HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.500 S Galena & 925 Durant Ave.1978
.
GARFIELD Be HEORT
ATTORNBYS AT LAW
VIQTORIAN SQUARE BUIIJ)INO
601 EAST HYMAN AVENUB
ASPEN, OOLORADO 81611
RONALD OARFIELD
ANDREW V. HEOHT
ASHLEY ANDERSON
October 5, 1979
TELEPHONE
(303) 9215-1936
OHRISTOPHER N. BOMMER
ORAlG N. BLOOKWIOK
K. ROCLHAO OARN
Aspen City Council
City Hall
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION
Dear Council Member:
In 1978 Hans Cantrup received Growth Management Plan quota
allotments for two multi-family projects---TOp of Mill and
925 Durant-500 S. Galena. The Top of Mill project contained
sixteen employee units and the 925 Durant-500 S. Galena project
contained twelve employee units. The employee unit portions of
both those projects were and are to be built prior to the free
market units.
Section 24-10.7 (a) of theAspen City Code requires that plans
sufficient for the issuance of a building permit be submitted
within two years of the deadline for the application. That time
period will expire on January 1, 1980. This application is for
an extension of that deadline and the reasons for the request
are set forth below.
Approximately eighteen months ago Copland Hagman & Yaw,
the architects for the applicant, began drawings for the employee
portions of the projects. As stated above, the employee units
were and are to be built first. At that time the applicant
sought permission from this Council to build larger employee
units, that permission was not granted.
Shortly thereafter, in approximately November of 1978, the
city attorney in his continuing endeavors to help alleviate the
employee housing problem suggested to the City staff as well as
to myself the concept of an employee overlay. The original
draft of that overlay was completed in approximately December
of 1978. That overlay would have allowed us to build 32 employee
units rather than the 16 in the Top of Mill project and 24
employee units rather than 12 in the 925 Durant-500 S. Galena
,
Aspen City Council
October 5, 1979
Page Two
project. We at that time, as we do presently desire to in fact
double the number of employee units in that manner.
Relying on the probablity of that ordinance passing in
some form or another, we delayed preparing the drawing for the
proj ects.
The ordinance was presented to Planning and Zoning in the
Spring of 1979 and after some discussion it was tabled. Un-
fortunately, at that time the ordinance did not reach this
Council. Nevertheless, we were still optomistic of its passing
at some point and continued to delay the preparation of the
drawings based on that reliance.
The ordinance was again presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission approximately three weeks ago. They appeared to be
very interested and instructed the staff along with myself to
return with a final draft of the ordinance. Since that time
Karen Smith, Jim Reentz, Ron Stock and myself have worked many
hours on preparing that draft. We are now almost at the point
of having it completed and it will be submitted to the Planning
and Zoning Commission on November 6, 1979.
Again, that ordinance will allow us to build a
56 employee units as opposed to 28 employee units.
will be strictly of employee units with no increase
in the free-market units. Again to reiterate these
units will be built before the free-market units.
total of
This doubling
whatsoever
employee
Based on the above, we request an extension of the two year
period in which to file plans sufficient for a building permit
in order to accomplish the doubling of our employee units.
Sincerely,
GARFIELD & HECHT
.~
Ashley Anderson
AA:d
xc: Hans Cantrup
illlUK 4t:) I i\(,! ~Jl
en
-0
=i,...
~o
z::u
0'"
:;!=l
. >
N
A
o
0)
CD
W
...~ .. "..
,...
-0
...
o ::0'"
-..I nu~
oz
:>> Oz
X :::0...
AGREEMENT TO EXTEND _ 0:0
A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ALLOTMENT DE~INm
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, sub-
ject to and in consideration for the following terms and condi-
tions:
1. Construction on the 925 Durant phase (employee housing)
of the project must commence on or before June 1, 1982 and that
phase of the joint project 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 absolute discretion, of the occur-
rence or non-occurrence of the factual situations hereinabove
referred to, i.e., "construction commencement", "80% completed",
"ready for occupancy", and "reasonable time"; provided however,
that any interpretation of those terms or determination with
respect thereto must be reasonable under the circumstances. If
conditions beyond the control of HBC Investments (i.e., weather,
strikes, Acts of God, etc.) prevent HBC Investments from meeting
the deadlines in this paragraph, HBC Investments may apply in
."
?\I[!j(4c;J :AUllJ2
writing for extensions of these deadlines, for good cause shown,
to the City Manager, who shall have the authority and discretion
to grant, deny or modify any requests for extensions, which appli-
cations shall not be unreasonably denied.
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 if any of the conditions of Paragraph 1
are not met by HBC Investments, HBC Investments will immediately
move to demolish and return to grade any construction in the pro-
jects actually built, all at its own cost and pursuant to the pro-
visions of Section 7-141(d), A.M.C. (provided, however, that if
Section 7-141(d) shall conflict with any of the provisions herein,
the more restrictive of the conflicting provisions to HBC shall
apply to HBC).
3. With respect to the provisions of this agreement, HBC
Investments hereby 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
performance theories.
Done this ~ day of
~ :: ;.SFStl
, 1982.
f/l?JC ;t:}.J(/g,771f~
By I
CITY tJF /J'SPe:N
. i A~~~~~~rx~
,~, ....>c.. ~ ~
iO~/ By __ .
. .
.'
. .
. . "
(.'OL":'f;','f.,,-:,':J "
2
... :
"Oljf\ 4'5 '~G[~33
STATE OP COLOPADO
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
The foregoing Agreement to Extend a Growth ~ianage.:n,e;pb
./"Pl~n' ~llot~ent Deadline was acknowledged before me this ~'
....'.,,::4ay 01: Apn.l, 1982, by Hans B. Cantrup of HBC Investments.
l'~<\r..,\Ai. r1y Commission exnires: //-/)-~f{1r-
~',: '..<r':>( By Address is: ~~f-::. f);'ff!rf/"'ll
, ';"In\ ~ ( 0lf
- ,~, ..; L; - ,
o~.~~. WITNESS my hand and official seal.
.tr,Cf 12-- _--1.. L.~
" ',' No~a~
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIn
The foregoing Agreement to Extend a Growth uanage7t
Plan Allotment Deadline was acknowledged before me this )
day of April, 1982 by lIe:-rm~ r;;'de--! as
hAyae-.. for the City of Aspen.
My Commission expires: r:/;I6 {8"3
~~y Address is: /30, A....J
it, /.
',.
',' qr,
',>-'" -,
'I!r
, ,
-. .,;...
,0 ,
. {t n L \ \"
.'
WITNESS my hand and
official seal.
, l~k1lJ.OAl.b../ a
Not: rtJ Public
{Lu-d~
" ,
-
ex>
q1!J j ,....
made tnis ' day of -APl.>/(
the City of Aspen, Colo,ado (he,einafte,
and HBC Investments (he,einafte, ,efe,red
,,\'UK4l~ iM,t234
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
~
;0.
X
THIS AGREEMENT,
1982, by and between
,efe"ed to as City)
as Subdivider)
WIT N E SSE T H:
-
;g
:!!
........
~o
""'"
0'"
...-<
-<-i
. ll>
::0",
",,,.
oz
oz
::0...
0:0
"'
::0
N
.tl.
0
~
Q)
..to.
,
to
WHEREAS, the Subdivide, has submitted to the City fo,
app,oval, execution, and ,eco,dation, a final plat (he,einafte,
,efe"ed to as the "Plat") conce,ning the development of an
employee housing p,oject known as the "925 East Du,ant p,oject" on
a vacant pa,cel of ,eal p,ope,ty owned by the Subdivide, and
located at 925 East Du,ant Avenue, and fo,"nally desc,ibed as Lots
F, G, H, I, Block 119, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of
Colo,ado; and
en
-
-
WHEREAt;, on August 28, 1981, tne Aspen City Council g,anted
final plat app,oval fo, the p,oject subject to ce,tain specific
conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council will app,ove, execute, and
accept fo, ,eco,dation the plat on the fu,the, condition that SUb-
divide, execute this Ag,eement fo,mally acknowledging its accept-
ance of all the conditions and ,equirements imposed by the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in conside,ation of the p,emises, covenants,
and conditions contained he,ein, and the app,oval, execution and
acceptance of the plat fo, ,eco,dation by the City of Aspen, it is
mutually agr.eed as follows:
1. The SUbdivide, will const,uct a sidewalk in f,ont of the
p,ope,ty along Du,ant Str.eet which shall extend fr.om the p,ope,ty
line on the east to the p,oper.ty line on the west and shall
install a t,ash facility on the p,ope,ty adjacent to the alley
along the south p,ope,ty line having dimensions of no less than 10
feet deep and 25 feet long. Said imp,ovements shall be installed
and const,ucted in conjunction with the const,uction of the P,o-
Ject and shall be completed p,io, to the issuance of a ce,tificate
of occupancy fo, the p,oject.
2. With ,espect to the imp,ovements to be constr.ucted by
Subdivide, as set fo,th in pa,ag,aph "1" he,einabove and in
acco,dance with Section 20-16 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Sub-
divide, ag,ees to p,ovide a gua,antee fo, no less than one hund,ed
(100) pe,cent of the cu"ent estimated cost of the impr.ovements as
computed by the City Enyinee" ,eflectea in Exhibit "A", annexed
he,eto and inco,po,ated her.ein. The gua,antee shall be p,ovided
to the City p,ior. to the issuance of a building per..nit for. the
4'J' , "J' c:.:
'c~IOK (..:) ,MU:; \)
project and shall be in the form of a cash escrow with the City,
or a bank or savin9s and loan asociation, or an irrevocable si9ht
draft or letter of cOIlUuitment from a financially responsible
lender; and shall give the City the unconditional right, upon
default by the Subdivider, to withdraw funds upon demand to par-
tially or fully complete and/or pay for any improvement or pay any
outstanding bills for work done thereon by any party. In addi-
tion, Subdivider hereby agrees to warrant all improvements for a
period of one year after acceptance by the City.
3. Subdivider agrees that all of the units within this
employee housing project shall be subject to restrictive covenants
for a term of 50 years ffom the date of recordation thereof which
covenants shall provide that said employee housing units will not
be ren ted or s old except in accordance with the low income g uide-
lines established by the City of Aspen as the same may be modified
from time to time by the City of Aspen. Said restrictive cove-
nants shall be recorded simultaneously with the recording of the
final plat.
4. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and shall
inure to the benefit of the Subdivider annd the City and their
respective successors and assigns.
5. This Agreement shall. be subject to and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and the Munici-
pal Code of the City of Aspen.
6. If any of the pro v is ions of this Agreement or any para-
graph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section or the applica-
tion thereof in any circumstances is invalidated, such invalidity
shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement
and the validity of any such provision, paragraph, sentence,
clause, phrase, word or section under any other circwustance shall
not be affected thereby.
7. This Subdivision Agreement contains the entire under-
standin9 and a9reement between the parties herein with respect to
the transactions contemplated hereunder and may be altered or
amended from time to time only by written instrument executed by
each of the parties hereto.
8. Any notices required to be given to the parties to this
Agreement shall be deemed to have been given if personally given
or deposited in the United States mail to the parties by regis-
tered or certified mail at the addresses indicated below.
City of Aspen:
City Manag er
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Subdivider or its Successors
or Assigns:
HBC Investments
P. o. Box 388
Aspen, Colorado 81612
2
:'~IU1\4~o '1,[;[~3o
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the ~a~ties he~eto have he~eunto executed
this Ay~eement on the yea~ and date he~einabove set fo~th.
." '
','I' {' ~
. . -VI
..., ' .., '.
. ",')ATTEST:
~~j..),f~
, '{~I'City Cle~k
I'''''''' .
--C,l '''i;'-'#
APPROV~D AS TO FORM:
,,;: ~". /, \. 4~\
Paul J. Taddune) City Atto~ney
ATTEST:
-~~~~~~~
STATE OF CO~ORADO )
) ss.
County of pitkin )
CITY OF ASPEN, a Colo~ado
Municipal Co~po~ation
By 'cf~
He~an Edel, Mayo~
)
The fo~eyoiny SUb~~sion Ay~eement was swo~n
ledged befo~e me this day of ~,-4,..-
by He~man Edel, Mayo~, ity of Aspen.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
1i?~h8
ilhl~dL {1.~U~/
Nota~y ubl ic
Add~ess: ~i; ~~~1;~
My con~ission expi~es:
.'
,,\.
(1''-,
I
,.
.,,-~ -
-' ,~
~' ,{ / t:: I \.,
"
to and acknow-
, 1982,
3
"'iiU..4~;'~ ,,'" , "'3" 'j
-,l.' ,1\ . l."u 'I~'U...."" t
STATE OF COLORADO
)
) ss.
)
County of pitkin
The foee~oin~ SUba~~iOn Agee~ wa~ swoen
leaged befoee me this c..L:-j day of I&t. L-
by Hans B. Canteup foe HBC Investments.
to and acknow-
, 1982,
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SBAL.
My conuniss ion expi ees : I / ~ I ~ -I( &
,.,.., , "
.,'
..,\"'t t'. J:('.
.. .~. f:. . '. '
......".,
, . f. I) I
.....1; r \1 \;, ,
. ,,~, >.J (.
: 'F'('./:- ,-::
, . ,-,
N~bl~ ~
Addeess: ~~~; JtY~2~!
C1U .,\ '
: u \~
'''''r.
',,'r ,....; ~
4
,
C\Iut:4lf:> :~'oil38
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney
FROM:
Jay Hammond, Assistant City Engineer ~
DATE:
March 30, 1982
RE:
Sidewalk Estimate at 925 E. Durant
I am in receipt of a letter from Mr. Hans Cantrup dated
February 5, 1982 estimating the cost of construction of
120 feet of sidewalk, 5 feet in width, at $3,000. We
find this estimate reasonable and in line with current
concrete prices.
JH/co
EXHIBIT "A"
~
,~.:,,(.Ld C:i('S-.c) c'<;".', t'1',,__..___APJ~ 2JLt9B2....._____
,Dcepfon t..JO,r2..tr(J.!lL..~ , Loretia (;,:,;l/)': , :'i" i.: C" f::;corde.-
4'J[, .,. 1
"'~K ~;) hILl G_
~
~
I
~
~
~
r:9
c1P
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
~
=
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 2g rl.. day of ;t;ll;l...
by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado (herei t
to as City) and HBC Investments (hereinafter referred
Subdivider)
-
-
, 1982 Q'I
referred
to as
WIT N E SSE T H:
WHEREAS, the Subdivider has submitted to the City for
approval, execution, and recordation, a final plat (hereinafter
referred to as the "Plat") concerning the development of a
project known as the "700 South Galena Street" project
("Project") on a parcel of real property owned by the subdivider
and located at 700 South Galena Street, and formally described
as Lot 16 and Parcel B, Block 2, Anthony Acres Subdivisions,
City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado; and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 1982, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission granted preliminary plat approval for the Project
subject to certain specific conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council will approve, execute, and
accept for recordation the plat on the further condition that
Subdivider execute this Agreement formally acknowledging it
acceptance of all the conditions and requirements imposed by the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises,
covenants, and conditions contained herein, and the approval,
execution and acceptance of the plat for recordation by the City
of Aspen, it is mutually agreed as follows:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
improvements on the above-described property, the Subdivider
shall provide as follows:
a. With regard to slope stabilization during
excavation and construction, the Subdivider shall provide a
comprehensive engineering design for both temporary and
permanent earth-retaining structures (and the monitoring
thereof during excavation and construction). Said design
and monitoring system shall be signed and sealed by a
licensed geotechnical engineer and approved by the City
Engineer.
If the earth-retaining design finally approved by
the City Engineer requires temporary or permanent
"
Jl2" r 'jC -
~\l(]K 'f' ;) 1,IGt ~~
encroachment on neighboring property or City right-of-way,
the Subdivider shall secure all of the permits, licenses
and/or easements of the neighboring property owners and/or
the City as required by law.
b. With regard to surface and subsurface drainage
during excavation, construction and occupancy, the
Subdivider shall provide a comprehensive engineering design
for said drainage. Said design shall include provisions
for on-site retention of storm flows (including dry wells,
retention wells, and planted diversion berm) and for
filtration of the drainage to remove mud and construction
debris. Said design shall be signed and sealed by a
licensed geotechnical engineer and approved by the City
Engineer.
If the drainage design finally approved by the
City Engineer requires an overflow connection to storm
sewer, the Subdivider shall enter into a separate agreement
with the City to extend, all at Subdivider's cost, the
existing storm sewer up Galena Street to the Project, all
to the City's specifications for such storm sewer
c. With regard to consistency of the amended GMP
application and City approvals with the building plans to
be submitted, the Subdivider shall submit said building
plans to the City Planning Office for verification of
compliance of those plans with the amended GMP application
and the binding plat approvals of the City Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council.
d. With regard to all utilities required for the
project, if the submitted project construction plans or
City or utility company requirements provide for utility
installations in property locations not now burdened by
easements, Subdivider shall be required to convey the
relevant utility easements in standard form at no cost to
the City or utility companies.
2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
("COol) for the Project, the Subdivider shall provide as
follows:
a. The twelve employee units at the 925 East Durant
phase of this joint project must be built, deed-restricted
to City low-income, rental/resale guidelines and covered by
valid City certificates of occupancy.
b. The Project must contain all design features and
amenities as identified in the amended GMP application for
the Project and required as conditions of approval in the
P&Z and City Council including, but not limited to, the
following:
:
~~425 iMl723
(i) Twenty-six (26) underground parking spaces and
one (1) surface parking space, until such time as the 10
spaces for the Continental Inn are removed pursuant to a
separate written agreement by the subdivider and approved
by the City of Aspen.
(ii) Twenty-seven percent (27%) of the site retained
as open space.
(iii) Energy conservation features (with required
R-values) as required by the P&Z in its preliminary plat
approval of March 2, 1982.
(iv) Social facilities including a day care center,
recycling facilities and indoor/outdoor pool.
(v) Site design as a three-story straight line
configuration, as presented in the amended GMP application
and approved by Aspen City Council.
(vi) Heated sidewalks, six feet in width, along the
entire South Street frontage.
(vii) Curb and gutter along the entire South Galena
Street frontage.
(viii) Elevators and stairs from the underground garage
to all three floors and building and site design to
facilitate access for handicapped persons.
3. With respect to the following improvements: temporary
and permanent earth retaining structures, and temporary and
permanent water drainage systems as described in paragraph 1
above, and curb and gutter and the heated sidewalks as described
in paragraph 2 above, to the extent required by Section 20-16 of
the Aspen Municipal Code, Subdivider agrees to provide a
guarranty for no less than one hundred (100) per cent of the
current estimated cost of the improvements, as that cost shall
be computed by the City Engineer or approved by the City
Engineer based on cost estimates supplied to him by the
applicant's engineers or technical representatives. Said
guaranty shall be provided to the City prior to delivery to
Subdivider of a building permit for this project. Said
guarranty shall be in such form and amount as approved by the
City Attorney and City Engineer but shall provide at least as
follows: The guaranty shall be in the form of an irrevocable
sight draft from a financially responsible lender or an
irrevocable letter of commitment from a financially responsible
lender; and said guaranty shall give the City the unconditional
right, upon default by the Subdivider, to withdraw funds upon
demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for any
improvement or pay any outstanding bills for work done thereon
by any party. In addition, Subdivider hereby agrees to warrant
~
4'),' , '12A
''\IOK ,,;) I '\L~ 't
for one year all such improvements that may be accepted by the
City under Section 20-16.
4. Construction on the 700 South Galena phase of the
joint project must begin as early in 1982 as is practicable,
allowing for the spring soil conditions. The Subdivider
acknowledges that he is bound by the construction completion
schedule and permit expiration provisions found in Section
7-141(d) of the Aspen Municipal Code (which amends Section
302(d) of the Uniform Building Code). Subdivider also agrees
that prior to delivery to him of the building permit (although
the permit may be issued) either (i) Subdivider's contractor
shall purchase, execute and be bound by a performance completion
bond, or (ii) Subdivider himself will obtain such a bond as
required by the final plat approval of the Aspen City Council.
Any such completion bond shall be sufficient to complete the
project as approved upon default of either Subdivider or his
contractor and shall name the City as a beneficiary and a copy
shall be delivered to the City. If Subdivider violates said
Section 7-141(d), then the Subdivider, in addition to the
penalties provided under that section, shall pay to the City as
liquidated damages $200.00 per day for each day he is in
violation of the provisions of Section 7-141(d) even if such
violation is excused or a variance granted therefore by
appropriate City officials or boards. Such damages have been
agreed to between the parties hereto as required to mitigate the
impact on the neighborhood caused by such delay in construction.
5. Subdivider acknowledges that final plat approval for
this Project (and prior preliminary approvals) creates no right
of reasonable reliance as to a favorable determination or other
independent approvals required including, but not limited to, a
Residential Bonus Overlay application or requests for permits,
licenses and easements from the City as provided in paragraph
"l.a." hereinabove, although an RBO has always been anticipated
and planned by the subdivider in conjunction with this project
and the 925 East Durant Street site, and such plans made known
to the City of Aspen.
6. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and shall
inure to the benefit of the Subdivider and the City and their
respective successors and assigns.
7. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
8. If any of the provisions of this Agreement or any
paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section or the
application thereof in any circumstances is invalidated, such
invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of the
Agreement and the validity of any such provision, paragraph,
sentence, clause, phrase, word or section under any other
circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
,
'. .
j\IOK 425 (.\Gl725
9. The Subdivision Agreement contains the entire
understanding and agreement between the parties herein with
respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder and may be
altered or amended from time to time only by written instrument
executed by each of the parties hereto.
10. Any notices required to be given to the parties to
this Agreement shall be deemed to have been given if personally
given or deposited in the United States mail to the parties by
registered or certified mail at the addresses indicated below:
City of Aspen:
City Manager
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Subdivider or its Successors
or Assigns:
HBC Investments
P.O. Box 388
Aspen, Colorado 81612
~
.
~.lOK 425 i ,\L~ ',26
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto
executed this Agreement on the year and date hereinabove set
forth.
. (;
_) ,i
" ,-<., "
. 'oJ
CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado
Municipal Corporation
BY:~U~PL
aerman Edel, Mayor
-
" -
;:> ~~
,
~~~
City Clerk
p.M,:t.~vt.
Paul J. Taddune,
C~t:l!Attorney
I~~~rt'f~.
,......
. / ..
"'. ,/
HBe 'NVESTMENTS ~
By: k J / d ~
H$f{:-<et.ntca,
~ , ,
',. \. \",. ;:.,.,
ATTEST: .,' -
.,,"
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
County of Pitkin
The foregoing SUbdivisi~eement
acknowledged before me this day of
Herman Edel, Mayor, City of Aspen.
w~o and
, 1982, by
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL
My commission expires:
otary Public 1;, ~
Address:~ '
'~ ~/,
.
~10K 425 I !\L[ 12'7
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
County of Pitkin
The foregoing Subdivision ~ement
acknowledged before me this z: _- day
Hans B. Cantrup, for HBC Investments.
was-Aworl}
of 1"'/1 I
to and
, 1982, by
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires:
II-I r;- g'i
g~I.,~
NotAy Public
,\\I\~Plil",,, J"
" ^" "
....',' _\\}t'a h ..I, "~"
,...-... '\ \:...... o. .'{,do "~'.'
" ......... ' '. "(1\ -:
l. /\\UTA!(;",~ \
~ ' ~--<r-<- . ,
~ 0 Plj ~ ,: . f
~_"-,.. OL\"" 0.'
--, ......' ' ,<) ,"
,. L'>. ' . ,-"
-', "0 ., ( ,.'
"0,., . ,I: cO\ "
Address: )f!.2 ~'jji /r!:iI
, .
"
-,
.
"': ' . ~
...._._.~-
t")""
Copland Hagm raw Ltd Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen Co jo 81611 3039252867
,t./t'
I
April 10, 1978
Aspen City Council
Aspen Ci ty Hall
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Formal Appeal of G.M.P. Scoring Evaluation
by P&Z G.M.P. Residential Submission of
500 South Galena/925 Durant Project
Dear Council Members:
Pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance '48, Series of
1978, Section 24-10.4, paragraph F, we wish to register
formal protest to the P&Z scoring of the above referenced
project and request that City Council award additional
G.M.P. points to this project based on documentations
herein provided for review.
Specifically, we are protesting the evaluation and scoring
of this project by one member of the commission, Mr. Frank
Baranko, on the basis that his scoring was both arbitrary
and inconsistent with the scoring criteria denoted in
Ordinance #48.
The Growth Management Plan carefully denotes specific
criteria and associated point awards for existing and
provided service levels so that both the applicants and
the City representatives evaluating the project sub-
missions have a consistant, objective basis for decision
making. This project was specifically conditioned, designed
and submitted to achieve more than 39 points required for
G.M.P. approval. The initial submission provided carefully
detailed back-up data to support the expected point award
and to assist evaluation in all G.M.P. categories.
, ,
Copland Hag"CYaW Ltd Architects
Letter to Aspen City Council
10 April 1978
Page 2
We contend that Mr. Baranko necessarily must have dis-
regarded both the stated G.M.P. criteria and the documented
information in the submission to have scored this project
as he did, and that no basis exists upon which to justify
his low scoring evaluation.
To a specifically demonstrable extent, Mr. Baranko's
inconsistancies in the technical application of G.M.P.
criteria to certain of the Public and Social Service
categories has resulted, when averaged with the scores by
other commission members, in an unjust scoring result,
placing the project one (1) point below the 39 points
required for G.M.P. approval.
We request that Mr. Baranko's scores (see enclosed P&Z
tally sheet) be adjusted by a total of 11 addi tional points
raising the present score of 38 points to a new total of
40.2 points and GMP approval.
The following pages contain documentation in support of
this appeal.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours
C(:land Hag ~ Ltd
Larry a , p incipal
JLY:lk
enc.
Copland Hagn(""Yaw LId Architects
"-'
Support Data
Letter to Aspen City Council
10 April 1978
Page 1
1. PUBLIC FACILITIES
a. Evaluation Criteria
Ordinance i48 States:
"The Commission shall consider each application
with respect to its impact upon public facilities
and services and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following
formula:
o points - Indicates a total infeasibility of
providing services.
1 point - Indicates a major deficiency in service.
2 points - Indicates an acceptable (but standard)
service level.
3 points - Indicates no foreseeable deficiences."
b. Water Service
complete feasibility with no foreseeable defi-
ciencies is demonstrated by City Water Department
letter (see enclosed). More than adequate
hydrostatic pressure and flow were calculated
based on test data from nearby hydrants. Highest
G.M.P. standards were met yet Baranko score
indicates a "major deficiency in service."
Baranko score
Applied criteria score
Requested additional points
=
1 point
3 points
2 points
=
=
c. Storm Drainage
The drainage control systems delineated for this
project clearly demonstrated "no foreseeable
deficiencies", the systems for this project will
"
Copland Hagn('....Vaw LId Architects
'-"
Support Data
Letter to Aspen City Council
10 April 1978
Page 2
collect and retain all site runoff and inter-
rupted subsurface flow with on-site drainage
facilities consisting of drywells and retention
areas sufficiently sized to retain and disperse
site surface and roof water runoff. Highest
G.M.P. standards were met and exceeded yet
Baranko score indicates only an "acceptable level
of service".
Baranko score =
Applied Criteria score =
Requested additional points =
2 points
3 points
1 point
d. Fire Protection
complete provisions for fire protection were
demonstrated in connection with this project.
A letter from the Aspen Fire Department (see
enclosed) indicates "no foreseeable deficiencies";
Existing fire hydrants provide adequate flow at
good proximity; A new hydrant was provided
directly adjacent to 500 South Galena; project is
completely sprinklered; Good fire vehicle access
is provided. Fire protection systems for 500
South Galena, in fact, improve the quality of
protection service available to the surrounding
neighborhood. Highest G.M.P. standards were met
and exceeded yet Baranko score indicates a "major
deficiency in service".
Baranko score =
Applied criteria score =
Requested additional points =
1 point
3 points
2 points
e. Roads
The evaluation is the capacity of existing roads
to service project generated traffic without
substantially overloading or altering existing
traffic patterns. The project building are
/'"
Copland Hag( ", Yaw LId Architects
....,...
Support Data
Letter to Aspen City Council
10 April 1978
Page 3
served by existing paved streets and are located
within easy pedestrian access of central core
services. Both service proximity and the low
occupant per unit (all 1 BR units) ratio mitigate
againit the necessity for auto generated trips,
thus reduced impact. Voorhees study for this
project estimates 75% of all trips will be non-
automobile, primarily due to both service and
recreational proximity of project. A substantiated
situation of "no foreseeable deficiencies" is
clearly dpmonstrated, yet Baranko score indicates
only an "acceptable level of service exists."
Baranko score =
Applied criteria score =
Requested additional points =
2 points
3 points
1 point
f. Energy
The evaluation is the ability of the project,
its spaces and users, to maximize the conservation
of energy. Consistant with the solar geography
of the sites all project construction is specified
to maximize solar utilization and minimize heat
loss by the following techniques:
Insulation
Significantly exceeding regulatory thermal
standards, exterior walls will be insulated to
R=26 to 28 min.; roof composites to R=42; floor
composite to R=20; foundation perimeters to R=14.
Architectural
Architectural design configures buildings to
optimize thermal characteristics of the project.
Exterior wall exposure is minimized by staggered
unit concept (common wall), and by vertical
space organization (minimum ratio of exterior
.~-- ..-
Copland Hal!''' Yaw lid Architects
-..~
Support Data
Letter to Aspen City Council
10 April 1978
Page 4
surfaces per sq.ft. of occupied space). All build-
ings are oriented with highest use interior spaces
to the south to achieve view while maximizing
passive solar heating potential.
Glazed openings on non-south exposures will be
limited to Uniform Building Code minimums (to
comply with ventilation requirements). Opening
surround details will be required to minimize
heat loss due to infiltration.
Partial flat roof surfaces are designed for all
units to retain the additional insulation value
of snowfall layers.
Devices
Consistant with solar geography of site, solar
collectors will be utilized for domestic hot water
heating. Electric energy will be designated
for primary space heating to reduce fossil fuel
demand. (approximately 50% of electric power
used in Aspen area is hydrogenerated). Automatic
thermostats will be specified to control night
time space temperatures. Fire place design will
use double damper control, exterior combustion
air, glazed fire opening, and heat return ducting.
Humidification will be used to reduce temperature
required to achieve equal comfort levels.
The thermal and energy aspects of this project
are clearly maximized, yet Baranko score indicates
only a "standard level of service."
Baranko score =
Applied criteria score =
Requested additional points =
2 points
3 points
1 point
,,<.,
Copland Ha!/r~" Yaw Ltd Architects
.....~
Support Data
Letter to Aspen City Council
10 April 1978
Page 5
2. SOCIAL FACILITIES & SERVICES
a. Evaluation Criteria
The Ordinance States:
"The Commission shall consider each application
with respect to its impact upon social facilities
and services and shall rate each development by
assigning points according to the following
criteria:
o points - Project requires the prov1s1on of new
service at increased public expense.
1 point - project may be handled by existing
level of service in the area.
2 points - project in and of itself improves
the quality of service in a given
area.."
A similar argument can be developed with regard to
the Social Facilities and Services Section. As
shown below there are inconsistencies between the
guidelines provided by the ordinance and the points
awarded to the projects.
b. Child Care Facilities
This project provides child day care facilities,
in accordance with State of Colorado Standards
in an area where none presently exist, thus "in
and of itself improves the quality of service in
a given area". Baranko score indicates that the
project requires "provisions of a new service at
increased public expense."
Baranko score =
Applied criteria score =
Requested additional points =
o points
2 points
2 points
._...~.
/....
{'....
Copland Hag, Yaw LId Architects
"".,,.."
Support Data
Letter to Aspen City Council
10 April 1978
Page 6
c. Recycling Facilities
Recycling facilities (special segregation containers
for glass, aluminum, tin and newspapers) are
designated to be provided at 2 separate locations
in this project in accordance with the specific
criteria of Mr. Dennis Holmes of the City Recycling
Center, thus improving the quality of this service.
Baranko score indicates that no improvement was
made.
Baranko score =
Applied criteria score =
Requested additional points =
1 point
2 points
1 point
d. Handicapped Design Features
Both project locations were specifically designed
to provide direct access to units for non-ambulatory
persons by means of level sidewalks, protected
ramps, elevator and widened access ways. The
provisions were made in excess of building code
requirements for the specific purpose of maximizing
handicapp access. Baranko score indicates no
improvement was made.
Baranko score =
Applied criteria score =
Requested additional points =
1 point
2 points
1 point
3. SUMMARY
In consideration of the information presented herein
to support our protest of the Baranko scoring, we
feel the award of additional GMP points is substantiated
and should be awarded as summarized below:
r".
Copland Hag"'C'aw LId Architects
GMP SERVICE BARANKO APPLIED REQUESTED
CATEGORY SCORING CRITERIA ADDITIONAL
SCORE POINTS
WATER 1 3 +2
STORM DRAINAGE 2 3 +1
FIRE PROTECTION 1 3 +2
ROADS 2 3 +1
ENERGY 2 3 +1
CHILD CARE 0 2 +2
RECYCLING 1 2 +1
HANDICAP DESIGN 1 2 +1
TOTAL +11 Points
Total additional points requested = 11 points = 2.2 points
5 votes
Total requested project points = 38 + 2.2 = 40.2 points
C'rilge
ints
f!tr
}',t'
1,1)
~-~
'). i;
I
~-
L.:Jc~
/,1
hd-
j,JJp _ '
Ii__
I tl
. !
"--,---
f:'~_
F!..~~='
,L_,..:\~
l~
I. .
- '0'
-.,p
'''-
'-<,
197 (l GHOI'ITIl Ml\Nl\Gn1ENT HJ:;SIDENTIAL
Tl\LLY SHEETS
Project NilIne: -500 .s.'l'\l~A ) q.?6.DU~T
../
../
1.
2.
3.
'4.
5.
6.
7.
ic Facilities CC FE 1'11\ JS JK OIl DE
. .'
Water Service J I :J. ) ).
Sc\'/cr Service ! / ,') :2 ,
Storm Drilinilge '~ . {J. 3 ~ ')
Fire Protection ~ I ?, r~ .3
Pilr!d nq Desiqn ,I, .1 ..'"j " 2- -
'",
Roads -) /, -~ 7' '~
-- .', ..I -)
T~nerqy , -.J r' ~ .) .0
;-', ,j
BONUS ! d I -
"
al" Facili tics ilnd Services
cc Fn WA JS JK OH DE
Public
Trilnsportation / I / I I
PO} ice })~()tection I / ! ,r --
I ...L
Chi lcfccc n::
Facil ities :J. () a I /)...
BIcycle.: P~lths / II .? -
/ " !
Hcc\'cTlrl-~; F2cilitics / I :J. I, :J.
l:a]ldic~i~}Jcd Design /}
F'ca t ur(~~:. ~. I /2, ) j
---- -------
Commcrc.iill Support
proxim.itv f I /1 I /
r-. r'..
BONUS I /,
- "0 ..
ing .
cc .Fn \VA JS JK on DE
1,]jc1dlc
1-locfcr:J te -
r:o':::;--'''-' -- . ,I ;.'2.. /'J
12.- ___L-:::'._. I')
Bo.~U:.S -- -- ' -----..--.-t-. --
3; 27 4Y4~ 3; 4;
'l'OThL POINTS 43 29 39 42
, I
A. Publ
E. Sod
1.
2.
3.
4.
--
5.
6.
~-
c.
BOlis
l.
r--
.~
j~.o V!D f: '-, t .
.c.~I./~,.(., '\.......~
LlC! .{ 1&1. / " {S,
, v.,.i I"
/..",
. .'
PEN
130 s
January 25, 1978
Mr. Larry Yaw
Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd
P.O. Box 2736
Aspen, colorado 81611
RE: 500 South Galena project
Dear Mr. Yaw:
I have reviewed the development proposal for the above
referenced project, which I understand to consist of 16
one-bedroom condominium units and 1 studio employee unit.
The project site is presently served by a 6" C.I.P. water
main, which is located adjacent to the site, and it continues
up South Galena Street where it loops with a 6" water main
aligned in Mill Street.
The two nearest hydrants are located on Durant Street and
are No. 102 and No. 103. They have tested static pressures
of 92 psi and 94 psi respectively. I estimate the new hydrant
to be provided by developer (per City of Aspen specifications)
and adjacent to the project site to yield approximately 85 psi
static pressure and a flow of approximately 2000 g.p.m.
It is my opinion that the development proposed for this site
poses no foreseeable deficiencies related to water service.
j1f'Y "u, yOU,"_
(]:: Ma4f.,~
,'-"
',-,
January 25, 1978
Mr. Larry Yaw
Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd
P.O. Box 2736
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: PROPOSED 500 GALENA PROJECT
Dear Mr. Yaw:
I have reviewed the development proposal for the subject
project with regard to fire protection.
I understand the project to consist of (16) one-bedroom
condominium units and (1) studio employee unit.
The two nearest fire hydrants, No. 102 and No. 103, are
located approximately one city block distant on Durant
Avenue and have tested static pressures of 92 psi and
94 psi, respectively. A new hydrant will be located
adjacent to the project site, which is estimated to
yield approximately 85 psi static pressure and a flow
of 2000 G.P.M. The location of hydrants relative to
this project permits good coverage at adequate pressure
levels and augments the ability of the Fire Department
to serve the neighboring structures,
The site plan indicates that fire vehicles and equipment
will pave good access to the project from two streets in
addition to the roadway access provided for a portion of
the on-site parking.
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,
.) ,
/ , (//'
,/ I I I / /
. , I / (/, I
(((i!"/' ('/1"
Willard C. Clapper 1/
Chief, Aspen Volunteer Fire Department
-
~
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 trul", Iyouru
.A.-d~ (t . ..-
~mes ~. Markalunus
r-
'-
/_...."
January 25, 1978
Mr. Larry Yaw
Copland Hagman Yaw Ltd
P.O. Box 2736
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 925 DURANT PROJECT
LOTS F, G, H, I: BLOCK 119
Dear Mr. Yaw:
I have reviewed the development proposal for the above
referenced project with regard to fire protection.
It is my understanding that the Project is the employee
housing portion of a Growth Management Plan submission
which will include (12) studio units on two levels.
The two nearest fire hydrants, No. 105 and No. 106, are
located within 200 feet of the project site and have
tested static pressures of 90 psi and 82 psi, respectively.
The location of fire hydrants relative to this project
permits good fire coverage with adequate pressure levels.
The site plan indicates that fire vehicles will have good
access to the Project from both Durant Avenue and the alley
behind the Project,
The location of the project relative to the fire station
permits the prompt response time necessary to deal with
fire related problems.
It is my opinion that the development proposed for this
site poses no foreseeable deficiencies related to fire
protection.
Very truly yours,
) J / 1
1('////
/ / .' /' / -f': // l,'",."
( ~ / ,-( t .', . f,. ,'"
W11lard C. Clapper
Chief, Aspen Volunteer Fire Department