Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1000 E Hopkins Ave.A61-94 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 08/12/94 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2737-182-01-003 A61-94 STAFF MEMBER: -Et Nl L PROJECT NAME: Valley-Hi Apartments Extension of Vested Rights Project Address: 1000 East Hopkins Legal Address: APPLICANT: Valley-Hi Development Trust Applicant Address: 215 S. Monarch, Aspen, REPRESENTATIVE: Rick Neilev 925-9393 Representative Address/Phone: 201 1pN. Mill,lo 81611 FEES: PLANNING $ 978 # RECEIVED 7 7 ENGINEER $ HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ 978 TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL:_ 1 STEP: X 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES 0 VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date B , PUBLIC HEARING: NO 1, 2, 3 VESTED RIGHTS: ES NO DRC Meeting Date REFERRALS: School District X/ City Attorney Parks Dept. City Engineer )C Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas 1C Housing Dir. Fire Marshal CDOT Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board City Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board Envir.Hlth. ACSD Other 1 ` Zoning Energy Center other DATE REFERRED: ' , INITIALS: DUE: T INITIAL: li`'- FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: I1 ' _ City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing — Open Space Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum,, City Manager THRU: Stan Clausonf4dmmunity Development Director FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director DATE: November 14, 1994 RE: Valley Hi Vested Rights Extension - Second Reading Ordinance 60, Series of 1994 SUMMARY: The owners of the Valley Hi apartments, 1000 East Hopkins Avenue, have requested an extension of vested rights status. Vested Rights will expire June 15, 1995 and the applicants have requested a two year extension through June 15, 1997. Staff recommends denial of the vested rights extension. Council approved Ordinance 60, Series of 1994 at first reading to advance the applicant' s request to second reading and the public hearing. At first reading, Council requested a report from the Chief Building Official regarding building improvements and the condition of the building. Council also requested staff to provide development scenarios if the property is developed pursuant to the site specific development plan or pursuant to current code requirements. In addition, the Fire Marshal has prepared a response to the request for a vested rights extension. Please find staff ' s summary to these reports and the development analysis under Staff Comments (1) & (2) . The reports from the Building Official and Fire Marshal are attached as Exhibit A. Staff ' s development analysis is attached as Exhibit B. APPLICANT: Valley-Hi Development Trust, represented by Rick Neiley, Jr. LOCATION: 1000 East Hopkins, Aspen ZONING: Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) BACKGROUND: The Valley Hi is a nineteen unit, free market, apartment building housing approximately 60 working residents. In June of 1991, the Trust was granted subdivision approval for a site specific development plan. The property was to be demolished and rebuilt as a multi-family building containing four free-market units and four deed restricted units, a twelve car garage and $45, 000 cash-in-lieu payment for 3 deed restricted bedrooms that were not to be built on-site. This redevelopment plan was created and approved as part of a lawsuit settlement between the City and the Valley Hi Trust. The site specific development plan was adopted in June, 1991, pursuant to Ordinance 8, Series of 1991. The Ordinance also granted vested rights for a period of three years. Please see Ordinance 8 approving the subdivision, Exhibit C. Vested rights status was to expire on June 15, 1994 . However, in 1992 , the applicants requested an extension for an additional 2 years to June 15, 1996. Council, however, became concerned as to the condition of the building and alleged unsafe living conditions. As a condition for a vested rights extension, the applicant agreed to remodel and repair substantial portions of the building. Council only extended the vested rights for one additional year (to June 15, 1995) suggesting that the applicant should seek an additional one-year extension from Council the following year. Having to reapply for an extension would enable the applicant to confirm for Council the implementation of a management and maintenance plan for the building and that the required repairs were in fact completed as per the condition of the vested rights extension. Please see Ordinance 57 extending the vested rights and the minutes of the Council meeting, Exhibit D. Based upon the Building Department's inspection and recommendations for upgrades of the building, the applicant states that they spent approximately $120, 000 toward improvements on the property between 1992 and 1993 . Please see attached application for a detailed history of Council 's review of the project, Exhibit E. Please note that the applicant was compelled to improve the building in 1992 and 1993 as a condition of the extension of vested rights to June 15, 1995. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Valley Hi Trust requests an extension of vested rights status for the site specific development plan that was approved in 1991. The extension request is for 2 additional years. Currently vested rights will expire June 15, 1995. The extension request will preserve the vested rights until June 15, 1997 . STAFF COMMENTS: There are many issues surrounding the current apartment complex and the vested rights extension request. Although this memo and recommendation will focus primarily on the Land Use Code aspects of the application, staff will also briefly outline the other issues. 2 1) Maintenance of Building The current maintenance of the building is also a concern expressed by neighbors and in fact was an item of discussion at Council during the last vested rights extension hearings. When Council granted vested rights extension in 1992 , Council required the upgrades on the building and the implementation of a building maintenance and management plan. In addition, Council only granted a one year extension inviting the applicants to seek another extension once the upgrades were completed and, according to the minutes, Councilman Peters wanted a performance record established. Councilwoman Pendleton agreed that she would rather wait and look at another extension in another year. According to the applicants, approximately $120, 000 was spent between 1992 and 1993 to make improvements and repairs on the building. The applicant has also indicated that a management company has been hired to maintain the building on an on-going basis and to enforce occupancy guidelines. Both the Building Official and Fire Marshal have recently submitted reports about the Valley Hi apartment complex. Mr. Lyman has inspected the site and found that all the improvements that were required in 1992 were completed and are still intact. There are some minor repairs that need to be made and Mr. Lyman expected those to be done shortly. Mr. Van Walraven had worked with the Valley Hi two years ago with regard to the installation of a fire alarm system. Two years ago the Fire Marshal was under the impression that the buildings were going to be demolished and the system requirement was waived. Mr. Van Walraven is now concerned that the buildings have been occupied for two years without an alarm system. He has informed the applicants that if the buildings are going to remain occupied beyond June 1995 (the date vested rights expires) an alarm system shall be installed. Staff would add a recommended condition that if Council grants an extension of vested rights status beyond June 1995, then an alarm system shall be installed in the Valley Hi within 60 days of extension approval, unless amended by the Fire Marshal. 2) Development Analysis The applicants have claimed that if an extension is denied, redevelopment will occur in June, 1995 and the 60 residents will be displaced with the redevelopment. The applicants have also indicated that if the vested rights are extended, then redevelopment may be delayed until 1997 . There are many circumstances that are considered before redevelopment is to occur. 3 If the vested rights are not extended and redevelopment were to occur after the vested rights have lapsed, then any new development would be required to comply with the current zone district regulations in effect at the time of redevelopment. Staff is in the process of developing numerous changes to the Land Use Code based upon the Temporary Overlay and the outcome of the Aspen Design Symposium. The Aspen Area Community Plan was adopted after site specific development plan approval in 1991. The Plan has many recommendations that could be applied to the redevelopment of the Valley Hi such as: * encourage infill development so more employees will live near their work; * develop small scale resident housing which fits the character of the community and is interspersed with free market housing throughout the Aspen Area; * encourage purchase of existing structures to preserve them for resident housing to discourage displacement; and * ensure the development of single-family style housing. The site specific development plan approved four free market dwellings units and four fully deed restricted units. The deed restricted units are two bedroom, 750 square foot units totaling 3 , 000 square feet on the river's side of the parcel. One of the deed restricted units will be category 3 and three of the units will be category 4 . A cash-in-lieu payment of $45, 000 was also approved to mitigate 3 deed restricted bedrooms that could not fit on-site. According to the applicant, the approved site plan was attempting to approximate the draft Ordinance 1 guidelines for replacement housing on site. The primary difference between the approved plan and the adopted Ordinance 1 is replacement housing for multi- family development. Ordinance 1 does not allow an applicant to "cash out" of the housing requirement. All replacement housing, which must equal 50% of the existing square footage and 50% of the bedrooms, must be rebuilt on-site. Thus, if the property were to be redeveloped based upon current Housing Replacement requirements, an additional three bedrooms would have to be built on-site for a total area of approximately 4750 square feet of deed restricted living space. In addition, the cash-in-lieu payment schedule has significantly increased since 1991. If Council were to approve cash-in-lieu for the three bedrooms that could not be accommodated on-site, $102 , 000 would be the 1994 cash-in-lieu payment for three employees at category 3 guidelines. 4 3) Criminal Activity In anticipation of the request to extend vested rights, several neighbors of the Valley Hi parcel have called to express concern with regard to criminal activity and the condition of the building. Staff has fielded several phone calls but no letters have been submitted for staff 's file. Staff understands that letters have been received by Council regarding this matter. In any event, staff does not believe that the issue of criminal activity on the Valley Hi parcel is an appropriate land use consideration for this extension request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request to extend the vested rights status of the Valley Hi site specific development plan. This recommendation is based on the finding that new development should comply with changes in the Aspen Land Use Code in order for new development to be consistent with new land use regulations, polices, and visions of the community. For example, the Housing Replacement Program, which affects the demolition of multi-family development, has been adopted since the Valley Hi settlement/subdivision approval, the cash-in-lieu fee for affordable housing has been substantially revised since June of 1991, the Aspen Area Community Plan has been adopted which recommends significant changes to the general housing programs for the community, and the Aspen Design Symposium recommendations suggest several changes to the Land Use Code including a reduction in allowed floor area ratios. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Council may find that the applicant has complied with the conditions of the approval granted in the 1992 extension request and may consider an additional one-year extension as was suggested by Council during their 1992 extension review. If Council votes to extend the vested rights status for the Valley Hi, staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. The extension of vested rights shall be for one year to June 15, 1996. 2 . The applicant shall install a fire alarm system, as per the requirements of the Fire Marshal, within 60 days of the adoption of Ordinance 60, Series of 1994 . 3 . The applicant shall maintain the property in an orderly fashion and all rubbish and refuse shall be removed in a timely manner. 4 . The applicant shall complete the minor building repairs identified by the Chief Building Official on October 10, 1994 , to 5 the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official, within 20 days of adoption of Ordinance 60, Series of 1994 . 5. Failure to abide by any of the above conditions of approval shall be cause for City Council to review vested rights status and revoke the extension granted by Ordinance 60, Series of 1994 . RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to deny the request for an extension of vested rights for 1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. " CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Ordinance 60, Series of 1994 EXHIBITS: A. Chief Building Official and Fire Marshall Reports B. Staff Development Analysis C. Ordinance 8, Series of 1991 D. Ordinance 57, Series of 1992 Council Minutes November 9 , 1992 E. 1994 Application F. Applicant Follow-up Letters 6 ORDINANCE 60 (SERIES OF 1994) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 8, SERIES OF 1991 FOR THE SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR THE 1000 EAST HOPKINS PARCEL, THE VALLEY-HI APARTMENTS, LOTS A, H, I, K, 8 S BLOCKS 25 AND 26 PLUS THE REMAINDER OF VACATED CLEVELAND STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council may grant an extension of vested rights status for a site specific development plan; and WHEREAS, in June of 1991, City Council adopted Ordinance 8, Series of 1991, approving the redevelopment of the Valley-Hi property and granting vested rights status for three years from the approved date of said Ordinance; and WHEREAS, in November of 1992, City Council granted a one year extension of the vested rights status for the Valley-Hi site specific development plan thereby extending the vested rights to June 15, 1995 (Ordinance No. 57, Series of 1992) ; and WHEREAS, as a condition of granting the vested rights extension, City Council required the applicant to make specific repairs and upgrades of the building and implement a management and maintenance plan for the building; and WHEREAS, Council also recommended that the applicant seek another extension when those upgrades are completed and the applicant can demonstrate to Council that proper management of the building is occurring; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested another vested rights extension for two additional years extending the vested rights to 1 June 15, 1997; and WHEREAS, the City Council, having considered the request for an extension of vested rights and having considered the applicant' s upgrades on the building and their implementation of a maintenance and management plan does wish to grant the requested extension of vested rights for one year beyond the approval granted in Ordinance No. 57, Series of 1992 , for the 1000 E. Hopkins parcel, finding community benefit in the improvements and maintenance of nineteen units of employee housing until said property is redeveloped. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL 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 an additional one (1) year extension for the vested rights approved by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, for the 1000 East Hopkins parcel, with the following conditions: 1. The extension of vested rights shall be for one year to June 15, 1996. 2 . The applicant shall install a fire alarm system, as per the requirements of the Fire Marshal, within 60 days of the adoption of Ordinance 60, Series of 1994 . 3 . The applicant shall maintain the property in an orderly fashion and all rubbish and refuse shall be removed in a timely manner. 4 . The applicant shall complete the minor building repairs identified by the Chief Building Official on October 10, 1994, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official, within 20 days of adoption of Ordinance 60, Series of 1994 . 5. The Valley-Hi Apartments shall be maintained in a clean and orderly condition until such time as they are demolished prior 2 to redevelopment pursuant to Ordinance 8, 1991. 6. The rights granted by the site specific development plan approved by this Ordinance shall remain vested for a total of five (5) years from June 15, 1991, the date of publication of Ordinance No. 8 , Series of 1991. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. 7 . The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review. 8. 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 or the City provided that such reviews or approvals are not inconsistent with the approvals granted and vested herein. 9 . 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 circulations 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 vested property right pursuant to Title 24 , Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following- described property: "1000 East Hopkins, Lots A,H,I,K, and s, Blocks 25 and 26" The property shall be described in the notice and appended to said 3 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 affect 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 , 1994 at 5: 00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published one 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 , 1994 . 4 John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1994 . John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 5 EXHIBIT A MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Council Thru: Amy Margerum, City Manager Thru: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director From: Gary Lyman, Chief Building Official 0-1-- Date: November 14, 1994 Re: Valley Hi In September of 1992 Valley Hi obtained permits to upgrade their building to more acceptable life safety and health standards. Their application included work such as new carpet, paint, drywall repair, installing 16 egress windows, smoke detectors and reroofing. By December all work had been completed and I issued a letter of completion December 9th 1992. In my opinion the buildings were improved to an acceptable standard for existing buildings of this vintage. On Monday October 10, 1994 I was asked by Rick Neiley to do a walk through inspection. During the inspection I found the buildings still at that acceptable standard for buildings of this vintage with the following exceptions: no batteries in any of the smoke detectors except one unit, some plumbing problems in the way of minor leaks and valves that would not shut off, and minor drywall repair needed in a few of the units. In general the buildings showed symptoms of its age and heavy occupancy. For example the plumbing problems are probably due to being worn out by age and high usage. In my opinion a good maintenance effort could easily have effected repairs within a few days of their discovery and therefore should already be done. • ecliecv-b ,g7thk/c71 Ara 411 420 E. HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-2690 Date: November 7, 1994 To: Leslie Lamont, Community Development From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal Subject: Valley-Hi Apartments Leslie, Two years ago (please see attached) Carl Lennecke of the Valley-Hi apartment complex was given a Notice of Order to install an approved fire alarm system. At that time we were informed that the existing structures were being scheduled for demolition shortly. As was our policy at that time remains the same today that when a property is due to be demolished within a short time frame the system requirement is waved. However, in this case the time frame has long since expired and before any approval for extension is given, two criteria must be met. Firstly the installation of an approved fire alarm system. Secondly the property shall be maintained in an orderly fashion and all rubbish and refuse be removed in a timely manner. Both of these requirements are paramount for the life safety of the residents and visitors of the Valley-Hi . On Monday November 7, 1994 I had a conversation with Mr. Lenneke and apprised him of this situation, in the course of our conversation he acknowledged our communication of two years ago and implied that both of these conditions will be rectified. A letter from Mr. Lennecke stating this is forthcoming. If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank You, ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NOTICE OF INSPECTION DATE:9/16/92 BLOCK:L OCCUPANT LOAD: ADDRESS:1000 E. HOPKINS BUS. NAME:VALLEY-HI APTS. /PHONE:925-1040 CITY:ASPEN STATE:CO. ZIP:81611 OWNER OF BUSINESS :PETER COVENTRY /PHONE:925-8363 OWNERS'S ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: OWNER OF BUILDING: /PHONE: OWNER'S ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: EMERGENCY CONTACT PERSONS: 1 . NAME:CARL LENNECKE PHONE:927-3661 2 . NAME:PETER COVENTRY PHONE:925-8363 TYPE OF OCCUPANCY:DWELLING: PUBLIC BLDG. :X SCHOOL: FACTORY: MISC: OBSTRUCTED EXIT: RUBBISH: FIRE ALARM SYS: EXIT LIGHTING: FIRE ESCAPES: PRI. FIRE PROT. : FLAMMABLE LIQUID: EXTINGUISHERS:X FIRE SYS. CHECKED: BUILDING NUMBERS: ELECTRICAL: OTHER: NARRATIVE OF NOTICE: 10.302A UFC. ALL FIRE EXTINGUISHERS SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN AN OPERATIVE CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. CARL LENNECKE AND DOUG BOYLES HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT OF A FIRE ALARM SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED. 9/16/92 COMPLIANCE TIMES: 30 DAYS COMPLIANCE MONTH:SEPT NOTICE GIVEN TO:PETER & CARL WHEN COMPLIED CALL:925-2690 ED VAN WALRAVEN FIRE MARSHAL FIRE INSPECTIOR EXHIBIT B Vested Site Plan Current Regulations 4 Free Market DUs 4 Deed Restricted DUs 31% existing FAR Replaced 50% Replacement Required 3 add. Bedrooms cash-in-lieu 3 add. BR must be on-site $45, 000 in-lieu for 3 BR $102 , 000 in-lieu for 3 BR EXHIBIT C ORDINANCE NO.8 (SERIES OF 1991) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL SUBDIVISION/POD DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, GMQS EXEMPTION, AND VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 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) 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 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 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, pursu'ant to Sections 24-7-1004 D. 2 .b. , 24-7- 1 903 , 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 { 1 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 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: I 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. Section 3: 2 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 Plat. 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 I 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 #2. 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 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 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 public hearing on th3e Ordinance shall be held on the /3 ( day of , , 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of C2Aaje , 1991. William L. Stirling, Mayor A ST: f Kathryn . Roc , City Clerk NALLY, adopted, passed and approved this /� "� day of 1991. William L. tirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S/ Koch, City Clerk jtkvj/1000hop.ord 6 #350764 1 ./16/92 08: 42 Rec $25. 00 BK: 694 PG 467 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 ORDINANCE NO. 57 EXHIBIT 57- (SERIES OF 1992) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 1991 FOR THE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR THE 1000 E. HOPKINS PARCEL (A.K.A. THE VALLEY HI APARTMENTS) , LOTS A,H,I,K,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 C. 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 #350764 11/16/92 08: 42 Rec $25. 00 BK 694 PG 468 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 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 IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL 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 #350764 11/16/92 08: 42 Rec $25. 00 5k: 694 PG 469 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc 3. 00 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 #350764 11/16/92 08: 42 Rec $25. 00 BK 694 PG 470 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc 5. 00 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 f day of 7101W041.44992 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which ) 4 • #350764 11/16/92 08: 422 Rec $25. 00 BK 694 PG 471 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $.00 -) 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 1 the City Council of the City of Aspen on the /3 day of 66. vt.1 , 1992. John �`ennett, Mayor a ts: 4lag-4 3: RaSh . 1Rooth, City Clerk l4 •-;;',,,�� �13�23ALLY adopted, passed and approved this A day of /4070e40404219;2 . Johricelk Bennett, Mayor 1CaSbEyA -icROCh, City Clerk 5 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9 , 1992 4DINANCE #57, SERIES OF 1992 - 1000 E. Hopkins Vested Rights, ,i ` Kim Johnson, planning office, reminded Council this ordinance will extend the vested rights for one year from the original approval to June 1995. Originally Council expressed concern that the property needed substantial repairs before they approved the extended vested rights. Ms. Johnson told Council staff inspected the premises in the last 10 days. The repairs are complete. The memorandum details the upgrade to the property. A maintenance agreement contract has been established with local company. Rick Neiley, representing the applicant, told Council the property .' has received a temporary c/o. There are some issues that have to I be cleared up before a final c/o. The applicants have committed to the creation of a parking plan. Neiley requested the ordinance be amended to create a period effective 4 years from June 10th. The project has been delayed several months, and a large amount of money has been invested in it. Councilman Peters said his inclination is to approve it as written. It would be in the public's interest to grant another extension if applied for next year. A one year extension is appropriate given the history of this project. There should be some performance before the vested rights is extended more. Councilwoman Pendleton agreed she would rather wait and look at another extension next June. Councilwoman Richards agreed. Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Pendleton moved to adopt Ordinance #57, Series of 1992, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Peters. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes. Motion carried. EXHIBIT E VALLEY-HI APARTMENTS 1000 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SECOND APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS Valley-Hi Development Trust c/o Carl B. Linnecke, CPA 215 South Monarch Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Representative: Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. Neiley & Alder 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-9393 INTRODUCTION Valley-Hi Development Trust is the owner of the Valley-Hi Apartments located at 1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611. On June 10, 1991, the Trust was granted subdivision ap- proval for the demolition of existing improvements on the real property and the construction of four free-market and four deed- restricted affordable housing units . The owners now seek a two-year extension of vested rights, through June 15, 1997 . The original development approvals were granted pursuant to Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix I. That Ordinance also granted vested rights pursuant to S6-207 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen and applicable state statutes . Vesting of rights was granted for a period of three years from the effective date of Ordinance No. 8 . The original date of expiration of the development approvals was June 15, 1994 . In 1992, the owners submitted an Application for Extension of Vested Rights, seeking a two-year extension through June 15, 1996 . The basis for this application was two-fold: first, market conditions did not warrant demolition and recon- struction at the time, and second, in order to maintain a safe and habitable property, substantial sums were required to upgrade the nineteen rental apartment units . Following public hearing, the City granted an extension of vested rights for a period of one year. Presently, the owners' development approvals will expire on June 15, 1995. The extension of vested rights was processed as an ordinance. A copy of the extension Ordinance is attached hereto as Appendix II. The Trust has again determined that it does not at the present time wish to demolish the improvements on the real prop- erty. When seeking extension of vested rights in 1992, the owners determined that approximately $65,000.00 in improvements were necessary to upgrade the units to an acceptable level. However, following inspections by the Building Department and the need to address health/safety issues, the extent of remodel was substan- tially increased. Between 1992 and 1993, improvements to the real property totalled approximately $120,000 . 00 . In 1992, when an extension of vested rights was approved, the City Council indicated a willingness to consider further extensions of vested rights following completion of the remodel and implementation of a new maintenance and management program at the property. Both such programs have been implemented. The owners have contracted with Mike's Maintenance, a contracting business owned by Michael Adams of Aspen, Colorado, which provides regular inspections, repairs and maintenance services. The present condi- 1 tion of the building is substantially better than at any time since the owners acquired the property in 1988 . Anew leasing program has been implemented and is managed by Carl B. Linnecke, CPA. The owners have diligently attempted to control the number of occupants in the units and, over the past year, have served notice on several tenants to vacate the premises for violation of occupancy limitations. Inspections are done on a regular basis, and in general, greater control over the number of tenants in each unit has been achieved. The property remains an apartment complex occupied by working people, and it unquestionably fulfills a very real and important need in the community. The two buildings on site contain a total of nineteen units housing approximately sixty local, working people. It is one of only several buildings of its type remaining in Aspen. The immediate demolition of the structure would result in displacement of workers with virtually no present alternative living options . Thus, extension of vested rights insures the continued availability of this necessary housing. HISTORY The Trust acquired the property on August 25, 1988 . Prior to the acquisition, a variety of preliminary efforts had been undertaken in conjunction with the Planning Office and City Council which would have resulted in the demolition of the two buildings on the property. The buildings contain nineteen rental apartment units. The buildings were constructed in the early-1960's and were in 1988 in a decrepit condition. In August of 1988, the Aspen City Council imposed a mora- torium prohibiting demolition of the improvements on the property. Subsequent to the imposition of the moratorium, the Trust sought exemption on the grounds that it had been involved in the planning process. The request for exemption was denied. After several extensions to the demolition moratorium, the Planning Office and City Council, with the input of the public including representatives of the Trust, adopted Ordinance No. 47, Series of 1988, in February of 1989 . In April of 1989, the Trust submitted its redevelopment application in accordance with Ordi- nance No. 47 . On May 5, 1989, the Planning Department notified the Trust that its application was complete; a public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission was set for June 20, 1989 . Following the May 1989 election of new council members, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1989, imposing a new administrative delay in the processing of development applica- tions effective May 8, 1989 . Again, the Trust was caught in a moratorium, and again, exemption from the moratorium was requested and denied. The new moratorium was extended several times, and for many months, the Planning Office and Council worked on the adoption of a new replacement housing ordinance. 2 During this time, the City and representatives of the Trust examined various ways of resolving the Trust's claim of a right to proceed with its development application. Finally, in the spring of 1991, a resolution of the dis- pute between the Trust and the City of Aspen was reached pursuant to which demolition would be permitted and reconstruction of the project could go forward. This was formalized by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, on June 10, 1991. Because of changes in market conditions, by the summer of 1991, it was no longer desirable to proceed with the redevelopment of the Valley-Hi property. Because the buildings will ultimately be demolished, the Trust has been reluctant to expend funds for the extensive repairs necessary. However, in 1992, because deteriora- tion of the buildings had reached a point where several units were uninhabitable, the Trust was faced with a dilemma of closing down units or performing repairs for which there was little likelihood of recovering the costs thereof. The Trust proceeded with the improvements but has been unable to recoup the costs incorporated into the building at the present time. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS The Trust was granted vested rights for a three-year period pursuant to §6-207 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Vested rights are currently available through June 15, 1994 . Vested rights have now been extended through June 15, 1995 . The Aspen Municipal Code does not provide a specific mechanism for requests for extension of vested rights. The Trust is willing to commit to defer demolition of the building for a minimum of twelve months . The Trust requests that a new ordinance be adopted granting a new period of vested rights for the improvements identified in the Subdivision Agreement and recorded Plat for 1000 East Hopkins Avenue through June 15, 1997 . This request for extension of vested rights complies with the requirements of §6-207 (E) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen as a site specific development plan has been approved and the Trust has complied with all conditions attendant to its original development approval. It further complies with the conditions of the state vested rights statute, §24-68-101, et seq. , C.R.S. Specifically, §24-68-104(2) , C.R.S. provides that vested rights in excess of three years may be permitted after consideration of all relevant circumstances . A copy of that statutory authority is attached hereto as Appendix III. Economic circumstances justify an extension of the vested rights previously granted the Trust. The Trust spent approximately twice what was originally projected for the repairs to the 3 property. It is reasonable to grant additional time to allow the Trust to recoup some of those costs. No violation of any public purpose would result from the extension, and some of the least expensive free-market housing in the City will continue to be available in the rental market while the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority continues its efforts to provide affordable housing for the working people of Aspen. 4 NEILEY & ALDER ATTORNEYS 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 EXHIBITF Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y. Neiley,Jr.,P.C. FAX Number Eugene M.Alder,P.C. (303) 925-9393 (303) 925.9396 October 11, 1994 HAND DELIVERY Tom Stevenson, Chief Aspen Police Department 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Valley-Hi Apartments 1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Dear Tom: This office represents the owners of the Valley-Hi Apartments . I am processing an application for extension of vested rights for my clients , and in connection therewith, a referral request was issued to your department. On August 18 , 1994, Officer Beth Ufkes submitted a response, a copy of which I enclose. We take strong issue with Ms . Ufkes ' response. As you can see, this response cites many criminal complaints that are on- going at the property. It also indicates that the owners of the property have been informed of the problems and have failed to take any action. First, I have been in direct communication with the owners and the local managing agent, Carl B. Linnecke, CPA. None of the owners has ever received any contact from the Aspen Police Department: Mr. Linnecke has been contacted on one occasion, approximately two weeks ago regarding a theft investigation. This contact was with Ed Piccolo . Mr. Linnecke was entirely coopera- tive, and we have heard nothing further on this matter. Both Mr. Linnecke and I are the local agents for the property and are the registered agent and officers for the corporate general partner. Neither of us has ever been apprised by any member of your department of any problems with criminal activities at the property. The suggestion in Ms . Ufkes ' referral response is that the owners of the property do not care about criminal activity and have actually ignored on-going problems . This creates real dif- ficulties for the property owners in connection with their land use • Letter to Mr. Stever In October 6, 1994 Page 2 application and is not an accurate depiction. Quite to opposite is true. In the fall of 1992 after completing a substantial remodel of the project, Mr. Linnecke contacted your department and requested that he be apprised of criminal activities and complaints at the project so that appropriate action could be taken by the owner in the form of evictions . Mr. Linnecke was advised that such information was not available for public dissemination because of privacy concerns . On March 24 , 1994, I personally filed a criminal com- plaint with your department in connection with what we believed was an active drug dealing situation at the complex. The drug dealing had been brought to my attention by Mr. Linnecke and our on-site management company. When I filed the complaint, I provided the apartment number and names of the tenants and the names of three witnesses who could be contacted. We requested that an investi- gation be undertaken and that we receive a response to our concerns . After the expiration of approximately three months without either a return call or any other communication from your department, we evicted the tenants and solved the problem ourselves . We believe Ms . Ufkes ' communication with the Planning Office grossly mischaracterizes the actual circumstances at the Valley-Hi Apartments and should be retracted. As to the alleged "many criminal complaints that are on- going, " we have no direct knowledge of this information. However, since this has a direct bearing on both our land use application and my clients ' concerns regarding management and liability at the property, we want to be brought up to date regarding the situation. In this regard, please consider this letter my formal request for the following information: 1. An itemization of all criminal complaints received related to the Valley-Hi Apartments from November 1992 to the present; 2 . A detailed list of all criminal charges brought against individuals at the Valley-Hi Apartments from November 1992 to the present; 3 . A detailed list of all arrests made at the Valley-Hi Apartments from November 1992 to the present; Letter to Mr. Stever -on October 6, 1994 Page 3 4 . Any other information maintained by your department which substantiates the statement that there are "many criminal complaints that are on-going at this location. " We feel that this information is essential to both explain the content and recommendation of your department's response to the Planning Office's referral request and to an effective management of the property. It is our impression that virtually all of the occupants of the Valley-Hi Apartments are hard-working, honest members of the community. We have compiled a list of the employers of our tenants which I enclose . While we can obviously not guarantee that otherwise hard-working persons are not involved in criminal activities, we do not believe that there are extensive criminal activities at the property. Your assistance in clarifying this issue would be greatly appreciated. Ve truly yours , N L Y & ALDER R chard Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN/agk Enclosures U,wulicu tµvin. nwvKnauno • Carl B. Linnecke, CPA, P.C. 21$ South Monarch Street • Aspen,Colorado 81611 • TEL 303/925-1040 • FAX 303/925-4468 October 5, 1994 Rick Neiley Sent Via FAX 201 N. Mill St. , Ste 102 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Valley Hi Tenants Dear Rick, Following is a list of the places the tenants in the Valley Hi work: La Cocina Chanin's Little Annie's Hickory House Planet Hollywood Carnivals Hard Rock Mirabella Aspen Club Lodge Renaissance Restaurant Aspen Grove Restaurant Shadow Mountain Lodge Explorer Bookseller Aspen Square Kenichi Lime Light Lodge Friedl's Little Nell Smuggler Land Office Ritz Carlton Jour de Fete Hotel Jerome Mountain House Woody Creek Roofing Durgin Electric Please be advised that the natural tendency to say these people are all dishwashers or transient is not true. Many are. prep cooks at the restaurants . The women are house keepers for the most part. The guy who works at Explorer told me he has been there six years. Let ma know if I can be of further assistance. Very truly yours, Car B. Linnecke, CPA • NEILEY 6 ALDER ATTORNEYS 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y.Neiley,Jr.,P.C. FAX Number Eugene M.Alder,P.C. (303) 925-9393 (303) 925-9396 October 11, 1994 John S . Bennett, Mayor City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Valley-Hi Apartments, 1000 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO Dear John: I represent Valley-Hi Development Trust, the owner of Valley-Hi Apartments at 1000 E . Hopkins Avenue, Aspen. As I believe you are aware, we are currently processing an application for extension of vested rights in connection with land use approvals originally granted in June of 1991. At present, those approvals expire on June 15, 1995 . The Planning Office has advised me that you are scheduling a meeting with certain neighborhood residents for Friday, October 14, 1994 . I understand the purpose of this meeting is to discuss concerns of the neighbors regarding the management of the apartment complex. I believe it would be appropriate for a Valley-Hi Apartments representative to attend this meeting. While I will be out of town on that day, the local manager, Carl B. Linnecke, C.P.A. , will make time for the meeting. He can be reached at 925-1040 . If you could have someone contact him regarding the time of the meeting, we would appreciate it. Since certain people in the neighborhood are lobbying for a denial of our extension application, I think it is appropriate to provide you with some information regarding the current status of the property. I have received a copy of the September 30, 1994, letter from the East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents Association, which I understand has also been provided to the Planning Office and Members of the City Council. Enclosed herewith you will find a copy of my recent letter to Police Chief Tom Stephenson. The allegation that the Valley-Hi Apartments is a warren of criminal activity is to our knowledge simply untrue. As you can see from my letter to Tom, we have never been advised of criminal activity at the property and in fact, have been pro-active in attempting to eliminate undesirable tenants . I have asked for details regarding any criminal activity over the past two years . I do want to emphasize that none of John S . Bennett, Mayor October 11, 1994 Page 2 the owners, the management or local representatives of the property have ever been confronted by any law enforcement or City representative with complaints of criminal activity at the property. If these allegations are true, we will take prompt steps to rectify the problem. Ralph Braden, who recently purchased the property immediately next door to the Valley-Hi Apartments, this summer complained about the condition of and the tenants at the complex. Inasmuch as Ralph purchased the property for speculative development purposes , it is understandable that he would like to see the apartment building removed and redeveloped as soon as possible. We understand that Ralph is the head of the East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents Association and is responsible for the September 30 , 1994, letter. That letter grossly mischaracterizes the situation at the Valley-Hi Apartments . We have contacted Lenny Oates , the association attorney, and have advised him of our willingness to discuss the perceived problems . The true picture of the Valley-Hi Apartments is one of a worker oriented residential complex including singles, families and small children. Attached to my letter to Tom Stephenson is a list of the employers of many of the people at the Valley-Hi Apartments . Our tenants are hard working, integral members of the Aspen community. We feel the real problem that underlies the neighbors ' complaints is the fact that 18 of the 19 apartments at the complex are occupied by individuals of Hispanic origin. As more and more of these people join our resident and work force, we see a greater and greater level of prejudice and distrust develop in our community. In a very real sense, the concept of Aspen as an open minded, diverse community is challenged by the recent changes in our demographics. I enclose a copy of an article from the October 5, 1994, Aspen Times which deals with the difficulty of worker displacement and specifically refers to the Valley-Hi Apartments . Our proposal would defer this displacement for an additional year and thus provide the community more time to address this problem. The local manager, Carl Linnecke, and I met with Gary Lyman, Chief Building Inspector, on the site yesterday. In visiting all the units except for one, it was determined that the building remains in reasonably good condition, considering its age, and that building and safety upgrades, which were implemented two years ago, remain in place. Gary will be providing a report to the Planning Office. Only a few minor repair needs were identified. These include the need to replace batteries in smoke detectors, the repair of a couple of faucets and some minor drywall repair. John S . Bennett, Ma: October 11, 1994 Page 3 • Contrary to allegations of the neighbors, the complex has not been ignored or neglected. In fact, the owners spend in excess of $1,000 . 00 a month on maintenance and repair. The buildings are old, having been constructed in the late 1960 's, and thus require a higher level of care than newer properties and have a less desirable appearance. Recent inspections of the property establish that there are no junk cars or accumulations of trash on the property. Loose trash is picked up at least once a week by our maintenance contractor and we have regular dumpster service. I did notice when I was at the property last week two large rolls of carpet sticking out of the dumpster. These were courtesy of one of the neighbors . This is a high occupancy building and the maintenance requirements are constant. We try to address those requirements as effectively as possible. We are willing to discuss the perceived problems with the neighborhood association and the City. We feel that our request for extension of vested rights is appropriate for a variety of reasons expressed in our application including the fact that the displacement of the occupants of 19 units in the next six months does not seem desirable in light of the current housing crunch. When we last sought an extension of vested rights we sought two additional years because of the substantial amount of money being invested to upgrade the property. We were granted a one year extension and were requested to return after the expiration of a year to seek additional time to recoup the capital expenditure. Please let me know if a representative of the Valley-Hi Apartments will be allowed to attend your meeting on October 14 . Thank you for your consideration of this matter. V- truly yours , Y & ALDER •i hard Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN/dd Enclosures cc: Carl B. Linnecke Valley-Hi Development Trust Leslie Lamont Lenny Oates/East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents Association Bennett.ltr . Yip IR liöudeR to 1i t •ilr f i . diAliulàéed óFkêi*T. By Gil I Rudawsky ket housing have approvals to redevelop' Aspen Times Staff Writer the property and there is some -concern .14 The Aspen City Council started the .that the current residents would be left .'a wheels ;rolling on a policy;that_could without a place to live require"developers to provide housing for ,'There was -also sometalk about then residents displaced by new construction. free-inarket Park Meadows building, for rIf developers displace an employee, •`metly located off Highway 82, across`y` they should be responsible to find them a -'1from Tiehack.-The low-income rental ' new place to stay,"•city council member.='apartment house-was torn down to make Terry'Paulson said during an informal •way for the upscale Maroon Creek Golf; meeting this week. Club- ` -,:'t : :4 The city currently does not have a poll ' =:;About 48 Park Meadows residents ', _ cy to-directly help displaced workers •- vere'evicted from their units in June kicked out of'low-tent, free-market hous- `.:'1993. Developers said they will replace at ing, but there seemed to be interest by : portion of the units,'but the new units are]: some city council members to look at .'not intended to accommodate the former passing an ordinance to address this issue. residents. - .: i';';•••:‘:::.::. The city currently has numerous free Paulson said that he is particularly con 3 market housing units around town that ; cerned about displacement since he was`- provide an inexpensiJe place to stay for.'kicked out of his rental home five years 7 ' ''area workers. Over,the years, these units - ago and left without a place to live. He have be.Come more and more scarce: also'said that working at City Market, City council specifically had some con- where he is assistant manager, he sees cerns about residents at the-Valley-Hi f•many employees who are displaced by ;= rental apartments, located on East Hop- '-.;developers. • _ - _ kins Avenue.The owners of the free-mar-:--p See Displaced on pages • - - a (Tagy `I _� �i1�^ 1 ! 1 i� 4 i Q:Y. iyT I 1 5; 4 6''dii 4� :-e ' - r. i U i - rt rR� sus,. �'" `F« ,e- �*eK E 4 ,4' ' t 1:7,11;;;45+7'.e2-117;141- 1,14,^0,,ae :v ' "y tfk,^,,ti S oer"Y - 4 " .r -,ai • t' It 4i.i( 3 t�ca4`°t+ '!s S r{{F{{ 14:ce. f'�'`'. 7 4' 4 F k` ? G7'7 ? fil?`M Luc ,;-4 "' '-±1 • } "-y '~ ' } j ' l.g.f / t1w Foy ..;t�; ; }��. ,. l7 N' ( i� 4- �'.`s k, r 5 ;awl +' .xti h"" `� ^,-,may ,,F I _ "`'h••:&\I Pi-,C u°.�4, 7,-.-„...-: l' T 71.h a confirm-_ from page 3 i i The city again tried to stop the trend in 19( "This is an-issue that's close to me,"Paulson said when it passed an impact rnitigation ordinance aim• 5*.Council member Rachel Richards was against-a -:.at new construction. For instance,if an existing frc displacement proposal since she said it would only Cmaikel structure isdemolished to make way for discourage people from building rental housing. •• larger home, the builder is required to mitigate th - Y."Why would they build a rental housing project if impact .they know they will have to take care of the res- , - idents forever?'(Richards said ▪ '• Aspen City Manager Amy Margerum said • that other communities with tight housing mar, kets have ordinances[hat require developers "If developers displace an tearing down rental housing fo provide the rest' - • dents displaced a new place to live:Margerum" employee, they should be said, for instance, that Santa Barbara currently •has a displacement ordinance _ responsible to find them a new The city council will direct the Aspen/Pitl rn °* :- County Housing Board to look at developing a place to stay n _displacement ordinance and offer its iecommen 'dations to the e_lected officials i Teny Paulson,Aspen city council'Rembc According to housing officials, the tearing . - - • =down of existing free-market projects and build- ingmillion-dollar ttomeS has been.going on since the early 1980s During that time,the employcepopulation-of ; tithe city dropped from 60 percent to 40 percent, • 'largely because of second-home construction," -- according to housing officials ? ;Builders'get credit for the square footage of th In 1989, the housing office built 89 units at . old home; but have to pay an additional $14 pc •_Truscott Place to stop the displacement,but while the square foot if the new structure is larger than the on `project was under construction, housing officials said -demolished. Or, a developer could build a fart an equal number of employees were displaced by . home with an employee unit attached to the structur •°csecond-home construction - or deed-restrict the home. ., • /it�p,..1 4 S ..'4 t Y t rl "F 4 J .- .3 r/ {iR " y J. .„17„yy jfZ 9�i t F:."c ! R RJR 3 $ r. -, i>!-..-..'i . tr ; j 1 ,...4 v l'�a4 Cg‘:.yn { 4 \\.' nt ° . Ly 4' , il }'� .: k ';!% '4, (- iii i i�{ s 3 { 4' eq.y . '1 :, :1 �" �� ' i Stis v t raw ar r.. e• i L,. x s ,n` 44-( fit , i A\ r*t nif '+•ac ,..v r a .x ' chkra 1 w1 f K r yam < St fv -�JP ei `' ., � i r i{ r �yt , a „., ,:: 7e ty. .R. if, r S� j ,,,, 1:- ..; la .i't' 't "��q Tr' <N-4,'..Z- x� y 3{1 l,,y -: .f'"f.'r t ,, t l (- 4144 i < § ;t,,,»S }�- ' '" ''!',r, ib tg + I a t tic .F E .e h y f ;4 .', 2 .•i 4_y t ( �-/�p) � � jw:: t .1 i, t 1 yl ,; 4 .y.Y� r TTy2+r y:` r�' �En +• i- err J^a:- -. 3 i b" -i-Si. ,. n tr'l c 1-t-71,0_, & r', % '�^ : Tf • f t - Y' i�v�,k,.J..+.�'' ar r4; ?f§C k s < [c" r s ,< . _ ,xf'' t. .' .. •t t. `.i'w/`� OY a: ., rte / ,-,(y ,C ((.121:1-2=. a`�' _� ,"iU�„R ,541,.4 r y 4 ‘.`Sly •'4 ::4; -1:1 ..,/ 1a At "� ';' .m t t U , +`€' K Y _ � •!3'.S_�"'f 4 `*J'.. .vr/� aL}n n+...v t}> . a. S :::::::,_:;:7L-Lttif. r ,, a P-' a'S°� rr n�` �-eti • :yC - - ..a.Sw?JJ, ' .z ' �. s,, s _ .:- _; `4. �'K`.i^�..�,n.{ri...• :T- �- 2it 1\F W:i• {.i,�+a;�t Y "-4.,•tz.Y? -__.;:-.4:3 Valley HI Apartments are home to folks like two-year-old Tony Mendes (above), • taking a break from wheeling up and down the hallways of the building, which offers basic accommodations for moderate rents. r - . Ramon Medrano (left), Is another Valley Hi resident He is shown spending his day off from Kenichi Restaurant, ''_preparing a meal common to his El Salvadoran homeland -boiled cow-tongue tacos. The owners of Valley Hi, which Is a free-market ' operation, already have the necessary approvals to redevelop the property. If that happens, the city council is concerned about whether - " Tony and Ramon could find other affordable housing. Travis Caperton photos. • NEILEY & ALDER • • ATTORNEYS 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y.Neiley,Jr.,P.C. FAX Number Eugene M.Alder,P.C. (303)925-9393 (303)925-9396 October 12, 1994 Leonard M. Oates Oates, Hughes & Rnezevich, P.C. 533 E. Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Valley-Hi Apartments 1000 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Dear Lennie: This letter is a follow-up to our telephone conversation of yesterday regarding the above property and your representation of East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents Association. As you know, my clients, the Valley-Hi Development Trust, take issue with the September 30, 1994, letter put out by your clients . You indicated that you would provide me with a copy of the "crime list for East Hopkins " which your clients obtained from the police department. Please fax this to me at 925-9396 . As you can see from my enclosed letter to Police Chief Tom Stephenson, we were attempting to independently determine the extent of the crime problem at the Valley-Hi Apartments . I also enclose a copy of my letter of yesterday to Mayor John Bennett. As that letter suggests and as we discussed, my clients feel strongly that a substantial reason for the neighbor- hood opposition to the requested extension of vested rights is prejudice against the Hispanic occupants of the building. In our conversation yesterday I requested a list of the members of the East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents Association. I hope you will provide this to us in the near future. It is difficult for us to effectively address the concerns of a faceless "association" . We would be willing to meet with the members of the association and you at any mutually convenient time. If there are specific issues which can be addressed, we would be happy to explore means of alleviating the neighborhood concerns . The generic complaints in the September 30, 1994, letter, however, do not provide much by way of real identifiable issues . Perhaps a review of your "crime list" and any information the police department makes available will provide one area of focus . If • • Letter to Mr. Oates October 12, 1994 Page 2 there are other concerns that your clients would like to discuss, please let me know. I look forward to hearing from you. Ven truly yours, NT f Y & ALDER / Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN/dd Enclosures Oates.ltr . : -- v'1 L`- r,s • ' P ibIIC Notice`.,: ORDINANCE 60(SERIES OF 1994) 15.1997;and a copy of this ordinance In the office of the AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUN- WHEREAS,the City Council,having consid- Pltkm County Clerk and Recorder. CIL GRANTING A TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF creel the request for an extension of vested' - Section 4:if any section,subsection,ten- VESTED RIGHTS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 8. rightrand having considered the applicant's tenet,clause,phrase or portion of this ordi- SERIES OF 1991 FOR THE SITE SPECIFIC DEVEL- upgrades on the building and their impiementa-•:-. nonce is for any-reason held invalid or uncon- OPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR THE 1000 EAST *'lion of a Malntenagce,and management plan`.'.stitutional by any court of competent jurisdic- HOPKINS PARCEL.THE VALLEY-HI APART- does wish to Want the requested extension of. lion,such provision and such holding shall not MENTS,LOTS A,H.i,K,&5 BLOCKS 25 AND 26 vested rights for two years beyond the &fleet the validity of the remaining portions PLUS THE REMAINDER OF VACATED CLEVE- approval granted in Ordinance No.57.Series of thereof. LAND STREET,CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO. 1992.for the 1100 E.Hopkins parcel,finding Section 5:This Ordinance shall not affect any WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the community benefit in the Improvements and existing litigation and shall not operate as an Aspen Municipal Code,City Council may grant maintenance of nineteen units ol employee abatement of any action or proceeding now an extension of vested rights status for a site housing until said property Is redeveloped. pending under or by virtue of the ordinances specific development plan;and NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE. repealed or amended as herein provided,and WHEREAS,In June of 1991.City Council CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN.COI: the same shall be conducted and concluded adopted Ordinance 8,Series of 1991,approving ORADO: under such prior ordinances. the redevelopment of the Valley-HI property Section I:Pursuant to Section 244207 of the Section 6:A public hearing on the Ordinance and granting vested rights status for three Municipal Code.City Council does hereby grant shall be held on the 14th day of November, years from the approved date of said Ordl- the applicant an additional two(2)year exten- 1994 at 5:00 P.M.in the City Council Chambers, nance;and slon for the vested rights approved by Ordi- Aspen City Hall.Aspen Colorado.fifteen(I5) WHEREAS,In November of 1992,City Council nance No.8.Series of 1991,for the 1000 East days prior to which hearing a public notice of granted a one year extension of the vested Hopkins parcel as follows: the same shall be published one In a newspaper rights status for the Valley-HI site specific I.The Valley-Hi Apartments shall be main- of general circulation within the City of Aspen: development plan thereby extending the vested tined in a clean and orderly condition until INTRODUCED,READ AND ORDERED PUB- rights to June 15, 1995(Ordinance No.57, such time as they are demolished prior to rede- LASHED as provided by law,by the City Council Series of 1992);and velopment pursuant to Ordinance 8,1991. of the City of Aspen on the 24th day of October, WHEREAS,as a condition of granting the vest- 2.The rights granted by the site specific 1994. ed rights extension,City Council required the development plan aperoved by this Ordinance John Bennett.Mayor applicant to make specific repairs and ' shall remain vested for a total of six(6)years' ATTEST.Kathryn S.Hoch,City Clerk upgrades of the building and implement a man- I from June IS, 1991,the date of publication ol FINALLY,adopted.passed and approved this agement and maintenance plan for the building; Ordinance No.8,Series of 1991.However,any —day of—.1994. and failure to abide by the terms and conditions John Bennett.Mayor WHEREAS,Council also recommended that attendant to this approval shall result In fortes' ATTEST:Kathryn S.Koch.City Clerk the applicant seek another extension when Lure of said vested property rights. - Published In The Aspen Times October 28.1991. those upgrades are completed and the appil- 3.The approval granted hereby shall be sub- cant can demonstrate to Council that proper feet to all rights of referendum and judicial PUBLIC NOTICE management of the building is°clrring;and review. RE:BENEDICT STILLWATER RANCH PARCEL WHEREAS,the applicant has requested 4.Nothing in the approvals provided in this Cl SCENIC OVERLAY REVIEW another vested rights extension for two addl- Ordinance shall exempt the site specific devel- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hear- (tonal years extending the vested rights to June opment plan from subsequent reviews and or ing will be held on Tuesday,November 29,1994 approvals required by this Ordinance or the at a regular meeting 10 begin at 4:00 pm before general rules,regulations or ordinances or the the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commis- City provided that such reviews or approvals Sion,Commissioners Meeting Room,506 E. are not Inconsistent with the approvals granted Main St.,Aspen to consider an application sub- and vested herein. milted by Fablenne Benedict requesting Scenic 5.The establishment herein of a vested prop- Overlay approval for Parcel Cl of the Benedict erty right shall not preclude the application of Stillwater Ranch.The applicant Is also request- ordinances or regulations which are general In ing Detailed Submission and Final Plat approval nature and are applicable to all property sub- to subdivide the parcel into five lots.The prop- fed to land use regulation by the City of Aspen erty is located east of Aspen,adjacent to the including,but not limited to,building,lire, City limits on the south side of Highway 82.For plumbing,electrical and mechanical codes.In further information contact Francis Krizmanich this regard,as a condition of this site develop- at the Aspen/Pitkln Planning Office,920-5103. ment approval,the developer shall abide by s/Robert W.Child,Chairman any and all such building,lire,plumbing,elect Board of County Commissioners trical and mechanical codes,unless an exemp- Published in The Aspen Times on October 28, lion therefrom is granted In writing. 1994. Section 2: The City Clerk shall cause notice ol this Ordi- nance to be published in a newspaper of gener- - PUBLIC NOTICE al circulations within the City of Aspen no later RE:610 WEST HALLAM STREET LANDMARK than fourteen(14)days following final adoption DESIGNATION hereof.Such notice shall be given in the follow- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hear- ing form: ing will be held on Monday,November 14,1994. Notice is hereby given to the general public of at a meeting to begin at 5:00 pm before the the approval of a site specific development Aspen City Council In the City Council Chaco- plan,and the creation of a vested property berg,City Hall,130 S.Galena Street,Aspen,Col- right pursuant to Tltte 24,Article 68,Colorado orado,to consider an application submitted by Revised Statutes,pertaining to the following Jim Iglehart requesting Landmark Designation described property. • of 610 West Hallam Street;22.5 feet of Lot P and '1000 East Hopkins, Lots A,H,LK,and 5, all of Lot Q,Block 22,City and Townsite of , Blocks 25 and 26'The property shall be Aspen.For further Information,contact Amy described in the notice and appended to said Amidon at the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, notice shall be the ordinance granting such 170 S.Galena St.,Aspen,CO.920-5096. approval. - - s/John Bennett,Mayor Section 3: Aspen City Council That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, Published in The Aspen Times October 28. upon the adoption of this ordinance,to record 1994. " 1I% a MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council (� / THRU: Amy Margerum, qty Manageri� THRU: Stan Clauso 6ammunity Development Director FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director DATE: October 24, 1994 RE: Valley-Hi Vested Rights Extension - First Reading Ordinance, Series of 1994 SUMMARY: The owners of the Valley-Hi apartments, 1000 East Hopkins Avenue, have requested an extension of vested rights status. Vested Rights will expire June 15, 1995 and the applicants have requested a two year extension through June 15 , 1997 . Staff recommends denial of the vested rights extension. Staff has prepared an Ordinance for Council ' s adoption if Council elects to approve the extension of vested rights . Although staff is recommending denial of the extension request, staff recommend that Council pass Ordinance on first reading in order to advance the discussion to the public hearing. Many members of the public are planning to attend the public hearing November 14 , 1994 . APPLICANT: Valley-Hi Development Trust, represented by Rick Neiley, Jr. LOCATION: 1000 East Hopkins, Aspen ZONING: Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) BACKGROUND: The Valley-Hi is a nineteen unit, free market, apartment building housing approximately 60 working residents. In June of 1991, the Trust was granted subdivision approval for a site specific development plan. The property was to be demolished and rebuilt as a multi-family building containing four free-market units and four deed restricted units, a twelve car garage and $45, 000 cash-in-lieu payment. This redevelopment plan was created and approved as part of a lawsuit settlement between the City and the Valley-Hi Trust. The site specific development plan was adopted in June, 1991 pursuant to Ordinance 8 , Series of 1991. The Ordinance also granted vested rights for a period of three years. Please see Ordinance 8 approving the subdivision, Exhibit A. Vested rights approvals were to expire on June 15 , 1994 , however, in 1992 , the applicants requested an extension. The extension requested an additional 2 years to June 15, 1996 . Council however became concerned as to the condition of the building and perceived unsafe living conditions. As a condition for a vested rights extension, the applicant agreed to remodel and repair substantial portions of the building. However, Council only extended the vested rights for one additional year (to June 15, 1995) suggesting that the applicant should seek another extension from Council the following year. Having to reapply for an extension would enable the applicant to confirm for Council their implementation of a management and maintenance plan for the building and that the required repairs were in fact completed as per the condition of the vested rights extension. Please see Ordinance 57 extending the vested rights and the minutes of the Council meeting, Exhibit B. Based upon the Building Department ' s inspection and recommendations for upgrades of the building, the applicant states that they spent approximately $120, 000 toward improvements on the property between 1992 and 1993 . Please see attached application for a detailed history of Council ' s review of the project, Exhibit C. Please note that the applicant was compelled to improve the building in 1992 and 1993 as a condition of the extension of vested rights to June 15, 1995 . APPLICANT' S REQUEST: The Valley-Hi Trust requests an extension of vested rights status for the site specific development plan that was approved in 1991. The extension request is for 2 additional years. Currently vested rights will expire June 15, 1995. The extension request will preserve the vested rights until June 15, 1997 . STAFF COMMENTS: There are many issues surrounding the current apartment complex and the vested rights extension request. Although this memo and recommendation will focus primarily on the Land Use Code aspects of the application, staff will also briefly outline the other issues. 1) Allegations of Criminal Activity In anticipation of the request to extend vested rights, several neighbors of the Valley-Hi parcel have called to express concern with regard to alleged criminal activity and the condition of the building. Staff has fielded several phone calls but no letters have been submitted for staff ' s file. Staff understands that letters have been received by Council regarding this matter. In addition, there has been no official correspondence from the Police Department to staff with regard to the alleged criminal activity on the premises. 2 The applicant' s representative has attempted to follow-up on neighborhood allegations. Please find attached letters from Rick Neiley' s office, Exhibit D. In any event, staff does not believe that the issue of criminal activity on the Valley-Hi parcel is an appropriate land use consideration for this extension request. 2) Maintenance of Building The current maintenance of the building is also a concern expressed by neighbors and in fact was an item of discussion at Council during the last vested rights extension hearings. When Council granted vested rights extension in 1992 , Council required the upgrades on the building and the implementation of a building maintenance and management plan. In addition, Council only granted a one year extension inviting the applicants to seek another extension once the upgrades were completed and, according to the minutes, Councilman Peters wanted a performance record established. Councilwoman Pendleton agreed that she would rather wait and look at another extension in another year. According to the applicants, approximately $120, 000 was spent between 1992 and 1993 to make improvements and repairs on the building. The applicant has also indicated that a management company has been hired to maintain the building on an on-going basis and to enforce occupancy guidelines. The Chief Building Inspector, Gary Lyman, recently inspected the building. According to the applicant (Mr. Lyman ' s report is still pending) only minor upgrades are necessary such as batteries in smoke detectors, minor drywall repair, and faucet repair. Mr. Lyman found that the upgrades that were required in 1992 were completed and the building was in a reasonably good condition, given its age. 3) Redevelopment and Vested Rights The applicants have claimed that if an extension is denied, redevelopment will occur in June, 1995 and the 60 residents will be displaced with the redevelopment. The applicants have also indicated that if the vested rights are extended, then redevelopment may be delayed until 1997 . There are many circumstances that are considered before redevelopment is to occur. If the vested rights are not extended and redevelopment were to occur after the vested rights have lapsed, then any new development would be required to comply with the current zone district regulations in effect at the time of redevelopment. Staff has not analyzed what changes to the site specific development plan would be required if vested rights were to expire. It is believed that for the applicants to comply with the Housing Replacement Program identified in Ordinance 1 of 1990 that more deed restricted, 3 affordable housing, would be required during redevelopment. The project may be affected by recommendations from the Aspen Area Community Plan which was adopted after the settlement. In addition, staff is in the process of developing numerous changes to the Land Use Code based upon the Temporary Overlay and the outcome of the Aspen Design Symposium. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request to extend the vested rights status of the Valley-Hi site specific development plan. This recommendation is based on the finding that new development should comply with changes in the Aspen Land Use Code in order for new development to be consistent with new land use regulations, polices and visions of the community. For example, the Housing Replacement Program which affects the demolition of multi-family development has been adopted since the Valley-Hi settlement/subdivision approval, the cash-in-lieu fee for affordable housing has been substantially revised since June of 1991, the Aspen Area Community Plan has been adopted which recommends significant changes to the general housing programs for the community, and the Aspen Design Symposium recommendations suggest several changes to the Land Use Code including a reduction in allowed floor area ratios. However, staff recommends Council advance the extension Ordinance to the public hearing November 14 , 1994 . ALTERNATIVES: 1 . Council may find that the applicant has complied with the conditions of an approval granted in the 1992 extension request and may consider an additional one-year extension as was suggested by Council during their 1992 extension review. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to read Ordinance, Series of 1994 . " "I move to adopt Ordinance GO Series of 1994 on first reading to advance the vested rights extension request to the public hearing November 14, 1994 . " CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: Ordinance L{ Series of 1994 EXHIBITS: A. Ordinance 8, Series of 1991 B. Ordinance 57 , Series of 1992 Council Minutes November 9 , 1992 C. 1994 Application D. Applicant Follow-up Letters 4 ORDINANCE cc); (SERIES OF 1994) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 8, SERIES OF 1991 FOR THE SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR THE 1000 EAST HOPKINS PARCEL, THE VALLEY-HI APARTMENTS, LOTS A, H, I, K, & S BLOCKS 25 AND 26 PLUS THE REMAINDER OF VACATED CLEVELAND STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-6-207 of the Aspen Municipal Code, City Council may grant an extension of vested rights status for a site specific development plan; and WHEREAS, in June of 1991, City Council adopted Ordinance 8, Series of 1991, approving the redevelopment of the Valley-Hi property and granting vested rights status for three years from the approved date of said Ordinance; and WHEREAS, in November of 1992, City Council granted a one year extension of the vested rights status for the Valley-Hi site specific development plan thereby extending the vested rights to June 15, 1995 (Ordinance No. 57, Series of 1992) ; and WHEREAS, as a condition of granting the vested rights extension, City Council required the applicant to make specific repairs and upgrades of the building and implement a management and maintenance plan for the building; and WHEREAS, Council also recommended that the applicant seek another extension when those upgrades are completed and the applicant can demonstrate to Council that proper management of the building is occurring; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested another vested rights extension for two additional years extending the vested rights to 1 June 15, 1997; and WHEREAS, the City Council, having considered the request for an extension of vested rights and having considered the applicant's upgrades on the building and their implementation of a maintenance and management plan does wish to grant the requested extension of vested rights for two years beyond the approval granted in Ordinance No. 57, Series of 1992 , for the 1000 E. Hopkins parcel, finding community benefit in the improvements and maintenance of nineteen units of employee housing until said property is redeveloped. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL 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 an additional two (2) year extension for the vested rights approved by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, for the 1000 East 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 six (6) years from June 15, 1991, the date of publication of Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991. However, any failure to abide by the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in forfeiture of said vested property rights. 2 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 or 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 circulations 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 vested property right pursuant to Title 24 , Article 68 , Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following- 3 described property: "1000 East 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 affect 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 L day of / L , , 1994 at 5: 00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published one in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. 4 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the ,12 C- day of `'1 , 1994 . John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1994 . John Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 5 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO.8 (SERIES OF 1991) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL SUBDIVISION/PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, GMQS EXEMPTION, AND VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 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) 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 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 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. 1.c. of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council may grant approval to Final Subdivision, PUD ( 1 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 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: CThat 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. Section 3: 2 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 Plat. 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 (y 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 #2 . 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 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 4 Plan and Subdivision/PUD Agreement must be filed with the County i 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 ublic hearing on th'e Ordinance shall be held on the /3 day of , 1991 at 5: 00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 5 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, byy the City Council of the City of Aspen on the O day of (_�(:D a , _[/_ 1991. /� William L. Stirling, Mayor Ay"ST: Rathtyn t. Roc , City Clerk F NALLY, adopted, passed and approved this /8 day of � , 1991. ? .---; tir William L. ling, Mayor ATTEST: _ .6 _ _A _ _ SP i Icathryn S% Roch, City Clerk jtkvj/1000hop.ord 6 #350764 16/92 0S; 42 Rec $25. 00 R}::. ..94 PG 467 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk . Doc $. 00 ORDINANCE NO. 57 EXHIBIT B (SERIES OF 1992) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 1991 FOR THE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR THE 1000 E. HOPKINS PARCEL (A.K.A. THE VALLEY HI APARTMENTS) , LOTS A,H,I,K,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 #350764 11/ 16/92 OB: 42 Rec $25. 00 Elk: 694 PG 468 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 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 IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL 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 #350764 11/16/92 08: 42 Sec $25. 00 BK 694 PG 469 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 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 #350764 11/16/92 08: 42 Rec $25. 00 BK. 694 PG 470 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 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 9 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 #350764 11/16/92 08: 42 Sec $25. 00 DEC 694 PG 471 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $.00 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 I the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 43 day of ClOG / , 1992 . John ennett, Mayor A7tSV: 4 2 Ra�SyZ1 Jy . Rah, City Clerk � C;� °#f'1�AI,l. ``'7 Y, adopted, passed and approved this p day of /J0Z!''j}: y/19 9 2 . ( ,,Iv (9t^--L—ill Joh Bennett, Mayor Null. s^,� Ra5hEYA -, Roch, City Clerk 5 , "_1V. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 9, 1992 VRDINANCE #57, SERIES OF 1992 - 1000 E. Hopkins Vested Rights, Kim Johnson, planning office, reminded Council this ordinance will extend the vested rights for one year from the original approval to June 1995. Originally Council expressed concern that the property needed substantial repairs before they approved the extended vested rights. Ms. Johnson told Council staff inspected the premises in the last 10 days. The repairs are complete. The memorandum details the upgrade to the property. A maintenance agreement contract has been established with local company. Rick Neiley, representing the applicant, told Council the property has received a temporary c/o. There are some issues that have to ' be cleared up before a final c/o. The applicants have committed to the creation of a parking plan. Neiley requested the ordinance be amended to create a period effective 4 years from June 10th. The project has been delayed several months, and a large amount of money has been invested in it. Councilman Peters said his inclination is to approve it as written. It would be in the public's interest to grant another extension if applied for next year. A one year extension is appropriate given the history of this project. There should be some performance before the vested rights is extended more. Councilwoman Pendleton agreed she would rather wait and look at another extension next June. Councilwoman Richards agreed. Mayor Bennett opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Pendleton moved to adopt Ordinance #57, Series of 1992, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Peters. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Richards, yes. Motion carried. EXHIBIT C VALLEY-HI APARTMENTS 1000 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SECOND APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS Valley-Hi Development Trust c/o Carl B. Linnecke, CPA 215 South Monarch Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Representative: Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. Neiley & Alder 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-9393 INTRODUCTION Valley-Hi Development Trust is the owner of the Valley-Hi Apartments located at 1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611. On June 10, 1991, the Trust was granted subdivision ap- proval for the demolition of existing improvements on the real property and the construction of four free-market and four deed- restricted affordable housing units . The owners now seek a two-year extension of vested rights, through June 15, 1997 . The original development approvals were granted pursuant to Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix I . That Ordinance also granted vested rights pursuant to 56-207 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen and applicable state statutes. Vesting of rights was granted for a period of three years from the effective date of Ordinance No. 8 . The original date of expiration of the development approvals was June 15, 1994 . In 1992, the owners submitted an Application for Extension of Vested Rights, seeking a two-year extension through June 15, 1996 . The basis for this application was two-fold: first, market conditions did not warrant demolition and recon- struction at the time, and second, in order to maintain a safe and habitable property, substantial sums were required to upgrade the nineteen rental apartment units. Following public hearing, the City granted an extension of vested rights for a period of one year. Presently, the owners' development approvals will expire on June 15, 1995 . The extension of vested rights was processed as an ordinance. A copy of the extension Ordinance is attached hereto as Appendix II. The Trust has again determined that it does not at the present time wish to demolish the improvements on the real prop- erty. When seeking extension of vested rights in 1992, the owners determined that approximately $65,000 . 00 in improvements were necessary to upgrade the units to an acceptable level. However, following inspections by the Building Department and the need to address health/safety issues, the extent of remodel was substan- tially increased. Between 1992 and 1993, improvements to the real property totalled approximately $120,000 .00 . In 1992, when an extension of vested rights was approved, the City Council indicated a willingness to consider further extensions of vested rights following completion of the remodel and implementation of a new maintenance and management program at the property. Both such programs have been implemented. The owners have contracted with Mike's Maintenance, a contracting business owned by Michael Adams of Aspen, Colorado, which provides regular inspections, repairs and maintenance services. The present condi- 1 tion of the building is substantially better than at any time since the owners acquired the property in 1988. A new leasing program has been implemented and is managed by Carl B. Linnecke, CPA. The owners have diligently attempted to control the number of occupants in the units and, over the past year, have served notice on several tenants to vacate the premises for violation of occupancy limitations . Inspections are done on a regular basis, and in general, greater control over the number of tenants in each unit has been achieved. The property remains an apartment complex occupied by working people, and it unquestionably fulfills a very real and important need in the community. The two buildings on site contain a total of nineteen units housing approximately sixty local, working people. It is one of only several buildings of its type remaining in Aspen. The immediate demolition of the structure would result in displacement of workers with virtually no present alternative living options . Thus, extension of vested rights insures the continued availability of this necessary housing. HISTORY The Trust acquired the property on August 25, 1988. Prior to the acquisition, a variety of preliminary efforts had been undertaken in conjunction with the Planning Office and City Council which would have resulted in the demolition of the two buildings on the property. The buildings contain nineteen rental apartment units . The buildings were constructed in the early-1960's and were in 1988 in a decrepit condition. In August of 1988, the Aspen City Council imposed a mora- torium prohibiting demolition of the improvements on the property. Subsequent to the imposition of the moratorium, the Trust sought exemption on the grounds that it had been involved in the planning process . The request for exemption was denied. After several extensions to the demolition moratorium, the Planning Office and City Council, with the input of the public including representatives of the Trust, adopted Ordinance No. 47, Series of 1988, in February of 1989 . In April of 1989, the Trust submitted its redevelopment application in accordance with Ordi- nance No. 47. On May 5, 1989, the Planning Department notified the Trust that its application was complete; a public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission was set for June 20, 1989 . Following the May 1989 election of new council members, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1989, imposing a new administrative delay in the processing of development applica- tions effective May 8, 1989 . Again, the Trust was caught in a moratorium, and again, exemption from the moratorium was requested and denied. The new moratorium was extended several times, and for many months, the Planning Office and Council worked on the adoption of a new replacement housing ordinance. 2 During this time, the City and representatives of the Trust examined various ways of resolving the Trust's claim of a right to proceed with its development application. Finally, in the spring of 1991, a resolution of the dis- pute between the Trust and the City of Aspen was reached pursuant to which demolition would be permitted and reconstruction of the project could go forward. This was formalized by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, on June 10, 1991 . Because of changes in market conditions, by the summer of 1991, it was no longer desirable to proceed with the redevelopment of the Valley-Hi property. Because the buildings will ultimately be demolished, the Trust has been reluctant to expend funds for the extensive repairs necessary. However, in 1992, because deteriora- tion of the buildings had reached a point where several units were uninhabitable, the Trust was faced with a dilemma of closing down units or performing repairs for which there was little likelihood of recovering the costs thereof. The Trust proceeded with the improvements but has been unable to recoup the costs incorporated into the building at the present time. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS The Trust was granted vested rights for a three-year period pursuant to §6-207 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen. Vested rights are currently available through June 15, 1994 . Vested rights have now been extended through June 15, 1995. The Aspen Municipal Code does not provide a specific mechanism for requests for extension of vested rights . The Trust is willing to commit to defer demolition of the building for a minimum of twelve months . The Trust requests that a new ordinance be adopted granting a new period of vested rights for the improvements identified in the Subdivision Agreement and recorded Plat for 1000 East Hopkins Avenue through June 15, 1997. This request for extension of vested rights complies with the requirements of §6-207 (E) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen as a site specific development plan has been approved and the Trust has complied with all conditions attendant to its original development approval. It further complies with the conditions of the state vested rights statute, §24-68-101, et seq. , C.R.S. Specifically, §24-68-104(2) , C.R.S. provides that vested rights in excess of three years may be permitted after consideration of all relevant circumstances . A copy of that statutory authority is attached hereto as Appendix III . Economic circumstances justify an extension of the vested rights previously granted the Trust. The Trust spent approximately twice what was originally projected for the repairs to the 3 property. It is reasonable to grant additional time to allow the Trust to recoup some of those costs . No violation of any public purpose would result from the extension, and some of the least expensive free-market housing in the City will continue to be available in the rental market while the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority continues its efforts to provide affordable housing for the working people of Aspen. 4 NEILEY & ALDER ATTORNEYS 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 EXHIBIT D Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y.Neiley,Jr.,P.C. FAX Number Eugene M. Alder,P.C. (303) 925.9393 (303) 925-9396 October 11, 1994 HAND DELIVERY Tom Stevenson, Chief Aspen Police Department 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Valley-Hi Apartments 1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Dear Tom: This office represents the owners of the Valley-Hi Apartments . I am processing an application for extension of vested rights for my clients, and in connection therewith, a referral request was issued to your department. On August 18 , 1994 , Officer Beth Ufkes submitted a response, a copy of which I enclose. We take strong issue with Ms . Ufkes ' response. As you can see, this response cites many criminal complaints that are on- going at the property. It also indicates that the owners of the property have been informed of the problems and have failed to take any action. First, I have been in direct communication with the owners and the local managing agent, Carl B. Linnecke, CPA. None of the owners has ever received any contact from the Aspen Police Department. Mr. Linnecke has been contacted on one occasion, approximately two weeks ago regarding a theft investigation. This contact was with Ed Piccolo. Mr. Linnecke was entirely coopera- tive, and we have heard nothing further on this matter. Both Mr. Linnecke and I are the local agents for the property and are the registered agent and officers for the corporate general partner. Neither of us has ever been apprised by any member of your department of any problems with criminal activities at the property. The suggestion in Ms . Ufkes ' referral response is that the owners of the property do not care about criminal activity and have actually ignored on-going problems . This creates real dif- ficulties for the property owners in connection with their land use Letter to Mr. Stever-nn October 6, 1994 Page 2 application and is not an accurate depiction. Quite to opposite is true. In the fall of 1992 after completing a substantial remodel of the project, Mr. Linnecke contacted your department and requested that he be apprised of criminal activities and complaints at the project so that appropriate action could be taken by the owner in the form of evictions . Mr. Linnecke was advised that such information was not available for public dissemination because of privacy concerns . On March 24 , 1994, I personally filed a criminal com- plaint with your department in connection with what we believed was an active drug dealing situation at the complex. The drug dealing had been brought to my attention by Mr. Linnecke and our on-site management company. When I filed the complaint, I provided the apartment number and names of the tenants and the names of three witnesses who could be contacted. We requested that an investi- gation be undertaken and that we receive a response to our concerns . After the expiration of approximately three months without either a return call or any other communication from your department, we evicted the tenants and solved the problem ourselves . We believe Ms . Ufkes ' communication with the Planning Office grossly mischaracterizes the actual circumstances at the Valley-Hi Apartments and should be retracted. As to the alleged "many criminal complaints that are on- going, " we have no direct knowledge of this information. However, since this has a direct bearing on both our land use application and my clients ' concerns regarding management and liability at the property, we want to be brought up to date regarding the situation. In this regard/ please consider this letter my formal request for the following information: 1 . An itemization of all criminal complaints received related to the Valley-Hi Apartments from November 1992 to the present; 2 . A detailed list of all criminal charges brought against individuals at the Valley-Hi Apartments from November 1992 to the present; 3 . A detailed list of all arrests made at the Valley-Hi Apartments from November 1992 to the present; Letter to Mr. Stever-nn October 6, 1994 Page 3 4 . Any other information maintained by your department which substantiates the statement that there are "many criminal complaints that are on-going at this location. " We feel that this information is essential to both explain the content and recommendation of your department's response to the Planning Office's referral request and to an effective management of the property. It is our impression that virtually all of the occupants of the Valley-Hi Apartments are hard-working, honest members of the community. We have compiled a list of the employers of our tenants which I enclose. While we can obviously not guarantee that otherwise hard-working persons are not involved in criminal activities , we do not believe that there are extensive criminal activities at the property. Your assistance in clarifying this issue would be greatly appreciated. Vei+ truly yours , Na L Y & ALDER R. chard Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN/agk Enclosures MESSAGE DISPLAY TO AMY MARGERUM CC 101 CC BILL EFTING CC MARY LACKNER CC 102 CC LESLIE LAMONT From: Beth Ufkes Postmark: Aug 18 , 94 2 : 55 PM Status: Certified Previously read Subject: EXTENSION FOR VALLEY HIGH APARTMENTS, 1000 EAST HOPKINS Message: THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS LEARNED THAT THE EXTENTION FOR 1000 EAST HOPKINS MAY BE ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA IN OCTOBER. WE ARE AGAINST ANY EXTENSION FOR THIS PROPERTY DUE TO THE MANY CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS THAT ARE ON GOING AT THIS LOCATION. THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN INFORMED AND HAVE FAILED TO TAKE ANY ACTION. SHOULD WE HAVE A MEETING TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE FURTHER? X VCIttit CU 1 NUHl. nLynsf Witt �Y! Carl B. Linnecke, CPA, P.C. ,-z5 South Monarch Street • Aspen,Colorado 8x611 • TEL 303/915-1040 • FAX 303/925-4468 October 5, 1994 Rick Neiley Sent Via FAX 201 N. Mill St. , Ste 102 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Valley Ni Tenants Dear Rick, Following is a list of the places the tenants in the Valley Hi work: La Cocina Chanin's Little Annie's Hickory House Planet Hollywood Carnivale Hard Rock Mirabella Aspen Club Lodge Renaissance Restaurant Aspen Grove Restaurant Shadow Mountain Lodge Explorer Bookseller Aspen Square Kenichi Lima Light Lodge Friedl's Little Nell Smuggler Land Office Ritz Carlton Jour de Fete Hotel Jerome Mountain House Woody Creek Roofing Durgin Electric Please be advised that the natural tendency to say these people are all dishwashers or transient is not true. Many are, prep cooks at the restaurants. The women are house keepers for the most part. The guy who works at Explorer told me he has been there six years. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. very truly yours, Car B. Linnecke, CPA NEILEY & ALDER • ATTORNEYS 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y. Neiley,Jr.,P.C. FAX Number Eugene M.Alder,P.C. (303) 925-9393 (303) 925-9396 October 11, 1994 John S . Bennett, Mayor City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Valley-Hi Apartments, 1000 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO Dear John: I represent Valley-Hi Development Trust, the owner of Valley-Hi Apartments at 1000 E . Hopkins Avenue, Aspen. As I believe you are aware, we are currently processing an application for extension of vested rights in connection with land use approvals originally granted in June of 1991 . At present, those approvals expire on June 15, 1995 . The Planning Office has advised me that you are scheduling a meeting with certain neighborhood residents for Friday, October 14 , 1994 . I understand the purpose of this meeting is to discuss concerns of the neighbors regarding the management of the apartment complex. I believe it would be appropriate for a Valley-Hi Apartments representative to attend this meeting. While I will be out of town on that day, the local manager, Carl B. Linnecke, C.P.A. , will make time for the meeting. He can be reached at 925-1040 . If you could have someone contact him regarding the time of the meeting, we would appreciate it. Since certain people in the neighborhood are lobbying for a denial of our extension application, I think it is appropriate to provide you with some information regarding the current status of the property. I have received a copy of the September 30, 1994 , letter from the East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents Association, which I understand has also been provided to the Planning Office and Members of the City Council . Enclosed herewith you will find a copy of my recent letter to Police Chief Tom Stephenson. The allegation that the Valley-Hi Apartments is a warren of criminal activity is to our knowledge simply untrue. As you can see from my letter to Tom, we have never been advised of criminal activity at the property and in fact, have been pro-active in attempting to eliminate undesirable tenants . I have asked for details regarding any criminal activity over the past two years . I do want to emphasize that none of John S. Bennett, Mayor October 11, 1994 Page 2 the owners, the management or local representatives of the property have ever been confronted by any law enforcement or City representative with complaints of criminal activity at the property. If these allegations are true, we will take prompt steps to rectify the problem. Ralph Braden, who recently purchased the property immediately next door to the Valley-Hi Apartments, this summer complained about the condition of and the tenants at the complex. Inasmuch as Ralph purchased the property for speculative development purposes, it is understandable that he would like to see the apartment building removed and redeveloped as soon as possible. We understand that Ralph is the head of the East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents Association and is responsible for the September 30, 1994, letter. That letter grossly mischaracterizes the situation at the Valley-Hi Apartments . We have contacted Lenny Oates , the association attorney, and have advised him of our willingness to discuss the perceived problems . The true picture of the Valley-Hi Apartments is one of a worker oriented residential complex including singles, families and small children. Attached to my letter to Tom Stephenson is a list of the employers of many of the people at the Valley-Hi Apartments . Our tenants are hard working, integral members of the Aspen community. We feel the real problem that underlies the neighbors ' complaints is the fact that 18 of the 19 apartments at the complex are occupied by individuals of Hispanic origin. As more and more of these people join our resident and work force, we see a greater and greater level of prejudice and distrust develop in our community. In a very real sense, the concept of Aspen as an open minded, diverse community is challenged by the recent changes in our demographics. I enclose a copy of an article from the October 5, 1994, Aspen Times which deals with the difficulty of worker displacement and specifically refers to the Valley-Hi Apartments . Our proposal would defer this displacement for an additional year and thus provide the community more time to address this problem. The local manager, Carl Linnecke, and I met with Gary Lyman, Chief Building Inspector, on the site yesterday. In visiting all the units except for one, it was determined that the building remains in reasonably good condition, considering its age, and that building and safety upgrades, which were implemented two years ago, remain in place. Gary will be providing a report to the Planning Office. Only a few minor repair needs were identified. These include the need to replace batteries in smoke detectors, the repair of a couple of faucets and some minor drywall repair. John S . Bennett, Ma' October 11, 1994 Page 3 Contrary to allegations of the neighbors , the complex has not been ignored or neglected. In fact, the owners spend in excess of $1, 000 . 00 a month on maintenance and repair. The buildings are old, having been constructed in the late 1960 's, and thus require a higher level of care than newer properties and have a less desirable appearance. Recent inspections of the property establish that there are no junk cars or accumulations of trash on the property. Loose trash is picked up at least once a week by our maintenance contractor and we have regular dumpster service. I did notice when I was at the property last week two large rolls of carpet sticking out of the dumpster. These were courtesy of one of the neighbors . This is a high occupancy building and the maintenance requirements are constant. We try to address those requirements as effectively as possible. We are willing to discuss the perceived problems with the neighborhood association and the City. We feel that our request for extension of vested rights is appropriate for a variety of reasons expressed in our application including the fact that the displacement of the occupants of 19 units in the next six months does not seem desirable in light of the current housing crunch. When we last sought an extension of vested rights we sought two additional years because of the substantial amount of money being invested to upgrade the property. We were granted a one year extension and were requested to return after the expiration of a year to seek additional time to recoup the capital expenditure. Please let me know if a representative of the Valley-Hi Apartments will be allowed to attend your meeting on October 14 . Thank you for your consideration of this matter. V-r truly yours , i' Y & ALDER -•i "hard Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN/dd Enclosures cc : Carl B. Linnecke Valley-Hi Development Trust Leslie Lamont Lenny Oates/East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents Association Bennett.ltr kt:Nip r O v te dli h f licss o f s.1) ace workers By Gil I. Rudawsky ket housing have approvals to redevelo `; Aspen Times Staff Writer - - housing PP n i the property and there is some concern '. The Aspen City Council started the .that the current residents would be left ,,;' wheels 'rolling. on a policy;that.could without a place to live -l0 require developers to provide housing for =''There was 'aalso some talk about the•residents displaced by new construction. free-rharket Park Meadows building, for "If developers displace an employee, -'merly located off Highway 82, across ' they should be responsible to find them a 'r'from Tiehack.-The low:income rental ;- new place to stay,"•city council member`-'apartment house-was torn down to make; Terry'Paulson said during an'informal way for the upscale Maroon Creek Golf w meeting this week. i- Club. ' ;The city currently does not'have a poli ' About 48 Park Meadows residents cy to-directly help displaced workers jwere'evicted from their units in June ; kicked out ofiow-rent, free-market hous- '1993. Developers said they will replace a7..1 ing, but there seemed to be interest by ' portion of the units, but the new units are some city council members to look at ,'not intended to accommodate the former. passing an ordinance to address this issue.,; residents The city currently has numerous free- i't`.Paulson said that he is particularly con market housing units around town that.; earned about displacement since he was'' provide—an inexpensive place to stay for ::',kicked out of his rental home five years I ' area workers. Over,the years, these units ago and left without a place to live. He ; have become more and more scarce. --:also said that working at City Market,•' City council specifically had some con- where he is assistant manager, he sees terns about residents at the•Valley'Hi °`many employees who are displaced by ;= rental apartments, located on East Hop- 't - ;� . kins Avenue.The owners of the free-mar--;i n See Displaced on page 8 ' v g••' ;CIY4' "t°64D,t 3'`'i';,, ,c�..3 {N.,4C4x t ..4. w S r s L1 71.`e 4.- ii 4 r ia t: 1 . /l C; lV 1 i 1 ti i�� ` : �`` - ,� v , , 7 •.t -v. t 4 I d t t' s i' ' S ° � -.. `L g.`N '4 i ^� i- d i j i'l A i A t y� . '� t''tsf {"45;d' ,tir y .(v., 9 •.i27` - 'i<t . sort{ a Ati4f,C { 4t } `Pr-' '1 .a+.a.4-4 nitri. 4:1, "f- ' ;r x.-refe -...ff oaf`-?3 r '1 . 1„[Y ;, Sf t;.4t , " �( + t r rgit- ic2H 7 .,-4- f. • ' ..r t _ _ ti . .v t4 f r t' s e j'YEc'1e�1� -I ..turgapautell • O contini.• rorn page 3 > .ne city again tried to stop the trend in 19S This is an-issue that's close to me,"Paulson said when it passed an impact mitigation ordinance aimi Council member Rachel Richards was against•a e . at new construction. For instance,if an existing fret displacement proposal since she said it would only ;;market structure is-demolished to make way for discourage people from building rental housing. larger home, the builder is required to mitigate th. "Why would they build a rental housing project if, impact they know they will have to take care of the res- idents forever' Richards said Aspen City Manager Amy-Margerum said • that other communities d•ith tight housing Mar--.a: kets have ordinances that require developers "If developers displace an tearing down rental housing fo provide the resi- - dents displaced a new place to live:Margerum employee, they should be said, for instance, that Santa Barbara currently . a has a displacement ordinance responsible to find them a new . 'z '.`The city council will direct the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Board to look at developing a place to stay." displacement ordinance and offer its reeommen---- clarions to the elected officials Terry Paulson, Aspen city council membc According to housing officials, the tearing _ _ • -down of existing free-market projects and build- t • iing"mill ion-dollar homes has been going on • :since the early 1930s _ During that time, the employee population-of the city dropped from 60 percent to 40 percent, •largely because of second-home construction,` 1 ti , •according to housing officials Builders get credit for the square footage of th, In 1989, the housing office built 89 units at . old home; but have to pay an additional $14 pe '..Truscott Place to stop the displacement,but while the square foot if the new structure is larger than the on project was under construction, housing officials said -demolished. Or, a developer could build a Iarg an equal number of employees were displaced by home with an employee unit attached to the structur second-home construction.' • _ or deed-restrict the home. . • Y .} s .w T r�^! : 4-" T t i s ..- . `q>yp . .. ::..r.; < J. i \'� '' yi . r A i t }-t t: a� , It' rstr `5ti (C`. at + ,f4�z s �4f4yv { A':rF 'f � r a � ' t�'" 3 f i t'�; -.X'-fa.�t _ 'J r( 3.�,^_:�L.4Y,+e,v >3 j 1• :t. t "` i - ;W;}}� 9 'nit ‘ - ' i - -Y 3� 7 -� I'•'. >. h� "'t ; �',r7y1 �':- J , ;.- "11`,,,,-x ' a ; a .. 5... t YYS._ FGSy.,.>..''..-);A:...,t Y t r x'C '.zS� E 4,41; ! t�.�t � "f� �may. i A -S` > M a^�.�.a d ,� -i Jw -t 4 . a 7.'"4,1';‘11;;`,' .S . r �` Y �" ,i.. • s' K itch e� h 'te as- P a.\ Zh �y3 �A�'"fy�a4'�'r�n��t r � ,jjf '°.t °„ t �'`, t ' ' 'e Aft S a: `r. �`'$ 4t 9L Mkt ry j _ \i'� �' tz:xea-"5 , ` „ : Y 3 P a 1 P + ` • ,R y c• .%• as t • ti • , �" - � ;r a,.a, l y• id 0 4 f ,,,E " ,tea v..7,-;-,� 7 ?4' jy .yr T }t t. .- Z 'i t ` � t� F r- n , i �c y z z - yy ' _ �� ? x 0 Jy£ _ � %. ..1 mss_ _ _ ?n* r t1r , SV ' e J " w _ .(40. t > L . 2.‘'•-.2,7. \i j• s p' J °te % c qtr y 7 t A 'ss iy �. 4y . i `�'a i rs4t .. J n .4 / YR : Lt } .--1 r t , J g4 l • " N y 1 Y jY , . .1 c e - 1 Y h' K V V t tb f 'l d r / }s { wY' ..4 - 2 ve, re„....." f ce t t:w F'. .C.2, �l y a. <t.l • • #3, f r mi T -`f • .v . . . s ) t' °ma5 �gca r 1. l5r }',l L i, ,� F 55 +Y p'4 {'h ' p'-ti f k>.r.:e 2 ' r y /,� q a n r y ( �- J , ?'. : r ti -,$ . , 9 § i#.' rfcy' r2v! t .. 4. w 1 1 • v t ; .. a � .2�� # .r...; emu s _ ' ,7,,-,.,......„.,5;.:i1,2.,,,, i d ij<' c 1", r^ lap ; . $7 i7rr • a Valley HI Apartments are home to folks Ilke two-year-old Tony Mendes (above), taking a break from wheeling up and down the hallways of the building, which offers basic accommodations for moderate rents. .. Ramon Medrano (left), Is another Valley Hl resident He Is shown spending his day off from Kenichi Restaurant, - _preparing a meal common to his El Salvadoran homeland- boiled ' . cow-tongue tacos. The owners of Valley HI, which Is a free-market ' . operation, already have the necessary approvals to redevelop the property. If that happens, the city council is concerned about whether Tony and Ramon could find other affordable housing. Travis Caperton photos. • NEILEY & ALDER • ATTORNEYS 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y. Neiley,Jr.,P.C. - FAX Number Eugene M.Alder,P.C. (303) 925-9393 (303) 925-9396 October 12, 1994 Leonard M. Oates Oates, Hughes & Knezevich, P.C. 533 E. Hopkins Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Valley-Hi Apartments 1000 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Dear Lennie: This letter is a follow-up to our telephone conversation of yesterday regarding the above property and your representation of East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents Association. As you know, my clients, the Valley-Hi Development Trust, take issue with the September 30, 1994, letter put out by your clients . You indicated that you would provide me with a copy of the "crime list for East Hopkins" which your clients obtained from the police department. Please fax this to me at 925-9396 . As you can see from my enclosed letter to Police Chief Tom Stephenson, we were attempting to independently determine the extent of the crime problem at the Valley-Hi Apartments . I also enclose a copy of my letter of yesterday to Mayor John Bennett. As that letter suggests and as we discussed, my clients feel strongly that a substantial reason for the neighbor- hood opposition to the requested extension of vested rights is prejudice against the Hispanic occupants of the building. In our conversation yesterday I requested a list of the members of the East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents Association. I hope you will provide this to us in the near future. It is difficult for us to effectively address the concerns of a faceless "association" . We would be willing to meet with the members of the association and you at any mutually convenient time. If there are specific issues which can be addressed, we would be happy to explore means of alleviating the neighborhood concerns . The generic complaints in the September 30, 1994, letter, however, do not provide much by way of real identifiable issues . Perhaps a review of your "crime list" and any information the police department makes available will provide one area of focus . If Letter to Mr. Oates October 12, 1994 Page 2 there are other concerns that your clients would like to discuss, please let me know. I look forward to hearing from you. Ve , truly yours, N ' EY & ALDER Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN/dd Enclosures Oates.ltr MEMORANDUM TO: City Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager FROM: Stan Clauson, City C.D. Directory " DATE: 1 November 1994 RE: Valley-Hi Site Tour Gary Lyman has suggested that a tour of the building may assist Council in understanding the quality of construction and current condition of the Valley- Hi complex. Staff would be pleased to schedule a visit for any Council members interested in visiting the site. Gary will be preparing a more detailed report on improvements required and installed at Valley-Hi during the past year, along with any current issues with the structure. Please contact me (920-5099) or Leslie Lamont (920-5101) if you wish to arrange for a tour of the site. NEILEY & ALDER al US ATTORNEYS 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y.Neiley,Jr.,P.C. -'- FAX Number Eugene M.Alder,P.C. (303) 925-9393 (303) 925-9396 October 20, 1994 HAND DELIVERY Leslie Lamont Aspen Planning Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Valley-Hi Apartments, 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Dear Leslie: Enclosed herewith you will find the following: 1. Copy of Tom Stephenson's letter to me dated October 12, 1994; and 2 . Copy of my letter of today's date to Lennie Oates . Once I have had an opportunity to review your memo to City Council, I will provide any additional information that we feel is appropriate in light of your recommendation of denial. In the meantime, if you need any information from me, please call. truly yours, NE EY & ALDER i�� II /`/J/ +Ric and Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN:aja encl. NEILEY & ALDER ATTORNEYS 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y.Neiley,Jr..P.C. FAX Number Eugene M.Alder, P.C. (303) 925-9393 (303) 925-9396 October 20, 1994 HAND DELIVERY Thomas J. Stephenson Chief of Police The City of Aspen 506 East Main Street Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Valley-Hi Apartments, 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Dear Chief Stephenson: Thank for your letter of October 12, 1994 . I was aware that several neighbors of the Valley-Hi Apartments planned to oppose our extension of vested rights application and that one had raised the issue of criminal activity at the apartment building. As I mentioned in my previous letter, reports of drug dealing had reached us and were passed on to your department. As recently as this week, we advised one of your officers that we did not intend to renew leases on a number of units where we suspected criminal drug activities might be occurring. I understand that today a number of arrests were made at the complex. The owners and management of the Valley-Hi Apartments have always been open to discussion of ways to improve the condition of the complex. In the past, we have offered to cooperate and have cooperated with police investigations . I do want to emphasize that my client adamantly disagrees that any neighbor's concerns were "callously rebuffed. " In fact, we have offered to meet with representatives of the neighborhood association but have received no response. , Thomas J. Stephenson Chief of Police October 20, 1994 Page Two I agree that the time is ripe for productive dialogue regarding the property. I think it would be useful to have a representative of the police department at a meeting with the neighborhood representatives . If I receive a response to our proposal for a meeting with the neighbors, I will contact your office to coordinate our schedules . Very\truly yours, NEI EY & ALDER I ichard Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN:aja cc: v6slie Lamont Aspen Planning Department Valley-Hi Development Trust NEILEY & ALDER ATTORNEYS 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y.Neiley,Jr.,P.C. FAX Number Eugene M.Alder,P.C. (303) 925-9393 (303) 925-9396 October 12, 1994 By: Hand Delivery Leslie Lamont Aspen Planning Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Valley-Hi Apartments 1000 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Dear Leslie: Enclosed herewith you will find the following: 1 . Copy of my letter of October 11, 1994, to Police Chief Tom Stephenson, with attachments . 2 . Copy of my letter of October 11, 1994, to Mayor John Bennett, with attachment (excluding copy of letter to Chief Stephenson) . 3 . Copy of my letter of October 12, 1994, to Lennie Oases, attorney for East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents Association. In accordance with our conversation of last week, the first reading of our Ordinance extending vested rights is set for October 24, 1994; the second reading and public hearing is set for November 14, 1994. Since numerous witnesses will be attending the November 14, 1994, hearing date, it is critical that this date not change. As we obtain additional information which bears upon our application, I will provide additional supplements. I believe the enclosed letters should be included in your memorandum to City Council. If and when we receive the information we have requested from the Police Department, I will provide you with a copy. On October 10, 1994, we conducted a site visit with Gary Lyman, Chief Building Inspector. You should have his report shortly and I would appreciate receiving a copy. Letter to Ms . Lamont October 12, 1994 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Ve . truly yours, NEi ■ & ALDER 'ichard Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN/dd Enclosures Lamont.ltr RECEIVED 1LAL/S— OCT 17 J'EAOM IIHN c-; E GOLA f �"r� p. o. sox 249 City Man:gert?...ayor s Who AspeN, COLORADO 81612 Oct . 14,: 14'4R!k:tJTrOTr, J �irjnAul•VI To members of the City Council Augie Reno, Terry - � ,! Paulson, Rachel Richards, Georgeanne Wa 9 9a Margarum: Mayor John Bennett and City Manager Amy ga k . ,a;r; con As a long-time homeowner on East Hopkins, it has come to my attention that there is an issue coming before the Council that I feel strongly about . The Council will shortly consider an extension of a building permit on the site of the Valley Hi apartments at 1000 E. Hopkins . The last couple of years have seen a deterioration of the physical appearance of the building. The front is generally strewn and piled with refuse and litter. The appearance gives our neighborhood a run-down 'appeararice . The building is obviously poorly maintained and managed . There has been an increase of crime in our neighborhood. We feel that our security _overall has been compromised . My wife does not feel comfortable walking past the building, as there have been occassions whereby the residents there have stood on their balconies and made derisive remarks in her direction. THIS IS NOT WHY WE MOVED TO ASPEN! ! THIS IS NOT WHAT SO-CALLED EMPLOYEE HOUSING IN ASPEN IS MEANT TO BE. The building permit granted in June of 1991 is now outdated in regard to current land use and zoning. I strongly urge you NOT to grant another 2 year extension of their building permit so that units that enhance the neighborhood instead of detract from it can be built . I will be closely observing how you vote on this issue . Y•ur Consti uent, 14 , J�It, 1, J-rome Goldman 830 East Hopkins Aspen RECF!VED A Karen Goldman 61-c. gUTED �I "\� 830 East Hopki s 4 1$°'v Aspen, . Colo.. 8 -.. City Matae1719ta ,ft . if�/,L - -- iesPor9e a'.' ev I am writing you regarding an issue of utmost importance to me. The owner 's or the Valley Hi apartments at 1000 East Hopkins have requested a 2 year extension of their building permit. I strongly urge you NOT to grant this extension. I am a woman living in the East end. Periodically I am subjected to catcalls and obscene gestures by residents of that building as I jog by the apartment. . I am afraid to jog by at night unless I am with some other people.. Sometimes autos driven by residents of the Valley Hi have come uncomfortably close to me while riding my bicycle in the East end. A lady I knowlho lives across the E.. Hopkins bridge had the side of her home spray painted I have heard from numerous residents in the area about increased thefts.. Now I moved from a big city to Aspen some time ago to escape what is currently happening In the East end.. Judging from what has happened in other parts of the country, these things just don 't get better. The opposite occurs. . I have heard frequent phrases like multi-ethnic tolerance, cultural diversity and the like bandied about. . Let 's face it.. I don 't particularly care whether the population of the Valley Hi are Latinu's,Albanians or a bunch of rednecks from Georgia: This is what is happening NOW in the East end,. There is indeed a fear--not of people of another skin color, but a fear of what is actually taking place here,. Those of you who do not live in the East end do not know and cannot experience what those of us who live there do.. Remember- 'Judge us not until you walk a mile in our moccasins. Therefore, I feel a wake-up call is in order.. This is not what employee housing is all about or meant to be like in Aspen. . It 's time to remove the slum and get some decent units built at 1000 E. . Hopkins, instead of continuing to fatten the wallets of the out-of-the-country owners of the Valley Hi at our expense, . I will be closely following your vote on this issue. Your Constituent, Karen Goldman Karen Goldman RECEIVED 830 East Hopkins tIoy ; 1SS4 Aspen,. Colo.. 81611 City Ma+u6er/MaVor's Ottice 1 1/lA iiBUTrp fD: Dear Mayor Bennett v i _"4—""--- I am writing you regarding an issue of utmost importan8 *nctsea'T --- to me. The owner 's or the Valley Hi apartments at 1000"% Data East Hopkins have requested a 2 year extension of thelieJ - building permit. I strongly urge you NOT to grant this ` ---_ extension. I am a woman living in the East end. Periodically I am subjected to catcalls and obscene gestures by residents of that building as I jog by the apartment. . I am afraid to jog by at night unless I am with some other people.. Sometimes autos driven by residents of the Valley Hi have come uncomfortably close to me while riding my bicycle in the East end. A lady I knowtho lives across the E.. Hopkins bridge had the side of her home spray painted I have heard from numerous residents in the area about increased thefts.. Now I moved from a big city to Aspen some time ago to escape what is currently happening In the East end.. Judging from what has happened in other parts of the country, these things just don 't get better. The opposite occurs. . I have heard frequent phrases like multi-ethnic tolerance , cultural diversity and the like bandied about. . Let 's face it, I don 't particularly care whether the population of the Valley Hi are Latino.'s,Albanians or a bunch of rednecks from Georgia. This is what is happening NOW in the East end.. There is indeed a fear--not of people of another skin color, but a fear of what is actually taking place here.. Those of you who do not live in the East end do not know and cannot experience what those of us who live there do.. Remember- 'Judge us not until you walk a mile in our moccasins. ' Therefore, I feel a wake-up call is in order.. This is not what employee housing is all about or meant to be like in Aspen. . It 's time to remove the slum and get some decent units built at 1000 E. . Hopkins, instead of continuing to fatten the wallets of the out-of-the-country owners of the Valley Hi at our expense. . I will be closely following your vote on this issue. Your Constituent, Karen Gobs an C'-H r9p..1e kkoot 9tsc 6 HA./al-9D TO. ASee73 cp '51(U I Respaase-s !fie...:. RFnEIVED 3■ nate; A NOV 3 1SS4 AI- A-rny_DAAR-aerl _i • -) - -'Mayor's Officf T _ u t�r�mea R e of App • t -- -52.S aR S ..3,.. 8 W N 14 pl ekto e l na M < . ... _ .._moo cr_a_aAmti u,aki E 113 -cbcCnf es to 19oc1 - t�( Td�-Tc . ' 2r te Coat ua q - rw■ \ j o is. wait saa.■11 : Lik As-t— ?;cT t o -- Ru - t+Tter.? t __VVIAnR(. & Y -moot .)tJ. \ fl-u F ((LS Ws OIL al a IL)► © 13 *f-(; 6Ci 1J5 61_r- Re on - — ut ( kJ 7j C1-aP1-7 aoc r94 (J•S O co- -:6 i p etc m ES cot lC-LM `n A- 0 I RFCF("Fn Harry C. Moore NOV I city Mfan.dedf,:ayor's C;tice DIS -.3UTED TO: a.0 - October 31 , 1994 if iii ■ ^ a)f !' I ( - Mr. John Bennett 4'7v ReS)iOnSe gy: �/�.���-. Mayor B\; nate: Arlh City of Aspen c.-. ;1. V1{t 130 South Galena ASPEN, CO 81611 U. S.A. Dear Mr. Bennett, My wife and I are owners of a duplex condominium at 1018 East Hopkins Ave. For some years we have been shocked at the dangerous conditions at the Valley Hi apartment complex several doors down the street from us. As you well know, the latest reason for our concern is the recent arrest of 19 individuals in a drug raid by the police. This comes as no surprise to us as we were well aware of such a possibility. The purpose of this letter is to register a complaint to the City of the existence of such a disreputable establishment within the city limits. We are not clear as to whether the City is enforcing the building and zoning restriction there. It would certainly appear to us that they are not. We have been led to believe in the past that certain requirements had been made for them to clean up their act but are rather of the opinion that this has not been done. We would be most grateful if we could have some reassurance from you as to what you plan to do to remedy this very unpleasant and dangerous situation. Sincerely, 70 1 Harry C. oore cc: Gary M. Feldman Showcase Properties P.O. Box N-7776 • LyforMCay • Nassau, Bahamas • (809)362-4655 • FAX: (809)362-4346 19iSTRIBUTED TO:! F. PI 'FD f tie( 2f A ... OCT '� r;c „ " 1� Pi•. 'sai ,�._ ' . ice II ! ,vDate:eBy: October 15, 1994 r 1 .` p' fiy Hate: y r. -aF To City Manager Amy Margarum, Councilmen Augie Reno, Terry Paulson, Councilwomen Rachel Richards , Georgeanne Waggaman and Mayor John Bennett . - Deaxr . Mayor, Councilmen, Councilwomen:, ' Ms . Margarum: It has come to my attention that the owners of the Valley Hi apartments at 1000 East Hopkins have requested a two-year extension of their building permit granted in 1991 . The appearance of the building is in a continuing state of decay. This tends to depress property values in our neigh- borhood. I no longer have the same feeling of safety in my building as I used to have before the Valley Hi was occupied by it ' s present inhabitants. The Valley Hi does not represent employee housing in town as it was meant—to be. We need employee housing whereby the occupants have a vested interest in living and working in Aspen, thereby striving to maintain desirable surroundings in which to live . By your not granting an extension, the owners will likely be induced to erect units that would be an asset to Aspen ' s East end, instead of leaving the building in it ' s present state which is a blight on the neighborhood . I do not believe that it was ever the intention of the people in Aspen to provide employee housing that would be detremental to the area in which it is located . Kindly be sensitive to us , the people who live in the Eat )nopkins area', and are directly affected by your decision. I will be closely watching how you vote on this issue. Y- r C . tiuent, 1 Sam Chester 935 E. Hopkins P .O . Box 4161 Aspen , , • RECEIVED NEILEY & ALDER OCT 1 1 ICY ATTORNEYS City Manger/Mayer':C:fice 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y.Neiley,Jr.,P.C. FAX Number Eugene M.Alder,P.C. (303)925-9393 DISTRIBUTED TO: e • 5.9396 October 11, 1994 II A I 1.4,4 6r'J;aw " • I Ad -./ John S. Bennett, Mayor Resp°, seBy: not C ra= City of Aspen By Date Ay- 130 South Galena Street For _{ Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Valley-Hi Apartments, 1000 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO Dear John: I represent Valley-Hi Development Trust, the owner of Valley-Hi Apartments at 1000 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen. As I believe you are aware, we are currently processing an application for extension of vested rights in connection with land use approvals originally granted in June of 1991 . At present, those approvals expire on June 15, 1995 . The Planning Office has advised me that you are scheduling a meeting with certain neighborhood residents for Friday, October 14, 1994 . I understand the purpose of this meeting is to discuss concerns of the neighbors regarding the management of the apartment complex. I believe it would be appropriate for a 7t015. Valley-Hi Apartments representative to attend this meeting. While I will be out of town on that day, the local manager, Carl B. 9 Linnecke, C.P.A. , will make time for the meeting. He can be fl(f) reached at 925-1040. If you could have someone contact him �I� regarding the time of the meeting, we would appreciate it. �U Since certain people in the neighborhood are lobbying for a denial of our extension application, I think it is appropriate to provide you with some information regarding the current status of the property. I have received a copy of the September 30, 1994, letter from the East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents Association, which I understand has also been provided to the Planning Office and Members of the City Council . Enclosed herewith you will find a copy of my recent letter to Police Chief Tom Stephenson. The allegation that the Valley-Hi Apartments is a warren of criminal activity is to our knowledge simply untrue. As you can see from my letter to Tom, we have never been advised of criminal activity at the property and in fact, have been pro-active in attempting to eliminate undesirable tenants . I have asked for details regarding any criminal activity over the past two years . I do want to emphasize that none of John S. Bennett, Mayor October 11, 1994 Page 2 the owners, the management or local representatives of the property have ever been confronted by any law enforcement or City representative with complaints of criminal activity at the property. If these allegations are true, we will take prompt steps to rectify the problem. Ralph Braden, who recently purchased the property immediately next door to the Valley-Hi Apartments, this summer complained about the condition of and the tenants at the complex. Inasmuch as Ralph purchased the property for speculative development purposes, it is understandable that he would like to see the apartment building removed and redeveloped as soon as possible. We understand that Ralph is the head of the East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents Association and is responsible for the September 30, 1994, letter. That letter grossly mischaracterizes the situation at the Valley-Hi Apartments . We have contacted Lenny Oates, the association attorney, and have advised him of our willingness to discuss the perceived problems . The true picture of the Valley-Hi Apartments is one of a worker oriented residential complex including singles, families and small children. Attached to my letter to Tom Stephenson is a list of the employers of many of the people at the Valley-Hi Apartments. Our tenants are hard working, integral members of the Aspen community. We feel the real problem that underlies the neighbors' complaints is the fact that 18 of the 19 apartments at the complex are occupied by individuals of Hispanic origin. As more and more of these people join our resident and work force, we see a greater and greater level of prejudice and distrust develop in our community. In a very real sense, the concept of Aspen as an open minded, diverse community is challenged by the recent changes in our demographics . I enclose a copy of an article from the October 5, 1994, Aspen Times which deals with the difficulty of worker displacement and specifically refers to the Valley-Hi Apartments. Our proposal would defer this displacement for an additional year and thus provide the community more time to address this problem. The local manager, Carl Linnecke, and I met with Gary Lyman, Chief Building inspector, on the site yesterday. In visiting all the units except for one, it was determined that the building remains in reasonably good condition, considering its age, and that building and safety upgrades, which were implemented two years ago, remain in place. Gary will be providing a report to the Planning Office. Only a few minor repair needs were identified. These include the need to replace batteries in smoke detectors, the , repair of a couple of faucets and some minor drywall repair. John S. Bennett, Mayor October 11, 1994 Page 3 Contrary to allegations of the neighbors, the complex has not been ignored or neglected. In fact, the owners spend in excess of $1,000.00 a month on maintenance and repair. The buildings are old, having been constructed in the late 1960's, and thus require a higher level of care than newer properties and have a less desirable appearance. Recent inspections of the property establish that there are no junk cars or accumulations of trash on the property. Loose trash is picked up at least once a week by our maintenance contractor and we have regular dumpster service. I did notice when I was at the property last week two large rolls of carpet sticking out of the dumpster. These were courtesy of one of the neighbors. This is a high occupancy building and the maintenance requirements are constant. We try to address those requirements as effectively as possible. We are willing to discuss the perceived problems with the neighborhood association and the City. We feel that our request for extension of vested rights is appropriate for a variety of reasons expressed in our application including the fact that the displacement of the occupants of 19 units in the next six months does not seem desirable in light of the current housing crunch. When we last sought an extension of vested rights we sought two additional years because of the substantial amount of money being invested to upgrade the property. We were granted a one year extension and were requested to return after the expiration of a year to seek additional time to recoup the capital expenditure. Please let me know if a representative of the Valley-Hi Apartments will be allowed to attend your meeting on October 14 . Thank you for your consideration of this matter. V: 1, truly yours, lik Y & ALDER ! R /'i hard Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN/dd Enclosures cc: Carl B. Linnecke Valley-Hi Development Trust Leslie Lamont Lenny Oates/East Hopkins Property Owners and Residents Association Bennett.ltr Aspen ® e : li pg of Its displaced workers x. By Gil I. Rudawsky -' "ket housing have approvals to redevelop Aspen Times Staff Writer the property and there is some concern sk The Aspen City' Council started the ;.that the current residents would be left :" wheels rolling on a policy that'could without a place to live require developers to provide housing for 'I.There was also some talk about the residents displaced by new construction. free-market Park Meadows building, for- "If developers displace an employee, - merly located off Highway 82, across they should be responsible to find them a from Tiehack.-The low=income rental "" new place to stay,"•city council member _ apartment house was torn down to make Terry"Paulson said during an informal way for the upscale Maroon Creek Golf,,;. meeting this week. " : - Club. 3 -The city currently does not have a poll ' -About 48 Park Meadows residents cy to-directly help displaced workers -Were evicted from their units in June P• kicked out 01'10W-rent, free-market hous- 1993. Developers said they will replace a';, ing, but there seemed to be interest by ' portion of the units, but the new units are some city council members to look at not intended to accommodate the former r,j passing an ordinance to address this issue. residents ' t; The city currently has'numerous free ,'t':Paulson said that he is particularly con market housing units around town that_ • cerned about displacement since he was='i provide an inexpensive place to stay for 'kicked out of his rental home five years area workers. Over,the years, these units__,ago and left without a place to live. He .` have become more and more scarce. >-` also said that working at City Market, City council specifically had some con- where he is assistant manager, he sees _a terns about residents at the'Valley-Hi l' many employees who are displaced by,; rental apartments, located on East Hop- °-developers. i kins Avenue.The owners of the free-mar- °:9 See Displaced on page 8 ' =. �33, - v 4 •'a '. ,�"I ,.:I '7 "vy a om_Ylt • n _ 1,1, fvy '` p d t C x {: Y yy iC .7±1 „,„,:e.� '� r ` "" ', w�' a v P 1ST X "Es ' tF ' t s ' , n Yw s , ,4a � -4 1 . :I % \ ', - ". r t e � 11 k \ n d i Rft AI NL .^ v i vc at�.. a I t C'1 \ *:bi Y S� lk ' t o , :L_.. i ' q—' At,-.)7.,:.� .7:71'22 t s, k t 1 _ , v..•'" :4[ u:, it k. + Ck i c v iT X �tx. '£ d p,1 "-11'. �, i.Tr } a t ' + r s g �4 t j t (.. 1 r '� v-, ,dc „ r }{'i 15 it-II ft, P 1 lI t .� x .. p�; `t:,�: : d i Sa o? ` it }I I4 IS , 1 1i t h, 'r, ti ,t? ,' l u , yv eY. �5 • SI i 1 J 1!{ k h n ys, F "S �� t v-,44 ' � f .r 7 fr ,i ^r: 6"z�hw+ '?kf�p' c,4 ... tr.''.:C1-:2'J'-'"It-ft:'', Yve �t'P" , K?.e5i.: iii, i' . Wednesday, (ktober5, 1999 6,The Aspen limes 3 air 1. `a�4 ' ra T K , , ,, : : N.< ' to a ti 4 „, C� J' t c , ' s's * _ 2'�r A we K '$ a!v 4 y ..tix ff , z . i � d �v f e3y: 3 �4 ,` 1.1 ' I Q ' , :; S a ' ' (. y € • x. .w i stir : .. _ 2 s r z 3 � } s3 3, 7 -\, i Z •;:2:,f--Ili:.';:,: :.� L 3 }z % .k . c is - e�" .1 k :.-- +t.1,44),::: s � r II Y 'a ; r • sri �,c mss. '� � � i�%ssY Mq' Fa I x 1j �^ i, x•3b f t 2- i »; r� `"nom + 4"-*. J z - a rs - Y` T iiQ+ �, qs 3 a7 t,,,,-,,,..e ° 4k" _ i4 a )� f6 c- $ S::::K;(:‘;.; .4<a�,. ` x.,'d Lf I , �a ��€ 1 - l § a --' i.o �� k tits� i� x. t1Sye}l'gs'"[f. 'Q, 'mot q` ,/ r x �ri�,..^^ j r r 4 k{a {.y n5 P�"x �-�; cTd{ / s ,, �' 3. a d�.a . .4 s f ^ �- 4 v a� tt nd s t,.. .T;, '4 1 t �. # rTL ! 1 , .. S aMt one .� -`' '..�an;; ° ,(tit $.7;:- s x�.43. e.:- * : ter', „ °' -J h Valley HI Apartments are home to folks like two-year old Tony Mendes (above), taking a break from wheeling up and down the hallways of the building, which offers basic accommodations for moderate rents. Ramon Medrano (left), Is another Valley Hl resident. He Is shown spending his day.off from Kenichi Restaurant, preparing a meal common to hs El Salvadoran homeland-boiled cow-tongue tacos.The owners of Valley Hi, which Is a free market - operation, already have the necessary approvals to redeve;!op the property. If that happens, the city council is concerned about whether Tony and Ramon could find other affordable housing. Travis Caperton photos.■ • tsp laced" •continued from page 3 The city again tried to stop the trend in 199 "This is an issue that's close to me,"Paulson said. when it passed an impact mitigation ordinance aime ;+ Council_member Rachel Richards was against-a at new construction. For instance,if an existing frei displacement proposal since she said it would only ,market structure,is demolished to make way for discourage people from building rental housing.- larger home, the builder is required to mitigate tit; k: "Why would they build a rental housing project if :-impact they know they will have to take care of the res- - ; idents forever?"Richards said - - t• " Aspen City Manager Amy Margerum said � 5 ` e:' - that other communities with tight housing mar "- kets otdinances`sltat %eguire;developers ,t• "if developers displace an y tearing down rental housing fo provide the resi- '.':r s 'dents displaced a new place to live:,Margerum"'c employee, they should be I said, for instance,,that Santa Barbara currently has a displacement ordinance -.- responsible to find them a new The city.council will direct the AspenwPitkm *County Housing Board to look at developing a place to stay displacement ordinance and offer its recommen w •{; R»,: lotions to the elected officials. ,, ` Terry Paulson,Aspen city council mein According to housing officials, the tearing _% down of existing free-market projects and build frig million-dollar.homes has been.going on_ I%:since the early 19805 ' , :`: r - i During that time,the employee population of r- The city dropped from 60 percent to 40 percent, i largely because of second-home construction,` i :'according to housing officials Builders get credit for the square footage of th In 1989, the housing office built 89 units at s old home, but have to pay an additional $14 pi Truscott Place to stop the displacement,but while the square foot if the new structure is larger than the on project was under construction,housing officials said demolished. Or, a developer could build a larg an equal number of employees were displaced by home with an employee unit attached to the structur °second-home construction. ' or deed-restrict the home. . . -. - • • NEILEY & ALDER ATTORNEYS 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Richard Y. Neiley,Jr.,P.C. FAX Number Eugene M.Alder,P.C. (303) 925-9393 (303) 925-9396 October 11, 1994 HAND DELIVERY Tom Stevenson, Chief Aspen Police Department 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Valley-Hi Apartments 1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen Dear Tom: This office represents the owners of the Valley-Hi Apartments . I am processing an application for extension of vested rights for my clients, and in connection therewith, a referral request was issued to your department. On August 18 , 1994, Officer Beth Ufkes submitted a response, a copy of which I enclose. We take strong issue with Ms . Ufkes ' response. As you can see, this response cites many criminal complaints that are on- going at the property. It also indicates that the owners of the property have been informed of the problems and have failed to take any action. First, I have been in direct communication with the owners and the local managing agent, Carl B. Linnecke, CPA. None of. the owners has ever received any contact from the Aspen Police Department. Mr. Linnecke has been contacted on one occasion, approximately two weeks ago regarding a theft investigation. This contact was with Ed Piccolo. Mr. Linnecke was entirely coopera- tive, and we have heard nothing further on this matter. Both Mr. Linnecke and I are the local agents for the property and are the registered agent and officers for the corporate general partner. Neither of us has ever been apprised by any member of your department of any problems with criminal activities at the property. The suggestion in Ms . Ufkes ' referral response is that the owners of the property do not care about criminal activity and have actually ignored on-going problems . This creates real dif- ficulties for the property owners in connection with their land use Letter to Mr. SteveL. Jn October 6, 1994 Page 2 application and is not an accurate depiction. Quite to opposite is true. In the fall of 1992 after completing a substantial remodel of the project, Mr. Linnecke contacted your department and requested that he be apprised of criminal activities and complaints at the project so that appropriate action could be taken by the owner in the form of evictions . Mr. Linnecke was advised that such information was not available for public dissemination because of privacy concerns . On March 24 , 1994, I personally filed a criminal com- plaint with your department in connection with what we believed was an active drug dealing situation at the complex. The drug dealing had been brought to my attention by Mr. Linnecke and our on-site management company. When I filed the complaint, I provided the apartment number and names of the tenants and the names of three witnesses who could be contacted. We requested that an investi- gation be undertaken and that we receive a response to our concerns . After the expiration of approximately three months without either a return call or any other communication from your department, we evicted the tenants and solved the problem ourselves . We believe Ms . Ufkes ' communication with the Planning Office grossly mischaracterizes the actual circumstances at the Valley-Hi Apartments and should be retracted. As to the alleged "many criminal complaints that are on- going, " we have no direct knowledge of this information. However, since this has a direct bearing on both our land use application and my clients ' concerns regarding management and liability at the property, we want to be brought up to date regarding the situation. In this regard, please consider this letter my formal request for the following information: 1 . An itemization of all criminal complaints received related to the Valley-Hi Apartments from November 1992 to the present; 2 . A detailed list of all criminal charges brought against individuals at the Valley-Hi Apartments from November 1992 to the present; 3 . A detailed list of all arrests made at the Valley-Hi Apartments from November 1992 to the present; Letter to Mr. Steve._aon October 6, 1994 Page 3 4 . Any other information maintained by your department which substantiates the statement that there are "many criminal complaints that are on-going at this location. " We feel that this information is essential to both explain the content and recommendation of your department's response to the Planning Office's referral request and to an effective management of the property. It is our impression that virtually all of the occupants of the Valley-Hi Apartments are hard-working, honest members of the community. We have compiled a list of the employers of our tenants which I enclose. While we can obviously not guarantee that otherwise hard-working persons are not involved in criminal activities, we do not believe that there are extensive criminal activities at the property. Your assistance in clarifying this issue would be greatly appreciated. Ve A truly yours, NIL; Y & ALDER R. chard Y. Neiley, Jr. RYN/agk Enclosures MESSAGE DISPLAY TO AMY MARGERUM CC 101 CC BILL EFTING CC MARY LACKNER CC 102 CC LESLIE LAMONT From: Beth Ufkes Postmark: Aug 18, 94 2 : 55 PM Status: Certified Previously read Subject: EXTENSION FOR VALLEY HIGH APARTMENTS, 1000 EAST HOPKINS Message: THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS LEARNED THAT THE EXTENTION FOR 1000 EAST HOPKINS MAY BE ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA IN OCTOBER. WE ARE AGAINST ANY EXTENSION FOR THIS PROPERTY DUE TO THE MANY CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS THAT ARE ON GOING AT THIS LOCATION. THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY HAVE BEEN INFORMED AND HAVE FAILED TO TAKE ANY ACTION. SHOULD WE HAVE A MEETING TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE FURTHER? X Certified Public Accountant Carl B. Linnecke, CPA, P.C. 1x5 South Monarch Street • Aspen,Colorado 8x61i • TEL 3o3/915-104o • FAX 303/92 5-4468 October 5, 1994 Rick Neiley Sent Via FAX 201 N. Mill St. , Ste 102 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Valley Hi Tenants Dear Rick, Following is a list of the places the tenants in the Valley Hi work: La Cocina Chanin's Little Annie's Hickory House Planet Hollywood Carnivale Hard Rock Mirabella Aspen Club Lodge Renaissance Restaurant Aspen Grove Restaurant Shadow Mountain Lodge Explorer Bookseller Aspen Square Kenichi Lime Light Lodge Friedl's Little Nell Smuggler Land Office Ritz Carlton Jour de Fete Hotel Jerome Mountain House Woody Creek Roofing Durgin Electric Please be advised that the natural tendency to say these people are all dishwashers or transient is not true. Many are prep cooks at the restaurants. The women are house keepers for the most part. The guy who works at Explorer told me he has been there six years. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Very truly yours, Car B necke, CPA ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney Housing Director FROM: Mary Lackner, Planning Office RE: Valley-Hi Apartments Extension of Vested Rights Parcel ID No. 2737-182-01-003 DATE: August 24, 1994 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Valley-Hi Development Trust. Please return your comments to me no later than September 16. Thank you. ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197 MEMORANDUM TO: Building Inspector FROM: Mary Lackner, Planning Office RE: Valley-Hi Apartments Extension of Vested Rights Parcel ID No. 2737-182-01-003 DATE: September 13, 1994 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Valley-Hi Development Trust. Please return your comments to me no later than September 23. Thank you. SEP 20 '94 12:3BPM ASPEN HOUSING OFC P.1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mary Lackner, Planning Office FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing Office DATE: September 20, 1994 RE: VALLEY-HI APARTMENTS EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS Parcel ID No. 2737-182-01-003 extension The owner of vested rights, thro gh June 15, 1997 . a two-year BACKGROUND: This property now consists of 19 rental apartment units . what the developer has proposed is to demolition the re stricted affordable tment construct four free-market and four deed cost The developer stated that a remodel of the erentalon unit s acost $120,000 between 1992 and 1993 . In 1992 , a rights was approved by the City Council, indicating a willingness to consider further extensions of vested rights following completion of the remodel and implementation The owner maintenance and management program at the property. with this request. RSCONDAZION: Staff recommends approval of this reque undoes have a concern pertaining to Ordinance No. 8, page 4 , le with regard to the $45 ,000 cash-in-lieu payment for affordable housing to be paid prior to issuance of any building permits property. Staff has no background as to how the $45, 000 cash- in-lieu payment was decided, but the $45, 000 was worth a lot more in 1991 than it will be in 1997 . Therefore, staff recommends this issue be readdressed. \r2Eerral\valyhi.ar ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920-5197 August 24, 1994 Rick Neiley 201 N. Mill, #102 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Valley-Hi Apartments Extension of Vested Rights Case A61-94 Dear Rick, The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. We have scheduled this application for 1st Reading before the Aspen City Council on Monday, October 11, 1994 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. Second Reading and Public Hearing will be on November 14, 1994. Should these dates be inconvenient for you, please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda dates will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting dates, 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 mail notice to property owners within 300' and to post the subject property with a sign at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Please submit a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing prior to the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call Mary Lackner, the planner assigned to your case, at 920- 5106. Sincerely, kJ-- S . ne L. Wolff Administrative Assistant INDEX TO APPENDICES I . Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991 II . Ordinance Granting Extension of Rights, 1992 III . 524-68-104, C.R.S. IV. Certificate of Ownership with Attachment V. Subdivision Agreement for 1000 East Hopkins Avenue VI. Authorization for Representation VII . Preapplication Conference Summary APPENDIX I Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991 ORDINANCE NO.8 (SERIES OF 1991) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN GRANTING FINAL SUBDIVISION/PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, CONDOMINIUMIZATION, GMQS EXEMPTION, AND VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 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) 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 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 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. 1 . c. of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council may grant approval to Final Subdivision, PUD 1 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 COUNCIL 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. Section 3: 2 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 Plat. 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 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 #2 . 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 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 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 public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the /3 day of /' , 1991 at 5: 00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 5 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 . INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1991 . °C(1*— William L. Stirling, Mayor A7 ST: Kathryn >. Roc , City Clerk F NALLY, adopted, passed and approved this /CSC day of , 1991. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: L- AMSallua Kathryn S Koch, City Clerk jtkvj/1000hop. ord 6 APPENDIX II Ordinance Granting Extension of Rights, 1992 #350764 11/16/92 08: 42 Rec $25. 00 EC 694 PG 467 Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 ORDINANCE NO. 57 (SERIES OF 1992) t AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF VESTED RIGHTS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 8, SERIES 1991 FOR THE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR THE 1000 E. HOPKINS PARCEL (A.K.A. THE VALLEY HI APARTMENTS) , LOTS A,H,I,K,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 *350764 11/16/92 09: 42 Rec $25. 00 Br 694 PC, 468 Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 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 IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL 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 #350764 11/16/92 08: 42 Rec $25. 00 BF_: 694 PG 469 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 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 #350764 11/16/92 08: 42 Rec $25. 00 BK. 694 PG 470 Silvia Davis, Pit4in Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 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 5 day of 71Ott4t4.,1992 at 5: 00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which 4 44350764 11/16/92 09: 42 Rec $25. 00 BK 694 PG 471 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk , Doc $. 00 ) 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 i the City Council of the City of Aspen on the /3 day of (19c. 4t4_ , 1992 . John ennett, Mayor A� S45 r/' �1 /ii& 2 1MhAilOr . Roth, City Clerk . , ` '13AlsLY, adopted, passed and approved this A day of JOyI!Jji' 1992 . Joh Bennett, Mayor A 'fl'o4 Yj0'Is I ' S. •L e - O 0 RaShEYA -/ Rath, City Clerk ekdi Ao 5 APPENDIX III §24-68-104, C.R.S. APPENDIX IV Certificate of Ownership with Attachment CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP The undersigned licensed attorney at law hereby certifies the following facts: 1. Property Description. The property which is the subject of this application is known as 1000 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado, and is more fully described in the General War- ranty Deed attached hereto as Exhibit "A. " 2 . Ownership. The subject property is owned by Valley- Hi Development Trust, a Colorado general partnership, whose address is c/o Carl B. Linnecke, CPA, 215 South Monarch Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611. 3 . Access. The subject property is adjacent to a public right-of-way and has legal a cess . NEIL & ALDER ,• 1 i ,l By 1lichard Y. Neiley, Jr. , No. 9878 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-9393 • e 563 PAGE 34 � 0 d m Recorded at o' clock .m. c_ LJ LJ ( r y c` Reception No. Recorder CO Li, -- Li, O U c M RECORDING REQUESTED BY: N 4'�IC WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: N-73 I_s.=.dam Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. n ' � CO U qt2 0 600 East Hopkins, Suite 3 — o v ¢ Aspen, Colorado 81611 0 [� rn Ul GENERAL WARRANTY DEED 1000 EAST HOPKINS PARTNERSHIP, a Colorado general partnership, Grantor, for Ten Dollars ($10 .00) and other good and valuable considerations, in hand paid, hereby sells and conveys to VALLEY-HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST, a Colorado general partnership, Grantee, whose address is c/o Richard Y. Neiley, 600 East Hopkins , Suite 3 , Aspen, Colorado 81611 the following real property in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado to wit: LOTS H AND I , IN BLOCK 26 , LYING WITHIN THE ) EAST ASPEN ADDITION TO THE CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, according to the Plat thereof recorded as Document No. 108453 in Ditch Book 2A at Page 252 of the records for Pitkin County, together with a tract of land situated in East Aspen Townsite described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of LOT S , BLOCK 26 , EAST ASPEN ADDITIONAL TOWNSITE, as shown on the recorded Plat thereof; thence JUL 2 51983 orth 14°50 ' 49" East 100 feet along the West line of Lot S to the Northwest corner of Lot r )) j $; thence South 75°09 ' 11 " East 135 . 32 feet; / � hence South 14°50 ' 49" West 100 feet; thence Vence 75°09 ' 11 " West 135 . 30 feet to the point of beginning. with all its appurtenances and warrants title to the same , SUBJECT TO AND EXCEPTING: General taxes for 1988 payable January 1 , 1989 ; right of way for Ditches or Canals constructed by the authority of the United States as reserved in United States Patent recorded in Book 185 at Page 69 ; Deed of Trust from 1000 East Hopkins Partnership, a Colorado general partnership to the Public Trustee of Pitkin county for the use of Pitkin County Bank and Trust Company to secure $472 ,500 . 00 dated April 15 , 1988 recorded April 15 , 1988 in Book 561 at Page 316 as reception no. 299209 ; Extension of Deed of Trust dated , 1988 recorded in Book at Page ; Assignment of Rents recorded April 15, 1988 in Book 561 at Page 316 and security interest under the Uniform Commercial Code notice of which is given by Financing Statement from 1000 East Hopkins Partnership, a • envy 569 PAGE348 Colorado general partnership, Debtor to Pitkin County Bank and Trust Company, Secured Party, recorded April 15 , 1988 as Filing No. 11546 , recorded in Book 561 at Page 322 ; and in the event of any default by Grantor under the Deed of Trust from 1000 East Hopkins Partnership to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use of Pitkin County Bank & Trust Company to secure $472 , 500 . 00 dated April 15 , 1988 , recorded April 15 , 1988 in Book 561 at Page 316 , as Reception No. 299209 , Grantee shall have the right to cure such default by making any and all necessary payments or by taking any and all action necessary in connection therewith, in which case, Grantee shall be entitled to set off such amounts as may reasonably be incurred as a consequence of such default against any monies it owes or may owe Grantor. Signed this 0225 day of , 1988 . 791dgr- 1000 EAST HOPKINS PARTNERSHIP, a Colorado general partnership BY: CITY CAPITAL CORPORATION, a California corporation and General Partner of 1000 East Hopkins Partnership BY: Morton A. H- ler, President , BY: SYNERGY PARTNERS , a Colorado general partnership and General Partner of 1000 • East Hopkins Partnership BY � (((Roberta Allen, General Partner STATE OF COLORADO ) ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing General Warranty Deed was acknowledged before me this a5 day of TALV , 1988 by MORTON A. HELLER, President of City Capita' Corporation, a California corporation and General Partner of 1000 East Hopkins Partnership, a Colorado general partnership. WITNESS my hand and official seal . �a�-\' 3..'� •• r., 0 : rd) My commission expires : - ; �1 ¢y Vincent J. Hlpans/Notary Public No a ry Pub 1 'f• , •y' -/47.},- „ 'a�F My Commission 601 E. expires 52128/°.0. . .1,••.......•.' 1 601 E.Hopkins a N e.• Aspen,Colorado 81611 ,',•"Tian,,,.l„a'',. S mu 569 P45E349 ACKNOWLEDGMENT PAGE TO GENERAL WARRANTY DEED STATE OF COLORADO ) ss COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoing General Warranty Deed was acknowledged before me this 45}— day of TU1 , 19 by ROBERTA ALLEN, General Partner of Synergi Partners , a Colorado general partnership and General Partner of 1000 East Hopkins Partnership, a Colorado general partnership. WITNESS my hand and official seal . yd;. ••••.. -.• v � My commission expires : 8?d N.tart' .: 1#.'r 1.10 Vincent Vincent J. •- Notary Public My Commission expires 12!28/90. 1N11 E.Hopkins Aspen,Colorado 81811 APPENDIX V Subdivision Agreement for 1000 East Hopkins Avenue 13392_d , : 'n&_ ° 1Z: 51 Fe._ 94t. '. ;.4: 663 FE 863 Onty clerk , i:i'.0 e . iii ' • SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT FOR 1000 EAST HOPKINS 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 §7-1005 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 K 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 #77c258 1 ',6/91 15: 51 Rec 445. 0? Br 63 P6 864 Lilyia. Da‘ _ E , P3tkin Cnty Clark , Doc . 00 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 (50% 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 . IIII . 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 . Heiaht 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 Reouirements . 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 . 2 ##:79:'52 2/0E /91 15: 51 Rec $?_. .?C; L 663 PG 865 Slice L- . . _ = Fitkir Cm+ c Clerk Doc s . 00 4 . Limitation on Development of Parcel 2 . No further development shall be permitted on parcel 2 of the subject Property. IV. CONDOMINIUM.IZATION 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 Housina Units . The affordable housing units shall be deed restricted, and Owner shall enter into resale agreements with the Aspen/Pitkin 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/Pitkin 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/Pitkin 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 #3392_58 1= L/$1 15: 51 Sec $45. 00 E:K 3 F_' 866 =ilvia L=Vi =. . FitLin Cnty Clerk . Doc x. O0 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 4 k='=92=E O /91 15: 51 Rer $45. 0C. 663 PG 867 Ei. 1 vi & D a..va F'1�' ..:: �� Grimy i. cr.4.: , ..`or (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 5 #339258 �2/0'6/91 15: 21 Rec 445. 00 E . 663 P6 868 S1 _. v :. e. De.v: Pit! :n Cnty Clerk Doc $. 00 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 §6-207 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 -- _- 12 'C6/91 __ : 51 Rec $45 Er 663 PG 869 dl i=r- P Doc 4. 0'7: The City of Aspen Valley-Hi Development Trust 130 South Galena Street c/o Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. , P .C. Aspen, Colorado 81611 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102 Attn: Planning Director 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. Owner: Date: ICI ; Cl �U VALLEY HI-DEVELOPMENT TRUST BY:, IAUSTRALIAN INVESTMENT CORP . , ,',j atigeiieral\, partner ` � ' Ij , : �tf By e I {Richard Y. -Neiley, Jr. , Secretary The City of Aspen: THE CITY OF ASPEN Date: /0L(g,Cik/urn 3 /q1"7/ 04, f By 7 - J: 51 Rec $45. 0 663 PG' 870 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss . COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoing Subdivision Agreement was acknowledged and signed before me this /r day of e , 7`Y,' 1t , 1991, by Richard Y.. 'Neiley, Jr. as Secretary of Australian Investment Corp. , a ' general partner of VALLEY-HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST. , '„ WITNESS my hand and official seal . My commission expires : S; i-!,;' A • F �� ° /• " �1 / LA_<_�_ Notary Public/ 0 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss . COUNTY OF PITKIN The foregoing Subdivision Agreement was acknowledged and -signed before me this day of n , 1991, by /0C_JC --L- on behalf of the City Council of the City of Aspen. WITNESS my hand and official seal . My commission expires : T • i i-L4,; L_*? ' . t1 �r Notary 'Public f c:\act\cvntry.dnn\aubdlvls.agr 8 FSf^,� #3392=' 12/06/91 15: 51 Re- $4°. nc 1-3K 663 PE Efl Siivi Cl Ont e Pitkin y - . _ . r I' , sc 4 . 00 NOTICE OF PUD DESIGNATION PLEASE TAKE 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 . ± ; 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. � TEAu -C--4-7A,_Y City Clerk' STATE OF COLORADO ) ss . COUNTY OF PITKIN The foreoing instument was acknowledged and signed before me this ,4 g .- day of 'L , 1991, by Kathryn S . Koch, City Clerk. WITNESS my hand and official seal . My commission expires: .'ii':;7 %i_; Notary)Public APPENDIX VI Authorization for Representation VALLEY-HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST c/o Carl B. Linnecke, CPA, P.C. 215 South Monarch Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 June 9, 1994 City of Aspen Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Valley-Hi Apartments, 1000 East Hopkins Avenue Dear Sir/Madam: The purpose of this letter is to advise you that Richard Y. Neiley, Jr. is authorized to submit and process a land use application seeking an extension of vested rights on behalf of Valley-Hi Development Trust, the owner of the above-referenced property. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, VALLEY-HI DEVELOPMENT TRU ST XititiLluCarl B. Linnecke, Manager APPENDIX VII Preapplication Conference Summary L, L._ 3% 30 CITY OF ASPEN / 1PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY � PROJECT: �Y c+.' . k H ) G APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: C.. < ULI ' / REPRESENTATIVE' S PONE: b - / 3(1 OWNER' S NAME: V ) Dm f 'l OLA) 7'1/ d SUMMARY 1. Type of Application: . , f a 0 ' e ' I 1 Z + ., 2 . Describe action/type of development being requested: 3 . Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of reports requested: Policy Area/ Referral Agent Comments Water Dept. contact for tap fee requirements - a GL1 111 - 4 . Review is: Cp&Z OnllyY CC Onl (P&Z then to CC) 5. Public Hearing:- (YES (NO) 6. Number of copies of the application to be s bmitte&: I 7 . What fee was applicant requested to s .1 8 . Payment form Attached for signature (YES+ NO) 9 . Anticipated date of submission: 10. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: frm.pre_app e - ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and VALLEY-HI DEVELOPMENT TRUST (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Extension of Vested Rights (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 77 (Series of 1992) establishes a fee structure for Planning Office applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project approval, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. • 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ which is for hours of Planning Office time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT By: .4:0A-Cir &KZ By: r Diane Moo r e Mailing Ad ress. City Planning Director 7,S g5. In o nffin_c* Rio Oroptr. Co Ski f I Date: fi °t 9`i 2