision Exception
J NTRODUCTORY
I.
Project Name:
2.
Location:
3.
4.
Parcel Size:
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:
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
"---~-"_._,-~---,.~
r
"
""""
-
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-
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 additjonal approval in Resolution No.1 I,
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
reques t :
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.
~
~#
o
Letter to Jolene Vrchota
25 September 1980
Page 2
Se,cond, the property involved consists of four lots under a single
ownersh.ip 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) oy 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.
t""
,."
:)
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
~.u~ )'1 ;hz~~-
Mark A. Danielsen
(>
"
,'.: ;
, ,."
. ,'~>>;'
!"'"'\
~
o
Al\Esr~
I
Il
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
~~
C!JI:WTA'<l:~lJ:
(!J~ '--~ I-iU ~K
~~DC"1Y
Tl<'AlL
Em COMMEI:Cw.. COI':E
. KE~(;fflTlAL /MULTI- FN1ILY
. ~[;ff!r1lL (,
rnm /(~WlrIPl- IS
M rMKjrwuc.
-....
Vicinity Map
~
o 200 400
,
BOO
~
~
--....
~ ~
..., ROAR'NG #:
-r-"'~,,'
ALPINA HAUS
-925 Durant
Project
.
r
GLORY HOLE
.'
>
~
,
PROJECT
I'L...I
o 200 400
I
BOO
@
WEST END ST,
[]
OLO ON' HUN r1
CONOOM'",U U
o
DO
w
~
;.
Z
<
a:
:l
C
CJ
C1
D
LJ
I
l
Site Plan
925 DURANT AVE. PROJECT
W
~
0102040 80
c
:>
ill
~\
,
D~:~:CAL ~NIT :L8
925 DURANT PROJECT
41ii1!5 ..F.. PER UNIT
-
~
.
I
,
. 0
I z .
! 0
i , ~
I ::> ~
I w N
..J
~ w
Ln J:
., I-
::l
0
(Jl c
"
~
4
. ".'
$
r-"""
'-'
PEN
130 s
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 truA Iyourj' J
o9t(~
ames J. Markalunus
..0-
.
...
,J
,.-!
January 25, 1978
Mr. LQrry 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.
J
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 ~his 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,
. ) /;y ~II) 11/
[/ // tl. 7',,. c: j(--&r;/7Y
Wi11ard c. Capper
Chief, Aspen Volunteer Fire Department
AQEN SANITATION DISOICT
P. O. Bo. 328 Tele.923-3601
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
.j Janua ry 30, 1978
Mr. Larry Yaw
Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd
P. O. 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 avai lable to the proposed bui ldlng 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.
c./
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 sufflci~rlLplan~ capacity to treat the proposed
project.
If there are any questions, please contact this office,
Very truly yours,
J.J,.L ~
He I ko Kuhn
District Manager,
Aspen Sanitation District
.. ,..",.
,....
-
-"
Oct 1),1980
Planning and Zoning Commission
1)0 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, 1980 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 iscalmost 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 Co~nission would take steps to minimize the potential
negative aspects that could take place by having such a complex
almost i~~ediately 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
maxi~lm 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.
). provide a remedy for noise problems in the"'eventthEl.t
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?mer would work closely with the builder of the twelve unite
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 out-lined
above.
~&~
Robert A Dean Ph.D
P.O. Box 80953
San Diego, Ca. 92138
--"'-~-.~ '''--
.
..."
-
.
r"".' __/{'P~,"!)'l<~
' ','r J'j.,./x'....,~.
\ . J..'; ~.....
~, .::':". ,,/. ....,..\ }'-1\i"O
' ' -, ; -' ", '
(Lv. , \ . ,;, i ,-~;,,;J,. \\. U i
" ",~' ,;O."""",,";'J ,.' ,"" "'-004
..., ~ ~
CONDOMINIUMS
P.O. BOX 9260/ ASI'EN, COLORADO 81611
PHONE: 3031925-8450
October 20, 1980
Planning & Zoning Com~ission
City Hall
1)0 South Galena street
Aspen, CO 81611
Gentlemen:
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
des~gn 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 alley 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
surroundtng 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 Cantrup project.
). Noise As a tourist facility, we maintain a management
oITICe on-site. If any of our neighbors have problems
with our guests, we are the point of contact. We 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.
. ,.
,.
. il'-~."
.',:.
.'
.' ........ "..
" .
;.
~ '~ .;
'.
.' .
" .;.
. ,.' ....i, " _' _~ .'
....~, . ....
,";>'
. "
, .
.
-
.....,
...........,
",i
- 2 -
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,
7?.J2/
Neil JO, Benn t
Managing Agent
.. ~. ...
,
'\ I.
r"
"-'
""'"
....,.;
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office'
130 south galena street
aspen, 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 ~,1a rk:
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/Mr,
and the Galena site (zoned L-2) allows residential multi-fami1y.dwel1ings
as permitted uses. These sites were the subject of a 1978GMP 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. 12000f500 = 24 studio units allowed.
2. Galena site, L~2 zone, 21,600 sq. ft., 500 sq. ft./studio, 625
sq. ft./one bedroom. 21600f625 = 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. 9000t12 = 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 = 26,500f21 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.
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 Hu~ter 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 ~n 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.
Studi 0 units
Low Income Rent
.48/sqo ft.
Unit Size
400-600 sq. fto
The deed restricted Durant studio units of 455 sqo 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 approva1so Such application shall include discussion of all other
aspects of the ordinances.
There are three ways to handle the application under the review processo
Subdivision exce~tion 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 0 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 reviewo 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 appl^oval 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,
p'-JZ- ~d~
Jolene Vrchota
Assistant Planner
I"""-
'-
.......
-
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena
aspen, colorado
street
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 t1ark:
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/MF,
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, 1980
-
......
."'",
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. 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 = 26,500+21 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'tota11ing 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
!"""'-
'0'
Page 3
.
3. Housing Price Guidelines and units size requirements stipulating maximum
unit size for which rent can be charged.
Studi 0 units
Low Income Rent
.48/sq. ft.
Unit Size
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 throu9h
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,
~tkd~
Jolene Vrchota
Assistant Planner
fJcf"1 z- 3 11 ~o
I
CITY OF ASPEN.
MEMO FROM ]OLENE VRCHOTA
C)ZnJ ~, 6-;~ -I c; 2.- 5""" C:;, D/.A./L
;4-, _ b2e~NI/04
~G'i~~~fl-J
J-- i p.-f ~ P t1 , V- ft2 c~:J C'-.-
~. at j:s+-~
2--v--~,/LQ~~~ ~ B-H>
~
r,
Er c:;Ji3P{VIS!O/....J
5ofL~~~clrf~
.:. E-,K'Ge(/'h'<>--- /S ffe'5v/~,
I,. ~p4~ -f" 'Pr eI, '-." P+ Z::-
~ . p:::,' v.J!.. tI ? c.....
fU..1I So vb ell J, (' <Z C CJ V<-----"'.-41 ~ P- 0"
~~ -+- c:.;~<.el"f"c~ Nee
c.,,~ 'fu~ C L....
Is.-c ,..J,') ~ Pre ,,'<-<- p.f-~
'2.~(.. k- H~"...t C L
.
.
,I"",",
..........
,
...,-~
ME~10RANDUM
TO: "Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Aspen City.Counci1
FROM: Jo1ene Vrchota, Planning Office
RE: 925 E. Durant Subdivision - Conceptual/Preliminary
DATE: October 15, 1980
APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR CITY COUNCIL:
Zoning:
Location:
Lot Size:
Request:
.r- ~ie\I~v-?>"\
Engineering
Comments:
A ttorney I s
Comments:
R/MF
925 E. Durant (Lots F, G, H, I; Block 119, Aspen Townsite)
12,000 square feet
'o...-J-'ll,;Io-"~
This multi-family project, consisting of 12",emp10yee
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).
~ __ I
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.
The Engineering Department recommends that the applicants
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).
No comment received.
Rocky Mtn. No problem. Gas in Durant St. available to project.
Nat. Gas Comment:
City Water Dept.
Comment:
~li sce11 aneous:
Planning Office
Recommendation:
-p 4-;c, ,AJ'-C-. -G..J. €~CQ.f'j
No further comments necessary.
1978 in application.
See letter dated January 25,
No new comments were received from:
Housing Director
City E1 ectri c
Mt. Bell
The Planning Office recommends that the P & Z grant an
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 Pre1 iminal"y Plat approvalllsubject to the
Jb.. \1.- ~'~ I.......-I~
priu-- ....~s7Y;ufel v.....n,
Memo: 925 L. Durant Subdivisiun
October 15, 1980 '"
Page Two "f'
""""
-'
Planning Office Engineering Department conditions:
Recommendation,
cont.: 1. The applicant shall assure construction of a side-
wa 1 k 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).
20 f~Y-z-.;(J S/~~U1J-
~ .P-?~ -/0 /0' K,zO I-:~
~jw~c~.1 r-<~ ~
)~~1 q2~!5Zrvq~~
~ L-~"~r ~ ~di~'
P+-=2: ~ /
~, 5 Vb e-/<:c--o/f, ('-u~/ve. Cc. c..,._~j
~ 10 Y -~I@ , ;/d'-"'_~'" J "
q .' - q
p~ pvbt."c /.k.<3r1'h,6
7.- \e...-Ue-r-.s. .
p~ 7i- b~~
M~ h-&~ -f>.-o-.... ~>-lS
~.~ Ioa-c-k.~.~..-Vf~ $-;rtF-c.J,~
WJ" h ~~) -Iv ~~rJ1'~6H~~
c.-c~" ~~ ~ 2103 S~,."4-
bl've..-,.. ~f'~kj S/~ +~~
1'+ b -~ c~c.v+ of J>"Lf;,--,~-
s~d To 6--:J.
C
CITY';!
130 so
aspen,
,.."
"'"
,.,....
!
,"i
AS?lEN
s t re e t
81611
! ,
C G, : G r t.~ ti U
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:
I. 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 I and 2 above.
~
I
4t4'-
-:'.
>j
I""
.......
925 Durant Project
Subdivision Exception
INTRODUCTORY
10.
1.
Project Name:
2.
Location:
3.
4.
Parcel Size:
Current Zoning District:
5.
Zoning Under Which
Application is Fi led:
6.
Maximum Buildout
Under Current Zoning:
7.
Total Number of Units
Proposed and Bedroom Mix:
8.
Size of Un i ts :
9.
Rental Restrictions:
Projected Population:
-~~"'---- --..
',=-,~'~,'~""'~.-
- ---_..~ -
:)
925 Durant Project
Lot sF, G, H, 1: Block 119
City of Aspen
12,000 sq.ft.
RMF, ~ity 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
-,~~-,---
-,-,.,-,,",~
.
1
~ i
'f'
q
I
1"'"
1..,;
"
'-, .;
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-
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 dwel ling 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.
.......
-~'.-~::.-
-
1
"
!
.--- - --........---...-.- -
('
.,J
.
'.
.' ",,.
~
,,-,.,
..
'"""....
letter to Jolene Vrchota
25 Septembe r 1980
Page 2
Second, the property involved consists of four lots under a single
o"mersh,ip 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 pro'perty 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-
me~t 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) tiy 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 appl ication is made separate from the forth-
coming applications for timing purposes. ~hile 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.
" -~',
~'. 1 ._~'-::. .'.1 ., ~.'>'l'~.'
._~-
I
-
,
...,.....
"
.'
,.~. .i.
"
t;
"
'.
'..
~!
,
.f-
"
, ~
!I
'I
i
I
\'1
'!
,.......
'-'
,..."
~
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
.
~~~ 7/ ->cz~~~ei~
Mark A. Danielsen
1- n
CJl'!'
,
,-
~~
"
I
I
i
"
....
I
I
,
,
"
...
.i
I
,j
..
'.
~':
(~
,'\
"'
...;J.
"
. .
t'
'. :
;,
''''.''-'. -
,.....
~"~~7-"~:---'~~?<"""':~_,,!,_,,;>=~~...___. '~
",'
~""" ;~~
~, : .'J It" I
,,' \; ~:~. ~
0t,'r:~ i
'~t~~:ti
I'
(
I
I
I
~~':""""..~~i:..~~,....!
.-."_,;.;.....-;;.;.;.0, ~..'.~!O..:.~'.
" . .
~ ~-:~"ii.: lI'~',.' .:~';. ';..i ii.,.~\.H~~'
.
rF1l':EsrJlJ~
/ (!'RICE srmm
~~~.~HT( ~:::~"'t.! ~:::~.\~:<~ ~:-,':Z. ~:.....:~;~~~~~ l
~~~;~:;~ ~;~m;~ ~ttt~~~ ~g~~~l~~~ I :
JX?%"';<<X;;: ~;.-;w.~ ~~~;~ ~~'\::;.,\y~ --- - ;
~ %~ ~~~, .~r.,)~'-:~*, t',::~';~ ~~'*,~'\j, i." '
Y;',.""'" '-"'._. '., ~'\' ,,:."\ ~ ~~~....~~' ,
EXI~TlN& MAU'*;~:~:k::;~ ~ ~*~b t%-.~~~ I I
if]' ;;;,;;- ",,'" ~""~I , LST EIID ST. W; STGf'
......<<'),~~'~,~'\..,~,,,:;.:........,y~ L ~
~ rm-,g::,~.~ ~~~~,\~ iRt;~~~i" [ v~' II
. s.~",,>&~~ ,~,~...........'*' I . _)
KlJelr rAAX ~ t . ~J~t~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~:~%j'l(mmfnmU'ID1HHlimH~nmniIPII'!h"-
111, . ""'<lfI5& K'~~~ (.':-~ .,:~~~ \~.:,;.:.~, 'ti,wmliH l'IfI'mn"'I"""I"1'11!p
~J6: -' ~} ?\; ~;~:~~}. ~>~~~~ :;..~~~lli:.. ~ uUdliu~ a~Hh!llllUtifUH::.~ib!iJ ~ AVE:~LE
~T -.( , ~ /ill &WlliI1lllill!illlliDffiWJlliliITITI'
~em<:'<P~C\'RQRf~t'/\'613I' ,ifJ i I Im",.m, ',.!!uml~' I,m' ,,:::;"D"""';,'i!~
%.....,t". ... :1'1'" . ",f. ,II,
-,:.Q.: ill!. ... .
~ ~ijlti ........ ~1f{1 N?!IK
~
I
I
!
II
0"-... ---- 6tDI\Y H:u: I?I:K
~~DCI1Y
TJ!;o\lL
~ COMME/{CW. Un
. 1:E:J~fITW.. /MULTI- F.AJ1ILY
illllllIIill ~~I-Irl4. (,
mm /(~ro.rrL<l!- IS
M FMK/flftlG
Vicinity Map
I
000
Q"
~
~
o ~ 600
'-"'~:.':":'.":"1".. ~. '- '.-.''f''~'''' .,~,. '. _,';~'~': .,..;'jfl/'''' M '...,".. :j'.,.;- ,,-:.:t ). ~,'J\-l<' ,. ~ '_.'/ ,,)~,
., ';.IJ;UtJi;~;';'~'2r ,ptJ, ,..,,;l~~~f5-ci":,.~,,~?,~'tr:};'j~' /l~'~{~lj~,,:,,:-':~. . '~~r,,,
~"-~-,--,.,.'~_.:;;t;~...",.~:..-:&~~;~;di;;",,; '~~:.-lI.~..,.,~;;... i;' ;i;;;:ti~ _'"-,;";'~~':<;..';~.>.,,,:.1llOi~~
!
,.
...
'..'.
!'
. .
I
,
.jl
,
...
, .
.;
-!:.
.'....
,
..
,
.
.~
(, ~"~'~
,. I
/'
'"'\ ,.,~/
~ -../~
ROARIN~~ ~~~~=--~.~:
~:::I~" --.,,~
/' ':t! rnm... , :.:.:1. =-- _. . ~
!1:~:. ~::!!~1 t:: :~:S~::;t;4l ___ .
- ';;;:: ~t'I';::W t~;:;;i:.; ':'::t~:~
>''1'" ~ ;--- 1.........1.1........
"\101 .'t.t ~.....,.. t........:l
h t ~H~., ........n:::;:::OI
r%~1;~:' ~::"::f:!::;~"
I", .,.t 1 ~-. '>"~' ,~
( " ""'j. "'rH....
O :H: UiliC1 i 1 G,::::;
.1p. ~:~ t. '- _', ~.:;::':::
J. i:~~~~:~ ("]5>:: =.'
:1 :;:::; ~::::; L_.~,;;~ ~?:~ -
.' I.t... ....,._~ t::::l..~ ..._....., ____
. ......1........ ......,_ ........:!'
..!o-tl.....+:: ..........,....... _..
' .,~ .....-+. lii.""- I.,..
~ ......,H!.t;1 ......'.... ~fM'---
'..H tl.iHll till:. ' c __ _"
lll!1 W6g n, " .
- 2' rr.u r>qr..:. i.~I+--.. E9-.'
. ~\f:E ~L::5 ~:;:;:.:: ~;liiillili@~, .
. J.:g1jill gl~~~~~ ~~W'y . .
.,. ~jl~Jj1Hill~~;ijF~"ilij~~ '
g "'..nw,_. ~.......~() .. ..
. ~.'}~\~::n
~. ,,\.- '.~...... M
,,,,..../ ~:\ '. '-
~.:.:.....<'-,.
>>-.:.;,\. \:
~.,.\.
' ,. -..
;,<,x,::.~"",~o,;:::\..:,~~, "<;;.:;:<i ~,:::'::'~';;;~:.;.;n.
/....y/.,..... -: ,":-.~..".o(..."S ....".).<<.....:..1> .(','., ..:.:..... I
~."....\ .."v",v"t:'" '0/";' ,"':>......,......
}' "..'.. . 0 ,~ "-'..;;'" . " ," '.' .'.. "" '., !'(,"." ", 1
:;;.:.:-:.,:.\~ (y.x.~<:-~ ,..:;/":<..~,. ~":~'~.\\\ 1
,./.'"'.;,,,\\.'. 'lj~o("'-"'9 9/0f':/:.' ,.....,.. .....'.....
';;f.:;:.-::::~ ;;':::~,~('<;';\ ~<K~<x:.., ~'\\.'.;\'.~ 'I
Y<^:.:Yv'Vr, %vv"V',>c .<"",,............ ;~,.,;~^.'^' i
...<;,\. '.\ '< 'f> .., y . "..\". < ........ \S PrOject
. ~<~::;:.<~ .<<:>:,~ ~..;::;~-::::::< ~;::..;:&.:.' ~~s '. ~"';.'. :,'.::: .
~"[ffi"" /-:'0'-..-"..,\"1 .....A..'\.'\: .'v."\""~ ~ :.......:..: ..
\" .. \".. ;';,,\.. ....~ :<<",'.'.' x y., "'X :",,\ ....... ..... .. .....__
'.\\, \ (-;;"'<"\"'.'~' i~~\ ~~ ~~... .... 'J" ......~ ......-.~ .
. ..., X<.~ '.; is'. . _ ,.' '\' '. ;;"~.::..:::.;.::::.
~'.':,;".\"x,<; ~~ . ..->>~'~'~. 'j:: ~~~ .; ":,.'. '.. .;mlon.... '.':'.-'on
K"':':"':m""'>, ,. ,....:...~.-::..".,~,~ "]',,0 ::::.;.........r.:..... :.-.
.... ....', ..,..~',\:,.l .K....'\ t ,\.,' ... ......0 .... '_
'.:,:'; " '. . '.' " ':;;:;"';'-:'<.'. g \ ." '.:... :.:.........; .'.: .'. .::.-'-
" ,..,:.'.. (\.. ".:.).. t., ,'"- ',',. :.......::...::..:....:. ....._._.
',,\ ,....' ",.,\), ,'............. ..... '.'-.--
.. ",\, ,'\.,\.\. " .... ." '''I., " :,' ..: .... ....... .... . ..
,<-'>>6 ~ ~\.\._,,\. ~. ,.....' ......:.~...ffln::::,.::...,':.~rr'
? ~ ~~..v.~'~ _~ ",,, :........ . ........... .'. ...
. ,', ", . 'l ..... :. '. '.. . .., '.' '" .'. .... .
... ,," " ,.~>..' , ~ '. . . . .. ......... ..... ..
O',~<,<~ "..,\,\~~ ,0 ........ ......... ;.... ....
. ...... O":',',".\\. , .., ....:. ..... . .... ,'......
...,. >;....\~ ",.. .... ........ ..'
~'; <,,~>';"...<\\ .,', ::..:....:......... ".:..'
:"\.'"\\ .... 'v;.' '~ " . '. ..... '..:. .,:. :.. ... :.. '..
\\~ ~\&>;~X;.'\,\l ,",... _.:'.:1L;..,;...,.....~!.,~"."':.......:
",;.. . ,(~'\>.>>i . .__ ,,_. . .
II:~',I?"Y'
U"..........
ALPINA HAUS
925 Durant
Project
..
GLORY HOLE
/
>
'"
~
o
MAP
Jj
PROJECT
LOCATION
rl.......I
o 200 400
I
800
~
- --'-.- -~---,..,---;;:-."-,,.,'-'-'~-,.,." -..-
'-'{-T-
~:;:-r)'-'-~
, -,'"
'r-~t1; _~
\ ,"
,.x':'_\'
" 1
.~
I
I
1\
:1
.1
!
~', ~ ..
t'
.'-
'.0,.:",
,
;;>:,';"
. ..
f":
..... :"
.
. '~'. :': 'r;! '~~
'\. "'<>- l
- ,',
il.,,'
J
. 111..'
~ '(' "
,< "'-".
l:'
..
'.
,.....---.-~.__....._----._,--,~-,~..,..,......,..--~,...~,_.,.-~.~'."---..'.~,--,.----~'.--~---_....-",'"-~'--"----~._--'~'...,...,....~.......
! I
,
1 ,_.._-~.' __. A,.,..".'.......~.....- ._"","",,,C _._.~ .. ....,..,..".....,'""'....,_..... ~ ,'"-..,.....~~~...""..,__.... _" _.,.__~..~..'-',__.........','.....'"
j
'-'-~-L ~--"
WEST END ST.
,
,
/
!
o
CJ
handicap
arklng!
! t-
I :
I
,
;~'
'I
o
D
Site Plan
925 DURANT AVE. PROJECT
W
~
o 1O:ZO",O 80
... "".'-
. .h, '~'~,,',','~',' ::<5:
N.,..,c ;"_:' ~;'
....'1'.'
"1
\:?kmr.;;:. :~'.__::_:...~~~.~.~.2~~ 1~1;J:*~!-
1~t:'Co cr.!: ;~.Q:Z.:l'
~.I!C;:-'-":."J.{~::J;:;?-~
~. -.>':1.....:....-...; -, ,,,,",,--t",,,,,,..~,,,,,-~, ,~'~:'~-~ . ;;--c
f'
"
"
"
;
",,~.
"
.~~
".
, .
.'
..
..
"........-.,'-~.,-~,_._.
0'" ONE HUN r1
CONoo"",U" U
o
OJ
UJ
~
1-
Z
<(
a:
;:)
Q
D
CJ
l
[
",.'
,
,
..
,
I
,;
.
~-.
,
.1
"
, ,
,
<
.'
'.
; ,
1,
.'
: 'i'
('
" .
.
.'
~. . .
- .
,
I.
,;,.
...""
,~
".""
--
---'.-----"
""'
ill
\\
,\
~
~#Pi%..t: ,)
~./: ~~~/~/////
.~1'~
~AL UNIT ~L~
D1a34B 10 1e: ~
925 DURANT PROJECT
41115 B.F. PER UNrT
"I,~-,--"'" ';'~-'
<, ...
"
.
'.
)...~
. -
, .
J
, .
:I';.~
ji
.",~,;.
, ,
..
1
'.....
-. -~
I,
I'
I
'i
.i
~
("
,
u
'j
j
j
I
,:.
" "..
'"
"-"
-__.'___"~_.n.';~...,--~.- 't
..""
I
~-~,j
,
,
L~,___-"--......."~____,........u-...:....-.~,:...~,_.",_".;".......,,,~~,-,--,-,,,
.~ ,.'.., i.; ~"'__...-,. ' -.'~
-\;::
,~~"!- '
,
.....,.,
-<.
~
j
0;
;-',',
;u
.,
\;.:
, " r'"
" " "
d ~
,
." , .
'~'~ ,
t't" - ~,~,~ .. V
;K' , ...,~-
'.
"
.,
"
f;
I;
'j
I
j
,
,
I
I
I
)1
'j
f.
I'"
......
r,
.
t,
.r{'~~~';P
CITYr,:/7 '\i~:v~(\SPEN
" '",'
t! ','-.~ JIl
130 51: .". ,1treet
asp e nC" '('I.r.. ."'[ 81611
, ~-- ' t..... ,'-e';'~'V
"--r.l.."', ,~
~v--
-""
January 25, 1978
Mr. Larry Yaw
Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd
P.O. Box 2736
Aspen, Colorado Bl611
RE: 925 Durant Project
Lots P, G, H, I : Block 119
.
O,ear 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.
..7
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. lOG, are located
approximately 215 feet and ISO f2et, respectively, from
the project site, and they have tested static pressures
of 90 psi and B2 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 truA Iyour;, J
'd CJ(w;..P.
ames J. Markalunus
_ -0-
-'
:r; , " ji~Y '\,'-r-:,I"""'f"I l
. , ": ; it
- 't': i~ . ;~. {~
I ~t
I
f' , "
,
..
:': "
i'" ~ . .....
'. ,.
:
",
, .
v' .....
, ~.;!.
. .
"
.
.
..
r
,
. !,-i.,'
f
,
~,
.,,1:",-,.
.,,10'~ ~'
:1
.;';;.t!
to.
-. .--. -0, ", _~
,
'.
" '.~
". o. ..
i
. .
.,"'''....
....
."-~
'-'
...1
January 25, 1978
Mr. Li}rry Yaw
Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd
P.O. Box 2736
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 925 DURANT PROJECT
LOTS P, G, H, I: BLOCK 119
.
Dear Mr. Yaw:
I have reviewed the development proposal for the above
referenced project with regard to fire protection.
J
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 ~his 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.
,
verlrulY yours,
, , ~)/ () 11
~ //CJ;, >,;/f: ~"'-V
~l1ard C. c(apper
Chief, Aspen Volunteer Fire Department
~ c<;;-
;~' ..
. '
-"1'
,.
J..
.,.
I
I
.'
(
'.
'"
r .
'.
I
1
,.," :1
..
.
"
"'-.' ,
".
, "
.
,~, '-
"
" . ,"
,.i,.Jl"
" .
.:'
'.'""
"
',' ~
.'
:
"
:
"
:t . ~
.
.:-!
~-
(
,~'. .
.'
ASON SANITATION DIST~;CT
.
P. O. UOI 518
ASPEN, COI.ORADO ~1611
Tel.. 925-3601
Janua ry 30, 1978
.
Mr. Larry Yaw
Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd
P. O. Box 2736
Aspen, Colorado 81611
,
Dear Mr. Yaw:
RE: PROPOSED 925 DURANT PROJECT
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 B" sewer I ine, 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 (H.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 H.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,
J-J.-L ~
, He I ko Kuh n
District Manager,
Aspen Sanitation District
, ... , ''fI;. !
;,' J
I
I
,
,
. '4'
"
<
.,
..
,.
. "';,
.
?
,
i
,
,
"
"
. '
!
..
q i j
/.?,~~fyip 12 ') E~~ 'D--t~+
~!rtVlch- cvf 5~ ph...J2... a....J ("<1- "2::oV<."~ 110:30
(~.(.( MiJ 0
57) : S""2.) '-roc..-....-C/1." c--'-~
-fY</'--.- :7b 2-1
tvlA'c-<.. -- /' Q <,j , (" {j''''---'vt',
J /L.,{V -/>
/V(/l..-J /2 )""-Cc-:-[ L ~
;0 ~ ?, 0 (}M--- iJ-tt'-t-1- ~+c /
~ q2.-5S"P"Y~1.
70 " ;, c "-~(~ L 0, S'.F H
~...v
!
I
,
I
9'9 5. ~~
r
-Iv . C'
~ Jill,l, ~
~\rv ~lJ~'
Io'-\-tr'~!(
tV'
1'---/
~J~ I
~~'J~~~J
L ~y,v"~~~f'
I
i
I
i
I
I
I'L.
S F 1'1 1M
::~
>
J
"- .'-'
1'1> f" u~
~ >;.<veIA'
.f \ "" I A
l__~#!!i5.L..
/1-1(1)0
fZ-- h F
2-llzro
Yf 14.F V; 'S7.*- ?J/~ "J t~ /,y-:f ~~~f::t~~I,i7
- L-c..Jl '''" 1) '''-k'J
- #- ~ ! [3/< 14..I')C ) - C-6v~ +0 S:~h v-hr- ~G;>u.~-
- -h"-x +r,^,,-e ~y j, /4 (~";() IO~~+.j-{;Vi}\ <9
v J V OY SI h--Ita'~~
,/U2 a -G-....e... ~ hJu.-'~fJ (JY' ..~,., 0
)/ /-1 I . ' ((
.X{.--- r/'1-;j;t,iA;. '" (,.~c +- CL.L.iv~_r
U u,
- ~."~ ~"~I h:",-".,~&- . .
~ ~~( -/v <;'-"'e.. tVLC,( . L'~J~? f,"Jov-'--hL/r:yj
- ckM t> C0 frr ~(f' 7J-R
C1D; W ~ fiy.~ {yw..(1it1 f
fBO - ~~"j - ~pnr:~ 1Jhc(~'fJ-
, 6ff ~'k fI~ f- ~, c&ia~ f;,,-~-
1LtL-(~~ f/;,p/'1 ~~ ww.1J!~~cL)
f-~A r/f,l3o
'21 fn- ~--1u.J x 02.(;"rp/~-Iv)~=- (3/ /Z.s-rP
I 0 ~J-i D x c;uo -- SC5'D
I::' b2.-; cP
I
Afr"-~(!L 0./l)f.- t; ~ re.cJr,,,,x~~ - ~ L-f'-1u S()'r' ~ IU.J""'-':'~
n.,l
q /10/090 ~~ 12-5f:.q~ 5~
rAe-Oi!' ~~~.~ (j)~J5vJ)~~j
f!-,-;t(F 121 cToD~
~ ~ ~~ bo>~ /J~ ~ j,~
(d(S~c"~O h~/V..~
rt1Ctl'U~~~
-:5--h.~o6 - /, JZ(1) tj7 /LClLCRC/ i? ~5OZ) 4
,
12- PM--I+ ~ J/i/~
V.~ 50:':)0 C~~ /2-J~(:.n'O'>-=-f~ (S~-os)
f/r~ ~-o -/r~ /;/ -/z! J: /. 2j
I , 2.5' =:
.
I
No. 55-ffJ
.
CASE LOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
1. DATE SUBt1ITTED: q/13loo STAFF: JOIev1e, VrcbiCl.
2. APPLICANT: L(<Al'\.~ (~1r~_'BoX 33& {ls~
3. REPRESENTATIVE:__~~~-v~icl5~\
4. PROJECT NAME: q~S {;j)UYM:\--SUb,~tWv
5. LOCATION: q'l-S t. D\A(~
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Rezoning
P.U.D.
Special Review
Growth Management
HPC
'-I Subdivision
__~Jxcepti on
Exemption
70:30
Residential Bonus
_Stream Margin
8040 Greenline
View Plane
_Conditional Use
_Other
7. REFERRALS:
Sanitation District School District
Fire Marshal ~OCkY Mtn. Nat. Gas
Parks _State Highway Dept.
Holy Cross Electric _Other
)( Mountain Bell
--.X:.Attorney
~ngineering Dept.
">G Housi ng
--&.Water
>1-. City Electric
e-r...
COh.c.eD--Iu& I
J
Prf' t~.w ~'1 (p. H-.)
A,,~ P/~~
B. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: p,,"", ;2:-
r
"
\
I
.'-...""
f
.
9. DISPOSITION: !
P & z ./ Approved -/ Denied Date a::r: 2/ /1 Eo
)
Pei:C: ~PfYiJ..;,,-d ~ 1It'/?kf!l.... .{Yt><.- -1:1/ svhl./v/ ~"t/l-J
" ('..o~c.e. . " ~u
/,' f
~_ 17/d€A-.J~k- :Jt'hA-f:6 -14 Dvp~.f- c~nJ..~(Jkf~_
. (k,
Counci 1
Approved
Denied
Da te ..t!J:II=f".
10. ROUTING:
.-XJttorney
X Building
X Engineering X Other ~'\a5'
E4\1;~ COt.1c::,<;ts 0-1- (2 IDw - ilAc~L"€':"
pv,'( ,e - lee:. fv;r..kd IJtA..:f-<...
.
,.,
.....
--./
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 sO,uth galena s,treet
aspen, colorado_81611
'" . . -T
... '-......-- "'--....
~
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Water, Jim Marka1unas
City Engineer, Dan McArthur
City Electric
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas j
Mt. Bell
City Housing, Jim Reents
FROM: Jo1ene 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.
J ~ /uJ ifrJL U)d4 ~ ~
;)-f-L~r~'~~~
~'~~uf!f~y' {.J~--h
{ift-cJ'~ ~~, !J)~lir1 .
:JJ~, 7J1~~~
~ ?fit: W4.
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JOLENE VRCHOTA - PLANNING OFFICE
JIM MARRALUNAS
925 E. DURAN! CONCEPTUAL/PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION
OCTOBER 8, 1980
DATE:
No further comments necessary. See my previous letter of January 25, 1978,
which is included in the applicant's package.
aspen
, · ~ I,:,J
\ ~ t \ \ t(, .....
i' .r,.
" \; .
~'" II ~ 1 .
, .
'_4~' ''',j <(~.'--,"""""':
~ I'" ....
ning Office
t re e t
1611
Aspen/Pitk.
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Water, Jim Marka1unas
City Engineer, Dan McArthur
City Electric
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas
Mt. Bell
City Housing, Jim Reents
FROM: Jo1ene 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
sj010f Hedstrom
Cha i rman
Published on October 2, 1980 in the Aspen Times.
Bill to the City of Aspen account,
TO:
FRm~:
RE:
DATE:
,.
-, ~
"'", --'
"" --~
Clayton Meyring I
Jo1ene Vrchota, Planning OffiC~V
925 South Durant (Hans Cantrup)
September 16, 1980
As I understand, Hans Cantrup has appl i ed for a bui 1 ding 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.
, ,.
~ "" ,'." .
l
/'-
"
,,, '(
./
"
--
I.J;sr EWD <;1llUT
lfutlrJ
~mrIIilN&
ft<<I(~
~ LOtM
" o..P ~p ~
'-~=-,:
K'/PMoII"
IU'lHAH!I&)V
-'---~--,-- ."
~t>'I:Al'W JJJEf
, ~LveltSl.O.l
--.-..,--
WIWll' AVEIlIJE
_~ f>11<< LDC&f. ./
, --~----......
c.t\AThllJ ~
WATEli!> AI/EI-lUE
;? ' /<
J,-';' 1_.
,/",
Site Context
r-~
, 50 100
,
""
/--"
~'7i
-w/
. . ~ ,:~,"" . '.. . ..ioI .:' ~ .', '
". ~ \ " ~ " ' ~.
~j THe 825 aUMAN' A\lENUE' PROJEC'r,. COPLANO HAGMAN YAW LTC, ARCHITECTS' I"~ ~ ~
. ~ , '-' '. . ~. -. . \ , -
'. " ,~ _, . ~,A,.rM'" c:........d.. . . ;..' : 1, '
,', ~. - . . . ; ~ . ~. "', .. :
."""''''.
'~ACl'NI' PIDPERTY OONERS
to 925 E. Durant Project
OORl'H PIDPERrffiS:
1. Old Hundred Condcminiums
O:mtact:
Olaf and Carolyn Hedstran
P.O. Box 4815-<:rr\:'i',,;
Unit 107 Building C
Aspen, ill
2. Vagal:ond Lodge
Brass Bed Associates
DBA Vagal:ond Lodge
926 E. Durant Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 816H
3. Sepp H. and Jane Kessler
P.O. Box 33
Aspen, Colorado 816H
(.'1) p~ c.' l( 'i_'" 1'-/,< ;./
4. Westside ~~~iR.i~~i'
. ~,~~,.... '~~'-',""'?"'~$-'''''-'~''''-''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''~''''-
Nathan Landow
4710 Bethesda Avenue
Bathesda, Maryland 20014
OOUI'HERN PIDPERI'Y ~s:
5. North Star Partners
D.B.A. North Star Lodge
914 Waters Avenue
Aspen, Colorado Sl6H
6. Silverglow Condominiums
Silverglow Condominium Associates
P.O. Box 9260
Aspen, Colorado 816H
EAST ProPERI'Y
7. Alpine Haus
c/o Hans Cantrup
P.O. Box 388
Aspen, Colorado 816H
(' f / '" t' ',:,~ ~,
8. Chateau Snow
a) Walter O. WeHs
21550 Lake Street
Cassopolis, Michigan 49031
b) Alta IaTIa Invest:rrent Carrpany
c/o Raleigh Enterprises
8560 Sunset Blvd.
Los Angeles, California 90069
925-7279
after 6 p.m. or before
9 a.m.
Re: Chateau Snow Condo
Unit #101
Condo Unit #102
16 units .
9 apartrrent units
."",)o'-f( ~""'i (jr:,.f/I../ffl.
8 rental units total -
mder one owner.
,>' 1.'\/,'\.;,,""'1-',./ ,(:," .,'n
24 lodge rental units
,'" tel"
24 wndcminium units
7 candcminium units
Adjacent Property Owners'" ,
Page 2
c) Thanas A. Spain Unit #201
Old Orchard lbad
Anronk, Mew York 10504
d) Avilla B. Bates Unit #202
15 E. 2300 Riverside Drive
Tulsa, Oklahana 74114
e) Bates Lumber Carpany Inc.
Box 7095
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104 Unit #203
f & g) Hooligan Properties Unit #301
23880 W. Eight Mile lbad Unit #302
Southfield, Michigan 48034
--.- <.....--'" -'~-'~-_.',---
Lon-to,in 5 ;
;)ubdi U\5[QV1 ttLep+-ro",- Appiic.qfroh,
c.. IX seJoo..c( SLA VY\"'nC<.rl( 5 JlJ':'ei--
P<- ?- S4b 't[..(ep -{.toVj ApprouCl/
Lefl Q.r on fZ C:x:J,f-- 70 " 36
f/-dJ ev..m+ (o.lld{j("Jne.r Ie...+ler
ci+V ft-+lorn~y m~m() -to cc. - on. RlnF morc:!(fof{Ltif1
Le Her(;:;i on SD us s- '{.. ole?d res-(n d-teN1 v, empl W/.16
IZ n'lf
L'Qt{{Lr -frum HBC oqcdnsf {norLLtfDn e<.b"
[bWlC.( f mih.u:le,,:; 6/1 su.b IT--C€pf--IOA...-
KQ50Lld-t'OfL +0 eY-'t'f1ul(Jf- "I:::L.)f WiJaltt -frOf,l1 eJ/nF' rnO(L'dYiQ~
!.:Q.f{,q" on ~pc2clcJ. iQVCe..LU l ~ C{ - Ii, L (,l-l.)) --k:..:r I ~
'<2.V\'\f! i L-t(l t1: 'S
.
oJ 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
\(1'(',- f ~
"-1 ..., , <\'
y'
, .L-
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00100 - 63061 09009 - 00000 County Land Use Sales
63062 GMP Sales
63063 Almanac Sales
Copy Fees
Other
Name: Ir-od I'!) )-11/"(07
(eeL ?', 1/ ~y!/{PLJ
Address: .... '" :.1) j /k//
1"f"1 v '
/jYJ. ,(
Check No, (,
Project: 9dS r bl r(L,d
" :/ .I, p1 ,oQ
, .... I"
Phone: I;)'c) - /93&
Date: ,<1/11, /7, /1/1
I
Receipt No, P
- ""'"
I
J
.,.",,,
925 Durant Project
Subdivision Exception
INTRODUCTORY
2.
10.
.-".-0.....
.",-
1.
Project Name:
Location:
3.
4,
Parcel Size:
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 Un its:
9.
Rental Restrictions:
Projected Population:
'I}'/II':," (/
(LI1I'/'< "lq
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 3B8
Aspen, Colorado
B1611
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. II,
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-fami ly 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 Vrchota
25 September 1980
Page 2
Second, the property involved consists of four lots under a single
ownersh,ip 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 (bl (31 6y 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 wilt 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 appl ication 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
;l1'~~ ;1 >CZ~~~
Mark A. Danielsen
. ~ I ~~ .
, 1"
., , ' iA',
. : . L ,l~"i't~
A!';f. '3T!IJ'\Of.I
!
I
Ii
I'
'I
~
'I
I,
il
,
I
I
"
i
(~
(
,
i~
!
~ me<.
II
il
I!
EXI~n~ I'W.l
I(Ut1( me<. '5W1OI-1
- -~llllllllllli1i'~-
'oil
0~ -!'JL[)K(flU~
~!"rDlti"i!l>CI1Y
Tl<AIL
~ COMMEi<:Cw.. CM
_ !I:E~t;€NlVIL /MULTI- FAMILY
. ~[:um,t{_ (,
mID KE";<WlIV'l.- IS
_ fMKjrm.X
-.
Vicinity Map
r-c...r---1
o 2QO 400
I
.00
~
(--.... ,
',"'-' ,I
'----/,
, I'
. 'I'
THE 82& DURANT AVENUE PROJECT COPLAND HAGMAN YAW LTO ARCHITECTS ' :' ~:\
A.".... CoIO~'Cllt ~l'r
. \1',
t
,-
^ ft'- p
''', ROARING ~~~;
~."~'"
ALPINA HAUS
-925 Durant
Project
.
r
GLORY HOLE
.. ,.
'. ,-','.::-;; ~V 'YN~ ts':..~,,-:.,
:?'}:i>~ ~~'\,:<< ,'5;:::;:~, ~'.:,<,,~<;; .
'':;<,:'::-:::; ~%.:;;~~<-; ';"/;;:' .:,...'.:,..~
~;.-:;;;::~~~ %.. ....., ~,-j;. '% ,.:~'\:;~.~
Y:x.~",..\' >3 . .' ',.XX
~>>->-M ' .,,\ ;. A .
.-^--::~'>~~ ~'\~'%~.. I ~?S'.?~~0 ~~:';:0' .~,~~ . ~500 .50. Galena
:.~"'.~ >, ,)>>).'.\1 ... \\"",<~ :>. ". ,. ~ Project
;::/S::;:,~" '. ...'~'.:;\~~ ~"~~:;':~~ ~i~~~; ~~~~ /::.;.::;'(:: '.'
".... "::\'~ "'0,~ >0.\.\:'~~ ~ ,.......,. , ..,..._
:-"\, .,' '. \ \, ~;:..'\ .... :.::-:...:.:..-~
L,:-7:~':>'<;I'1 .' ~~:.v. 'I"~~ :{!-'::':'::::":~>~+m~J:':"\~:~ -)
:-~':~.\ I "- '~ \...~~, :;-':''::-::';'::':::::'::':': \'::___,
.'" . ,,'.' , .',. .......... -'-'
:;>0,,,' ,.~ ; ....~ :'.,::::.:::..:;::.,:.~...:....:.::.~. '_'
::;x, . ....iiI1ft.BtI'nt.............f
- '., ':'>: ...........:aT:....... ''':.
'_. .'.. ~{.~ \~ ~~.~';.::>./:::~..:,.,:.::..;:::.~:\/.>.:,:. .
^o':-':: ,.,~ WAGNER PARK ,....,. ....,.'. ..'
\'. \", ',', ~:'..:-:::.::::';...:-::':::,.:-:~:.'::
~ "\. . ~.:.~",-;....~b~.~~..!.......
, , 11@~?'7'!"
Uo:.o..........
llil'0
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
>
J.
, -...-
r1......J
o 200
.
400
I
800
~
''"'-..
WEST END ST,
0 u_tJ
CONOOMINIUM
0
10 CJ .
I
w
~
,
Z
<C
a:
::l
C
CJ
CJ
D
[]
i
1-
Site Plan
925 DURANT AVE. PROJECT
~
~
01020 40 80
<
ill
~\
,
D~:~~CAL ~NIT :L8
925 DURANT PROJECT
4&15 "Po PER UNIT
......"...
=,
?\
~
0
Z $I
0
!:i: .
::> ~
w N
...J
W
J:
f-
::l
0
II> 0
,}
~
,~
PEN
130 s
January 25, 197B
Mr. Larry Yaw
Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd
P.O. Box 2736
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 925 Durant Project
Lots F, G, H, I : Block l19
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 t'J 9{J.P.
ames J. Markalunus
~<> -
..>;';'
January 25, 1978
Mr. LQrry 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.
:oj
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,
, ) / )/ t::/) NJ
{/ // (:1:, ?, " (: ;(Lr..( /7.y-
Wl11ard C. Capper
Chief, Aspen Volunteer Fire Department
ASP~N SANITATION DISTRICT
P, O. Bo% 528 Tele,92S-3601
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
, Janua ry 30, 1978
Mr. Lar ry Yaw
Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd
P. O. Box 2736
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: PROPOSED 925 DURANT PROJECT
Dear Mr. Yaw:
1 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 1 ine, 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
STlOliART TITLE (., ASPION, li\C.
HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this office LIl'IL U", ll\<ner u(
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 tbat tbe above described property appears to be subjecL Lv the (ollo"in~:
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 truc, this CL>l"L:llic;Ile is n.lt t~1 ~h~
construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, 110r :1 gu:~r~nly c[
title, and it is understood and agreed that Stc\..'art Title or /\spcn, inc.,"
neitber assumes, nor "ill be charged "ith any financial obligation or 1i3bi1ct)"
whatever on any statement contained herein. #
Dated at Aspen, Colorado, this
19 80 at 8:00 A.M.
17th
day of September
,\.D.
snWART TlTLIO OF ASPEN, INC.
.
925 Durant Project
Subdivision Exception
INTRODUCTORY
2,
10.
1.
Project Name:
Location:
3.
4.
Parcel Size:
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:
Projected Population:
I (
[
j'
/.,) l)
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 bui lding
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-
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 iand 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 Vrchota
25 September 1980
Page 2
Se.cond, the property involved consists of four lots under a single
ownersh,ip 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) oy 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 $50.00 representing
payment of the subdivision exception fee. In addition, attached is
the information necessary for conceptual review and approval as re-
quired by Section 20-10 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. As
time is of the essence, your immediate consideration and review of
this subdivision exception would be greatly appreciated. Should
there be any questions or more information desired, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours
~~~pa~~~
Mark A, Danielsen
, , {,~ ,
" ,:.;:.,
. ., ~~
(~
I
I
.l
i!
h
i~
(
i,
I
!
i
I
I
'1
II
il
J
i
"
I
I
-Rr:t'31"~
i:X1~TlI-I& I"W-L
~ rn<:K
..,
<'J~ -(;U)l(Y f-I:tE r?'<K
~~PC.I1Y
TlQJL
~ COMMEI':Cw.. eM
_ Ii:EStt:EflTW.(MULTI-FAMILY
0Jill re5I[;f1-IT1tt (,
mm KE?lroITlti.. IS
_ FH:K(I'lJel\S
(- "",
Vicinity Map
~
o 200 400
I
.00
~
, .
~.
, . '~I
... ql
THE 828 DURANT AVENUE PRaolECT COP....AND HAGMAN YAW LTD ARCHITECTS :. I:'~:
A.~" CoIO~.dO' , .l, "it,
..\\~':.
, 1-
ALPINA HAUS
-925 Durant
Project
.
r
GLORY HOLE
)
:""..
PROJECT
~,:y~..:.:.::~;~5~~j~gi Galena
....:. ~~,;.;.~:.:~:;<~.:~
.....:... . .....L.~.. '.':';-"
,..,.... mi'an.. ~
.. ...........~.... ..--.
~)::~~G<;(~cJ H~ :: ~-
... /'1'1' RtrlJlIt. ....... ~Yf!(
............!r[f~.... ...... .
'\"Gi,k!iE;,:,;~W;):
:~:~:~';V}i?~r~:)~\r~?~:":"" .
. .'0
:'..:'
~'.:::'..:"'i:.::
--0
LOCATION MAP
..J.
,
'II,., "'.,11.,$:;".. RUBEY PARK
''''-' ",'.
'~... ":'~' WAGNER PARK
.r<-
-......
~
o 200
I
400
I
600
OJ
WE5T END 5T,
I
D
oeo ON' HUN ~
CONOOM'N'UM U
o
DO
1..':'~-s I 0
"'~ /V.
""",
S
w
~
....
Z
c(
a:
:)
c
t'"
CJ
CJ
'i
\ I
L .1
~ -
I
0/0 ~/l2_)r;
D
o
~11OfI <2"','clff/
I
l
,,,;:-,--
Site Plan
925 DURANT AVE. PROJECT
W
~
0102040 80
THE 925 DURANT AVENUE PROJECT COPLANO HAGMAN YAW LTC ARCHITECTS
AC,I"'--' Cola" '"
.
!\i\]
~\
,
::~:CAL ~NIT :L~
925 DURANT PROJECT
4R15 ..F. PElR UNIT
.
..
....
-,
-
,
z ~
0
~ ~
, :> ~
N
W
-:: ...I
W
l ~ :t:
I-
::l
0
en
,j
,~
~
',-,.-
PEN
130 s
January 25, 197B
Mr. Larry Yaw
Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd
P.O. Box 2736
Aspen, Colorado Bl611
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.
.;.f
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 truIA Iyour;, J
'dCft(w..-P'
ames J. Markalunus
IJ"-'-
January 25, 1978
Mr. LQrry 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.
J
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 ~his 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,
. ) / )/ ~II):I//
[///11,(,,, y c: J(~f~Y
w~11ard c. Capper
Chief, Aspen Volunteer Fire Department
ASPEN SANITATION DISTRICT
P. 0, Bo. 528 Tel.. 915-3601
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
January 30, 1978
Mr. Larry Yaw
Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd
P. O. 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.
,
J
The project Is presently served by an 8" sewer I ine, In serviceable con.-
dltion, 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,
tJ.-L ~
He i ko Kuhn
District Manager,
Aspen Sanitation District
-'
STEHART TITl.E (" ASPEN. INC.
HEREBY CERTIFIES from a search of the books in this oHic" LI"lt till, 1J\,""r "l
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 ill
the name of
HANS B. CANTRUP
and that the above described property appears to be subj eet to the [ollo\'il1~:
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 Certll"ic;lle i.s Ii,):: l\' :h~
construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion of title, lh,r ;1 gu,:r;:.Hy cf
title, -and it is understood and agreed that Stc\....1rt Title o[ I\spcn, lr.c.,.
neither assumes, nor will be charged with any financial obligatioll or liaoil~ty
whatever on any statement contained herein. ,
Dated at Aspen, Colorado, this
19 80 at 8:00 A.M.
17th
day of September
I\,D.
STEWA!\T TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.