HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1000 E Hopkins Ave.A60-90• /"q ra
' #339 ~ ~~15: S1 fiec X45. U~t': 663 F'G 863
Silvia Davis, F'itF::in Cnty Clerk, Doc ~.OV
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR 1000 EAST HOPRINS AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO
THIS SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT is made and entered into by
and between VALLEY-HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST, a Colorado general
partnership ("Owner"), and THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ("the City
of Aspen") pursuant to 57-1005 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen.
WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted to the City of Aspen for
approval, execution and recordation the final Plat of the 1000 East
Hopkins Townhouse Condominiums for a tract of land situated within
the City of Aspen, more fully described as follows:
Lots R and S, Blocks 25 and 26, Lots
H, I and A, Blocks 25 and 26, plus
remainder of vacated Cleveland
Street,
County of Pitkin,
State of Colorado,
with a street address of 1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado
81611 (the "Plat"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has fully considered and
reviewed the Plat and has determined that it is consistent with the
provisions, terms and conditions of that certain Ordinance granting
subdivision approval with conditions, which Ordinance was approved
by the Aspen City Council on June 10, 1991 (hereinafter "Ordinance
No. 8, Series of 1991"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has imposed certain conditions
and requirements in connection with its approval, execution and
recordation of the Plat and the granting of approval pursuant to
Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, such matters being deemed neces-
sary to promote, protect and enhance the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, Owner is willing to acknowledge, accept, abide
by and faithfully perform the conditions and requirements imposed
by the City of Aspen in approving the Plat; and
WHEREAS, under the authority of Chapter 24, Article 7,
Section 7-1005(C) and (D) of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, the City of Aspen is entitled to security and assurance that
the matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully performed by
Owner.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing
premises, the mutual covenants 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
#339C58 1~'$~6/91 1J: J1 Fiec X45. C?U BF:: ''~3 F'G 864
Silvia Da._s, F'it4:in Cnty Clerk, Doc ~,,,~UO
I. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
By Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, the City of Aspen has
granted the Owner approval for the demolition of existing improve-
ments on the subject Property and for the construction of four
free-market condominium units with a permissible floor area ratio
totalling approximately 13,380 square feet for the free market
units, and for four deed restricted affordable housing units
containing not less than 750 square feet each (508 of which shall
be above grade). The total permissible floor area ratio for the
subject property shall not exceed 1.1:1 on parcel 1 of the subject
Property. Two-thirds of the additional .1 floor area ratio shall
be used for affordable housing. All improvements shall be
constructed in accordance with the Plat submitted to and approved
by the City of Aspen.
II. STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AND DEDICATION OF TRAILS
1. Stream Margin Review. No development shall be
permitted within one hundred feet, measured horizontally, from the
high water line of the Roaring Fork River, such high water line as
depicted on the Plat. All approved development shall take place
entirely within parcel 1.
2. Dedication of Trails.
(a) Fisherman's Easement. Owner hereby dedicates
a fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River including the land
measured five feet horizontally from the edge of the river as
depicted on the Plat.
(b) Trail Easement. Owner hereby dedicates a
fifteen foot wide trail easement within the one hundred year flood
plain as depicted on the Plat.
III. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND VARIANCES
1. Rear Yard Set-Back Variance. Owner shall be
permitted to construct improvements on the subject Property with a
zero rear yard set-back between parcel 1 and the City of Aspen
alleyway, limited to the building footprint necessary to accommo-
date the affordable housing units as depicted on the Plat.
2. Height Variance. Owner shall be permitted to
increase the permissible height for the north two-thirds of the
improvements on the subject Property by two feet.
3. Parking Requirements. Owner shall be required to
construct twelve parking spaces in the underground parking area.
Parking spaces shall be assigned one to each affordable housing
unit and two to each free market housing unit. No other parking
shall be required. Affordable housing unit owners shall not be
precluded from using free market unit parking spaces on a space
available basis and so long as such use does not interfere with
free market unit owners' use of the parking spaces.
#339<SB ~'i~6/91 iv: S1 Rec X45, i~U BF~63 F'G 86S
Silvia Davis, Fitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc ~.~~i~
4. Limitation on Development of Parcel 2. No further
development shall be permitted on parcel 2 of the subject Property.
IV. CONDOMINIUMIZATION AND DEED RESTRICTIONS
1. Condominiumization. Owner shall be permitted to
condominiumize the free-market and the affordable housing units in
the configurations depicted on the PUD plan. Owner shall cause to
be recorded a Condominium Declaration and Condominium Plat covering
all of the condominium units.
2. Minimum Lease Terms. All residential units shall be
restricted to six month minimum leases, with no more than two
shorter tenancies per year in accordance with §7-1007A.1(b) of
Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
3. Affordable Housing Impact Fee. Because Owner shall
construct four affordable housing units on the subject Property,
the obligation which would otherwise exist pursuant to §7-
1007A.1(c) of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code is hereby waived.
4. Deed Restriction of Affordable Housing Units. The
affordable housing units shall be deed restricted, and Owner shall
enter into resale agreements with the Aspen/Fitkin County Housing
Authority providing for the following:
(a) Each of the affordable housing units shall be
separately condominiumized, with the Condominium Plat depicting
each unit as containing at least 750 square feet, two bedrooms,
with at least 50~ of the square footage being above grade.
(b) The affordable housing units, with the
exception of the initial sale by Owner to purchasers, shall be
listed through the Aspen/Fitkin County Housing Authority.
(c) For purposes of sale, three of the units shall
be deed restricted to middle income (that is, the highest income
category, or category four) price guidelines. One unit shall be
deed restricted to moderate income, category three price guide-
lines.
(d) For rental purposes, all of the affordable
housing units shall be deed restricted to moderate income, category
two price guidelines, but in no event shall the square footage
rental be less than $0.89.
(e) For purposes of qualifying purchasers and/or
renters of the affordable housing units, Owner shall rely upon any
of the qualification guidelines for any income category as such are
established from time to time by the Aspen/Fitkin County Housing
Authority.
(f) Owner shall be entitled to sell an affordable
housing unit in conjunction with the sale of a free-market unit
regardless of whether or not the purchaser qualifies under afford-
3
#339258 12O/9,1 15:51 Fec 'F4.~i.~~~? E+k: E~FB 866
Silvia Davis, F'itk:in Cnty Glerk:, Doc ~..~~
able housing guidelines; provided, however, the affordable housing
units shall be occupied by a qualified employee.
(g) Upon, issuance of a building permit for
improvements to the subject property, Owner shall pay to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority a cash-in-lieu amount of
$45,000.00.
V. CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS
1. Water. Owner shall extend the existing service
water line to service the building sites. Domestic water shall be
obtained through the City of Aspen Water Department.
2. Sewer Line. Owner shall extend the existing sewer
line to service the building sites. Sewer service shall be
provided through the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
3. Improvement District. Owner shall join an improve-
ment district if such district is formed.
4. Fire Alarm System. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems
shall be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements
of the Fire Marshall.
5. Vegetation/Erosion. Vegetation protection and
erosion control methods shall be installed at the northern
perimeter of parcel 1 prior to excavation and clearing and shall
remain in place throughout construction.
6. Demolition. Demolition of the existing apartment
building on the subject Property shall not occur prior to issuance
of a building permit for new construction, unless deterioration or
casualty to the existing structure requires demolition for health
and/or safety purposes.
VI. NON-COMPLIANCE AND REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS
OR EXTENSIONS BY OWNER
In the event that the City of Aspen determines that Owner
is not acting in substantial compliance with the terms of this
Agreement, the City of Aspen shall notify the Owner in writing
asking that the Owner remedy the alleged non-compliance within such
reasonable time as the City of Aspen may determine, but not less
than forty-five days. If the City of Aspen determines that Owner
has not complied within such time, the City of Aspen may issue and
serve upon Owner a written order specifying the alleged non-
compliance and requiring the Owner to remedy the same within thirty
days. Within twenty days of the receipt of such order, Owner may
file with the City of Aspen either a notice advising the City of
Aspen that he is in compliance or a written petition requesting a
hearing to determine one or both of the following matters:
(a) Whether the alleged non-compliance exists or
did exist, or
#339255~'/i~6/91 15:51 Rec X45.00 ~63 F'G 867
Silvia Davis, Fitk:in Cnty Cler4::, Do 2.~~0
(b) Whether a variance, extension of time or
amendment to this Agreement should be granted with respect to any
such non-compliance which is determined to exist.
Upon receipt of such petition, the City of Aspen shall
promptly schedule a hearing to consider the matters set forth in
the order and in the petition. The hearing shall be convened and
conducted pursuant to the procedures normally established by the
City of Aspen for other hearings. If the City of Aspen determines
by a preponderance of the evidence that a non-compliance exists
which has not been remedied, it may issue such orders as may be ap-
propriate; provided, however, no order terminating any approval
granted herein shall be issued without a finding of the City of
Aspen that substantial evidence warrants such action and affording
the Owner a reasonable time to remedy such non-compliance. A final
determination of non-compliance which has not been remedied or for
which no variance has been granted may, at the option of the City
of Aspen, and upon written notice to the Owner, terminate any of
the approvals contained herein which are reasonably related to the
requirement(s) with which Owner has failed to comply. Alternative-
ly, the City of Aspen may grant such variances, extensions of time
or amendments to this Agreement as it may deem appropriate under
the circumstances.
In addition to the foregoing, the Owner or his successors
or assigns may, on his own initiative, petition the City of Aspen
for a variance, an amendment to this Agreement or an extension of
one or more of the time periods required for performance under the
Construction Schedules or otherwise. the City of Aspen may grant
such variances, amendments to this Agreement, or extensions of time
as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances.
VII. EASEMENTS OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY
The Plat sets forth certain easements and rights-of-way
for the use of the owners of the improvements on the Property and
the general public and which are dedicated to the perpetual use of
all utility companies and providers for the purpose of installing,
constructing, replacing, repairing and maintaining underground
utilities and drainage facilities, as more fully set forth on the
Plat.
VIII. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
At the time Owner proposes to construct improvements on
the subject Property, a letter of credit or other financial secur-
ity in a form and amount reasonably satisfactory to the City of
Aspen shall be provided as security for the completion of such
improvements, which amount shall be based upon the estimated costs
of constructing said improvements as reflected on the engineer's
estimates attached hereto as Exhibit "A," unless such financial
security is waived by the appropriate administrative body. Such
restrictions as appear on the Plat and as are contained in this
Agreement shall be fully enforceable by the City of Aspen in
accordance with the terms hereof and applicable law, and Owner's
#33958 Q'~ib/91 15:51 F:ec $45.i_~Ci Ht'~63 FG 868
Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk, Doc #.~70
entitlement to development of the subject Property reflected on the
Plat shall be dependent upon its performance of the obligations and
conditions set forth herein.
IX. G.M.O.S. EXEMPTION
Pursuant to ~8-107(A) of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code
of the City of Aspen, Owner has been granted Growth Management
Quota System exemption for the replacement of four free-market
units and the construction of four affordable housing units on the
subject Property.
X. VESTING OF RIGHTS
In accordance with 56-207 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Aspen, applicable state statutes, and Ordinance
No. 8, Series of 1991, Owner is hereby granted vested property
rights for the purpose of constructing the improvements on the
subject Real Property for a period of three years from the
effective date of said Ordinance.
XII. MISCELLANEOUS
1. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of Owner and the City of Aspen and their
respective successors and assigns.
2. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado.
3. If any of the provisions of this Agreement or any
paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or section of the
application thereof in any circumstances is invalidated, such
invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this
Agreement, and the application of any such provision, paragraph,
sentence, clause, phrase, word or section in any other circumstance
shall not be affected thereby.
4. This Subdivision Agreement contains the entire
understanding between the parties with respect to the transactions
contemplated hereunder and may be altered or amended from time to
time only by written instruments executed by all parties hereto.
5. Numerical and title headings contained in this
Agreement are for convenience only, and shall not be deemed
determinative of the substance contained herein. As used herein,
where the context requires, the use of the singular shall include
the plural and the use of any gender shall include all genders.
6. Notices to be given to the parties to this Agreement
shall be considered to be given if delivered or if deposited in the
United States mail to the parties by registered or certified mail
at the addresses indicated below, or such other addresses as may be
substituted upon written notice by the parties or their successors
or assigns:
6
#33Y ;8 12/06/91 SJ7J1 F:ec ~45.~""'+iRk. 663 F'Ci 869
Sil Davis, F'itk:in Cnty Cler4::~,.it7oc x.00
The City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Attn: Planning Director
Valley-Hi Development Trust
c/o Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., P.C.
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Aspen, Colorado 81611
7. The terms, conditions, provisions and obligations
herein contained shall be deemed covenants that run with and burden
the real property more particularly described herein hereto and any
and all owners thereof, their successors, grantees or assigns and
further shall inure to the benefit of and be specifically enforce-
able by or against he parties hereto, their successors, grantees or
assigns.
8. Owner represents and warrants that he is the fee
title owner of the subject parcel with full authority to enter into
this Agreement, and that any and all persons, firms or entities
having any lien, encumbrance or interest in the property have
consented to the dedications, restrictions and conditions of
approval set forth herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto
executed their hands and seals on the dates and years respectively
indicated, in full understanding agreement to the terms and
conditions herein contained.
Date: ~b~t0~~1~
Date:
Owner:
V E HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST
BY: ST I INVESTMENT CORP.,
al par ner
B --
icha Y. i ey, Jr., Secretary
The City of Aspen:
THE CITY OF ASPEN
f - ~~.~.,..,..~'
BY.
#33958 (~ci6/91 15: vi Fiec X45. UCH &t~3 F'G 870
Si. 1. via D is, F'itt::in Cnty Clert::~ Doc C~~i
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITRIN )
The foregoing Subdivisio Agreement was acknowledged and
signed before me this 1~ day of ~(~ f/~ (,~0.4 ~ , 1991, by Richard
7tF•'. F2~eile~, Jr. as Secretary of Australian Investment Corp. , a
`general partner of VALLEY-HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST.
1
O~`'~t °, WITNESS my hand and offic'a seal.
-"
My commission expires: ~~ ~ fa,
4\
P ~~~
'r~ t ~ p
Notary Public
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITRIN )
The foregoing Subdivision greement was acknowledged and
ig ed b ore me this l~ day of , 1991, by
~ on behalf of the City Council of the City of
spen.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:%/,~7/j5
„r
7 ( ~_~ 1 /,n J
""-" "~ ~ Not ry Public
'°ll [~ ~ \ ~ .~
,•:
~,
c:\act\cvntry. tlnn\eubdlvis.agr
8
#3395 /06/91 15: vi F;ec X45. ~~~~ 663 F'G ®7!
Silvia vis, Pitkin Cn±y Clerl::, D~ x.00
NOTICE OF PUD DESIGNATION
PLEASE TARE NOTE that on the 10th day of June, 1991, the
City Council of Aspen, Colorado, approved development on the
following described tract as a Planned Unit Development pursuant to
the provisions of Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code. No
development shall occur on the tract except in accordance with such
development order and under any conditions that may be imposed
thereby. The above referred to land is located within the City of
Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, and is more fully described as
follows:
Parcel One
A parcel of land situated in E.A.A.T. and more fully described as
follows: Beginning at the SW Cor. of Lot S, Blk. 26, E.A.A.T.,
thence N 14°50'49" E 100.0 Ft.; thence S 75°09'11" E 135.32 Ft.;
thence S 14°50'49" W 100.0 Ft.; thence N 75°09'11" 135.32 Ft.
Parcel Two
A parcel of land situated in E.A.A.T. and more fully described as
follows: Beginning at the SW Cor. of Lot H, Blk. 26, E.A.A.T.,
thence N 14°50'49" E 29.11 Ft. ± to the point of intersection with
Line 9-10 of said E.A.A.T.; thence along said line S 74°12' E
165.34 Ft. ±; thence S 14°50'49" W 26.36 Ft. t; thence N 75°09'11"
E 165.32 Ft. to the Point of Beginning,
County of Pitkin,
State of Colorado.
A copy of the Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan is of
record in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
City Cler
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF PITKIN
ss.
The fo going ins ument was acknowledged and signed
before me this ~ day of tc.lca.L~ , 1991, by Rathryn S.
Roch, City Clerk.
WITNESS my hand and officia seal.
My commission expires:;~i~~i7 ~~
~-~ LC.~JLi,CC~LC(1~ ( ~ ~~,Q~2rr~ ~~
Notary Public
MYLER, STULLER & SCf# ...~RTZ
Memorandum to Mayor William Stirling and Aspen City Council
April 10, 1990
Page Two
D. Additional restrictions on use:
(1) All units separately condominiumized.
(2) Owners reserve right to rent or sell to persons
who qualify under low, moderate, or middle income guidelines at
the prices/rates referred to in paragraph C above.
(3) Units to be offered first for sale to purchasers
of free-market units, and then to qualified purchasers from the
Housing Authority.
(4) All rentals are subject to terms of standard
Housing Authority operating agreement, specifically including
requirement that rental/affordable units be rented at all times
to qualified tenants.
(5) Cap on common area maintenance assessments for
affordable units (exact terms to be decided).
E. Miscellaneous terms: The following terms are agreed to
with the understanding, and on the condition, that at least 50~
of the square footage in the affordable units will be
above-grade:
(1) 2' height variance for rear-half of building.
(2) Back-yard set-back variance of approximately 8'
(3) Encroachment permit within existing alley ROW will
be granted by City as need be to accomplish 50~ above-grade
objective.
(4) Parking:
(a) 2 per free-market unit = 8
(b) 1 per affordable unit = 4
12 total
(5) PUD designation for the subject property to
facilitate implementation of these terms.
(6) Standard architectural review.
(7) Expedited review process (2-step consolidated PUD
review).
17/A6
,--
MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ
Memorandum to Mayor William Stirling and Aspen City Council
April 10, 1990
Page Three
(8) Dedication of trail easement and installation of
footpath to Roaring Fork River.
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED UPON:
By: Yll~~ I~
i By:
i
t'
1
1-
::~
1
1
1
l
..!
. `Sohwartz(,r City At
. NeuleV Jr.
,_. ~
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Kim Johnson, Planner
---.,r
~1fiA-~-~M Ei~( ,~ ,.
1000 East Hopkins: Consolidated two-step Subdivision/
PUD Review (public hearing), and Stream Margin Review
November 26, 1990
SDMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of this project
with conditions. This development proposal is based on resolution
of a suit (the Settlement) between the City of Aspen and the
property owner.
APPLICANT: Valley Hi Development Trust, represented by Sunny
Vann
LOCATION: 1000 East Hopkins, Lots A and K Block 25 and lots H, I
and S Block 26, Townsite of Aspen. The parcels include the
abandoned Cleveland St. r.o.w.
ZONING: Block 25: R/MF, Block 26: R-15
APPLICANT'S REQIISST: In order to redevelop the property, the
applicant requests Subdivision and PUD approval, Stream Margin
Review, and GMQS Exemption for reconstruction of 4 of the
existing Valley Hi units as well as 4 affordable housing units.
The project will also request from Council vesting of development
rights for three years.
As part of the Settlement, it was agreed that the review for PUD
approval will be consolidated into a two-step process. Public
Hearings will be held at both Planning Commission and City
Council. Please see Attachment "A" for Settlement summary.
Attachment "B" contains Development Data, site and architectural
plans.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are compiled in
Attachment "C". Highlights are as follows:
Engineering:
- Garage entry drive must not exceed 12$ grade for a 20' distance
from the property line.
- The proposed trail easement should be 15' wide with north
boundary coinciding with the 100 year floodplain boundary.
- Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter
improvements, and any other work in the public R.O.W.
- A 5' fisherman's easement along the riverbank is recommended.
1
~~
1000 E. Hopkins Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan including
variances to height and rear setback, Condominiumization of the
eight units, and GMQS Exemption of the four deed restricted
Affordable Housing units.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS.
Attachments:
"A" - Planning Memo to the Planning
"B" - Commission Resolution #91-7
Ordinance 8, Series 1991 for
jtkvj/1000hop.ccmemo
Commission
Council Consideration
3
.-" ~ ~~
.~~
parcel 1) and building height (two feet). The R/MF parking
requirement is one space per bedroom. This would be 20 spaces
except that the Settlement requires that only 12 spaces must be
provided. Please refer to drawings in the P&Z memo, Attachment
nAu
The proposal also requests approval for Condominiumization of all
eight units, and GMQS Exemption for the four affordable housing
units.
PROBLEM DISCQSSION: Although the Planning and Housing Authority
staff are concerned that the free market units seem to exceed the
size stated in the Settlement, the City Council at first reading
felt that the proposal meets the intent of Settlement.
Staff has made amendments to the proposed ordinance based on
Council comments at first reading, which includes approval
language for Condominiumization and GMQS Exemption for Affordable
Housing.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning Commission approved the
proposal by a 5-1 vote.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Condominiumization: The Settlement states the eight units shall
be Condominiumized. The City Council may grant
Condominiumization for new development at the time of other
development reviews, including Subdivision and PUD. The proposed
Subdivision Agreement contains language requiring six month
minimum leases and establishes affordable housing parameters.
Staff recommends approval of Condominiumization for this multi-
family structure.
GAS Exemption for Affordable Housing: Pursuant to Section 24-8-
104 C.l.c., the Council may exempt deed restricted housing from
Growth Management. The Settlement establishes the parameters for
the affordable housing component. Staff recommends that the four
affordable units, sized and deed restricted as per the
Settlement, be exempted from Growth Management. GMQS Exemption
of the free market replacement units shall be granted by the
Planning Director pursuant to Section 24-8-104 A.l.a.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of
this Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan, including height and
rear setback variances, with conditions. Planning staff
recommends approval of Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption for
Affordable Housing and vesting of development rights.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have second reading of Ordinance 8,
Series 1991 approving and vesting the development rights for the
2
y~ c
~-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning DirectorlAN"
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner UUU"""
DATE: ).June 10, 1991
RE: 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses - Final Subdivision/PUD
Review (consolidated review), Condominiumization and
Vested Rights, Second Reading of Ordinance 8, Series
1991
SUl~ARY: First Reading of Ordinance 8 was held on April 8. The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the
consolidated Final Subdivision/PUD Plan with variances to height
and rear setback with conditions. The Planning Office also
recommends approval for Condominiumization and GMQS Exemption for
the four affordable housing units.
COUNCIL GOALS: This project seeks to create affordable housing
units in support of goal No.l. Also, staff wishes to process
this application in a fair manner consistent with goal #14.
BACKGROUND: In April 1990, the City and the Valley Hi
Development Trust ("Applicant") reached a legal settlement
("Settlement") regarding the rights for redevelopment of the
Valley Hi property. Please see Attachment "A" of Planning memo
to the Commission which includes a summary of the terms of the
Settlement from then Acting City Attorney Alan Schwartz. This
application was heard by the Commission on December 4, 1990.
Stream Margin review was approved on this date. Resolution #91-7
documents the conditions recommended by the Commission for Final
Subdivision/PUD and Stream Margin review.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project calls for razing the existing
22 unit Valley Hi Apartments. New development is proposed to be
a multi-family structure including 4 three-bedroom free market
units (3,345 s.f. each) and 4 two-bedroom affordable housing
units (750 s.f. each). The Settlement requires that three of the
units be indexed as "moderate", and one be indexed as "middle"
income units. This translates into current housing indexes as
three category #4 units and one category #3 unit. Twelve parking
spaces will be provided underground at one space per affordable
unit, two spaces per free market unit. The Settlement provides
that the project will be reviewed as a Planned Unit Development
in order to permit dimensional and parking variances. The
project seeks variance to the rear yard setback (zero setback on
...
MEMORANDIIM
~..
TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning
DATE: ~ July 17, 1991
RE: 1000 E. Hopkins - GMQS Exemption for Replacement of Four
Residential Dwelling Units (Director's Approval)
Summary: Staff recommends approval of GMQS Exemption for the
replacement of four dwelling units at 1000 E. Hopkins, currently
known as the Valley Hi Apartments. The project has already
received approval of Subdivision, Final PUD, Condominiumization,
and GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing from City Council via
Ordinance 8, Series 1991.
Applicant: Valley Hi Development Trust, Sunny Vann representative
Location: Lots A and K Block 25, and Lots H,I and S block 26
(1000 E. Hopkins) The parcel is zoned R-MF.
Request: Prior to filing the required Subdivision/PUD Agreement,
the project must formally be granted GMQS Exemption for replacement
of dwelling units.
Staff Comments: According to Section 24-8-104 A.l.a., the Planning
Director shall exempt reconstruction of an existing building which
does not create additional dwelling units. It must be demonstrated
that affordable housing and parking are provided for the
reconstructed units.
The existing structure (The Valley Hi Apartments) contains 22 small
units. The redevelopment plan calls for four free market units and
four deed restricted affordable units within one multi-family
structure. Twelve underground parking spaces will be provided.
The terms of this proposal reflects a 1990 legal settlement between
the developer and the City. This settlement established the PUD
review process and specified the number of units, square footages,
parking spaces, deed restrictions, etc. Based on the settlement
and the approved affordable housing and parking provided, the GMQS
Exemption for the four replacement units should be granted by the
Planning Director.
Staff Recommen8ation: Staff recommends approval of Growth
Management Exemption for the replacement of four residential
dwelling units at 1000 E. Hopkins.
r- ~.~
-The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement
District if one is ever formed.
- A Final Plat must be submitted and approved by Engineering
prior to this application being scheduled for review by City
Council.
Sanitation District:
- Treatment capacity is sufficient.
- Line replacement for collection system used by this project
will cost the applicant approximately $20,000.
- Access right-of-way for heavy equipment must be provided for
line maintenance.
- Drainage design for garage shall include oil and sand
interceptor. Surface run-off shall not enter sanitary sewer.
Fire Marshal•
- Residential sprinkler system shall be installed.
- Fire alarm system shall be installed.
Water:
- Development not to exceed 2" domestic line, not including
irrigation.
- No credit will be given for old tap fees.
Housina Authority:
The Settlement conflicts with Housing Guidelines on several
points: the percentage of replacement with affordable housing
units; the affordable units offered for sale to the free market
unit owners for first refusal; net livable square footage of the
affordable units (750 s.f.) qualifies for low-income only; and
the cash-in-lieu payment of $45,000 for 3 bedrooms does not meet
the Housing Authority's guidelines for 5.25 low-income employees.
Recognizing that this proposal results from a negotiated
settlement, Housing staff would hope that GMQS Exemption be
granted with the following conditions of approval:
- The affordable units be sold or rented to qualified moderate
income employees as defined by the guidelines in effect at the
time of sale or rental of the units.
- Cash-in-lieu payment for 5.25 low income employees be made
(current calculation: $183,750) prior to issuance of Building
Permit.
- Increase the size of the affordable units to 1,000 s.f. so that
they meet Housing Guidelines for moderate income units.
PROPOSAL: This project calls razing the existing 22 unit Valley
Hi Apartments. New development will consist of a multi-family
structure including 4 three-bedroom free market units (3,345 s.f.
~ ~ ' ~c~
each) and 4 two-bedroom affordable housing units (750 s.f. each).
The Settlement requires that three of the units be indexed as
"moderate", and one be indexed as "middle" income units. Twelve
parking spaces will be provided underground at one space per
affordable unit, two spaces per free market unit. The Settlement
provides that the project will be reviewed as a Planned Unit
Development in order to permit dimensional and parking variances.
The project seeks variance to the rear yard setback (zero setback
on parcel 1) and building height (two feet). The R/MF parking
requirement is one space per bedroom. This would be 20 spaces
except that the Settlement requires that only 12 spaces .must be
provided.
STAFF COMMENTS: According to the terms of the Settlement, the 4
free market units were to be 3,000 s.f. each. The application
proposes each of these units to be 3,345 s.f. This is
inconsistent with the Settlement. In light of comments from
Housing regarding the insufficient size of the affordable units
if indexed as Category 2,3 or 4 (Moderate and Middle), staff
feels that the free market units should be reduced and the size
of the affordable units increased to comply with the Housing
standards for net livable area. If this is not architecturally
possible, then the affordable units should be indexed at Category
1 Low income units for determining sale or rental rates. If this
option is not agreed to by the applicant, then the free market
units should be reduced to 3,000 s.f. each as per the Settlement
terms.
With either option, it should be noted that at the time the
Settlement was developed, there were only three housing index
categories for deed restricted units: low, moderate, and middle.
Four categories are currently used by the Housing Authority: #1-
low; #2 and #3 - moderate; and #4 - middle. In the spirit of the
intent of the Settlement, Planning staff recommends that if all
four units are not indexed as low income units, they now be
indexed to today's categories as follows: two units as category
#2, one unit as category #3, and the fourth unit at category #4.
The 1.1:1 FAR on parcel 1 granted by the Settlement is
approximately 14,800 s.f. Of the additional .1 FAR allowed by
special review criteria, 2/3 must be used for affordable housing.
This equals 893 s.f. which is exceeded with the 1,500 above-grade
FAR of the affordable units. Density/lot area requirements for
the R/MF zone have been met with this application.
Stream Margin Review The Planning Commission shall review the
proposal for compliance with the review criteria listed in
Section 7-504 of the Land Use Code:
No development shall be permitted within one hundred feet (100'),
measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring
Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the Special Flood
3
\' I~
I
1//_ .~.,
Hazard Area where it extends beyond one hundred feet (100') from
the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary
streams, unless the Commission makes a determination that the
proposed development complies with all the standards set forth
below.
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which
is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the
base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development.
This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared
by a professional engineer registered to practice in the
State of Colorado which shows that the base flood elevation
will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing
mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for
any base flood elevation increase caused by the development.
RESPONSE: The development takes place entirely on parcel 1 and
is not is not located in the Special Flood Hazard Area. The
building envelope is approximately 12' higher than the 100 year
flood elevation.
2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan
map is dedicated for public use.
RESPONSE: An existing (but not dedicated) footpath exists along
the river on parcel 2. The applicant proposes to dedicate and
describe an easement for this trail on the final subdivision
plat. Engineering requires this easement be 15' wide and
recommends that it parallel the 100 year floodplain boundary.
Also recommended is the dedication of a fisherman's easement in
the river including 5' of bank, measured horizontally.
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are
implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent practicable.
RESPONSE: Keeping parcel 2 in its natural state complies with
the intent of the Plan to maintain riparian vegetation and animal
habitats.
4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that
produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank.
RESPONSE: The application states that substantial vegetation
must be removed on parcel 1. However, the construction is far
enough from the stream bank to have any direct impact on the
river. Erosion control techniques (haybales etc.) are offered by
the applicant to prevent sedimentation of the river. Staff also
recommends that barrier fencing be placed along the perimeter of
parcel 1 to keep men and machinery out of the slope areas.
4
~~
,:..~
' 5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development
reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes
of the river, stream or other tributary.
RESPONSE: The project is too far from the river to have any
impact to the river course. Drainage requirements address site
generated runoff pollution.
6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation
Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water
course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
RESPONSE: No notice is required as no alteration is proposed.
7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is
altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his
heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood
carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished.
RESPONSE: As no alteration is proposed, a specific guarantee is
needed.
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state
permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year
floodplain.
RESPONSE: The project is not in the 100 year floodplain.
Subdivision: Section 7-1004 C. describes the review standards
for any land to be used for multi-family or condominium use.
In summary, the application conforms to the general review
standards for Subdivision. It is consistent with the 1973 Land
Use Plan and character of existing land uses in the neighborhood.
The Settlement determined those project elements non-conforming
to R/MF standards which may receive variances within the PUD
review framework. Otherwise, the project complies with the R/MF
requirements and Stream Margin Review criteria.
The proposed subdivision .does not create any governmental
inefficiencies, duplication of facilities, or unnecessary public
costs. All costs for utility extensions as well as the line
repairs noted in the 10/30/90 referral comments from the
Sanitation District will be paid by the applicant. The applicant
is attentive to easement needs and clearances for the sewer line
on adjacent property to the east and in the alley.
Sidewalks are proposed to be in compliance with the Pedestrian
and Bikeway Plan. Curb and gutter will be installed along the
street.
5
,~..
The project is served by two fire hydrants. The Fire Marshal
also indicates that the building must be sprinklered and served
by an alarm system.
Historic drainage flows will be maintained with drywells and
surface detention. A detailed drainage plan will be submitted
with the final subdivision plat.
Planned Unit Development Review:
The Settlement dictates that this project be reviewed as a PUD to
permit variances to the rear yard setback, maximum height, and
minimum parking requirement. Sections 7-903B.4. and 5. allow
for these variances. The project is mostly consistent with the
basic requirements and review standards for PUDs which are
similar to the standards already reviewed for Subdivision. The
application does not address a development schedule. However,
project representative Sunny Vann verbally indicated that
construction will take place next spring pending real estate
market activity. As the project seeks three year vested rights
status from Council, the project must be constructed within that
time frame in order to retain the development right under this
approval.
The requested yard and height variances are to facilitate the
location of the affordable units. The rear of the structure
rests directly on the property line abutting the undeveloped
alley for a zero setback. There will be little impacts to
adjacent properties resulting from the rear setback variance.
The height variance accommodates the affordable units at the rear
of the structure. It is difficult to determine if the requested
variance extends towards the street to include the living area of
the free market units. It appears that the building design would
still work even if the height of the free market living room had
to be lowered to comply with the 25' R/MF height limit.
Required parking may be varied within a PUD review. The parking
requirement in the R/MF zone is one space per bedroom (20 spaces
for this proposal.) The Settlement declares that 12 spaces must
be provided. Five standards must be considered for a PUD parking
variance:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development.
b. The parking needs of any non-residential uses.
c. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of
common parking is proposed.
d. The availability of public transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment
to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the
proposed development.
e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial
6
~~
l~
core or public recreational facilities in the City.
Given the location
the commercial core
generation will be
should be clear to
on-site. Parking
within the garage.
of this project approximately 5 blocks from
a, it is reasonable to expect that auto trip
lower than average for this type of use. It
prospective residents that parking is limited
spaces for each unit should be designated
GMOS Exemption for Reconstruction of 4 Units and Construction of
4 Deed Restricted Units:
The Planning Director has the authority to grant exemption for
reconstruction of dwelling units as long as no additional units
are created and housing replacement requirements are met. Staff
will prepare the appropriate document for the Planning Director's
signature.
The City Council is requested to grant exemption for the four
affordable housing units. These shall be deed restricted
according to the terms of the Settlement.
Vesting of Development Rights•
The applicant will request that City Council grant vested
development rights for a period of three years.
STAFF RECOMMLNDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the
proposed multi-family development with the following conditions:
Prior to this project being scheduled for review by City Council:
i. The applicant shall submit a plat to Engineering for their
comments.
Prior to filing the Subdivision/PUD Plat:
2. A Subdivision Agreement shall be filed concurrently with the
Final Plat.
3. The Final Plat shall dedicate a fisherman's easements in the
Roaring Fork River including the land along the bank measured 5
feet horizontally .
4. A 15' trail easement being bounded on the north by the 100
year floodplain line shall be dedicated on the plat.
5. The garage entry drive must not exceed 12t grade for a 20'
distance from the property line.
6. Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter and
sidewalk improvements and for any other work in the public right-
7
~ ~..
of-way.
,-~.,
,,
7. The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement
District if one is ever formed.
8. The Applicant shall pay for sewer line replacement as
determined by the Sanitation District.
9. Heavy vehicle access must. be provided for sewer line
maintenance.
10. The drainage plan for the site shall include oil and sand
interceptors for the garage. Surface run-off shall not enter the
sanitary sewer.
11. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be designed and
installed as per the Fire Marshal's requirements.
12. The applicant shall reduce the floor area of the free market
units to 3,000 s.f. to conform to the terms of the Settlement and
deed restrict two units to category #2, one unit to category #3,
and one unit to category ~4. If reducing the free market area is
not acceptable to the applicant, the four affordable housing
units shall be indexed to the Housing Guidelines for category #1
occupancy.
13. Vegetation protection and erosion control methods (fences,
haybales, etc.) shall be installed at the perimeter of parcel 1
prior to any excavation or clearing and shall remain throughout
construction.
14. Tree removal permits shall be obtained from the Parks
Department prior to removal of any tree 6 inch caliper or over.
15. The parking spaces shall be assigned to units on the
Subdivision/PUD Plat as well as in the garage. Four spaces are
allotted for the affordable units, eight to the free market
units.
16. The Planning Director shall sign off on a GMQS Exemption for
the four free market replacement dwelling units.
The Final Subdivision/PUD Plat complying with all Engineering
standards contained in Section 7-1004 D.2.a. shall be filed with
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of
approval by City Council.
Attachments: "A" - Litigation Settlement Summary, Myler, Stuller
& Schwartz, 4/10/90
"B" - Development Data, Architectural and Site Plans
"C" - Referral Comments jtkvj/1000hop.memo
8
~~ MYLER, STULLER & SCHWAF~~ Attachment "A"
ATTORNEYS AT LA1V
DAVID ~1. MYLER
SANDRA M. STULLER 106 S. MILL STREET, SURE 202
ALAN E. SCHWARTZ ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
(30)) 920-1015
~~ ~ FAY 920-0259
CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor William Stirling and Aspen City Council
FROD1: Alan Schwartz
DATE: April 10, 1990
RE: Final Terms of Valley-Hi Settlement
INTRODUCTION
At your executive session of April 3, 1990, we reviewed the
~.7 proposed terms of settlement in the Valley-Hi matter. All of the
negotiating points which you raised at that time have since been
resolved in your favor,. after discussions cvith Valley-Hi
respresentatives, as follows:
J I. Terms of Settlement
A. Density (FAR) limited to 1.1:1 (appro:c. 15,000 sq. ft.)
(1) 4 x 3 bedroom free-market units
@ 3,000 sq. ft. - 12,000 sq. ft.
(2) 4 x 2 bedroom affordable units
7 @ 750 sq. ft. (minimum) = 3,000 sq. ft.
Total 15,000 sq. ft.
B. 503 of e:cistirg FAR (9,500 sq. ft.) and SOa of existing
bedrooms (11) devoted to affordable housing/c ash-in-lieu as
follows:
(1) 8 bedrooms on-site
(2)
45
$
,000 cash-in.-lieu for 3 bedrooms eff-site
C. Units to be deed restricted as follows:
(1) For sale purposes:
l
.d 3 middle income ($93,000 @ 750 sq. ft. x $129 per ft.)
1 moderate income ($72,750 @ 750 sq . ft., x $97 per ft.)
7 (2) Por rental purposes:
All moderate income ($667.50 ma:c. rent per month @ 750
sc,. ft. x $.89 per ft. per mo::th)
MYLER, STULLER & ~ ` ~ TZ
Memorandum to Mayor William Stirling and Aspen City Council
April 10, 1990
Page Two
D. Additional restrictions on use:
(1) All units separately condominiumized.
(2) Owners reserve right to rent or sell to persons
who qualify under low, moderate, or middle income guidelines at
-~ the prices/rates referred to in paragraph C above.
(3) Units to be offered first for sale. to purchasers
of free-market units, and then to qualified purchasers from the
Housing Authority.
(4) A11 rentals are subject to terms of standard
Housing Authority operating agreement, specifically including
' requirement that rental/affordable units be rented at all times
to qualified tenants.
(5) .Cap on common area maintenance assessments for
affordable units (exact terms to be decided).
E. Miscellaneous terms: The following terms are agreed to
with the understanding, and on the condition, that at least SO%
of the square footage in the affordable units will be
above-grade:
(1) 2' height variance for rear-half of building.
(2) Back-yard set-back variance of approximately 8'.
(3) Encroachment permit within existing alley ROS4 will
be granted by City as need be to accomplish 508 above-grade
objective.
(4) Parking:
(a) 2 per free-market unit 8
(b) 1 per affordable unit 4
12 total
(S) PUD designation for the subject property to
facilitate implementation of these terms.
(6) Standard architectural review.
7 (7) Expedited review process (2-step consolidated PUD
review).
7
17/A6
J MYLER, STULLER ~'~ ''~ YARTZ v'~
l
J Memorandum to Mayor William Stirling and Aspen City Council
April 10, 1990
Page Three
(8) Dedication of trail easement and installation of
1 footpath to Roaring Fork River.
J
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED UPON:
By : atilt ! ~L~/ --
E. wart City Attorney
gy:
Nei(ley Jr.
C2Sea ~ S3Sf10H M01
'
~3~~V~
~~,~~~ 3f1N3nN
SNI71dOH 0006 ~
~ ~~~
dada: d
r r- ~ L-,. ~.. ..~.. ~-x c-~a _ .~ ca ~x-'S ~~x~ G9 z.°.~ t~.-1 c..J 1.:....i^_
~~
~r -
1 ~yl =
~ ~ 535f10HNM01
'
s
j
~
~ 3f1N3nV
S
I e
~ 0'
.ad ND
dOH 000!• ~ ~s~E W
i.i
z
Y
d
0
Q
w
Q
Q
F-
z
O
Q
J
W
J
F
~ O
W U
O
Z ,
.-,
S3Sf10NNM01
0
SNINdOH OOOL ~ a a ~ I I l9 ~
~-
~'
i
I
1
~~._
53Sf10HNM01
Y~
~ ~n 3f1N3nV W = , ~ ~ .
~~~a SNI71dOH Ooo~ - ~~c
C
T a
d
O e
O
N
_y
Y
a
,~.
~~~.
€~` ~ 535flOHNM01 e e
~ °ag~~
3f1N3nd
6
~`
~~ ~
~~,~~~ SNISIdOH 000 ~ ~~
~~ `~Y~
,,,
S3SflOHNM01.
3f1N3hV ~ZS ~ ~.
SNI71dOH 0006 ~ €ad
W
C
d
y~ d
O
a
~~
~,
~ r"
Attachment "C"
Referral Comments From:
~,- ,-.
Engineering
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Marshal
Water
Housing Authority
MEMORANDUM I~~U
3 :~~~,
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DATE: November 7, 1990
RE: 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD, Stream
Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption
Having Reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. The 4,740 .square feet of proposed open space is adequate
pursuant to requirements in Chapter 24, Article 5-206 D. of
Municipal Code.
2. The applicant is proposing 12 off-street parking spaces which
is pursuant to the provisions of the settlement agreement between
the City and Valley-Hi. The proposed spaces are to be provided
in a subgrade garage. The Engineering Department requests a
condition of approval that the driveway entry to this garage must
not have a grade of more than 12$ for a distance of 20 feet from
the property line (A code amendment for this driveway slope is
scheduled .for first reading on November 26).
3. The applicant has proposed to grant an easement for the
existing trail which parallels the river. The Engineering
Department requires that this easement be 15 feet in width and
recommends that the north boundary of this easement coincide with
the 100 year floodplain boundary.
4. The Engineering Department confirms that, pursuant to Chapter
24, Article 7-1004 C. (4), this development will not be located
in a natural hazard area.
5. Chapter 24, Article 7-1004
development will not place
facilities and the Engineering
development will not.
C. (5) requires that the proposed
an additional demand on public
Department is satisfied that this
6. The applicant will need to get an excavation permit from the
Streets Department for the sidewalk, curb and gutter he has
proposed to place and for any other work in the public right-of-
way.
7. The Engineering Department recommends that applicant grant a
fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River and for a width of
5 feet from the high water line along the bank of the river.
8. The applicant must agree to join a Special Improvement
District if one is ever formed.
/- r~
9. Code requires that the final plat be submitted prior to review
by Council and this plat must be reviewed by the Engineering
Department before this application is scheduled for review by
Council.
jg/1000EHOP
cc: Chuck Roth
.,- Re: 1000 East Hopkins Subdivision - +. ,: ;',"
._, .
,~, , Dear Kim: _„ _~:
,..
,We haveTSUfficient ~treatment~capacityao;.serve_this:project at~~-
~^~$~rr=. .this time, however, (tfie'~adfacent= egment of-the'ooilectlon system".-;` ..<<_:'
'~ f' .that. the; project Willi`.;'tie'-into will .need to:be.irep,haced„by •the_:i'.;''
"'`'applicant prior"connection. This"~-`involves approximately 400' of
"~~12° vi trified!rclay`313ne ~ We'+estimate^the'cost'-ofithis:replacement, ~, +- (-
' ` •-` to be `'approximately=.' ~ 520;;000 =.~whicli~~•wil i,;~~;be' added ~ ,to~~.the->~'.
°;~~applicant's;connectYon fees:=The',applicant mush:prov.dean-access";:-'=
The below grade parka
'' sand 'interceptor -'and
surface .:water=run-off
must be excluded -from
SS/incerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
ng ~• gaage.,.must~be iequipped, withs;an :-,oi 1
>must'~tie -designed:-<in _• arimanner #hat exolu~
'.'"All on-site .surface water.;run-off probl~
the''sanitary sewer.
nd
cc: Sunny Vann, Vann Associates
A.J. Zabbia, Leonard Rice & Assoc.
Aspen/Pi
130
aspe
ng Office
reet
1611
TO: City Attorney-
City Engineer
Housing Director
Water Department
Electric Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Parks Department
Fire Marshal"
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
~: 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD,
Stream Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption
DATE: October 18, 1990
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Valley Hi Development Trust requesting Subdivision/PUD, Stream
Margin and Growth Management Exemption approval for 1000 East
Hopkins Townhouses.
Please return your comments to me no later than November 9, 1990.
Thanks.
/`~
~/ ,
~~~Cit--L. (~ ~kJuvc2. 1~ ~~/~J~h~.. ~Iv~G;~'~ ~U--~- ~~-~es~
~~
Aspen/Pig
130 ;
aspe
ing Office
treet
81611
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
.Water Department
Electric Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Parks Department
Fire Marshal
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
~= 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD,
Stream Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption
DATE: October 18, 1990
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
Marginl and iGrowth Management Exequmptiong a division/PIID,. Stream
Hopkins Townhouses. PProval for 1000 East
Please return your comments to me no later than November 9, 1990_
Thanks.
4--'
~~''.~ /ri~ J/9i,'
_'
1, t~-
2SBMQRANDUM
~~
To: xl.s~ 7ohnson, slanning offio~e
8'roms Yvanno Bioakar, Administration Manager, Housing
D11TP1s NeKumber 9, 1990
RE: 1000 East Hopkins Toranhau®rs Subdivimion/BUD, anQ QMQe
px~mptian
---- -----_.__...-_~__.-..........-..--....,.,. ---------------s----a~taa
gUMMARXe Applicant requests subdivision/PUD approval for the
development ~f the 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses for eight (8)
multi-family residential project to be developed on the site of the
existing Val.]~ay H1 apartmont complex. GhiQ5 Exemption Se requested
for the re-Erevelopment of Pour (4) of the axirting Valley Hi units
for aPfordabl~ra housing.
APPLICANT: Valley Hi Development Trust, a Colorado gmneral
partnership.
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: bunny Vann, Vann & Associates, Inca
LOCATION: 1000 East Hopkins
Lots K and S, Blocks 25 and 2&, Lots H, I and A,
Blocks 25 and 26 plus remainder of vacated Cleveland
street.
ZONING: Parcel 1, R/MF 13,532 sq. ft.
Parcel 2, R-15, 4,485 sq. ft.
REQUEST: A~~paicant proposes to demolish the existing Valley Hi
apartments vrl:ich contain an axirting three two-bedroom units, ten
one-bedroom units, and six studios. Proposed replacement will be
four three-bedroom free market units and four two-bedroom
affordable kiouaing unite.
Included in this submission as an Ayreemant drafted by Alan
Schwartz of M~lor, Stuller, and Schwartz dated April 10, 1990 which
allows the f:allowinq:
1. Density be lia;itad to 1.1:1 (approximately Sf.,000 aq.ft.)
2. Develcirm~5nt o: four three-bearcom free market units @ 3,000
aq.>?t.each. .
3. ReplacErm~ant. of +:cur two-bedroom affordable hou-ing unite @ 750
eq.ft.each.
~~ ~~
4. 504. of existing FAR (4,500 sq.ft.) and 5og of bedrooms (11)
4avotad to a~ffordablr housing/cash-in-lieu as follows:
a. 8 b:adroams on-site.
b. $t15,0oo Dash-in-lieu fox 3 bedrooms off-site.
c. Unite to be deed restricted am follows:
1. For sale purposes:
a. 3 middle income (93,000 Q 750 sq.ft. x
$124/9q.Pt.)
b. 1 moderate income ($72,750 @ 750 sq.it. x
$97/sq.lt.)
2. For rental purposes:
All moderato income ($667.50 max. rent/month @
$.84/sq.Pt)
d. Additional restrictions:
1. All unite •aparately oondominiumiaed.
2. Owners reserve right to rent or s®11 to purchasers
oP free market units, and then to qualified
purchasers from the Housing Authority.
3. All rentals era subject to terms oP standard Housing
Authority oporatind agrAemant, .specifically
including requirements that rentaljaffordable units
be rented at all times to qualified tenants.
4. Cap on common maintenance assessments for affordable
units (exact terms to ba decided).
5. Parking provid®d Co be one space per affordable
housing unit Por a total of four spaces.
The domolit:ion and replacement of housing for this application
shall me®t t:he standards of Section 5-70z and 5-703 of the Aspen
Land Use CaC;e„ section 5-702 establishes that:
" whenever one ar more resiflsntial dwelling units in a multi-
family building is demolimhsd...tha applicant shall be required to
restrict a minimum of fifty percent (50~) of the total number of
units (but :tn no case mare than the number oP units demolished)
and twenty-five peraant (259:) of the total number of bedrooms in
the replacement project am affordable housing. For this section,
a studio sha,l: ba ca'anted as a three-quaztar (3/4) bedroom."
Section 5-703 of th€r Aspen City Code requires that, " when the
number of a:efordat~le housing. units replaced on t?:e site is lass
than or equal to fifty ~.ercent (501•) of the total number of units
demolished an t~~e site; the replacement units shall be restricted
~~ ~~
to the housing designee's law income and occupancy guidelines."
section 5-7Q2 requires the replacement o4 508 of the existing unite
be replaced with affordable housing. There are nineteen existing
unite in this Valley Hi Apartments and the applicant is proposing
to develop a,t:otal of four unite which is twenty-one percent (218)
replacement. The applicant is required to provide 258 replacement
of the bedrooms and to deed restrict those unite as to affordable
housing. Applicant proposes to provide a total of might bedrooms
to be demd :restricted to affordable housing of thg 20.5 existing
bedrooms fos`+s total of thirty-nine percent (398).
The requirement of seetlon 5-703 which requireed that the applicant
provide 508 replacement of the existing units and if the applicant
replaaas leas than fifty percent (508) of the existing unite the
replacement units shall be deed restricted to low income.
Applicant requested that the four affordable housing units be dead
restricted t.o moderate income rental guidelines and in the event
these four unite are sold that one be deed restricted to modarnta
and the othesr three units be deed restricted to middle income.
Applicant has stated that; " the affordablm housing units will be
offered for sale to purchasara~ of the free market unite, who in
turn will rent; the units to employees qualified by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Houai.ng Authority. In the event the units are not sold to
the pzojects tans market owners, the Applicant will offer them for
sale or rent: to qualified employees pursuant to Housing Authority
guidelines and the provisions of the settlement agreement."
The 1990 Affordable Employee Housing Guidelines requirements For
purchase oL affordable housing units era ae follows:
To be ellgik~le for affordable rmntai/saim housing a person must bs
a resident of Pitkin County, propose tc occupy the unit as theiz
primary rasi.d~ant s,nd meat the following oriterlas
A. A person must qualify as fellows:
i. an employee
2. a s~anior
1. a h~xndlcappad person
4. a dependent of any of the above as defined by the IRS.
e. Not own rseidential real satmts, ar list and sell reridential
real estate prior to or simultaneously with closing on the
affardable housing unit (end still meet the asset/income
limitations).
C. xouseherld Incam= (defined as ce~nbined individual income) shall
not exceed t.h~a Eollawiny maximums per year:
Category #1 (Lowj $0 $28,COG
Category ~2 (maderata) $28,V01 - v44,86C
Category ~3 (moderate) 4aa,Eni _ $65,O6G
Category #4 (middle)
. $66,081 - $100,000
NeC assets sshall not exoaed $175,000 (Category #4), $125,000 for
Category #2 and 3, and $75,000 (category#1). Grose assets shall
not exosed $2oo,p0a for any category.
The proposal f'or the free market owners to purchase the affordable
dwelling un}.tre can not meet the following requirements:
1. The affordable housing unite be ocoupied as a primary
residence ae the fre® market owners would be occupying either
fulltime or parttime their free market units.
2. Free mesrket ovrrers can not own residential real estate.
3. Free market owners may or may not be employees, seniors,
handicapped, or dopendanta of any of the aforementioned in Pitkin
County.
4. Free market owners shall not exceed $100,000 (middle) in
income and net assets of $175,000 for al individual employee
occupants o!' the affordable ynit.
Applicant hers stated that; " in the event the affordable housings
units era ranted, all four (4) units will be deed restricted to the
Housing AutY:oxity's moderate income guidelines. Tf the unite are
sold, one (1) unit will be restricted to moderate income guidelines
while the three (3} remaining unite will be restricted to the
Housing AutY:ority'r middle income guidelines."
Tha 1990 Affordable Hauling Guidelines require the following net
livable sque~r~a footage be developed for two bedroom units for the
approval of rental/sale farms of the guidelines:
Category #1 (low) 680-850 eq. ft.
Category #2 a11d 3 (moderate) 851-1,000
Category #4 (middl®) 1,001-1,300
Tha applicant has proposed to provide four 750 sq, ft. two bedrooms
unit which would be approved for law income occupancy, price,
income, and asset qualifications. If applicant proposes to index
these four units to either moderate or middle income rental/sale
qualificationta these units would need to meet the Category #2 and
3 oz Category #4 net livable square foot rang®~a for development.
Applicant hae+ stated thatr " fifty percent {50Yc) of the existing
bedrooms lost. to demolition are to be replaced. Eight (8)
affordable housing bedrooms will be reconstructed an-site with an
additional three (3) bedrooms provided via cash-in-lieu paym®nt."
Tha applicant. has proposed to provide a $45,000 cash-in-lieu
payment for tk:e replacement of the three bedrooms.
~~ ` ~..~.
Section 5-703 requires that when lass than fifty percent (50~) of
the units will be replaced that the replacement units shall be
restricted t:o the housing designee's low income guiflslinee.
The applicant would be required to make a Dash-in-lieu payment of
$183,750 for 3.25 low income employees.
3 bedrooms x 1.75 employees x $35,000 = $183,750
Applicant proposes to develop on two parcels which contain a total
of 18,120 sq. ft. fcur throe-bedroom. free market units to contain
3,345 sq. ft. each and four *_wo-bedroom dead restricted 750 sq. ft.
unite ®ach i'or a total of 14,880 sq.ft. neC livable area.
Housing wou:.d request that applicant reduce the s.ixe oP the four
Erse market three-bedroom unite to 2,270 sq. ft, each and to
expand the two bedroom unite Prom 750 sq, tt to 1,000 sq. ft. which
would accom;dish the request by applicant to rent th®sa affordable
housing unity at .the moderate income rental/sale guidelines.
Applicant ha,s requested that the fcur (4} affordable housing unite
proposed for. oonetruction on, the property be exempt pursuant to
Section 8-104(C)(1}(c} which requires that all housing deed
restricted ':n aooordance with the housing guidelines of the City
council and its housing designee. The review procedure requires
that the exemption shall be approved pursuant to the determination
of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed
development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number
of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling
units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in
each unit, thH rental/sale mix of the propo®etd development, and the
proposed pr:lce categories to which the dwelling units are to be
deed restricted.
BTAFF RECOMAtE1~DATIOIV: Staff recognizes that a .settlement was
drafted and approved by the City of Aspen Par the re-development
of 1000 East Hopkins. Staff would hope that consideration be given
as to the approval of this projeot for GNtQfi exemption pursuant to
Section 8-1()4(C}(1}(c} to meet the following conditions required
by the city's housing designee=
1. The atP.o;cdabla housing units be sold ar rented to qualified
moderate inco~ma employees in Pitkin Bounty as defined by the
guidelines in effect at tims'of sale or, rental of units. ~.
z. Applicx,nL- be required to pay for 5.25 loK~ i.yoome employees
indexed to c)uidelin€as in effect. prior to issuance r,P any building
permits for the prapoaed development wPaich at present would
constitute t, )sayment'in-lieu of 5183,750.
3. App13CE~n1: kfa required tc reduoQ Ct7s eq. foot~sya of the Pour
(4) three-bc~d;~ocm f_¢e ~:~rket unite to contain 2,730 sq,, ft. and
be raouired to develop the Pour t~~no--=:dr,oom ~f*~zdable housing
~'
units to contain 1,000 net livable square teat each to met
reguirement:e of the 1990 Affordable Housing Ouidelinte for
development: of two bedroom moderate income affordable housing
unite.
Resolution #91-
~-; ~ ~nu~l~EUT ~~ ,,
RESOLUTION OF TfiE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR
SUBDIVISION AND PUD REVIEW AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW FOR 1000 EAST
BOPRINS (TATS A AND R BLOCR 25 AND TATS H,I AND S BLOCK 26,
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN)
w'tereas, the Valley Hi Development Trust ("Applicant") submitted
`or review an application for a residential development
consisting of four free-market units and four deed restricted
units. The project required Stream Margin approval and
Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review. The City
Council will then hear the Commission's recommendations from the
Subdivision and PUD reviews as well as the request for GMQS
Exemption for construction of the deed restricted units. The
Planning Director shall review the request for GMQS Exemption for
reconstruction of the free-market units; and
Whereas, the project was designed to comply with the Aspen Land
Use Regulations as well as the terms of an April 1990 legal
agreement (the "Settlement") between the P.pplicant and the City
of Aspen. The Settlement stipulated certain building size
limitations, parking provisions, and affordable housing
provisions, also that the project be reviewed under the
consolidated two-step PUD process to facilitate certain height
and setback variations; and
'_ Whereas, the application requested, by virtue of the PUD review
-- process, a ten (10) foot variance from the rear setback
requirement and a two (2) foot variance from the height
restriction which the Land Use Code establishes for the RMF zone
district; and
Whereas, the application was reviewed by the Engineering
Department,.. the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District,-the Fire
Marshal, the Water Department, the Housing Authority, and the
Planning Office, and these agencies submitted referral comments;
and.
Whereas, based en the comments received from the referral
agencies, and review of the proposal in consideration of the
Settlement and Land Use Code requirements, the Planning Office
recommended to the Commission that the project be approved with
conditions; and
Whereas, at a duly noticed public hearing on December 4, 1990,
the Planning Commission heard presentations by Planning staff,
the Applicant's representative, attorney, and architect; and
Whereas, the Commission felt that according to their reading of
the language of the Settlement, the proposed free market units
exceed the 3,000 square foot size stated in tree Settlement. The
Applicant's representative felt that the 3,000 square foot figure
was intended to be an approximation of the units' sizes; and
~-,f ~-
~.. ~ ,
,,
i~hereas, the Commission agreed with the Applicant to defer to the
City Council determination of compliance with the Settlement in
regards to the size of the free-market residences and
-ental/sales prices for the deed restricted housing; and
Whereas, the Commission voted to forward to City Council the
recommendation to approve the Subdivision and PUD plan (including
variances to the rear setback and height) with conditions as
amended; and
Whereas, the Commission also approved the Stream Margin Review
with conditions as amended.
Now therefore it be resolved: that the Stream Margin is approved
with the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall dedicate a fisherman's easement in the
Roaring Fork River including the land along the bank measured
five (5) feet horizontally.
2. A fifteen (15) foot trail easement shall be dedicated on the
plat subject to Engineering's and Planning's approval.
3. Vegetation protection and erosion control methods (fences,
haybales, etc.) shall be installed at the perimeter of parcel 1
_ prior to any excavation or clearing and shall remain throughout
construction.
~. Tree removal permits shall be obtained from the Parks
Department prior to removal of any tree six (6) inch caliper or
over.
Also be it resolved: that the Commission forwards a
recommendation of approval for Subdivision with-the following
conditions:
Prior to this project being scheduled for review by City Council:
5. The applicant shall submit a plat to Engineering for their
comments.
Prior to filing the Subdivision/PUD Plat:
6. A Subdivision Agreement shall be filed concurrently with the
Final Plat.
7. The garage entry drive must not exceed 12o grade for a 20'
distance from the property line.
8. Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter and
sidewalk improvements and for any other work in the public right-
. of-way.
`~'
~~
,,
9. The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement
District if one is ever formed.
10. The Applicant shall pay for sewer line replacement as
determined by the Sanitation District.
11. Heavy vehicle access must be provided for sewer line
maintenance.
12. The drainage plan for the site shall include oil and sand
interceptors for the garage. Surface run-off shall not enter the
sanitary sewer.
13. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be designed and
installed as per the Fire Marshal's requiremert.s.
'_9. The Planning Director shall sign off on a Gb14S Exemption for
the replacement of four free market dwelling units.
15. No demolition shall occur prior to issuance of a building
permit.
Also be it resolved: the Commission recommends approval of the
PUD review with the following conditions:
16. The Applicant shall not be required to reduce the floor area
of the free market units to 3,000 square feet to conform to the
terms of the Settlement. In exchange, the four affordable
~- housing units shall be indexed to the Housing Guidelines for
category #1 occupancy.
17. Twelve (12) underground parking spaces shall be provided
according to the Settlement and parking variance allowed by the
F"JD review process. Four (4} of these spaces shall be allotted
~o the affordable housing units.
7.8. A two (2) foot variance to the RMF zone height restriction is
~mited to the rear 2/3 of the building to accommodate the
affordable housing units.
19. A variance to allow a zero (0) foot setback shall be limited
to the building area containing the affordable housing units.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on
December 4, 1990.
A jtes~t
T$1] Carney,''Deputy Gi y C1erY.
~~
Planning and Zoning Commission:
i
4:e'+„^ *_.~?er~on_,_Lh~irma.n
jtkvj/1000hop.reso
\ f ..
y l..s~
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council
ORDINANCE #7, SEP.IES OF 1991 - Whitcomb Duplex Condominiumization
Councilwoman Pendleton moved to read Ordinance #7, Series of 1991;
seconded by Councilman Peters. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #7
(Series of 1991)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING SUBDIVI-
SION EXEMPTION FOR THE CONDOMINIUMIZATION OF 103 PARK
AVENUE, LOT 12, BLOCK 1, RIVERSIDE ADDITION was read by
the city clerk
Councilman Peters moved to adopt Ordinance #7, Series of 1991, on
first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton.
Leslie Lamont, planning office, told Council this is a condominium-
ization of a proposed duplex which has already received stream
margin review and PUD approval and pursuant to Ordinance #1, 1990,
has paid an housing impact f-ae. The applicant will be required to
file a PUD plan within 180 days of final approval. The PUD
agreement is due today, and there is language in the ordinance
asking that the date to file the PUD agreement be extended 30 days
after final approval of the ordinance. Councilman Gassman asked if
there is a risk in this. Jed Caswall, city attorney, said he could
see rio risY..
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Gassman, yes; Pendleton, yes;
Peters, yes; Tuite, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #8, SERIES OF 1991 - 1000 East Hopkins Subdivision/PUD
Mayor Stirling moved to read Ordinance #8, Series of 1991; seconded
by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #8
(Series of 1991)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL SUBDIVI-
SION/PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL AND VESTING OF
DEVELOPMENT RIGHT FOR FOUR FREE MARKET UNITS AND FOUR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AT 1000 EAST HOPKINS (LOTS A AND
K OF BLOCK 25 AND LOTS H, I, AND S BLOCK 26, TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN) was read by the city clerk
Councilman Tuite moved to adopt Ordinance #8, Series of 1991, on
first reading; seconded by Councilman Gassman.
Kim Johnson, planning office, pointed out this has been approved by
P & Z and forwarded to Council with conditions. The project is
8
~` '`
Reaular~eetir,~ Aspen Citv Council April 8 1991
process a GMP exemption for the change in use of a historic
landmark. This use will not increase the floor area ratio. Ms.
Johnson told Council the applicant is concerned about the highway
right-of-way. It is not known how much land will be taken up on
the site. The P & Z was hesitant to approve the PUD plan knowing
up a one-third of the site might be encumbered by the highway
right-of-way. However, P & Z approved this based upon if the
highway causes changes to be made in the PUD plan that amendments
could be processed. Ms. Johnson told Council when the city
acquired the property, platting was to be done to remove certain
lot lines and easements. This has not been done, and Council
should direct that this be done.
Councilman Peters said the lease for this property was approved by
the voters. Councilman Peters asked if there was language in the
ballot question approving the change in use. Jed Caswall, city
attorney, said he will look at the lease and ballot question.
Councilman Peters said he is worried about the conflict with the
potential highway route. Councilman Peters asked if there is going
to be some effort to control the improvements and use of the area
so the city does not face loss of capital improvements on site.
Graeme Means, representing the applicant, showed the lease
boundaries, the existing bicycle trail. Means noted they have left
the northern portion of the site unresolved. The museum could live
with the highway in that portion. Means said unless it starts to
encroach in the bicycle trail, the museum can function. Means said
if the highway goes through, the city will be dealing with issues
up and down the corridor.
Tom Baker noted after a certain increment of moving the highway
right-of-way, the bridge starts getting closer to the Villas. The
highway department drew a curbed bridge in order to miss the entire
site. Staff was looking for a compromise, and is still exploring
this location. Mayor Stirling asked if it is Council's desire not
to have the highway hit any portion of this parcel. Councilmembers
Gassman and Peters said no. Means told Council this summer the
historical society plans to work on the building and not the
grounds. Next summer they will work on the grounds. Heidi Hoffman
said the best interests are that the pedestrian trail be incorpo-
rated into any redesign.
Councilwoman Pendleton said she is satisfied after the highway is
aligned they can come back in with an amendment to the PUD. Amy
Margerum, planning director, told Council by second reading staff
can come back with the worst case right-of-way for the highway with
overlays on the map.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Pendleton, yes; Peters, yes; Tuite,
yes; Gassman, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried.
7
,~- , _.
~. , ._,
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 8. 1991
redevelopment of the Valley Hi parcel, currently containing 22
affordable apartments. The proposal is 4 three bedroom free market
units approximately 3345 square feet each, and 4 two bedroom
affordable housing units of 750 square feet net livable each. This
project is based on a settlement agreement between the city and
Valley Hi development trust. The square footages, indexing of the
affordable units, parking and cash-in-lieu payment were established
as part of this settlement. The settlement was approved by Council
in April 1991.
Ms. Johnson told Council 12 underground parking spaces are
proposed. The free market units are on the upper two levels; the
affordable units are garden level. Ms. Johnson noted the legal
settlement said the free market units are at 3,000 square feet
totalling 12,000 square feet. This is a semantic issue of what "@"
means. The applicant has stated that Council intent was to be
approximately 3,000 square feet. The final plans have not been
decided precisely but they are about 3345 square feet. Ms. Johnson
told Council staff has discussed whether the free market units
:should be lowered to 3,000 square feet or the affordable units
'lowered to low income indexing. Ms. Johnson said even using the
low income figure, there would be considerable value added to the
project because of the extra square footage in the free market
units.
Ms. Johnson said the ordinance should state that the cash-in-lieu
payment for the affordable housing of $45,000 described in the
settlement needs to be paid prior to the issuance of the building
permit rather than certificate of occupancy. Councilman Peters
said the square footages are loosely limited to the FAR, which is
strictly limited. Sunny Vann, representing the applicant, said
they agreed to a maximum FAR of 1.1:1, which is 14,880. The
applicants agreed to provide four 750 square feet net livable
affordable housing units. When the settlement was prepared, this
number was deducted from the assumed FAR to come up with 12,000 for
the free market units. Vann said the affordable housing units are
garden level units and about 1500 square feet counts as FAR. The
remaining FAR available for the free market is 13,380. The
maximum FAR of the project will not exceed 14,880 square feet.
Councilman Peters agreed with this assessment as the spirit of what
Council and the applicant worked out. Councilman Peters said he
would like to know how the maintenance assessments are being worked
out. Vann said there will be a difference between the free market
portion and that of the affordable housing units. Councilman
Peters said he would like to look at specific numbers. Rick
Neiley, representing the applicant, said he will work on some
language with staff prior to final reading of the ordinance.
Neiley said the applicants have an obligation to provide a certain
9
Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council April 8, 1991
amount of net livable above grade affordable housing units. The
balance can be split up between the free market units.
Councilwoman Pendleton brought up the owner's right to sell or rent
to persons who qualify and asked if this allows them the right not
to rent the units to employees. Neiley said the applicants have
agreed these units will either be sold or rented to employees who
meet the guidelines. Vann said the owner may sell or rent to a
qualified employee of his choosing. If the owner fails to do so,
the housing authority has the right to place a qualified employee
in the unit. Vann said the right of first refusal is for the owner
to purchase an affordable housing unit in combination with the free
market unit. The unit has to be occupied by a qualified employee.
Amy Margerum, planning director, said the settlement agreement
outlines how many employee housing units will be for sale and how
many for rental. Vann said this will be in compliance with the
settlement agreement and the contents of the PUD agreement.
Roll call vote on the ordinance as amended by deleting #1 and
adding #16; Councilmembers call Gassman, yes; Tuite, yes; Pendle-
ton, yes; Peters, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #9 SERIES OF 1991 - Code Amendment Section 7-602
Councilman Gassman moved to adopt Ordinance #9, Series of 1991;
seconded by Councilman Tuite. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #9
(Series of 1991)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING SECTION
7-602; DEMOLITION, PARTIAL DEMOLITION OR RELOCATION; OF
THE ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS was- read by the
city clerk
Councilman Gassman moved to adopt Ordinance #9, Series of 1991, on
first reading; seconded by Councilman Peters.
Roxanne Eflin, planning office, told Council HPC and staff have
discovered in tightening up the demolition standards adopted in
1989, they became too strict to allow some redevelopment to occur
and to allow demolition of buildings that are not historic or
contributing but are in historic districts. Some of these
buildings cannot meet the standards fer demolitions. This code
amendment allows for an exemption process through HPC. Being
exempt does not mean one is exempt from the approval process of the
HPC.
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Pendleton, yes; Peters, yes;
Gassman, yes; Tuite, yes; Mayor Stirling, yes. Motion carried.
l0
*---
`~' ~ ..r
Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council April 8 1991
APPOINTMENTS TO THE_ROARING FORK FORUM RAIL TASK FORCE
Councilman Peters said he would like to insure that RFTA' is
adequately represented either through the city or county on this
task force. Councilwoman Pendleton said she does not agree with
RFTA representative from the city or county; however, a RFTt,
representative should be included in the group. Councilwoman
Pendleton said RFTA may be administering a lot of this. Council
asked staff to re-publish this task force openings, set the
deadline for April 16th. Council will interview interested persons
Thursday, April 18th at 4:30 p.m.
TRAILS BUDGET
Councilman Peters said he supports the concept of establishing a
plan for capital improvements. Councilman Peters said it appears
this capital plan is driven by the trails plan. Councilman Peters
said parks, active and passive, and playing fields are areas of
great interest and he does not want to adopt a capital improvement
plan that relegates parks to the back burner. Tom Baker, city
manager's office, agreed there is a need to look at finding
additional neighborhood parks. Councilwoman Pendleton agreed she
would like to see more emphasis on parks, especially pocket parks.
Carol O'Dowd, city manager, said the direction from Council has
been to implement the pedestrian and bikeway plan. Ms. O'Dowd said
there is a substantial amount left unallocated in the parks and
open space funds.
Councilman Gassman said during the last couple of budget years
Council has budgeted $250,000 for trails. That's what this plan
is. Councilman Gassman agreed about the parks; however, this is
money for the trails. Councilman Gassman said the two points are
not in conflict. Councilman Peters suggested approving the plan
and focusing on the first year's expenditures until after the
comprehensive plan is done and then update this plan. :4s. O'Dowd
suggested staff and Council look at the 36 existing parks to see
how they are being used to make sure they are meeting the com-
munity's needs. Council agreed to go to 1991 and accept moving
forward with the money allocated for this. Ms. O'Dowd said she
will bring this document back during the budget process.
Council adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
~~f
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
it
r, ~'~°M'~-- Gee; °~~ ~.,r a ,.,;r~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~,/ ~1w+rr4
T0: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager A ^
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director `/ 5
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: April 1, 1991 I
RE: 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses - Final Subdivision/PUD
Review (consolidated review) and Vested Rights, First
Reading of Ordinance , Series 1991
SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval
of this consolidated Final Subdivision/PUD Plan with variances to
height and rear setback with conditions.
COUNCIL GOALS: This project seeks to create affordable housing
units in support of goal no.l. Also, staff wishes to process
this application in a fair manner consistent with goal #14.
BACRGROIIND: In April 1990, the City and the Valley Hi
Development Trust ("Applicant") reached a legal settlement
("Settlement") regarding the rights for redevelopment of the
Valley Hi property. Please see Attachment "A" for Planning memo
to the Commission which includes a summary of the terms of the
Settlement from then Acting City Attorney Alan Schwartz. This
application was heard by the Commission on December 4, 1990.
Stream Margin review was approved on this date. Resolution #91-7
documents the conditions recommended by the Commission for Final
Subdivision/PUD and Stream Margin review.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project calls razing the e_is}~°°-~2
unit Valle3r H~_____A*z~artmer~t~. New development is proposed to be a
multi family structure including 4 three-bedroom free market
tuts (_3_,za~ s.f. each) and 4 two- a room a housing
units (750 s.f. each). ttlement fires tha hre he
un` ids be indexed as ' oderate and one a indexed as midd
income units. Twelve rkin s wi be provided un erground
at one space per affordable unit, two spaces per free market
unit. The Settlement provides that the project will be reviewed
as a Planned Unit Development in order to pe,rmit dimensional and
parking variances. The project seeks varia~l(Y~1to the rear Ord
setback (zero setback on parcel 1) and building height (two
feet). The R/MF parking requirement is one per~droom.
This would be 20 spaces except that the Settlement requires that
only 12 spaces must be provided. Please refer to drawings in the
P&Z memo, Attachment "A".
~~~~
^~
PROBLEM DISCDSSION: Planning and Housing Authority staff are
concerned that the free market units exceed the size stated in
the Settlement. Staff is also uncomfortable that the Settlement
states that the free market unit buyers have first option to buy
the deed restricted units prior to qualified buyers from the
Housing Authority.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: The Planning Commiss_~^^ ^..ar~ the
proposal by a 5-1 vote ._ ~'-
REY ISSIIES: The Commission and Planning Offices had concern
that the size of the nits ro osed exceeds the terms
of the Sett emen as documented by Alan Schwartz. Accor o
Alan's syno four free market units are to be ' 3,000
sq.ft." sling 12,00 sq.ft. The application for Final
Subdivision/PUD propose that the units are 3,345 sq.ft. each.
Sunny Vann, representative for the Applicant, stated that "@
3,000 sq.ft." meant that the units were to be "approximately"
3,000 s.f. to allow the project to use the same architectural
plans conceived from the beginning of the project.
The Commission felt that according to the "plain language" of
Alan's letter, the free market units should not exceed 3,000
sq.ft. The Commission wished to express to City Council that
the free marked ups should remain 3 000 sq.ft. However,
realizing that e o ay ave intende more latitude with
respect to the free market unit sizes that the Commission is not
aware of, the Commission recommends changing the proposed deed
restrictions for the four affordable units from 3 middle and 1
moderate to all low-income (category one) units. The applicant
is not in agreement with this proposal.
In the Commissioner's minds, the lower nr~ce,'--r~scomP ar Tory
would off-set the extra 345 sq.ft. of the free market units in a
manner of rester benefit to the communit than requiring the
free markets units to be reduc ize. For example, if one
choose a free market value of $400 per square foot, 345 s.f.
represents $138,000 added sales value to ,each unit. As a
comparison, for the deed restricted units the difference in sales
price between moderate category 3 ($106/s.f.) and low category 1
($70/s.f.) is $27,000 per unit, or a total decreased sales value
of $108,000 for the four units. So in rough numbers, the "extra"
square footage of the four free market units represents about
$550,000 added sales value to the project. The lowest deed
restriction category for the four affordable units reduces this
by about $108,000 leaving a net of about $440,000 added value to
the free market component of the project.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of
this Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan, including height and
rear setback variances, with conditions as stated in Resolution
X91-7. The Planning Office also recommends that the property
} `'r 1
~~/
f°~~
\..a
file a "Notice of PUD Designation" as required by Section 7-905.
ALTERNATIVES: The Council could require the applicant to reduce
the square footage of the free market units to 3,000 sq.ft. and
approve the proposed higher category deed restrictions for the
affordable units. The Council could elect to approve the
application as submitted with the larger free market units and
higher category deed restrictions.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have First Reading of Ordinance
approving and vesting the development rights for the 1000 E.
Hopkins Final Subdivision/PUD Development Plan including
variances to height and rear setback, with conditions recommended
by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Planning Office.
CITY MANAGER COMl~tiTS
Attachments:
"A" - Planning Memo to the Planning Commission
"B" - Commission Resolution #91-7
Ordinance for Council Consideration
jtkvj/1000hop.ccmemo
3
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: 1000 East Hopkins: Consolidated two-step Subdivision/
PUD Review (public hearing), and Stream Margin Review
DATE: November 26, 1990
SUI+II4ARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of this project
with conditions. This development proposal is based on resolution
of a suit (the Settlement) between the City of Aspen and the
property owner.
APPLICANT: Valley Hi Development Trust, represented by Sunny
Vann
LOCATION: 1000 East Hopkins, Lots A and K Block 25 and lots H, I
and S Block 26, Townsite of Aspen. The parcels include the
abandoned Cleveland St. r.o.w.
ZONING: Block 25: R/MF, Block 26: R-15
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: In order to redevelop the property, the
applicant requests Subdivision and PUD approval, Stream Margin
Review, and GMQS Exemption for reconstruction of 4 of the
existing Valley Hi units as well as 4 affordable housing units.
The project will also request from Council vesting of development
rights for three years.
As part of the Settlement, it was agreed that the review for PUD
approval will be consolidated into a two-step process. Public
Hearings will be held at both Planning Commission and City
Council. Please see Attachment "A" for Settlement summary.
Attachment "B" contains Development Data, site and architectural
plans.
REFERRAL COMMa1TS: Complete referral memos are compiled in
Attachment "C". Highlights are as follows:
Enoineeringc
- Garage entry drive must not exceed 12$ grade for a 20' distance
from the property line.
- The proposed trail easement should be 15' wide with north
boundary coinciding with the 100 year floodplain boundary.
- Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter
improvements, and any other work in the public R.O.W.
- A 5' fisherman's easement along the riverbank is recommended.
1
-~
a ,~
- The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement
District if one is ever formed.
- A Final Plat must be submitted and approved by Engineering
prior to this application being scheduled for review by City
Council.
Sanitation District:
- Treatment capacity is sufficient.
- Line replacement for collection system used by this project
will cost the applicant approximately $20,000.
- Access right-of-way for heavy equipment must be provided for
line maintenance.
- Drainage design for garage shall include oil and sand
interceptor. Surface run-off shall not enter sanitary sewer.
Fire Marshal•
- Residential sprinkler system shall be installed.
- Fire alarm system shall be installed.
Water:
- Development not to exceed 2" domestic line, not including
irrigation.
- No credit will be given for old tap fees.
Housing Authority:
The Settlement conflicts with Housing Guidelines on several
points: the percentage of replacement with affordable housing
units; the affordable units offered for sale to the free market
unit owners for first refusal; net livable square footage of the
affordable units (750 s.f.) qualifies for low-income only; and
the cash-in-lieu payment of $45,000 for 3 bedrooms does not meet
the Housing Authority's guidelines for 5.25 low-income employees.
Recognizing that this proposal results from a negotiated
settlement, Housing staff would hope that GMQS Exemption be
granted with the following conditions of approval:
- The affordable units be sold or rented to qualified moderate
income employees as defined by the guidelines in effect at the
time of sale or rental of the units.
- Cash-in-lieu payment for 5.25 low income employees be made
(current calculation: $183,750) prior to issuance of Building
Permit.
- Increase the size of the affordable units to 1,000 s.f. so that
they meet Housing Guidelines for moderate income units.
PROPOSAL: This project calls razing the existing 22 unit Valley
Hi Apartments. New development will consist of a multi-family
structure including 4 three-bedroom free market units (3,345 s.f.
~,~
each) and 4 two-bedroom affordable housing units (750 s.f. each).
The Settlement requires that three of the units be indexed as
"moderate", and one be indexed as "middle" income units. Twelve
parking spaces will be provided underground at one space per
affordable unit, two spaces per free market unit. The Settlement
provides that the project will be reviewed as a Planned Unit
Development in order to permit dimensional and parking variances.
The project seeks variance to the rear yard setback (zero setback
On UdYCP_1 71 and htti lA it+/+ 1...: rt^~ /+-.•- o__i. ..... -.___ - .
th.
it
5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed development
reduces pollution and interference with the natural changes
of the river, stream or other tributary.
RESPONSE: The project is too far from the river to have any
impact to the river course. Drainage requirements address site
generated runoff pollution.
6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation
Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water
course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
RESPONSE: No notice is required as no alteration is proposed.
7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is
altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his
heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood
carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished.
RESPONSE: As no alteration is proposed, a specific guarantee is
needed.
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state
permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year
floodplain.
RESPONSE: The project is not in the 100 year floodplain.
Subdivision: Section 7-1004 C. describes the review standards
for any land to be used for multi-family or condominium use.
In summary, the application conforms to the general review
standards for Subdivision. It is consistent with the 1973 Land
Use Plan and character of existing land uses in the neighborhood.
The Settlement determined those project elements non-conforming
to R/MF standards which may receive variances within the PUD
review framework. Otherwise, the project complies with the R/MF
requirements and Stream Margin Review criteria.
The proposed subdivision does not create any governmental
inefficiencies, duplication of facilities, or unnecessary public
costs. All costs for utility extensions as well as the line
repairs noted in the 10/30/90 referral comments from the
4anitatinn Pictrirtt coi11 hP raid hV the annlicant. The dDD1lCant
~~.
~~
The project is served by two fire hydrants. The Fire Marshal
also indicates that the building must be sprinklered and served
by an alarm system.
Historic drainage flows will be maintained with drywells and
surface detention. A detailed drainage plan will be submitted
with the final subdivision plat.
Planned Unit Development Review:
The Settlement dictates that this project be reviewed as a PUD to
permit variances to the rear yard setback, maximum height, and
minimum parking requirement. Sections 7-903B.4. and 5. allow
for these variances. The project is mostly consistent with the
basic requirements and review standards for PUDs which are
similar to the standards already reviewed for Subdivision. The
application does not address a development schedule. However,
project representative Sunny Vann verbally indicated that
construction will take place next spring pending real estate
market activity. As the project seeks three year vested rights
status from Council, the project must be constructed within that
time frame in order to retain the development right under this
approval.
The requested yard and height variances are to facilitate the
location of the affordable units. The rear of the structure
rests directly on the property line abutting the undeveloped
alley for a zero setback. There will be little impacts to
adjacent properties resulting from the rear setback variance.
The height variance accommodates the affordable units at the rear
of the structure. It is difficult to determine if the requested
variance extends towards the street to include the living area of
the free market units. It appears that the building design would
still work even if the height of the free market living room had
to be lowered to comply with the 25' R/MF height limit.
Required parking may be varied within a PUD review. The parking
requirement in the R/MF zone is one space per bedroom (20 spaces
for this proposal.) The Settlement declares that 12 spaces must
be provided. Five standards must be considered for a PUD parking
variance:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development.
b. The parking needs of any non-residential uses.
c. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of
common parking is proposed.
d. The availability of public transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment
to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the
proposed development.
e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial
6
~ . ~~
core or public recreational facilities in the City.
Given the location
the commercial cor
generation will be
should be clear to
on-site. Parking
within the garage.
of this project approximately 5 blocks from
~, it is reasonable to expect.that auto trip
lower than average for this type of use. It
prospective residents that parking is limited
spaces for each unit should be designated
The Planning Director has the authority to grant exemption for
reconstruction of dwelling units as long as no additional units
are created and housing replacement requirements are met. Staff
will prepare the appropriate document for the Planning Director's
signature.
The City Council is requested to grant exemption for the four
affordable housing units. These shall be deed restricted
according to the terms of the Settlement.
Vesting of Development Rights:
The applicant will request that City Council grant vested
development rights for a period of three years.
STAFF RECO?R~NDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the
proposed multi-family development with the following conditions:
Prior to this project being scheduled for review by City Council:
1. The applicant shall submit a plat to Engineering for their
comments .
Prior to filing the Subdivision/PDD Plat:
2. A Subdivision Agreement shall be filed concurrently with the
Final Plat.
3. The Final Plat shall dedicate a fisherman's easements in the
Roaring Fork River including the land along the bank measured 5
feet horizontally .
4. A 15' trail easement being bounded on the north by the 100
year floodplain line shall be dedicated on the plat.
5. The garage entry drive must not exceed 12$ grade for a 20'
distance from the property line.
6. Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter and
sidewalk improvements and for any other work in the public right-
7
.~^
\.i
of-way.
7. The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement
District if one is ever formed.
8. The Applicant shall pay for sewer line replacement as
determined by the Sanitation District.
9. Heavy vehicle access must be provided for sewer line
maintenance.
l0. The drainage plan for the site shall include oil and sand
interceptors for the garage. Surface run-off shall not enter the
sanitary sewer.
11. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be designed and
installed as per the Fire Marshal's requirements.
12. The applicant shall reduce the floor area of the free market
units to 3,000 s.f. to conform to the terms of the Settlement and
deed restrict two units to category #2, one unit to category #3,
and one unit to category #4. If reducing the free market area is
not acceptable to the applicant, the four affordable housing
units shall be indexed to the Housing Guidelines for category #1
occupancy.
13. Vegetation protection and erosion control methods (fences,
haybales, etc.) shall be installed at the perimeter of parcel 1
prior to any excavation or clearing and shall remain throughout
construction.
14. Tree removal permits shall be obtained from the Parks
Department prior to removal of any-tree 6 inch caliper or over.
15. The parking spaces shall be assigned to units on the
Subdivision/PUD Plat as well as in the garage. Four spaces are
allotted for the affordable units, eight to the free market
`~~units.
l(~ 1~6. The Planning Director shall sign off on a GMQS Exemption for
/~(`i~~ ~f ~~ the four free market replacement dwelling units.
~,~2"'~J~~ G ~J "~ The Finial Subdivision/P Plat complying with all Engineering
' i "` i tandazds contained in Section 7-1004 D.2.a. shall be filed with
1,'~~~ ~ the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of
-_ - approval by City Council.
Attachments: "A" - Litigation Settlement Summary, Myler, Stuller
& Schwartz, 4/10/90
"B" - Development Data, Architectural and Site Plans
"C" - Referral Comments jtkvj/1000hop.memo
8
MYLER, STULLER & SCHIVAF~~
ATTORNEYS AT LAN ~ `
DAVID J. MYLER
SANDRA \f. STULLER
ALAN E. SCHWARTZ
TO:
FROM:
•,
J
7
Attachment "A"
106 5. MILL STREET, SURE 202
ASPEN. COLORADO BI611
(707) 920-1015
FA:( 920v259
CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
Mayor William Stirling and Aspen City Council
Alan Schwartz
DATE: April 10, 1990
RE: Final Terms of Valley-Hi Settlement
INTRODUCTION
At your executive session of April 3, 1990, cre reviewed the
proposed terms of settlement in the Valley-Hi matter. All of the
negotiating points which you raised at that time have since been
resolved in your favor, after discussions with Valley-Hi
respresentatives, as follows:
I. Terms of Settlement
A. Density (FAR) limited to 1.1:1 (appro:c. 15,000 sq. ft.)
(1) 4 x 3 bedroom free-market units
@ 3,000 sq. ft. = 12,000 sc. ft.
(2) 4 x 2 bedroom affordable units
@ 750 ~q. ft. (minimum) = 3,000 sq. ft.
Ne'~~nk`lo)t Total 15,000 sq. ft.
B. 50% of e:;istir.g FAR (9,500 sq. ft.) and SOo of existing
bedrooms (11) devoted to affordable housing/cash-in-lieu as
follows:
(1) 8 bedrooms on-site
(2) $45,000 cash-ir.-lieu for 3 bedrooms eff-site
C. Units to be deed restricted as follows:
(1) For sale purposes:
11 3 middle income (593,000 @ 750 sq. ft. x 5129 per ft.)
1
1 moderate income ($72,750 @ 750 sq. ft., x $97 per ft.)
(2) Por rental purposes:
~_
All moderate income ($667.50 ma;:. rent per month @ 750
sc,. ft. x 5.89 pcr ft. pcr north)
MYLER, STULLER & °%`"~'ARTZ
Memorandum to Mayv~r'~Willizm Stirling and Aspen City Council
J April 10, 1990
Page Two
`; D. Additional restrictions on use:
(1) All units separately condominiumized.
(2) Owners reserve right to rent or sell to persons
who qualify under low, moderate, or middle income guidelines at
-~ the prices/rates referred to in paragraph C above.
(3) Units to be offered first for sale to purchasers
of free-market units, and then to qualified purchasers from the
Housing Authority.
1 (9) All rentals are subject to terms of standard
1 Housing Authority operating agreement, specifically includinc
requirement that rental/affordable units be rented at all times
to qualified tenants.
(5) Cap on common area maintenance assessments for
affordable"tlfiits (exact terms to be decided).
E. Miscellaneous terms: The following terms-are agreed to
with the understanding, and on the condition, that at least 50~
of the square footage in the affordable units will be
above-grade:
J (1) 2' height variance for rear-half of building.
(2) Back-yard set-back variance of approximately 8'.
(3) Encroachment permit within existing alley ROW will
be granted by City as need be to accomplish 508 above-grade
objective.
{9) Parking:
(a) 2 per free-market unit 8
(b) 1 per affordable unit 4
12 total
(5) PUD designation for the subject property to
facilitate implementation of these terms.
(6) Standard architectural review.
(7) Expedited review process (2-step consolidated PUD
review).
J
17/A6
", MYLER, STULLER ~^"~HWARTZ
e Ns
7 Memorandum to May„ William Stirling and Aspen Cit"y Council
April 10, 1990
Page Three
7 (8) Dedication of trail easement and installation o_
l footpath to Roaring Fork River.
J
ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED UPON:
/ ~-
By • aGf4 ~ ctw
E. wart City Attorney
gy:
Richard Y'. Nei(ley Jr. ~'
I
1
Attachment "B"
~I~
~~
yi
iE
f~df
S35f10HNM01
3f1N3AN
SNI>IdOH OOOL
^~.~
- , r
era,` )=
M $ x z k"c q~~ Ya~fY 1.y13~i~. - y .. ~?
LJLI Y ~ € Sg99b9 :~~ •~'a:sib ~.s ~ T Y : ~n
~ ~ ~ ~ r F~~ ~FY°Q8~ ~~'~e ~~p~ E+ ~;z 0
pd ~r~2iRng xyY'~yyyA .~q C fix.
` ~~g 35i4. SIEj2~i i~#~9 W ~rf~'s~,' Z
EE'` 55 ~" S
§ I9a~ r K~2Gim'6~2~F~ex~9gy%~~~~~ -~"p1~e,~^,a= ~
I,z: ~ .a~ x;.a [i xea7C 8ibesE :~ 7i~'§:e€
h
X
W
N
~~,~ ~ S3Sf10HNM01
.~ ~a; ~ 3(1N3AV
uc~7 ~es~ SNDIdOH 000
W
z
Y
g
1^Z
Q
F
Z
O
Q
W ¢
W
S
Z e
z
O
a
W
Q
~H
Z
C
--, ~ ~ ._
~,
~e~ § 53A~JHNM01 !, ~i, ~I
~ ~~
~ ~ 3f1N3AV w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.e_
~~
'
~
~
,
Uv~sa~ SNDIdOH 000 d €adc
,
.
~,
i
i
l
J
~ ~ € ' S3SflOHNM01
L ,~ 3f1N3hV f
V ~S f c
u~~RSEi SNI)IdOH000~ ~~.g ~
Y €~~G:
C
~ R'
d
8
LL
1
N
W
Q
y
y2
10
2
F.~
-,,
~.,,~ , ,~
~~
6 ~~ S35flOHNM01
3f1N3AY
~~
~~ ,~ SNINdOH 000 a y,R.:
,~^,
~.! ~ S3Sf10HNM01
~„
3'- `~ 3f1N3nV
~%'t~ SNI~dOH 000
U,k3a`
~`:~
~~ li
N 48€~ .
R
C
O
as
c
s
a
~~
~ '~
Attachment "C"
Referral Comments From:
Engineering
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Marshal
Water
Housing Authority
~,
..,
MEMORANDUM
T0: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department C~.J-
DATE: November 7, 1990
i~ut~ 13 ,
RE: 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD, Stream
Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption
Having Reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. The 4,740 square feet of proposed open space is adequate
pursuant to requirements in Chapter 24, Article 5-206 D, of
Municipal Code.
2. The applicant is proposing 12 off-street parking spaces which
is pursuant to the provisions of the settlement agreement between
the City and Valley-Hi. The proposed spaces are to be provided
in a subgrade garage. The Engineering Department requests a
condition of approval that the driveway entry to this garage must
not have a grade of more than 12~ for a distance of 20 feet from
the property line (A code amendment for this driveway slope is
scheduled for first reading on November 26).
3. The applicant has proposed to grant an easement for the
existing trail which parallels the river. The Engineering
Department requires that this easement be 15 feet in width and
recommends that the north boundary of this easement coincide with
the 100 year floodplain boundary.
4. The Engineering Department confirms that, pursuant to Chapter
24, Article 7-1004 C. (4), this development will not be located
in a natural ha2ard area.
5. Chapter 24, Article 7-1004
development will not place
facilities and the Engineering
development will not.
C. (5) requires that the proposed
an additional demand on public
Department is satisfied that this
6. The applicant will need to get an excavation permit from the
Streets Department for the sidewalk, curb and gutter he has
proposed to place and for any other work in the public right-of-
way.
7. The Engineering Department recommends that applicant grant a
fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River and for a width of
5 feet from the high water line along the bank of the river.
8. The applicant must agree to join a Special Improvement
District if one is ever formed.
~,.s
,.-.
9. Code requires that the final plat be submitted prior to review
by Council and this plat must be reviewed by the Engineering
Department before this application is scheduled for review by
Council.
jg/1000EHOP
cc: Chuck Roth
OCT 3 ~ iD~~ -`
-.~'- ~spen consolidated-"
.. ~ - _ `; ':Aspen,, Coloi
_ - Tele. (303) 925-3601 `~` ;-~ _ ~~" .
~: .... -
-. --.. -. _ __- ,.~w
.October 30, 1990
Kim Johnson _.,
~^,
s
tton I~lst>ncf
meet ~. ~~~~~~ ~ -'~+
61611 ~ ~,.
$RC,.~
~..
~..,, fir..:
f~:-e
Tele-(303) 925-2537 ~ -
t;
M.rA=
- =_
'.Planning Office
,...
" 130 S. Galena Street -- -
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 1000 East Hopkins Subdivision,- - _
-Dear Kim: ,._- --µr.~.
We have. sufficient treatment;,capacity,to -serve this project at--
-•~- this time, however, the adjacent segment oP the collection system -
' that the project will -tie into will need to be replaced by. the-
applicant-prior connection.-This >involves--approximately 400' of"--
-~..:!"12^ vitrified~•clay line. We estimate the cost of this replacement-
to be' approximately 520;;000 - which`=- will.,' be added--.io- the-~-
applicant's connection fees.- The applicant-must provide an access-
='- >.. right~of way_for-a`30,000S vehicle for .I-ine '.maintenance. •. ~.;,q,z
-_. ,
'r - -i. `: • ~.~, ,.Hltwo ~. x~, i.o. _ .1 4K t'::. - :: _. _ - -' .•KalilSc
-- The below grade parking- garage..must be equipped with an oil and
sand Ynterceptor"-and must be designed_in a manner that excludes'
surface. water. run-off: AIC on-site surface water :run-off problems
.must be excluded from the sanitary sewer.
~S/incerely,
Bruce Motherly
District Manager
cc: Sunny Vann, Vann Associates
A.J. Zabbia, Leonard Rice & Assoc.
,~.
.~
Aspen/Pi
130
aspe
,.~
ing Office
treet
61611
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Water Department
Electric Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Parks Department
Fire Marshal
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
~~ 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD,
Stream Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption
DATE: October 18, 1990
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Valley Hi Development Trust requesting Subdivision/PUD, Stream
Margin and Growth Management Exemption approval for 1000 East
Hopkins Townhouses.
Please return your comments to me no later than November 9, 1990.
Thanks.
p ~\ (/~
Aspen/Pi
130
aspe
,,.~
.m,~
ng Office
`reet
1611
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Water Department
Electric Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Parks Department
Fire Marshal
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
~= 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD,
Stream Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption
DATE: October 18, 1990
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Valley Hi Development Trust requesting Subdivision/PUD, Stream
Margin and Growth Management Exemption approval for 1000 East
Hopkins Townhouses.
Please return your comments to me no later than November 9, 1990.
Thanks.
vaz~_ l~z tit-a-4-.~..1~ i ~ .i 9 fail
~" ,~ ~-~~~~~_~ .~-rte ~ ~~~~1
.-.,
sue`
ti.r
Y[EMORANDIIM
Toe El.m Johnson, 8lanniag offfoe
From: Yvonne 8looker, Admin.iatration Manager, Housing
DI1TE: 2tovember 9, 1990
Rye 1000 East Hapkin• Townhcueees Subdivision/BUD, and DMQB
Exemption
-_~=s._.saaacxs:e~-=avcx=croscs:s:._..=_s~~a~a.o==.=__o. ~-en.~=ems=mx
SBMMARYe Applicant requests subdivision/PUD approval for the
development of the 1000 East Hopkinu Townhouses for eight (8)
multi-family residential project to be developed on the site of the
existing Val.l~ey H1 apartment complex. GbIQS Exemption is requested
for the ra-Grevelopment of four (4) of the sxisting Valley Hi units
for affordable housing.
APPLICANT: Valley Hi Development Trust, a Colorado general
partnership.
APPLICANT'6 REPRESENTATIVE: bunny Vann, Vann 6 Assooiates, Inc.
LOCATION: 1000 Eaat Hopkins
Loth K and 6, Blocks 2S and 26, LOts H, I and A,
Blocks 25 and 26 plus remainder of vacated Cleveland
street.
ZONING: Parcel 1, R/MF 13,532 aq. ft.
Parcel 2, R-15, 4,485 sq. Pt.
REQUEST: Applicant proposes to demolish the existing Valley Hi
apartments which contain an existing three two-bedroom unite, ten
one-bedroom units, and six studios. Proposed replacement will b®
four three••badroom free market units and four two-bedroom
affordable housing units.
Included in tP,is submission as an Agreement drafted by Alan
Schwartz of Myler, Stuller, and Schwartz dated April 10, 1990 which
allows the following:
1. Denait}• be limited to 1.1:1 (approximately 15,000 sq.Pt.)
2. Developm:nt of four three-bedroom free market units & 3,000
sq.ft.each. .
3. Replacc:m~~nt o: i'cu: two-bedroon affordable housing units @ 750
eq.ft.each.
"~
., .%
4. 50; of existing FAR (4,500 sq.ft.) and 5G; of bedrooms (11)
dnvoted to t~flordabli housing/cash-in-lieu as follows:
a. 8 bedrooms on-site.
b. Ss~5,ooo cash-in-lieu for 3 bedrooms off-site.
c. Unite to be deed r®stricted as follows:
1. For sale purpoaas:
a. 3 middle income (93,000 Q 750 aq.ft. x
5124/sq.Pt.)
b. 1 moderate income ($72,750 (~ 750 sq.2t. x
$97/sq.lt.)
2. For rental purposes:
All moderato income ($567.50 max. rent/month @
$.89/sq.ft)
d. AClditional restrictions:
1. All units •aparately oondominiuml2ed.
2. Ownara reserve right to rent oz sell to purchasers
of free market unite, and then to qualified
purchasers from the Housing Authority.
3. All rentals ere subject to terms of standard Housing
Authority operating agreement, .specifically
including requirements that rental/affordable units
be rented at all times to qualified tenants.
4. Cap on common maintenance assessments for affordable
unite (exact terms to bo decided).
5. Parkincr provided to be one space per affordable
housing unit for a total of four spaces.
Th• demolit.ion and replacement of housing for this application
shall meat t:h~a standards oP Section 5-702 and 5-703 of the Aspen
Land Use Corie, 6action 5-702 establishes that:
" Whenovnr ono or more residential dwelling units in a multi-
family building is demolishad...the applicant shall be required to
restrict a rainimum of fifty percent (50;) of the total number of
unite (but in no case more than the number of unite demolished)
and twenty-five percent (25~:) of the total number of bedrooms in
the replacement project ao affordable housing. For this section,
a studio sha.l~ ba counted ae a three-quarter (3/4) bedroom."
section 5-703 of the Aspen City Code requires that, " when the
number o! affordable housing, units rsplaiced on the site is lass
than or equal to fifty percent (50;) of the total number of units
demolished can the si*_e, the replacement units shall be restricted
~~
~,
to the housing designee's low income and occupancy guidelines."
Section 3-702 requires the replacement of 50$ of the existing units
ba replaced with affordable housing. There are nineteen existing
unite in thin Valley Hi Apartments and the applicant is proposing
to develop a total of four unite which is twenty-one percent (21$)
replacement. The applicant is required to provide 25$ replacement
of the bedrooms and to deed restrict those unite as to affordable
housing. AY>pllcant proposes tc provide a total of eight bedrooms
to be Seed :restricted to affordable housing of the 20.5 existing
bedrooms for a total of thirty-nine percent (39$).
The requirement of section 5-703 which required that the applicant
provide 50$ replacement of the existing unite and if the applicant
replaces legs than fifty percent (50$) oP the existing unite the
replacement unite shall be dead restricted to low income.
Applicant re~queated that the four affordable housing units ba dead
restricted t:o moderate income rental guidelines and in the event
these four units are sold that one be deed restricted to moderate
and the othERr three units be deed restricted to middle incomo.
Applicant he:a stated that; " the affordable housing units will be
offered for sale to purchasers of the free market unite, who in
turn will rent the units to employees qualified by the Aspen/Pitkitt
County Housl.ng Authority. In the event the units era not sold to
tho pro~acte: free market ownnre, the Applicant will offer them Por
sale or rent: to qualified employees pursuant to Housing Authority
guidelines e:nd the provisions of the settlement agreement."
The 1990 Affordable Employee Housi:.g Guidelines requirements for
purchase of affordable housing units era ae fol3ows:
To be sligik~l~i for affordabl• rental/sale housittq a person must b•
a resident of pitkin County, propose to aooupy the unit ar their
primary rrai.d~~nt and mavt the following oritarias
A. A person mist qualify as Follows:
1. an employee
2. a senior
3. a handicapped person
4. a dependent of any of the above as defined by the IRS.
e. Not owr+ rsridsntial rsai estate, or list and sell residential
real •stats, prior tc or eimuitaneously with olorinq on the
a!lordabls housing unit (and still meet the asset/income
limitations).
C. Household zncame (defined as combined individual income) shall
not exceed t:h~a follca'ing maximums per year:
Category #1 (Low) $0 - $28,000
Category ~2 (moderate) $28,001 - $44,BUC
Category ~3 (moderate) $aA,8o1 - $66,000
Category ~4
(middle) ~ 566,081 - $100,000
Net assets shall not exceed $175,000 (Category #q), 8125,000 for
Category #2 and 3, and ;75,000 (categczy ~`1). Gross steels shall
not exceed ;200,000 for any category.
The proposal, for the tree market owners to purchase the affordable
dwelling unite can not meet the following requirements:
1. The af'tordabie housing units be occupied as a primary
residence as the fret market owners would be occupying either
fulltime or parttima their free market units.
2. Free m::rket owners can not own r6sidential real estate.
3. Fres market owners may or may nut be employees, seniors,
handicapped, or dependants of any of the aforementioned in Pitkin
County.
4. Free market owners shall not exceed $100,000 (middle) in
inaome and net assets of 6175,000 for al individual employee
occupants o!' the affordable ynit.
Applicant hays stated that; " in the event the affordable housings
units are ranted, all four (4) units will be deed restricted to the
Housing Authority's moderate income guidelines. Tf the units era
sold, one (1) unit will be restricted to moderate income guidelines
while the three (3) remaining units will be restricted to the
Housing Autt~o::ity's middle income guidelines."
The 1990 Affordable Housing Guidelines require the following net
livable sque~ra footage be developed for two bedroom units for the
approval of rental/sale terms of the guidelines:
Category #1 (low} b50-850 eq, ft.
Category #2 and 3 (moderate) 851-1,000
Category #4 (middle) 2,001-1,300
The applicant has proposed to provide four 750 sq. ft. two bedrooms
unit which would be approved for low income occupancy, price,
income, and asset qualifications. if applicant proposes to index
these four unite to either moderate or middle income rental/sale
qualifications those unite would need to meet the Category #2 and
3 or Cntegox~y #4 net livable square foot ranges for development.
Applicant has stated than " fifty percent (50ic) of the existing
bedrooms lost. to demolition era to be replaced. Eight (s)
affordable Y.~oueinq bedrooms will be reconstructed on-site with an
additional three (3) ballrooms provided via cash-ir.-lieu payment."
The applicant has proposed to provide a $85,000 cash-in-lieu
payment for the replacement of the three bedrooms.
Section s-7(~3 requiredn that when less tY1an fifty psrcant (501c) of
the unites will be replaced that the replacement unite shall be
restricted t:o the houroing designee's low income guidelines.
The applicant would be required to make a ceah-in-lieu payment of
$183,750 foi• 5.25 low income employeaaa.
3 bedrooms x 1.75 employees x 535,000 = $183,750
Applicant proposes to develop on two parcels which contain a total
of 18,120 erg. ft. four throe-bedroom frsa market ur:ita to contain
3,345 sq. ft. each and four *_wo-bedroom dea9d restricted 750 sq. ft.
unite each i'or a total of 14,880 aq.ft, net livable area.
Housing would request that applicant reduce the site of the four
Eree market three-bedroom units to 2,270 aq. It. each and to
expand the twcr bedroom units from 750 sq, ft to 1,000 cq. ft. which
would accom~~liah the request by applicant to rent these affordable
housing units at the moderate income rental/sale guidelines.
Applicant has requested thet the four (4) affordable housing unite
proposed for construction or1, the property be exempt pursuant to
Section 8-104(C)(1)(c} which requires that all housing dewed
restricted in acoordance with the housing guidelines of the City
Council and its housing designee. The rsvisw procedure requires
that the exemption shall be approved pursuant to Che determination
o! the City's need for such housing, considAring the proposed
development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number
of dwelling unlta proposed and their location, the type of dwelling
units proposed, specifically regarding then number of bedrooms in
each unit, thE, rental/sale mix of the progoa;"d development, and the
proposed pr:lce categories to which the dwelling units are to be
deed reatric:ted.
BTAFF RECOM5tE11DATION: Staff recognizes that a settlement was
drafted and approved by the City of Aspen for the re-development
of 1000 Eaat Hopkins. Staff would hope that conside*_•ation be given
as to the aX~proval of this project for GMQS exemption pursuant to
Section 8-104 (C}(1}(c) to meet the following conditions required
by the city's hausinq designee:
1. The affordable housing units be sold or rented to qualified
moderate inccros employees in Pitkin County as defined by the
guidelines i.n effect at time 'of sale or rental of unite.
2. Appliaant be required to pay for 5.25 low i.,aome employees
indexed to guidelines in effect prior to issuance cf any building
permits for the proposed development whicr. at present would
constitute t,)sayment-in-lieu of $133,750.
3. Applice~nt: be required to reduce tY:a aq. fcotaya of the four
(4) three-budrocm, free ::~arket unites tc :ontair. 2,720 eaq,. ft, and
be required t:o develop the four tua--~~edroom wff•:rrdable housing
units to contain 1,000 net livable square feat each to ttet
requirements of the 1990 Affordable Housing Guidelinos for
development: o! two bedroom moderate income affcrdabla housing
units.
~~ ~Tl-I~FI,~9E~; ~ ~~ ..
..
Resolution #91-
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COISMISSION FOR
SUBDIVISION AND PIID REVIEW AND STRRAN ZSARGIN REVIEW FOR 1000 EAST
HOPRINS (LOTS A AND R BLACK 25 AND TATS H,I AND S BLOCK 26,
TOWNSITE OF ASPEN)
k~~ereas, the Valley Hi Development Trust ("Applicant") submitted
`ter review an application for a residential development
consisting of four free-market units and four deed restricted
units. The project required Stream Margin approval and
Subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review. The City
Council will then hear the Commission's recommendations from the
Subdivision and PUD reviews as well as the request for GMQS
Exemption for construction of the deed restricted units. The
Planning Director shall review the request for GMQS Exemption for
reconstruction of the free-market units; and
Whereas, the project was designed to comply with the Aspen Land
Use Regulations as well as the terms of an April 1990 legal
agreement (the "Settlement") between the P.pplicant and the City
of Aspen. The Settlement stipulated certain building size
limitations, parking provisions, and affordable housing
provisions, also that the project be reviewed under the
consolidated two-step PUD .process to facilitate certain height
and setback variations; and
Whereas, the application requested, by virtue of the PUD review
--- process, a ten (l0) foot variance from the rear setback
requirement and a two (2) foot variance from the height
restriction which the Land Use Code establishes for the RMF zone
district; and
Whereas, the application was reviewed by the Engineering
department, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District,-the Fire
r;3rshal, the tti~ater Department, the Housing Authority, and the
Planning Office, and these agencies submitted referral comments;
and
Whereas, based on the comments received from the referral
agencies, and review of the proposal in consideration of the
Settlement and Land Use Code requirements, the Planning Office
recommended to the Commission that the project be approved with
conditions; and
Whereas, at a duly noticed public hearing on December 4, 1990,
the Planning Commission heard presentations by Planning staff,
the Applicant's representative, attorney, and architect; and
Whereas, the Commission felt that according to their reading of
the language of the Settlement, the proposed free market units
exceed the 3,000 square foot size stated in the Settlement. The
Applicant's representative felt that the 3,000 square foot figure
was intended to be an approximation of the units' sizes; and
~'°'.
Whereas, the Commission agreed with the Applicant to defer to the
~ity Council determination of compliance with the Settlement in
regards to the size of the free-market residences and
rental/sales prices for the deed restricted housing; and
Whereas, the Commission voted to forward to City Council the
recommendation to approve the Subdivision and PUD plan (including
variances to the rear setback and height) with conditions as
amended; and
Whereas, the Commission also approved the Stream Margin Review
with conditions as amended.
Now therefore it be resolved: that the Stream Margin is approved
with the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall dedicate a fisherman's easement in the
Roaring Fork River including the land along the bank measured
five (5) feet horizontally.
2. A fifteen (15) foot trail easement shall be dedicated on the
plat subject to Engineering's and Planning's approval.
3. Vegetation protection and erosion control methods (fences,
haybales, etc.) shall be installed at the perimeter of parcel 1
-_ prior to any excavation or clearing and shall remain throughout
construction.
~. Tree removal permits shall be obtained from the Parks
Department prior to removal of any tree six (6) inch caliper or
over.
Also be it resolved: that the Commission forwards a
recommendation of approval for Subdivision with the following
conditions:
Prior to this project being scheduled for review by City Council:
5. The applicant shall submit a plat to Engineering for their
comments.
Prior to filing the Subdivision/PIID Plat:
6. A Subdivision Agreement shall be filed concurrently with the
Final Plat.
7. The garage entry drive must not exceed 12% grade for a 20'
distance from the property line.
8. Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter and
sidewalk improvements and for any other work in the public right-
. of-way.
~~
/'° r
ORDINANCE N0.
(SERIES OF 1991)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL SUBDIVISION/PUD
DEVELAPNENT PLAN APPROVAL AND VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR
FOIIR FREE MARKET IItiITS AND FOUR AFFORDABLE HOIISING UNITS AT 1000
EAST HOPRINS (LOT'S A AND R OF BLOCK 25 AND LOTS H,I, AND S BLOCK
26, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN)
WHEREAS, the Valley Hi Development Trust ("Applicant")
submitted to the Planning Office an application for a Final
Subdivision/PUD Development Plan, Stream Margin review, and
vesting of development rights to construct eight units at 1000
East Hopkins Ave. The plan was designed in accordance with an
April 1990 legal settlement ("Settlement") between the City of
Aspen and the Applicant; and
WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Engineering
Department, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Fire
Marshal, the Water Department, the Housing Authority, and the
Planning Office and those agencies submitted referral comments;
and
W[iF.RF.AS~ on December 4, 1990, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission approved Stream Margin Review with conditions and
forwarded a recommendation to City Council to approve Final
Subdivision/PUD review with conditions, including variances to
height and rear setback; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections T-1004 D.2.b. and 7-903
of the Aspen Land Use Code (revision date August 14, 1989,) the
City Council may grant approval to Final Subdivision and PUD
Development Plans; and
1
~,
~ Y
9. The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement
District if one is ever formed.
10. The Applicant shall pay for sewer lir•.e replacement as
determined by the Sanitation District.
11. Heavy vehicle access must be provided for sewer line
maintenance.
12. The drainage plan for the site shall include oil and sand
interceptors for the garage. Surface run-off shall not enter the
sanitary sewer.
~3. Fire alarm and sprinY.ler systems shall_ be designed and
_nstalled as per the Fire Marshal's requiremer.i.s.
_9. The Planning Director shall sign off on a GDi(~S Exemption for
the replacement of four free market dwelling ur.i*.s.
15. No demolition shall occur prior to issuance of a building
permit.
Also be it resolved: the Commission recommends approval of the
PUD review with the following conditions:
16. The Applicant shall not be required to reduce the floor area
of the free market units to 3,000 square feet to conform to the
*_erms of the Settlement. In excYiange, the four affordable
- housing units shall be indexed to the Housing Guidelines for
category #1 occupancy.
17. Twelve (12) underground parking spaces shall be provided
according to the Settlement and parking variance allowed by the
F'JD review process. Four (4) of these spaces shall be allotted
~o the affordable housing units.
J.B. A two (2) foot variance to the RMF zone height restriction is
itmited to the rear 2/3 of the building to accommodate the
affordable housing units.
19. A variance to allow a zero (0) foot setback shall be limited
to the building area containing the affordable housing units.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on
December 4, 1990.
Aj
'l9~ ~ ~~/J-~-%/~/~
Jan`'Carney,"Deputy City Clerk
~~
jtkvj/1000hop.reso
Planning and Zoning Commission:
'-~lC'~'Yn~.i~k.~ % c~ `L
ca,~+,.., r ,~~
BPS r~ u~'c-. -r~~~ c-r~ v ~ cL -~NA~,?.Mr~~.
~-~
i18E2n_ns, the Aspen City Council having considered the
Planning and Zoning Commission's and Planning Office's
recommendations, does wish to grant the Final Subdivision/PUD
Development Plan approval with conditions as well as Vesting of
Development Rights for three years for the development of four
free market units and four deed restricted units at 1000 East
Hopkins.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COIARADO:
Section 1•
That it does hereby grant Final Subdivision/PUD Approval
with the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Planning Office for four free market units and
four deed restricted affordable housing units.
Section 2.
In order to accommodate the affordable housing units, in
accordance with Section 7-903 of the Land Use Code, the City
Council approves a PUD variance to allow a zero (0) foot rear
setback for the portion of the structure containing affordable
housing, and a height variance of two (2) feet to the R-MF height
limit restricted to the rear two-thirds (2/3) of the building.
Section 3-
The conditions of approval which apply to this project are:
1. A Subdivision Agreement shall be filed concurrently with the
Final Plat.
2. The garage entry drive must not exceed 12$ grade for a 20'
2
distance from the property line.
3. Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter and
sidewalk improvements and for any other work in the public right-
of-way.
4. The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement
District if one is ever formed.
5. The Applicant shall pay for, sewer line replacement as
determined by the Sanitation District.
6. Heavy vehicle access must be provided for sewer line
maintenance.
7. The drainage plan for the site shall include oil and sand
interceptors for the garage. Surface run-off shall not enter the
sanitary sewer.
8. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be designed and
installed as per the Fire Marshal's requirements.
9. The Planning Director shall sign off on a GMQS Exemption for
the replacement of four free market dwelling units.
10. No demolition shall occur prior to issuance of a building
permit.
~j The Applicant shall not be required to reduce the floor area
of the free market units to 3,000 square feet to conform to the
terms of the Settlement. The four affordable housing units shall
be indexed to the Housing Guidelines for category #1 occupancy.
12. Twelve (12) underground parking spaces shall be provided
according to the Settlement and parking variance allowed by the
PUD review process. Four (4) of these spaces shall be allotted
3
,/r^^~~ ~-.
`/ w .r
to the affordable housing units.
13. A two (2) foot variance to the RMF zone height restriction is
limited to the rear 2/3 of the building to accommodate the
affordable housing units.
14. A variance to allow a zero (0) foot setback shall be limited
to the building area containing the affordable housing units.
Within 180 days of City Council's approval of this plan the
following must occur:
15. A Subdivision Plat, "Notice of PUD Designation", Final PUD
Plan and PUD agreement must be filed with the County Clerk as
required by Sections 7-1005 E., 7-905 and 7-907 of the Land Use
C'O_d~e1.r _
~ect on 4~~ ~ {v -~
That it does hereby grant Vested Rights for the 1000 East
Hopkins Stream Margin review and Final Subdivision/PUD
Development Plan. The rights granted by the site specific
development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3)
years from the effective date hereof. However, any failure to
abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property
rights. Failure to properly record all plats and agreements
required to be recorded by the Land Use Code shall also result in
the forfeiture of said vested property rights.
Section 5•
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the
adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
4
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 6-
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1991 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODIICED, READ AND ORDERED PIIBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
1991.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Rathryn S. Roch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
1991.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Rathryn S. Roch, City Clerk
jtkvj/1000hop.ord
5
~.
yAN24+.^91
~~
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
(Pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Land Use Regulations)
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says
as follows:
I, SUNNY VANN, being or representing an Applicant before
the City of Aspen, personally certify that Public Notice of the
application for approval of subdivision, conceptual PUD, GMQS
exemption and stream margin review for he property located at 1000
East Hopkins Avenue in the City of Aspen was given by 1) posting of
notice containing the information required in Section 6-205.E.2.,
which posting occurred on or before November 23, 1990, in a con-
spicuous place on the subject property and that the said sign was
posted and visible continuously from that date, and 2) mailing
Notice of said development application to all property owners
within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, which
mailing occurred on or before November 23, 1990.
Applicant:
Va
By
The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged
and signed before me this ~+u'~day of January, 1991, by Sunny Vann
on behalf of VALLEY HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: y/as/9~
No ary Public
. ..-••
.~ d ....,
• , ~ ~~/
MEMORANDUM /~~~
~~~
T1: Mayer anal Council
~ ~ IM
16N
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager ~, Lam'` ~~'a %rin r~Q
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Direc or '(j ,~~~~r//pY~w ~r"`~ I
FRlM: Kim Johnson, Planner ~ ~-" lf~
rATE: November 9, 1992 "YPs
RE: l~~• E. Harkins (Valley Hi Apartments) Extension of
Vested Rights fir Reievel~rment - Second Reading of
~riinance 57, Series 1~~2
SUMMARY: First reading of this vested rights extension ordinance
was approved on October 13, 1992 .after being tabled on September
14, 1992. Since first reading the improvements at the Valley Hi
Apartment complex are virtually complete.
The Planning Office recommends second reading approval of Ordinance
57 for the requested one year extension of vested rights for the
redevelopment of this property. If approved by Council, vested
rights status will be valid through June 10, 1995. ~~~
PREVIOIIS COUNCIL ACTION: The 1000 E. Hopkins p a~s ~~ ~owed
by City Council by adoption of Ordinance 8 on ne 10,E 1991. The
approval included vested development rights for ending
in June of 1994. Please see Exhibit "A" for Ordinance 8, Series
1991.
BACRGROIIND: The approved, elopment pla or four free market
units and four deed restric '* ~wded Subdivision, Final
PUD, GMQS Exemption, Condominiumization, and Vested Rights
approval. The site is currently occupied by the Valley Hi
apartments which will be replaced by the eight unit structure. The
details of the 1000 E. Hopkins project were the result of a 1990
legal settlement between the City and t_he Valley Hi Development
Trust.
CURRENT ISSIIES: The property owners are requesting the one year
extension of their vested rights because of the concern that the
approximately $85,000..00 required for the repairs could not be
recovered by rents between now and the time during which the
structure would have to be demolished and replaced given the
existing three year vested rights period. The Municipal Code is
silent on the question of extension of vested rights. It is
discretionary by City Council whether or not to grant extensions.
On August 11, 1992 the Planning Office wrote a letter to project
.~. --
~, ,
representative Rick Neiley and notified him of City Council's
concern about the condition of the site and structures and that
improvements to the property must begin prior to Council's
consideration of the vested rights extension, Exhibit "B". Mr.
Neiley replied in writing and explained that the property owners
were intending to make certain repairs to the structure to improve
its appearance and livability. Please refer to Exhibit "C" for the
list of repairs and improvements and the costs associated with
these items.
Mr. Neiley stated ,that the current flatness of the real estate
market offers no incentive to demolish the apartments and rebuild.
The Applicant is faced with the alternative of closing down the
apartment complex until the reconstruction occurs in 1994. If that
were to happen, the community would lose several units of employee
housing for the next two years. Rather than close the units, the
Applicants request a one year extension in order to help in the
recovery of the costs for the necessary improvements.
Recent Developments and Improvements: Before granting any
extension of vested rights, City Council wanted to see substantial
improvements to the site. as a show of good faith by the applicant.
Council also expressed that an improved management program must be
implemented so that the Valley Hi would not again fall into such
squalor and disrepair.
Planning staff nitor' ro ress at the site and made
~1'~ ~rl/ it's last obe 199 For all practical
purposes, the project is complete. Upon receipt of the pending
~iv ~) Certificate of Occupancy, new tenants are expected to move into the
} units. The ma' rovements t
,~i replacement of roof complete nterior and exteri intin
'~ of the complex ~ repairs to sta s,
replacement win a fired for emergency egress, etroc
and oor re , _ the add n of
~~~^rQcertai _ re aiarm~ guipn general clean-u J,f the property.
~~`a Rick Neiley a~-so~~n~fo nning staff that the property manager
chosen to~ersee the maintenanc of the site is Michael Adams of
Mike's Maintena~n e', inc. r~ease refer to Exhibits "D" and "E" for
update letters from Mr. Neiley.
Because of the improvement progress made to date, the Planning
Office recommends the approval of Ordinance 57 on second reading.
go forward. Staff included in Ordinance 57 a condition which
reads:
1. The Valley Hi Apartment complex shall be maintained in
a clean and orderly condition until such time as they are
demolished prior to redevelopment pursuant to Ordinance
8, 1991.
2
~ ,/
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no costs to the City associated
with extending vested rights for one year.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of second
reading of the Ordinance 57, extending the vested rights for the
1000 E. Hopkins project.
ALTERNATIVES: City Council could elect to deny the one year
extension or chose a different vested rights extension period.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to have second reading of Ordinance 57,
Series 1992, approving a one year extension of the vested rights
for the approved development plan at 1000 E. Hopkins."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ordinance 57, Series 1992
Exhibits: "A"
nBu
nCn
nDn
vEn
Ordinance 8, Series 1991
8/11/92 Letter from Planning Office
9/2/92 Letter From Rick Neiley Regarding
Repairs/Costs
10/7/92 Update Letter from Rick Neiley
11/3/92 Update Letter from Rick Neiley
3
ORDINANCS NO. 57
(SERIES OF 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COIINCIL GRANTING A ONE YEAR
EBTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 1991 FOR
THE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR THE 1000 E. HOPRINS
PARCEL (A.K.A. THE VALLEY HZ APARTMENTS), LOTS A,H,I,R,AND S,
BLOCKS 25 AND 26, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Municipal Code,
the City Council may grant vested rights status for a site specific
development plan; and
WHEREAS, upon the adoption of Ordinance 8, Series 1991, the
Applicant received approval for the redevelopment of the subject
property as well as vested rights extending for three years from
the approval date of said ordinance; and
WHEREAS, due to the deteriorated condition of the existing
apartments on the site, the owners must make numerous repairs to
continue the livability of the units which are occupied by
employees of the community, until such time that the project is
demolished and replaced by the development approved in 1991; and
WHEREAS, because of the cost of such repairs the Applicant
requested a one year extension to the vested rights approved by
Ordinance 8, Series 1991 in order to allow a greater timeframe to
recover the costs through rents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having reviewed the application
recommends approval of the extension of vested rights for a period
of one year beyond the vested rights approved in Ordinance 8,
Series 1991; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning
Office's recommendations for the extension of vested rights does
1
/ ,t'
wish to grant the requested extension of vested rights for one year
beyond the approval granted in Ordinance 8, Series 1991 for the
1000 E. Hopkins parcel, finding community benefit in .the
improvements to the employee housing until said property is
redeveloped.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ZT ORDAINED HY THE CITY COIINCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1•
Pursuant to Section 24-6-207 °of the Municipal Code, City
Council does hereby grant the applicant a one year extension for
the vested rights approved by Ordinance 8, Series 1991 for the
1000 E. Hopkins parcel as follows:
1. The Valley Hi Apartments shall be maintained in a clean
and orderly condition until such time as they are
demolished prior to redevelopment pursuant to Ordinance
8, 1991.
2. The rights granted by the site specific development plan
approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for a
total of four (4) years from June 10, 1991, the date of
final adoption of Ordinance 8, Series 1991. However, any
failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant
to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said
vested property rights. Failure to timely and properly
record all plats and agreements as specified herein and
or in the Municipal Code shall also result in the
forfeiture of said vested rights.
2
w J ~~r~ ~.
3. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all
rights of referendum and judicial review.
4. Nothing in the approvals provided in this Ordinance shall
exempt the site specific development plan from subsequent
reviews and or approvals required by this Ordinance or
the general rules, regulations or ordinances of the City
provided that such reviews or approvals are .not
inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested
herein. -- - ---= -- _ - _.
5. The establishment herein of a vested property right shall
not preclude the application of ordinances or regulations
which are general in nature and are applicable to all
property subject to land use regulation by the City of
Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire,
plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes. In this
regard, as a condition of this site development approval,
the developer shall abide by any and all such building,
fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless
an exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
section 2•
The City Clerk shall cause notice of this Ordinance to be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days following final adoption
hereof. Such notice shall be given in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval
of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a
3
~-~
..,
vested property right pursuant to Title 24, Article 68,
Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following-
described property:
"1000 E. Hopkins, Lots A,H,I,K,and S, Blocks 25 and 26"
The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said
notice shall be the ordinance granting such approval.
Section 3:
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the
.adoption of this ordinance, to record:a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 4•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 5•
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and
shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now
pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended
as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
Section 6•
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of 1992 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
4
,-., ~-~
~, , J
y ~
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
1992.
John Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Rathryn S. Roch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
1992.
Bennett, Mayor
ATTEST:
Rathryn S. Roch, City Clerk
5
f ~ ._... ~ '~~ II JI
'`~~~ ~•~' City Conncil Exhibit
Approved ~ 19 _
By Ordinance
ORDINANCE N0.8
(SERIES OF 1991)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL SIIBDIVISION/PIID
DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, CONDOMSNIIIMIZATION, GMQS EXEI+~TION,
AND VESTING OF DEVEIAPMLN'P RIGHTS FOR FOIIR FREE MARKE'P UNITS AND
FOIIR AFFORDABLE HOIISING IINITS AT 1000 EAST HOPRINS (LOTS A AND R
OF BLOCR 25 AND LOTS H,I, AND S BLOCR 2G, TOWNSITE OF ASPEN)
WHEREAS, the .Valley Hi Development Trust ("Applicant")
submitted to the Planning Office an application for a Final
Subdivision/PUD Development Plan, Stream Margin review,
Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing and
vesting of development rights to reconstruct eight units at 1000
East Hopkins Ave. The plan was designed in accordance with an
April 1990 legal settlement ("Settlement") between the City of
Aspen and the Applicant; and
f
t
wHERn~nt, -the application was reviewed by the Engineering
Department, the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the Fire
Marshal, the Water Department, the Housing Authority, and the
Planning Office and those agencies submitted referral comments;
and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 1990, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission approved Stream Margin Review with conditions and
forwarded a recommendation to City Council to approve Final
Subdivision/PUD review with conditions, including variances to
height and rear setback; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 24-7-1004 D.2.b., 24-7-
903, 24-7-1007, and 24-8-104 C.l.c. of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the City Council may grant approval to Final Subdivision, PUD
J 1
J~
Development ;Plans, Condominiumization, and GMQS Exemption for
Affordable Housing; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the
Planning and Zoning Commission's and Planning Office's
recommendations, does wish to grant the Final Subdivision/PUD
Development Plan approval with conditions as well as
Condominiumization, GMQS Exemption for Affordable Housing, and
Vesting of Development Rights for three years for the development
of four free market units and four deed restricted units at 1000
East Hopkins.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COIINCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1-
That- it does hereby grant Final Subdivision/PUD Approval
with the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Planning Office and amended by City Council
for four free market units and four deed restricted affordable
housing units.
section 2.
In order to accommodate the affordable housing units, in
accordance with Section 7-903 of the Land Use Code, the City
Council approves a PUD variance to allow a zero (0) foot rear
setback for the portion of the structure containing affordable
housing, and a height variance of two (2) feet to the R-MF height
limit restricted to the rear two-thirds (2/3) of the building.
g Section 3-
t
_. 2
..., ~ ~ - , ~, ~.'1
The City Council also approves Condominiumization for all
eight units and Growth Management Exemption for the four
affordable housing units.
Section 4-
The conditions of approval which apply to this project are:
1. A Subdivision Agreement shall be recorded concurrently with
the Final Piat.
2. The garage entry drive must not exceed 12$ grade for a 20'
distance from the-property line.
3. Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter and
sidewalk .improvements and for any other work in the public right-
of-way.
4. The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement
`~. District if one is ever formed.
~,_
5. The Applicant shall pay for sewer line improvements as
determined by the Sanitation District.
6. Heavy vehicle access must be provided for sewer line
maintenance.
7. The drainage plan for the site shall include oil and sand
interceptors for the garage. Surface run-off shall not enter the
sanitary sewer.
8. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be designed and
installed as per the Fire Marshal's requirements.
9. The Planning Director shall sign off on a GMQS Exemption for
the replacement of four free market dwelling units.
10. No demolition shall occur prior to issuance of a building
3
..
,'\ r
"",--
~:/
permit.
11. The four affordable housing units shall be indexed to the
Housing Guidelines for category #3 (one unit) and category #4
three units) for sale purposes. For rental purposes, all four
unit shall be indexed at category a2.
12. Twelve (12) underground parking spaces shall be provided
according to~the Settlement and parking variance allowed by the
PUD review process. Four (4J of these spaces shall be allotted
to the affordable housing units.
13. A two (2) foot variance to the RMF zone height restriction is
limited to the rear 2/3 of the building to accommodate the
affordable housing units:
14. A variance to allow a zero (0) foot setback shall be limited
to .the building area containing the affordable housing units.
15. Prior to recordation, a fifteen (15) foot trail easement
shall be dedicated on the plat subject to approval by Engineering
and Planning.
16. Condominium plat and condominium declarations shall be
approved 'by the City Engineer and City Attorney prior to
recordation.
17. A $45,000.00 cash-in-lieu payment for affordable housing
shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits for the
property.
Within 180 days of City Council's approval of this Final Plat and
Final PUD Plan the following must occur:
18. A Subdivision Plat, "Notice of PUD Designation", Final PUD
J
4
..
....°;~
,~ ,
Plan and Subdivision/PUD Agreement must be filed with the County
Clerk as required by Sections 7-1005 E., 7-905 and 7-907 of the
Land Use Code.
19. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission, City Council and Historic Preservation
Committee shall be adhered to and considered conditions of
approval, unless otherwise amended in the conditions.
Section 5: - -
That it does hereby grant Vested Rights for the 1000 East
Hopkins Stream Margin review and Final Subdivision/PUD
Development Plan. The rights granted by the site specific
development plan shall remain vested for a period of three (3)
years from the effective date hereof. However, any failure to
''~
abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property
rights. Failure to properly record all plats and agreements
required to be recorded by the Land Use Code shall also result in
the forfeiture of said vested property rights.
Section 6•
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the
adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 7•
A pu?1blic hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /3
day of ~r", 1991 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
5
~, ~.~~
~,-~ . ~ ;
1
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODIICED, READ AND ORDERED PIIBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ~~` day of
1991.
• /i~/~
William L. Stirling, Mayor
A ST: ---
Kathryn $r Ro , City Clerk
ALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ~~'-"~ day of
G% c.,~.Q~ , 1991. ?~
~I~%
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
~_ 1 (~
Kathryn S% Roch, City Clerk
jtkvj/1000hop.ord
-` 6
. !°~
~ .r
Aspen/Pi
130 !
Asp
(303) 9
Rick Neiley
Neiley & Alder
201 N. Mill St. Suite 102
Aspen, Co. 81611
RE: Valley Hi Extension of Vested Rights
Dear Rick,
August 11, 1992
During Councilmember's comments at last night's regular City
Council meeting, the Council directed staff to write the Valley Hi
representative informing the project owners that City Council wants
to see the renovation work on the units started prior to the
Council hearing on vested rights extension scheduled for September
14, 1992. They are very interested in seeing immediate
improvements to the structure. If work cannot be started prior to
September 14, the meeting date will have to be pushed back to
September 28 or later.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please
contact City Planning Director Diane Moore as I will be out of the
office from August 12 through August 24.
S'n rely,
Kim o son
Plann
cc:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
Diane Moore, City Planning Director
Gary Lyman, Chief Building Inspec~or
^~,77 Via`. ,/ /i
\,./ ~tp Conpoil EiLiblt
119 __
By Ordinance
ing Office
Richard 7L Neiley, Jr., P.C.
Engine hL Aldec P.C.
i
. City ~ i
Approved ~ ~ e ` i
NEILEY 6~XLnance ~ AUG :i ~ ~u;~/.
ATTORNEYS 1 ,
201 North Mill Street, lSuite 102 ~ 1J
Aspen, Colorado 81611
PAX Number
(303) 925-9393 ~ (303) 925.9396
September 2, 1992
HAND DELIVERY
Ms. Rim Johnson, Planner
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Valley-Hi Extension of Vested Rights
Dear Rim:
This letter is in response to yours of August il, 1992.
As I have previously expressed, my client is very concerned about
City Council's position that we commence .improvements prior to
consideration of our extension of vested rights hearing scheduled
for September 14, 1992. Since the bulk of the improvements are
dependent upon obtaining an extension of rights, my client feels at
jeopardy with respect to committing to the expenditure of substan-
tial sums without first having had an opportunity for a review of
our request.
Notwithstanding this concern, we have proceeded with the
execution of two contracts related to exterior work. Stark Roofing
of Basalt will be replacing the roof on one building and repairing
the roof on a second building. A contract for exterior painting
has also been entered into with John Van Vonderen Painting of
Aspen. The combined costs of these two contracts is in excess of
$23,000.00.
The roof and painting work is to commence immediately,
with completion by no later than September 13, 1992. A building
permit application has been submitted for the roof work and has
been reviewed by zoning, and a permit should be issued in the
immediate future.
We have given notice to all tenants of termination of
leases, with the latest effective. date of September 13, 1992. Some
tenants have already vacated. In response to your inquiry, we have
not granted options to renew leases to any tenants following com-
pletion of improvements. While the improvements will substantially
enhance the habitability and desirability of the units, market
Letter to Ms. Johnson
September 2, 1992;
Page 2
considerations would probably not permit any substantial increases
in rentals. Thus, the granting of our extension request becomes
particularly important as the owners ability to recoup the remodel
expenses remains doubtful even with a new three year vested rights
period.
We are currently negotiating with a general contract and
are working on ~ final budget and contract. As we are uncertain
regarding the status of our extension of rights application, it is
difficult to finalize a contract, especially because most general
contractors are not particularly interested in a contingency re-
lated to City Council's approval_or lack thereof. _, ___
We are proceeding in our efforts to finalize arrangements
for interior improvements. I attach hereto a copy of our current
budget for work other than roof work and exterior painting. As you
can see, the total cost for. the items to be performed by our gen-
eral contractor has now risen to approximately $62,000.00. With
the addition of the roofing and painting contracts, the total cost
of the project now exceeds $85,000.00. This is a substantial
increase over our original budget attached to our application of
approximately $66,000.00.
Our date of completion of work is tied directly to the
outcome of our application. If final approval is granted by the
end of September, we believe all improvements can be completed by
October 31, 1992. If approval is granted at a later date, we will
need to extend our completion by an equivalent period of time. If
our application is rejected, it is unlikely that substantial
interior improvements can be justified.
If you need additional information, please let me know.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Ver~ trulty_ yours,
NE EY & PAL ER
/;. i
~~ ~ /~~ ~
Richard ~. Neiley, Jr.
RYNIagk
SITE DgAiNAQE AND PARKINfl L07 CL&ANUP 59,000
PE$TCONTROL - it,000
I~AN OUt' UNITB . ,
LA90R 1n C SZ,860
.
PLUMYINO it,>ZO0
OI~YWALL RipAIR ~ 58,356
INTERIOR PAINTINQ 57,960
ELECTRICAL i LIGHTINOi _ _. ~ St,170
QARPETING ....,:, , ........ _._ . St 0,100
VINYL FLOOR 8 UNO~CRLAYMENT
_ : 58,816
___m_.._.....__.
.
MI806LWVEOUBI
REPLACE WALL HEAT8t1 tN UNIT 8 5860
AOD H07 WATER TO QATtt IN UNITB `---. Sti'S
MILDEW BPRAY FOR 6ATtiR00M tN UNIT t 2 S80
INSTALL WAIL GABltV~iT' IN UNITS SS00
N6W INBULATION IN UNIT 7 5380
MILDEW aPRAY FOR UNIT 7 5200
REINSTALL TRIM IN UNIT 7 S4b0
REPLACE SHOWER tN UNIT 7 5420
REPLACLTWOINTtRI0R000RS 5190
REPLACE TWO REFRIGERATORS 5785
REPLAC[ FRONT DOORS IN 4 UNITB 5420
REPlJ-CB APPUANCE6 !N 4 UNITB ~~
...
... „.
DUMP F~ ... _ . 5100
INaURANCE 5400
SUP[RVIBiON ~9~,4~l1
,
CONTRACTORS FEE (1246) $6.048,
_.
CONTING&NGY ~~
Richard Y Neilry, ]z, P.C.
Eugene M. ALieq P.C.
--~,
., J Cite Con~il s><~iblt
~~ , 19 _
NEILEY 6i ALDER By Ordinance
ATTORNEYS
201 Norte lrt;(t sweet, suite ioz y' I ~ - 7 1992
Aspen, Colorado 81611
__._ FAXNomber
(303) 9259393 (303) 925A396
October 7, 1992
HAND DELIVERY
Ms. Rim Johnson, Planner
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Valley-Hi Extension of Vested Rights
Dear Rim:
This letter is a follow-up to our site visit of October
1, 1992. As was apparent, a substantial amount work has been
completed and is underway at the Valley-Hi Apartments. This work
is substantially consistent with the information previously pro-
vided regarding the nature and extent of the work and the cost
thereof. As I mentioned, certain additional health/safety related
work has been undertaken at the request of the Building Department
including the replacement of sixteen windows for improved egress in
the event of an emergency, the reconstruction of handrails on
stairways and the rear balconies, and the installation of indivi-
dual smoke detectors and a central fire alarm system.
As of this date, all roof work and exterior painting is
complete. Our general contractor, Braeburn Construction, has
completed all unit cleanout and preparation and is presently
finishing drywall, plumbing and appliance repair. This work along
with the installation of the new windows should be completed by the
end of this week or early next week. Interior painting is sche-
duled to begin next week, with installation of carpeting and new
flooring to follow. All the units are being thoroughly cleaned.
Additionally, general site cleanup is substantially complete with
final cleanup to follow completion of construction.
Subsequent to our appearance before City Council on
September 14, 1992, I have investigated management alternatives for
the project. We have interviewed two management companies regard-
ing the nature and extent of services that can be made available
and have selected Resort Management Services, Inc. ("RMS") of
Carbondale and Aspen to provide site management for the project.
We are currently negotiating the terms of the contract but intend
to incorporate the following:
,^
~..,
Letter to Ms. Johnson
October 7, 1992
Page 2
..,,
1. A monthly retainer which will provide for general
oversight and supervision of the physical aspects of the project on
a twenty-four hour per day, seven day per week basis. RMS provides
an emergency telephone number for necessary repairs and maintenance
and can provide carpentry, plumbing, electrical and related
services.
2. A minimum of two site inspections per month to
determine that unit occupancy is consistent with the Valley-Hi
leases; to inspect the building as a whole for appearance, utility
and safety concerns; and to insure that such things as trash pick
up have been accomplished and that the laundry room and grounds are
maintained in a clean and safe condition.
3. Regular reports of the physical characteristics of
the property to recommend periodic improvements and maintenance
requirements.
Rental management and related financial management will
be handled by Carl B. Linnecke, CPA. Mr. Linnecke will receive the
reports and recommendations from RMS and is authorized to make
decisions regarding typical maintenance and repair obligations.
I have dealt extensively with RMS in the past and know
them to be competent and reliable. In addition to managing many
commercial buildings and residences in Aspen, RMS provides condo-
minium management for Riverview Condominiums which are located on
East Hopkins Avenue just to the east of the Valley-Hi Apartments.
Thus, representatives of RMS will be in the area on a regular
basis. We hope to have our contract with RMS finalized prior to
the scheduled City Council meeting on October 14, 1992.
Again, I believe we have consistently adhered to the
representations we have made to the City in connection with our
application. The Valley-Hi Development Trust has proceeded in good
faith to undertake a significant portion of the repairs and im-
provements in advance of approval of extension of vested rights.
It is our hope that the first reading of the ordinance approving
the extension of vested rights will occur on October 14, 1992.
Very trul yours,
N~ LEY ~ E
I`\
~~. ~ ~~~
ich~r Y. Neiley, Jr.
RYN/agk
r"."`
'~~.s'
NEILEY & ALDER
ATTORNEYS
Richard Y. Neiley, Je, P.C.
Eugene M. Alden P.C.
HAND DELIVERY
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Aspeu, Colorado 81611
(303)925-9393
November 3, 1992
Ms. Rim Johnson, Planner
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
"~~
., ~
;`
J t76C
FAX Number
(303)925.9396
d u
Cite Conseil Sxhibit ~-
Ap~soved , 19 _
By Ordinance
Re: Valley-Hi Extension of Vested Rights
Dear Rim:
This letter is a follow-up to our meeting of Friday,
October 30, 1992, at the Valley-Hi Apartments. As you observed,
the remodel has been substantially completed, and as of Friday, the
units are being cleaned and readied for occupancy. We had hoped to
permit tenants to start moving in on Sunday, November 1, 1992, but
because a certificate of occupancy was not issued by the City, this
was not possible. As of today, we are still attempting to obtain
the certificate of occupancy.
The certificate of occupancy has been held up because of
several minor matters. We replaced approximately sixteen windows
with larger windows to permit better egress in the event of emer-
gency. The new windows are minimally below Uniform Building Code
standards (the window opening is approximately 22} inches high
where 24 inches is called for by the Code) but were approved as
acceptable by Gary Lyman. We are also in the process of installing
smoke detectors and two additional railings. We had requested a
temporary certificate of occupancy on Friday, but could not get
anyone in the Building Department to sign off on it because Gary
Lyman was down valley doing inspections. As of this morning,
Braeburn Construction, our general contractor, had still not heard
from Mr. Lyman. We anticipate the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy in the next day or so.
All of the units have been rented, and tenants are
waiting to move in. We have modified our leases to require all
tenants to be signatories on the leases. The number of occupants
of the units has been limited such that overcrowding will no longer
be a problem. We have incorporated inspection rights into the
.leases so that we can confirm the number of occupants. We have
,~^~ - ~,
~..~ i
Letter to Ms. Johnson
November 3, 1992
Page 2
assigned parking spaces and prohibited the storage of immobile
automobiles.
We have retained the services of Michael Adams of Mike's
Maintenance, inc. to perform the periodic inspections and mainte-
nance and repair which was described in my letter of October 7,
1992. Resort Management Services could not commit to the provision
of the required services. Mr. Adams is a former partner in Resort
Management Services and is experienced in providing the type of
services required.
Both the delays in the approval and construction process _
and the necessary health/safety upgrades to the project have
resulted in the expenditure of substantially greater amounts than
what were originally anticipated. In the circumstances, we request
that the three-year vested rights period run from the second
reading of the extension ordinance scheduled for November 9, 1992.
if you need additional information, please let me know.
Ve truly yours,
N EY & ALDER
icha Neiley, Jr.
RYN/agk
~~
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consu![ants
October 5, 1990
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Tom Baker
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
~..
Re: 1000 East Hopkins Subdivision/PUD/Stream Margin Review
Application
Dear Tom:
Attached for the Planning Office's review are eight (8)
copies of the referenced application and a check in the
amount of $820.00 for payment of the application fee. Please
note that the Applicant has a Planning Office credit for
$1,480.00 which is to applied to this application.
~ Should you have any questions regarding the application, or
if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate
to call. On behalf of Vann Associates and the Applicant,
thank you for your assistance in the preparation of the
application.
Very truly yours,
VANN
Sunny Vanr~,~AICP
SV:cwv
Attachment
l 230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 8161 t • 303,%925-6958
~ ,~,~
1
I
J~
1
1
J
__7
l
1
L~
AN APPLICATION FOR
SUBDIVISION/PUD/STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
FOR THE
1000 EAST HOPRINS TOWNHOUSES
Submitted by
Valley Hi Development Trust
Richard Y. Neiley, P.C.
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-9393
Prepared by
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-6958
and
GRETCHEN GREENWOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
201 North Mill Street, Suite 207
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-4502
~..
.-..
°.~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
_al
1
~!
.!
;~
section Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. PROJECT SITE 2
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 4
IV. REVIEA REQIIIREMENT3 11
A. Subdivision 11
B. Planned Unit Development 23
C. Stream Margin Review 25
D. Growth Management Exemption 28
E. Vested Property Rights 29
APPENDIX
A. Exhibit 1, Pre-Application Conference
Summary
Exhibit 2, Title Insurance Policy
Exhibit 3, Settlement Memorandum
Exhibit 4, Permission to Represent
B. Exhibit 1, Letter from Jim Markalunas,
Aspen Water Department
Exhibit 2, Letter from Heiko Khun,
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District
Exhibit 3, Building Inspection
Checklist
~~ I. INTRODIICTION
--.
The following application requests subdivision/PUD ap-
proval for the development of the 1000 East Hopkins Town-
houses, a eight (8) unit, multi-family residential project to
be developed on the site of the existing Valley Hi apartment
complex. The application also requests stream margin review
approval, exemption from growth management for the reconstruc-
l
tion of four (4) of the existing Valley Hi units and for the
project's affordable housing component, and vested property
rights status for the various development approvals (see Pre-
Application Conference Summary, Exhibit 1, Appendix A).
The application is submitted pursuant to the terms and
provisions of an agreement for the settlement of litigation by
and between the owner of the property, the Valley Hi Develop-
went Trust, a Colorado general partnership (see Title Insur-
ance Policy, Exhibit 2, Appendix A), and the Aspen City
Council (see Settlement Memorandum, Exhibit 3, Appendix A).
The Applicant's representative is Sunny Vann of Vann Associ-
ates, Inc., Planning Consultants (see Permission to Represent,
Exhibit 4, Appendix A).
The application has been divided into three (3) parts.
The first part, or Section II. of the application, provides
a brief description of the project site, while Section III.
describes the Applicant's proposed development. The third
part, or Section IV., addresses the proposed development's
1
`~
l ~.
~~ ~ ~.. / i
~'
~'
Pro'ect
y.:::
._... Si e
~~
99+~ I~ _.. n4
b
I • M~unt817!
To Twln
T
~ %.
i
compliance with the applicable review requirements of the
Aspen Land Use Regulations. For the reviewer's convenience,
all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project
(e.g., proof of ownership, utility letters, etc. are
~ ) provided
in the various appendices to the application.
I
i
While the Applicant has attempted to address all relevant
provisions of the Land Use Regulations, and to provide
sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the
application, questions may arise which require further
information and/or clarification. The Applicant would be
pleased to provide such additional information as may be
required in the course of the application's review.
II. PROJECT SITE
As the property survey on the following page illustrates,
the project site consists of two (2) distinct parcels which
:~ are separated by a platted, albeit non-existent, alley.
Parcel 1, which contains approximately thirteen thousand five
,~ hundred and thirty-two (13,532) square feet, fronts on East
Hopkins Avenue and consists of Lots K and S, Blocks 25 and 26,
plus a vacated portion of Cleveland Street. Parcel 2, which
contains approximately four thousand five hundred and eighty-
five (4,585) square feet, is located adjacent to the Roaring
Fork River and consists of a portion of Lots H, I and A,
Blocks 25 and 26, plus the remainder of vacated Cleveland
Street.
<~!
2
-...a- :.-:~~ ,~.:,...,. , r, ..~,.,~
attachment "B"
<~J~~~~
~3~~~~
CC
~E
~~~
dnnjnv
SNINdOH 000 ~ ;~
Ai
Y....: i
li~
~=
i P d k~'~g ~tl YSA.R~~f~ S 3. . ~ ~ ~ N
~'¢ i~,~~~ £'R0. 4~~ ~~ E .0 Y
N
X
W
m
r
3
z ,~
-~
~ c
r ~
D H
z
~
II
~ = e
a~~~
w
a
~
1000 HOPKINS = F~.~~
Y's~~?
,
.
, '
I TOWNHOUSES f "~
FCI~] D~J ~fl ~
_ ~~~ [~~ ~~ o~
a°
F
S3Sf1OHNMOI
3f1N3nd
SNI~IdOH 0006
V
S NO
F
f
J
0
~_
~~
p °w
~l~Nw~
~<
_
~ >
~_
~w ~
m _
W
O
K 2 -/~
v'
O
2 p N
W
_
_
p
F O
On
J Q
_~
o
»~ V
u¢U
'g Z
~
_N
W
e
w ~`
is
Fp J~
2 ~~
I,
~'n
1
1\ \~ N
1
~
~;
~ ~
~ •N
~
1 , s
s
I
h
1
~
s
I
Ix
`
~
8 11 ~~ I `\
1 I
II
T I I
I ; 1 s
~
j ; 1 I 1 I
I I I
11 1
1 1
1 ( I
I
1 i
~Irr- ~-
1 1 I~ 11 1 11 11
I
/ 1 1
1 I
1
J
l{
1 (
II I
I
1 II
,
~ 1 II
:
' i I
11 ~i I }
1 ~ II
1 ~
I 1
II t 1 J
I Ij I LIn_I
~ c'-~
1
I 1 i':
r ~ ~
1
~
I
I
L,
w _ _ II
I
I
.
; ;
~ :I
~'
'
~ I
~
` I
1 i ..
,_. ~ , II
"'
1 `:€ a
1
1 ~~ ~
~ I
,
~ I
1
~a 1 1 g:> ui I ~
n i k
I II~< a
.,
.
il ~ ~ ~$ _~
I I(;
C
i IIW11 i 1..' I
,I,~a,
1
~I
~•T, }I
i
'I
t i I I ~M ~ I
I
I ~3 ~
- -« -
II II ii~
(~ --
I
} i 1 ! i ~,
I I
II I
I i I t
/
i i ! jl
} I 1 ~i
I
I
I 1 . '1 I
I
I I: I
i
~
1 1
ii. i
I i i ~ ! r ~i
~/--
1
I ~_ li
I _.Y _. _
I~
~ I li
I I
I
~ 1 li
I t I I I
I
r
I j
I (;
~ ij
I , ~
~I
1 ~
1
1 ' 02
1
I3
I~
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I ~
I ~
I 1
~,
I
a
;~
a
a
J~`•~!f
`~
~
'. :~
;
± ~
a:
~c ~
1
~'
.
:
. -
.~,
~
^
.~;.,;
._
` _
W
u
Z
W~
-N
1 ~tlJl
m W
~m
=m
;~
_
~_
m
W
~W
I
a>
<g
_. ~__
-____.>- -_ I
~w ~ ~ ~
~ ~. ~ V '~~
s st ~ ~ \\e
_.- _. _.. ..-- _-_ 7_, 1
\ ~ I ~k
I I
~y `~. ' F~ ~ • • I I
C'7 I g a'
Fa ~ I -
~ i ~ Y I
~ ~ < ~ :
e~ o .,
I_
~AIS''&~A3'II~~ ~~.L~~cIA I $
x II
.'
a ~~ i
0
/ a t ~~'I
,~ l
n~ ~~
-L--- -~~ ~~--
~, ~~
1 \ 1
1 li
II ~ I
N I
I ~
s
@i
K1
b
~Y
OY
~ mLL
~~
$a
z
Ia
m~
.miaow
ON -?rv
~~
NJ
P
0
U
C
~m
m
~ d~~
C psm
n nn
a 8a$
t
The topography of the site slopes away from Hopkins
Avenue towards the Roaring Fork River. Parcel 1 drops
approximately ten (10) feet in elevation from the front
property line to the alley, while Parcel 2 consists almost
entirely of the steeply sloping river bank. A portion of
Parcel 2 is located within the Roaring Fork River. Natural
vegetation consists primarily of a stand of approximately
eight (8) cottonwoods located near the southeast corner of
Parcel 1 and the riparian vegetation of Parcel 2. Parcel 1 is
zoned R/MF, Residential/Multi-Family, while Parcel 2 is zoned
R-15, Residential.
{,~ Existing site improvements, which are confined to Parcel
~) 1, consist of two (2) multi-family residential structures and
a paved parking area. The existing structures contain a total
l of nineteen (19) separate dwelling units and twenty-two (22)
bedrooms. A twelve (12) inch sanitary sewer traverses the
") adjacent alley and a portion of Parcel 2. Water, electric and
J telephone service is located in the Hopkins Avenue right-of-
_] way. A crude footpath traverses Parcel 2 parallel to the
1 River. No easement for this trail, however, has been granted
to the public.
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing Valley Hi
apartments and to construct a new eight (8) unit, multi-family
structure on the project site. Pursuant to the provisions of
4
.-,
the settlement agreement, the development program consists of
four (4), three (3) bedroom, free market units and four (4),
two (2) bedroom, affordable housing units. All units will be
separately condominiumized. The affordable housing units will
be offered for sale to purchasers of the free market units,
who in turn will rent the units to employees qualified by the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. In the event the units
are not sold to the projects free market owners, the Applicant
will offer them for sale or rent to qualified employees
''
pursuant to Housing Authority guidelines and the provisions of
the settlement agreement.
l In the event the affordable housing units are rented, all
four (4) units will be deed restricted to the Housing Authori-
} ty's moderate income guidelines. If the units are sold, one
(1) unit will be restricted to moderate income guidelines
' while the remaining three (3) units will be restricted to the
Housing Authority's middle income guidelines. Pursuant to the
provisions of the settlement agreement, the Applicant will
provide the equivalent of an additional three (3) bedrooms of
~ affordable housing via a cash-in-lieu payment.
The proposed development has been designed in compliance
with the dimensional requirements of the R/MF zone district
and the housing replacement provisions of Section 18-3.3, as
modified by the terms of the settlement agreement. As Table
1 on the following page indicates, the proposed bedroom mix
5
-., -^
complies with the reduced minimum lot area per dwelling unit
requirements for projects in which a minimum of fifty (50)
percent of the units are restricted to affordable housing
guidelines. Similarly, fifty (50) percent of the existing
bedrooms lost to demolition are to be replaced. Eight (8)
affordable housing bedrooms will be reconstructed on-site with
an additional three (3) bedrooms provided via a cash-in-lieu
payment. Fifty (50) percent of the affordable housing units'
floor area .will be located above grade.
Table 1
DEVELOPMENT DATA
1. Existing Zoning
Parcel 1 R/MF
Parcel 2 R-15
2. Total Site Area (Sq. Ft.)~ 18,120
Parcel 1 13,530
Parcel 2 4,590
3. Minimum Required Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 10,000
4 - 3 Bdrm. Units @ 1,500 Sq. Ft./Unit 6,000
4 - 2 Bdrm. Units @ 1,000 Sq. Ft./Unit 4,000
4. Minimum Required Setbacks (Feet)
Front Yard 10
Side Yard 5
Rear Yard 10
5. Proposed Setbacks (Feet)
Front Yard 30
Side Yard 5/10
Rear Yard 0/5
6. Maximum Allowed Building Height (Feet) 25
6
•-. ,-~
7. Proposed Building Height (Feet) 27
8. Maximum Allowable External Floor 14,880
Area @ 1.1:1 (Sq. Ft.)Z
9. Proposed External Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) 14,880
4 Free Market Units @ 3,345 Sq. Ft. 13,380
/Unit
4 Affordable Housing Units @ 750 1,500
Sq. Ft./Unit3
10. Minimum Required Open Space 4,740
@ 35 Percent Lot Area (Sq. Ft.)
11. Proposed Site Coverage (Sq. Ft.)
Building Footprint 8,100
Area Attributable to Open Space 4,740
12. Minimum Required Parking 12
@ 1 Space/Bdrm.°
13. Proposed Project Parking Spaces 12
Free Market Units 8
Affordable Housing Units 4
~ All square footages have been rounded to the nearest ten
(10) square feet.
Z Two-thirds (2/3) of the additional square footage above
1:1 must be used for affordable housing purposes.
s Fifty (50) percent of the square footage of the afford-
able housing units is located one hundred (100) percent
below grade.
l c Does not include affordable housing component, the
parking requirement of which is established by special
review pursuant to Section 5-3o1.B.
It should be noted that the settlement agreement provides
for a reduction in the proposed development's rear yard
setback and an increase in maximum building height. As the
Site Development Plan on the following page illustrates, the
1 7
~. -~
proposed building footprint encroaches into Parcel 1's ten
(10) foot rear yard setback. This encroachment is necessary
to accommodate the project's affordable housing units, and is
to be achieved via a setback variance granted pursuant to the
planned unit development provisions of the Land Use Regula-
tions. Similarly, a two (2) foot variance in the maximum
height of the new building is required to provide fifty (50)
percent of the affordable housing units' floor area above
I grade. A discussion of the required variances and their
compliance with applicable PUD provisions is provided in
Section IV.B. of this application.
As the Parking Garage/Employee Housing Floor Plan on page
10 illustrates, twelve (12) parking spaces will be provided in
I a subgrade garage which is accessed directly from Hopkins
i Avenue. Pursuant to the provisions of the settlement agree-
ment, two (2) spaces will be provided for each free market
unit while one (1) space will be provided for each affordable
~~
housing unit. The proposed development's affordable housing
units are located to the rear of the garage in order to take
advantage of the significant change in elevation across the
site. The units will each contain a minimum of seven hundred
and fifty (750) square feet of net livable area and a small
outdoor deck. As noted previously, the units will be located
J a minimum of fifty (50) percent above grade. Conceptual floor
plans and elevations for the proposed development are depicted
on pages 11 through 16.
8
I hereby approve GMQS Exemption
f r residf~ntial dwelling units
CV
Amy argeru lanning Director
for the replacement of
at 1 0 E. Hopkins.
/~ ~~/
ate
jtkvj/1000hop.dirmemo
STING GNADE
t-
CONCEPTUAL DUILDING SECTION
n ~ r~
o z . a ,= zo
~,
----~'
SOUTH ELEVATION from HOPKIt'
NORTH ELEVATION
~~ ~
ii ~ ~
o z . a ,_ =o
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIC
.a„
Roof Plon
Roof Deck
Upper L¢v
~~
The project site will be extensively landscaped.
Deciduous trees will be planted in the approximately seventeen
I (17) foot public right-of-way between Hopkins Avenue and the
Applicant's property line. Smaller ornamental shrubs and
seasonal flowering plants will be planted in the landscaped
area in front of the building and the alley area will be
improved and maintained. Sidewalk, curb and gutter, all of
which are presently lacking in the area, will be installed
along Hopkins Avenue at the Applicant's expense.
IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
The proposed development is subject to subdivision,
LL~ planned unit development and stream margin review. An
exemption from growth management and vested property rights
are also requested. Each of these review requirements is dis-
I cussed below.
'~ A. Subdivision
Pursuant to Section 3-101 of the Land Use Regula-
_~ tions, land to be used for condominiums, apartments or any
other multiple dwelling units is by definition a subdivision.
Consequently, the Applicant's proposed development of an eight
J (8) unit, multi-family residential structure is subject to the
City's review and approval. Such developments are reviewed
pursuant to the provisions of Section 7-1004.C. of the
Regulations. The specific subdivision review criteria, and
17
~^
,~
the proposed development's compliance therewith, are summa-
rized as follows.
i. "The proposed subdivision shall be consistent
with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan."
The 1973 Aspen Land IIse Plan indicates that the
project site is located within the so-called "Mixed Resi-
i
i dential" land use category. As noted previously, the project
i
site is zoned R/MF, Residential/Multi-Family. The proposed
multi-family development is a permitted use in this zone dis-
trict and, therefore, is consistent with the Land Use Plan's
mixed residential designation.
It should be noted that both the 1973 Aspen Land Use
Plan and the Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails element of the
J Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan depict a proposed trail align-
l ment (i.e., the so-called North Star trail) across Parcel 2 of
-~ the Applicant's property. While a crude footpath does in fact
parallel the River, no easement has been granted across the
-l property. The Applicant, however, will grant an easement
incorporating the existing trail alignment as a condition of
J subdivision approval. To the best of the Applicant's knowl-
edge, no other element of the Comprehensive Plan contains
recommendations which pertain to the proposed development.
2. "The proposed subdivision shall be consistent
with the character of existing land uses in the area. The
18
proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future
development of surrounding areas.~~
The proposed development is consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the surrounding area, and
will have no adverse effect on the area's future development.
The surrounding site area consists primarily of mixed residen-
tial development, including multi-family condominium struc-
tures, several relatively new duplexes, and a variety of older
single-family residences. With the exception of the southeast
corner of the intersection of Hopkins Avenue and Cleveland
Street, which was recently acquired by the City for affordable
housing purposes, the area is essentially fully developed.
3. ~~The proposed subdivision shall be in compli-
ante with all applicable requirements of the Land Use Requla-
tions. ~~
Except as otherwise provided for in the settlement
"" agreement, the proposed development has been designed to
l comply with the applicable requirements of the underlying R/MF
zone district and all relevant subdivision and stream margin
provisions of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
4. ~~The proposed subdivision shall not be located
on land unsuitable for development because of flooding,
drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or
snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or
19
..~
other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or
welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision."
No natural hazards adversely affect the development
of the property. While the proposed development is located
within one hundred (100) feet of the high water line of the
Roaring Fork River, the proposed building footprint is located
entirely on Parcel 1 which is outside the one hundred (100)
I
~ year flood plain boundary. Consequently, no adverse affect
upon the health, safety or welfare of the project's residents
is anticipated.
5. 'The proposed subdivision shall not be designed
to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplica-
tion or premature extension of public facilities and unneces-
l sary public costs."
No governmental inefficiencies, duplication of
facilities, or unnecessary public costs will occur as a result
1 of the provision of public services to the proposed develop-
] went. All required utilities are currently available in the
immediate site area. All costs for the extension of utilities
to serve the project will be borne by the Applicant.
In addition to requiring compliance with the
preceding review criteria, the Land Use Regulations also
require that various improvements be provided in connection
with the proposed subdivision, and that specific standards be
20
'-~
~ .~
adhered to in the subdivision's design. The improvements and
design standards which pertain to the Applicant's proposed
development are summarized as follows.
. ~ 2. Sewer. The proposed development will be served
by the existing twelve (12) inch sanitary sewer located in the
alley to the rear of Parcel 1. According to the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District, anticipated flows can be
accommodated with no improvements to existing sewer lines or
to the treatment plant (see Exhibit 2, Appendix C).
3. Electric and Telephone. Electrical and
telephone service is presently located in the Hopkins Avenue
,~ right-of-way and will be extended to serve the proposed
21
I
~ development as necessary. All required extensions of these
~ utilities will be located underground.
' 4. Easements. Easements to accommodate utility
extensions will be provided in compliance with the applicable
provisions of Section 7-1004.C.4.b. of the Regulations as may
l be required. It should be noted, however, that the proposed
~ development's east side yard setback has been increased to ten
~ (10) feet to provide a larger clear zone around the existing
sanitary sewer which traverses the adjacent property.
Similarly, the building footprint has been staggered on the
l Site Development Plan in order to provide a minimum fifteen
(15) foot clear zone adjacent to the sewer located in the
'~ alley. All utility easements to be conveyed by the Applicant
1 will be described in the project's subdivision agreement and
J depicted on the final subdivision plat.
5. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter. No sidewalks, curbs
.~ or gutters presently exist within the immediate site area.
The property, however, is located within a mapped sidewalk im-
provement district. As discussed previously, the Applicant
will install sidewalk, curb and gutter along the north side of
Hopkins Avenue as depicted on both site development plans All
improvements will comply with the recommendations of the
City's Pedestrian Walkway and Bicycle Plan.
6. Fire Protection. Fire protection for the
„~ proposed development will be provided by the Aspen Volunteer
22
~,.~
Fire Department. The project site is located approximately
five (5) blocks from the fire station, resulting in a response
time of approximately three (3) to five (5) minutes. Two (2)
fire hydrants are conveniently located nearby, one directly
I' across the street on the southwest corner of Hopkins and
Cleveland Street, and an additional one located approximately
I
two hundred (200) feet to the east in front of the Riverview
Condominiums.
7. Drainage. The proposed development's storm
drainage system will be designed to maintain historic flow
rates with respect to surface water runoff and groundwater
recharge. On-site drywells and/or surface detention facilit-
ies will be utilized to intercept and detain runoff from
building roofs and impervious areas, and to control the rate
of groundwater recharge. A detailed stormwater drainage plan
will be submitted in conjunction with the Applicant's final
subdivision plat application.
B. Planned Onit Development
Pursuant to the provisions of the settlement
agreement, the proposed development is to be reviewed as a
planned unit development in order to permit variances in the
project's rear yard setback, maximum height and minimum
parking requirement. These variances are required in order to
accommodate the project's expanded affordable housing compo-
nent without necessitating a complete architectural redesign
23
of the free market units. The proposed development, however,
is to be reviewed pursuant to the consolidated two step
process provided for in Section 7-903.C.3. of the Regulations.
The size and configuration of the project site
provides little opportunity for the incorporation of typical
PUD design approaches. As noted above, the sole purpose of
utilizing the PUD process is to vary certain dimensional
requirements of the R/MF zone district in order to increase
the amount of affordable housing while preserving the original
project's free market unit design. The proposed development,
however, is consistent with the basic purpose and review
standards of the City's planned unit development regulations.
The general requirements of PUD development approval are
identical to those of the subdivision regulations and have
been addressed in Section IV.B. of this application.
It should be noted that portions of the property are
located within the Roaring Fork River while other areas
contain slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent. These areas,
however, are confined solely to Parcel 2. As the proposed
development is to be located entirely on Parcel 1, and the two
parcels are not contiguous, no reduction in density for slope
considerations or land under water are required. Similarly,
Parcel 1 contains no existing surface easements which would
reduce the property's maximum theoretical density. As a
result, the proposed density is based upon the R/MF zone
24
J
r-1 ''"~
district's reduced minimum lot area per dwelling unit require-
ments for projects in which a minimum of fifty (50) percent of
{ the units are restricted to affordable housing guidelines.
As discussed previously, the project site is
1
suitable for development. The proposed density is substan-
1 tially below that of the existing Valley Hi apartments, which
~ should result in fewer impacts upon the surrounding area.
Existing roads and utilities are adequate to serve the
project, and no adverse impacts upon the area's air or 'water
quality are anticipated. The proposed site development plan
is compatible with the site's topography. While the majority
of Parcel 1's mature vegetation will be lost due to excava-
iii tion, the property will be extensively landscaped following
1 construction. The more critical riparian vegetation located
J on Parcel 2 will be maintained in its natural state.
C. Stream Margin Review
Pursuant to Section 7-504 of the Land Use Regu-
lations, all development within one hundred (100) feet,
measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring
Fork River is subject to stream margin review. Although no
development is proposed on Parcel 2, the proximity of Parcel
1 and the proposed building footprint to the River necessi-
tates P&Z review and approval. The specific review criteria,
and the proposed development's compliance therewith, are
summarized below.
25
~~
1. "It can be demonstrated that any proposed
development which is in the Special Flood Razard Area will not
increase tha base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for
development."
As the accompanying survey and site development plan
~ illustrate, the proposed building footprint is confined
I, entirely to Parcel 1 which is located outside the 100 year
flood boundary. Consequently, no increase in the base flood
elevation of the River will occur as a result of the proposed
project.
2. "Any trail on the parcel designated on the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open
,, S.
Space/Trails plan map is dedicated for public use."
As discussed previously, the Applicant will grant an
f easement for the existing pedestrian trail which traverses
,~ Parcel 2 adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. The easement
will be described in the proposed development's subdivision
~ agreement and depicted on the final subdivision plat.
1 3. "The recommendations of the Roarinq Fork
Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for
} development to the greatest extent practicable."
The Roarinq Fork Greenway Plan contains no site
specific recommendations with respect to the project site.
;~ The retention of Parcel 2 in its undisturbed state, however,
26
,~
,.. r.
`,
is consistent with the Plan's general recommendations regard-
ing the preservation of riparian vegetation and the natural
! appearance of the river corridor.
~ 4. "NO vegetation is removed or slope grade
~ changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the
stream bank."
As noted above, no development will occur on Parcel
2. Consequently, no adverse effect upon the stream bank or
the Roaring Fork River will occur as a result of the proposed
project. Appropriate safeguards (e.g., hay bales, etc.),
however, will be employed during construction to prevent sedi-
mentation of the River. All areas disturbed during construc-
tion will be revegetated.
5. ~'TO the greatest extent practicable, the
proposed development reduces pollution and interference with
the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary."
The proposed development will have no adverse effect
upon the natural changes normally experienced by the Roaring
Fork River. No development is proposed on Parcel 2 or within
1 the River. The elevation difference between the proposed
1 building envelope and the one hundred (100) year flood
,~ boundary is approximately twelve (12) feet.
6. "Written notice is given to the Colorado Water
-I Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a
27
water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency."
No alteration or relocation of the existing water
course will be required as a result of the Applicant's
proposed development. Hence no notice is required.
7. "A guarantee is provided in the event a water
I
course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer
~ and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the
i
flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished."
Inasmuch as no alteration or relocation of the water
~ course is proposed, no such guarantee is required.
8. "Copies are provided of all necessary federal
J and state permits relating to work within the one hundred
~ (100) year floodplain."
,~ No federal or state permits are required to con-
struct the proposed development.
D. Growth Management Exemption
j The proposed reconstruction is exempt from the
City's growth management regulations. The project's four (4)
free market units are exempt pursuant to Section 8-104.A.1.a.
of the Land Use Regulations subject to the approval of the
Planning Director upon the verification of an adequate number
of existing development credits and compliance with the
28
l.~
provisions of the City's housing replacement program. Bill
Dreuding of the Zoning Department has inspected the property
i and has verified the existence of nineteen (19) dwelling units
(see Exhibit 3, Appendix B, Building Inspection Checklist).
As no ability presently exists to transfer development
credits, the remaining fifteen (15) units will be credited to
I
the annual growth management quota upon demolition.
The four (4) replacement affordable housing units to
be constructed on the property are exempt pursuant to Section
8-104.C.1.c. of the Regulations subject to the approval of the
! City Council. In general, the criteria for such exemptions
include the size and type (i.e., number of bedrooms) of the
proposed units, the price categories to which the units will
l be restricted, and the proposed development's compliance with
the City's adopted affordable housing plan. As discussed
1 previously, the proposed two (2) bedroom units will each
contain a minimum of seven hundred and fifty (750) square feet
of net livable area and will be deed restricted pursuant to
the provisions of the settlement agreement.
E. vested Property Riqhts
In order to preserve, as may be allowed, the land
use approvals which may be obtained as a result of this
application, the Applicant hereby requests vested property
rights status pursuant to the provisions of Section 6-207 of
'a the Land Use Regulations. It is understood by the Applicant
29
~.
ti
that, to establish such status, final approval of the proposed
development must be granted by ordinance of the City Council.
It is also the Applicant's understanding that no specific
submission requirements, or review criteria other than a
public hearing, are required to confer such status.
30
J
~d
APPENDIX A
~+~ CZTY OF ASPEN
F~PLICATION CONFERENCE SUMM.
`~ PLANNER- i /5
DATE: c L
PROJECT' Jd o D C. d k r N C
APPI,ICAN'P'S REPRESENTATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE
OWNER'S NAME:
1. Type of Application
2. Describe action/type of development being requested:
Policy Area/ Comments
Referral Aaent
1.-.~ s,~.,-y -r, Aul~
N~
we _ .t..r~,-.~
ry-G Sly - a ~~. L v~ ~' .. .
wad
4. Review is before: (P&Z Only) (CC Only) P&Z then to CC)
5. Are you requesting vested rights? (YES) (NO)
6. Public Hearing Yes (No) At:.(PSZ) (CC) '(BO'PH P&Z 8 CC)
ublic'
7. The applicant needs to Notify the public for
hearing pursuant to Section 6-205.E.3. of the Code. (YES) NO)
8. Number of copies of the application to be submitted:
' `~,~-~/D -+- 9a =~~ 300
9 , What fee was applicant requested to submit: ~.« + ~~ / ~ ~ O
10. Anticipated date of submission: ~+ d~ g~ o
11. CpMMEN'PS/UNIQIIE CONCERNS:
3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to resycr,,.., ~Zr~.S
of reports requested:
~'' ,Lwyers jitle
jnsurance Crporation
NATIONALHEADOUARTERS
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
SCHEDULE A-OFS7ER'S POLICY
CASE NUM~.R
PG'1'-2237
1. NAM OF IIv'SLIRED:
EXHIBIT 2
POLICY NUMSEq
85-01-097393
DATE OF POLICY AMOUNT OF INSURANCE
07/25/88 ~ 12:33 P.M. S 1,250,000.00
VALLEY-HI DEVECA~T TRUST, A COIgRADp ~NERAL PARTNERSHIP
I
2. Tom' ESTATE OR INTERrST IN THE LANfl ~c_~ AND 4giICH IS COVERLJ' B1' Tv'rS POLICY IS:
IN FHI' ST..hL~LE
3 • T='..zr' FSTA'~' OR LET R TO ~W~ ZS AT I1ATE OF POLICY Vr
..STF..)* IN:
VALL~°Y-::I D,.t'Vr,_„pP~(~,T TRUST, A C07ARAD0 GENERAL PARTI~RSHIn
4. TF*~ LAND R~*~E'R,Ra TO I:4 THIS POLICY IS DESCRIBEp AS FOLLOWS:
)~.FecE REF'F_'R TO ElffiIBIT "A" ATTACf~p F~ZL'10 AND MADE A PART H~EOF
fq!
Ca~mter ,L. ` ,
ized Agent
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE. INC,
601 E. HOPKINS AVE.
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
(303) 925-1766
'-":i° POLICY NUM2~R SHOFIId ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGRW WITH THE PREPRINTE7 NUMEER ON ZFD;
COVER SE~ET.
I
~~ ~w umo m U.S.A.
~~00-0617/2
~` awyers~itle
jnsurance Crporation
NATIONALHEADOUARTERS
pICHMOND, VIflGIN1A
p_,plDOggII•g21'P FOFS7 110.1
ATTACFID TO AND MADE A PART OF LAWY~-~ TZTLE INSTANCE ~~~TION N0. 85-O1-09T393
The aforementioned policy is hereby a,twnAor3 by deleting paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 Of
Schedule B, E~cceptions.
f This endo*'=°^1°^t is made a part of the policy or com<itment and is subject to all the
terms and provisions tt~.ereof and of anY Prior t~dorseaents thereto. Except to the extent
e~mressly stated, it neither modifies any of the terms and provisions of the Policy or
commitment and prior endorsements, if any, nor does extend the effective date of the
policy or commitment and Prior pn,inrsements or increase the face amplIIlt thereof.
IN WITNESS ~.4FAF, the Canpany has caused this Endorsement to be signed and sealed and
JJ to be valid when cotmtersic~ed by an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in
accordance with its By-I,avs.
ZSSU°...D AT PITi@I COIJ! T T~.E Ol E. F?UPIQNS AVE• , ASPEEr1, COI~RADO 61611
rr
1 COUNTE.4SIQ~D
J A~RZ OR AGENT
DATED:OT/25/86 C 12:33 P.M.
tant~nltm~
m 100 Litfto in U.S.A.
~.1}tOp-0041/2
~~
DAVID 1. MYLER
I SANDRA M. STULLER
ALAN E. SCHWARTZ
i.
MYLER, STULLER & SCHWA Z
ATTORNEYS AT LA1V
EXHIBIT 3
106 5. MILL STREET, SURE 202
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(307) 920-IOIS
FA:( 920-7:59
CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor William Stirling and Aspen City Council
FROM: Alan Schwartz
i DATE: April 10, 1990
RE: Final Terms of Valley-Hi Settlement
I
INTRODUCTION
i At your executive session of April 3, 1990, cae reviewed the
i proposed terms of settlement in the Valley-Hi matter. All of the
negotiating points which you raised at that time have since been
i resolved in your favor, after discussions with Valley-Hi
respresentatives, as follocas:
I. Terms of Settlement
{~~~ A. Densit
y (FAR) limited to 1.1:1 (appro:;. 15,000 sq. ft.)
(1) 4 ;; 3 bedroom free-market units
@ 3,000 sq. ft. = 12,000 sq. ft.
(2) 4 x 2 bedroom affordable units
) @ 750 sq. ft. (minimum) = 3,000 sq. ft.
.J Total 15,000 sq. ft.
J B• 508 of e;:istirg FAR (9,500 sq. ft.) and 50°, of existing
bedrooms (11) devoted to affordable housing/cash-in-lieu as
follows:
(1) 8 bedrooms on-site
(2) $45,000 cash-in-lieu for 3 bedrooms eff-site
C. Units to be deed restricted as follows:
(1) For sale purposes:
3 middle income ($93,000 @ 750 sq. ft. x $124 per ft.)
1 moderate income ($72,750 @ 750 sq. ft, x $97 per ft.)
(Z) Por rental purposes:
1 All moderate income ($667.50 max. rent per month @ 750
sq. ft. x $,89 per ft. per mo::th)
_~
~awyers~jitl~
nsurance Crporation
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
EXHIBIT "A"
'~^S 3 AND I IN 3LOC{ 25. LYING `RI?`.'~-I:S i?-~ EAS? A~'~~N A'JDi?IC.': :'0
"' E C_Ti' A?+D ?047N52?E 0? AS?EN, according to the P'_at .: erect recorde_
as Docus•er.t ?Jo. 108453 _^ Ditch Sock 2A a: ?ace 252 of t?:e recc.-ds f=_
Pitkin County. tocether'.rith a tract of land s_tuated Sn the East Aspen
?ownsite described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest Corner of Lct
S, Block 25, EAST P.SPEN ADDI?IONAL ?OWI~SI?E, as sho~:1 oa *.he reccrded
Plat "-er°ef: «?:e.^.:e Ncr±`: 14°50'49" East :00 feet a?cZq t`e West 1_-e
cf Lo*. S, the::ce Seth ?~° 09' = " Ea=`
of Lo*, 5 *_o tY.e ?Iorthw~st Corner '?
?35.32 feet; hence South 14°50'49" West 100 feet; *_?:ence ?Icr`_h 5
09'11" West 13`.39 feet to the point of beg_r...^.iay. t:~"D A tract .f lard
1_yir.3 Nort::erly cf Lot S. said Block 26, aad Let E, 31eck 25 cf sa:3
East Aspen Ad3_t'_cr.al .ow^site, and that tract of lz^d sccetlses
referred to as C_erela•*s3 Street lying Northerly of *.he Sou*_h Half of
said'Blocks 25 and 25, all of which is shown upon Plat recorded as
Document No. 108453 in Ditch Book 2A at Page 252 of the records for
Pitkin County, Colorado, and being situate in the East Aspen Addition
to the City of Aspen. COtTNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
F rm 100 LINO In U.SA
~5-0-100-OMt/2 __..__ _.___---~__-_____.-._____. _._ _-
_.
~~
I ~ ~u~yers itle ~;
j urance Crporation
1~ NATIONALHEADOUARTERS
RICHMOND, VIgGINIA
E I SCH~iJLE B-ODd'~ER.S
CASE NUMBER DATE OF POLICY
PLT-2237 07/25/88 a 12:33 P.M. POLICY NC>rffiER
tl 85-01-097393
I T•`~S POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST LASS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF 1?~ EbLT,047ING:
1 • Rights or claims of parties in ~ ----•i~ not shown
al 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown ~' the public records.
3. Disc_^epancies, conflicts in ~' ~ ~lic records.
facts which a correct ~ lines, shortage in area, a'icroactmtents, and any
t~ are not sham survey and inspection of the premises twlald disclose and c.~ich
p by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereto-
after fu^nished, imposed by law and not sham by the public records.
~~ 5. Unpatented mining claims, reservations or exceptions is patents or in Acts authoriz-
~.g the =sst:ar-ce thereof: water rights, claims or title to water.
6. =aces for the year 1988 not yet due or payable.
I 7. '.light of way for ditches or canals constructed by the authority of the United
States, as reserved in United States Patent recorded in gook 185 at Page 69.
°1 8. Deed of Trust from 1000 E. Hopkins Partnership, a Colorado General Partnership
~d to the Public 2:-ustee of the County of Pitkin
for the use of Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company
to secure 5472,500.00
~~ dated April 15, 1988
~0~~ Arn•il 15, 1988 in gook 561 at Page 316
~~ reception ro. 299209
9. ginancing Statement from Valley-Hi develo~ent, debtors to 1000 East Hopkins
) Partnership, A Colorado general partnership, secured ~,~,~ filed July 25,1988 in
II gook 569 at Page 364, as Filing No. 11767.
10. Deed of Trust from VALLEY-:~ DES7EL,OPMENT TRUST, A COLORADO GENERAL PARTNE,q~p
l1 to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County
ll torseeure of 100 EAST HOPKII•IS PARINER.gD:p, A COLORADO GEH~TtAL pp,RTr,>E~i1P
$650,000.00
T ~t~ : JULY 25, 1988
l ~o~~ : JULY 25, 1988 IN BOOK 569 AT PAG° 350.
reception no. 302326
`f
1,
EKCE°2'IONS NUMBERED NONE ARE HEREBY CNSTTED.
".
m t00 Lrtfta in U.S.A.
-4-t00-OOat/2
.~
Parking Gai
Employee
~~ /
MgSTEfl BEg100M MFSTEN BEDNOOM
DEDBDOM BEMOOM 1
DXE IHG BPTN n ICI BGTM /y11'~E\'~DBEBSING
L f Bs1H
BEDflDOM
I C'.N
~~,
BEDflODM
'.' ~/~ ..
I
HOPKINS AVE.
g
9r
N
m
~ i i -y
'~~ ~_ ~'
.m_
~~
J ~
~` ~
a
0
0
LJ..
r
O
C
C ~
~ J~
~~
0
~I
I
'J
o ~
H
n
Z
__ _ ~
.
~
~
a
T T ~
~ G V
~ W s
C
Y ~
V
O ~
Y L
r
u
r
H a
E
cc
n ~ ~
1
a
... -,
c
M ... .,
~ c g
-
~
;>, >
_
~ ;a
i - ~ ~ H
C H ~ C
"-
C
A
~ m
n
o
v
E~ i
.
c
d py
N
N
W
C
..,
EXHIBIT 4
April 24, 1989
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Dear Mr. Richman:
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann
of Vann Associates, Inc. to represent the Valley Hi Devel-
opment Trust in the processing of our application for
I subdivision/stream margin review approval. Mr. Vann is
hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all
matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned appli-
cation.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any
further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our
attorney, Richard Y. Neiley at 925-9393.
Sincerely,
VALLEY HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST
.5.
~ ~
I
i
1
I
,~;~
l
1
1
~,
APPENDIX B
C
~.
I February 22, 1988
Vann & Associates
P. 0. Box 8485
Aspen, Colorado 81612
PEN
eet
611
EXHIBIT 1
Dear Sunny:
j This letter is to confirm our conversation of February 22,
1988 regarding 1000 E. Hopkins Townhouses.
1 It is my understanding that you intend to raze the existing
apartment building, located at the above address; and in its
place construct six two-bedroom townhouses.
This letter is to assure you that water is available from the
existing main located in E. Hopkins Street, and you may elect
to use the existing service line should the service line be
adequate for your needs. Please be advised that separate
and distinct shut-off valves will be required should the units
be under separate ownership. However, if a condominium associa-
tion is formed to manage the common elements; then a community
shut-off valve with a common meter may be used as long as
there is one entity to deal with.
incereli
'~ .
I awes M r alunas
irector, Aspen Water Department
JM:mlg
cc: Planning Board
___ __
,.-,
,-`1.
EXHIBIT 2
I
f
1
f
1
J
..
.~
-1
1
.::pen consolidated Sanitation I~istvict
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601 Tele. 1303) 925-2537
February 25,1988
Vann Associat a
P. 0. Box 8485
Aspen, Colorado 81612
RE': 1,000 Eas Hopkins Townhouses
This letter is-: to verify that the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
has adequate _-lant capacity and line capacity to serve the proposed 6
multi-family.nits that are replacing the former 19 Valley-Hi apartments
at this site.
Sincerely
D l„"_
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
,-.
ASPEN*PITY" " REGIONAL BUILDING n ARTMENT
hoe Eat M.ii Str..e ~ n.pan, Colar~do e~e~t ao~see-6s'~3
BUILDING INSPECTION CHECK LIST EXHIBIT 3
Inspection ~ Reinspection Partial Complete Permit Na
STEEL ELECTRIC PLUMBING MECHANICAL BUILDING
Footings Temp Underground Rough R-Frame _
Caissons Underground Waste&Vent Flue Insut _
Wall Swim Pool Water Pipe F. P. Flue Drywall
Struct Slabs Rough Gas Glass Door Special _
Damp Proof Service Final Combust Air Mobile Home
Foun InsuL Final Fire Final Final
Sprinklers
Found Drain Air Cond Zoning
.
Wall Cores FIRE LIFE B SAFETY Kitch Hood
Accepted Rejected Reinspection Fee $30.00 Ves No ~ No. Bdrms.
(You are ordered to make the following corrections on the construction which is now in progress at the address below)
Instructions to Inspector
~ Kitchen-Tub-Shower_Lav._W.C._Ice_W.Bar_Tub/Shower_Jacuzzi_
' Bidet- Hose Bib_ Laundry- Clothes Washer- Hot Tub_ D.W._ Jacuzzi w/Shower
City County Time of Arrival Time of Departure
~ . r~r~lfll~; ti
Address_~~bd 1!. Phone Job Office
Subdivision Request Recd
Date Time
` Contractor Request for. M T W TH F A.t~l. P.M. Time:
J 1 ~ ,r
Owner ~,;;~^-~ C r/v` Z ~- Date Insp ~-' I `~A Inspector ~--'-~ "' ' ~~Cctir."`
Rev. 7/87
Indepentlence Press, Inc.
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 1000 EAST HOPRINS SUBDIVISION, CONCEPTUAL PUD, GMQS
EXEMPTION AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday,~December 4, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an
application submitted by Valley Hi Development Trust requesting
approval of Subdivision, Conceptual PUD, GMQS Exemption and
Stream Margin Review for the property located at 1000 East
Hopkins Avenue, Aspen. The applicant proposes a multi-family
structure consisting of 4 free market units and 4 affordable
housing units on the site of the existing Valley Hi apartments.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5090.
s/C. Welton Anderson. Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Published in The Aspen Times on November 22, 1990.
City of Aspen Account.
~,~~ ~
MEMORANDIIM
TO: Rim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Yvonne Blocker, Administration Manager, Housing
DATE: November 9, 1990
RE: 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses Subdivision/PIID, and GMQ3
Exemption
SUMMARY: Applicant requests subdivision/PUD approval for the
development of the 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses for eight (8)
multi-family residential project to be developed on the site of the
existing Valley Hi apartment complex. GMQS Exemption is requested
for the re-development of four (4) of the existing Valley Hi units
for affordable housing.
APPLICANT: Valley Hi Development Trust, a Colorado general
partnership.
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann, Vann & Associates, Inc.
LOCATION: 1000 East Hopkins
Lots K and S, Blocks 25 and 26, LOts H, I and A,
Blocks 25 and 26 plus remainder of vacated Cleveland
Street.
ZONING: Parcel 1, R/MF 13,532 sq. ft.
Parcel 2, R-15, 4,485 sq. ft.
REQUEST: Applicant proposes to demolish the existing Valley Hi
apartments which contain an existing three two-bedroom units, ten
one-bedroom units, and six studios. Proposed replacement will be
four three-bedroom free market units .and four two-bedroom
affordable housing units.
Included in this submission as an Agreement drafted by Alan
Schwartz of Myler, Stuller, and Schwartz dated April 10, 1990 which
allows the following:
1. Density be limited to 1.1:1 (approximately 15,000 sq.ft.)
2. Development of four three-bedroom free market units @ 3,000
sq.ft.each.
3. Replacement of four two-bedroom affordable housing units @ 750
sq.ft.each.
4. 50% of existing FAR (4,500 sq.ft.) and 50% of bedrooms (11)
devoted to affordable housing/cash-in-lieu as follows:
a. 8 bedrooms on-site.
b. $45,000 cash-in-lieu for 3 bedrooms off-site.
c. Units to be deed restricted as follows:
1. For sale purposes:
a. 3 middle income (93,000 @ 750 sq.ft. x
$124/sq.ft.)
b. 1 moderate income ($72,750 @ 750 sq.ft. x
$97/sq.ft.)
2. For rental purposes:
All moderate income ($667.50 max. rent/month @
$.89/sq.ft)
d. Additional restrictions:
1. All units separately condominiumized.
2. Owners reserve right to rent or sell to purchasers
of free market units, and then to qualified
purchasers from the Housing Authority.
3. All rentals are subject to terms of standard Housing
Authority operating agreement, specifically
including requirements that rental/affordable units
be rented at all times to qualified tenants.
4. Cap on common maintenance assessments for affordable
units (exact terms to be decided).
5. Parking provided to be one space per affordable
housing unit for a total of four spaces.
The demolition and replacement of housing for this application
shall meet the standards of Section 5-702 and 5-703 of the Aspen
Land Use Code. Section 5-702 establishes that:
" Whenever one or more residential dwelling units in a multi-
family building is demolished...the applicant shall be required to
restrict a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the total number of
units (but in no case more than the number of units demolished)
and twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of bedrooms in
the replacement project as affordable housing. For this section,
a studio shall be counted as a three-quarter (3/4) bedroom."
Section 5-703 of the Aspen City Code requires that, " when the
number of affordable housing units replaced on the site is less
than or equal to fifty percent (50%) of the total number of units
demolished on the site, the replacement units shall be restricted
~~.
~s
to the housing designee's low income and occupancy guidelines."
Section 5-702 requires the replacement of 50% of the existing units
be replaced with affordable housing. There are nineteen existing
units in the Valley Hi Apartments and the applicant is proposing
to develop a total of four units which is twenty-one percent (21%)
replacement. The applicant is required to provide 25% replacement
of the bedrooms and to deed restrict those units as to affordable
housing. Applicant proposes~to provide a total of eight bedrooms
to be deed restricted to affordable housing of the 20.5 existing
bedrooms for a total of thirty-nine percent (39%).
The requirement of Section 5-703 which required that the applicant
provide 50% replacement of the existing units and if the applicant
replaces less than fifty percent (50%) of the existing units the
replacement units shall be deed restricted to low income.
Applicant requested that the four affordable housing units be deed
restricted to moderate income rental guidelines and in the event
these four units are sold that one be deed restricted to moderate
and the other three units be deed restricted to middle income.
Applicant has stated that; the affordable housing units will be
offered for sale to purchasers of the free market units, who in
turn will rent the units to employees qualified by the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority. In the event the units are not sold to
the projects free market owners, the Applicant will offer them for
sale or rent to qualified employees pursuant to Housing Authority
guidelines and the provisions of the settlement agreement."
The 1990 Affordable Employee'Housing Guidelines requirements for
purchase of affordable housing units are as follows:
To be eligible for affordable rental/sale housing a person must be
a resident of Pitkin County, propose to occupy the unit as their
primary resident and meet the following criteria:
A. A person must qualify as follows:
1. an employee
2. a senior
3. a handicapped person
4. a dependent of any of the above as defined by the IRS.
B. Not own residential real estate, or list and sell residential
real estate prior to or simultaneously with closing on the
affordable housing unit (and still meet the asset/income
limitations).
C. Household Income (defined as combined individual income) shall
not exceed the following maximums per year:
Category #1 (Low) $0 - $28,000
Category #2 (moderate) $28,001 - $44,800
Category #3 (moderate) $44,801 - $66,000
Category #4 (middle) $66,081 - $100,000
Net assets shall not exceed $175,000 (category #4), $125,000 for
Category #2 and 3, and $75,000 (category #1)• Gross assets shall
not exceed $200,000 for any category.
The proposal for the free market owners to purchase the affordable
dwelling units can not meet the following requirements:
1. The affordable housing units be occupied as a primary
residence as the free market owners would be occupying either
fulltime or parttime their free market units.
2. Free market owners can not own residential real estate.
3. Free market owners may or may not be employees, seniors,
handicapped, or dependents o£ any of the aforementioned in Pitkin
County.
4. Free market owners shall not exceed $100,000 (middle) in
income and net assets of $175,000 for al individual employee
occupants of the affordable unit.
Applicant has stated that; " in the event the affordable housings
units are rented, all four (4) units will be deed restricted to the
Housing Authority's moderate income guidelines. If the units are
sold, one (1) unit will be restricted to moderate income guidelines
while the three (3) remaining units will be restricted to the
Housing Authority's middle income guidelines."
The 1990 Affordable Housing Guidelines require the following net
livable square footage be developed for two bedroom units for the
approval of rental/sale terms of the guidelines:
Category #1 (low) 650-850 sq. ft.
Category #2 and 3 (moderate) 851-1,000
Category #4 (middle) 1,001-1,300
The applicant has proposed to,provide four 750 sq. ft. two bedrooms
unit which would be approved for low income occupancy, price,
income, and asset qualifications. If applicant proposes to index
these four units to either moderate or middle income rental/sale
qualifications these units would need to meet the Category #2 and
3 or Category #4 net livable square foot ranges for development.
Applicant has stated that; " fifty percent (500) of the existing
bedrooms lost to demolition are to be replaced. Eight (8)
affordable housing bedrooms will be reconstructed on-site with an
additional three (3) bedrooms provided via cash-in-lieu payment."
The applicant has proposed to provide a $45,000 cash-in-lieu
payment for the replacement of the three bedrooms.
Section 5-703 requires that when less than fifty percent (50~) of
.~.
.%
the units will be replaced that the replacement units shall be
restricted to the housing designee's low income guidelines.
The applicant would be required to make a cash-in-lieu payment of
$183,750 for 5.25 low income employees.
3 bedrooms x 1.75 employees x $35,000 = $183,750
The proposed development has been designed in compliance with the
dimensional requirements of the R/MF zone which requires the for
multi-family dwelling on a lot of 27,00 sq.ft. or less, when at
least fifty percent (50~) of the units built on-site are restricted
as affordable housing that two bedroom units are to be 1,000 sq.
ft.
Applicant proposes to develop on two parcels which contain a total
of 18,120 sq. ft. a total of •f our three-bedroom free market units
to contain 3,345 sq. ft. each and four two-bedroom deed restricted
750 sq. ft. units each for a total of 14,880 sq.ft. net livable
area.
Housing would request that applicant reduce the size of the four
free market three-bedroom units to 2,270 sq. ft. each to meet the
required net livable sq. ft. of two bedroom affordable units in the
R/MF zone. The expansion of the two bedroom units from 750 sq. ft
to 1,000 sq. ft. .would accomplish the request by applicant to rent
these affordable housing units at the moderate income rental/sale
guidelines.
Applicant has requested that the four (4) affordable housing units
proposed for construction on the property be exempt pursuant to
Section 8-104(C)(1)(c) which requires that all housing deed
restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines of the City
Council and its housing designee. The review procedure requires
that the exemption shall be approved pursuant to the determination
of the City's need for such housing, considering the proposed
development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the number
of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of dwelling
units proposed, specifically regarding the number of bedrooms in
each unit, the rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the
proposed price categories to which the dwelling units are to be
deed restricted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recognizes that a settlement was
drafted and approved by the City of Aspen for the re-development
of 1000 East Hopkins. Staff would hope that consideration be given
as to the approval of this project for GMQS exemption pursuant to
Section 8-104(C)(1)(c) to meet the following conditions required
by the city's housing designee:
1. The affordable housing units be sold to qualified moderate
income employees in Pitkin County as defined by the guidelines in
effect at time of sale of units.
2. Applicant be required to pay for 5.25 low income employees
indexed to guidelines in effect prior to issuance of any building
permits for the proposed development which at present would
constitute a payment-in-lieu of $183,750.
3. Applicant be required to reduce the sq. footage of the four
(4) three-bedroom free market units to contain 2,720 sq,. ft. and
be required to develop the 'four two-bedroom affordable housing
units to contain 1,000 net livable square feet each to met
requirements of the R/MF zone district and the 1990 Affordable
Housing Guidelines for development of two bedroom moderate income
affordable housing units.
MEMORANDUM IVUV + 3 •`, ..
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DATE:~November 7, 1990::
RE: 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD, Stream
Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption
Having Reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. The 4,740 square feet of proposed open space is adequate
pursuant to requirements in Chapter 24, Article 5-206 D. of
Municipal Code.
2. The applicant is proposing 12 off-street parking spaces which
is pursuant to the provisions of the settlement agreement between
the City and Valley-Hi. The proposed spaces are to be provided
in a subgrade garage. The Engineering Department requests a
condition of approval that the driveway entry to this garage must
not have a grade of more than 12$ for a distance of 20 feet from
the property line (A code amendment for this driveway slope is
scheduled for first reading on November 26).
3. The applicant has proposed to grant an easement for the
existing trail which parallels the river. The Engineering
Department requires that this easement be 15 feet in width and
recommends that the north boundary of this easement coincide with
the 100 year floodplain boundary.
4. The Engineering Department confirms that, pursuant to Chapter
24, Article 7-1004 C. (4), this development will not be located
in a natural hazard area.
5. Chapter 24, Article 7-1004 C. (5) requires that the proposed
development will not place an additional demand on public
facilities and the Engineering Department is satisfied that this
development will not.
6. The applicant will need to get an excavation permit from the
Streets Department for the sidewalk, curb and gutter he has
proposed to place and for any other work in the public right-of-
way.
7. The Engineering Department recommends that applicant grant a
fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River and for a width of
5 feet from the high water line along the bank of the river.
8. The applicant must agree to join a Special Improvement
District if one is ever formed.
9. Code requires that the final plat be submitted
by Council and this plat must be reviewed by
Department before this application is scheduled
Council.
jg/1000EHOP
prior to review
the Engineering
for review by
cc: Chuck Roth
.{aspen consolidated sanitation I~istvict
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601 Tele. (303) 925-2537
October 30. 1990
Kim Johnson
Planning Office
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen. GO 81611
Re: 1000 East Hopkins Subdivision
Dear Kim:
We have sufficient treatment capacity to serve this project at
this time. however, the adjacent segment of the collection system
that the project will tie into will need to be replaced by the
applicant prior connection. This involves approximately 400' of
12TM vitrified clay line. We estimate the cost of this replacement
to be approximately $20,000 which will be added to the
applicant's connection fees. The applicant must provide an access
right of way for a 30,000# vehicle for line maintenance.
The below grade parking garage must be equipped with an oil and
sand interceptor and must be designed in a manner that excludes
surface water run-off. All on-site surface water run-off problems
must be excluded from the sanitary sewer.
Sincerely,
Hruce Motherly
District Manager
cc: Sunny Vann, Vann Associates
A.J. Zabbia. Leonard Rice & Assoc.
~,,.
ASPEN/PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
October 18, 1990
Sunny Vann
Vann & Associates
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses
Dear Sunny,
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that this application is complete. As I mentioned in
our phone conversation today, we would like 2 additional
applications for referral purposes. and 2 sets of full size
drawings. An additional fee of $140.00 for Housing referral is
also requested.
We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing on Tuesday,
December 4, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. The Friday
before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy
of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the
Planning Office.
Please note that it is your responsibility to post the subject
property with a sign for the public hearing and mail notice to
property owners within 300'.
If you have any questions, please call Kim Johnson, the planner
assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
cc: Rick Neiley
~Z `t
~~
Aspen/Pi
130
aspe
ng Office
greet
1611
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Water Department
Electric Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Parks Department
Fire Marshal
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
~~ 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD,
Stream Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption
DATE: October 18, 1990
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Valley Hi Development Trust requesting Subdivision/PUD, Stream
Margin and Growth Management Exemption approval for 1000 East
Hopkins Townhouses.
Please return your comments to me no later than November 9, 1990.
Thanks.
'V ~/ IU/ /~/Q~
Aspen/Pig
130 !
aspe
ng Office
reet
1611
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Water Department
Electric Department
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Parks Department
Fire Marshal
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
~~ 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Townhouses Subdivision/PUD,
Stream Margin Review and Growth Management Exemption
DATE: October 18, 1990
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Valley Hi Development Trust requesting Subdivision/PUD, Stream
Margin and Growth Management Exemption approval for 1000 East
Hopkins Townhouses.
Please return your comments to me no later than November 9, 1990.
Thanks.
\ U-
CASELC SIIFII4ARY SHEET
C1ty of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED. r'1~~~ PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE•_~_ 2737-182-01-003 A60-90
STAFF MEMBER'
PROJECT. NAME: 1000 East Hopkins Townhouses.Subdiv./PUD/Stream
Project Address: Lots A H I.R&S, B1ocKS 25 & 26
Legal Address: 1000 East Hopkins, Aspen, Co. '~
APPLICANT: Valley Hi Development Trust
Applicant Address:c/o Richard Y. Neilev, 201 N.Mi11,Aspen, co .S- 9393
.Su.n.~.; l/a ~r~
REPRESENTATIVE:
Representative Address/Phone:
(3031 925-6958
1 ~b
1~~~
PAID: YSS X NO AMOIINT: S820.00
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: _
P&Z Meeting Date p~~ ~/ ~{ ~ PIIBLIC
ESTED
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC
VESTED
NO. OF COPIES RECE~I/V'E~D: 8
2 STEP: `~
HEARING: YES NO C{~~/1; C~~J "
+U ~
RIGHTS: YES NO 1
RRAR777G: - YES NO
RIGHTS' YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
REF
City .Attorney -~ Mtn. Bell School District
'ty Engineer ~/ Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
using Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water Fire Marshal State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Building Inspector
Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork ~ Others-~{~(.
_j~ Aspen Con.S.D. Energy Center /'1
J v ~ ~. ~ ~
DATE REFERRED: / ~ /~ ?`~ % t`~ INITIALS
FINAL ROUTING:
_ City Atty ~ City Engineer
Housing Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:--~
DATE ROUTED
Zoning Env. Heal
(3rll D, aC%
'{fie 'mow
GnadS F~e,,.,f
G~~ _%`