HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Mocklin.A34-95 (2)
~
~'/~
;----:~
~
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED :~~~~~__
DATE COMPLETE~_ ,__
PROJECT NAME: Mocklin GMQS
Special Review
Project Address: 0202 Lone Pine Road
Legal Address:
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
27s7-073-00-016 A34-95
STAFF MEMBER: LL
Exemption, Subdivision, Rezoninq &
APPLICANT: Peter & Monica Mocklin 925-3668
Applicant Address: Box 807, Aspen
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunnv Vann.VannAssociates 925-6958
Representative Address/Phone: 230 E, Hopkins Ave.
Aspen. CO 81611
------~-------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
FEES: PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV. HEALTH
TOTAL
$ 2040
$ 252
$ 156
$ 156
$ 2604
# APPS RECEIVED
# PLATS RECEIVED
20
20
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF
P&Z Meeting Dateft\~, ). [0
3"\,)~\~
CC Meeting Date-croL.o:G
DRC Meeting Date~~
APPROVAL: 1 STEP: _ 2 STEP:-L
PUBLIC HEARING: ~ NO
VESTED RIGHTS: ~ ~O .
PUBLIC HEARING: Qy :2~NOO vlf "'~/"C-(J
VESTED RIGHTS, 1h' ''v 1, '---
------------------------------------------~--------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
REFERRALS: ~
~. cit ,y Attorney,' , Parks Dept, School District
... City Engineer , Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas
.. Housing Dir, Fire Marshal CDOT $01
. ,Aspen Water Holy Cross ~ Clean Air Board, V~.i
~ City Electric, ..k: Mtn. Bell .~ Open Space Boar
~ Envir. HI th. _ ACSD Other
-;;;X;' Zoning -. Energy Center , Other
~~~~;~~qp{b~bii[
~ City AttY~ity Engineer ~zoning ~Env. Health
~Housing _ Open Space Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
,....,
,
~
TO: FILE
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
RE: Mocklin Subdivision Agreement/Subdivision Plat
When reviewing the subdivision agreement and plat, make sure to
route the agreement and plat to the water dept., engineer dept,
electric dept., and streets dept.
There are several issues that each of those depts. must consider
prior to recordation of the agreement and plat in order for the
applicant to install utilities on the property for subdivision in
accordance with their departmental standards.
SUBDIVISION AGREEMRNT
IDR
MOCKLIN SUBDIVISION
THIS SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 1t!jdaY of
March, 1996, by and between THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal
corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and PETER and MONICA M, MOCKLIN
(hereinafter referred to as "Owner").
W ITNESSE TH:
WHEREAS, Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution and recordation
a Final Plat of a tract of land situated within the City of Aspen, Colorado and more particularly
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference (hereinafter
referred to as the "Final Plat"), said property being hereafter designated as the "MockIin
Subdivision"; and
WHEREAS, City has fully considered the Final Plat, the proposed development and
improvement of the lands therein, and the effects of the proposed development and improvement
of said lands on other adjoining or neighboring properties and property owners; and
WHEREAS, City has imposed certain conditions and requirements in connection with
its approval, execution and recordation of the Final Plat, such matters being necessary to protect,
promote and enhance the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, Owner is willing to acknowledge, accept, abide by and faithfully perform
the conditions and requirements imposed by City in approving the Final Plat; and
WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 7-1005(C and D) of the Aspen Municipal
Code, City is entitled to assurance that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be faithfully
performed by Owner.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants
herein contained, and the approval, execution and acceptance of the Final Plat for recordation
by the City, it is mutually agreed as follows:
/""
A. Zonin~ and Re~ulatoIY ADDrovals.
''',,-
1. Under and pursuant to Ordinance No. 35 (Series of 1995) adopted on
September 11, 1995, the Aspen City Council granted subdivision approval for the creation of
six single-family residential lots and one affordable housing lot in the Mocklin Subdivision.
2. On June 6, 1995, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission granted
special review approval for Parcel 7 of the MockIin Subdivision, establishing a parking
393680 06/14/% 1219:17A PG 1 OF 21 ' REC DOC UCC
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER 11216.00
'-~,--,-
requirement of 15 spaces, an allowable floor area ratio of 0.40: 1, and an open space requirement
of approximately 60 percent.
3. Lots 1 through 6 of the Mocklin Subdivision are zoned R-15A, Moderate Density
Residential, and Lot 7 is zoned AH, Affordable Housing, subject to the condition that any
change in the approved floor area ratio for Lot 7, or in the density or free market/affordable
housing mix in Mocklin Subdivision, will require a "substantial" amendment to. the Mocklin
Subdivision approval.
4. The City Council exempted Lots 1 through 6 from growth management in
exchange for the eventual deed restriction by Owner of seven of the eight free-market units in
the existing Mocklin Apartment Building on Lot 7.
B. Affordable Housing
1. Units 2-8 in the Mocklin Apartment Building on Lot 7 shall be deed restricted to
APCHA income, price and occupancy guidelines and regulations in effect at the time of
recording of each deed restriction, in accordance with the following schedule:
(a) The deed restrictions for Units 2 and 5 shall be recorded prior to the
issuance of the first building permit for a single-family residence on any of Lots 1-6 in
the Mocklin Subdivision.
(b) The deed restriction for Unit 6 shall be recorded prior to the issuance of
the second building permit for a single-family residence on Lots 1-6.
(c) Unit 4 shall be deed restricted prior to the issuance of the third building
permit on Lots 1-6.
(d) Unit 3 shall be deed restricted prior to the issuance of the fourth building
permit on Lots 1-6.
(e) Unit 7 shall be deed restricted prior to the issuance of the fifth building
permit on Lots 1-6.
(t) Unit 8 shall be deed restricted prior to the issuance of the sixth and final
building permit on Lots 1-6.
(g) If not sooner recorded in accordance with the above schedule, deed
restrictions for all of Units 2-8 shall be recorded prior to the seventh anniversary date
of this Subdivision Agreement.
2. Said Units 2-8 shall be deed restricted to the following affordable housing
categories:
2
393680
06/14/96 09:17A PG 2
OF 21
'----._-,--".._.._,,--
Unit No. No. of Bedrooms Unit Size AH Catel!ory
2 3 1,470 sq. ft. 3
3 1 630 sq. ft. 2
4 2 690 sq. ft. 1
5 2 760 sq. ft. 1
6 2 760 sq. ft. 1
7 1 470 sq. ft. 1
8 1 370 sq. ft. 1
A floor plan of the Mocklin Apartment Building is attached hereto as Exhibit B and made
a part hereof by this reference.
3. Upon the recording of each of said deed restrictions, an existing tenant in the
newly deed restricted unit shall have the folIowing rights:
(a) If the tenant is an employee/qualified resident, and if the tenant also meets
the "income and asset limitations" for the Category to which the unit has been deed
restricted, all as defmed in the APCHA guidelines then in effect, the tenant can remain
in the unit for as long as he or she wishes.
(b) If the tenant is an employee/qualified resident but does not meet the
income and asset limitations, the tenant can remain in the unit for a period of one year
folIowing the date of recording of the deed restriction.
(c) If the tenant is not an employee/qualified resident, the tenant can remain
in the unit for the remaining term of the tenant's lease or for a period of 6 months
fOlIowing the date of recording of the deed restriction, whichever is shorter.
4. Owner reserves the right at any time and from time to time to apply to the City
for approval of various possible modifications to the Mocklin Apartment Building on Lot 7,
including without limitation (a) the creation of one or more affordable housing units in the
existing garage on Lot 7 and the substitution thereof for previously deed restricted units or for
units still to be deed restricted, (b) the incorporation of portions of said garage into one or more
existing apartment units, thereby increasing the size thereof and reducing from seven to six the
number of said apartment units that must be deed restricted hereunder, (c) without utilizing the
garage, the increase in size of one or more of the existing apartment units, thereby reducing
from seven to six the number of said apartment units that must be deed restricted hereunder,
and/or (d) the creation of additional units. If any such approvals are ever applied for and
granted by the City, Section B (1 and 2) of this Subdivision Agreement shall be amended
accordingly.
5. Owner reserves the right to condominiumize the Mocklin Apartment Building in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code then in effect.
3
393680
06/14/9& 09:17A PG 3
OF 21
6. If Owner elects to vacate the final Plat in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Aspen Municipal Code, this Subdivision Agreement shall automatically
terminate and be of no further force or effect upon such vacation, and the deed restriction
requirements contained in this Section B shall terminate as well.
C. Subdivision Improvements
1. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a single-family residence on
any of Lots 1-6 in the Mocklin Subdivision, Owner shall and hereby agrees to accomplish the
following subdivision improvements:
(a) Construction of the private access driveway from Lone Pine Road to Lot
I, and of the 5-foot wide hard surface walkway that parallels said access driveway, in
accordance with the Utility Plan attached to the Pinal Plat.
(b) Installation of a sidewalk along the portion of Lone Pine Road abutting on
the Mocklin Subdivision, in accordance with the Utility Plan attached to the Pinal Plat.
(c) Installation of street lights in accordance with the Utility Plan attached to
the Pinal Plat.
(d) Installation of water, sewer, gas, electrical, and telephone utility lines in
accordance with the Utility Plan attached to the Pinal Plat.
(e) Undergrounding of the overhead power lines that traverse the Mocklin
Subdivision, in accordance with the Utility Plan attached to the Pinal Plat.
(f) Abandonment in place of the existing 6-inch A.C. water main on Lone
Pine Road by cutting said main in two places and installing 90 decree bends at both cuts,
in accordance with the Utility Plan attached to the Pinal Plat. Owner shall coordinate
such work with the Aspen Water Department, and in the course thereof shall replace two
existing fire hydrants (nos. 953 and 957). The City agrees to reimburse Owner in full
for all costs incurred by Owner in connection with replacing the hydrants, no later than
10 days following receipt of an invoice for such costs frOIl! Owner.
2. A construction schedule for the above-described improvements shall be submitted
to the City Engineering Department at the same time that the financial guarantee described in
Section D below is provided.
3. Owner agrees to complete the landscaping shown on the approved Landscape Plan
(attached to the Pinal Plat) in as logical a sequence as possible in relation to the completion of
the above-described subdivision improvements, but in no event later than one (I) year after the
date of issuance of the first building permit for a single-family residence on any of Lots 1-6.
Owner reserves the right to plant additional native vegetation within the Subdivision, as Owner
may consider appropriate from time to time, without further approvals being required. Owner
4
393&80
0&/14/9& 09:17A PG 4
OF 21
also reserves the right to amend the Landscape Plan attached to the Final Plat, subject to review
and approval by the City.
4. Within 90 days following completion of the subdivision improvements described
above, Owner shall furnish to the City Engineering Department reproducible mylar as-built
drawings of sidewalk/curb/gutter, utility improvements, and any other work located within public
rights-of-way, showing horizontal and vertical locations within one (1) foot accuracy of all
utilities, including their size and identification, together with any other features encountered
during excavation within said public rights-of-way. The as-builts shall be signed and stamped
by a registered professional engineer, and shall also be provided to the City on a 3.5 inch
diskette in DFX format compatible with the City GIS ArcInfo system. The base data for the
property shall be obtained from the City/County data processing department to ensure that the
subdivision DFX file fits the GIS system.
5. Also within 90 days following completion of the subdivision improvements
described above, Owner shall furnish to the City Engineering Department a statement by a
registered professional land surveyor that all required survey and property monuments remain
in place or have been re-established as required by Colorado law.
D. Financial Assurance
In order to ensure construction and installation of the subdivision and landscaping
improvements described in Section C above, and to guarantee 100 percent of the current
estimated cost of such subdivision improvements, and to guarantee 125 percent of the current
estimated cost of installing such landscaping improvements and of maintaining and replacing the
same for a period of two (2) years after installation, which estimated costs have been approved
by the City Engineer and are specifically set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part
hereof by this reference, Owner shall provide to the City a financial guarantee in the form of
a cash escrow, an irrevocable bond, sight draft or letter of credit from a financially responsible
lender. Said guaranty shall be delivered to the City before Owner commences construction or
installation of any of said subdivision or landscaping improvements, shall be in a fonn
acceptable to the City Attorney and the City Manager, and shall give City the unconditional
right, upon default by Owner, to withdraw funds as necessary and upon demand to partially or
fully complete and/or pay for any of such improvements or pay any outstanding bills for work
done thereon by any party, with any excess guaranty amount to be applied first to additional
administrative or legal costs associated with any such default and the repair of any deterioration
in improvements already constructed before the unused remainder, if any, of such guaranty is
released to Owner. Provided, however, that Owner shall be given fourteen (14) days written
notice of default prior to City's ability to make a call under the letter of credit. As portions of
the improvements required are completed, the City Engineer shall inspect them, and upon
approval and written acceptance, he shall authorize the release of the actual cost as documented
by invoices for that portion of the improvements; provided, however, that ten percent (10%) of
the estimated cost shall be withheld until all proposed improvements are completed and approved
by the City Engineer, and with respect to landscaping improvements, an additional twenty-five
5
393&80
0&/14/9& 09:17A PG 5
OF 21
percent (25 %) of the estimated cost thereof shall be retained until the landscaping improvements
have been maintained in a satisfactory condition for two (2) years.
It is the express understanding of the parties that the procedure set forth in Section F
below pertaining to the procedure for default and amendment of this Subdivision Agreement shall
not be required with respect to the enforcement and implementation of this financial assurance
and guarantee to be provided by Owner as set forth above and required by Section 7-1005(C and
D) of the Aspen Municipal Code.
E. Additional Reauirements and Restrictions
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the construction of single-family
residences on Lots 1-6 of the Mocklin Subdivision:
(a) The Lot owner shall obtain a tree removal permit from the City Parks
Department for the removal of any trees of 6 inch caliper or greater, and any trees
proposed to be saved shall be protected during construction, including no digging in the
drip line.
(b) The Lot owner shall submit a storm drainage plan for review and approval
by the City Engineering Department.
(c) The Lot owner shall stake the Building Envelope on the Lot to ensure
compliance with restrictions pertaining to said Building Envelope.
(d) The Lot owner shall submit a driveway access plan for review and
approval by the City Parks Department and the Planning Department to ensure that the
access driveway causes the minimum disturbance outside of the Building Envelope on the
Lot.
(e) The Lot owner shall pay a Park Dedication Fee to the City, calculated in
accordance with the schedule set forth in Section 24-5.603 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
as said provision may be amended from time to time.
2. Prior to the sale by Owner of any of individual Lots 1-6, Owner shall file with
the Environmental Health Department a fugitive dust control plan and construction and soil
moving plan that adheres to the Institutional Controls established for the Smuggler Superfund
Site and administered by the Environmental Health Department.
3. Except for existing devices in the Mocklin Apartment Building, all solid fuel
burning devices in the Mocklin Subdivision shall comply with Section 11-2.3 of the Aspen
Municipal Code, as it may be amended from time to time.
4. Owner acknowledges the sidewalk snow removal requirements of Article VIII of
Chapter 19 of the Aspen Municipal Code, and agrees that from and after its formation, the
6
393&80
0&/14/9& 09:17A PG &
OF 21
Mocklin Homeowners Association shall be responsible for snow removal for the sidewalks along
the portions of Gibson Avenue and Lone Pine Road that abut on the Mocklin Subdivision. The
Mocklin Homeowners Association shall be comprised of the owners of Lots 1-6 of the Mocklin
Subdivision, and Owner agrees to form the Association before Owner sells any of individual
Lots 1-6.
5.
within Lot 3.
to Lot 3.
Parking is prohibited anywhere within the platted emergency access easement
Lot 3 shall have the J,"ight to use said easement for purposes of ingress and egress
6. No signs shall ever be erected which label the common access driveway off of
Lone Pine Road as "private", or which label the Mocklin Subdivision as "private property".
Signs saying "Dead End Street" or "Not a Through Street", or the like, shall be permitted.
7. No mud shall be tracked onto City streets during construction within the Mocklin
Subdivision.
8. During construction within the Mocklin Subdivision, construction activities shall
only take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and noise shall not exceed
maximum permissible sound level standards.
9. All work performed in a public right-of-way shall require a permit from the City
Streets Department.
10. Any irrigation system that is installed within the Mocklin Subdivision shall be in
compliance with the Water Conservation Code.
11. Owner and all future Lot owners shall maintain the historic runoff patterns within
the Mocklin Subdivision.
12. Owner agrees for themselves and for all future Lot owners in Mocklin Subdivision
to join any improvement districts which may hereafter be formed for purposes of constructing
improvements in the Gibson Avenue and/or Lone Pine Road public right-of-ways.
13. All exterior lighting features within the Mocklin Subdivision shall face downward
and shall be shielded to eliminate the potential for glare or nuisance to neighboring properties.
Lighting along the walkways and driveways shall be low to the ground (approximately 3 feet in
height) and shielded.
14. Owner agrees that all material representations made by Owner in the Mocklin
GMQS, Rezoning and Subdivision Application, and during public meetings with the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, shall be adhered to unless modified by
the provisions hereof.
393680
06/14/96 09:17A PG 7
OF 21
7
F. Non-Compliance and Request for Amendments
or Extensions by Owner
In the event that the City Council determines that the Owner is not acting in substantial
compliance with the terms of this Subdivision Agreement, the City Council shall notify the
Owner in writing specifying the alleged non-compliance and asking that the Owner remedy the
alleged non-compliance within such reasonable time as the City Council may determine, but not
less than 30 days. If City Council determines that Owner has not complied within such time,
the City Council may issue and serve upon the Owner a written order specifying the alleged non-
compliance and requiring the Owner to remedy the same within thirty (30) days. Within twenty
(20) days of the receipt of such order, the Owner may file with the City Council either a notice
advising the City Council that it is in compliance or a written petition requesting a hearing to
determine anyone or both of the following matters:
(a) Whether the alleged non-compliance exists or did exist, or
(b) Whether a variance, extension of time or amendment to this Subdivision
Agreement should be granted with respect to any such non-compliance which is
determined to exist.
Upon the receipt of such petition, the City Council shall promptly schedule a hearing to
consider the matters set forth in the cease and desist order and in the petition. The hearing shall
be convened and conducted pursuant to the procedures normally established by the City Council
for other hearings. If the City Council 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
appropriate; provided, however, no order terminating any approval previously granted by the
City Council shall be issued without a finding of the City Council 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 Council, and upon written notice to the Owner,
terminate any of such approvals which are reasonably related to the requirement(s) with which
Owner has failed to comply. Alternatively, the City Council may grant such variances,
extensions of time or amendments to this Subdivision Agreement as it may deem appropriate
under the circumstances.
In addition to the foregoing, the Owner or its successors or assigns may, on its own
initiative, petition the City Council for a variance, an amendment to this Subdivision Agreement
or an extension of one or more of the time periods required for performance hereunder. The
City Council may grant such variances, amendments to this Subdivision Agreement, or
extensions of time as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances. The parties expressly
acknowledge and agree that the City Council shall not unreasonably refuse to extend the time
periods for performance if Owner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the
reasons for the delay(s) which necessitate said extension(s) are beyond the control of the Owner,
despite good faith efforts on its part to perform in a timely manner.
393&80
0&/14/9& 09:17A PG 8
8
OF 21
G. General Provisions
1. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Owner and
City and their respective successors and assigns.
2. This Subdivision 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 Subdivision Agreement or any paragraph, sentence,
clause, phrase, word, or section or the application thereof in any circumstance is invalidated,
such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Subdivision 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
hereto 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 Subdivision 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. Upon execution of this Subdivision Agreement by all parties hereto, City agrees
to approve and execute the Final Plat for Mocklin Subdivision, and to accept the same for
recordation in the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County, Colorado, upon payment
of the recordation fee by Owner.
7. Notices to be given to the parties to this Subdivision Agreement shall be
considered to be given if hand 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:
CITY OF ASPEN
City Manager
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Peter and Monica M. Macklin
P.O. Box 807
Aspen, CO 81612
8. The terms, conditions, provisions and obligations herein contained shall be
deemed covenants that run with and burden the real property more particularly described on
attached Exhibit A and any and all owners thereof, their successors, grantees or assigns, and
further shall inure to the benefit of and be specifically enforceable by or against the parties
hereto, their successors, grantees or assigns.
9
393680
06/14/96 09:17A PG 9
OF 21
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals as of the
day and year fIrst above written.
CITY:
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal
corporation
~ty1!f'~
By:
~
J
(p. ___ - -.........:--bo
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/':"~~tdzs 011'91,
'1'oJiil 0 ster, City Attorney
OWNER:
~
.
MoniCl(M. Mocklin
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
i The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1/f;Iu day of
l!j~ ',1996 by John &:~ett as Mayo~ and by Kathryn S. Koch as City Clerk of
tl'M, ~ Aspen, Colorado, a mUnicipal corporation.
"'I')
'i
1;/. Witness my hand and offIcial seal.
~,\ ~/~(l:(.~y commission expires:~ /.trJ /'11
''1" 1/ //dJ:!'Ji" U' .
,.j ,~"\"Rr ("
!' //~,/,I ,\""",- (~BAD'" ~
' '<''1,/i,~~t/,' .
:il41~'J:llJe \.\ \J. /: /1 .Ii
'. ",).!M"/Vtjl/'lJ!'I.~" .J1<<tL. c....;... ~~rIt:17' J
";'(/0/SI(~ \'; Nota!)j blic
I I /~iJ.I tlit
fl!tlhJ'.~A,I;) ~_
'j,",'
393680
06/14/96 09:17A PG 10 OF 21
10
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
4 . ~
"'I Thy:; foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of
, ~ .'~ ~ , 1996 by Peter Macklin and by Monica M. Macklin.
/Ii " ):i,i!J/f;i~.~SS my hand and official seal.
i,I7I/J1;",. ' / /1
(' ".>.t f L l'1"t-C.9mmission expires: '" '1
iiS',.''''::.........' ~ <,.
'F:i:f.i ~"f-...i':':/;'j I,' y~~"" C' ~
'2.' :'i,()T....R~'. ~":.
~ '. [<S~!il j .~.
"- d):'"'/j 13' ILl C:""i')(
-;. ,." .., '4' ~;"
~ ..d '.- '~~
'...,''J< >- o. o,O"f'I'!'t" ~
........' ~,..~.u....~ ('"",:" ;::.
,.......... DF CQ,\.,."'\>;\\\.'
~/.'#/~/IJ/JfI'H"\t\\-
393680
06/14/96 09:17A PG 11 OF 21
16479.1
11
A trHct of J~nd s1tu~t"d In the Southwest I,; of Section 7, Township 10 South,
kH"g" 84 \lest of the 6th Principal Meridian, mor" p~rticul"rly described ~s
(ollows:
Ih.'gJl\ulng. atLl point
Hilll);': HI. \.,lest of the
tl;""ce S 17oii' 30" E
t1H..'IIC'l.! S tlyo:lO'OO" E
l ht'UCl: S 000'.0' 20" \.J
l ht.:IH:(.' S H9 II 20 I 00" E
t 1Il'IIeL' S 1 ~ II),' 2 7" E
thence N 5h1l01' 1I:\" ~
rlH'.lcc N f>/.ol.y'4S" \.J
tht'I1('~c N 7:!DOO'OO" \J
tht'IlC'l.! N 7y005'OO" \.J
lIH:IH'l.' N 81 "')i'OO" \oJ
lll\.'IH:C N 70o.SS'OO" \J
thence N 48"00' 2JfI W
thence N 27051'48" E
1'.^keEI. A:
---
I'Akt.:J::L U:
.--
ICXIIIIIIT A
-_.~_.._-
EXHIBIT A
""hcnc::c the r:cntcr ~corncr of
6th Prl",c1p~l flerid!an, bellts
J 4 7 . 88 fed:
1 e l. e6 fee t :
18Y.89 feet;
U/,,(,4 (eet:
'177. 3/, r e" t ;
HI. J2 fe"t;
J03.50 feet:
JOO.03 feet;
51).25 feet;
jOO.OO ft:cc;
Y8.72 feet:
100.12 fed;
1,01,.48 feet to
See l Jon 7, Tuwnship 10 Sour h ,
N 59057'54" E 1042.64 feet;
the point of beginning.
, A tract Df land situated in the NE~ of the SWlt of Sect ion 7, Township 10 South,
Range .84 \lest of the 6th Principal Meridian, more fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence the center ~ corner of said Section 7 bears N 45028'51"
E %8.45 feet;
Thence N 00040'00" E 24.84 feet to a point on the southwesterly right of way
of Lone P j ne I-~o.ad;
thence along said right of way 105.56 feet along the arc of OJ curve to the right
hu':JnK L! rudllttl of 2)0.76 f~~t urlll who~~ chord b~tJrt:i S 27018'07" E 104.82 f~t:t;
Thellce S J5"J1'27" E 127.21 fe"t along said right o( \Jay;
thence N 89020'00" \I 84.64 feet;
thence N 00040'20",: 189.89 feet to the point of bep,inning.
.
:-
~,
~~'C.'- .
.:5':1.:5b8fl1
flI&/14/~& 0~:17R PG 12 OF 21
._--".....' .,:-""",,' -,'-----,
:j!,~'
....
OJ
'{;I-J.IlF'
'"! I 'I
i t- ~
.,'; i J~l
'-, ~
1 " :;:
'I~
I~L, J, ' "~!d s~' ,
I -: ~
W
, '"
I ,rl ,...&4
,~ r
Ii
~ 0
a "
(\J ~ ~II:
1 :01 ~I I o,:c
. ~ ~
~_In I
~ 1
; -I
a
" 1
1
J
.
w
Z
o
lL.
o
~ 'I
~ ... L
g : I
V",
I
~~j~ I
~:~ 'I
'1!~Li_
!;;'
" L __ ___ __
I '
II
'I
I,
II
!
r<)
...
"
'" '
.. w
M~g
0:
(!)
!:l.
a:
i'
....
(/'
S
..0
(/'
....
-:t
....
....
..0
S
s
CO
..0
M
(/'
(oJ
!
~,
" -
1-_
4'l.'!!.
.,.-
.32'-
s~;
- -
reCK
i I
-t ~
1
I
""I
,
.. '
zl
~j
<
'"
~
<
<b
Z
~
~
o
I
I
I
I
<
'"
~
0' <
z ~
z
.... ;;
.S( ::J
! 'i
.: I ~ il
" .
!':I:::~
. ~,
J,
: !
'" "
-
'.
u
W
Q
,
I
"
'I
I,
Ii
il
I
:/
---II
.3I'!!:.Y:...
.s2'Z
'1li~
~S'!i'
EXHI'BIT S"
::.;f'l J
-- ~"l- , '
1 ~
a
,,\ ~I
::t'-
"'.;;
t-
l'
"
'1b
-.+
"S!I
.;!! ~l
-~
!'~
I
'--
.. T
,
. - (. ~
I-
I
I
,
.'
~
'-">'
-1""
~
..
u.
.
~
,-
w
~
'"
U'
'"
l-'
;z
'"
..J
0-
c<
0
0
-'
u.
'"
0
0
..J
"-
'"
0
<..>
u.<
'"
,
~
!
Q
0-
.c:
'"
0
..J
8
;z:
w
Il-
'"
<(
'"
<
0
'"
w.
z
c;:
w
"
3
'"
0
'"
0
@
~
= "
(Q)
d
=
2) I
@)
G=
~
[l.-:iJ
~
G=
@;
~
(ill;
~
~
\
.....
,
r
1$
i ,~
=
cd
~
~
@
~
i t.
~ A.
1 I ,
'.'"
'-- '-':'\ ~l
j-'" "-9,
V
I
~ I
'i
~ I
~ '0'
I -~
'" ~
" ~ I
2 ,
. '" I
Q
iJj I
L-l I
"
'\0 r
-,
I
3
- -
,f,'1 ,r;'! ,o,"tii!
r ';o\lI'JIr\3.QIS
I
I ~I
!l! ~
I ... ,
I ~ ~ "
.. Ai I 2
-< .
I ~
I .
I ~
..,I ___1.
z "I i
~, 1 .
I i
1 "
'., I
'"
_f'\ ~ I
! \ I
I
I
I
~
:ll.ilJ.l'IYi.l
/
I / --'r"
--
IJj~ ,;,+t
~IS
w"'T ^ ~
'n
I I
.
~
~
"
a
"
.;,~
t ~ ~J
, ~J,,"~
..' <:"'-
. "
-9 '
~
Q
W
....
(\J
Ll.
o
"0'
"
I
- I~ "./j
,~, :2
t1 ~
w I I
~.
~ I 1
w ~ I~I
, -~ t. 1-'" ~
S ~ ' II "
w 'J!I i 5
)j J 8
~ LI '~
" -0
:5 ~ I'.
I
I
~
.
.
,'"-,
I
Ii
II
.~i
a I ~
. ~
'"
I
,
1"(;1'1
" z
~ ~
<t
....
w
.
~
(!:l
a.
cr
I'-
....
r
1'1
~ -~
3
w
a
'"
.....'...>1j
'~
1",,1
'nl
..
<1'
S
..,
<1'
.....
<t
....
.....
..,
S
// 1
/
g;'..
lto!::
..,
I 0'
z
~ i
I ~ .Qi(
~ a
~
I " 1lI
J
I~
I
I
I X
I-
, .,
1 io~_
;I
>.,
>"
Sz
..
>~
'"
"
~
~
s
Q)
..,
(<J
<1'
M
i~
!~
i!:!
,",
i
, ,
'.
...
----- -----,~---
...,
1__-
~"O't"'aOls
'9~\>t~.,.ol
-
--
,<s,a .B'IB'
,O',OJ
",Il"
"
~
,:
,/
/
0
~
~
<5
u
z,
w
..
~
"'
Co
~
'ii
0:
w
'.,
0
--'
~
0
~
0
@
zg
=
lQY
c::::O
=
2)
00
G=
.~
Q:::Q
~
C=
@g
,~
~
0
[l
~
=
c::::O
2::S
(Jd)
@
~
~
~ :.: =
'" " ..
~
"" ~
'" 25
~ '"
'"
~
3!
tl;N~
"
, ,/
I
I
I
,
0
~
9
8
z
w
2<
<
II
~
'l!
J~!' , 5
~ - IO'~. ~ 2J
, , ~
~ C9J
~ :Il(.:J ~
. .
~ > 2
~'"* :J =.
" ~ ~ j~1 :'1 g
,.. ~ > -~
.0. ' - .
~ %< % d
i S
. .
~ , j =
~. ,; ~ ~
I!i~ ","',,"
'1 00
1< 0Ci .
'(~ ~
:~ ~ ;
, ~ .. ,;
. tl:;; ~~i
, @ ~ c=
w '=>Ii
~ ~>
< ,
< "
., co~/
~ w
~, > -- C.::J
, 0
r-l " % Qcl]
~
, I ~ ~~
! , -<
u
I I '"
" 1 , [j=
:j '(7 IS
. ~
;1 1 I"' . ~ I H , @g
l-~l " l . , , ~
i I ,- ~, w
~ 0 S !, 3 -f,-
. ' . w -" ;>, '~
I s~ j~ ~ . I) I., ,.. i n w
~ :- 1. I'" \ --'
~ . I' ..I( ,
... ~ l,": 01) ..~ '" I~~: z @;
(JJ ,I w
I.~ I '"
'"
u. (jj cQS
0 !
0
:z @
If) <(
"
... d-
. 0
z '"
(!) ~ ~ 0
Cl. 0" 0 ~
~~1 --'
a: U-
t'- =
... d
t1'
S t ~
..0 Q0
t1'
.....
-:t g
... ~J ,
.....
..0 -~: ~
S
S 4'.J' ,4~ "'- ~
en - - ,4' ~ "
..0 - - ~ '"
" '" ~
(0')
t1' " i'ii ~
~J 6 = ~
" -,---- ~
%
JiM .
.
.
03/07/96DA TE
BANNER
EXHIBIT C
MOCKLIN SUBDIVISION
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
SCHEDULE "A"
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
--------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------
TOTAL
QUANTITY
UNIT
--------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
Mobilization 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00
8" SDR 26 PVC 462 LF $30.00 $13,860.00
4' Dia. Manhole 6 EA $2,200.00 $13,200.00
4" PVC Service 6 EA $1,500.00 $9,000.00
8"Service Connection 6 EA $40.00 $240.00
Saw-Cut Existing Asphalt 50 LF $1.10 $55.00
Remove Existing Asphalt 20 SY $4.50 $90.00
Remove Existing Curb and Gutter 80 LF $3.00 $240.00
Replace Existing Curb and Gutter 80 LF $14.25 $1,140.00
Replace Existing Asphalt 4 TON $48.00 $192.00
Aggregate Base Course 18 TON $18.00 $324.00
Televise Sanitary Sewer 462 LF $1.50 $693.00
Engineering Inspection 1 LS $4,500.00 $4,500.00
Traffic Control 1 LS $3,200.00 $3,200.00
Sub-Total
--------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------
$47,734.00
WATER IMPROVEMENTS
SCHEDULE "B"
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
--------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
--------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------
QUANTITY
UNIT
Mobilization
Saw-Cut Existing Asphalt
Remove Existing Asphalt
Replace Existing Asphalt
Aggregate Base Course
8" Hot Tap Sleeve and Valve
8" Wet Tap & Valve
8" D.I.P.
Fire Hydrant Assembly
8" Gate Valve
8" Bend
1" Copper Service Connection wI Tap
1" Blow-off
Traffic Control
Inspection Fees
1 LS
60 LF
50 SY
12 TON
16 TON
1 EA
1 EA
512 LF
2 EA
1 EA
6 EA
6 EA
1 EA
1 LS
1 LS
$1,000.00
$1.10
$4.50
$48.00
$18.00
$2,700.00
$4,500.00
$32.00
$3,200.00
$625.00
$150.00
$1,700.00
$750.00
$3,200.00
$3,000.00
$1,000.00
$66.00
$225.00
$576.00
$288.00
$2,700.00
$4,500.00
$16,384.00
$6,400.00
$625.00
$900.00
$10,200.00
$750.00
$3,200.00
$3,000.00
Sub-Total
--------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------
$50,814,00
393&80
0&/14/9& 09:17A PG 16 OF 21
03/07/96DATE
BANNER
---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COST SUMMARY
SCHEDULE
TOTAL
---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANITARY SEWER LINE
"A"
$47,734.00
WATER LINE
"B"
$50,814.00
SUBDIVISION ROADWAYS AND
PARKING AREAS
"e"
$43,474.00
PRIVATE UTILITIES
"0"
$61,280.00
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
"E"
$12,738.00
---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
$216,040.00
NOTE: TAP FEES HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE PRICES
393680 06/14/96 09:17A PG 19 OF 21
03/07/9bUA I C
BANNE-=-
SUBDIVISION ROADWAY AND PARKING AREAS
SCHEDULE "C"
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ESTIMATED QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT PRICE
--------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
--------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ---------------------
Mobilization
Clearing and Grubbing
Unclassified Excavation
Fill
Aggregate Base Course
Hot Bituminous Asphalt
Signage
Concrete Sidewalk
Aggregate Base Course
Hard Surface Walk
1 LS
1 LS
500 CY
560 CY
450 TON
320 TON
1 EA
2325 SF
62 TON
1 LS
$700.00
$3,200.00
$5.00
$6.00
$15.00
$40.00
$250.00
$4.00
$15.00
$3,684.00
$700.00
, $3,200.00
$2,500.00
$3,360.00
$6,750.00
$12,800.00
$250.00
$9,300.00
$930.00
$3,684.00
Sub-Total
--------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------____H.
$43,474.00
NOTE: Revegetation including placement of topsoil on road cut/fill areas has been included in the landscape
cost estimate.
PRIVATE UTILITIES
SCHEDULE "D"
ITEM DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT PRICE
-------..------------------------------------------- ---------------~~~-~--------------- -------------~~---------~-------------------------~--------
TOTAL
-~----------~~-----------~-----------------~~------ ---------------------------~~-~~~~~ ~~~-~---~~----------~------------~------------~~------------
Mobilization 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Joint Trenching 1165 LF $14.00 $16,310.00
Holy Cross Contract 1 LS $15,500.00 $15,500.00
US West Comm. Contract 1 LS $6,640.00 $6,640.00
KN Energy Contract 1 LS $2,200.00 $2,200.00
Street Light 6 EA $2,700.00 $16,200.00
Street Light Electrical Service 490 LF $7.00 $3,430.00
Sub-Total
----~----~---------------~~----------------~-----~~ ----------------~~~---~~~~~-------- ----------~~~~~~-------~~~---------~~-----~--------~~-------
$61,280,00
393680
06/14/96 09:17A PG 17 OF 21
BANNER
03/07/96DATE
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
SCHEDULE "E"
ITEM DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
Mobilization 1 LS $700.00 $700.00
6"CMP 25 LF $20.00 $500.00
12"CMP 49 LF $22.00 $1,078.00
18"CMP 75 LF $28.00 $2,100.00
Rip-Rap End Section 5 EA $125.00 $625.00
1000 Gallon Drywell 2 EA $3,200.00 $6,400.00
Type 2 Curb and Gutter 60 LF $14.25 $855.00
Aggregate Base Course 12 TON $15.00 $180.00
6' V-Pan wi Fillets 20 LF $15.00 $300.00
Sub-Total
$12,738,00
393&80
0&/14/9& 09:17A PG 18
OF 21
7;7& tr~~-
INCORPORATED
March 1, 1996
Mr. Sunny Vann
Vann Associates, Inc.
230 W. Hopkins
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Mocklin Subdivision
Dear Sunny,
Pursuant to your request I have prepared the following cost estimate for the proposed
landscaping at the above referenced project. These costs are based on 1996 contract unit
prices adjusted for inflation to 1997. The Mocklin Subdivision Landscape Plan dated
March 1, 1~6 has been used as a basis for this estimate.
Total
$3,250.00
3,150.00
315.00
1,440.00
3,330.00
480.00
$11,965.00
1. 13 Cottonwood, 2-3" caliper @ $250/ea.
2. 21 Aspen, 2" caliper @ $150/ea.
3. 9 Dogwood,S gallon @ 35/ea.
4. 12,000 s.f. seed@ . 12/s.f.
5. 111 yards topsoil @ 30/yd
6. 12,000 s.f. finish grading @ .04/s.f.
If you have any questions or comments or should you require further information please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
m~
Thomas G. Stevens
393680
06/14/96 09:17A PG 20 OF 21
312 E, Aspen Airport Business Center, Aspen, Colorado 81611
(3031925-6717 FAX: (3031 925-6707
February 20,1996
SunnyVann
Vann Associates
200 East Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Mocklin Property Easement
Dear Sunny:
Thank you for contacting RFT A in regards to a transit easement on the Mocklin
property adjacent to Lone Pine Drive. After our sight visit to the existing RFT A stop, it
appears that there is adequate space available within the current right of way for the
construction of a bus shelter. This is based on the assumption that the area 15 feet back
from the existing curb is in the public right of way. Should this be the case, RFTA would
not need an easement for the installation of a bus shelter.
Since you are considering the installation of street lights and sidewalks along
Lone Pine Drive, with careful planning you could provide a great service to the residents
of the neighborhood at no additional cost to your client. If the spacing of your proposed
street lights could be done so that one is strategically located near the existing stop, it
would greatly improve the safety of those people using the bus stop at night. Second, if
you could have the contractors responsible for the sidewalks and street lights contact
RFT A prior to construction, RFT A would like to discuss the possibility of installing
conduit and pouring a pad while they are doing the initial construction, It could provide
a substantial savings for the Agency.
Once again, thank you for contacting RFT A Your willingness to work with
RFT A is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call.
Sincerely,
~~ ()~~
Kenny Osier
Director of Maintenance
39368121
cc: D. Blankenship
D, Michaelson
1216/14/96 1219:17A PG 21 OF 21
51 Service Center Drive Aspen, Colorado 81611 - Tel: 970-920:i965-F~;;::~976~-9i6;2864-
I
.~
~
S :~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
THRU:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
Stan Clauson, Director Community Developmen~/
THRU:
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE:
September 11,1995
RE:
Mocklin Subdivision, Rezoning, Vested Rights - Second Reading
SUMMARY: Council tabled review of Ordinance 35 in order fOr the applicant to
consider an alternative driveway/access for the new free market parSe1s. Inaddition,
Council requested clarification language for the deed restricted housing and a revision to
the building envelop of Lot 3. \, .
Additionally, staff has also made severa! non-substantive amendment!> to the Ordinance
(those changes are in bold in the attached Ordinance).
STAFF COMMENTS:
1. Council requested the applicant to explore combining the two proposed drives into one
drive, Although the two proposed drives comply with the Code standards regarding
driveway and curb cut specifications, Council suggested a combined driveway due to the
heavy traffic that exists on Lone Pine Road, the ability to preserve the small aspen grove,
and the reduced impact of roads and drives on the open space.
RESPONSE: The applicant has been working with staff to combine the drives. A full
plan of the combined drives will be presented to Council at the meeting. In addition,
new information has just been presented by the Hunter Creek Homeowners Association
that indicates their property boundary crosses Lone Pine Road and connects with Mr.
Mocklin's property in the area of the existing and proposed drive. The Homeowners have
expressed dissatisfaction with the second drive, Removal of the aspens for the new drive
would reduce the vegetative buffer between proposed Lot 6 and some Hunter Creek units.
Because the new drive would appear to cross their property, the Homeowners do not
support a second drive. Please see Hunter Creek Homeowners letter to Council, Exhibit
A.
,~
1"""\.
.~
2. Council requested a revision of the Lot 3 building envelope. In addition the
Homeowners Association also requests a reduction in the building envelope on Lot 6 to
approximate the envelope on Lot 4.
RESPONSE: These revisions will also be included in the site plan presented at
Council's meeting.
3. Council also requested clarification regarding the deed restrictions that will be placed
upon the existing units, and the system that will be used to ensure that the units will be
placed within the affordable housing inventory.
RESPONSE: In order to realize six free market parcels exempt from the Growth
Management Competition process, Mr. Mocklin will deed restrict seven of his eight
apartments in the existing building.
Working with the former assistant City Attorney, Mr. Mocklin's representative, sunn~6fdt d.
Vann, developed a method for deed restricting the dwelling units. The applicant )-(' \
propo= ro'""", """"'" dttd _,",m, Prio, to "" ;"""", 'f, bWldmg ponnit
for a free marke, t, wti, , dood ,_ti" ~"d '" =,,,,,,- Tboref~, ~, bWl<ting AS,:' ~
permit is issued, an AH unit will be added to the inventory. In addition, if no .~
development has occurred, all the deed restrictions will be recorded within 7 years.
Council found at second reading that the system was somewhat unclear and noted that the
Ordinance did not indicate to what categories the units were to be deed restricted.
Council also requested that, as the units were deed restricted, the larger units would be
the first to be restricted.
(
Based on discussions with the Housing Office, staff would like to recommend the
following: the largest unit, 1,470 square feet, will be deed restricted and recorded prior to
the recordation of the subdivision plat. Subsequent deed restrictions would be recorded
as building permits are issued, beginning with the next largest dwelling unit and ending
with the smallest dwelling unit.
,
Although mitigation is not expected until growth occurs, the reason for this initial deed
restricted unit is based on the fact that, when the subdivision plat is recorded, a significant
value will be added to the property in exchange for deed restricted housing. As soon as
dwelling units are actuallt. added to the inventory, the City will also begin to benefit from
the proposed subdivisionWt should be noted that if existing occupants do not comply
with the new price and income categories, the Housing Office permits an occupant to
remain but requires bringing the unit into compliance with the next tenant. ~
2
("
^
The units will be restricted to the following categories:
Unit 2- 1,470 sq. ft. - categoryJ'S,., ttv, I ~Av. \)_
Unit 3 - 630 sq, ft. - category 2 . ~
Unit 4 - 690 sq. ft. - category 1.
Unit 5 - 760 sq. ft. - category 1
Unit 6 - 760 sq. ft. - category 1
Unit 7 - 470 sq. ft. - category 1
Unit 8 - 370 sq. ft. - category 1
4. Several changes have been made to the Ordinance. The above language which
clarifies the categories of the units and other non-substantive changes have been added.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the subdivision, rezoning and
vested rights for the Mocklin property, with the amendments to the site plan indicating a
combined drive and realignment of the building envelope on Lot 3, the clarification of the
deed restricted dwelling units, and the minor amendments to the conditions of approval in
the Ordinance.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to approve Ordinance 35, Series of 1995,
approving the Mocklin subdivision and the rezoning of parcel seven of the subdivision
from R/MFA to AH,"
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Ordinance 35, Series of 1995
EXHIBITS:
a. Hunter Creek Homeowner's Association Letter
b. Applicable Review Criteria
3
,. .
II
'.
,1""'\
Hunter Creek Commons Corporation
1004 Vine Street
Aspen, Co 81611
August 31, 1995
THRU: Leslie Lamont, Community Development
Aspen City Council
Aspen, Co.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
On behalf of the homeowners of Hunter Creek Condominiums, I should like to mention
several points concerning the plan for the neighboring Mocklin subdivision.
The Mocklin plan has good points in a lower density and the use of building envelopes to
keep structures away from the main intersection. We are concerned about the proposed new
entrance, the destroying of trees there, the effect of a house placed on the proposed Lot 6,
and the continued encroachment of the existing Mocklin building onto our property.
The strip of land between the west edge of the pavement of Lone Pine Road and the east
border of the Mocklin property belongs to us in fee ownership, with an access easement
dedicated for Lone Pine Road. This includes about IS feet of the proposed neW access
entrance for the Mocklin subdivision.
It also includes some of the aspen trees that fonn the small woods consisting of about 100
aspen trees that apparently would be removed for the new entrance. There are several trees
in this woods that are larger than 6 inches in diameter near their bases.The woods fonn a
natural green buffer that would partially screen the proposed building on Lot 6 from our
condominiums and passersby on Lone Pine Road. We would favor the use of the present
entranceway rather than creating two.
We would appreciate it if the building envelope for Lot 6 could be shortened on the south to
a length approximating that of Lot 4, or perhaps that of Lot 5, and the max height of the roof
be kept to 25 feet. We would also hope that the height of Lot 6's new building would from
the present grade at the base of the 30-foot marking stake, and that this grade be strictly
adhered to. In our part of town, we have already seen the Common Ground homeowners
build their southern units and the adjacent parking lot 2-3 feet above the approved grade,
and the Williams Woods project fail to construct a screening benn that the County promised
us would be constructed. When it comes to getting a better view of Aspen Mountain,
promises, even when written, go out the window.
The north side of the existing Mocklin apartment building encroaches on Hunter Creek's
property to the following extent according to the surveyors: roofs 2.5 feet; posts 1.5 feet,
and concrete walkway at the northeast entrance 0.8 feet. This may have resulted from the
addition of a structure containing storage bins to the main building, with a roof-covered
walkway. We discovered this encroachment last year.
Most of the trees on the slope north of the Mocklin apartment building are on our land, as is
about half of Mocklin's lawn at the northeast corner of his property. We mention this as our
homeowners' association has recently paid the successor to the developer of Hunter Creek
Condominiums some $370,000 for fee simple rights to this triangle parcel and some
basement spaces for storage.
>
I">,
,.-"
We are beginning to work on a plan for the use of this land so as to payoff our debt and
help to pay some part of the major roof replacements now necessary at Hunter Creek. We
are willing to cooperate with the City in the creation of a park, perhaps in conjunction with
the Mocklin Lot 1 parcel, or in some other constructive, low-density use.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Jennings, Ph.D.
Governor and Project Officer
,
,
.-~ / )
" "\ .,,'
\, . \
.'.,),-. ',,", \,
~;j '"
~ h~'. \~"
, \ ~\'\\ . .'.'
\ :-:\>.\ '
\\~\
,'\,,'., ,C , \
:+ ,\. \\
./ \
'~ .'\
\
,""
'",
!;LO. '"
"
,
x
'\
I
^
"
\
" '.
,
i"t )( /
,
r,~
g', x U
\
o
19S::
'bPl9 :;....:;Ulj.Al:7dV
"'I>1;)OW
/'
,
-'
/~
,,\t'
J
1>\.-0
/.l
'3'
;,
.I~
~<.. '" ,~
^
^
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
STAFF COMMENTS:
I. Site Description - The Mocklins own approximately four
acres of land in the vicinity of Gibson Avenue and Lone Pine road,
One tract of land, .60 acres, is across Gibson Avenue, adjacent ,to
the Art Museum and is traversed by Spring Street. Spring street
in this location is not a recorded public right-of-way.
The remaining portion of land is bordered by Lone Pine Road and
Gibson Avenue and is approximately 3.52 acres (153,331 square
feet). This applications refers only to this 3.5 acres.
The property contains one eight-unit apartment building, a paved
parking area, a small pond, and a pedestrian/trail easement that
runs parallel to the west property boundary connecting Lone Pine
Road with Gibson Avenue.
According to the applicant, the property is moderately sloping with
a significant change in elevation at the southeast corner where the
old railroad grade existed.
The site consists of native grasses, small shrubs, some small
aspens and cottonwoods. Interestingly, a significant portion of
the parcel represents one of the last remaining sage dominant areas
in town.
The site is on the RFTA HunterCreek/Centennial bus route. This
route has a 20 minute headway. A 10 ft. pedestrian trail easement
traverses the property on the west boundary. Mr. Mocklin and the
Parks Department have recently signed an access easement to
preserve the trail at this location and to upgrade the stairs at
the Gibson Avenue end of the trail.
The surrounding neighborhood is primarily high density housing with
a mixture of free market and deed restricted units. Further to the
east is the single family/duplex neighborhood of Spruce/Race/Walnut
Streets. The. Smuggler Mobile Home Park is across Park Avenue.
Oklahoma Flats, across Gibson Avenue is primarily single family
homes. The Clark's Market area and the commercial core are easily
accessed just across the Roaring Fork River.
II. Background - When developed, the property was in the
county, In 1980 after a lengthy review, the County accepted a case
disposition that acknowledged that the eight units in the building
are legal units. When the property was annexed into the City as
part of the large Hunter Creek/Centennial neighborhood annexation
it was zoned R-15A. At the time the Commission and Council, rather
than rezone the property to R/MFA, elected to keep the R-15 zoning
absent a development plan.
1
t""\
,-.,
Due to the R-15A zone designation, the apartment building was
rendered a non-conforming use. In 1992, Mr. Mocklin requested to
rezone the entire parcel to R/MFA to eliminate the non-conforming
status of the building and to make repairs and minor expansions on
the building,
City Council granted a partial rezoning of the property. Council
approved the rezoning to R/MFA of up to 50,000 square feet of land
surrounding the building. Upon final surveying and recordation of
a survey describing the rezoning, the rezoned parcel became 35,870
square feet. The rest of Mr. Mocklin's land remained R-15A.
III. Project Description The applicants propose to
subdivide their property into seven parcels. Six free market
parcels are proposed ranging from 15,830 sq, ft. to 24,540 sq. ft.
The seventh parcel, containing the multi-family building, will be
rezoned to Affordable aousing per staff's request to better reflect
the existing land use. The applicant proposes to deed restrict
six of the units to categories 1 and 2 as mitigation for the newly
created free market parcels, The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends deed restricting seven of the eight units due to the
exiting size of many of the units and their failure to comply with
current Housing Guidelines.
The Land Use Code enables the demolition and replacement of multi-
family housing as a Community Development Director exemption from
growth management which is not deducted from the allotment pool.
The Code originally contemplated that an applicant, with free
market dwelling units on the site, may wish to upgrade or replace
the units on the site in an alternative configuration. Prior to
Ordinance 1 of 1990, demolition and replacement was not only exempt
from growth management competition but was also exempt from
employee housing mitigation requirements, Due to Ordinance 1, the
demolition of a multi-family building now requires a replacement
of 50% of the bedrooms and 50% of the square footage as on-site
affordable housing. Ordinance 1 does not enable an applicant to
provide a cash-lieu payment alternative.
Several years ago, as the Mocklins were contemplating this
subdivision, they requested a Director interpretation with regard
to the demolition replacement section of the Code. The Mocklins
have enough land area available to subdivide their property into
several parcels without having to tear down the building. Rather
than tear down their well maintained, structurally sound, building
to realize their free market development credits and then rebuild
on-si te affordable housing as required by Ordinance 1, the Mocklins
proposed deed restricting the units as they exist (with any
upgrades required by the Housing Office) and then utilizing the
free market "credits" on the remaining portion of their property,
As a reminder to Council, employee mitigation requirements have
typically included three options: newly constructed dwelling units,
cash-in-lieu, and the buy-down concept which deed restricts
2
~
.-.,
existing dwelling units.
staff believes that this is a rather unique situation in the city.
Rarely does a property owner have enough land area to propose a new
sUbdivision without having to make room by demolishing existing
develqpment on the parcel. There are very few parcels that are.
greater than an acre in the City. The demolition and replacement
requirements of Ordinance 1 only pertain to development in the City
and do not affect the metro area unlike the Affordable Housing zone
district being considered in the County.
IV, GMQS Implications - The recent growth management revisions have
maintained demolition and replacement of free market units as a
Director exemption that is not deducted from the allotment pool.
However, the revisions established a def ini ti ve pool for affordable
dwelling units and the only exemption available for affordable
units is an exemption from Council that is deducted from the
allotment pool. In addition, the Code does not distinguish between
existing units that are bought down with a deed restriction verses
new constructed units, Therefore, the six new free market parcels
are not deducted from the allotment pool as they are exempt via
Director approval but the replacement units, the six fully deed
restricted dwelling units are deducted
Deducting the deed restricted units from the AH pool has raised
several issues with the Planning and HoUsing staff. Due to
Ordinance 1 requirements, an applicant must create additional deed
restricted units on the site. The code enables the exemption of
the free market units and the free market residential allotment
pool but penalizes the AH allotment pool.
It is staff's opinion that Ordinance 1 requirements were not fully
considered when drafting the new GMQS language and creating a cap
on the number of AH units available per year. As a result,
employee mitigation units that are developed per a demolition and
replacement development, in compliance with Ordinance 1, will be
deducted from the AH allotment pool,
staff raises this as an issue for the Commission and Council to
consider and offers several interpretations/solutions to the issue:
* deducting the housing mitigation from the AH allotment pool
may be appropriate and of no concern. The Housing Office has
believes this is a problem especially when actual new units
are not created and just added to the affordable housing
inventory. Please see attached referral comments.
* staff could formulate
mitigation required by
(Ordinance 1) in
replacement/demolition by
and not deducted from the
a text amendment that exempted
the Housing Replacement Program
the same section as the
Director is found, exempt from GMQS
housing pool.
3
1"""\.
,~
* currently the exemption section exempts the demolition and
replacement of multi-family housing subject to the
requirements of the Housing Replacement Program, staff with
consent of the Commission and Council may interpret this
section as to exempt all aspects of compliance with the
Housing Replacement program which would include deed
restricted housing.
Staff is seeking direction from and Council with regard to this
housing mitigation question. It was the Commission's opinion that
employee mitigation as required by Ordinance 1 should not be
deducted from the employee housing allotment pool.
----==============----
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA
I. Subdivision Review - This review is a two step process.
The P&Z reviewed the proposal and recommends approval of the
subdivision, with amended conditions, to Council.
Please refer to the application for specific site plans of this
project, exhibit A.
Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 the following review criteria for
Subdivision review are as follows:
A. General Requirements
(a) The proposed development shall be consistent with the
Aspen Area Community Plan,
RESPONSE: The AACP recommends either a park or affordable housing
for the parcel or a combination of the two, However, the AACP also
recommends policy to encourage infill development within the
existing urban area so as to preserve open space and rural areas
surrounding the City. The applicant has indicated in the
application that negotiations for purchase of open space will be
considered.
The Parks Department has indicated that the need for a park in this
neighborhood, which was originally envisioned on Mr. Mocklin's
property, has been significantly mitigated with the new park at
Williams Ranch and the proposed park at Snyder pond.
(b) The proposed development shall be consistent with the
character ,of existing land uses in the area.
RESPONSE: The surrounding land uses are primarily high density
apartment bui ldings. However, the sma 11 neighborhood of the
Williams Addition consists of single family homes and Oklahoma
4
^
,
,-.,
Flats is primarily single family homes. The applicant proposes a
sUbdivision of six free market parcels. The lower density on the
edge of the high density HunterCreek development will provide a
transition to the lower density neighborhoods on the edge of the
Centennial/HunterCreek neighborhood.
(cl The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas,
RESPONSE: The surrounding property is significantly developed.
Future development should not be impacted by the proposed six new
parcels.
The applicant has been working with the Parks Department to
permanently dedicate a pedestrian/trail easement on the west side
of the property. A trail easement has been secured.
(el The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with
all applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: Provided the Commission and Council find the development
in compliance with the various review criteria involved with this
project, the development proposal is in compliance with Chapter 24
of the .Municipal Code.
B. Land Suitability - The proposed subdivision shall not be
located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding,
drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rock slide, avalanche or
snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other
condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare
of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
RESPONSE: According to the application, portions of the site are
located within the boundaries of the Smuggler Area Super Fund site.
The proposed development must comply with the institutional
controls that have been adopted by the City. The applicant shall
work with the Environmental Health Department to determine specific
mitigation procedures.
A fugitive dust control plan
Environmental Health Department
building permits.
c. Efficient Spatial Pattern - the proposed subdivision shall not
be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies,
duplication or premature extension of pUblic facilities and
unnecessary public costs.
must also be
prior to the
filed with
issuance of
the
any
RESPONSE: All costs associated with the installation of utilities
and improvements for this subdivision shall be borne by the
applicant. This also includes the maintenance of the Gibson and
Lone Pine sidewalks as snow free in the winter. Necessary public
5
i""'c,
.~
utilities are within the immediate area and are sufficient to serve
this proposal. Please see the referral comments Exhibit B,
D. utilities-
(a) WATER - Service will be provided from the existing mains
in Lone Pine Road. The Water Department has indicated
sufficient capacity to accommodate the project for both
domestic and fire protection needs.
(b) SEWER The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
currently has sufficient collection and treatment capacity to
serve the project. Prorated development impact fees will be
assessed to eliminate a minor downstream constraint.
The applicant shall be required to provide a District approved
line extension request and District approved collection system
agreement prior to final approval or issuance of any permit.
If ACSD service lines are being stubbed in, the lines must be
approved by the Board and included as part of the collection
system agreement,
(c) ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, NATURAL GAS AND CABLE TV- Given
the infrequent but occasional problem with projects and their
utility needs, the final development plan shall include
letters from all of the utilities that they have inspected and
approved the final development plan.
All utility pedestals and transformers must be provided on
the property. The applicant must provide electric load
information to determine the amount and location of
transformers.
The application
undergrounded,
permitted to be
states that
No above
installed in
all existing utilities will be
grade utility facilities are
the public right-of-way.
(d) SIDEWALK, CURB, AND GUTTER - The applicant commits to the
installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Lone Pine
road. The applicant will continue to work with the
Engineering and Parks Departments to determine the, alignment
and installation technique for the sidewalk. The sidewalk
must meet ADA access requirements (no steps), including the
transition to the street,
Property owners are required to maintain snow clearance on
sidewalks that abut their property.
The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement,
prior to filing the final plat, for the future construction
of the curb, gutter, and sidewalks.
6
I""'>,
.,-"
(e) FIRE PROTECTION- The project shall meet all codes and
requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. The
emergency access lane on Lot 3 must be kept clear of parked
cars. Parking on the private road shall also be prohibited.
Notes shall be put on the final plat shall indicate such
constraints,
(f) DRAINAGE - The on-site storm drainage system will maintain
historic flow rates with respect to surface water runoff and
groundwater recharge. A detailed storm drainage system will
be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits,
(g) STREET LIGHTS - Both the Electric and Engineering
Departments, recommend the installation of several street
lights on Lone Pine road and Gibson Avenue. The applicant
shall work with the city to identify the location and type of
street lights to, be installed. Lights shall be installed
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
(h) STREETS - All work in the alley and pUblic right-of-way
shall require a permit from the streets department.
(i) FINAL PLAT - A subdivision plat, drafted in accordance
with Section 24-7-l004.C and D of the municipal code and a
subdivision agreement must be recorded within 180 days of
final approval or the SUbdivision approval is void.
(j) STREET TREES AND LANDSCAPING - A detailed landscape plan
for the entire project shall be approved by the Parks
Department. The Code is very specific with regard to the
number and placement of street trees, the applicant's
landscape plan shall comply with the SUbdivision requirements.
(k) OTHER-
Roads - The applicants proposes to provide access to the six
parcels from a seperate, 20 foot wide paved road off of Lone
Pine Road. Rather than dedicate the drive as a public right-
of-way, the applicant proposes to keep the drive private.
The Engineering Department would prefer a public right-of-
way dedication for future benefit of the community and future
home owners. Of concern is the minimum width of the private
drive, lack of pedestrian way, and the potential of the
creation of a gated community.
The drive only accesses six parcels. A public trail extends
the entire length of the west boundary of the subdivision.
Although the Planning Office does not believe that the drive
is a crucial roadway that should be public, staff does agree
with the Engineer that a gated community is inappropriate.
7
1""'>1
,,-,,
The sUbdivision design standards for streets and related
improvements require new streets to bear a logical
relationship to the topography and to the location of existing
or planned streets on adjacent properties. An emphasis of
the AACP was review and approval of new growth that is
consistent with the character of the community. No
trespassing signs and private property/do not enter signs at
the entrance of a roadway are incompatible with an existing
neighborhood. Therefore, staff would recommend a condition
that prevents the posting of signs at the entrance of the new
subdivision.
The applicant is revising the site plan to create a pedestrain
way for subdivision residents along the private drive.
Building Envelopes - The applicant has staked the proposed
building envelopes, Because of the significant natural sage
landscape, staff and the Parks Departments recommend that no
further development activity be allowed outside of the
approved building envelopes. This will include fencing and
contrived landscaping. In addition, there are several
topographic features and significant trees that staff
recommends should be considered in their relationship to the
building envelopes. The applicant and staff continue to
refine the building envelopes and a new site plan shall be
prepared prior to Council's review of the sUbdivision at
second reading.
II. Map Amendment In order to reflect the new deed
restrictions being proposed for the existing multi-family building,
staff has requested that the applicant rezone the property to
Affordable Housing. Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 the following
standards of review for an amendment to the Official Zone
District Map are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The application for rezoning is in compliance with the
standards of Section 24-7-1104 and other applicable portions of
Chapter 24, the Land USe Code for the City of Aspen.
However, the applicant has requested that the units are not
actually deed restricted until the sale of any of the free market
parcels being created through this subdivision. The applicant does
not intend to develop the parcels himself and plans to either sell
the parcels on an as needed basis or when he ultimately moves from
the area. In addition, some existing tenants would not qualify for
housing under the Housing Guidelines. Therefore, the applicant
proposes that as one free market parcel sells a unit in the multi-
family building will be deed restricted.
8
^
,-.,
The AH zone district requires a 70%/30% split of deed restricted
homes to free market homes. Without deed restricting the dwelling
units the building would be a non-conforming use in the AH zone
district. Sta,ff recommends that the applicant file/record the deed
restrictions and link the activation of the restrictions to the
sale of any of the parcels, change-over in tenants, or a specified
time-period, The applicant I s representative and the assistant city
attorney have developed language to ensure deed restriction as the
parcels are sold or full recordation within 7 years. The language
is included in the conditions of approval.
The Commission also requested a condition of approval that
prevented further development/density on the AH parcel.
b, Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) has identified this
parcel as appropriate for a semi....active park similar to Herron
Park. The Housing section of the AACP also recommended that
affordable housing similar to Lone Pine density be developed if the
property is not purchased as a park.
The applicant has indicated in his application that he would
welcome negotiations from the City or open space boards regarding
the preservation of the property as a park or a combination of
housing and a park. Since the completion of the AACP, the Williams
Ranch park proposal has been accepted and the Snyder property on
Midland Avenue has been purchased with Park and HoUsing funds, The
1995 Parks Master Plan identified the Mocklin property as a low
priority for an active park. However, the parcel would be an
excellent purchase for passive open space. The Pitkin County Open
Space Board would be interested in working with another entity to
explore a purchase but is not interested as the sole purchaser.
Please see their referral comment, Exhibit B.
Rezoning parcel 7 to affordable housing solidifies the intended use
of the parcel as affordable housing. In addition to the rezoning,
deed restriction of an existing building is consistent with the
AACP which recommends protecting the existing housing inventory.
c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE:: Properties immediately surrounding this proposal are
zoned R/MFA and R-6. The neighborhood has a large mix of free
market units and affordable units. This rezone and the
preservation of the multi-family building as affordable housing is
compatible with the neighborhood.
9
^
,.-.,
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: The rezoning affects an existing bUilding and would not
created any negative impacts on traffic generation and road safety.
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities,
RESPONSE: Again, the rezoning will not enable an increase in
density or other changes to occur on the property that would affect
pUblic facilities and the demand for service. The property is in
very good condition and is adequately served by utility/services.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: The rezoning only affects the existing bUilding on
proposed Parcel 7. Although the ability to deed restrict the
existing units enables the applicant to proceed with subdivision
of the remaining vacant property, the rezoning is not necessary to
deed restrict the building.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen,
RESPONSE: The AACP proposes the revitalization of the permanent
community and the encouragement of development that is pedestrian~
oriented as an auto disincentive. Staff requested the re,zoning to
more effectively preserve the deed restricted units.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: The tremendous development of multi-family buildings and
affordable housing parcels in the area make this rezoning
compatible with the neighborhood. More recently the cO-housing
proposal and the Williams Ranch SUbdivision have been zoned AH,
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The rezoning of this property would further the public
interest and enable a conforming use to remain on the property.
III. Vested Rights - Vesting language is included in the Ordinance.
10
/
r-"
^
/
I
!
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
THRU:
Amy Margerum, City Manager
stan Clauson, Director Community Development
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
August 28, 1995
RE:
Mocklin Subdivision, Rezoning, and Vested Rights - Second
Reading Ordinance 35, Series 1995
---------------------------------------------------------.--------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The. applicants, Peter and Monica Mocklin, seek to
subdivide their property into seven parcels, rezone parcel seven
toAH, and vested rights status for the subdivision.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application at a
public hearing June 6, 1995. The Commission reviewed and approved
special review for parking, open space and floor area ratio for the
AH zoned parcel. The Commission also recommends to Council
subdivision and rezoning approval for the proposed development
plan.
Council approved Ordinance 35, Series of 1995 at first reading.
However, Council requested new information from the applicant and
staff for review of the application at second reading. A follow-
up to Council's issues is provided in the Issues section of this
memo.
Please see application, Exhibit A,
The full description of the site and proposal is attached to this
memo for your review. In addition, the applicable review criteria
for a rezoning and subdivision are also attached to memo. Please
see Exhibit D.
APPLICANT: Peter Mocklin as represented by Sunny Vann
LOCATION: 0202 Lone pine Road
ZONING: R-15A and R/MFA
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Subdivide their property into six free market
parcels, and one AH parcel, and vested rights status.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please/see attached referral comments, exhibit
B.
PROCESS: Map amendments and
process with the Planning
recommendations to Council.
,
subdivision are a two step
and Zoning Commission
review
making
r-",
..-,
Special Review for AH parcels is a one step review by the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
GMQS Exemption and Code Interpretation for replacement hQusing is
a Community Development Director sign-off.
Vested Rights Status is approved by the City Council,
----===================----
STAFF COMMENTS
I. ISSUES:
issues:
During first reading, Council raised the following
A. GMQS Exemption - Several years ago in response to a
request from Mr. Mocklin, the Planning Director, together with
the city Attorney, found that existing free market units would
not have to be demolished in order to realize replacement
credit as long as the Housing Replacement standards were
observed, Departmental correspondence to Mr. Mocklin
indicated that a formal Code interpretation was not made and
a Director's interpretation of the Code was necessary at the
time of review of a development application.
An interpretation of the Code is necessary to accomplish this
subdivision, Code interpretations are usually appealed to
Council when an applicant does not agree with the Director's
interpretation, However, staff would like Council's guidance
as to whether interpretation of the demolition and replacement
credits is correct. Prior to submittal of the subdivision
application, staff once again discussed the concept of using
replacement credits when a demolition has not occurred. Staff
concurred that, unless demolition was necessary, replacement
credits could be used as long as Ordinance 1 standards were
achieved.
B. Replacement of Development Credits On-site - The Land Use
Code does not allow the transfer of development rights off
site, Although six new parcels are being created via the
SUbdivision process, the review process is intended to view
the project in total - the parcel as a whole. Therefore
utilization of various benefits and/or exactions apply to the
entire "fathering" parcel.
A recent conversation with Alan Richman confirmed that the
concept of replacing existing development on-site as an
exemption,tor the growth management process has been included
in thelGMP process since the inception of GMP. Replacement
of existing residential units has consistently been a unit for
unit basis.
2
,," ''\~
\\H
\,/" ,~
c. Demolition Required - If the applicant was una~e *0,,), 0 ",
"transfer" the residential apartment units to free maE'ke~\1IJ V
parcels and the building was demolished, the applicant wo~'l:iJ;;\:"i\
be required to redevelop based upon the Housing RePlacemM1t-..V~ \
standards as adopted in Ordinance 1, 1990. Ordinance D',j \,
requires a 50% replacement of the number of bedrooms lost, and~
a 50% replacement of the net residential area.
~
/--',
units
Net Liveable
Area
'<,
r~~,
~\~~
'\::~\
~"J
1. Existing Development
2. Replacement Require.
8
6,880
,
15
3,440
7
3. Current Proposal
6 lots
5,150 AH
12
(During first reading, staff inaccurately represented that 50%
of the gross FAR would have to be replaced rather than 50% of
the net residential area.)
If the building were torn, down, it is conceivable that a
seventh free market parcel could be added to the six free
market parcels that are proposed. The applicant's current
site plan takes full advantage of the views and provides
significant setbacks from Gibson Avenue and Lone pine Road.
It is likely that demolition of the existing apartment
building would not dramatically change this proposal.
However, one other free market parcel could be carved out of
the remaining land and another small parcel could be created
for the replacement deed restricted units. For example a deed
restricted tri-plex of 2 two-bedrooms and 1 one-bedroom would
satisfy the Ordinance 1 Housing Replacement requirements.
D. Park Development Impact Fees - The park development impact
fee for the current proposal would be approximately $20,964.
This is based upon the 1994 Ordinance that increased the fees
for 1995. The fees are evaluated every year. This figure is
also based upon an assumption of six four-bedroom, single-
family homes.
If the building were to be torn down, a credit would accrue
to the property for any replacement units. The new fee would
be based upon additional bedrooms that are added to the site.
The fee is based upon studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and
three-bedroom or larger units. Assuming the demolition would
enable a seventh free market parcel with an AH parcel
containing a tri-plex of deed restricted housing, the new park
development impact fee would be roughly $12,519.
E. FAR - Pre-ordinance 30/Post-ordinance 30 - Ordinance 30 did
not reduce the amount of allowable floor area for a given
3
^
~,
parcel. It changed some of the definitions of floor area and
the method by which floor area is calculated.
Of most significance would be the slope FAR reduction. However
without detailed surveying of each parcel it is difficult to
calculate how much allowable floor area would be lost due to
slopes greater that 20%. In reviewing the submitted site plan
it appears that only lots 1-4 may be slightly affected.
In addition to the allowable floor area, a single-family home
can add up to 375 square feet for a garage (250 free plus half
of the square footage between 250 and 500).
''---- .
As requested by Counc~l member Waggaman, staff has roughly
estimated the size of the building footprint within each
building envelope. Please see attached map, Exhibit C.
Presuming a two story home, the footprint represents half of
the allowable floor area located on the first floor.,
F. Purchase for Open Space - The City Attorney has advised
that any discussion regarding a purchase of all or any portion
of the property for open space purposes, should occur after any
action has been completed, on this application.
G. Bus stop Parcel - There are two RFTA bus stops on Lone Pine
Road. One is located on property owned by the Hunter Creek
Condominium Association and the other is located in the public
right of way. RFTA has recently begun conversations with the
Hunter Creek homeowners regarding the easement on their
property. Due to the increased number of units created by
this subdivision and the potential for upgrades to the
existing bus stops, the 'applicant shall review with RFTA a
possible easement stop adjacent to lot 6. Location and size
shall be determined prior to the recordation of the
subdivision plat.
H. Other - Staff identified several issues for continued
discussion at first reading. They were:
1. Currently, AH mitigation will be deducted from the AH
allotment pool. Seven units will be deducted.
RESPONSE: Staff has not resolved what pool, if any, these units
will be deducted from. However, the Commission and Council both
directed staff to deduct the growth without impacting the AH pool.
A GMQS section code amendment will be required to correct this
oversight.
2. Building envelopes will continue to be refined to protect
significant vegetation and topographic features. A revised
site plan including grading profiles will be available for
Council review prior to second reading.
4
^
,~
RESPONSE:
indicating
lots 1, 2,
staff.
The applicant has submitted a revised site plan
vegetation to be lost, revised building envelopes for
& 3. However, a grading plan must still be reviewed by
3. The private roadway shall not be signed as such. A
revised site plan shall indicate a pedestrian way for
residents of the six parcels.
RESPONSE:
walk.
The revised site plan has indicated 5' hare'! surface
4. The six units that are to be dedicated do not meet the
Housing Guidelines with respect to size. Therefore the
Housing Office and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend that a seventh unit be deed restricted. In
addition, the applicant proposed to file deed restrictions for
the units when a building permit is actually issued for the
free market units.
RESPONSE: The applicant has agreed to deed restrict a seventh unit
which is a three-bedroom 1,470, square foot unit.
----==============----
SUMMARY: The proposal to maintain the existing apartment building
preserves more bedrooms and more net liveable area for deed
restricted housing than if the applicant replaced 50% of the
bedrooms and 50% of the net liveable area. In addition, staff
continues to support the interpretation of replacement credits
without demolition. Maintenance of the existing structure for
housing purposes is consistent with the AACP recommendation that
existing structures should be preserved to discourage displacement
of local residents.
RECOMMENDATION:
A. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the rezoning of
the property from R/MFA to Affordable Housing with the following
condition of approval:
a. The existing floor area ratio, density and free
market/affordable housing mix shall remain the same unless
amended by a substantial amendment to the Mocklin subdivision
approval.
B. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the deed
restriction of seven existing dwelling units verses the applicant's
proposed six units due to the existing units non-compliance with
the Housing Guidelines.
5
1""'>\
,"-'"
C. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the
Subdivision review with the following conditions:
1.
Any costs
upgraded
sidewalk,
for new pUblic services that must be
shall be borne by the applicant,
curb and gutter, if required.
installed or
including a
2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall submit a subdivision plat and site plan and Subdivision
Improvement Agreement in accordance with Section 24-7-1004.C
and D of the municipal code for review by the Engine~ring and
Planning Departments and the city Attorney.
The final Subdivision plat and agreement must be filed within
180 days of final approval or subdivision approval is void.
3. The Subdivision agreement shall include the following:
a. letters from all utilities that they have inspected
and approved the final development plan;
b. restrictions against future installation of
fireplaces and woodstoves;
c. language restricting parking from the private drive
and emergency access drive on Lot 3;
d. language limiting signage to Dead End Street, Not a
Through Street or other comparable signs;
e. financial assurances that are approved by appropriate
City and utility staff prior to recorq,ati~nJ2f agreemens c~
""'ulo:.,~ N res", '""""'. Q..,.~,
1. \: "",, '" , ' J
~? Q " /J f. recorded deed restrictions for the seven affordable f.~ Cl.4,
-~'-V hous ing units shall be effective when a building permit 4~.l'~""
~ is issued or within 7 years of final approval 'of the ~'''C
subdivision by Council whichever is earlier, with the
\~ ." proviso that the deed restrictions may be released if r:.
~ '. circumsta~ces cha~ge S,uch as the sUbdivision plat and l ~-'2:" I
O:C:",(-' ~ approval ~s made ~nvahd; ~"" '''q: i
~~, 0~C\o g. a tracking mechanism to ensure that recordation Of'~::::", '\;
,"'1~r; the employee housing deed restrictions occurs prior to 'G.{
, >f 0';::._1 the issuance of any building permits for individual free
.~ market homes;
h. no tracking of mud during construction shall be
permitted on city streets during construction;
i. language stating that the subdivider hereby
aCknowledges the sidewalk snow removal requirements of
Article VIII in Chapter 19 of the City Code and covenants
~~
6
1"""'.
.~
that, upon activation of the subdivision homeowners
association, the association will immediately assume
responsibility for snow removal for the Gibson Avenue
sidewalk adjacent to the homeowners' properties and the
future sidewalk on Lone Pine Road. This language shall
also be included in the subdivision covenants;
j. language stating that prior to the issuance of any
building permits driveway/access site plans for each
parcel shall be submitted for review to the Parks
Department and Planning staff to ensure t minimum
disturbance outside of the building envelope for
necessary access drives;
k. a construction schedule that outlines completion dates
for pUblic improvements, general infrastructure, grading
plans, planting schedule etc.; and
l. security for public improvements and landscaping shall
be provided to insure performance of construction of
public improvements and proposed landscaping.
4. The final Subdivision plat and plan shall include the
following:
a. all transformer and utility easements;
b. identification of new street lights;
c. future sidewalk, curb, and gutter. The sidewalk must
meet ADA access requirements (no steps), including the
transition to the street;
d. a detailed landscape plan approved by the Parks
Department;
/
e. revised building envelopes on lots I, 2, & 3 as
submitted for Council's review August 28, 1995;
f. a note prohibiting parking in the emergency ~cce~ ...
drive on Lot 3; , \!":t;.,~\).Jrc 11w-......~
g. notes preventing f~ure development,~andSCaPing/othe~
than native v,egetatigp', ferlcing, patios, decks, hot ~UbS, ~ .
-' -- outside of the building envelopes to-protect) the ~
natural landscape; and ~O~\;<I
h. a grading plan and profile for the entrance to the ~'t
SUbdivision and entire private drive.
Prior to the issuance of any building permits: .
5.
7
"-,,,
,-.,
a. tree removal permits from the Parks Department shall
be required for the removal of any trees 6" in caliper
or greater and any trees proposed to be saved shall be
protected during construction, including no digging in
the drip line;
b. the applicant shall file with the Environmental
Health Department, a fugitive dust control plan and
construction and soil moving plan that adheres to the
Institutional Controls established for the Smuggler
Superfund site and administered by the Environmental
Health Department;
c. a deed restriction for an employee dwelling unit
shall be filed with the Housing Office. The deed
restriction shall adhere to the Housing standards and
guidelines in effect at the time of recordation; and
d. a storm drainage plan and landscape plan shall be
reviewed and approved by appropriate City Departments.
6. Prior to recording the final plat:
a. the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the
Engineering Department to construct sidewalk, curb and
gutter in the future; and
b. the applicant shall
easement is necessary
SUbdivision ,and location
the final plat.
determine if a RFTA, bus stop
adjacent to Lot 6 of the
and size shall be indicated on
7. Any irrigation system that is installed shall be in compliance
with the Water Conservation Code.
8. The applicant shall maintain the historic runoff patterns that
are found on the site.
9. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvements
districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
10. At the completion of each phase of the work, the applicant
shall submit a statement by a registered professional land
surveyor that all required survey and property monuments
remain in place or have been re-established as required by
Colorado Revised Statutes.
11. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the various
phases of the project, the applicant shall submit reproducible
mylar as-built drawings of sidewalk, utility improvements, and
all other work located within the public rights-of-way,
8
~
r-\
showing horizontal and vertical locations within 1 foot
accuracy of all utilities, including their size and
identification, together with any other features encountered
during excavation within the rights-of-way. The as-builts
shall be signed and stamped by a registered profsssional
engineer. The as-builts shall also be provided to the City
on a disk in a dfx file compatible with the City GIS ArcInfo
software system.
12. All lighting fixtures will face downward and be shielded to
eliminate the potential for glare or nuisance to ne~ghboring
properties. Lighting along the walkways will be low to the
ground (approximately 3' in height) and shielded.
13. All work in the public right-of-way shall require a permit
from the streets department.
14. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible
sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except
between the hours of 7 am. and 10 p.m.
15. Creation of the six free market parcels shall be conditioned
upon the deed restriction of seven of the existing dwelling
to category 1 and 2 in compliance with the Affordable Housing
Guidelines in effect at the time of recordation of the deed
restrictions.
16. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions. .
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance 35, Series of
1995, approvin~,the Mocklin SUbdivision and the rezoning of parcel
seven of the subdivision from R/MFA to AH."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Ordinance 35, Series of 1995
EXHIBITS:
A. Application (which includes Ordinance 72, 1992 approving the
rezoning to R/MFA)
B. Referral Comments
C. Estimated Building Footprints and Revised Site Plan
D. Site/Project Description, Applicable Review standards
I
9
,-"
r-,
.-/~
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: MOCKLIN GMQS EXEMPTION, SUBDIVISION, SPECIAL REVIEW AND AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT HAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Monday, August 28, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before
the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena
st., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Peter and
Monica Mocklin, requesting an exemption from the City's Growth
Management Quota System to develop six residential free market
lots. The applicants are also requesting the following approvals:
subdivision; rezoning of the portion of the property which is
currently zoned R/MF, Residential/Multi-Family, to AH, Affordable
Housing; and Special Review to vary the FAR, parking and open space
requirements for the AH zoned parcel. The property is located
adjacent to the intersection of Gibson Avenue and Lone Pine Road;
SW ~ of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M.
For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin
Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO
920-5101
stJohn Bennett. Mavor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on August 12, 1995
:================================================================
City of Aspen Account
&{11 tv ~'hrJU VI';J'h
'i/l/c1 ~
~
"-,,,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
Leslie Lamont
FROM:
DATE:
August 11, 1995
RE:
Mocklin Existing Vegetation Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Per you request at our site visit, the applicant has provided a
landscape plan indicating existing vegetation. The plan indicates
trees that are 6" or larger that are to remain and those trees that
will be lost. The plan also includes aspen and cottonwoods that
will be planted on site which would be in addition to individual
property owner landscape plans.
In addition, Lots 5 & 6 will be staked with "story poles" on August
23. This should give Council enough time to examine the site
before the August 28 public hearing. The story poles will indicate
the height of a residence on the parcel. The height limit in this
zone district is 25' to the mid-point of the roof with up to 5'
more to the ridge not to exceed 30'. I am not sure if the
applicant will put story poles down the middle of the building
envelopes or on the already staked corners. I will confirm that
detail.
:-,
f"""\
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
July 19, 1995
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
Aspen Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Mocklin GMQS Exemption Application
Dear Leslie:
As we discussed, the tables which we presented at the last City Council meeting
pertaining to the affordable housing replacement requirements for the Mocklin property
were in error, The relevant replacement requirements, which are contained in
Ordinance No.1, Series of 1990, require that fifty (50) percent of the existing "net
residential area" be replaced, configured in such manner as to replace fifty (50) percent
of the existing bedrooms.
In our presentation to the City Council, we mistakenly used the gross floor area of Mr,
Mocklin's building in detennining the amount of replacement square footage that would
be required after demolition. As net residential area is specifically defined as interior
livable area excluding stairways, halls, and other common areas, this figure is substantial-
ly less than the building's actual floor area. As a result, we overstated the amount of
replacement square footage that would be required,
As Table 1 in my application indicates, the existing building contains a total of fifteen
(15) bedrooms and six: thousand eight hundred and eighty (6,880) square feet of livable __ 'v0
area (I.e., a!k/a, net residential area), Consequently, Ordinance No, 1 would require the ~.
replacement after demolition of a minimum of seven (7) bedrooms and three thousand ~.
four hundred and forty (3,440) square feet of livable area, Mr. Mocklin, however, U'
proposes to deed restrict a total of twelve (12) bedrooms and five thousand one hundred
and fifty (5,150) square feet of livable area,
,
Please note that the twelve bedrooms which Mr. Mocklin proposes to deed restrict
exceed the minimum regulatory requirement by approximately seventy (70) percent,
Similarly, the net livable area to be deed restricted exceeds the minimum requirement
by approximately fifty (50) percent. The requirements of Ordinance No.1, and Mr,
Mocklin's deed restriction proposal, are summarized in the attached table.
230 East Hopkins Avenue. Aspen, Colorado 81611 . 303/925-6958' Fax 303/920-9310
,-"
,-.,
Ms, Leslie Lamont
July 19, 1995
Page 2
If you confer with my analysis, I would appreciate it if you would provide copies of my
letter and the attached exhibit to the City Council members at our Thursday site
inspection.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call,
Yours truly,
c: lbuslcity.1trUtr24994.112
,-"
,-.
r .1
Table 1
DEVELOPMENT DATA
Mocklin GMQS Exemption Application
7/19195
Pursuant to Ordinance No.1, Series of 1990, the demolition and reconstruction of existing
multi-family residential structures is subject to the City's so-called "Housing Replacement
Program". The reconstruction of such units is exempt from growth management subject to the
provision of on-site affordable housing in sufficient quantity to replace fifty (50) percent of the
demolished units' net livable area, configured in such a manner as to replace fifty (50) percent
of the demolished bedrooms. The impact of these Ordinance No, 1 requirements on the
Mocklin property is summarized below,
Net
Livable Area
Number
Bedrooms
1. Existing Structure 6,880 15
2. Replacement Requirementl 3,440 7
3. Proposed Deed Restriction2 5,150 12
4. Percent Proposed Deed Restriction 50% 71%
Exceeds Replacement Requirement
Based on fifty (50) percent of existing net livable area and fifty (50) percent of existing
bedrooms.
2
Based on deed restricting seven (7) of the existing eight (8) units. Only Mr. Macklin's
personal three (3) bedroom unit would remain unrestricted.
/
~
MEMORANDUM
.Xb
TO:
Mayor and Council ^ IJA~
Amy Margerum, City ManagerW'" ~
stan Clauson, Director Community Development
THRU:
THRU:
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE:
July 10, 1995
RE:
Mocklin Subdivisio~,-Rezoning, and Vested Rights - First
Reading ordinance~, Series 1995
-------------------------~---------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicant's, Peter and Monica Mocklin, seek to
subdivide their property into seven parcels, rezone parcel seven
to AH, and vested rights status for the SUbdivision.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this application at a
pUblic hearing June 6, 1995. The Commission reviewed and approved
special review for parking, open space and floor area ratio for the
AH zoned parcel. The Commission also recommends to Council
SUbdivision and rezoning approval for the proposed development
plan.
Please see application, Exhibit A.
APPLICANT: Peter Mocklin as represented by Sunny Vann
LOCATION: 0202 Lone Pine Road
ZONING: R-15A and R/MFA
APPLICANT'S REQUEST : Subdivide their property into six free market .
parcels, and one AH parcel, and vested rights status.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached referral comments, exhibit
B.
PROCESS: Map amendments and
process with the Planning
recommendations to Council.
su1:ldivision are a two step review
and Zoning Commission making
Special Review for AH parcels is a one step review by the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
GMQS Exemption for replacement housing is a Community Development
Director sign-off.
Vested Rights Status is approved by the City Council.
----===================----
/
.~
"-,,,
STAFF COMMENTS:
I. Site Description - The Mocklins own approximately four
acres of land in the vicinity of Gibson Avenue and Lone Pine road.
One tract of land, .60 acres, is across Gibson Avenue, adjacent to
the Art Museum and is traversed by Spring Street. Spring Street
in this location is not a recorded public right-of-way.
The remaining portion of land is bordered by Lone Pine Road and
Gibson Avenue and is approximately 3.52 acres (153,331 square
feet). This applications refers only to this 3.5 acres.
The property contains one eight-unit apartment building, a paved
parking area, a small pond, and a pedestrian/trail easement that
runs parallel to the west property boundary connecting Lone Pine
Road with Gibson Avenue.
According to the applicant, the property is moderately sloping with
a significant change in elevation at the southeast corner where the
old railroad grade existed.
The site consists of native grasses, small shrubs, some small
aspens and cottonwoods. Interestingly, a significant portion of
the parcel represents one of the last remaining sage dominant areas
in town.
The site is on the RFTA HunterCreek/Centennial bus route. This
route has a 20 minute headway. A 10 ft. pedestrian trail easement
traverses the property on the west boundary. Mr. Mocklin and the
Parks Department have recently signed an access easement to
preserve the trail at this location and to upgrade the stairs at
the Gibson Avenue end of the trail.
The surrounding neighborhood is primarily high density housing with
a mixture of free market and deed restricted units. Further to the
east is the single family/duplex neighborhood of Spruce/Race/Walnut
Streets. The Smuggler Mobile Home Park is across Park Avenue.
Oklahoma Flats, across Gibson Avenue is primarily single family
homes. The Clark's Market area and the commercial core are easily
accessed just across the Roaring Fork River.
II. Background - When developed, the property was in the
county. In 1980 after a lengthy review, the County accepted a case
disposition that acknowledged that the eight units in the building
are legal units. When the property was annexed into the City as
part of the large Hunter Creek/Centennial neighborhood annexation
it was Zoned R-15A. At the time the Commission and Council, rather
than rezone the property to R/MFA, elected to keep the R-15 zoning
absent a development plan.
2
,-"
~,
Due to the R-15A zone designation, the apartment building was
rendered a non-conforming use. In 1992, Mr. Mocklin requested to
rezone the entire parcel to R/MFA to eliminate the non-conforming
status of the building and to make repairs and minor expansions on
the building.
city Council granted a partial rezoning of the property. Council
approved the rezoning to R/MFA of up to 50,000 square feet of land
surrounding the building. Upon final surveying and recordation of
a survey describing the rezoning, the rezoned parcel became 35,870
square feet. The rest of Mr. Mocklin's land remained R-15A.
III. Project Description The applicants propose to
subdivide their property into seven parcels. six free market
parcels are proposed ranging from 15,830 sq. ft. to 24,540 sq. ft.
The seventh parcel, containing the multi-family building, will be
rezoned to Affordable Housing per staff's request to better reflect
the existing land use. The applicant proposes to deed restrict
six of the units to categories 1 and 2 as mitigation for the newly
created free market parcels. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends deed restricting seven of the eight units due to the
exiting size of many of the units and their failure to comply with
current Housing Guidelines.
The Land Use Code enables the demolition and replacement of multi-
family housing as a Community Development Director exemption from
growth management which is not deducted from the allotment pool.
The Code originally contemplated that an applicant, with free
market dwelling units on the site, may wish to upgrade or replace
the units on the site in an alternative configuration. Prior to
Ordinance 1 of 1990, demolition and replacement was not only exempt
from growth management competition but was also exempt from
employee housing mitigation requirements. Due to Ordinance 1, the
demolition of a multi-family building now requires a replacement
of 50% of the bedrooms and 50% of the square footage as on-site
affordable housing. Ordinance 1 does not enable an applicant to
provide a cash-lieu payment alternative.
Several years ago, as the Mocklins were contemplating this
SUbdivision, they requested a Director interpretation with regard
to the demolition replacement section of the Code. The Mocklins
have enough land area available to subdivide their property into
several parcels without having to tear down the building. Rather
than tear down their well maintained, structurally sound, building
to realize their free market development credits and then rebuild
on-site affordable housing as required by Ordinance 1, the Mocklins
proposed deed restricting the units as they. exist (with any
upgrades required by the Housing Office) and then utilizing the
free market "credits" on the remaining portion of their property.
As a reminder to Council, employee mitigation requirements have
typically included three options: newly constructed dwelling units',
3
I"""'"'-,
~.
cash-in-lieu, and the buy-down concept which deed restricts
existing dwelling units.
staff believes that this is a rather unique situation in the City.
Rarely does a property owner have enough land area to propose a new
SUbdivision without having to make room by demolishing existing
development on the parcel. There are very few parcels that are
greater than an acre in the City. The demolition and replacement
requirements of Ordinance 1 only pertain to development in the City
and do not affect the metro area unlike the Affordable Housing zone
district being considered in the County.
IV. GMQS Implications - The recent growth management revisions have
maintained demolition and replacement of free market units as a
Director exemption that is not deducted from the allotment pool.
However, the revisions established a definitive pool for affordable
dwelling units and the only exemption available for affordable
units is an exemption from Council that is deducted from the
allotment pool. In addition, the Code does not distinguish between
existing units that are bought down with a deed restriction verses
new constructed units. Therefore, the six new free market parcels
are not deducted from the allotment pool as they are exempt via
Director approval but the replacement units, the six fully deed
restricted dwelling units are deducted
Deducting the deed restricted units from the AH pool has raised
several issues with the Planning and Housing staff. Due to
Ordinance 1 requirements, an applicant must create additional deed
restricted units on the site. The code enables the exemption of
the free market units and the free market residential allotment
pool but penalizes the AH allotment pool.
It is staff's opinion that Ordinance 1 requirements were not fully
considered when drafting the new GMQS language and creating a cap
on the number of AH units available per year. As a result,
employee mitigation units that are developed per a demolition and
replacement development, in compliance with Ordinance 1, will be
deducted from the AH allotment pool.
staff raises this as an issue for the Commission and Council to
consider and offers several interpretations/solutions to the issue:
* deducting the housing mitigation from the AH allotment pool
may be appropriate and of no concern. The Housing Office has
believes this is a problem especially when actual new units
are not created and just added to the affordable housing
inventory. Please see attached referral comments.
* staff could formulate
mitigation required by
(Ordinance 1) in
a text amendment that exempted
the Housing Replacement Program
the same section as the
4
1'""'\
~Cc~
1'""'\
replacement/demolition by Director is found, exempt from GMQS
and not deducted from the housing pool.
* currently the exemption section exempts the demolition and
replacement of mUlti-family housing subject to the
requirements of the Housing Replacement Program, staff with
consent of the Commission and council may interpret this
section as to exempt all aspects of compliance with the
Housing Replacement program which would include deed
restricted housing.
staff is seeking direction from and Council with regard to this
housing mitigation question. It was the commission's opinion that
employee mitigation as required by Ordinance 1 should not be
deducted from the employee housing allotment pool.
----==============----
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA
I. Subdivision Review - This review is a two step process.
The P&Z reviewed the proposal and recommends approval of the
subdivision, with amended conditions, to council.
Please refer to the application for specific site plans of this
project, exhibit A.
Pursuant to Section 24-7-1004 the following review criteria for
Subdivision review are as follows:
A. General Requirements
(a) The proposed development shall be consistent with the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
RESPONSE: The AACP recommends either a park or affordable housing
for the parcel or a combination of the two. However, the AACP also
recommends policy to encourage infill development within the
existing urban area so as to preserve open space and rural areas
surrounding the city. The applicant has indicated in the
application that negotiations for purchase of open space will be
considered.
The Parks Department has indicated that the need for a park in this
neighborhood, which was originally envisioned on Mr. MOcklin' s
property, has been significantly mitigated with the new park at
williams Ranch and the proposed park at Snyder pond.
(b) The proposed development shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the area.
5
~
,-.,
RESPONSE: The surrounding land uses are primarily high density
apartment buildings. However, the small neighborhood of the
Williams Addition consists of single family homes and Oklahoma
Flats is primarily single family homes. The applicant proposes a
subdivision of six free market parcels. The lower density on the
edge of the high density HunterCreek development will provide a
transition to the lower density neighborhoods on the edge of the
Centennial/HunterCreek neighborhood.
(c) The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas.
RESPONSE: The surrounding property is significantly developed.
Future development should not be impacted by the proposed six new
parcels.
The applicant has been working with the Parks Department to
permanently dedicate a pedestrian/trail easement on the west side
of the property. A trail easement has been secured.
(e) The proposed sUbdivision shall be in compliance with
all applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: Provided the Commission and Council find the development
in compliance with the various review criteria involved with this
project, the development proposal is in compliance with Chapter 24
of the Municipal Code.
B. Land Suitability - The proposed subdivision shall not be
located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding,
drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rock slide, avalanche or
snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other
condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare
of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
RESPONSE: According to the application, portions of the site are
located within the bOUndaries of the Smuggler Area Super Fund site.
The proposed development must comply with the institutional
controls that have been adopted by the City. The applicant shall
work with the Environmental Health Department to determine specific
mitigation procedures.
A fugitive dust control plan
Environmental Health Department
building permits.
must also
prior to
be
the
filed with
issuance of
the
any
c. Efficient Spatial Pattern - The proposed subdivision shall not
be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies,
duplication or premature extension of public facilities and
unnecessary pUblic costs.
6
~
."-,,,
RESPONSE: All costs associated with the installation of utilities
and improvements for this subdivision shall be borne by the
applicant. This also includes the maintenance of the Gibson and
Lone Pine sidewalks as snow free in the winter. Necessary public
utilities are within the immediate area and are sufficient to serve
this proposal. Please see the referral comments Exhibit B.
D. Utilities-
(a) WATER - Service will be provided from the existing mains
in Lone pine Road. The Water Department has indicated
sufficient capacity to accommodate the project for both
domestic and fire protection needs.
(b) SEWER The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
currently has sufficient collection and treatment capacity to
serve the project. Prorated development impact fees will be
assessed to eliminate a minor downstream constraint.
The applicant shall be required to provide a District approved
line extension request and District approved collection system
agreement prior to final approval or issuance of any permit.
If ACSD service lines are being stubbed in, the lines must be
approved by the Board and included as part of the collection
system agreement.
(c) ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, NATURAL GAS AND CABLE TV - Given
the infrequent but occasional problem with projects and their
utility needs, the final development plan shall include
letters from all of the utilities that they have inspected and
approved the final development plan.
All utility pedestals and transformers must be provided on
the property. The applicant must provide electric load
information to determine the amount and location of
transformers.
The application
undergrounded.
permitted to be
states that
No above
installed in
all existing utilities will be
grade utility facilities are
the pUblic right-of-way.
(d) SIDEWALK, CURB, AND GUTTER - The applicant commits to the
installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Lone Pine
road. The applicant will Continue to work with the
Engineering and Parks Departments to determine the alignment
and installation teChnique for the sidewalk. The sidewalk
must meet ADA access requirements (no steps), including the
transition to the street.
Property owners are required to maintain snow clearance on
sidewalks that abut their property.
7
r'\
,..--,.
The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement,
prior to filing the final plat, for the future construction
of the curb, gutter, and sidewalks.
(e) FIRE PROTECTION - The project shall meet all codes and
requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. The
emergency access lane on Lot 3 must be kept clear of parked
cars. Parking on the private road shall also be prOhibited.
Notes shall be put on the final plat shall indicate such
constraints.
(f) DRAINAGE - The on-site storm drainage system will maintain
historic flow rates with respect to surface water runoff and
groundwater recharge. A detailed storm drainage system will
be submitted prior to the issuance of any building permits.
(g) STREET LIGHTS Both the Electric and Engineering
Departments recommend the installation of several street
lights on Lone Pine road and GiJpson Avenue. The applicant
shall work with the City to identify the location and type of
street lights to be installed. Lights shall be installed
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
(h) STREETS - All work in the alley and public right-of-way
shall require a permit from the streets department.
(i) FINAL PLAT - A subdivision plat, drafted in accordance
with Section 24-7-1004.C and D of the municipal code and a
subdivision agreement must be recorded within 180 days of
final approval or the subdivision approval is void.
(j) STREET TREES AND LANDSCAPING - A detailed landscape plan
for the entire project shall be approved by the Parks
Department. The Code is very specific with regard to the
number and placement of street trees, the applicant's
landscape plan shall comply with the subdivision requirements.
(k) OTHER-
Roads - The applicants proposes to provide access to the six
parcels from a seperate, 20 foot wide paved road off of Lone
Pine Road. Rather than dedicate the drive as a pUblic right-
of-way, the applicant proposes to keep the drive private.
The Engineering Department would prefer a public right-of-
way dedication for future benefit of the community and future
home owners. Of concern is the minimum width of the private
drive, lack of pedestrian way, and the potential of the
creation of a gated community.
G
l
~
8
,....."
"-,,,
The drive only accesses six parcels. A pUblic trail extends
the entire length of the west boundary of the subdivision.
Although the Planning Office does not believe that the drive
is a crucial roadway that should be public, staff does agree
with the Engineer that a gated community is inappropriate.
The subdivision design standards for streets and related
improvements require new streets to bear a logical
relationship to the topography and to the location of existing
or planned streets on adjacent properties. An emphasis of
the AACP was review and approval of new growth that is
consistent with the character of the community.. No
trespassing signs and private property/do not enter signs at
the entrance of a roadway are incompatible with an existing
neighborhood. Therefore, staff would recommend a condition
that prevents the posting of signs at the entrance of the new
subdivision. .
The applicant is revising the site plan to create apedestrain
way for subdivision residents along the private drive.
Buildinq Envelopes - The applicant has staked the proposed
building envelopes. Because of the significant natural sage
landscape, staff and the Parks Departments recommend that no
further development activity be allowed outside of the
approved building envelopes. This will include fencing and
contrived landscaping. In addition, there are several
topographic features and significant trees that staff
recommends should be considered in their relationship to the
building envelopes. The applicant and staff continue to
refine the building envelopes and a new site plan shall be
prepared prior to Council's review of the subdivision at
second reading.
II. Map Amendment In order to reflect the new deed
restrictions being proposed for the existing multi-family building,
staff has requested that the applicant rezone the property to
Affordable Housing. Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 the following
standards of review for an amendment to the Official Zone
District Map are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The application for rezoning is in compliance with the
standards of Section 24-7-1104 and other applicable portions of
Chapter 24, the Land Use Code for the City of Aspen.
However, the applicant has requested that the uni ts are not
actually deed restricted until the sale of any of the free market
parcels being created through this subdivision. The applicant does
not intend to develop the parcels himself and plans to either sell
9
1""'\
,t"""\
the parcels on an as needed basis or when he ultimately moves from
the area. In addition, some existing tenants would not qualify for
housing under the Housing Guidelines. Therefore, . the applicant
proposes that as one free market parcel sells a unit in the multi-
family building. will be deed restricted.
The AH zone district requires a 70%/30% split of deed restricted
homes to free market homes. Without deed restricting the dwelling
units the building would be a non-conforming use in the AH zone
district. staff recommends that the applicant file/record the deed
restrictions and link the activation of the restrictions to the
sale of any of the parcels, change-over in tenants, or a specified
time-period. The applicant's representative and the assistant city
attorney have developed language to ensure deed restriction as the
parcels are sold or full recordation within 7 years. The language
is included in the conditions of approval.
The Commission also requested a condition of approVal that
prevented further development/density on the AH parcel.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) has identified this
parcel as appropriate for a semi-active park similar to Herron
Park. The Housing section of the AACP also recommended that
affordable housing similar to Lone pine density be developed if the
property is not purchased as a park.
The applicant has indicated in his application that he would
welcome negotiations from the City or open space boards regarding
the preservation of the property as a park or a combination of
housing and a park. since the completion of the AACP, the Williams
Ranch park proposal has been accepted and the Snyder property on
Midland Avenue has been purchased with Park and Housing funds. The
1995 Parks Master Plan identified the Mocklin property as a low
priori ty for an active park. However, the parcel would be an
excellent purchase for passive open space. The Pitkin County Open
Space Board would be interested in working with another entity to
explore a purchase but is not interested as the sole purchaser.
Please see their referral comment, Exhibit B.
Rezoning parcel 7 to affordable housing solidifies the intended use
of the parcel as affordable housing. In addition to the rezoning,
deed restriction of an existing building is consistent with the
AACP which recommends protecting the existing housing inventory.
c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
10
1"""'\
,-"
RESPONSE: Properties immediately surrounding this proposal are
zoned R/MFA and R-6. The neighborhood has a large mix of free
market units and affordable units. This rezone and the
preservation of the mUlti-family bUilding as affordable housing is
compatible with the neighborhood.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: The rezoning affects an existing building and would not
created any negative impacts on traffic generation and road safety.
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on pUblic facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such pUblic facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: Again, the rezoning will not enable an increase in
density or other changes to occur on the property that would affect
public facilities and the demand for service. The property is in
very good condition and is adequately served by utility/services.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
RESPONSE: The rezoning only affects the existing building on
proposed Parcel 7. Although the ability to deed restrict the
existing units enables the applicant to proceed with subdivision
of the remaining vacant property, the rezoning is not necessary to
. deed restrict the building.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: The AACP proposes the revitalization of the permanent
community and the encouragement of development that is pedestrian-
oriented as an auto disincentive. staff requested the rezoning to
more effectively preserve the deed restricted units.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: The tremendous development of multi-family buildings and
affordable housing parcels in the area make this rezoning
compatible with the neighborhood. More recently the CO-housing
proposal and the Williams Ranch subdivision have been zoned AH.
11
,-."
1"-"'"
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The rezoning of this property would further the public
interest and enable a conforming use to remain on the property.
III. Vested Rights Status - Vesting language is included in the
Ordinance.
IV. Issues - The primary issues for discussion and continued work
are:
1. Currently, AH mitigation will be deducted from the AH
allotment pool. six or seven units will be deducted.
2. Building envelopes will continue to be refined to protect
significant vegetation and topographic features. A revised site
plan including grading profiles will be available for Council
review prior to second reading.
3. The private roadway shall not be signed as such. A revised
site plan shall indicate a pedestrian way for residents of the six
parcels.
4. The six units that are to be dedicated do not meet the Housing
Guidelines with respect to size. Therefore the Housing Office and
the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that a seventh unit
be deed restricted. In addition, the applicant proposed to file
deed restrictions for the units when a building permit is actually
issued for the free market units.
RECOMMENDATION:
A. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the rezoning of
the property from R/MFA to Affordable Housing with the following
condition of approval:
a. The existing floor area ratio, density and free
market/affordable housing mix shall remain the same unless
amended by a substantial amendment to the Mocklin subdivision
approval.
B. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the deed
restriction of seven existing dwelling units verses the applicant's
proposed six units due to the existing units non-compliance with
the Housing Guidelines.
C. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the
Subdivision review with the following conditions:
12
I"'"
,-.,
1. Any costs for new public services that must be installed or
upgraded shall be borne by the applicant including a sidewalk,
curb and gutter if required.
2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant
shall submit a subdivision plat and SUbdivision Improvement
Agreement in accordance with Section 24-7-1004.C and D of the
municipal code for review by the Engineering and Planning
Departments and the City Attorney.
The final SUbdivision plat and agreement must be filed within
180 days of final approval or subdivision approval is void.
3. The Subdivision agreement shall include the following:
a. letters from all of the utilities that they have
inspected and approved the final development plan;
b. restrictions against future installation of fireplaces
and woodstoves;
c. language restricting parking from the private drive
and emergency access drive on Lot 3;
d. language limiting signage to Dead End Street, Not a
Through Street or other comparable signs; and
e. financial assurances that are approved by appropriate
City and utility staff prior to recordation of agreement.
f. recorded deed restrictions to be effective when a
building permit is issues or within 7 years of final
approval 'of the subdivision by Counci~ whichever is
earlier, with the proviso that the deed restrictions may
be released if circumstances change such as the
subdivision plat and approval is made invalid; and
g. no tracking of mud during construction shall be
permitted on city streets during construction~
h. language stating that the subdivider hereby
acknowledges the sidewalk snow removal requirements of
Article VIII in Chapter 19 of the City Code and covenants
that, upon activation of the subdivision homeowners
association, the association will immediately assume
responsibility for snow removal for the Gibson Avenue
sidewalk adjacent to the homeowners' properties and the
future sidewalk on Lone pine Road. This language shall
also be included in the subdivision covenants.
i. Language stating that prior to the issuance of any
building permits driveway/access site plans for each
13
,-"
,~
parcel shall be submitted
Department and Planning
disturbance outside of
necessary access drives.
for review to the Parks
staff to ensure minimum
the building envelope for
4. The final Subdivision plat and plan shall include the
following:
a. all transformer and utility easements;
b. identification of new street lights;
c. future sidewalk, curb, and gutter. The sidewalk must
meet ADA access requirements (no steps), including the
transition to the street;
d. a detailed landscape plan approved by the. Parks
Department;
e. revised building envelopes;
f. a note prohibiting parking in the emergency access
drive on Lot 3;
g. notes preventing future development, landscaping,
fencing, patios, decks, hot tubs, etc. outside of the
building envelopes to protect the natural landscape; and
5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits:
a. tree removal permits from the Parks Department shall
be required for the removal of any trees 6" in caliper
or greater and any trees proposed to be saved shall be
protected during construction, including no digging in
the drip line;
b. the applicant shall file, with the Environmental
Health Department, a fugitive dust control plan and
construction and soil moving plan that adheres to the
Institutional Controls.
c. a deed restriction for an employee dwelling unit
shall be filed with the Housing Office. The deed
restriction shall adhere to the Housing standards and
guidelines in effect at the time of recordation.
d. a storm drainage plan and landscape plan shall be
reviewed and approved by appropriate City Departments.
6. Prior to recording the final plat:
14
.
r"\
,-",
a. the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the
Engineering Department to construct sidewalk, curb and
gutter in the future; and
7. Any irrigation system that is installed shall be incompliance
with the Water Conservation Code.
8., The applicant shall maintain the historic runoff patterns that
are found on the site.
9. The applicant shall agree to Jo~n any future improvements
districts which may be formed for the purpose of constructing
improvements in the public right-of-way.
10. At the completion of each phase of the work, the applicant
shall submit a statement by a registered professional land
surveyor that all required survey and property monuments
remain in place or have been re-established as required by
Colorado Revised statutes.
11. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the various
phases of the project, the applicant shall submit reproducible
mylar as-built drawings of sidewalk, utility improvements, and
all other work located within the public rights-of-way,
showing horizontal and vertical locations within 1 foot
accuracy of all utilities, including their size and
identification, together with any other features encountered
during excavation within the rights-of-way. The as-builts
shall be signed and stamped by a registered professional
engineer. The as-builts shall also be provided to the City
on a disk in a dfx file compatible with the City GIS ArcInfo
software system.
12. All lighting fixtures will face downward and be shielded to
eliminate the potential for glare or nuisance to neighboring
properties. Lighting along the walkways will be low to the
ground (approximately 3' in height) and shielded.
13. All work in the pUblic right-of-way shall require a permit
from the streets department.
14. During construction, noise cannot exceed maximum permissible
sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except
between the hours of 7 am. and 10 p.m.
15. Prior to second reading of subdivision review by Council the
following issues shall be resolved:
a. a revised site plan shall be submitted indicating the
internal pedestrian way, identification of trees greater than
six inches in caliper, revised building envelopes, and a
15
r".
!~
grading plan and profile for the entrance and entire private
drive; and
b. language for AH deed restriction, specifically the tracking
mechanism of the deed restriction with issuance of building
permits.
16. Creation of the six free market parcels shall be conditioned
upon the deed restriction of seven of the existing dwelling
to category 1 and 2 in compliance with the Affordable Housing
Guidelines in effect at the time of recordation of the deed
restrictions.
17. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during pub~ic meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to read Ordinance 35; Series of 1995,
approving the Mocklin subdivision and the rezoning of parcel seven
of the subdivision from R/MFA to AH."
"I move to approve Ordinance ~ Series of 1995, on first reading."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Ordinance ~ Series of 1995
EXHIBITS:
A. Application (which includes Ordinance 72, 1992 approving the
rezoning to R/MFA)
B. Referral Comments
16
1"""\
~,
r i
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department (l'12--
Date: June 29, 1995
Re: Mocklin Subdivision - Supplemental Comments
As we have discussed, the Engineering Department would like" to recommend the following
condition of approval:
The subdivider hereby acknowledges the sidewalk snow removal requirements of Article
VIII in Chapter 19 of the City Code and covenants that, upon activation of the subdivision
homeowners association, the association will immediately assume responsibility for snow
removal from the Gibson Avenue sidewalk adjacent to the homeowners' properties.
This statement should be in both the subdivision approvals and in the covenants,
cc: Cris Caruso, Sunny Vann, Peter Mocklin
M95.!42
~.
~.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director
DATE:
June 6, 1995
RE:
Mocklin Property - Rezoning , Subdivision, and Special
Review for Floor Area Ratio, Parking, and Open Space
=================================================================
SUMMARY: The applicant's, Peter and Monica Mocklin, seek subdivide
their property into seven parcels, rezone parcel 7 to AH, and seek
special review for parking, open space, and floor area ratio for
the AH zoned parcel.
Please see application, Exhibit A.
APPLICANT: Peter Mocklin as represented by Sunny Vann
LOCATION: 0202 Lone pine Road
ZONING: R-15A and R/MFA
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Subdivide their property into six free market
parcels, and one AH parcel, and special review for parking, open
space, and floor area ratio for AH zoned parcel.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached referral comments, exhibit
B.
PROCESS: Map amendments and subdivision are a two step review
process with the Commission making recommendations to Council.
Special Review is a one step process at the Commission.
GMQS Exemption for replacement housing is a Community Development
Director sign-Off.
Vested Rights Status is approved by the City Council.
----===================----
STAFF COMMENTS:
I. Site Description - The Mocklins own approximately four
acres of land in the vicinity of Gibson Avenue and Lone pine road.
One tract of land, .60 acres, is across Gibson Avenue, adjacent to
the Art Museum and is traversed by Spring Street. Spring Street
in this location is not a recorded pUblic right-of-way.
~.
.~
The remaining portion of land is bordered by Lone pine Road and
Gibson Avenue and is approximately 3.52 acres (153,331 square
feet). This applications refers only to this 3.5 acres.
The property contains one, eight unit apartment building, a paved
parking area, a small pond, and a pedestrianltrail easement that
runs parallel to the west property boundary connecting Lone pine
Road with Gibson Avenue.
According to the applicant, the property is moderately sloping with
a significant change in elevation at the southeast corner where the
old railroad grade existed.
The site consists of native grasses, small shrubs, some small
aspens and cottonwoods. Interestingly, a significant portion of
the parcel represents one of the last remaining sage dominant areas
in town.
The site is directly adjacent to one of the RFTA
HunterCreek/Centennial free bus route. This route has a 20 minute
headway. A 10 ft. pedestrian trail easement traverses the property
on the west boundary. Mr. Mocklin and the Parks Department have
recently signed an access easement to preserve the trail at this
location and to upgrade the stairs at the Gibson Avenue end of the
trail.
The surrounding neighborhood is primarily high density housing with
a mixture of free market and deed restricted units. Further to the
east is the single family/duplex neighborhood of sprucelRacelWalnut
Streets. The smuggler Mobile Home Park is across Park Avenue.
Oklahoma Flats, across Gibson Avenue is primarily sing~e family
homes. The Clark's Market area and the commercial core are easily
accessed just across the Roaring Fork River.
II. Background - When developed, the property was in the
county. In 1980, after a lengthy review the County accepted a case
disposition that acknowledged that the eight units in the building
are legal units. When the property was annexed into the city as
part of the large Hunter creeklCentennial neighborhood annexation
it was zoned R-15A. At the time the commission and council rather
than rezone the property to RIMFA, they elected to keep the R-15
zoning absent a development plan.
Due to the R-15A zone designation, the apartment building was a
non-conforming use. In 1992, Mr. Mocklin requested to rezone the
entire parcel to R/MFA to eliminate the non-conforming status of
the building in order to make repairs and proposed expansion of
the building's square footage but not to increase the density.
City council granted a partial rezoning of the property. Council
approved the rezoning of up to 50,000 square feet of land area
surrounding the building to be rezoned to R/MFA. upon final
2
-"",~,_~'_e"'7:;7';.""}:'~;.- .-...-.
l~,
i~
surveying and recordation of a survey describing the rezoning, the
rezoned parcel was 35,870 square feet. The rest of the land area
remained R-15A.
III. project Description The applicants propose to
subdivide their property into seven parcels. six free market
parcels are proposed ranging from 15,830 sq. ft. to 24,540 sq. ft.
The seventh parcel, containing the multi-family building, will be
rezoned to Affordable Housing per staff's request to better reflect
the land uses. The applicant proposes to deed restrict six of the
units to categories 1 and 2 as mitigation for the newly created
free market parcels.
The Land Use Code enables the demolition and replacement of multi-
family housing as a Community Development Director exemption from
growth management which is not deducted from the allotment pool.
The Code originally contemplated that an applicant, with free
market dwelling units on the site, may wish to upgrade or replace
the units on the site in an alternative configuration. Prior to
Ordinance 1 of 1990, demolition and replacement was not only exempt
from growth management competition but was also exempt from
employee housing. Due to O~dinance 1, the demolition of a multi-
family building requires a replacement of 50% of the bedrooms and
50% of the square footage as on-site affordable housing. Ordinance
1 does not enable an applicant to provide a cash-lieu payment.
Several years ago, as the Mocklins were contemplating this
subdivision, they requested a Director interpretation with regard
to the demolition replacement section of the Code. The Mocklins
have enough land area available to subdivide their property into
several parcel without having to tear down the building. -',ather
than tear down their well maintained, structurally sound bu~lding
to realize their free market development credits and then build
back affordable housing as Ordinance 1 required
The recent growth management revisions have maintained demolition
and replacement of free market units as a Director exemption that
is not deducted from the allotment pool. However, the revisions
established a definitive pool for affordable dwelling units and the
only exemption available for affordable units is an exemption from
Council that is deducted from the allotment pool. In addition, the
Code does not distinguish between existing units that are bought
down with a deed restriction verses new constructed units.
Therefore, the six new free market parcels are not deducted from
the allotment pool as they are exempt via Director approval but the
replacement units, the six fully deed restricted dwelling units are
deducted
Deducting the deed restricted units from the AH pool has raised
several issues with the Planning and Housing staff. Due to
Ordinance 1 requirements, an applicant must create additional deed
restricted units on the site. The code enables the exemption of
3
/""
/'""
the free market units and the free market residential allotment
pool but penalizes the AH allotment pool.
It is staff's opinion that ordinance 1 requirements were not fully
considered when drafting the new GMQS language and creating a cap
on the number of AH units avai lable per year. As a result,
employee mitigation units that are developed per a demolition and
replacement development, in compliance with Ordinance 1, will be
deducted from the AH allotment pool.
staff raises this as an issue for the commission and council to
consider and offers several interpretationslsolutions to the issue:
* deducting the housing mitigation from the AH allotment pool
may be appropriate and of no concern. The Housing Office has
believes this is a problem especially when actual new units
are not created and just added to the affordable housing
inventory. Please see attached referral comments.
* staff could formulate a text amendment that exempted
mitigation required by the Housing Replacement Program
(Ordinance 1) in the same section as the
replacementldemolition by Director is found, exempt from GMQS
and not deducted from th.e housing pool.
* currently the exemption section exempts the demolition and
replacement of mUlti-family housing subject to the
requirements of the Housing Replacement Program, staff with
consent of the commission and council may interpret this
section as to exempt all aspects of compliance with the
Housing Replacement program which would include deed
restricted housing.
staff is seeking direction from the Commission and council with
regard to this housing mitigation question.
----==============----
APPLICABLE REVIEW CRITERIA
I. Subdivision Review - This review is a two step process,
with the P&Z making a recommendation to council.
Please refer to the application for specific site plans of this
project, exhibit A.
Pursuant to section 24-7-1004 the following review criteria for
Subdivision review are as follows:
4
...-..,;~,-'~~,~:::;'-.-':;'~.',:_ST:,-~2 .
~
"-,,,
A. General Requirements
(a) The proposed development shall be consistent with the
Aspen Area Community Plan.
RESPONSE: The AACP recommends either a park or affordable housing
for the parcel or a combination of the two. However, the AACP also
recommends that as a policy infill development is encouraged within
the existing urban area so as to preserve open space and rural
areas surrounding the City. The applicant has indicated in the
application that negotiations for purchase of open space will be
considered.
The Parks Department has indicated that the original idea of the
need for conversion of the Mocklin property to a park in this
neighborhood has been mitigated with the new park at Williams Ranch
and the proposed park at Snyder pond.
(b) The proposed development shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the area.
RESPONSE: The surrounding land uses are primarily high density
apartment buildings. However, the small neighborhood of the
Williams Addition consists of single family homes and Oklahoma
Flats is primarily single family homes. The applicant proposes a
subdivision of six free market parcels. The lower density on the
edge of the high density HunterCreek development will provide a
transition to lower density.
(c) The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas.
RESPONSE: The surrounding property is significantly developed.
Future development should not be impacted by the proposed six new
parcels.
The applicant has been working with the Parks Department to
permanently dedicate a pedestrian/trail easement on the west side
of the property. A trail easement has been secured.
The applicant also owns another parcel, at the intersection of
Spring and Gibson Avenue, that is bisected by Spring Street and a
small pedestrain trail. Staff would recommend that the new
subdivision and its impacts should be additionally mitigated with
the dedication of public rights of way for the street and trail.
(e) The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with
all applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: Provided the Commission and Council find the development
in compliance with the various review criteria involved with this
5
-, .J,t;,i'~~;~~~~~r;7:;;'</:-'
, ".,..~.,
/",
/-,
project, the development proposal is in compliance with Chapter 24
of the Municipal Code.
B. Land suitability - The proposed subdivision shall not be
located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding,
drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rock slide, avalanche or
snowslide, steep topography or any harmful to the health, safety,
or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision.
RESPONSE: According to the application, portions of the site are
located within the boundaries of the Smuggler Area Super Fund site.
The proposed development must comply with the institutional
controls that have been adopted by the cit. The applicant shall
work with the Environmental Health Department to determine specific
mitigation procedures.
A fugitive dust control plan must also be filed with the
environmental Health Dept. prior to the issuance of any building
permits.
c. Efficient spatial Pattern - The proposed subdivision shall not
be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies,
duplication or premature extension of public facilities and
unnecessary public costs.
RESPONSE: All costs associated with the installation of utilities
and improvements for this subdivision shall be borne by the
applicant. Necessary public utilities are within the immediate
area and are sufficient to serve this proposal. Please see the
referral comments Exhibit B.
D. utilities-
(a) WATER - Service will be provided from the existing mains
in Lone pine Road. The Water Department has indicated
sufficient capacity to accommodate the project for both
domestic and fire protection needs.
(b) SEWER The Aspen consolidated sanitation District
currently has sufficient collection and treatment capacity to
serve the project. Prorated development impact fees will be
assessed to eliminate a minor downstream constraint.
The applicant shall be required to proved a District approved
line extension request and District approved collection system
agreement prior to final approval or issuance of any permit.
If ACSD service lines are being stubbed in, the lines must be
approved by the Board and included as part of the collection
system agreement.
6
u .' _"'''-_''~:-_,__''''''''__.,_...,.~"
,,-,
,-,
(c) ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, NATURAL GAS AND CABLE TV - Given
the infrequent but occasional problem with projects and their
utility needs, the final development plan shall include
letters from all of the utilities that they have inspected and
approved the final development plan.
All utility pedestals and transformers must be provided on
the property. The applicant must provide electric load
information to determine the amount and location of
transformers.
The application states that all existing utilities will be
undergrounded.No above grade utility facilities are permitted
to be installed in the public right-of-way.
(d) SIDEWALK, CURB, AND GUTTER - The applicant commits to the
installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Lone Pine
road. The applicant will continue to work with the
Engineering and Parks Departments to determine the alignment
and installation technique for the sidewalk. The sidewalk
must meet ADA access requirements (no steps), including the
transition to the street.
Property owners are required to maintain snow clearance on
sidewalks that abut their property.
The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement,
prior to filing the final plat, for the future construction
of the curb, gutter, and sidewalks.
(e) FIRE PROTECTION - The project shall meet all codes and
requirements of the Aspen Fire Protection District. The
emergency access lane on Lot 3 must be kept clear of parked
cars, a note shall be put on the final plat. Parking on the
private road shall also be prohibited.
(f) DRAINAGE - The on-site storm drainage system will maintain
historic flow rates with respect to surface water runoff and
groundwater recharge. A detailed storm drainage system will
be submitted prior tc,^fil~I'',j Ll,,,, r.;,..~ ]91a\i' Ah C\ow _.,--t....
~ \:::':o,\.)~ ~ \'-0'F-~'U'
(g) STREET LIGHTS Both the Electric and Engineering
Departments recommend the installation of several street
lights on Lone pine road and Gibson Avenue. The applicant
shall work with the City to identify the location and type of
street lights to be installed. Lights shall be installed
prior to the issuance of any building permits.
(h) STREETS - All work in the alley and pUblic right-of-way
shall require a permit from the streets department.
7
/",
--'"
(i) FINAL PLAT - A subdivision plat, drafted in accordance
with section 24-7-1004.C and D of the municipal code and a
sUbdivision agreement must be recorded within 180 days of
final approval or the subdivision approval is void.
(j) STREET TREES AND LANDSCAPING - A detailed landscape plan
for the entire project shall be approved by the Parks
Department. The Code is very specific with regard to the
number and placement of street trees, the applicant's
landscape plan shall comply with the subdivision requirements.
(k) OTHER-
Roads _ The applicants proposes to provide access to the six
parcels from a seperate, 20 foot wide paved road off of Lone
pine Road. Rather than dedicate the drive as a public right-
of-way, the applicant proposes to keep the drive private.
The Engineering Department would prefer a public right-of-
way dedication for future benefit of the community and future
home owners. Of concern is the minimum width of the private
dri ve, lack of pedestrian way, and the potential of the
creation of a gated community.
The drive only accesses six parcels. A public trail extends
the entire length of the west boundary of the subdivision.
Although the Planning Office does not believe that the drive
is a crucial roadway that should be public, staff does agree
with the Engineer that a gate community is inappropriate.
The subdivision design standards for streets and related
improvements require new streets to bear a logical
relationship to the topography and to the location of existing
or planned streets on adjacent properties. The emphasis of
the AACP was review and approval of growth that is consistent
with the character of the community. No trespassing signs and
private propertYldo not enter signs at the entrance of a
roadway are incompatible with an existing neighborhood.
Therefore, staff would recommend a condition that prevents
the posting of signs at the entrance of the new subdivision.
In addition, the applicant is revising the site plan to create
a pedestrain way for subdivision residents along the private
drive.
Building Envelopes - The applicant has staked the proposed
building envelopes. Because of the significant natural sage
landscape, staff and the Parks Departments recommends that no
further development activity be allowed outside of the
approved building envelopes. This will include fencing and
contrived landscaping. In addition, there are several
topographic features that staff recommends should be kept
8
_,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...,,,,,.,.:,,,<_:,.,_:.._..,._..,,...,,.~....:o._:.,.
r--.,
,-,
outside of the building envelopes. For example on Lots 6 and
5, a ridge and small knoll punctuate the area. The
applicant's representative has stated that those features are
remanent of the old mine railroad that once traversed the
site. No matter the origin, staff believes they are important
landscape features that should be preserved. other features
on the site also need to be reconsidered in their relationship
to the building envelopes. The applicant and staff will
continue to refine the building envelopes and a new site plan
shall be prepared prior to Council's review of the subdivision
at first reading.
II. Map Amendment In order to reflect the new deed
restrictions being proposed for the existing mUlti-family building,
staff has requested that the applicant rezone the property to
Affordable Housing. Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 the following
standards of review for an amendment to the Official Zone
District Map are as follows:
a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The application for rezoning is in compliance with the
standards of Section 24-7-1104 and other applicable portions of
Chapter 24, the Land Use Code for the City of Aspen.
However, the applicant has requested that the units are not
actually deed restricted until the sale of any of the free market
parcels being created through this sUbdivision. The applicant does
not intend to develop the parcels himself and plans to either sell
the parcels on an as needed basis or when he ultimately moves from
the area. In addition, some existing tenants would not qualify for
housing under the Housing Guidelines. The idea being that as one
free market parcel sells a unit in the mUlti-family building will
be deed restricted.
The AH zone district requires a 70%/30% split of deed restricted
homes to free market homes. Without deed restricting the dwelling
units the building would be a non-conforming use in the AH zone
district. Staff recommends that the applicant filelrecord the deed
restrictions and link the activation of the restrictions to the
sale of any of the parcels, Change-over in tenants, or a specified
time-period. This language would have to be developed further with
the city Attorney, applicant, and Housing Office.
b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Area community Plan (AACP) has identified this
parcel as appropriate for a semi-active park similar to Herron
Park. The Housing section of the AACP also recommended that
9
'-""'-":;...:'~..!",. '.,..~"~.-_.,.,,.,
"-,0""
'-':A:':Y;:i;r:7')-"~'"
... ",',
~..--..
~',
affordable housing similar to Lone pine density be developed if the
property is not purchased as a park.
The applicant has indicated in his application that he would
welcome negotiations from the city or open space boards regarding
the preservation of the property as a park or a combination of
housing and a park. Since the completion of the AACP, the williams
Ranch park proposal has been accepted and the Snyder property on
Midland Avenue has been purchased with Park and Housing funds. The
1995 Parks Master Plan identified the Mocklin property as a low
priority for an active park. However, the parcel would be an
excellent purchase for passive open space. The pitkin County open
space Board would be interested in working with another entity to
explore a purchase but is not interested as the sole purchaser.
Please see their referral comment, Exhibit B.
Rezoning parcel 7 to affordable housing solidifies the intended use
of the parcel as affordable housing. In addition to the rezoning,
deed restriction of an existing building is consistent with the
AACP which recommends restricting existing buildings.
c. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses" considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: properties immediately surrounding this proposal are
zoned R/MFA and R-6. The neighborhood has a large mix of free
market units and affordable units. This rezone and the
preservation of the mUlti-family building as affordable housing is
compatible with the neighborhood.
d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: The rezoning affects an existing building and would not
created any negative impacts on traffic generation and road safety.
e. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: Again, the rezoning will not enable an increase in
density or other changes to occur on the property that would affect
public facilities and the demand for service. The property is in
very good condition and is adequately served by utility/services.
f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
10
"'C"';'i,J:';',<,"\:':;,"::"\"':: .... ",;;.'.
.,-"
/~1
RESPONSE: The rezoning only affects the existing building on
proposed Parcel 7. Although the ability to deed restrict the
existing units enables the applicant to proceed with subdivision
of the remaining vacant property, the rezoning is not necessary to
deed restrict the building.
g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: The AACP proposes the revitalization of the permanent
community and the encouragement of development that is pedestrian-
oriented as an auto disincentive. Staff requested the rezoning to
more effectively preserve the deed restricted units.
h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: The tremendous development of mUlti-family buildings and
affordable hous'ing parcels in the area make this rezoning
compatible with the neighborhood. The more recent additions are
the cO-housing proposal and the Williams Ranch SUbdivision both of
which are zoned AH.
i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The rezoning of this property would further the public
interest and enable a conforming use to remain on the property.
III. Special Review - Pursuant to section 24-5-206.2.D.10, the
maximum floor area of an AH parcel may be increased from .36:1 to
1: 1 by special review. This applies to parcels that. are between
27,000 sq. ft. and one acre. Proposed Lot 7 will be approximately
32,470 sq. ft.
During the rezoning of the multi-family building to R/MFA, the
floor area of the existing building was capped at approximately
12,910 sq. ft. To accommodate this existing floor area with the
proposed AH zone, a required floor area ratio is .40: 1. This
exceeds the base floor area ratio by .04 for parcels greater than
27,000 sq. ft. Special review can establish a greater floor area
up to 1:1.
Open space and parking are also established by special review. The
number of parking spaces is 15, one space for each bedroom.
The amount of open space for parcel 7 is approximately 19,850 sq.
ft. or 60% of the lot's gross area.
11
..~::,~'~:'?;~ ''':<''' '. .
(--
'?
~
S
-+-
Ll.
y
~,
~.
IV. Issues - The primary issues for discussion and continued work
are:
1. Currently, AH mitigation will be deducted from the AH
allotment pool. six units will be deducted.
2. Building envelopes will continue to be refined to protect
significant vegetation and topographic features.
3. The private roadway shall nofbe signed as such. A revised site
plan shall indicate a pedestrian way for residents of the six
parcels.
4. The six units that are to be dedicated do not meet the Housing
Guidelines with respect to size. Therefore the Housing Office has
requested that a seventh unit be deed restricted. In addition, the
applicant proposed to file deed restrictions for the units when a
building permit is actually issued for the free market units.
RECOMMENDATION:
A. staff recommends the rezoning of the property from R/MFA to
Affordable Housing.
B. staff recommends special review for the establishment of the
allowable FAR for Lot 7 at a ratio of .40:1, 15 parking spaces, and
approximately 60% open space.
C. staff recommends approval of the Subdivision review with the
following conditions:
2.
Any costs for new public services that m~st e 'nstal..led or
~ra ed shall be borne..fly the applicant; . ~S: ,ij.. . - ^ v
~ \S\;t-Q.. (,,, - . ~
Prior 0 the i~uance Of~Y~b~ permits, the applicant
shall submit a subdivision plat and subdivision Improvement
Agreement in accordance with Section 24-7-1004.C and D of the
municipal code for review by the Engineering and Planning
Departments and the city Attorney.
The final SUbdivision plat and agreement must be filed within
180 days of final approval or subdivision approval is void.
3. The Subdivision agreement shall include the following:
a. letters from all of the utilities that they have
inspected and approved the final development plan;
b. restrictions against future installation of fireplaces
and woodstoves;
12
" ..._._____.-..,..."........~-,,"~,." -.,,"'.l'''
1""\
.1'-\
14.
During construction, noise' cannot exceed maximum permissible
sound level standards, and construction cannot be done except
between the hours of 7 am. and 10 p.m.
~
All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during PUblic meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
condi tions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
/\T
~:
Prior to SUbdivision review by Council the fOllowing issues
shall be resolved:
a. a revised site plan shall be SUbmitted indicating the .
internal pedestrian way, identification of trees greater thanJ3h
.i, inohes in c"iper, 'nd the rovisod bUilding onvolopesJ 'nd~~,
~ b. "ngu'gO 'or AHdood ro..triction, spoci'ic,',y tho t.r aCkingaJ~~0/
~ . ~~. 0'. t~~~t::Z~~MR'~~ .
.~ 1t.-'D ~ "'" ~ ""':i CO~crt
~~O ~ ~
~ "r .ovo to 'pproVe tho spociel roview 'or noor ~.. rot. , 'I:(
".:> P~king nd op" sP'co 'or Lot, 0' tho MOcklin SUbdivision."
o
~ "I move to recommend to Council SUbdivision approval of the Mocklin ~
'I proporty into .ov" percol. with tho conditions ourlined in Vi
Planning Office memo dated June 6, 1995." ~
"I move to recommend to Council the rezoning of the Mocklin '
proporty, Lot " to tho A"ord'b~o HOU.ing 'ono district." . .
~~'t
A. APPlication ~ ~ 0r
B. Referral Comments 1..; ? '\ \_->(
~, (j :- ~CJ)
~~
~-/
/
EXHIBITS:
15
,
c
.~-,...,-.
':~"~ ..... '.",c";',',., __'_,
,-"
/-"
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department e-f!:.-
Date: JlUle 2, 1995
Re: Mocklin Subdivision - Supplemental Comments
1. Site De.~igJl - These comments are prepared as a retrospective on Williams Ranch approvals and
as an opportunity to apply the retrospectives to CUITent and future development.
The Williams Ranch Subdivision contained some thirteen acres of land, The approvals have
allowed for the nearly complete removal of existing vegetation and other natural surface features,
There is a large, about 15' high by 20' in diameter, lUlusual mountain maple that will be lost. There
is a small stand of healthy, mature cottonwood trees that will largely be lost. And there is one
excellent boulder, and perhaps two, that could have remained "as is" m theirCUITent locations. The
project could have been designed to retain "significant" natural features. The Land Use Code,
and/or the review process, could specuy for large developments that 10% of natural conditions be
maintained, including but not limited to significant stands of native vegetation or other features
such as boulders.
Another approach to preserving existing vegetation is to provide for reduced building
envelopes. This provision would not result in decreased FAR's or living spaces to future owners.
During the review process for the Mocklin Subdivision, it is recommended that the above
comments be incorporated.
cc: Stan Clauson, Cris Caruso. Mary Lackner
M9S.11S
1
~
"-,,,
To:
Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
Dave Tolen, Housing Office
From:
R~:
Mochlin GMQS Exemption and Rezoning
Date:
J. June, J.995
--
The applicant is requesting GMQS exemption for six free market
lots, and rezoning of a seventh lot to AH. Lot seven contains an
eXisting ~ight units structure, six units of which would be deed
restricted to satisfy the requirements of the exemption.
The deed restricted units are proposed to be as follows:
Unit # BR's Category Size
3 J. 2 630
4 2 J. 690 *
5 2 J. 760 *
6 2 J. 760 *
7 1 J. 470 *
8 1 1 370 *
(* Units are less than minimum size required)
The number and size of the units proposed by the applicant are
similar to what would be required Under Ordinance One, MUltifamily
Replacement Program. The proposed unit categories are better than
would be required under that program. Five of the size units do
not meet the minimum size requirement for such units under the
housing Guidelines.
The Housing Office would r~conunend approval of this proposal,
subj ect to .. _'. . r' deed restric~ne
additional unit in order to make up for the size deficiency of the
other units. The Housing Office would propose that the units be
inspected by the Housing Office and Building Department, prior to
final approval, and that the units meet the Building Departments
requirements for existing units under the UBC, and that the
interior finishes, appliances and fixtures be provided in good
condition.
^
/-'.
From:
Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
Dave Tolen, Housing Office
To:
Re:
Mochlin GMQs Exemption and Rezoning
Date:
1 June, 1995
=
Related to the Mochlin application, I am concerned with how the
proposed units will be counted under the new GMQS system. 'The size
free market lots are proposed to be exempt from GMQS, and not
deducted from the annual allotment. Does this mean that the newly
deed restricted units will be deducted from the allotment of AH
units? There does not appear to be any provision in the new code
that allows these units to be retained without being subtracted
from the AH allotment.
As we discussed, a conservative interpretation would say that units
exempt from GMQS by virtue of replacing existing units must include
replacement units as well as free market units. This would mean
that the Mochlin property could provide only four free market
units, and would have to provide four deed restricted units, for a
total of eight exempt units.
Another possibility would be to consider the replacement units as
exempt by virtue of the general exemption for replacement and the
requirement under the MUltifamily Replacement Program. Would this
require a code amendment?
r-\
~
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department (2cf2
Date: May 9,1995
Re: Mocklin Subdivision - Supplemental Comments
1. Existing Conditions Map - The application did not include an existing conditions map which
makes review difficult. As you have indicated, an existing conditions map should be provided
before further review is provided, The map should show at least vegetation, structures,
improvements, existing utility features, and street lights on both sides of adjacent streets,
2. Aerial Utilities - The parcel currently is served by overhead utilities. It should be a condition of
approval that all utilities be brought in WldergroWld to the property.
3. Private Road - If a private road is approved, the roadway should be a separate roadway parcel,
not an easement across proposed parcels, The minimum width should be 48' for two 12 foot travel
lanes, two 7 foot windrows of snow, and two 5 foot wide pedestrian spaces. Changes in direction
of the private road parcel should be curves that reflect the turning radius of a motor vehicle.
4. Spring Street R.O.W. - The right-of:.way width of Spring Street in the Original Aspen
Townsite is 75'. The right-of-way width of Spring Street in Oklahoma Flats is 25'. In at least one
other land use approval (Volk Lot Split), the public has obtained right-of-way dedication to widen
substandard widths in Oklahoma Flats. The Engineering Department recommends that a condition
of approval be to dedicate at least a 50' right-of-way width for Spring Street extended, on Tract C.
This would allow for 2-12' travel lanes, 2-7' snow storage spaces, and 2-5' pedestrian spaces. The
Land Use Code requires a 60' dedication.
5. Street LigJtts - I discussed street light locations with the electric superintendent. We agreed on
single globe antique street lights spaced 125' apart on Lone Pine Road. This should apply to
Gibson Avenue also. Given the high traffic volumes on Gibson, another street light should be
provided at the comer of Gibson Avenue and Lone Pine Road. On Main Street there are twin globe
lights at two comers of each intersection. In the commercial core there is a single globe light at all
four comers of an intersection
cc: Cris Caruso, Swmy Vann, Peter Mocklin
M95.109
~.
.~ EXHIBIT B
MEMORANDUM
TO:
TIffiU:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Leslie Lamont, Deputy PIanning ~
George Robinson, Parks Director eJ-
Rebecca Baker, Parks Department
May 8,1995
Macklin GMQS Exemption, Subdivision, Rezoning and Special Review
We have reviewed the application submitted by Peter and Monica Macklin and have the following
comments. Although, Tract C' is not part of this application, we would like to requesi a trail
easement across this parcel to connect to the Art Museum property. A de facto din path already
exists here and we would like to establish a fonnal easement along this alignment
The trail easement on Tract A' along the south west side of the property we would like to expand
slightly at the base of the slope where is meets the Gibson Ave. sidewalk. The impact to Lot 3
would be very minimal because the flare of the easement by 5-7 feet would be on the slope and not
the tlatarea of the lot The 'flare' of this easement at the base is to better accommodate replacing
the stairs. We will work with the applicant to establish the ac.tual easement variance in this
location.
The fInal comment is regarding landscaping for the individual lot We would like to see some
landscape plans prior to issuance of the final plat We would like to see some of the natural sage
brush maintained in the landscape plans due to this is one of the last sage infested areas left in
town.
Memo 9S,Mock1in Devl
~EIV
..,,; . 4c<"
! "'... <;.'~.,
"0 '-' \
( M'AY 0 7 1995 J
. -
~ '-"-N-
D"';\... '__;:~l';l:: , 1
.' -- .:.
of.."
~-. .ENIP\"'
,-.
^
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Leslie Lamont
Planning Office
Michelle Carline \VI A-C
Open Space and Trails
TO:
DATE:
May 1, 1995
RE:
Mocklin GMQS Exemption, Subdivision, Rezoning and Special
Review
===================================================~=============
I have reviewed the information submitted for this land use
application and would like to provide the following comments:
The primary concerns of the Open Space and Trails Board with this
application is public trail access through the property, which the
applicant has addressed by recently conveying to the City of Aspen
the Gibson/Lone Pine trail easement, and some provision for public
open space.
This property has been identified in the Aspen Area Community Plan
as an appropriate location for a public park and the Open Space and
Trails Board encourages any effort made towards that end,
especially given the surrounding density. The current firm mission
of the Open Space and Trails Board, however, is to focus only on
acquisition of large tracts of open space, so the Board would be
unwilling to pursue sole acquisition of this particular property,
although the concept of some type of partnership may be
entertained.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
'"
,,;;"'~'"~'.
;'_',:;::;~..:',,",-,
'~',~~,"':',C','oli~..".:..",,:::.,
'-',~,., ",.~.~!.;1:;=";;"'-=";;~';""~""'''';<'':''''h:'''Y7;
; ,;;""~~-'.,",- .. ._.......~"""-,,'-'~.,.- ~".,.;..,\~-,.';'..
~
I~
~~
----
_0
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: MOCKLIN GMQ$ EXEMPTION, SUBDIVISION, SPECIAL REVIEW AND AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, May 16, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City
Hall, 130 S. Galena st., Aspen, to consider an application
submitted by Peter and Monica Mocklin, requesting an exemption from
the City's Growth Management Quota System to develop six
residential free market lots and one affordable housing lot. The
applicants are also requesting the following approvals:
subdivision; rezoning of the portion of the property which is
currently zoned R/MF, Residential/Multi-Family, to AH, Affordable
Housing; and Special Review to vary the FAR, parking and open space
requirements. The property is located adjacent to the intersection
of Gibson Avenue and Lone Pine Road; SW ~ of Section 7, Township
10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th P.M. For further information,
contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5101
s/Bruce Kerr. Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on April 29, 1995
=================================================================
City of Aspen Account
C'
.(r;(}i/j
..-' t /
) I I '
/- .I j /r I" /"
'ffl",'" U. 1/ N'F ,
cJ"'1( V~! ;
, '
Ii!
..../ j
..-:\0_,""""---
'1'"
i \./^
,~
~,
r'\
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chris Chiola, Environmental Health Department
Through: Lee Cassin, Assistant Environmental Health Officer
Date: April 25, 1995
Re: Mocklin GMQS Exemption, Subdivision, Rezoning & Special
Review Parcel ID# 2737-073~OO-016
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
Mocklin land use submittal under authority of the Munici~al Code
of the citv of Aspen, and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1. 7 "It shall be unlawful for
the owner or occupant of any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or
reconstruct anon-site sewage disposal device.1I
The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through
the central collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department. The
ability of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District to handle the
increased flow for the project should be determined by the ACSD.
The applicant has provided documentation that the applicant and the
service agency are mutually bound to the proposal and that the
service agency is capable of serving the development.
ADEOUATE PROVIS IONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23 -5 5 "All buildings,
structures, facilities, parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the
nlJnicipal water utility system.1I
The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is
consistent with Environmental Health policies ensuring the supply
of safe drinking water. The City of Aspen Water Department shall
determine if adequate water is available for the project. The City
of Aspen water supply meets all standards of the Colorado
Department of Health for drinking water quality.
WATER OUALITY IMPACTS: Section 11-1.3 "For the purpose of maintaining and
protecting its lIUtlicipal water supply from inj1Jry and pollution, the city shalt exercise regulatory and
supervisory jurisdiction within. the incorporated t imits of the .City of Aspen .and . over all streams and sources
contributing to nunicipal water supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points. from which l1U'1icipal
water supplies are diverted." '
I
A drainage plan to mitigate the water quality impacts from drive
and parking areas will be evaluated by the city Engineer. This
application is not expected to impact down stream water quality.
1.
c
,,-..,
,-.
, .\
AIR OUALITY: sections 11-2.1 "It is the purpose of (the ai' quality section of the
Municipal Code] to achieve the maxirrun practical degree of air purity possible by requiring the use of all
available practical me,thods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution thrOUghout the city....
The Land Use Regulations seek to "lessen congestionll and "avoid transportation denmnds that carnot be metll as
well as to llprovide cLean air by protecting the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants". ~-
The major concern of our department is the impact of increasing
traffic in a non-attainment area designated by the EPA. Under the
requirements of the State Implementation Plan for the Aspen area,
PM-10 (WhiCh comes almost all from traffic driving on paved roads)
must be reduced by 25% by 1997. In order to achieve that reduction,
traffic increases that ordinarily wo~ld occur as a result of
development must be mitigated, or else the gains brought about by
community control measures will be lost. In addition, in order to
comply with the municipal code requirement to achieve the maximum
practical degree of air purity by using all available practical
methods to reduce pollution, traffic increases of development must
be offset. In order to do this, the applicant will. need to
determine the traffic increases generated by the project, commit
to a set of control measures, and show that the traffic decreased
by the control measures is at least as great as the traffic
increases of the project without mitigation.
This department recommends that a condition of approval
be that the applicant provide information to the
Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department which
documents that proposed mitigation measures are
sufficient to offset any increases in PM,o caused by the
project.
FIREPLACE/WOODSTOVE PERMITS: The applicant must file a
fireplace/woodstove permit with the Environmental Health Department
before the building permit will be issued. In metropolitan areas
of Pitkin County which includes this site, buildings may have two
gas log .fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and
unlimited numbers of decorative gas fireplace appliances per
building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may
any heating device use coal as fuel. Barns and agricultural
buildings may .not install any type of fireplace device.
FUGITIVE DUST: A. fugitive dust control plan is required which
includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of haul roads and
disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove
mud that has been carried out, speed limits, or other measures
necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line
or causing a nuisance.
A condition of approval should be that the applicant submit
a fugitive dust con~ro1 plan which is approved by this
department.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
2
~)
~.
NOISE ABATEMENT: section 16-1 "The city CCUlCll finds ond declares that noise Is a
significant source of envlronnental pollution that represents a present ond increasing threat to the public
peace and to the health. safety and welfare of t.he residents of the City of Aspen and It .Its visitors.
......Accordingly, it is the policy of COU1Cilto provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas
and mamers and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of those levels."
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound
level standards I and construction cannot be done except between the
hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.
It is very likely that noise generated during the construction
phase of this project will have some negative impact 'on the
neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take
measures to minimize the predicted high noise levels.
SMUGGLER SUPERFUND AREA: This project is located within the
boundaries of the EPA designate Smuggler Superfund area. Any
construction and soil moving must adhere to the standards and
conditions set forth by the institutional controls~ All
appropriate measureS must be taken to properly excavate and store
the soils moved.
...:LAND _ USE:273707300016.modcIin
3
,-.".
i-'
:MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department (2,,12-
Date: April 21,1995
Re: Mocklin GMQS Exemption,.Subdivision, Rezoning & Special Review
(0202 Lone Pine Road)
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering Deparnnent has the following
comments:
I, Site Drainage - Application meets criteria .
2. Sidewalk. Curb and Gutter - The Land Use Code at Section 7-1004.C.4.a(18) requires
sidewalk, curb and gutter. The City has already constructed sidewalk, curb and gutter along the
Gibson Avenue frontages of proposed Lots 3-6, If the application is approved, the applicant should
assume fu1I responsibility for maintenance, cleaning and snow removal of the sidewalk at the time
of recording the final plat. Articles IV and VITI of the Municipal Code discuss property owners'
sidewalk responsibilities.
As proposed in the application, constriiction of sidewalk, curb and gutter along Lone Pine
Road should be required prior to issuance of any building permits for the subdivision.
It is recommended that the homeowners association be responsible for snow removal rather
than individual lot owners for the perimeter sidewalks, The lots "back" onto Lone Pine and
Gibson, and future lot owners might be less inclined to perform snow removal at the backs of their
lots than at the front. Also, there are two interior lots without reasonable shares of adjacent
sidewalks. If the homeowners association is responsible for snow removal, a higher service level
should be possible, For sidewalks in the interior of the parcel, individual property owners may be
responsible for snow removal,
3, Proposed Lots - The "plat" does not indicate that "all easements of record as indicated on Title
Policy No. , dated , have been shown hereon." Therefor staff cannot
comment on lot configurations in the context of existing easements,
Lot I does not front on a street as required by the Land Use Code, Sec. 7-1004.CA.c(4)..
~ - The application does not respond to requirements of the Land Use Code for provision of
public rights-of-way in the process of the subdivision ofIand. The typical City of Aspen West End
1
r---,
(~
block consists of 41% public right-of-way, Including a typical West End block's half of adjacent
rights-of-way and the alley, the area of one block is 2.3 acres. Tract C is undevelopable land.
Tracts A and B total 3.516 acres. The parcel then could contain about one and a half "West End"
blocks, complete with historical rights-of-way and alley,
If the West End right-of-way percentage were applied to Tracts A and B, then approximately
72,000 square feet should be dedicated for public right-of-way. Note that the "current" Land Use
Code subdivision design standards do not match the platting of the original townsite in which 75
foot wide rights-of-way were platted. If current codes are followed, a 60 foot wide right-of-way
with a 100 foot turn around would result in about 15% of the subdivision land area being dedicated
to public right-of-way. By West End lot size standards, a lot would generally be 6,000-9,000
square feet. The proposed lots are much larger.
The problem is the balance between marketable lots and unmarketable right-of-way.
4. Public Rigbts-of-wl\Y - As stated above, the subdivision ofland in the West End is 47% public
right-of-way. Perhaps the parcel should be subdivided in the West End theme, complete with
alleys. _-__
The Engineering Department recommends that the minimum right-of-way dedication for this.'
subdivision include dedicating at least a 60 foot right-of-way for Spring Street extended, a 60 foot
right-of-way to access the lots and a 100 foot turnaround diameter cul-de-sac pins sidewalk and
snow storage area.
Other possibilities are to meet the Code required 80 foot wide right-of-way width for
collector streets, Gibson Avenue is a collector with only a 60 foot right-of-way width.
There has been staff discussion about private streets versus public rights-of-way in the City,
The Engineering Department continues to recommend for public rights-of-way as a matter of
benefit for future property owners and the remainder of the community and public, as well as a
matter of private or gated communities within the City.
5. Public Park - Is this area identified as a possible park location? If public right-of-way
percentages lower than standard are contemplated for this subdivision, a possible quid pro quo
would be dedication of a lot as a City park.
6. Trail Easement - The newly granted trail easement is not shown and may affect lot or building
envelope configurations.
7. Mass Transit - Is an easement needed for a bus shelter?
8. Drivewl\YS - Due to staffs experience of the general lack of knowledge of driveway design, the
fina1 plat should state that driveway design must meet the requirements of Section 19-101 of the
Municipal Code.
,
9. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for transformers, pedestals or other equi~Jment must be
installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. The
2
,.
,
,-"
i~
applicant must consult with Holy Cross Electric Association prior to final plating and provide
electric load information in order to determine transformer easement locations and sizes.
10. Trash & Utility Area - The final plat should contain a note that trash storage areas may not be
in the public right-of-way. The subdivision declarations should include a provision that all trash
storage areas should be indicated as trash lllli:! recycle areas and that any trash and recycle areas that
include utility meters or other utility equipment provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by
trash and recycle containers,
11, Parking - Per Code, plus the subdivision declarations should state that there is 'no overnight
parking on streets located within the subdivision. This greatly assists the Street Department during
winter snow removal operations.
12. Street Ligbt~ - Required in Land Use Code, at subdivision design standards. City street light
project placed lights at standard city comers, about 300' comer to comer, one in between, and one
at alleys. . .
13. Other Subdivision Improvement~ - All other subdivision improvements required by the Land
Use Code must be constructed prior to issuanc!'l of the first building permit.
14. Financial Assurances - All cost estimates for the purpose of financial assurances should be
approved by appropriate City and utility staff prior to acceptance by the City,
15, Other Conditions of Approval- a Declarations: No tracking of mud onto City streets shall
be permitted during construction. b. The applicant shall agree to join any improvement districts
formed for the purpose of constructing impro"ements in adjacent public rights-of-way.
16, Final Plat - A final plat must be provided which meets the requirements of Section 24-7-
1004.D, including utility approval certificates.
17; Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of
development within public rights-of-way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and
shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-
way from city streets department (920-5130).
. cc: Cris Caruso, City Engineer
SunnyVann
Peter Mocklin
M95.102
3
71spen ~soJ;(/alecl0ani!a!ion 7)irt:!
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (970) 925-3601
Sy KclIy . Chairman
Alben Bishop . Treas.
Louis Popish . Secy.
Apri j 19. 1995
LeSJle Lamont
Planning Oftice
13(1 S. Galena
Aspen. CO 81611
FAX #(970) 925-2537
Michael KclIy
Frank Loushin
Bruc-<: Matherly, Mgr.
Re: Hocklin GHRS. Subdivision. SpeCial Review
uear Leslie:
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation Gistrict currently has
Sufficient line and ~reatmenr capaCity to serve this project.
Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's Rules
and Regulations which are on file at the District office. There
is a minor downstream constraint that will be eliminated ~hrough
a system of prora~ed development impact fees.
We would reouesr. if apprOval of the prcject is recommended, thar
the apPllcant be required to provloe a ulsrrict apPrOved line
exrension request and Disirict apprOved collection system
agreement prior ~o final approval Or issuance of an excava~ion
permit. Both i~ems will be required for this praject as both
aliow us an Opporruni~y ro ensure that the on-site system is
constructed according to District speCifications for future
dedication to the District. Each of the above items wiJI'require
separate action by OUr Board of Direc~ors.
If stubbed OUr service lines are being Suggested by the
apPllcanr. then they must be approved by OUr Board ar ulrecrors
as part of the collection system agreement. The District reqUires
that 40% of the esrimated maximum total connection charges be
paid for each stub out prior to construction. if the stubbed out
service is not used. then the 40% payment is forfeited and the
service stub is removed at the applicant's expense.
Please call if yOU have any questions.
~hould contact Our office to begin the
Sincerely,
"&-- ""-~ OJ" 0-
Bruce l1ather ly
District 11anager
EPA Awards of Excellence
1976.1986.1990
Regional and National
._"-------.---..
The apPlicant's engineer
line extension request.
.....- ( .
.c. .:; ~ V ,e,.;
.... ...
.~ <J
(Q:- ~?R Z. D.~9:5
~lfeg;~~
~\
,-.
To:
Memorandum
Leslie Lamont, Planner
cc:
From:
Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal
Date:
April 3, 1995
Mocklin Parcel ID#2737-073-00-016
Subject:
Leslie,
This project shall meet all of the codes and requirements of the Aspen
Fire Protection District.
If you have any question please contact me.
Ed
,~,
"-,
To: Leslie Lamont
From: Bill Earley
Date: 3/29/95
Subject: Mocklin GMQS Exemption
I have reviewed the submitted. information and have the fgllowing
comments;
1. This is in the Holy Cross Electric Association service area so
it will have no effect on our electric system.
2. I have had a number of complaints from residents in ~is area
of the poor streetlighting on Lone Pine Road. Is appropriate to
address this issue on this application? Is it possible to get the
streetlighting in this area ~mproved as a condition of the
approval? "",
A
';-"'"
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMMuNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920-5439
March 28, 1995
Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
230 E. Hopkins Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: MockIin GMQS Exemption, Subdivision, Rezoning & Special Review
Case A34-95
Dear Sunny,
The Community Development Department has completed its preliminary review of the captioned
application. We have determined that this application is complete,
We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
at a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, May 16, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m.
We have also scheduled this application for 1st Reading before the Aspen City Council on
Monday, June 12, 1995 at ameeting to begin at 5:00 p,m. Second Reading and Public Hearing
will be on July 10, 1995. 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 fmal
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 Community Development
Department,
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 hearings. Please
submit a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing
prior to the public hearings.
The Development Review Committee will discuss this application at a meeting on Thursday,
April 27 at 2:00 PM in the Council Chambers at City Hall.
If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont the planner assigned to your case, at 920-
5101.
Sincerely,
t:t~lff
Administrative Assistant
apz.ph
r'\
.M
ASPEN/PITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5439
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health Department
Electric Department
Parks Department
Zoning Officer
Building
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Aspen Fire Protection District
Open Space Board
Leslie Lamont, Planner
MockIin GMQS Exemption, Subdivision, Rezoning & Special Review
Parcel ID No, 2737-073-00-016
March 28, 1995
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Peter and Monica
Mocldin,
Please return your comments to me no later than May 1,
Development Review Committee will meet on Thursday, April 27 at 2:00 PM in the Council
Chambers at City Hall.
Thank you,
~
~
.j-.,.
" "
, .. .
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
SUMMARy SHEET
Date:
I J
1--..'--
REFERRAL COMMENTS SUMMARy:
hcomingQ
no
)~-(~~d~J! (">Y\~hlL
EnVironmental Health (memo: yes no )
1l::i,re D~rtmeJ1t: (memo:~~ po) ,1iJ.Jt 01\+"5' &A~lAIJLc
~~\jl-A! '~_~l^-)l__
........
ICJ I -I--..r,; 0 r"-"^YflOf1<: ( ~;:;
(memo: yes no)
BO,'\'" AuthOr!ty, -\- (.~o, -:tye. ~~(~' ,~ {" ~""z1. ~
\1\AN\^\~~aP' k '^i\..U [-It . ~~
~
Attorney: (memo: yes no ) . ~
other:
-
--~._--,._.-.-.~-_._.-."."-~-,-~-.-._-,-_.._..__._.~_..~w____,_".,._~....
......
r\
,-"
AGENDA
n DEVELOPMENT REVrEW COMMrTTEE
.1:\ ~~ Thursd.ay~ ~il 27, 1995
r:.:.::;;-. Q. -1400 :PM
0........11 eh ~e!fa.. City Hall
================================================?================
City
Mocklin GMQS Exemption, SUbdi~' Rezoning & Special Review,
Les.J:;::::, ~ ~ing, watk'~ic, ~ironm~jtal Health,
~ning, ,~~E Building, Aspen Fire, ~, op;;;7'~pace
/
/
"
~
I'"
"'"
-
...
""
JIIIII!
'""
I'"
""
...
...
...
""
...
...
MOCKllN
GMQS EXEMPTION APPLICATION
I'"
""
""
...
-
,..
-
AN APPLICATION FOR
-
GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION
REZONING AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
-
FOR THE
,....
MOCKLIN PROPERTY
,..
-
Submitted by
-
Peter and Monica Mocklin
P.o. Box 807
Aspen, CO 81612
(303) 925-3668
-
-
,..
-
,..
-
Prepared by
-
,..
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-6958
-
,..
-
-
PROJECT CONSULTANTS
-
PLANNER
-
Sunny Vann, AICP
Vann Associates
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-6958
,...
-
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
,...
Thomas G. Stevens
The Stevens Group, Inc.
312E AABC
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-6717
-
CIVIL ENGINEER
-
-
Hans E. Brucker
Banner Associates, Inc.
605 East Main Street, Suite 6
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-5857
1"'"""\
SURVEYOR
-
James Reeser
Alpine Surveys, Inc.
215 South Monarch
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-2688
,...
,...
-
,...
-
-
i
-
-
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-
Section
Page
-
I.
INTRODUCTION
1
-
II. PROJECT SITE
2
-
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
6
-
IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
15
,...
A. Growth Management Exemption
B. Subdivision
C. Rezoning
D. Special Review
E. Vested Property Rights
15
19
-
30
-
34
36
-
APPENDIX
- A. Exhibit 1, Pre-Application Conference
Summary
- Exhibit 2, Title Insurance Policy
Exhibit 3, Permission to Represent
~ Exhibit 4, Application Fee Agreement
Exhibit 5, List of Adjacent Property
- Owners
B. Exhibit 1, Trail Easement
- Exhibit 2, City Council Ordinance 72-93
Exhibit 3, Mocklin Property Rezoning
,... Map
- ii
-
...
,....
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-
Section
Page
-
APPENDIX (cont'd.)
-
c.
Exhibit 1, Letter from Vann Associates
.
Exhibit 2, Letter from Diane Moore
Exhibit 1, Banner Associates Utility
Analysis
Exhibit 2, Banner Associates Drainage
Analysis
Exhibit 3, Banner Associates Traffic
Analysis
,....
D.
-
-
-
-
-
-
,....
,....
-
-
-
-
iii
-
-
-
I. INTRODUCTION
,....
The following application requests an exemption from
the City's growth management quota system (GMQS) for the
development of six (6) single-family, free market lots and
one (1) affordable housing lot on an approximately three and
one-half (3-1/2) acre parcel of land which is located at
0202 Lone Pine Road in the City of Aspen. Subdivision,
rezoning and special review approval is also requested, as
is vested property rights status for all approvals granted
pursuant to this application (see Pre-Application Conference
Summary, Exhibit 1, Appendix A) .
-
-
-
-
,....
-
....
The application is submitted pursuant to Sections 8-
104, 7-1001, 7-1101, 7-401 and 6-207 of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations by Peter and Monica Mocklin, the owners of the
property (see Title Insurance Policy, Exhibit 2, Appendix
A). Permission for Vann Associates, Planning Consultants,
to represent the Applicants is attached as Exhibit 3,
Appendix A. An executed application fee agreement and a
list of property owners located within three hundred (300)
feet of the property are attached as Exhibits 4 and 5,
Appendix A, respectively.
,....
....
,....
-
-
-
The application has been divided into three (3) parts.
The first part, or Section II. of the application, provides
a brief description of the project site, while Section III.
describes the Applicants' proposed development. The third
1
-
....
-
-
-
part, or Section IV., addresses the proposed development's
compliance with the applicable review requirements of the
Regulations. For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent
supporting documents relating to the project are provided in
the various appendices to the application.
-
-
-
While we have attempted to address all relevant
provisions of the Regulations, and to provide sufficient
information to enable a thorough evaluation of the applica-
tion, questions may arise which result in the staff's
request for further information and/or clarification. The
Applicants would be pleased to provide such additional
information as may be required in the course of the applica-
tion's review.
-
-
-
II. PROJECT SITE
-
-
As the Topographic Map on the following page illus-
trates, the Applicants' property consists of three (3)
separately described meets and bounds parcels. Tracts A and
B, which are located adjacent to the intersection of Gibson
Avenue and Lone Pine Road, contain approximately 3.27 and
0.25 acres, respectively. Tract C contains approximately
0.60 acres, and is physically separated from Tracts A and B
by the Gibson Avenue right-of-way. Please note that this
application is limited solely to Tracts A and B, and that
the two tracts are considered merged for pUrposes of the
Applicants' proposed development.
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
i
I
~
~
z
~j
~!
~
~
>-
g
II-
~~
f?;~
L i ~
l-8~
~A~
.
I'
8
-----
,
'"
".
III
II
WI
I,i,
i{!1
III
III,
'II.
hll
.,11
j,11
I"
I,ll
III
I
......-'
h r
~
r
;I)" II
r<
J?:
U
~
~
~..,
'\.,.""
(....
./"',
/
.,/
.../ .-
,
f
a"
!
~
~
.
"
,
:
,
,
,
"
,
,
'-';
/
(
\
"'....-.,
I
I
8
/:
I
I
,
,
,
--~\
,
I
\
\ .......---
,--",,/ '-...
"
,
./
I
!
.......1
I""""
I.., .......
<!O! \
~~ \, /
I- ~ ,----....-"'-/
\
I
l.
\\ f
\\'
\~
I
I
\
I ,/
V
~
i ~!
i Ui
'is. !5i~
a h~
:'
!'l:
'....
'\,
~ '".... .I
." "'< /--,
',<> i \ /,~j)
~ I I (
.,.' I ~
\ I ....-.1
----, j /
'"'-) .)
\1"'!:11' ~
__l~";:;.o
"".... ".-.....-
..-/1 ---.......
~ '
,
\
\
\
\
\
'-
'\
I
\
"
,
,
"
,
,
\
\
"
'"
'~
~
'-,
'\
\
I
\
'"
'\
\
'--
'\
\
"-
,
,
'"
,.
-
,....
-
Man-made improvements to the property include an eight
(8) unit apartment building, a paved parking area, a small
pond and a pedestrian trail, all of which are located on
Tracts A and B. The apartments were previously determined
to have been legally constructed, and are presently rented
within the City's free market housing inventory. Access to
the apartments and parking area is provided via a private
driveway from Lone Pine Road. Water for the pond is
provided by a small irrigation ditch which traverses the
northerly portion of Tracts A and B. Spring Street travers-
es the length of Tract C.
-
-
-
-
,....
-
As the Topographic Map illustrates, portions of the so-
called Gibson/Lone Pine pedestrian trail are presently
located just inside the western boundary of Tract A. A ten
(10) foot easement for the trail w~s recently conveyed to
the City by the Applicants in exchange for the City's
payment of an outstanding water tap fee (see Exhibit 1,
Appendix B). Based on conversations with the Parks Depart-
ment, it is our understanding that the trail is to be
relocated and improved so as to lie completely within the
easement. A temporary construction easement was also
granted in connection with the permanent trail easement.
,....
-
-
-
-
,....
,....
A portion of Tracts A and B was rezoned from R-15A,
Moderate-Density Residential, to R/MFA, Residential Multi-
Family in June of 1993 (see Ordinance No. 72-93, Exhibit 2,
,....
-
4
-
-
-
-
Appendix B). The purpose of the rezoning was to eliminate
the nonconforming status of the existing multi-family
apartment building. As the ordinance indicates, the area
rezoned was sized to accommodate the building's existing
floor area. A limited amount of additional site area was
also included to accommodate minor future alterations to the
building.
-
-
-
-
The new R/MFA zone district boundary is depicted on the
Mocklin Property Rezoning Map which is recorded in Plat Book
33 at Page 39 in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder (see Exhibit 3, Appendix B). It should be noted
that the rezoning did not result in the subdivision of
Tracts A and B, and that the remainder of the two tracts
continues to be zoned R-15A, Moderate-Density Residential.
Tract C is zoned R-30, Low-Density Residential.
-
-
-
-
The topography of Tracts A and B rises modestly from
the west to form a large, essentially flat area which
occupies the central and eastern portions of the property.
The remnants of an old elevated railroad bed can be found in
the property's southeastern corner. Existing vegetation
within the undeveloped portions of the property includes
native grasses, small shrubs, sage and oak brush, and small
scattered stands of aspen and cottonwood trees. The area
immediately surrounding the existing apartment building and
pond has been landscaped.
-
-
.....
.....
-
5
-
-
-
-
Existing utilities in the immediate site area include
water, sewer, electric, telephone, natural gas and cable TV.
Eight (8) inch water mains are presently located within both
the Gibson Avenue and Lone Pine Road right -of -ways. A third
eight (8) inch main and an underground electric power line
parallel a portion of the western boundary of Tract A.
Various overhead electric lines also traverse the property.
An eight (8) inch sanitary sewer is located in Gibson
Avenue, while telephone, natural gas and cable TV service is
located in the Lone Pine right-of-way. Fire hydrant No. 926
is conveniently located on the south side of Gibson Avenue
near the southeast corner of the property.
-
-
-
-
-
-
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
-
-
The Applicants propose to subdivide the undeveloped
portion of Tracts A and B into six (6) Single-family lots,
and to designate a site specific building envelope on each
lot. A seventh lot is proposed to accommodate the existing
multi-family apartment building. In exchange for the new
Single-family lots, the Applicants will agree to deed
restrict six (6) of the existing free market apartments to
the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority'S (APCHA) afford-
able housing guidelines, and to rezone Lot 7 to AH, Afford-
able Housing. This development approach was previously
reviewed and endorsed by the Planning Office (see letters
from Vann Associates and former Planning Director Diane
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
-
...
...
...
Moore, Exhibits 1 and 2, Appendix C). A more detailed
discussion of the required GMQS exemption is provided in
Section IV.A. of this application.
...
...
As the Site Development Plan on the following page
illustrates, the six single-family lots range in size from
approximately fifteen thousand eight hundred (15,800) square
feet to approximately twenty-four thousand five hundred
(24,500) square feet. Lot 7, which will contain approxi-
mately thirty-two thousand four hundred and seventy (32,470)
square feet, has been sized to accommodate the apartment
building's existing unit mix and floor area, as well as the
adjacent parking area, pond and irrigation ditch.
...
-
...
...
...
Access to Lots 1 through 6 will be provided via a
private access drive from Lone Pine Road. A twenty (20)
foot wide paved road will be constructed within an access
and utility easement to be dedicated across the northerly
portion of the free market lots. As the Site Development
Plan illustrates, a turnaround will be provided at the end
of the access road to ensure adequate emergency vehicle
access. Individual driveways will be constructed by the
purchasers of the lots to access their respective building
envelopes. Vehicular access to the existing apartments will
remain as presently configured.
...
...
...
...
...
...
-
While a public sidewalk has been installed on the north
side of the Gibson Avenue right-of-way, no such facility is
7
...
...
,
.~
..~
c
o
'(1i
'5
:.0
.0
le~
2i:
~ C
~ .-
~32
OiU
~ 0
~~/
o /,/' -----...,
o . .-'
<;- //
/
/
~
. <J
~i ~ i
F \\ .
. 11: ~
~~ ~ ~
.&$i ~ QI
l\l"~h. ~
\:
, ,/ /-/><::-
/~/
;;/-;:--,
--
~
,/
~ -----~..
"----- ----------~------------
---- ..------
-------~-~~.,--~---'
.-.--------
-----/
~-::;c.---
'a\1O'
9'""'t""',~
o
t
. _______ ..---1
.------------- I
rc
cl 1.0 ~ 1
., ,
. ' ... l'a "
\ " I l" 0.. ~,
.~ r I ...J~'__~
;-l,~
II J@,..,.\l'
~ I ;: I I
>- I ,.......'
; II' ~
::J I " U1
i.1 'ji ... ~~ :1\
~ II .3 ~,' i'
~: L~' J
~~ --
-,-"--
---,
~,
-------.
-----
~'-
'.........
~
,---
------.
~~~
~
...
-
presently available on Lone pine Road.
As a result, the
~
Applicants will construct a five (5) foot sidewalk adjacent
...
to the eastern boundary of the project site and within the
Lone Pine right -of -way. The new sidewalk will provide safer
and more convenient pedestrian access to the existing bus
stop currently located on the west side of Lone pine Road.
-
The proposed development has been designed to comply
with the dimensional requirements of the R-15A and AH zone
....
districts, and the subdivision design standards of Section
...
7-1004.C. As Table 1, below, indicates, the proposed lots
substantially exceed the minimum lot size and lot area per
...
dwelling unit requirements of the Land Use Regulations. In
addition, both the proposed single-family building envelopes
...
and the existing apartment building meet or exceed all
...
applicable setback requirements.
...
Table 1
DEVELOPMENT DATA
1.
Total Site Area (Acres) 1
4.1142
...
Tract A
Tract B
Tract C
3.2671
0.2490
0.5981
...
2. Project Site Area2
...
Acres
Square Feet3
3.5161
153,160
3.
Existing Development (Sq. Ft.)4
-
-
Unit 1 - \3 Bdrm. , 2 Bath
, .
Unit 2 - B Bdrm. , 2 Bath
Unit 3 - 1 Bdrm. , 1 Bath
Unit 4 - 2 Bdrm. , 1 Bath
f'--
1,730
1''7470
630
690
.
\
...
9
-
'"'"
-
-
Unit 5 - 2 Bdrm., 1 Bath
Unit 6 - i Bdrm., 1 Bath
Unit 7 - 1 Bdrm., I Bath
Unit 8 - 1 Bdrm., 1 Bath
760
760
470
370
4. Existing Zoning (Sq. Ft.)
'"'"
-
R-15A, Moderate-Density
Residential5
R/MFA, Residential/Multi-
Family
117,290
35,870
....
5.
Proposed Zoning (Sq. Ft.)
...
R-15A, Moderate-Density
Residential
AR, Affordable Housing
6. Minimum Required Lot Size (Sq. Ft.)
R-15A, Moderate-Density
Residential
AR, Affordable Housing
7. Minimum Lot Area/Dwelling
Unit (Sq. Ft.)
120,690
32,470
...
15,000
...
3,000
...
R-15A, Moderate-Density
Residential
I!""'"
Single-Family
Duplex
AR, Affordable Housing6
15,000
10,000
...
1 Bedroom Unit
2 Bedroom Unit
3 Bedroom Unit
1,250
2,100
3,630
8.
Minimum Required Lot Area (Sq. Ft.)
107,310
...
R-15A, Moderate-Density
Residential
...
6 - Single-Family Units @
15,000 Sq. Ft./Unit
90,000
...
AR, Affordable Housing
3 - 1 Bdrm. Units @ 1,250
Sq. Ft.jUnit
3 - 2 Bdrm. Units @ 2,100
17,310
-
3,750
6,300
...
10
...
:!"-
-
-
Sq. Ft,/Unit
2 - 3 Bdrm. Units @ 3,630
Sq. Ft./Unit
9. Proposed Lot Area (Sq. Ft,)
-
R-15A, Moderate-Density
Residential
-
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 4
Lot 5
Lot 6
-
-
AH, Affordable Housing
Lot 7
-
-
10. Minimum Required Setbacks (Feet)
R-15A, Moderate-Density
Residential
-
Front Yard
Side Yards
Rear Yards
-.
AH, Affordable Housing
...
Front Yard
Side Yards7
Rear Yard
11. Maximum Allowable Floor Area
...
R-15A, Moderate-Density
Residential
-
AH, Affordable Housing
Lot 78
....
12.
Proposed Floor Area (Sq. Ft.)
-
R-15A, Moderate-Density
Residential
-
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
...
11
-
7,260
120,690
15,830
18,850
20,760
18,500
22,210
24,540
32,470
32,470
25
10
10
10
5
10
Sliding Scale
0.36:1
4,550
4,730
4,850
....
....
""".
Lot 4
Lot 5
Lot 6
4,710
4,930
5,070
....
AH, Affordable Housing
Lot 79
12,910
-
13. Minimum Required Open Space
R-15A, Moderate-Density
Residential
AH, Affordable Housing
14. Proposed Open Space (Sq. Ft.)
None
....
Special Review
-
Lot 7
i
19'850~~
1 Space/Bedroom ~...
-
15. Minimum Required On-Site Parking
R-15A, Moderate-Density
Residential
AH, Affordable Housing10
Special Review
....
16. Proposed On-Site Parking Spaces
-
R-15A, Moderate-Density
Residential
AH, Affordable Housing
1 Space/Bedroom
1 Space/Bedroom
....
....
From September 20, 1991, topographic map prepared by
Alpine Surveys, Inc.
2
Project site is limited to Tracts A and B.
-
3
All square footages have been rounded to the nearest
ten (10) square feet.
-
4
Approximate net livable square footage rounded to
nearest ten (10) square feet.
-
5
From Mocklin Property Rezoning Map recorded in Plat
Book 33 at Page 39.
6
For multi-family dwellings on a lot of more than
twenty-seven (27,000) square feet.
....
7
For multi-family structures.
.-
8
Increasable to 1:1 by special review.
-
12
....
...
...
9
Per Ordinance No. 72-93 and Mocklin Property Rezoning
Map.
,....
10
The maximum number of required parking spaces shall not
exceed one (1) pace per bedroom or two (2) spaces per
dwelling unit, whichever is less.
....
....
While free market dwelling units are a permitted use
within the AH, Affordable Housing, zone district, the
...
Regulations impose various restrictions on such units in a
mixed free market/deed restricted project. More specifi-
...
cally, deed restricted units in the AH zone district must
....
comprise a minimum of seventy (70) percent of the project's
unit mix, while free market units are limited to a maximum
...
of thirty (30) percent.
In addition, the number of free
market bedrooms in the project cannot exceed forty (40)
....
percent.
...
As discussed previously, the Applicants propose to deed
restrict six (6) of the existing apartment building's eight
,'"
(8) free market units.
The six deed restricted units
represent seventy-five (75) percent of the building's total
...
unit count, which exceeds the minimum seventy (70) percent
....
requirement of the AH zone district. As Table 1 indicates,
....
the building contains three (3), one (1) bedroom units;
three (3), two (2) bedroom units; and two (2), three (3)
bedroom units for a total of fifteen (15) bedrooms. The
-
Applicants propose to deed restrict all of the one and two
..
bedroom units, or sixty (60) percent of the apartment's
existing bedrooms.
The number of free market bedrooms,
...
13
...
-
-
-
therefore, will not exceed the district's forty (40) percent
maximum limitation.
-
The applicable external floor area ratio for Lot 7,
the proposed AH lot, is 0.36:1, which may be increased to
1:1 by special review. Based on a floor area of approxi-
mately twelve thousand nine hundred and ten (12,910) square
feet and a lot area of approximately thirty-two thousand
four hundred and seventy (32,470) square feet, the proposed
floor area ratio of Lot 7 is 0.40: 1. Special review
approval to exceed the 0.36: 1 floor area requirement is
requested by the Applicants, and is addressed in detail in
Section IV.D. of this application.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Open space and parking requirements in the AH zone
district are established by special review. As discussed
previously, Lot 7 has been designed so as to retain the
existing parking area, pond, irrigation ditch and landscap-
ing which abut the apartment building. The area of Lot 7
attributable to open space totals approximately nineteen
thousand eight hundred and fifty (19,850) square feet, or
approximately sixty (60) percent of the lot's gross area.
A minimum of fifteen (15) parking spaces are presently
provided on-site. These spaces equate to a minimum of one
(1) space per bedroom for the existing apartment building.
Special review approval to establish Lot 7's open space and
off-street parking requirements at sixty (60) percent and
-
f-.
-
,~
-
-
-
-
14
-
,..
,..
,..
fifteen (15) spaces, respectively, is requested by the
Applicants, and is addressed in detail in Section IV.D. of
this application.
...
...
As discussed previously, all required utilities are
available in the immediate site area. All utility exten-
sions will be located underground, and appropriate easements
will be dedicated to the various public and private utili-
ties as may be required. To the extent feasible, all
utility extensions will be located in the new access drive
which will serve the proposed single-family lots. Site
grading is expected to be minimal and will be limited
primarily to the new access drive and the individual
building envelopes.
...
...
,..
,..
...
IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
...
...
The proposed development is subject to the receipt of
a GMQS exemption for the construction of the six single-
family residences. Approval to subdivide the property and
to rezone Lot 7 to AH, Affordable Housing, is also required,
as is special review approval to establish Lot 7's floor
area, parking and open space requirements. Each of these
review requirements is discussed below.
...
,..
,..
A.
Growth Management Quota System Exemption
...
...
Pursuant to Section 8-104.A.1.a. (1) of the Aspen
Land Use Regulations, the reconstruction of existing multi-
15
""'I
...
-
,...
-
family dwelling units is exempt from the growth management
quota system. The exemption is approved by the Planning
Director, and is subject only to compliance with the afford-
able housing replacement provisions of City Council Ordi-
nance No, 90-1 (aka, the Resident Multi-Family Housing
Replacement Program). In general, the program requires the
provision of on-site affordable housing in sufficient
quantity to replace fifty (50) percent of the demolished
units' net livable area, configured in such a manner as to
replace fifty (50) percent of the demolished bedrooms.
,...
...
,...
-
,...
,...
The above GMQS exemption would permit the Appli-
cants to demolished their existing eight (8) unit apartment
building and to reconstruct eight (8) Single-family, free
market residences subject to compliance with the Housing
Replacement Program, the applicable requirements of the
property's underlying zone districts, and the City'S
subdivision regulations. As the building contains fifteen
(15) bedrooms and approximately twelve thousand nine hundred
and ten (12,910) square feet of floor area, compliance with
Ordinance No. 90 -1 would require the reconstruction of
approximately six thousand four hundred and fifty-five
(6,455) square feet of floor area configured so as to
replace a minimum of seven (7) bedrooms. The replacement
units would be deed restricted in accordance with the
requirements of Ordinance No. 90-1 to APCHA's affordable
housing guidelines.
,...
,...
,...
,...
-
...
,...
,...
-
16
,...
-
-
-
In lieu of demolition, the Applicants propose to
simply deed restrict six (6) of the existing apartment units
in exchange for a GMQS exemption for an equivalent number of
free market single-family residences. While the Regulations
do not specifically provide for such an exemption, the prior
Planning Director has previously determined that Section 8-
104.A.1.a. (1) may be interpreted to allow the Applicants'
proposed development (see letters from Vann Associates and
Diane Moore, Exhibits 1 and 2, Appendix C). As Diane
Moore's letter indicates, a formal Planning Director's
interpretation will be required to award a GMQS exemption
credit, and will be made in connection with the approval of
a development application for the Applicants' property.
,...
,..
-
....
....
-
-
...
To obtain the required GMQS exemption, the
existing apartment units must be inspected by both the
Building Department and APCHA for compliance with the
Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the City's Affordable
Housing Guidelines. It is our understanding, however, that
the Building Department inspection will be limited to basic
health and safety considerations. To meet these require-
ments, the Applicants propose to have the existing apartment
units inspected by APCHA during the application's initial
referral period. The Building Department inspection, and
any UBC required improvements, will Occur prior to recorda-
tion of project's subdivision plat and/or the required deed
restrictions.
,...
,...
-
-
...
-
-
17
..
-
I
,,-
-
As the architectural plans which accompany this
application illustrate, the existing apartment building
contains three (3), one (1) bedroom units; three (3), two
-
(2) bedroom units; and two (2), three (3) bedroom units.
-
The plans were used to determine each unit's existing net
livable area which is included in Table 1. As the table
-
indicates, several of the units are deficient with respect
to APCHA's minimum net livable area requirements. The
--
units, however, are in excellent condition and are readily
-
suitable for affordable housing purposes. Should the size
-
of the existing units prove problematic, the Applicants will
either deed restrict one (1) of the remaining three (3)
bedroom units or construct an additional deed restricted
-
unit within the building's enclosed garage area.
'""'
Precedence for the deed restriction of additional
square footage to address the problem of existing units with
-
deficient net livable areas can be found in both the City's
and APCHA's approval of the conversion of the Kandahar
-
Apartments to deed restricted status. These units were deed
-
restricted in connection with the 1993 approval of the
Galena Plaza commercial GMQS application.
In the event
,...
required, the deed restriction of one (1) of the existing
bUilding's three (3) bedroom units would more than offset
the aggregate deficiency in the net livable area of the one
(1) and two (2) bedroom units. Those units which are defi-
-
-,
cient in area (i. e., Units 4 through 8) will be deed
-
18
-
,....
'"'i
r-
restricted to APCHA's Category 1 income and occupancy
guidelines, while the remaining unit (i.e., Unit 3) will be
deed restricted to Category 2.
-
B. Subdivision
-
-
Pursuant to Section 3-101 of the Regulations, land
which is divided into two (2) or more lots for the purpose
of transfer of ownership and/or development is by definition
-
a subdivision and is subject to the City's review and
approval. The subdivision of land is reviewed pursuant to
f"'"
the provisions of Section 7-1004. The various subdivision
-
review criteria, and the proposed development's compliance
therewith, are summarized as follows.
-
1. "The proposed subdivision shall be consistent
-
with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan."
-
,
The recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan
contains several recommendations which pertain to the
-
Applicants' property,
Most notably, the Plan's Open
Space/Recreation and Environment element recommends that the
-
project site be purchased for development as a "family
style, semi-active park". While the Applicants are willing
to entertain an offer to purchase their property for park
,...
-
purposes, no such offer has been forthcoming. As a result,
they have decided to pursue development of the property
-
consistent with its underlying zoning. As the City Attorney
-
19
-
,....
-
-
would undoubtedly agree, the mere identification of the
property as suitable for acquisition is not sufficient to
preclude the approval of a development application which
otherwise complies with applicable regulatory requirements.
-
..
It should also be noted that the Proposed Pedes-
trian System Map which is included within the Plan's Open
Space/Recreation and Environment element identifies Lone
Pine Road as a "Primary Commuter" route. Such routes are
earmarked for pedestrian sidewalks as they are expected to
be heavily used by commuters. As discussed previously, th~
Applicants will construct a new sidewalk adjacent to the
eastern boundary of their property and within the Lone Pine
Road right-of-way.
-
-
~
-
-
-
The Housing Action Plan element of the Aspen Area
Community Plan also identifies the Applicants' property as
sui table for the development of affordable housing. The
Housing element, however, states that the community's
preference is to acquire the property for park purposes. A
more general recommendation of the Housing Action Plan
addresses the preservation of the community's existing
housing inventory. The Applicants' proposed conversion of
six of their existing apartments to deed restricted status
is obviously consistent with this recommendation.
-
-
-
-
-
-
2. "The proposed subdivision shall be consistent
with the character of existing land uses in the area. The
20
-
-
-
,...
proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future
,...
development of surrounding areas."
,...
The proposed development is consistent with the
character of existing land USes in the surrounding area, and
!"'""
will have no adverse effect on the area's future develop-
ment. The immediate site area consists primarily of mixed
residential development, including numerous multi-family
,....
rental and condominium structures, several duplexes, and a
,....
variety of single-family residences. The proposed single-
family lots mirror the existing single-family/duplex
development which is located on the south side of Gibson
Avenue and the single-family residences located to the east
,...
of Lone Pine Road.
As the area is essentially fully
-
developed, the Applicants' project should have little if any
-
effect on the development potential of neighboring proper-
ties.
-
3. "The proposed subdivision shall be in
,...
compliance with all applicable requirements of the Land Use
Regulations."
,...
The proposed development has been designed to
,...
comply with the applicable requirements of the R-1SA and AH
,...
zone districts and all relevant requirements of the Aspen
Land Use Regulations. With the possible exception of Lot
-
7's floor area ratio, which the Applicants' have requested
:
to be established by special review, no variations in the
...
21
...
!""
I'""
-
dimensional requirements of the underlying zone districts
are required.
-
4. "The proposed subdivision shall not be
located on land unsuitable for development because of
flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide,
avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other
natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to
the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the
proposed subdivision."
i"""
,...
,...
-
,...
Portions of the Applicants' property lie within
the boundaries of the Environmental Protection Agency's so-
called Smuggler Area Super Fund site. As a result, the
proposed development must comply with the institutional
controls which have been adopted by the City for the
mitigation of potential environmental hazards. Site
specific mitigation procedures will be developed by the
Applicants based on the recommendations of the Aspen/Pitkin
County Environmental Health Department. Given proper
mitigation procedures, no adverse affect upon the health,
safety or welfare of the project's residents is anticipated.
-
-
-
-
-
-
5. "The proposed subdivision shall not be
designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficien-
cies, duplication or premature extension of public facili-
ties and unnecessary public costs."
-
-
-
22
-
-
,..
-
No governmental inefficiencies, duplication of
facilities, or unnecessary public costs will occur as a
result of the provision of public services to the proposed
development. All required utilities are currently available
in the immediate site area. All costs associated with the
installation of public improvements to serve the project
will be borne by the Applicants as may be required.
,...
"...
-
-
In addition to compliance with the preceding
review criteria, the subdivision regulations also require
that various improvements be provided in connection with the
proposed development, and that specific standards be adhered
to in the proj ect 's design. Mr. Hans Brucker of Banner
Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has reviewed the
applicable requirements of the Regulations and discussed the
project with the City's referral agencies. His comments and
recommendations with respect to utilities, drainage and
traffic generation are contained in Exhibits 1, 2 and 3,
Appendix D, respectively. The improvements and design stan-
dards which pertain to the Applicants' proposed development,
and the project's compliance with Banner Associates'
recommendations, are summarized as follows.
-
-
,...
-
-
-
-
...
1. Water. As the Preliminary Water Plan on the
following page illustrates, water service to the proposed
development will be provided via the existing mains located
in Lone Pine Road and adjacent to the property's western
-
..
23
a
o
$
"
z
+
~ "
w
~ w
~
~ N
~= "
.
.0 > 0
~" ~ Z
w
0 u " W
" , ~ Cl
. "
-0:,: ~ W
. 0
0- 0 ..J
"
0 Z
0
" 0
"
"
"
"
~ >
"
. >
U ~
. .
~ .
. ~ "
. " .
. ~
" . ~
. , .
, > >
ffi , "
ffi ~ " "
" . . .
. . " 0
., ~ ~ ~
0
. 0 0 0
~ . " "
0 0 0
X . . .
" " " "
, 10hZ
I
,
.
I
I
I
I
~
~- ~"""'"
.......>.H"'-
-- ,;",-'--~-=.:.::."'-
_;;,....'tl-- _~___
--
'-
o
.
"
--
-:(t--C:\~
-;~p. ~
-:f"'!)'-;c.'. .
_-~is"(\~
,"- <
/"
~
--
.../
-_/
----
,
"
0"
"
..~~----
----.....
---
IJ
III
~', --. ~
"'-----~
~
"
<i
1f1,.,
.
"
0
.~
.~
~
" "
~
~~ ~
0
0
.
~
0
"
0
0
z
~
~
.
z
<!
..J
CL
a::
W
f--
<!
:;:
>-
a::
--<(
z
::1
:J
w
a::
CL
z
o
Vi
'>
15
tD
=>
'"
;;;
..J
'"
U
o
::;;
z
~
~
o
o
~
~
w
"
w
~
Ii
.
~
!
1
n:~N~
~~M
>",,,
W~~a:
~itii<1
~iii
w 0
080
.A~ ,z
~SS~
m~~:
~~~
~~~
;ri..
i'!o~
<Cl;~-<<
g~~
~~~
a::41g
~:g
z<
<0
m~
~
~
o
5
~
N
~
.
.
~
.
~
i
~
~ .
~ . ~ "
. . .
,,; ,,;
<oJ ,:.:~ ~
~:i .,
! i ~
. .
~
f'""
boundary. A new eight (8) inch water main will be extended
within the access drive which serves the single-family lots
to the existing main which presently serves the Lone Pine
Condominiums, The proposed routing of the new water main
will provide additional looping within the Aspen water
system, and will minimize disturbance of existing vegeta-
tion; other utilities, and the City's existing streets and
sidewalks. Individual service lines will be extended from
the new main to each of the project's single-family resi-
dences. The Aspen Water Department has indicated that
connection to the existing mains is feasible, and that the
municipal water system has sufficient capacity to accommo-
date the project.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2. Sewer. The proposed development will be
served by the existing eight (8) inch sanitary sewer located
in Gibson Avenue. According to the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District, anticipated flows can be accommodated
with no improvements to the existing sewer system or
treatment plant. The project's proposed sewer service is
depicted on the Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Plan on the
following page.
-
-
-
-
-
3. Electric, Telephone, Natural Gas and Cable
TV. As the following Preliminary Private Utilities Plan
illustrates, electric service will be extended from the
existing underground service line located adjacent to the
-
-
25
-
o
~
--~,-
z
/
!
'~~
,
/
"t. ,,\\-It.
\..0"
~
0
I
.
~
0
. .
. <
t;; >- I ~
. .
. . ~
" " .
0 N 0 ~
" .
< ~
kJ:: . >
" .
~g ~ 0 .
> ~I . ~
~ . .
0 U . ~ ~
>-
~ . . ~
< " .
. . 0
. ~ ~ "
0 0
>- X .
0 Z . "
" 0
>- u 'i'
.
~ ,
~
I
I
I
I
_J
I
~
>-
\
r
I
, "
.
l- I
LL
0 <.5
.....--:
r-: _-I
.1.<----- I
- I
Ou I
(.O{f)<! I
I
I-
o
..J
"~.l
~ l.L I
~_._~ . 0
. ~ I
<5 "'l (f) <I: I
o! I- r<) I.[) I
0>
'-----.
~----
n
~
,.;
~"'i"
.'"
"
0
.~
~
"
"'g
!J :' i
.-
0
0
~
"
0
"
0
U
" Z
. <r
" ..J
~
~ a.
'"
w
:;:
w
Vl
>- I
'"
<r
I-
Z
..<r
Vl
>-
'"
<r
z
~
..J
W
'"
a.
z
0
Vi
'>
15
aJ
:;)
Vl
z
:J
'"
Z u
~ 0
~ ::;
U
0
~
~
.
...
.
"
/)
.
-------~~
--- --.--..'-,..-.-, ~--.__. '-- -.
~-----------~----'-
/
/
/
/
/
------1
~-
/
I
/
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
II
UJ
O:~~~
W>"N
!N~
U);;:)"i<i
~:Hl
~j~;
Zilil
:08
~i!~Z
- !!leg:
m~~:
-!f'"
,~jO!
~$~
ui..
S:i!;!!;
g~~
~. .
~g~
"~O
!l!~~
~~
~g
~
~
o
5
~
~
f
.
i
~ ~
. "
~ " ~ "
. . . .
~ ~
w ,;.:l./.j
:i~ .~ :ii
~ i .
t;;
~
~
z ~ ==
+ ~~
0 " "
~"5
< "
.'
0-
0
"
t;;
~
-.------ - -
.------ - /-- ---~-
__ r LL
< : 00
I <n<(
I
~ I ;;0lr0
"'-- l ' '" '"
~ .......... ---'L1.ir<)
~'" .... N'
~ ", OJ 0
--...........~ ............... l1i'
~~ '=- I
............__ .......... I
............._ .....J
~- :*
,,-- I
, 0-. I
JoDi) ...... -.............. I
" 1
, I
Lj
Cl
Z
W
C)
W
..J
"
.
"
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
... u ..... ~ ~
~ a: I- ~ ::l
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ Q
<Il <Il :;; :;; ~
888 5 g:
~
o
2
~
~
U
.
"
"
~
c
.
"
.
~
.
~
~... ~
O;!\ a:
~" 0
a:Z ~
~~ ~-'
~~ f!:~
~~ ~~
t;", t;Q..
........1 ....'"
;j~ d2i
0" 2
~!i! Sa.
a:<l ~!i
o o'
g: g:
, e....1
I , ..
, " .
0
,
I 0 >
I "
I "
I r
,
~
>
...
/
~
o
--~,,---
/-
o
2
"
~
3
~
o
z
~
~
"
w
___G--
_---C>~-- ________ "IE\..
Oll<t. ,,01'0 ,//_,,//"'- ________ C,V - ----!
, _ --' -- / --' -------- ,.- .------ - - .------ /
0- / ----- C,V .------ - - /
- / -- -------- ,.- ----- -.------ - - /
~ C,V .------ - /
~ ~Ol_---- c.: _/-'1
I I _j.J...--- I
II-- I I ----- 0 U I
Zlol r- 1O (f) <:t I
Wll I I
I ~ I I I- I"- t<) I
> WI i1 0 ~ 1O :
2iht>. ~:: ~ ~~6 :
I W:Of: L_____ <1; :
. I I __~-..,...-___J
~ 1-1 ----
-II ---
I~ gti4 :------~------i
cj:-t'OO'961 I : ~ :.
Zll I 0 <.3 I
I- <[I I I I.[) Vl <! I
f:i 101 I I I
::E ({)I I I )- ()'l I I
I l:l (/}I I I 0 0) 0 I /
...>~ wi I! ....J oj if) I
>- 0' I, .06 I
t Ull I N I
~ <1:1 I I . I I
::> 1<:1 I N I
~ L__ N I I
ili r--~~~~~~-----=~ - --!
~I --']);)1 ;--1
I 4 / / ~ ' ,I
tf:,~ boOr
_~ Xl''' P. o;;t (f) <:{ I
~ 0. / ..... ~ ....1- < \.~" f I-- r<) LD I
..//'/ I " / >I'~, ~ '{ 0 O'l (\J:
TV ~~I ///:--... 6> ~.$';,'0. " -.J 0"": ~ I
, I/./ ~~"" 0 I
I / / ,~ ;;II>' ), ' tD I
I/./o ,,$'c>" ' cr5 I I
G___---'/;t:,/( Q ~,//',"', - I
-r----..../ I .., I ,"', I
I I '" ' "I I
I I " " I
r----nt . '1 " '" "~_l_ =J'
: :LJf- , ", "'---.:::-------
I 1100 I r--------~ --
: (\J I I: ~ ;-----------
I I- "^ I I l..l-; I I
I o~,.; II O' I
I ,I I 0 I I
i'...... -.J CO. I J I r() <f) <t I /
I............ "'\t- I' I
I ............ co. I I I- (\J ~ I
I "U1 I O~I'- I
I ~ I ..J 0 ~ I
1--. I'...... I l..O )
~.$I I ~""""""",j>1'/' ...... I I I'- 0 I
,., '...... ~~~' 'J I J 0" /
............':..... :.>',,~ l N I
,"- . >. ' /
~D,.,-............l ~ () .................. /
'...j""- I ...... I
i':y\~'
I ~,
......,":~
I -i>o,.,'
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
/
I
/
.--,,---
/-'"
,/
//
/
,'-
I
I
.--------}
...----
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
h
iii
~
~
..
,,~
.'"
.
o
.'"
~
~
"
'" II
~ ~ .~
o
o
~
~
o
~
o
u
;i
W
~
~
~
z
~
~
u
o
~
~
w
~
w
~
5
.
l!
.
~
.
~
o:~N~
. ~~~
W~;~
~Nm
~...,
~~:~
wg=
~1II;
W 0
!j!8u
.A~ ,;i
~,,:~k'
m~~:
.!i!~
,~~
~i~
(1)-_
~o~
..~..
g;::2
~~w
~,,~
~~O
U~
"0
~~
ill
o
5
~
~
.
.
~ ~
a! lxi
,:: i ~ ~ ~
;: i II
i l!I ~
z
<(
..J
a..
Vl
w
~
::J
~
::>
W
f-
<(
;:::
0::
a..
>-
a:
<(
z
~
::J
w
a:
a..
z
o
Vi
'>
5
CD
::>
<n
z
::J
'"
u
o
::;:
~
~
8
"
~
i
~
e .
. .
...
...
...
property's western boundary. Telephone, natural gas and
cable TV service is presently located in the Lone Pine Road
right-of-way and will be extended to serve the proposed
development as necessary. All required extensions of these
utilities will be located underground, and will conform to
the applicable extension policies of the individual utility
companies.
...
...
...
...
4. Easements. Easements to accommodate utility
extensions will be provided in compliance with the applica-
ble provisions of Section 7-1004.C.4.b. of the Regulations
as may be required by the individual utility companies. All
utility easements to be conveyed by the Applicants will be
depicted on the project's final subdivision plat.
-
-
...
...
5. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter. A sidewalk
presently exists along the proj ect site's southern boundary.
Curb and gutter exists along the north side of the Gibson
Avenue right-of-way and along portions of both sides of Lone
Pine Road. As discussed previously, the Applicants propose
to construct an additional sidewalk abutting their property
on the west side of the Lone Pine right-of -way. The
sidewalk will comply with applicable municipal requirements,
and will be located based on input from the City's Engineer-
ing Department.
...
...
...
-
...
...
6. Fire Protection. Fire protection for the
proposed development will be provided by the Aspen Volunteer
28
-
...
-
-
,...
Fire Department. The project site is located less than one-
half (1/2) mile from the fire station, resulting in a
response time of approximately five (5) to ten (10) minutes.
As noted previously, a fire hydrant is conveniently located
on the south side of Gibson Avenue near the southeast corner
of the project site. As the Preliminary Water Plan illus-
trates, a new fire hydrant will be installed adjacent to the
new access drive which will serve the single-family lots.
The proposed development is readily accessible to emergency
and fire protection vehicles via the surrounding street
system.
,...
,...
,...
,...
-
,...
7. Drainage. As discussed in Banner Associates
drainage analysis (see Exhibit 2, Appendix D), the proposed
development's storm drainage system will be designed to
maintain historic flow rates with respect to surface water
runoff and groundwater recharge. On-site drywells and/or
surface detention areas will be utilized to intercept and
detain runoff from building roofs and impervious areas, and
to control the rate of groundwater recharge. A detailed
stormwater drainage plan will be submitted in conjunction
with the Applicants' final plat submission.
-
,...
-
,...
,...
,...
-
8. Roads. No improvements to the existing
streets in the immediate site area are anticipated as a
result of the proposed development. As Banner Associates
traffic analysis indicates (see Exhibit 3, Appendix D), the
,...
-
29
,...
-
-
-
total average traffic generated by the project will be
approximately forty-one (41) vehicles per day. Based on
Banner Associates' analysis, the capacity of the surrounding
street system is believed to be more than adequate to
accommodate the increased traffic levels resulting from the
proposed development.
-
,..
-
9. Final Plat. Section 7-1004.D.2.a. (1) of the
Land Use Regulations requires the preparation of a final
plat prior to City Council review of a subdivision applica-
tion. As the City Council may require revisions to the
project's design, it would appear appropriate to delay the
preparation of the final plat until after Council review.
The submission of a recordable final plat and improvements
agreement for staff review and signature, however, is
acceptable to the Applicants as a condition of subdivision
approval.
,..
-
-
-
-
C. Rezoning
-
-
As 'discussed previously, the portion of the
project site which contains the existing apartment building
was rezoned from R-15A, Moderate-Density Residential, to
R/MFA, Residential Multi-Family, in June of 1993. This
rezoning eliminated the apartments' prior status as a non-
conforming use. While deed restricted units are a permitted
use in the R/MFA zone district, the Planning Office has
indicated a preference that this area of the property be
30
-
-
.....
-
-
,...
,...
,...
rezoned to AH, Affordable Housing, to more accurately
reflect the apartments' proposed deed restricted status.
-
Pursuant to section 7-1103 of the Regulations, a
private application for an amendment to the City's official
zone district map may only be submitted on or prior to
February 15 and August 15 of each year. Given the staff's
request that the deed restricted portion of the property be
rezoned to AH, the Applicants respectfully request that the
Planning and Zoning Commission sponsor the proposed rezon-
ing. The applicable review criteria for such applications,
and the proposed rezoning's compliance therewith, are
discussed below.
,...
-
,...
-
,...
,...
1. "Whether the proposed amendment is in con-
flict with any applicable portions of this chapter."
,...
,...
To the best of our knowledge, the proposed
rezoning complies with all applicable requirements of the
Aspen Land Use Regulations.
,...
,...
2. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent
with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan."
-
Compliance with this criteria is also required in
connection with subdivision review. Please refer to Section
IV.B.1. of this application for a discussion of this review
criteria.
,...
~
,...
31
,...
-
..
-
,...
3. "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible
with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics."
-
-
Compliance with this criteria is required in
connection with subdivision review and is discussed in
detail in section IV.B.2. of this application.
-
-
4. "The effect of the proposed amendment on
traffic generation and road safety."
,...
No adverse traffic impacts will occur as a result
of the requested rezoning as no additional development of
Lot 7 is proposed. As discussed previously, the surrounding
street system is more than adequate to accommodate the
additional vehicular trips generated by the proposed six (6)
single-family lots.
-
-
,...
,...
5. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and
whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but
not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency
medical facilities."
,...
,...
-
,...
,...
The proposed rezoning has been requested by the
Planning Office to more accurately reflect the proposed deed
restricted status of the existing apartment building. The
32
,...
-
I"'"
-
...
rezoning is not required to permit the development of the
proposed single-family lots. As discussed previously,
existing utilities and public facilities are adequate to
serve the proj ect, and all costs for the extension of
utilities and the installation of additional public facili-
ties (e.g., the Lone Pine Road sidewalk) will be borne by
the Applicants.
!"'"
-
...
-
6. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on
the natural environment."
....
-
No adverse impact on the natural environment will
occur as a result of the proposed rezoning. The rezoning is
proposed simply to reflect the proposed deed restricted
status of the Applicants' existing apartment building.
-
-
-
7. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent
and compatible with the community character in the City of
Aspen. "
...
-
While compatibility with the City's "community
character" is obviously a subjective criteria, the proposed
rezoning is clearly consistent with the property's sur-
rounding zoning and existing land uses.
....
-
-
8. "Whether there have been changed conditions
affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood
which support the proposed amendment."
33
~
..
-
-
-
-
A basic change in conditions will occur with the
deed restriction of six (6) of the Applicants' existing free
market apartments to APCHA's affordable housing guidelines.
Uses permitted within the proposed AH, Affordable Housing,
zone district are essentially identical to those permitted
in the existing R/MFA zone district, and no increase in
allowed development will occur as a result of the proposed
rezoning.
-
-
.....
-
.....
9. "Whether the proposed amendment would be in
conflict with the public interest, and is in har.mony with
the purpose and intent of this chapter."
-
-
Inasmuch as the requested rezoning would more
accurately reflect the proposed use of Lot 7 and its deed
restricted housing units, the public interest would appear
to be appropriately served. As discussed previously, the
Applicants' proposed rezoning is consistent with the pUrpose
and intent of the AH, Affordable Housing, zone district, and
complies with all applicable provisions of the Aspen Land
Use Regulations.
,-
-
-
-
D. Special Review
....
-
As discussed previously, special review approval
is required to increase the floor area ratio of Lot 7 from
0.36:1 to 0.40:1, and to establish the lot's parking and
open space requirements. Pursuant to Section 5-206.2.D.IO.
....
-
34
-
-
-
-
of the Regulations, the maximum allowable floor area may be
increased from 0.36:1 to 1:1 by special review on AH zoned
parcels which contain between twenty-seven (27,000) square
feet and one (1) acre of lot area. As Lot 7 contains
approximately thirty-two thousand four hundred and seventy
(32,470) square feet, its maximum allowable floor area may
be increased pursuant to this provision.
-
-
....
-
As discussed previously, the floor area of the
existing apartment building was capped at approximately
twelve thousand nine hundred and ten (12,910) square feet in
connection with the rezoning of a portion of the property to
R/MFA, Residential Multi-Family, in 1993. To accommodate
this floor area within the AH, Affordable Housing, zone
district requires a floor area ratio of 0.40: 1, which
exceeds the base floor ratio for parcels of twenty-seven
thousand (27,000) square feet by 0.04. As no expansion of
the existing apartment building is proposed, we believe that
the required floor area ratio increase can be considered a
mere technicality which is necessary to accommodate the
existing building.
.....
-
-
-
-
...
-
...
With respect to parking, the Applicants propose to
establish the existing apartment building's off-street
parking requirement at one (1) space per bedroom or fifteen
(15) spaces. As this requirement is consistent with the
maximum standard provided for in Section 5-206.2.E. of the
-
....
-
35
-
-
-
"'"
Regulations (i.e., the residential parking requirement in
the AH zone district), the receipt of special review
approval should not be an issue. As noted previously, a
minimum of fifteen (15) off-street parking spaces are
presently available within the existing paved parking area.
These spaces have historically proven to be more than
adequate to serve the apartment units.
-
-
~
A
Pursuant to Section 5-206.2.D.9., the open space
requirement for Lot 7 must also be established by special
review. As discussed previously, approximately nineteen
thousand eight hundred and fifty (19,850) square feet, or
sixty (60) percent, of the lots gross area will be preserved
as open space. As this percentage substantially exceeds
even the most restrictive open space requirement of the
City's residential zone districts, special review approval
to establish Lot 7's open space requirement at sixty (60)
percent should not be an issue. As a practical matter,
however, it may make more sense to establish Lot 7's open
space requirement at a somewhat lower figure, as the prior
rezoning approval contemplated minor additions to the
building.
-
-
-
-
-
~
,~
~
E. Vested Property Rights
-
-
In order to preserve the land use approvals which
may be obtained as a result of this application, the
Applicants hereby request vested property rights status
36
,"",
r-
!"'"
,...
....
pursuant to the provisions of Section 6-207 of the Regula-
tions. It is understood by the Applicants that, to estab-
lish such status, final approval of the proposed development
must be granted by ordinance of the City Council. It is
also the Applicants' understanding that no specific submis-
sionrequirements, or review criteria other than a public
hearing, are required to confer such status.
-,
-
....
A
"""
-
~
,.....
-
.....
-
~
-
t<l>
-
37
r-
-
"..
-
....
-
~
^
...
...
,-
-
,
-
.~
-
~
-
APPENDIX A
~
-
-
"""
1"'"
-
"
"'"
-
,""'
J'"
-
...
?"-
-
-
""'
....
""'
-
Q
Ii(.
t!.
<(.
~
-
-
0""v17ny Val1l1
EXHIBIT 1
ll;'d'dt Po"" S/J, /94
City or Aspen
Pre-Application Conrerencc Summary
A/ON&,IN". .3/../9:,
PladDer Dale
dIVIJ(~11
frrYI
{ GMOs (;<,
J1roject
Applicant s epre~nlallve
Representative's Phone
OwnertsName
q:J.,-b'7
f~ftr MlJrftn
Type of ^fJl,licalion
Uescription of Ihe I'.,,~,ecI eve ol'melll '~Ig requesl < f "Ai hi;<
d;u/ -f{, rnulI""/&- "I'f(, I"u/ '" ,?,!u" ,e-/rlf. ~j;j,,;(~,~. c.'H
':.::;:,~;;::.';;, ~~ ,,~ C", ah.",U '~'1'd Ms ""d .T'".< '1/ :;'t, ~;;r3 ~
J)u.,JIJAi-Lt u~d.s LulII bMvl,..k./ ~ If-H.
The applicanl has becn requc5(cd 10 re5,X)lJU to the following items andproviue the following
reports:
umd Use Code Scrlloll
"7-lnO (
7-1102-
6'-/0'1
Comments
':'1:;~/O"
I'~~",,~ eM.... RMFtf 'ot
AR -N -.0. "~u;1.A..U k". ,dIb~JQ,"''',J~ALI
6A.tm ~"'J~
- U ~ '/~"H.~ /:1;'drJ, ,,.,It:.r;,,.. .
AJ'/N-4iJ nitIJIIi Ark}' v d,r~dr. i.1I,,.df81 +4:"
.~.6t'lf' dI. I1A,.,*, kA~
Rererral Agencies
The review is: (P&Z only) (Ce ollly) a>&Z and CCb
Pllblic Hearing: @ (110) 111 k'h
Deposit for the Application Review: ao-fD
I~cferrnl agency Oat fees: d 5'.2 -'f,.,q/ IS'" Jlo.JJ/ fs6 Elf
TOTALUI"'OSIT . dI(,()" v
(Addilional hOllrs are billed at a rale of $J<<t/hr.)
/~7
tl'~'~ h~?
CS ~vfl'fj
~.
t~~@I;
Tu AIJply Submil the Ii"olluwiuglnformotiou:
~
@
~
~
~.
Proof of owner5hip.
Signed fee agreement.
Applicant's name, address ;md telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant
which. "Iso :o;,lales the namc, mlcJress and telepholle number of lhe .represe.lIlalivc.
Total depmdl for review of the applicatiun $Ol'-M .,{O,. /:l. J,.,,.s "'~(I((/.4.;
.EhL copies of the COl1llJlcte aplJlic.1tiun packet and nUlIJs.
Snl11marylcller explainil1l! lhe rccltlcsl (existing conditions and proposed uses), including
strcct addrc~s and legfll dcscription of lhe property.
An 8 1/2" hy II" vicinity mal' locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Site plan. shall include properly. boundaries, lot size, proposed access, and physical
fealures (drainageways,streall1s, rivers,etc.)
a&d-tlU (,J"ifg(4. I'Jh.,lI1j,~
These items need to be submitted if circled: '
List of adjacent property uwners within 300 feel of the subject property with addresses.
Site I,hotus.
Proof of legal access to the parcel.
Historic .Preservatioll Commission review/approval.
I"'"
ALTA OW",:,', POlicy - Fo'm B- Amondf:ld 10-17.70
,....
,"
....
-
....
-
....
,..,
,...
-
-
....
~
,-
...
""
,...
-
.
\,IV, u." . \A..: (,.ofJ -.,&,I ~.r ....... . ...., \AJI ..."
''''''
EXHlalT 2
POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY
STEWART Tlr-rLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
~. \,
.""\
SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUS'ONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAlfIIED 'N SCHEDULE BAND
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COND'TIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREOF, STEWART TITLE GUARANTY
COMPANY, a corporation of Galveston, Texas, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in
Schedule A, against loss ordamagc, not exceeding the amount of ~Surance stateci in Schedule A, anci costs, attorneys'
fees and expenses which the Compcmy may hecQme ohligated to pay hereunder, sllstained or incurred by the.insured by
reason of: \ \
1. Title to the estate or interest described in ule A being vested otherwise than as stated therein;
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on sue ti
,-,
3, Lack of a right of access to and from the land;
4. Unmarketability of such-t.itle
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused this policy to be signed and sealed by its
du Iy authorized officers as of Date' o! ,Policy shown in Schedule A.
Countersigned:
.-
,A\1.~f.J.!'4.
f~""'''. ,... .,.
1.Jl~~."..~,:1
., -*-~.
St...- 1908 l~
''\. ."~.:.:.: ,,:;.
'.~III'~
S'l'EWAU'''' 'l'ITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
~
.~~ 'h(~
Chairman of the Board
eI~I$~
Authonzed Counters
ure
President
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expreSSly excluded from the coverage of thispoJicy:
1. Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation . (jncluding b~lt not limited to building and zoning ordinances) restricting or r.egulating or
prohibiting the occupancy. use or enjoyment of the land. or regulating the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or
hereafter erected on the land. or prohibiting a sepa'ation in ownership or a reduction in the dimensions or area of the land. or the effect
of any violation of an\, such law, ordinance or governmental regulation.
2. Rights of eminent domain or governmental rights of police power unless notice of the exercise of such rights appears in the public
records at Date of Policy.
3. Defects. liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created. suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant. (bl not
known to the Company and not shown by the pUblic records but known to the insured claimant either at Date of Policy or at The date
such claimant acquired an estate or interest insured by this pOlicy and not disclosed in writing by the insured claimant to the Company
prior to the date such insured claimant became an insured hereunder; (c}resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d)
attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured
claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy.
Page 1 of 0
Policy Serial No.
.'.../'..
,I
I"'"
-
,-.
-
-
~.
....
-
..
f....
-
,,-.
"'"
-
...
-
...
-
~E 0012
,...
ALTAOWNEW~J'OLI~V' -Amended )0111/70
& .
Order No.: 8942
Date of Policy:
1. Name of Insured:
SCHEDULE A
AUGUST 10, 1979 AT 8:00 A.~l.
Policy No.: 0 323184
Amount of Insurance: $ 100 000 00
, .
PEZER MOCKT.IN ANn MONICA ~l. MOCI.."LIN. AS TO PARCEl. A, AND
!'l:TI'R !10r.nU:, Af TO PARCELS n AIm r;
2. The estate or interest in the land described herein and which is covered by this policy is:
IN rEr SIi!PLJ:
3, The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in:
PF.'l'ER MOCK!.IN AnD MONICA Ii. NOCKLIN. AS TO PARCEL A, AND
PETER ltOCELIN. AS TO PARCELS B AND C
4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows:
"
, \
,
\
\)
See EXllIBIT A
\\
\
~
Page 2
COpy FOR ISSUING OFFICE
,
s'rE~.AI{'r 'rl'l'LE
GUARANTY COMPA.NY
....
-
...
;IllioOI,
"..
,-
;-.
-
....
-
,-
~
-
...
-
...
....
~
,...
....
SCHEDULE B
Order No. 8942
Policy No"! 323184
This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3, Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a
correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the
public records.
4, Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed
by law and not shown by the public records.
5.Taxes for the year 1979 alld thereafter, and any special aRsessment or charges
not yet certified to the office of the Connty Treasurer.
6.The rir.ht of tl~ propr1etor of a vein or lode to extract and remove hi. ore
therefrom. should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises
hereby granted, as provided by lev. as reserved in United States Patent recorded
December 24, 1902, in Book 35 at par.e 116.
7.R1ght of vay for electric line acro.. the S~~n,~ and NE~S"~ of Section 7. aa
granted to JaJau II. Devereux by Deed recorded January 30, 1887, in Book 29
at page 582.
8.Right of vay for ga. pipeline conveyed to Rock,y Hountai~~. CoIapany by Ruth
C. Ilisel, recorded August 26, 1968 in Book 236 at page 1 ver the portion
of subject property included with in the fllilowinr. descrt \ ,ion: A strip of
land 10 feet vide, gest of and adjoining a 1 nc described ~ follows: Beginning
at a point whence the Weat ~ corner of Sec tip 7 bears North 66"44' West, 2105.44
feet; thence South 89"20' E~, 85.59 feet.\tc the True Pofut of lIeginning;
tl~nce on a curve to the r1!!llt~With a rsdius of 127 feet, a distance of 15.07
feet; thence S6uth 17"41' East, 344,81, feet-\
ALSO, from said ~rue point oE\b ginning. a line running North 47"57' West,
a distance of i02 feet. \,
i 1....-'
9.Al1 existing roads, highvays, railroads, ditches, pipelines and utilities and
\ .
easements and rij:ltts of way therefor.
10. Tems, condit1ons and obligations as set fCl"th in l<ater line ARreement recorded
December 5, 1966 in Book 224 at page 220.
ll.Tenas, conditions and obligations as set forth in Y,,,,,,orandum of Trust Agreement
recorded 3une 5. 1972 in Book 264 at page 145.
l2.Deed of Truat froll Peter Mock1in and Honiea M. Mock1in to the Public Trustee
of Pitkin County for the use of The Bank of Aspen to secure $120,000.00 dated
November IS, 1972, recorded November 16, 1972 in r~k 268 at page 837 (affects
Parcel A).
13.Deed of Trust from Peter ~lock1in to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for
the use of Ruth C. Bisel to secure $27.000.no dated June 2. 1971, recorded
3une 7, 1971 in Book 255 at page 755 (affects Parcel A).
.(npnth"eds8tlspaf;e 3a)
1613
Page 3
COpy FO~ ISSUING Or-FiC"
STE'\"AUT TITLE
{.IT AHA. :oiTY 'GCIM1',4, Nl"
-
"..
-
,
,"""
-
~
-
....
A
-
,...
~
~
-
.....
-
A
-
-
1514
. ~-_I"."',_,,,,- .
~c........,.,f_
~1'.S
Continuation of Schedule .
Attached to and made a part of Stewart Title Guaranty Company Policy No. 0 323184
Order No. 8942
,- ,
14..,. ta:, ..aea_t, feea or chargee by rulIOII of the 1nc:luslO1l of IIUbject
property 111 Aspen Sau1tat1oD D1etrict. Aspen Street Illlpro. eat J)1etrict,
Aspen Fire Protection J)1etrlct. The City of Aspen and MpO!D Valley D08pltal
I>utriet.
,-,
, \.
\\
~
~
\
Page --3a
COpy FOR ISSUING OFFICE
S'1'E'\'.AR'1' '1'I'1'LE
GUARANTY CONI'ANY
,...
-
-
.-
.-
,A
"...
-
- ~
~, -'
,-
....
""..,
,...
-
, -'
/1
...
"'"
...
,...
r
.1....
I::XIIIIIIT A
-..--.---
PARCEl. A:
---
A trilet of land situated In the Southwest I,; of Section 7, Township 10 South,
Ilsnge 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as
f oHows:
Beginning at u point whence the center 1.,; corner of Section 7, TuwnHhlp 10 South,
IlIIlIII" 114 West of the 6th l'rlnd"a1 Meridian, bears N 59057'54" " 1042.64 feel;
thence S 170ii'30" E J47.81l fe"t;
lhence S lly020'OO" E JIlL-86 f"et;
lh..nce S 000',0'20" W l1lY.1l9 feet;
lhcnec S R9020'QQfI E 8/1.64 feet;
II",nce S J50:l1 '27" E 277.34 feet;
-thence N 56001'113" \oJ HI.12 feet;
(1H...ncc N 6/.oltY'45" W J03.50 feet;
tlH.'l\c~ N 72000'00" W JOO.03 feet;
lh"nce N 79005'00" W 50.25 feet;
lhe,"'e N 1l1037'00" W 100.00 feet;
lhence N 70055'00" W YIl. 72 feet;
lhence N 41l000'23" W 100.12 fet!t;
thence N 27051 '48" [, ',0',.48 feet to the point of beginning.
PARC"l 8:
.--
A tract of land situated in the NE~ of the S~ of Section 7, Township 10 South,
Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence the center ~ corner of said Section 7 bears N 45028'51"
E 941l.45 feet;
Thence N 00040'00" E 24.84 feet to a point on the southwesterly right of way
of Lone Pine Road;
lhence along said right of way 105.56 feet along th" arc of a curve to the right
hav1nll a rudlus of 256.76 feet und whos" chord bears S 270i8'07" E 104.82 f""t;
Thence S J50:l1 '27" I; 127.21 feet along said right of WilY;
thence N 1l9020'OO" W 1l4.64 feet;
thence N 00040'20" E 189.89 feet to the point of beginning.
PARCEl. C:
A l rilct of lUl1d sJ.tu,atcd 1n the Northeast qmlrter of th~ SOllthw(~st quarter of
Secti.on 7, Township 10 South, Runge: 84 West of the 6th princip.al MeridicHl, being
more fully described Individually as follows:
Beginning at a point whellce the center quarter corner of said S".ctioll 7 bears
North 31l017'41" East 1302.96 feet;
thence North 80046'20" West 108.10 feet;
thence North 70049'41" West 101.63 feet;
thence North 50005'00" West 200,81 feet;
thence North 62017'53" West 69.42 feet;
thence South 31016'00" East 286.20 feet;
thcnce South.66035'14" East 224.22 feet;
;....,
thencc North JOP15'OO" East 92.00 feet;
thence North 43045'00" East 48.50 fe~t to the point of beginning,
EXCEPTING frolll said Parcel C any portion of said tract of Jllnd Jocllted south
of the centerline Of~a.,.Roarin~,., River, as set forth in Quit Claim De~.d recorded
June 7, 1971 in Book ~5 al pag 7Yl.
AND EXCEPTING THEREFR a public . It-of-way for thllt port.!"n of a road known
as Gilnion Avenue, as set forth in Quit Claim DCl!u recorded October 11, 1972
in Book 2_67 at pllge 697.
AIJ pllrce1s being In the County or Pitkin, State or Colorado.
,..
EXHIBIT 3
-
-
March 6, 1995
-
HAND DELIVERED
~
Ms. Leslie Lamont
AspenIPitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
-
Re: Permission to Represent
-
Dear Ms. Lamont:
.""""'"
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of Vann Associates,
Planning Consultants, to represent us in the processing of our application to subdi-
vide our propeny which is located at 0202 Lone Pine Road in the City of Aspen.
Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all matters
reasonably penaining to the aforementioned application.
fA
,....
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any funher assistance, please do
not hesitate to call.
-
Sincerely,
- "-
Peter ocklin
,.... P.O. Box 807
Aspen, CO 81612
(303) 925-3668
- ~
,r
\ \/', 'I
JlIOliil,
Mom
".. SV:cwv
,.;;. c:\bus\city.ltr~tr24994.1l1
,....
.-
-
EXHIBIT 4
...
-
,
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
-
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
-
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and / b/~ H~U~
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I""
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for
o/~ ~6L?"rr~ --J YS-?A45/~1 /')~~
(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.
-
-
-
-
....
-
l"'"
-
.....
-
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's
waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of apPlic~_
completeness, ~"pPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $
which is for a 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
~
"...
...
By: ~_}()WtR.
Diane Moore
City Planning Director
"~
Date: ;..3. crs-
11Jiiiit:.
,...
--
-
-
.......
~
"'",
"...
-
2
-
'""
Vincent J. Higens
President
PITKIN COUNTY TIT~E, INC.
601 E. HOPKINS, 3RD FLOOR
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303-925-1766 : 303-925-6527 FAX
EXHIBIT 5
-
Christina Davis
Vice President
....
-
ADJACENT OWNER'S STATEMENT
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
... State of Colorado, hereby certifies the following list is a current list
of adjacent property owner's within three hundred feet of the Metes and
Bounds property owned by Peter and Monica M. Macklin located in Section 7,
A. Township 10 South, Range 84 West, as obtained from the most current Pitkin
County Assessors Tax Rolls.
"'"
HAMES AND ADDRESSES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
-
PLEASE REFER TO LIST ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
~
t""
D ~LL~ ~. ,:j,C-t K- Cf
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE (J
-
-
t-
-
..-,
~
...
-
"""
,.
~
APRIAN N. PATP~SCIOIU AND
E1UL IE J. PATF:.~ SCIOro
2901 EAST 1ST STREET
TUCSON
AZ
,....
AIR WISCONSIN
ATTN: MS. ROSE LUSSIER, CONTROLLER
203 CHALLENGER DR.
APPLETON WI
-
-
AIRHAST, INC.
SUITE 205
1355 LYNNFIELD ROAD
MEMPHIS
TN
,...
,...
ALAN GREENWALD
C/O PINEBROOK TIRE CO.
295 CHANGEBRIDGE ROAD
PINEBROOD
NJ
-
-
ALAN R. BEYER AND
RAYMOND & ALVINA L. BEYER
P.O. BOX 9665
ASPEN
CO
,...
-
ALBERT G. AND PATRICIA BYRUM
AND WILLIAM B. AND INEZ BEAMS
1004 LEATHERWOOD CIRCLE
MARTINSVILLE VA
-
ALBERT MYERS AND
SHIRLEE KAY MYERS
P.O. BOX 3095
ASPEN CO
-
-
ALBERT MYERS AND
SHIRLEE KAY MYERS
P.O. BOX 3095
ASPEN CO
-
-
ALOIS WALTER AND
CHRISTINE M. GETTINGER
385 CUMELBACK RAOD #22
PLEASSNT HILL
CA
....
-
ANDRE VAN SCHAFTEN AND
SOPHIA G. SCHAFTEN
514 HALFMOON BAY DR.
CROTON HUDSON
NY
"..
UNIT 231, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
85714
UNIT 422, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
54915
UNIT 1005, 'HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
38119
UNIT 949, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
07058
UNIT 535, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
UNIT 1011, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
24112
UNIT 713, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
UNIT 814, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
UNIT 1118, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
94523
UNIT 115, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
10520
-
.-
ANDREW GUSTAVE LARSON
SUITE 101
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN
co
~,
ANGELINE M. GRIFFITH
,...
530 WALNUT STREET
ASPEN
co
-
ANGELINE M. GRIFFITH
530 WALNUT STREET
ASPEN
co
~J
-
ANGELINE M. GRIFFITH
530 WALNUT STREET
ASPEN
co
-
ANGELINE M. GRIFFITH
-
530 WALNUT STREET
ASPEN
co
-
ANITA McCLURE
'""'
#311, 0143 LONE PINE ROAD
ASPEN
CO
--
ANN MARIE QUIGLEY
P.O. BOX 8194
ASPEN
CO
,~
--
ASPEN SQUARE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
C/O DAVID E. CHASE
617 E. COOPER
ASPEN CO
-
BARBARA BARTLETT
,.,.
0143 LONE PINE ROAD, #522
ASPEN
CO
...
-
BARBARA L. MINKE
P.O. BOX 4894
ASPEN
CO
,,-
81611
81611
81611
81611
81611
81611
81612
81611
81611
816'12
UNIT 133, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
ALL LOT 5, N1/2 OF
LOT 6, BLOCK 3,
WILLIAMS ADDITION
ALL LOTS 3 & 4,
BLOCK 3, WILLIAMS
ADDITION
Sl/2 LOT 1, ALL OF
LOT 2, BLOCK 3,
WILLIAMS ADDITION
Sl/2 LOT 6, ALL OF
LOT 7, BLOCK 3,
WILLIAMS ADDITION
UNIT 311, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 315, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 611, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 522, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 531, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
"'"
BARNEY OLDFIELD UNIT A-1, LONE
PINE APTS.
.- 0155 LONE PINE ROAD, #A-1
ASPEN CO 81611
- FIELDS UNIT 515, HUNTER
BARRY E.
CREEK CONDOS
0143 LONE PINE ROAD, #515
- ASPEN CO 81612
... BEE ENG WONG AND UNIT 716, HUNTER
PAUL PIEW-LOON POH CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 10106
ASPEN CO 81612
,...
BERNARD MIRIN UNIT 904, HUNTER
,- CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 7681
ASPEN CO 81612
-
BETTY ANN BRAUN UNIT 332, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
~ P.O. BOX 855
ASPEN CO 81612
-
BILL HOOVER UNIT 811, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
I"- P.O. BOX 11378
ASPEN CO 81612
- BILL PRYMAK UNIT 1031, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
1530 W. 10TH AVE.
- BROOMFIELD CO 80020
BRIAN J. WIEGAND UNIT 237, HUNTER
!* CREEK CONDOS
#7E, 45 EAST END AVE.
NEW YORK CITY NY 10028
.....
BRIAN WEINER METES & BOUNDS
- C/O PMG
1011 NORTH FRIO
SAN ANTONIO TX 78207
,...
BRUCE MUHLFELD AND UNIT A-13, LONE
JOAN M. TIEGE PINE APTS.
- 500 E. COOPER
ASPEN CO 81612
-
-
~
BRYAN R. HILTS AND
KARIN ANNA-LENA HILTS
P.O. BOX 1753
ASPEN
co
-
-
CARDER FAMILY INSURANCE PARTNERSHIP
C/O AMY CARDER WALTERS
7180 S. JELLISON STREET
LITTLETON CO
-
CARL D, REICH
P.O. BOX 898
ASPEN CO
'""'
-
CARL RAUCHENBERGER AND
MERILYN RAUCHENBERGER
1480 LAKE SHORE DRIVE
BARRINTON IL
.....
-
CARLYLE PROPERTIES
C/O HARRIS A. CAHN
NORTHGATE ROAD
MENDHAM
NJ
-
-
CAROL LERNER AND
ROGER T. MOYER
P.O. BOX 2013
ASPEN
CO
-
CAROLA LOTT AND
THERESA VAN PANTZ
54 AVENUE D' IENA
PARIS, FRANCE
.....,
,-
CATALINA CRUZ
LAURA O. CRUZ
P.O. BOX 2661
ASPEN
CO
!IIfiOOo<
CATHY 0' SRANA
-
P.O. BOX 15101
ASPEN
CO
-
-
CHARLES A. MUER AND
MARIETTA CATHERINE
207 ROYAL POINCIANA WAY
PALM BEACH
FL
-
81612
80123
81612
60010
07945
81612
75116
81612
81612
33480
UNIT 523, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 909, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
LOT 8, N1/2 OF LOT
9, BLOCK 3,
WILLIAMS ADDITION
UNIT 1023, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1030, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1119, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 123, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 325, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 725, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1124 HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
-
CHARLES B. BARTELL
.-
43 CANYON ISLAND DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH
-
-
CHARLES COLLINS AND
JANICE COLLINS
531 W. GILLESPIE AVE.
ASPEN
-
CHARLES LAWSON WILLARD
-
1131 VINE STREET
ASPEN
'""
CHARLOTTE KEMP AND
MARY LETTA BOYD
P.O. BOX 7128
ASPEN
11M.
CHRISTINE SPEER
-
P.O. BOX 2894
ASPEN
...
CITY OF ASPEN
,...
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN
.-
CLIFFORD W. LITTLE AND
MARCIA J. WATSON
P.O. BOX 9703
ASPEN
....
-
CLURIE W. BENNIS
P.O. BOX 4618
515 WALNUT STREET
ASPEN
....
COLLETTE PENNE CRANSTON
-
P.O. BOX 2505
ASPEN
....
COLONIAL SAVINGS
-
2626 WEST FREEWAY
FT. WORTH
-
CA
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
TX
92660
81611
81612
81612
81612
81611
81612
81612
81612
76113
UNIT 727, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 724, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1131 HUNTER,
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 908, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 926, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
METES & BOUNDS
UNIT 722, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
LOTS 11, 12, 13 ~
14, BLOCK 2,
WILLIAMS ADDITION
UNIT B-8, LONE
PINE APTS.
UNIT 902, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
"""
DAMIAN PETER BELL
,....
P.O. BOX 449
ASPEN
co
....
-
DAVID KWAITKOWSKI AND
CLIFFORD AND STACEY RADIN WEISS
143 LONE PINE ROAD, UNIT 1135
ASPEN CO
-
DAVID LAUGHREM AND
DANA DEVINE-LAUGHREN
P.O. BOX 1265
ASPEN
CO
...
DAVID N. DANFORTH
-
P.O. BOX DD
ASPEN
CO
....
-
DAVID SHOSTAC AND
ALEXES DAVID
2509 AIKEN AVE.
LOS ANGELES
CA
-
DEANNA K. OLSEN
...
BOX 2177
ASPEN
CO
-
DEBORAH L, SMITH
,rw.
P.O. BOX 3659
ASPEN
CO
,...
DELLA J. PEGOLOTTI AND
JACK H. VICKERY
P.O. BOX 10623
APSEN
CO
~
"..
DENISE E. LOCK
0143 LONE PINE ROAD #125
ASPEN
CO
-
DENNIS AND ANDREA YOUNG
-
P.O. BOX 133
ASPEN
CO
,....
81612
81611
81612
81612
90052
81612
81612
81612
81611
81612
UNIT 1138, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1135, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 832, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 712, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1117, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT llll, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT B-3, LONE
PINE APTS.
UNIT A-16, LONE
PINE APTS.
UNIT 125, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
LOT 2, BLOCK 4,
OKLAHOMA FLATS
...
,....
DONA J. DIXON AND KATHLEEN A.,
GLENN E. & VERNA C. DIXON
#924, 1043 LONE PINE
ASPEN CO
UNIT 924, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81611
-
DOREEN ANDERSON
30880 STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82 WEST
SNO~SS CO
UNIT 221, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
,.,...
81615
,..
DOROTHY ANN SHARP AND
NEIL ALAN LEIBOWITZ
#A-9, 0155 LONE PINE ROAD
ASPEN
UNIT A-9, LONE
PINE APTS,
CO
81611
....
-
DOUGLAS AND BARBARA SHEFFER
P.O. BOX 250
METES & BOUNDS
ASPEN
CO
81612
-
DOUGLAS HOUSTON
UNIT 1042, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
......
1683 BOLTON
WALLED LAKE
MI
48088
-
DOULGAS P. ALLEN
METES & BOUNDS
-
530 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN
CO
81611
,....
DR. LOMA L. LAIRD
UNIT 1010, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
4800 N.E. SLALINGES DRIVE
NACOGDOCHES
TX
75961
~
E. ALAN BROOKES
UNIT 1123, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
..
P.O. BOX 5764
PLAYA DEL REY
CA
90296
-
EARL SLEDGE INC.
UNIT 614, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
-
5809 SERRANI AVE.
WOODLAND HILLS
CA
9167
-
-
EDWARD M. PEARL, TRUSTEE FOR
EDWARD M. PEARL TRUST
222 EAST PEARSON STREET, SUITE 101
CHICAGO IL
UNIT 326, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
60607
,....
-
i
EDWARD T. PURCELL AND UNIT 234, HUNTER
ANNE CELESTE PURCELL CREEK CONDOS
;-- P.O. BOX 10791
ASPEN CO 81612
,.. PETROS IUS II UNIT 833, HUNTER
EDWARD W.
CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 4199
,... ASPEN CO 81612
- EINA p, JACKSON UNIT 111, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
727-17 TRAMWAY LANE N.E.
ALBUQUERQUE NM 87122
-
ELIZABETH L, FARSON UNIT B-6, LONE
- PINE APTS.
P.O. BOX 10602
ASPEN CO 81612
-
ELIZABETH MacCARTHY UNIT 526, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
,.... P.O. BOX 117
ASPEN CO 81611
...
ESTATE OF JOE MUHICH METES & BOUNDS
C/O ANGELINE GRIFFITH
- 530 WALNUT STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
- EVAN GRIFFITHS UNIT 135, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
135 VINE STREET
- ASPEN CO 81611
FELIX POGLIANO, JR. AND UNIT 322, HUNTER
I""< LENORE L. POGLIANO CREEK CONDOS
1110 BLACK BIRCH DR.
ASPEN CO 81611
-
FERDERIC W. PLATT AND CONSTANCE M. & UNIT 723, HUNTER
,.. JANNIFER LEVIN-LEDFERD PLATT CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 4905
ASPEN CO 81612
-
FRANCIS KRIZMANICH AND UNIT 736, HUNTER
ELIZABETH FORBERT CREEK CONDOS
- 0143 LONE PINE RD. #736
ASPEN CO 81611
"....
-
FRANK WENZEL AND MARY WENZEL UNIT 1125, HUNTER
C/O WILLIAM PEPPLINGER CREEK CONDOS
,... 1125 VINE STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
.- FREDERICK K. MARTINSON UNIT 711, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 3186
- ASPEN CO 81612
- FREDERICK MEYER AND UNIT 625, HUNTER
PAMELA H. MEYER CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 2104
ASPEN CO 81612
-
GENNARD FEDERICO UNIT 213, HUNTER
- CREEK CONDOS
114 DAVIS ROAD
BEDFORD MA 01730
-
GEORGE B. WOMBELL UNIT 433, HUNTER
EDITH N. WOMBELL CREEK CONDOS
-. 2105 STARMONT ROAD
LOUISVILLE KY 40207
-
GEORGE W. BURTEH UNIT 735, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 8345
ASPEN CO 81612
'"' GERRY BORN UNIT 537, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 3564
- ASPEN CO 81612
GLENRAY CRAMER UNIT 1114, HUNTER
- CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 931
ASPEN CO 81612
,...
GORDON A. GUNDAKER REAL ESTATE UNIT 1025, HUNTER
- SUITE 300 CREEK CONDOS
2458 OLD DORSETT ROAD
ST. LOUIS MO 63043
-
H. DON CHUMLEY AND UNIT 216, HUNTER
ANNELIESE CHUMLEY CREEK CONDOS
,... 1970 N. BROADWAY
OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73103
-
-
HARVEY CHAPMAN AND RUTH CHAPMAN
,..
5415 ENCINO AVE.
ENCINO
CA
,..
-
HENRY W IV AND
LISA THURSTON
P.O. BOX 1221
ASPEN CO
,..
HERBERT W. MARX AND DELORIS I. MARX
C/O CAROLINE CHRISTENSEN
P.O. BOX 9195
ASPEN CO
,..
HERMAN ANDERSON
-
990 KING STREET
ASPEN
CO
-
HILL HOUSE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
NO ADDRESS AVAILABLE
-
-
HOWARD AND JULIE MAYER
P. o. BOX 333
ASPEN
CO
""'
HOWARD B. & BETTY S. WALLACH
,..
2229 TROY AVE.
BROOKLYN
NY
,..
HOWARD BASS AND
CHARLES & ANN MARIE SCHULTZ
375 E. McFARLAN STREET
DOVER
NJ
-
-
HOWARD LEE AND
JOYCE E. SHAPIRO
#836, 0143 LONE PINE ROAD
ASPEN
CO
,..
-
HOWARD PARKIIN
C/O FIRSTRUST SAVINGS BANK
CASTOR & COTTMAN AVE.
PHILADELPHIA
PA
,..
UNIT 1028, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
91316
UNIT A-19, LONE
PINE APTS.
81612
UNIT 1012, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
UNIT 613, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81611
COMMON AREA
LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
AND 6, BLOCK 5,
OKLAHOMA FLATS
81612
UNIT 226, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
11234
UNIT 1044, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
07801
UNIT 836, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
UNIT 1129, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
19111
!"'"
HUNTER CREEK 1045 PARTNERSHIP
,...
4428 YORK AVE. SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS
-
MN
HUNTER CREEK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
.....
1400 VINE STREET
ASPEN
...
HUNTER CREEK MANAGEMENT
A COLORADO CORPORATION
0143 LONE PINE ROAD
ASPEN
.....
.....
HUNTER CREEK MANAGEMENT
A COLORADO CORPORATION
0143 LONE PINE ROAD
ASPEN
-
,...
HUNTER CREEK MANAGEMENT
A COLORADO CORPORATION
0143 LONE PINE ROAD
ASPEN
-
.....
HUNTER CREEK MANAGEMENT
A COLORADO CORPORATION
0143 LONE PINE ROAD
ASPEN
-
ILENE H. RICHMOND
I'""
143 LONE PINE ROAD, #238
ASPEN
.....
JACK A. BETTIO
3875 RIDGEWAY ROAD
LAKEHURST
-
JAMES D. PETERSON
-
P.O. BOX 1714
ASPEN
.....
.....
JAMES F. SMITH AND
LINDSAY SMITH
6542 WESTCHESTER
HOUSTON
.....
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
NJ
CO
TX
55410
81611
81611
81611
81611
81611
81611
08733
81612
77005
UNIT 1045, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
COMMON AREA
UNIT 2B, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 3B, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 4B, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT B, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 238, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1029, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS '
UNIT 334, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1132, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
...
-
JAMES R. TOWNSEND
325 FREE SILVER COURT
ASPEN
co
-
...
JANICE BECKER AND
THOMAS RESTAINO
72 ALDER AVE.
SAN ANSELMO
CA
...
JEROME HOTEL COMPANY
3829 DUCHESS S.E.
GRAND RAPIDS
MI
-
,-
JERRY B. RIDLING AND
MIRIAM RIDLING
1110 STONYBROOK DRIVE
NAPA
CA
-
,...
JERRY CANTER AND
MARC E. CANTER
P.O. BOX 11201
ASPEN
CO
-
,....
JERRY RIDLING AND
MURIEL M. RIDLING
1110 STONEYBROOK DRIVE
NAPA
CA
!-<
JESSE B, HEATH, JR. AND
HETTA S. HEATH
606 N, SPRING ST.
ASPEN
CO
...
-
JILL MARTIN
132 VINE STREET
ASPEN
CO
-
JILL SHORE
-
P.O. BOX 8673
ASPEN
CO
-
JOAN TIDWELL
,...
UNIT 734, 0143 LONE PINE ROAD
ASPEN CO
-
81611
94960
49506
94558
81612
94558
81611
81611
81612
81611
UNIT 1112, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 951, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 612, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 922, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 943, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1121, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT B, HILL HOUSE
UNIT 132, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 815, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 734, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
""'
JOANNE WALPOLE
""'
P.O. BOX 3759
ASPEN
81612
CO
""'
JOHN BETHOLA FRASER
-
450 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN
81611
CO
-
JOHN J. COATES, JR. AND
MARY ANN.COATES
P.O. BOX 25277
OKLAHOMA CITY
73125
OK
-
""'
JOHN J. SARRO, JR. AND
MARY ANN McQUADE
49 APACHE WAY
TEWKSBURY
01876
MA
-
JOHN J. SHEEHAN
""'
5 CROWN WAY
MARBLEHEAD
01945
MA
-
-
JOHN K. HOLSONBACK AND
HILDA G. HOLSONBACK
431 VINE STREET
ASPEN
81611
CO
-
JOHN S. BUCKLEY, JR.
C/O MARVIN POER & CO.
6025 S. QUEBEC-STE 170
ENGLEWOOD
80111
,....
CO
""'
JOHN T. LAUCKS
C/O SAM THIESSEN, SEA FIRST TRUST DEPT.
P.O. BOX 3586
SEATTLE WA 98124
-
,....
JOHN W., PATRICIA W.,
AND JOHN W. RUGER,II
P.O. BOX 12124
ASPEN
CO 81612
JACQUELINE R., JAMES C.
,....
JONATHAN L. STOCKER
-
P.O. BOX 4326
ASPEN
81612
CO
-
UNIT 631, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT A-15, LONE
PINE APTS.
UNIT 903, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 950, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 235, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 536,- HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 423, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 942, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 435, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 632, HUNTER.
CREEK CONDOS
,....
fI'IM'O
JOSEPH B. LEE, III AND
BRENDA R. LEE
131 HOLLY LANE
GRENANDA
UNIT 331, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
MS
38901
-
JOSEPH K. SCHUPBACH
UNIT 316, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
-
520 E. DURANT, SUITE 210
ASPEN
CO
81611
,....
JUDITH ZEE STEINBERG
C/O MOBILE OIL CORP.
4045 NW 64TH STREET., SUITE 400
OKLAHOMA CITY OK
UNIT 336, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
,....
73116
,....
JULIE K, MANDT
P.O. BOX 11813
ASPEN
UNIT 525, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
CO
81612
-
,....
KALA M. RACHILLA AND
KATHERINE L. TYLER
P.O. BOX 3184
ASPEN
UNIT 714, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
CO
81612
-
KAREN ADAMS
UNIT 524, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
,....
P.O. BOX 4332
ASPEN
CO
81612
,....
KARL G. LARSON AND MADELEINE
SUITE 101
201 N. MILL STREET
ASPEN CO
UNIT 113, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
-
81611
,....
KATHRYN NILES
P.O. BOX 2143
UNIT 1048, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
ASPEN
CO
81612
-
,....
KENNETH CANFIELD STRAUSS & CARLEEN CANFIELD
STRAUSS AS TRUSTEES OF THE CANFIELD TRUST
9TH FLOOR, 650 CALIFORNIA STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94108
UNIT 425, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
-
-
KEVIN McCARTHY
APARTMENT 16J
330 E. 38TH STREET
NEW YORK CITY
UNIT 1022, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
NY
10016
,....
-
KIM HANSON
...
0155 LONE PINE ROAD, UNIT B-2
ASPEN CO
-
...
KIM W. HANSON AND
JANE STRAUS HANSON
P.O. BOX 81612
ASPEN
...
KIMBERLY BIETER DURAN
1151 BANNOCK
DENVER
-
...
KRISTEN CHRIST
P.O. BOX 2943
ASPEN
-
...
L. EDWARD FRY
CATHY.JO FRY
1335 STRATFORD DRIVE
PIQUA
...
LARRY J. AND SUSAN D. CANO
...
45 BELCOURT DRIVE NORTH
NEW PORT BEACH
-
LAURIE ANN BEEMAN
-
P.O. BOX 418
ASPEN
...
LAWERENCE CHANNING AND
ALLICE M. & JOHANNA LEE
1305 OAK FOREST DR.
ORMOND BEACH
-
LAWERENCE SLATER
-
P.O. BOX 2334
ASPEN
-
-
LAWRENCE AND JEANNE LEDERER
AND VINH C. HUA
P.O. BOX 8836
ASPEN
...
CO
CO
CO
OH
CA
CO
FL
CO
CO
UNIT B-2, LONE
PINE APTS.
81611
UNIT 538, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
UNIT 1134, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
80204
UNIT 134, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
UNIT 324, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
45356
LOT 2, THIRD
AMENDED PLAT, HILL
HOUSE CONDOS
92660
UNIT 228, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
UNIT 1027, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
32174
UNIT A-11, LONE
PINE APTS.
81612
UNIT 812, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
-
LAWRENCE LADIN UNIT 910, HUNTER
APARTMENT 22 CREEK CONDOS
- 3005 WOODLAND AVE
DES MOINES IA 50312
-
LEILANI KAE DAMKE UNIT 232, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
5371 EAST CALEY AVE.
- LITTLETON CO 80121
- LEONARD A. ALLEN UNIT 822, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 8316
ASPEN CO 81612
-
LINDA K. ABERNATHY UNIT 333, HUNTER
- CREEK CONDOS
872 SUNSET
EVANSVILLE IN 47713
-
LINDA LEONARD, KEITH ELTON AND UNIT 1047, HUNTER
KAREN AND KATHY CHAPMAN CREEK CONDOS
- 8435 S. "A" STREET
TACOMA WA 98444
-
LINDA ZUREK UNIT A-5, LONE
APARTMENT NO. A-5 PINE APTS.
- 0155 LONE PINE ROAD
ASPEN CO 81611
- LISA L. MAY UNIT 1136, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 10186
- ASPEN CO 81612
LONE PINE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION COMMON AREA
,-
710 E. DURANT AVE.
ASPEN CO 81611
-
LOUIS GUNS AND MARGARET GUNS UNIT 215, HUNTER
- CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 11436
ASPEN CO 81612
-
LYNDA GREEN UNIT 214, HUNTER
APARTMENT A303 CREEK CONDOS
- 1111 CRANDON BLVD.
KEY BISCAYNE FL 33149
-
-
-
MARGARET S-K WONG
P.O. BOX 8018
ASPEN
-
MARILYN FOSS
-
P.O. BOX 10149
ASPEN
-
MARK A. DANIELSON
#A-7, 0155 LONE PINE ROAD
ASPEN
-
-
MARK LOUIS COURTNEY AND
BARBARA E. COURTNEY
627 VINE STREET
ASPEN
,..
-
MARTIN FRIEDLANDER AND
VIVIAN FRIEDLANDER
#527, 143 LONE PINE ROAD
ASPEN
-
-
MARTIN GARFINKEL
P,O. BOX 2596
ASPEN
-
MARTIN PADMOS
31 KEEGAN PARKWAY
BELLEVIEW, ONTARIO
CANAD
,..
11--
MARVIN L. RAUPP
#105, 1142 MANHATTAN AVE.
MANHATTAN BEACH
-
MARY ANN ERB
,..
8401 GREENWOOD DRIVE
LONGMONT
-
MARY C. BUNCE
-
90 MT. HARMONY ROAD
BERNARDSVILLE
-
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CA
CO
NJ
UNIT 835, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
UNIT A-10, LONE
PINE APTS.
81612
UNIT A-7, LONE
PINE APTS.
81611
UNIT 627, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81611
UNIT 527, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81611
UNIT 1002, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
UNIT 826, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
K8N5N7
UNIT 233, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
90266
UNIT 431, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
80403
UNIT 321, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
079254
-
MARY JEAN JACOBS
,...,
P.O. BOX 3532
ASPEN
co
-
MARY JEAN JACOBS
-
P.O. BOX 3532
ASPEN
CO
-
MARY M, VIPOND
0155 LONE PINE ROAD
ASPEN
CO
-
...
MARYLYN BOWDEN
NOW: MARYLYN ATHA
P.O. BOX 11410
ASPEN
CO
-
...
MATS EKEHOLM AND
KELLY M. EKEHOLM
P.O. BOX 11176
ASPEN
CO
-
MATTHEW CARLSON
...
1003 VINE STREET
ASPEN
CO
-
MATTHEW MARC COOPER
AND NINA IRENE COOPER
60 HAVEN AVE. APT. #20-B
NEW YORK
NY
-
-
MEL I. AND ROBERTA L. MENDELSON
22262 HOLLYHOCK TRAIL
BOCA RATON
FL
-
...
MELVYN WOLOSHIN
AND ROBERTA WOLOSHIN
P.O. BOX 7107
WILMINGTON
DE
-
.-
MICHAEL C. IRELAND, MOLLY M. IRELAND
AND DONALD L. BIRD
P.O. BOX 11686
ASPEN CO
...
UNIT 628, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
UNIT 628, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
UNIT A-14, LONE
PINE APTS.
81611
UNIT 312, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
UNIT 511, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
UNIT 1003, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81611
UNIT 313, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
10032
UNIT 1021, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
33433
UNIT 1050, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
19803
UNIT 516, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
-
MICHAEL D. ARMSTRONG UNIT 726, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
- P.O. BOX 9092
ASPEN CO 81612
- MICHAEL K. KERR UNIT 928, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 87
- ASPEN CO 81612
- MICHAEL L. TANGUAY UNIT B-5, LONE
PINE APTS.
0155 LONE PINE ROAD, #B-5
ASPEN CO 81611
-
MICHELLE MARIE BRUCE UNIT 224, HUNTER
- CREEK CONDOS
224 VINE STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
-
MORRIS HOLLENBAUGH AND UNIT 907, HUNTER
PHYLLIS S. HOLLENBAUGH CREEK CONDOS
- 907 VINE STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
-
MOUNTAIN STATES COMMUNCIATIONS UNIT 513, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX E
- ASPEN CO 81612
- MOUNTAIN STATES COMMUNICATIONS UNIT 615, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX E
- ASPEN CO 81612
MRJ PECK CO. UNIT 901, HUNTER
- CREEK CONDOS
9 ODGEN ROAD .
SCARSDALE NY 10583
-
MURIEL FREI UNIT 1007, HUNTER
- CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 2171
ASPEN CO 81612
-
MYRON AND HELENE RAPPAPORT UNIT 114, HUNTER
C/O HWR JEWELRY INC. CREEK CONDOS
- 318 S. GALENA STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
-
-
-
NANCY C. STANLEY
950 N. KINGS ROAD #120
WEST HOLLYWOOD
-
NANCY ROSS SMITH
-
P.O. BOX 185
FOREST HILL
-
NEYSA SIGLER
-
714 BARROWS ROAD
STOWE
-.
NICHOLAS FAINSOD AND
EVA FAINSOD
DANTE 26 BIS
COLONIA ANZURES MEXICO
-
-.
NICHOLAS M. POTTS AND
SUZANNE GIROD-POTTS
P.O. BOX 8962
ASPEN
-
NORMAN JAFFEE
-.
CARWITH ROAD
BRIDGEHAMPTON
-
OLLIE URBACH
0155 LONE PINE ROAD
UNIT A-6
ASPEN
-
-.
OSKAR AND HILDE GUENTHER
1038 OAK HILLS CIRCLE
ASHLAND
-
-
PAMELA J. LYONS
7 W. 14TH ST.
APARTMENT 18G
NEW YORK CITY
-
-
PATRICIA CAREY
P.O. BOX 1440
ASPEN
-
CA
MD
VT
D.F.
CO
NY
CO
OH
NY
CO
UNIT 1046, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
90069
UNIT 1032, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
21050
UNIT 223, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
05672
UNIT 424, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
11590
UNIT 532, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
UNIT 941, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
11932
UNIT A-6, LONE
PINE APTS.
81611
UNIT 122, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
44805
UNIT 1113, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
10011
UNIT 728, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
816i2
!"'"
-
PATRICIA HILL
C/O DBA INSTITUTE FOR EXCELLENCE
P.O. BOX 20105
VILLAGE OF OAK CREEK AZ
-
PATRICK CURRY
-
715 W. MAIN STREET
ASPEN
CO
~
PAUL GUGLIELMO
...
93 OUTLOOD AVE.
WEST HARTFORD
CT
PAUL HABBERSTAD
-
P.O. BOX 535
LEADVILLE
CO
-
PAUL McDONALD
-
#A-2, 155 LONE PINE DRIVE
ASPEN
CO
...
-
PEPPER JAMES EDWARD GOMES AND
SUSAN R. GOMES
P.O. BOX 4541
ASPEN CO
-
PETER BUNEVICH AND
BRIGITTE BUNEVICH
5301 CRECKER BARREL
COLORADO SPRINGS
CO
~
-
PETER M. ENGLEHARDT AND
ANDI CARMICHAEL
P.O. BOX 8334
ASPEN
CO
-
PETER MAINES
-
UNIT A-18, 155 LONE PINE ROAD
ASPEN CO
-
PITKIN COUNTY
-
506 E. MAIN
ASPEN
CO
-
UNIT 124, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
86341
UNIT 715, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81611
UNIT A-19, LONE
PINE APTS.
06119
UNIT 925, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
80461
UNIT A-2, LbNE
PINE APTS.
81611
UNIT 732, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
UNIT 921, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
80917
UNIT 514, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
81612
UNIT A-18, LONE
PINE APTS.
81611
METES & BOUNDS
81611
...
PRICE C. WILLS AND UNIT 528, HUNTER
DIANE T. WILLS CREEK CONDOS
... 218 VINE STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
....
R.C. BALENTINE UNIT 636, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 11765
... ASPEN CO 81612
- RACHEL E. RICHARDS-GRIMM UNIT 816, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 3393
.. ASPEN CO 81612
RAMONA LEE JOHNK UNIT 623, HUNTER
- CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 11088
ASPEN CO 81612
....
RANDY R. HARMON UNIT 637, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
- P.O. BOX 11753
ASPEN CO 81612
""
RAY VINCENT ADAMS UNIT 638, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
- P.O. BOX 4332
ASPEN CO 81612
... RHONDA USHIDA AND UNIT 222, HUNTER
ROGER M. & JULIA K. ESTRELLA CREEK CONDOS
2334 JEFFERSON AVE.
. BERKERLY CA 94703
RICHARD ALLEN SANDERS UNIT 923, HUNTER
- CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 9517
COLUMBUS GA 31995
...
RICHARD D. COTTRELL UNIT 323, HUNTER
- SHARON A. FOERTSCH CREEK CONDOS
1400 NORTH WESTERN
CHICAGO IL 60045
-
RICHARD H. WAGAR AND UNIT 1115, HUNTER
J. SCOTT EDMUNDSON CREEK CONDOS
- 0155 LONE PINE ROAD, *A-3
ASPEN CO 81611
-
-
RICHARD JENNINGS
-
1004 VINE STREET
ASPEN
81611
co
-
...
RICHARD JOSEPH COTE
P.O. BOX 8356
ASPEN
81612
CO
!"'"
RICHARD M. LAPIN
P.O. BOX 8313
ASPEN
81612
CO
-
...
ROBERT A. EMIGH AND
PATRICIA EMIGH
7877 ANDREWS WAY
BOULDER
80303
CO
-
-
ROBERT BRUTSCH AND
KELLY BRUTSCH
RR#lO, BOX 28
OSWEGO
13126
NY
-
ROBERT C. BRAUDIS
-
APT. A-12, 155 LONE PINE
ASPEN
81612
CO
-
ROBERT ETS-HOKIN
-
434 VINE STREET
ASPEN
81611
CO
-
ROBERT ETS-HOKIN
434 VINE STREET
ASPEN
CO
81611
..
-
ROBERT JOHN SAWCHYN
TINA MARIA SAWCHYN
SUITE 17, 1418 LAKE SHORE DRIVE
CHICAGO IL
60610
-
-
ROBERT KERSHAW AND JOHN THOMAS WARD AND
KEIRON F. QUINN, DARELL R. & SUSAN C. CAMMACK
113 WEST MONUMENT STREET
BALTIMORE MD 21201
-
UNIT 1004, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS .
UNIT 721, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 931, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 218, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1127, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT A-12, LONE
PINE APTS.
UNIT 1137, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1137, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS '
UNIT 426, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 131, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
,'-'
...
ROBERT L. HARRIS, II
C/O CARLTON BROWN & CO. INC.
1601 DOVE STREET, SUITE 155
NEWPORT BEACH CA
92660
-
..
ROBERT LANKERING AND IRENE J. ROBERT
P.O. BOX 4427
VERO BEACH
32964
FL
...
ROBERT M. ROSS
17030 NANES DRIVE
SUITE 214
HOUSTON
77090
TX
~
-
RODGER W. BYBEE
P.O. BOX 8415
ASPEN
81612
CO
-
...
ROGER L. & SAYYL F. O'NEILL, CO-TRUSTEES OF
THE GILLMAN TRUST C/O ACME-WILEY CORPORATIOON
2480 GREENLEAF AVE
ELK GROVE VILLAGE IL 60007
-
...
RONALD K. WEISS
SUITE 540
300 TOWN CENTER
SOUTHFIELD
48075
MI
""
RONALD R. DOWELL AND MARSHA S. DOWELL
-
2 APPLEWOOD COURT EAST
PERRYSBURG
43551
OH
...
RSL REALTY INC.
1899 NORTHEAST 164TH STREET
NORTH MIAMI BEACH FL
33164
...
...
RUEL O. MARCELO
SUITE *205-204
300 PUPPY SMITH ROAD
ASPEN
81611
CO
-
...
RUTH B. HAMILTON AND
PAUL K. HAMILTON
P.O. BOX 9906
ASPEN
81612
CO
...
UNIT 314, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 121, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 335, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1041, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT A, HILL HOUSE
UNIT 813, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1133, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1122, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 911, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
LOTS 1, 3, 4, 5, 6,
AND 7, BLOCK 4,
OKLAHOMA FLATS
,-
SALLY R. PILATI
3704 MACKEY COVE
-
PENSACOLA
~
SANDRA ANN NEVOLS
0155 LONE PINE ROAD, A-4
ASPEN
....
-
SANDRA GOLDMAN
-
P.O. BOX 11526
ASPEN
....
SHARON HEEDUM
P.O. BOX 3086
ASPEN
-
,-
SHELDON BUTLLIEN AND
RHONDALEER BUTLIEN
221 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE
MAHWAH
.-
SHIRLEY BITTNER, A COLO. CORP.
945 VINE STREET
-
ASPEN
,...
STAN A. KOPP AND
ROBERT L. ZUPANCIS
P.O. BOX 100
ASPEN
-
-
STAN SNYDER
#B-7, 0155 LONE PINE ROAD
ASPEN
-
-
STANLEY E. LAURISKI AND
ROSE M. LAURISKI
P.O. BOX 803
ASPEN
..
-
STANLEY HUNTTING AND
MARGARET A. HUNTTING
4655 PLEASANT RIDGE ROAD
BOULDER
-
FL
CO
CO
CO
NJ
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
32514
81611
81612
81612
07430
81611
81612
81611
81612
80301
UNIT 930, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT A-4, LONE
PINE APTS.
UNIT 622, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 212, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1128, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 945, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
Sl/2 LOT 9 & ALL
LOTS 10, 11 & 12,
BLOCK 3, WILLIAMS
ADDITION
UNIT B-7, LONE
PINE APTS.
METES & BOUNDS
UNIT 906, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
-
STEPHEN CONNOLLY UNIT A-8, LONE
PINE APTS.
- P.O. BOX 3183
ASPEN CO 81612
... STEVE B. AND LILY S. KO UNIT 947, HUNTER
C/O ASIA RESTAURANT CREEK CONDOS
132 W. MAIN STREET
.... ASPEN CO 81611
- STEVEN MAROLT AND UNIT 521, HUNTER
ROGER MAROLT CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 1013
ASPEN CO 81612
,.-,
SUNG YOO PARK AND JANG LEE PARK UNIT 825, HUNTER
,.., APARTMENT ID CREEK CONDOS
320 WEST 76TH STREET
NEW YORK CITY NY 10023
-
SUSAN CHAMBERLAIN UNIT 834, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
- P.O. BOX 4614
ASPEN CO 81612
-
SUSAN F. SANCHEZ AND UNIT A-17, LONE
MARC McKINNEY PINE APTS.
#A-17, 0155 LONE PINE ROAD
-
ASPEN CO 81611
~.~ SUSAN GOLDSTEIN UNIT 1009, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 8908
.- ASPEN CO 81612
SUSAN L. GEIST UNIT 831, HUNTER
... CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 8431
ASPEN CO 81612
-
SUZANNE ABRAMSON UNIT 824, HUNTER
- CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 10931
ASPEN CO 81612
-
SUZANNE MacGILL UNIT 946, HUNTER
C/O ASPEN SKI TOURS CREEK CONDOS
!'"""' 300 SOUTH SPRING STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
-
,...
T,W. KINKEAD UNIT 217, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
- 2204 LAKESIDE DRIVE
LEXINGTON KY 40502
- TANIA BROGLIA UNIT 1139,
HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
64 STOONEHENGE ROAD
,... MANHASSET NY 11030
- TERESA D. EDWARDS UNIT 733, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 14
METHVEN, NEW ZEALAND N
-
TERRY ANN STEPHENSON UNIT 633, HUNTER
- CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 968
ASPEN CO 81612
-
TERRY SCHAEFFER UNIT 624, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
.... 315 E. HUMAN AVE. #209
ASPEN CO 81611
~
THERESA GOLD HAMER UNIT 1008, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
- 95 SOUTH JERSEY STREET
DENVER CO 80224
- THOMAS A. NUGENT UNIT 927, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 8562
- ASPEN CO 81612
THOMAS BORONSKI AND UNIT 731, HUNTER
- KRISTIN K.J. BORONSKI CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 11132
ASPEN CO 81612
-
THOMAS E. MAYNARD UNIT 112, HUNTER
- CREEK CONDOS
1026 VINE STREET
ASPEN CO 81611
,...
THOMAS F. MINES AND UNIT 634, HUNTER
THOMAS F. MINES JR. CREEK CONDOS
- #634, 0143 LONE PINE
ASPEN CO 81611
....
('""
r'"
THOMAS F. MOHER
C/O JUDY CROOK
310 W. 12TH STREET
RIFLE
CO
....
....
THOMAS FELTON WIMBERLY
UNIT 1051, 1043 LONE PINE ROAD
ASPEN CO
-
THOMAS MAYNARD
....
1026 VINE STREET
ASPEN
CO
..
THOMAS McDONAGH
AND JUEL M. GENDELS
SUITE lOP 340 W. 57TH STREET
NEW YORK CITY NY
-
THOMAS MOONEY
.-
#635, 143 LONE PINE
ASPEN
CO
....
....
THOMAS P. AND TERRY L. MOORE
AND MARTIN W. BELL
C/O 102 RAMA ROAD
BEAVER FALLS PA
-
TOM VOORHIES
-
P.O. BOX 619
ASPEN
CO
-
TOM WOLTERS AND
DAFNA WOLTERS
P.O. BOX 12233
ASPEN
CO
-
,...
U.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS
ATTN: GARY L. DAVIS
164 HORIZON DR. ROOM 211
GRAND JUNCTION
CO
;;0
VALERIE J. MacDONALD
-
#616, 0143 LONE PINE RAOD
ASPEN
CO
-
81650
81611
81611
10019
81611
15010
81612
81612
81506-8719
81611
UNIT 211, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1051, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1026, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1024, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 635, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 929, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT A-20, LONE
PINE APTS.
UNIT 626, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
ROARING FORK RIVER
UNIT 616, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
,r-
-
VALERIE LEE
Ol55 LONE PINE ROAD, UNIT B-4
ASPEN CO
....
VALLEY ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOC.
....
100 E. MAIN STREET
ASPEN
CO
-
VINCENT K. PARTYKA
....
UNIT B-1, 155 LONE PINE ROAD
ASPEN CO
-
VIRGIL G. ALLEN
P.O. BOX 3765
ASPEN
CO
/l'"iIliI,
VIRGINIA C. STRAKA
...
P.O. BOX 3864
ASPEN
CO
-
WADE R.SWANSON
-
P.O. BOX 10298
ASPEN
CO
-.
WALTER & JUNE L. TILDS
INTER VIVOS TRUST AGREEMENT
2716 LAKERIDGE LANE
WESTLAKE VILLAGE CA
-
-
WALTER J. SEUBERT AND
KAREN A. SEUBERT
UNIT 738, 1043 LONE PINE ROAD
ASPEN CO
-
-
WALTER W. CLAFFEY AND
NICOLETTA H. CLAFFEY
640 SHORELLINE ROAD
BARRINGTON
IL
...
-
WARREN OBER
C/O NEW YORK TIMES
229 WEST 43RD ST. 3RD FLOOR
NEW YORK CITY NY
-
81611
81611
81612
81612
81612
81612
91361
81611
60010
10036
UNIT B-4, LONE
PINE'APTS.
UNIT 617, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT B-1, LONE
PINE APTS.
UNIT 821, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 621, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 534, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 236, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 738, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 1126, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
UNIT 227, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
-
WILLIAM A. BARDEEN AND UNIT 432, HUNTER
MARJORIE G. BARDEEN CREEK CONDOS
- 358 OAK STREET N
GLEN ELLEN IL 60137
- WILLIAM B. WIENER UNIT 944, HUNTER
SUITE 1110 CREEK CONDOS
401 MARKET STREET
,... SHREVEPORT LA 71101
- WILLIAM BARNARD UNIT 1052, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
899 S. PLYMOUTH CT.
CHICAGO IL 60605
-
WILLIAM D. PINKHAM, JR. UNIT 436, HUNTER
- CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 11103
ASPEN CO 81612
,...
WILLIAM H. VENNER UNIT 737, HUNTER
P.O. BOX 1708 CREEK CONDOS
"., HUNTER CREEK CONDOS
ASPEN CO 81612
-
WILLIAM J. PAULSON UNIT 1043, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
- P.O. BOX 7693
ASPEN CO 81612
- WILLIAM J, STUHR UNIT 533, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 3808
- ASPEN CO 81612
WILLIAM JOY UNIT 1049, HUNTER
- CREEK CONDOS
P.O. BOX 23
ASPEN CO 81612
-
WILLIAM LEE POMEROY UNIT 225, HUNTER
- LESLIE WING POMEROY CREEK CONDOS
2624 3RD STREET
SANTA MONICA CA 90405
,-
WILLIAM P. BLACK AND MURIEL A. BLACK UNIT 1001, HUNTER
AS TRUSTEES UNDER BLACK REV. TRUST CREEK CONDOS
- 2313 KIMBERLY COURT
CARLSBAD CA 92008
,~
-
.,."..
YONEKO SUZUKI SHEroL~N
P.O. BOX 7928
ASPEN
UNIT 948, HUNTER
CREEK CONDOS
CO
81612
,...
,-
....
-
-
,...
"..
....
-
-
,..
-
-
-
,...
-
-
,...
,...
,...
,...
,...
...
-
-
,..
-
-
-
,...
-
-
,...
APPENDIX B
-
-
,...
....
....
-
-
....
....
....
....
/IIiIiilt
....
....
-
-
....
....
-
-
-
....
EXHIBIT 1
GRANT OF TRAI~ EASEMENT
THIS GRANT OF 'l'AA:IL EASEMENT is J1\ade an<1 entered into this
day of , 1994, by and betwQQn Ph~ER
MOCKLIN (hereinafter referred to all "Crantor"), and the CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO (hereinafter referred toaa "Granteo").
WIT N E SSE T H:
WHEREAS, arantor is the owner of the following deacribed
real property located in pitkin Count.y,Colorado, to wit:
See Exhibit "A".
and,
mIEREAS, Grantor iB <1ecirous of granting to erantee a
certain perpetual trail easement and right.-of-way over and acrose
said real property under the t.erms and conditions hereinafter
specified; and
WHEREAS, Crantoo io decirou. of acoepting gaid trail eaae-
mant and right-of-way.
NOW, THEREPORE, for and in coneideration of the eUJI\ of Ten
Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby aeknowledged, Grantor
hereby grants and conveys to Grantee, its successors and acsigns,
for t.he benefit of the general pUblic, a perpet.ual t.rail easement
anC1 right-of-way described in Exhibit. "A" attached heret.o and by
this reference incorpora~ed herein. '
THE ABOVE GRANTED TRAIL EASEMENT and riqht-of-way is subject
to the followinq terms, agreemen~sand reservat.ions:
1. The trail easement shall be for the installation,
construct.ion, operat.ion, use, inspection, repair and maint.enance
of a trail suit.able for biCYClists, pedestrians, cross country
skiers, and for other similar recrea~ional purpose., over and
across Grantor's property in the location and manner set .fotth in
Exhibit. "A" hereto. '1'0 this end, the 9rant and conveyance in-
clude. a 9rant Of rights and privileges necessary or incident to
the rea.onable and proper use as described above or the easement
in and to, upon, over, under and across'the Grantor's property.
2. The riqhts and privileges qranted by this easement are
subject to prior agreements, easements, and'conveyances recorded
or unreoorded.
J. G~antee aqrees to use reasonable' eare in construction
ot improvements within the area ot t.he easement, and agrees to
avoid damage to the surrounding land and iJl\provements thereto,
and further agrees to restore such land and improvements to their
,...
-
condition immediately prior to any conctruotion, imprOVQm8nt~ or
repairs to the trails. Grantee agrees to revsqetats and land- '
scape all slop. cuts to prevent erosion of Grantor'c property and
b. reasonably acceptable torCrantor's approval.
4. It is the intention of the parties to make the land
available to the public tor recreational purpo.es without oharg-
e. and to limit the partie~' liability to per~onc entering
th~reon for such purposes. In the event that either or both of
the parties might otherwise be liable under applicable state
statutes, Grantee hereby agrees, to the extent permitted by law,
to indemnify and hold Grantor harmless from and against claims or
awards ~or loss, damage or any liability including attorney's
fees and costs, which may result from Grant.e'. acte or omissions
c:overing and inClUding, but not by way of limitl:ltion, inctalla-
tion, excavatlon, fill, construction, maintenance, repair,
replacementr PUblic use or location of the trail or attendant
tacilities, as subsequen~ly determined by a court of competent
juriSdiction. Nothing herein ShAll constitute 0 waiver of
Grantee's rights as provided in Section 24-10-101, et seq.,
C.R.S.
,..
-
-
....
....
-
-
5.. As part or the consideration for the Grant of Trail
Easement, Grantee agrees to pay the City of Aspen'S Water Fund
t.he sum ot Twenty-six Thousand Seven Hunch-ed Fifty-one Dollars
and No Cents ($26,7~1.00) on behalf of and on account of Grantor
for the outstanding debt on water tap fee..
-
;--
6. In the event that at some future time Grantor ShAll
make a development application to the City of Aspen in accordance
with the City'. Land O.e Code for u.e. other than an eight-unit
apartment building, Grantor shall receive a water utility Charge
credit for the tap tee based on the existing "ECU" rating ror the
structure as it currently exists on the property, to wit, 8.07
BCU's, a. this term i. defined in ArtiCle 23 of the current Aspen
Code. Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 23-G2 of the City
Code, the Grantor or his successors in title to the property
shall be entitled to a credit based on 8.07 ECU's regardless of
whether or not the Grantor's development proposal involves a
"renovation" or a "SUbstantial remOdeling" or "rebUilding" of the
structures involved. However, this credit shall pertain only to
an application for the Grantor'. property described in Exhibit
"A" and shall not be transferrable for use on any other property
whether owned by the Grantor or otherwise. !n the event that the
city changes the manner of calculating credit. for utility
investment chargee, the Grant.or or hi.. l!Iuuue....or.. ill t.it.le ..hall
be entitled to an equivalent credit ba.ed on the provisions in
existence at that time.
-
-
-
....
-
,-.
7. Grantor's rights to develop the property shown on
Exhibit "B" shall in no manner be redUced or diminished as a
result of this Grant of Trail Easement. For all purposes under
the City of Aspen Land Use Code, including the calculation of
allowable density or development rights, the total amount of land
,...
-
-
-
-
-
....
....
-
....
....
-
-
-
,...
-
-
-
-
....
-
expressed in acreage or square footage, ahall not be affected or
~1miniBheO by this Grant of Trail Easement, to wit, the amount of
lana to be burdened by this easement shall be inolud.d in the
~otal land 1ncluded in the parcel shown on Exhibit liB".
8. The ri9htlS grant.ed pursuant to paragrapha 5 and /; above
shall pass with the land and shall bo to the benefit of tho
Grantor, hi. heirs, assign. and beneficiaries forever. No future
ordinance, regulation, enactment, or other action of the Grantee
shall be enforceable Which would alter or diminish in any way the
ri9hts of the Grantor provided for in paragraph. Sand 6 above.
9. Maintenance and In$uranoe. The parties expressly
acltnowlel1g-e that Crantor is entitled to the benefits, protC!otion
and limitations on liability afforded by Colorado law governing
recreational eae.manta, Seotion 33-41-10:1 at ..a".., C.R.S. fly
granting the Easements hereunder, Gran~or sh.ll have no add!~ion-
al Obligation to repair, clear or otherwise main~ain the area
within the Easements, or to insure or indemnify Gran~6e for any
injury, claim or damage to any person or property, whethot'
allege~ to have occurred while using the easements for ~he
i~entitied purposes or otherwise and due to the condition of the
trail or otherwise.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties heret.o have executed the
foregoing on the day and year above tirst written.
STATE 01" COLORADO
)
) ss.
)
County of Pi~kin
-. hThe roreqoing instrument was acknowledged ~efor. me this
;'71- day ,Of DQ~lmb-ty'" , 1994, by Peter Mocklin.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires:
4./).,. ~'i
Tammy Gables
My Commlaaton ~rl8lJ.12.118
OoloradO National Bank Aspen NA
Box 3318. Aspen, ColoradO 81611
to tfl.c ( /
-
-
...
-
-
-
-
...
-
,....
....
,....
....
-
-
-
....
....
....
The toregoing Grant of Trail Eacement ill hereby
approved tor the benetit of the general public this
I 1994.
ATTEST:
aocepted and
day of
CITY OF ASPEN
By:
Amy Margerum, City Manaqer
Kathryn S. Xoeh, City Clerk
STATE OF COLORADO
l
l ss.
l
County of Pitkin
The foregoing in.tru~ent
day of
City Manager and Kathryn
Aspen, Colorado.
before me this
by Amy Margerum as
ot the City of
wac aoknowledqed
, 151514.
s. Koch as City Clerk
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires:
jW1221.1
Notary Public
Address
-
-
-
-
,...
,...
-
-
-
-
-
-
,...
,...
,...
-
-
,...
-
EXil'TRIT II A II
(EASEMENT DESCPJPTION)
:1
A Public Trail Easement, connecting Lone Pine Road with Gibson Avenue loeated in the N 1/2
of thc SW 1/4 of Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 114 West or the 6th Principal Meridian,
Pitkin County, Colorado, as shown in Exhibit "B" atlllclled hereto, said ell5emel1t being ten
(10.00) feet in width, mea.sw'ed perpendicularly to tbe centerline and being five (5.00) feet Mch
side of the following described centerline:
Beginnlns at a point UII the lbe northerly property line of that parcel described by the instrument
recorded in Book 264 at Page 321 in tile reconu or the I'itldn County Clerk and Recorder's
Office, and being a perpendicular distan~"e of five (5.00) feet from the west property line of said
parcel, whence the Center 1/4 comer of Sec:tion 7, TIOS, R84W, 6TH P.M. a Bweau of Land
Management brass cap monument, 1!)~4, bClln; N 590 32' 37" n, 1044.37 feet;
1. Thence S 270 51: 48" W, 390.03 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way line of Gibson
Avenue as describeq by the instrument recorded in Book 267, ?age 697, UII me at the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder's Office, whence the Center 1/4 COmer uf said Seetion 7 beat'S '
N 510 04' 42" W, 1391.44 feet.
The Public Trail Easement as described ahove contains 3900.2 square feet more or less.
,
NOTE: The Center 1/4 corner, Section 7, 1954, n::rencd to above has now become II Spt:lllial
Purpose Monument and Is so marked at this time by lhe Bureau of Land Management
who has reset the center 1/4 curner uf SectiOIl 7 marked 1978 lICW' the 1954 mOllument;
.
~ , 1
":-
,
- ,
.......
-
Exhibit fiB"
!J
1
l' ~
1
C.I/4 SEC. 7
~ a.. TIOS. R84W, 6TH I"J.I
o N l\:<~'21:... E ~ -"P' 19~4 BLM enA~t eAt' . .~>. E \, \.Jo"'~,~.JQ\a>.
\" ..... \:'OU2' '\ NOW MAJo(J<t:ll St'M N :9.~O?...:.~ ~ ~~'i;::\"',,~P
1 \ 'r: ;::;o,''':'i; nl'lAUl'\, \
. \ ,;', ~ bi .1..,,0,) < "
\ "7" ".'"
\ \ L I N E PIN E PI'lOl'occo 10.00' ~?~" , '. '"0,/;<.,,
~, . \ TnAIL lA:lLMLNT '\ . -,'!: ".- / .", ,.,' , (;.1/4 see. '1
r, \ ", I "" ,~\ TIOr., 1'l(l~W. aT" ~.
\ \~f)ICONDOMINIUMS .~~t;,~~/I\ (~ '\.~~:~g~ ~~~I<~~A;~MCA
(J \ ~;-:. ,.:'0' I ,'" .
-2-' \ ..:/~"T 1'" "',0'\
,.r, \~\
' \ ~...-:;"'" " r~ ..
'. \' ~ ..~ ".:::~:\., '. '. \
\ "-,\ ,11- .;,;'~' ,...... .. \
1'" n~ ,~........ , , y ~ \ "
. \ ~~.~~.. "vI ......'"~.~ \
\ '...:.-; ". , " ....,fO.l) \ \.
' "\:.. /,:~.~,.ot- .J: 16'f.&~;:"~: J: '. \
'\ ~ \ ,':?- /'/~ ,.'t '\
' , \ ,1, ;, .. , 0: nr \., ,:', ':~'
';., ....:" n : .,I\P.,~..' ", ~ . 1 \l',- ',' '
\=" ' .JL ~..84';. -'I,' ~ rl/I~_.
" l~'-- M 0 Cf-(L1f'{ ~)R OPE R TY,i>: J..... ,eH . S 27. liS Co?' E
\ \'11, "'~'~ "'l~ U I ,Q,. '~'33'?I'
\ <:;. ,---- New [)OUNOARY AeCOf\OINb'-'~~o_ o~ $' ;: f Ii zo(;e..,~:
,,,, 10 HOOK 267 PAGE 9~1 "'_"' _ 0, 1_ L. I 5.!>!;' ",
50 " \ . "<~~9.... '% t, ,'.'.
'" O'OO~~ "" 'I> OO-\, t
' ,Joy "-I, "l<;t <'.0{
, ',- 'oS6'. / '_', 65, /
... ~.. ~ ~ ..... I
" "", '<"~>" SJ. I>OOK 26~, PAGe 321 S ';"it'";!.!'!. j'
, ',- ":0 ~~o '00. ~o'o',
"', -........ ~1't1, ~,Sl~. 0..
", ','Jf-9 <'';-'Q
~'" ~:., ~t's' ';~. I
-".. ...., . t. ...... 0'
", " 1'...,~, . n. o' 0' ,. U 'w "'f
'" "'" Jio~ ,1-' Q\J. \.., ~I VI
.". .... 'il-~ Irl ~
....... .... \~~.. ~I'"
N "', ..... ",~,A,:. "I'~
')' . 0,).. :~~('" >6',,> ,~/~
" <.:1) .. (; '0 -';'
... s ~ '! O. ~/'"
'.....01, f ,~", ,
'''''Y\., ' <-;<. I~
...":...'. \ ", ~,. I""
,\ .. 4!'~'J. '~
\\ . ~~'Ii' 'r.~
<l> ~ ...,
, o.
), 0.,:. , ..... I
\ , ,I
\ "<r.\ \ .l-.
\. \
\'\ \ \
~\<>o,\ \
"'. '
. \f- BANNER
'--"-'."".~"""
,
I
J.
1
I
..l.
1
-
....
....
....
-
-
....
~FET 100
o
100 rEET
-,,--.J
II
I 1,1 I t I
-
GflJ\"HIC SCAle
I Inch =" 100 tl,
I
...l
--.-
"-'_'R
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,....
-
-
-
,...
-
-
,...
-
-
-
-
jF.MPORARY CONRTRtI~'ON F.ASF.MENT AND ACCF.SS UCF.NSF.
.A.GRE.EMEBX
THIS AGREEMENT is made and cntered into this _day of ,1994, by and
between Peter Mocklin, 1I~ GrantC/r, and the City of ASJ>en, a municipal corporation, lIS Gl'lUltee,.
WHEREAS, Gramor is the owner of ccrtain real property (the "Property") ,itllated in Aspen.
Colorado, depicted in Exhibit "A:" attached hereto: nnd,
WHEREAS, Grantee dcsires to construct II twelve (12) foot wide trail, of which len (10) feet is to
be located pal'lially on Grantors Property which will require moving material, equipment llnd
personnel to (lain access to conGtruet said trail: and,
WHEREAS, the parties wish to set forth the terms under which the Grantee may obtain access
over the Property to constrUct ,aid ll"ail.
NOW, TUERIlf'ORI:!, for lInd in consideration of the mutual covenants, agreements,
represenlations and wlUTllntics herein COlllained, tbe pArties hereto agree lIS follows:
1. Grantor hereby grants and conveys to Grantee subject to the term, and conditions
hereinafter set forth and the rights herein specifically retained and reserved by Grclntor, the right,
privilege and clIscmcnt to IIccess and eOl\Struet the proposed 1:l'lIiI construction over the land
depicted on Exhibit "A" attached herell.l llI\U by this referellce incorporated herein.
Z, This temporary constT\lcoon casemcntllDd access license agreement shall terminate
on November I, 1.995, unless extended by Grantor in writing.
3.
in width.
The temporary construction casement and access licen.\C shall not CXl:Ced thiny feet
4. Grantee's use of the temporary constrUction easemclllllllU access license shall be
operated in a safe manner and in such 1I manlier liS tu the exlcnt possible, av(,id damage to or
destrUction of Grlll\ror'sPropcn)' ur shrubs llllU uther vegetation on the Propell)'.
S. Grantee agree. tu restore such land and improvements to their condition
immediately prior to any eonSlrUct;on and/or use of the access easement.
G. GI-antee shall not place, keep, store or othenvise pcnnit any equipment or materials
(lIlthe access easement except during such times a.~ Grlllltee's employees or agents are physically
pl'esem and c'lnducung IIctivities J>ennitled WIder this aSl~melll.
7. 11 is expressl)' unuerstuuU IIml IIgrcet.llhlll the granl of a temporary construction
easement and access lil:Cnsc as herein provided and Grantee's use of the Grantor's Property shan at
alltiITlCl; be suoonlinate tu the Grlllltor's use of the Propeny.
8, TI\is temporary construction ellsemCllt and lICcess license agreement is nOI intended
and shall not be construed to grant an casement or access across, ovcr or undcr any property or
J>I'ell1i~s uther thanlhc propeny ue>eril,lcU IInu uepicteU herein.
1
"""
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
!>. In Consideration for the conveyance of this Temporary Construction Easement and
Access ThIsclncnt and thc grant of a ten (10) foot pcnnanent CIlIClnent, Q description of which is
Iltlllched hereto Il~ Exhibits "A" lllld "B", the Orllll!l;l:: shall pay tbe City of Aspen Water Fund Ibc
sum of Twel1ty-SIX Thousand Seven Huntirc:d and Fifly-OneDollars ($26.751.00) on behalf of
and on nccount of Grantor for the outstanding debt on water tap fees.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the panics have affixed their duly authorized signatw-es as of the
day and year fil'll! written above.
Pro
Tammy l1ab1011
" My CommiSSIon expires o.1M8
Oolorado National Bank AIpen NA
8OX3318, "'pen. Colorado 81811
Peter
The foregoing Temporary cnn!'1IUctioqE.1scmenl and 4.cccss Uccnse Agreement WlI8 -i'7l:11owlcdgcdbcforc
me by Peter Moclclin; Properly Owner,thi. . day of ,lJ.4~J<lIJ.IM ,19!>..!L':7"
,
Wuncss my offic' I seal. MX commission c~pjrcs..1Jl" I tf.?
,.. Tammy l1ablcQ
t.1v Commission tl/Ofr~. ; ". QIl
OeIo.ado Natlonp! 'ia,' 'i.' ;.A
Box 3318, Asplill'., ';;0Il.l1l:l4l" en 811
The elly of Aspen
By:
Title:
Attest:
City CJm
Approved
liS to Form:
TJ'Aillt:Tt'.mf'CoMd:.ft.e.m~nl
.,
L
~
,..l
I
I
-
EXHIBIT
II A II
C,//" SEC, ,.
~ a TIOS. R84W, 6TH P,M
.!1. W 6;l~'2~ - t \"- -r,or- If" III Iv! M"!l$ CAP "'-. 1041.64' 1.:::1..
t'" I, Ib02,'.a' 11164 ~I'M 'nOS. 1i1l4W N SO.!\7'O'" 1:. -::;:" r- _ -'<C!'
\ \ . ,~. -~ - - " \
\ ' L IN E PIN c:- 3000' CONlOTFlueT'ON // ;: '" C'1I4 SEe, 7
o I '-t.^S~MFNT >- . ";1:;; llos. IIS4W, filH r'J,I.
I l" . "I . 1978 8~M ORASS CAP
\ ~'O'>fl~ 0 N DO M I N I U M S '1~, .,\'" / ; ~ If/51 ~"M TIOr., llQ4w
I 1<'. ,.~" '" ..., Q 'j P.M.
0\ '~~. v. /\ I '
'J.\ " ~ ~I"/..... 1.'"
, '\'9\ .y....c,...,F'/. ,.___
'~\\ ,,.qi, ...~".
\ \\:' , ~ 1.-:"'}~O"'~<;/ "'/....",~~..
'\ ,'~' / , /. C"Q.",
'. ,\cg, / o~,f /' ^. .?"'3'.\'~3- .t?~ '~~e;-'~~'
\ 'k \ ' .~~ ....,. n . ..OG.'" ""'/~'" ;:
,. ./ '\~ L..... 1.. - 313Q' I , Vj ......
'f_ \ J'~ -. 0/.,. .. I
\' -? tI o,..!) ,
... .......... II. 3 G,~4' "' ' l-
'0<) ",/ ~,14'1I\; / ~ t\ir:--.... ~
'\ \~~ .......- IVIOCKLlf\j; PROPERTY,v',' i-,CH = s 27'18'''7' E
....~9.~ ell: U I 4- 2~t!~:6:I"
~ ~----- New ElOUNl.lArl'l' Ac:r.;()HD1NG-'!~'OO' lilt' '':1 II . '5~..rG' ,
,,,, . 10 n()OK ~C7, PA(l~ ~S7 ''O''"lf.' 1$,";::: l. 10S.~l>:."
.. \ 1" "'~&~"'6., <.,/
~o :::i, ".;.9./. 18 ,
0>.0 oo"~ \ ~..o "', 'F> 00'1' ,
'Il: ,I<\,,t '-1'0 ""', "IQe- ~6i
\ 'J<\" O. I ".,,~CII
.. .. ~ ~ ,~ I
' , .... .".. BOOK <64. PAGE 321 ;i' ':;.....8.'1; 1
"" . SJ" &9..' ~.
" '", d v <'0'
" .......... '0094, 09~?O. '00.
......, -......., X09 ..
'.... r~ I)~ '..,.~. I
.,.... ....., ~'r""~ ",I
""":"~ ,r- GMO I'<.ow ~I '"
"', " .v1t~ . ("I ~
'. .... -0(,.\ 4' .l1 f
", '., -\,.. """,!:;"
"'.>- G~" """" ><\'~ ;?~
/ "-,\ S"'" :~~oo. ~I""
~1- ~> , "', I
'\:~;;-, <'~. Itl
... ..~ \ -. '" I" ',,-
<. ,\"'.. 6''':J"j~
'. <1'91 \\A .. ''I' '
. j' '" \:, ,
\:'''':> \. ~1~ '
,~\ \
,.., ,
'\-"6'\ \
\' ..
f;ANNF;
-.--..
.-
-
.....
,
.-
-
1
-
I
,I
....
,...
,
I
,
...
I
,...
ly
1
I
I
,.J..
rCt:.1 loe
o
100 FEET
.-..,----1
1
;
I
-
II" J I" 1 t I
GR AI"IIIC SCALE
I lnd. = 100 fL
~
-
......
"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
\
)
-
-
\
/
CJ.ty Counc.1l
Approved
Ily Ordinance
Bxh.1h.1tA..
, 19
ORDrNANCE NO. 72
(SERrES OF 1992)
EXHIBIT 2
AN ORDrNANCE OF THE CrTY COUNCrL OF THE CrTY OF ASPEN GRANTrNG
REZONrNG OF A CERTArN METES AND BOUNDS AREA OF LAND CONSrSTrNG OF
50,000 SQUARE FEET FROM MODERATE-DENSrTY REsrDENTrAL (R-15A) TO
REsrDENTrAL MULTr-FAMrLY (R/MFA), LOCATED AT 0202 LONE prNE ROAD,
ASPEN COLORADO
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Municipal Code
the applicant, Peter Mocklin, has submitted an application for a
map amendment for rezoning 50,000 square feet of land area at 0202
Lone Pine Road, from R-15A to R/MFA; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein,
more formally describes the 50,000 square feet of land area that
shall be rezoned from R-15A to R/MFA; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Municipal Code does not require the
submittal of a site specific development plan for the\consideration
of a map amendment; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed PUblic Hearing held by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on
October 20, 1992 to consider the map amendment, the Commission
reviewed the application and considered the representations and
commitments made by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Commission found that the rezoning complied with
Section 24-7-1102, in that there have been changed conditions
affecting the subject parcel or surrounding neighborhood which
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
.....-, )
- .'
-
,...
-
,...
-
-
,...
)
,...
,...
\
}
support the rezoning, the proposed amendment is not in conflict
with any applicable portions of Chapter 24, and the rezoning is
compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses; and
WHEREAS, the Commission recommended approval to the City
Council of the map amendment for 0202 Lone pine Road from R-15A
Moderate-Density Residenti~l to R/MFA Residential Multi-Family; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, having considered the City Council's
concerns expressed during first reading of the Ordinance, revised
the rezoning request; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning proposal only includes 50,000 square
feet of land area surrounding the existing mUlti-family building
in order to eliminate the nonconforming status of the building; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, having considered the
Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation and the revised
proposal, does wish to grant rezoning, with conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
That it does hereby grant rezoning of the metes and bounds area of
land consisting of 50,000 square feet at 0202 Lone Pine Road from
R-15A (Moderate-Density Residential) to R/MFA (Residential/Multi-
Family) with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall file a survey, to be approved by the
Planning and Engineering Departments. Said survey shall confirm
the floor area of the existing structure, as calculated by Section
24-3-101 Floor Area in the Municipal Code, and size the portion of
land to be rezoned to R/MFA to fit the existing floor area of the
building permitting a 5% or 900 square foot leeway, whichever is
less, for minor alterations to the building.
2. The survey shall be filed with the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder within 180 days of final approval of the rezoning or the
approval is void.
2
-
-
,...
) Section 2:
Issues that
trails and
approval,
relate to the establishment and location of sidewalks,
other pUblic improvements shall await sUbdivision
-
Section 3:
-
The Official Zone District Map for the City of Aspen, Colorado,
shall be and is hereby am~nded to reflect those rezoning actions
as set forth in Section 1 above and. such 'amendments shall be
promptly entered on the Official Map in accordance with Section
24-5-103B of the Municipal Code.
-
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'S:
,...
-
4~
~'., "'-,,
/
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:
'c hearing on the Ordinance shall be held 'on the I/~
I~ at 5:00 P.M, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen
II, As en Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing
a pu ic 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
~f the City of Aspen on the ~
, 19~ ~ L7.-..-
by law,
day of
-~
by the
-
-
John Bennett, Mayor
Clerk
,...
)
...
3
-
-
-
"'"'
-,
,....
-
-
,...
-
~
.,.,.--;.,
- )
-
-
,-
-
-
-
-
..
..
j
FINALLY, adopted, passed and
, 1993.
\
)
4
approved this /7' day of
(J / !:t - , >6
John B~t, Mayor
C't)
I-
-
r::c
-
:c
><
w
......
w
'"
:>
Ii
w
0..
~
0..
::::i
~
.~
-,
I
I
~ l
~~
~g ,
~
~r~
~~z
;( f~g
U~t
;~f
z ~b
;:) ~~
8 ~2
>- ~ti
.....~
'0';;:
"
Ta~
Full ~
?~@t~~
~~f~~~
~ ::::;~lU-
~"Y~
~l!;:,~'~"
~~f~~'<
g~~~~~
~~~~~~~
L~
US G2
~~n~~
. ~~tll ~....
.~ ,,"~
~ ~U~~~s.
o ~h~~~
].
<
"L
J I
~~ J ~~ f
I~ ~ ~ bi
~~ t ~ ~~g~
~ L~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~if <( ~~:;~ ~
~ ~~ ' i !~~
~ liE ~ !~{~
~ ~~ ~ ~~~~
5JI~ ,~.h~t-
;
>- i ~8
~,i~~d~
tB\D~--~V
~OIi~ j!S:\~ .
2~ ~~~ t;
~Z ~;:2~}:
>-0 ~ ~V,,~
~i~~~i~~ ~1
~ ~~~~~,~:^
iii~fbn~q~ ~l
~ ~~5~~d~~ ~'~
. t~~~h~Bg !!.
~ ~~"~~H~t- ~,j
w li:~iEF'h.~- "
.~ ~~~;~~~ll~
~ i
~ ~
~
r I
/g ~
(: 11
a~,~l
I
/
.~
~'t
..11
...:.. ~~
C\.I -
"1" ..
J :Ilt
co ~e
C\.I
co
~
~
~
J!
~
~
"
~
J
~f
;::....
ii
~
11
! ~
;&5
c ~
III
III
IIil
I',
IiI
HI,
III.
Jill
h,'
"I
f.11
If,
1111
un
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.....
.....
....
,...
-
APPENDIX C
,...
-
,...
,...
-
,...
,,,,",,,,,
-
-
-
,...
-
,...
...
-
-
-
,...
-
-
,...
March IS, 1995
BANNER
EXRIBIT 1
CONaULT'ND .N..IN..... a ....CHIT.CT.
Mr. Sunny Vann
Vann Associates, Inc.
230 E, Hopkins Ave..
Aspen, Colorado
BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC.
2m Crouroads Boulevard
Grand Junction, ColoradO 811506
(303) 242242
FAX (303)243-3810
105 eall Main, Suite 8
Aspen, Colorado 81811
(300)925-5857
RE: MOCKLIN SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
ASPEN COLORADO
Dear Sunny:
Pursuant to our discussion regarding the infrastructure development of the subject
subdivision, I have reviewed the existing utility serviceability of the site, and have outlined in the
following report, the most efficient ways of extending water, sewer and private utility service to the
subdivision:
General
The subject parcel is located between Lone Pine Road and Gibson Avenue. Currently the
property is within the City of Aspen Municipal Boundary, and is directly adjacent to the facilities
of all of the major utility companies, The parcel consists of approximately 3.5 acres and is proposed
to include six (6) free market single family homes, two (2) multi-family, free market apartments, and
six (6) deed restricted employee housing units. The northerly portion of the site is currently being
serviced by all of the major utilities including water, sewer, electric, gas, cable television, and
telephone. The newly proposed utility facilities being proposed on the southerly portion of the
subdivision will be designed and sized to allow easy serviceability of the existing units should
increased utility service be required. The proposed utility extensions to the development from their
adjacent location are describe by the following:
Water Service
The City of Aspen Water Department currently maintains an assortment of water lines
adjacent to the proposed development. To the south, in Gibson Avenue, there is an existing eight
(8) inch ductile iron water line. On the northerly side of the proposed development there is an
existing eight (8) inch asbestos cement and an eight (8) inch ductile iron water line. Immediately
to the west, lies an existing eight (8) inch cast iron pipe, which currently provides service to the
Lone Pine Condominium complex. The existing water lines adjacent to the proposed developriIent
have been shown on the water plan included as part of the Conceptual Land Use Application.
-
BANNER
,.,
-
March 15, 1995
Mr. Sunny Vann
Page 2 of 4
-
An eight (8) inch ductile iron water line is proposed to provide both potable water and
sufficient fire flows for the development. The water line will be extended from the proposed access
location adjacent to Lone Pine Road, and looped westerly under the proposed access road. The new
water main will be tied onto the existing water line on the westerly portion of the proposed
development. Please see attached plan for the interconnect locations. By routing the new water
main as described, the developer will be able to provide additional looping to the City of Aspen
water system, and will minimize the amount of excavation disturbance to existing vegetation, city
streets, sidewalks, and adjacent utilities.
-
-
~
In a preliminary discussion with the City of Aspen Water Department, it was suggested that
a water main be extended along the westerly portion of the subject development, and connected into
Lone Pine Road, Although this accomplishes additional looping for the City of Aspen, it does not
make water serviceability for the project feasible. Furthennore, it requires an easement from the
Hunter Creek Properties Homeowners Association,
-
-
Water pressure and fire flow requirements, under the proposed water plan, will be more than
adequate for satisfy the Aspen Fire Protection District. Fire hydrants have been located and spaced
at 300 foot increments, and therefore comply with the existing hydrant spacing standards.
Furthennore, an existing City of Aspen fire hydrant is currently in place near the southeasterly
portion of the project.
-
-
The water line will be designed within easements a minimum of twenty (20) feet in width,
and will be constructed according to the City of Aspen standards and specifications. Upon
completion, the water main will be deeded to the City of Aspen Water Department in its entirety for
perpetual ownership and maintenance,
-
-
Sanitary Sewer Service
-
The proposed project is within the existing service area of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District (ACSD). An eight (8) inch sanitary sewer main with sufficient capacity to serve this project,
currently exists in the Gibson Avenue Right-of-Way. An additional manhole will need to be
installed on the sewer main line in Gibson A venue to facilitate the connection of the on-site
collection system. In a discussion with the ACSD, it was suggested that the developer try to tie onto
the existing Gibson A venue sewer main as far to the east as possible. This easterly location will
avoid deep sections of the existing sewer main, which exist at the southwesterly portion of the
proposed development. The on-site collection system will be constructed in accordance with the
ACSD standards and specification. The new sanitary sewer extension will subsequently be deeded
to the ACSD for perpetual ownership and maintenance. Additionally, the sewer will be designed
within easements a minimum of twenty (20) feet in width.
-
-
-
-
....
...
BANNER
...
...
March 15, 1995
Mr. Sunny Vann
Page 3 of 4
Natural Gas
-
-
Currently, there is a gas line in the Lone Pine Road Right-of-Way which has adequate
capacity to service this project. This line will be tapped at the proposed access location on Lone Pine
Road and brought into the project for distribution. The proposed gas main will be designed and
constructed according to Rocky Mountain Natural Gas standards.
-
Electric Service
-
There currently exists an underground power line with sufficient capacity along the westerly
portion of the development parcel to serve this project. This electric line will provide electric service
to the project. It is suggested that the electric line be extended viajoint trench to the project along,
were possible, with the cable television and telephone.
-
Telephone & Cable Television
-
-
Both telephone and cable television service exist adjacent to the development on the easterly
side of the Gibson Avenue/Lone Pine Road intersection. Telephone and Cable Television will be
trenched across Gibson Avenue and along the easterly side of Gibson Avenue to the proposed
intersection of the development. They will then be extended in the proposed access and utility
easement to provide service to the development. Both telephone and cable television should be
extended to the proposed development with the Electric via common trench where possible.
-
-
Access
"""""
Access to the proposed development will be from Lone Pine Road. A twenty-five (25) foot
access and utility easement has been dedicated at the northerly portion of the free-market lots. The
access road servicing the development has been designed twenty (20) feet wide with two (2) foot
shoulders, and currently meets the City of Aspen driveway standards. The access will be paved with
four (4) inches of asphalt upon completion of the underground utilities. There appears to be no
concern relative to the proposed center line grade of the access road or with the anticipated cut and
fill sections. Furthermore, the turning radii have been designed to accommodate fire trucks and
emergency vehicles.
....
.....
-
...
....
-
...
BANNER
-
...
March 15, 1995
Mr. Sunny Vann
Page 4 of 4
-
,.-
Since the access drive will be longer than 150 feet from Lone Pine Road, a fire truck turn-
around has been designed at the end. This type of turn around will utilize portions of a free-market
lot driveway. All portions of the free-market lot turn-arounds, which are used for fire vehicles, will
be signed to prohibit parking in the emergency turn around areas.
...
Please feel free to give me a call should you have any questions or comments.
...
-
~:':: ;Z . ~ _
Hans E, Bruc~ -
Design Engineer/Aspen Office Manager
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC,
...
HEB:heb
...
c:lwpwin60ldocl8256\srvdes.lst
...
...
-.
-
-
....
...
...
...
-
March 15, 1995
BANNER
---~- EXHIBIT 2
CClNaULTING .NGIN.... .. AIIlICHIT.CTa
-
-
Mr. Sunny Vann
Vann Associates, Inc.
230 E. Hopkins Ave.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC.
2m Crossroads BouHward
Gi'and Junction, Colorado 81506
(303) 243-2242
FAX (303)243-3810
605 east M81n, Suite 6
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-5857
-
-
RE: MOCKLIN SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
ASPEN, COLORADO
-
Dear Sunny:
"""
Pursuant to our discussion regarding development of the subject project, I have had the
opportunity to review the existing drainage conditions on site and have included recommendations
on the drainage improvements that will be necessary to develop the proposed subdivision.
-
The existing Mocklin Property is situated in the north portion of the City of Aspen between
Gibson Avenue, and Lone Pine Road, easterly of the Lone Pine Condominiums. The existing
drainage patterns allow for surface runoff to flow from the southeasterly portion of the property at
the Gibson AvenuelLone Pine Road intersection, to the westerly portion of the property. Currently,
there is a small ditch that flows from east to west and runs approximately through the center of the
property. The existing ditch flows into an existing pond adjacent to the existing apartment building.
-
-
-
The site currently consists of native grasses, small shrubs, sage brush, oak brush, along with
small stands of aspen and cottonwood trees. Based upon our field investigation, we found that a
ml\iority of the surface runoff generated from snowmelt percolates directly into the ground, while
a portion of the remaining surface runoff flows into the aforementioned ditch. The balance of the
surface runoff either flow onto Gibson A venue, or Lone Pine Road, after which it enters the Roaring
Fork River via the City of Aspen stonn drainage facilities.
-
-
The current development plan will generate additional amounts of surface runoff that will,
under the current City of Aspen Municipal Code, have to be retained on site. We recommend that
a system of subsurface retention/detention facilities (drywells) be installed throughout the site to
mitigate the additional stonn water runoff quantities generated by the proposed development. We
recommend that concrete drywells and! or underground infiltrator units be installed as part of the
retention/detention area design. A further analysis of the percolation rates as well as final drainage
areas should be conducted prior to submitting a detailed land use application to the City of Aspen.
This will insure that the retention/detention. facilities are adequately sized to accommodate the
developed drainage impacts created by the proposed development. It should be noted that no
additional stonn water runoff beyond the current historic levels should be discharged onto adjacent
properties or public rights-of-way as a result of this development.
-
-
-
-
-
...
...
BANNER
~
...
March 15, 1995
Mr. Sunny Vann
Page 2 of2
...
We recommend that the final grading plan include drainage swales between the proposed
buildings and that the drainage swales be constructed to channel water away from the buildings. The
runoff from building roofs can be carried in the proposed swales through the landscaped areas, and
channeled to the retention/detention inlets. The proposed swales should be constructed at grades
in excess of two (2) percent, and revegetated with grasses to prevent sedimentation or silt build-up
within the proposed retention/detention areas. Additionally, we recommend that catch basins be
installed where ever water is collected prior to entering the retention/detention areas. This will
further prevent premature silting of the retention/detention facilities.
,...
"""
,...
...
The existing ditch which bisects the property, should be culverted across the proposed new
access road, and should be lined with a non-permeable liner, in areas where the ditch channel is
disturbed as a result utility installation. We recommend that the existing pond remain in the
development, and that it be regularly maintained as a small silt, settling pond.
...
As we proceed with this project, it will be necessary to provide specific calculations, design,
and drawings to address the parameters outlined in this letter. Should you have any questions or
comments prior to that time please feel free to contact me.
-
...
:JlrelY,
~.i~
Design Engineer/Aspen Office Manager
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
...
...
HEB:heb
-
c:lwpwin60IdocI8304Idrainage.let
-
,...
-
-
-
'""
March IS, 1995
BANNER
->- EXHIBIT 3
CDNeULTING .NGIN...... a .....C...'T.CT.
-
'""
Mr. Sunny Vann
Vann Associates, Inc.
230 E. Hopkins Ave,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC.
zrn Crot'l'CMds Boulevard
Orand Junction, Colot.do 81508
(303) 243-2242
FAX (303l243810
805 Eat Maln,Sulte 6
Aspen,Colorado 818ft
(303)-..07
-
-
RE: MOCKLIN SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY
ASPEN, COLORADO
...
Dear Sunny:
-
Pursuant to our discussion regarding the subject development, I have had the opportunity to
review the existing traffic patterns of Lone Pine Road and Gibson Avenue, as well as, the traffic that
will be generated by the Mocklin Subdivision.
-
The proposed Mocklin Subdivision is situated between Gibson Avenue and Lone Pine Road.
Immediately to the west of the proposed subdivision lies the River Bluff Condominiums (a.k.a Lone
Pine Condominiums). Access to the site is via the Lone Pine Road Right-of-Way, which varies in
width from approximately sixty (60) feet to eighty (80) feet.
""'
-
The neighborhood is currently provided transit bus service by the Roaring Fork Transit
Agency (RFTA) which runs bus headways to and from Aspen every twenty (20) minutes, from 7:00
am to 2:30 pm. Ridership on the RFTA bus service has historically been strong. In addition, the
City of Aspen has recently implemented a new on-street paid parking program which has further
promoted the use of alternative (non-automobile) modes of transportation. Furthermore, a pedestrian,
hard surface trail is currently in place on the westerly portion of the property. This trail is linked
with the new Smuggler Commuter Sidewalk recently constructed along Gibson Avenue on the south
side of the proposed subdivision. The Smuggler Commuter Sidewalk connects pedestrians with Mill
Street allowing direct walking access to Aspen's central core.
'""
-
-
-
As a result of the alternative modes of transportation, we have applied traffic generation rates
to the Mocklin Subdivision which are significantly less than the ten and six vehicle-trips per day
typically applied to single and multi-family dwelling units, respectively, based on national averages
published by the "Institute of Transportation Engineers" (ITE). The current "Pitkin County Road
Standards and Specifications" 1990, maintains an average weekday generation rate of four trips per
single-family dwelling and three trips per multi-family dwelling, assuming strong transit service.
For the "free-market" lots, we have increased the single-family rate by an additional 2.9 daily trips
as recommended by the ITE for households having more than two vehicles.
'""
-
'""
The traffic that will be generated from the proposed development of the Mocklin Subdivision
is a function of the number of new residential units that will be added. The vehicle trips generated
in this report are based upon data from the Fourth Edition of the "Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual" published in 1987. This manual was prepared based upon
sample data from specific land uses, classified according to the underlying zoning.
'""
-
~
BANNER
"""
-
March 15. 1995
Mr. Sunny Vann
Page 2 of3
~.
The Mocklin Subdivision Development Project will consist of six (6) existing multi-family
employee housing units, two (2) existing multi-family free market units, and six (6) free market
detached single family homes. The employee housing portion of the project will be limited to the
existing apartment building currently in place at the northerly portion of the property, The six (6)
free market single-family lots are proposed on the southerly and westerly sides of the existing
apartment building.
-
-
-
The existing section of Lone Pine Road has driving lanes approximately twelve (12) feet
wide, According to the "Pitkin County Road Standards and Specifications" 1990, the type of road
is classified as a Class lIB collector roadway, and should allow between 1,000 to 2,500 vehicles per
day depending on the surrounding neighborhood densities. Since access to the project will be
predominantly from the Gibson Avenue/Lone Pine Road intersection, consideration in this study
should be the capacity of this intersection. According to review of a recent traffic study conducted
by Leigh, Scott and Cleary in 1994, the level of service "A" peak hour capacity of this intersection,
based on surrounding intersections can be conservatively approximated at 800 vehicles per hour
(VPH). A Level of Service "A" is defined as a condition where no vehicle waits longer than a few
seconds for a gap in traffic. Typically, the intersection approaches appear quite open, with turning
movements easily made, and nearly all drivers fmd freedom of operation.
-
-
-
-
The current Traffic flows in the area are estimated to be approximately 120 VPH on Lone
Pine Road, and 136 VPH on Gibson A venue. These estimates have been conservatively
approximated from a Leigh, Scott and Cleary, 1994 Traffic Report that was conducted for the City
of Aspen, and the Williams Ranch Subdivision Development. These estimates, coupled an
additional peak hour generation of 3.37 VPH generated by this project (see Exhibit II), suggest that
there is adequate capacity on the existing Gibson Avenue and Lone Pine Road roadways and
intersection to accommodate the additional traffic impacts created by this development without
performing any major improvements to the existing roadways.
-
-
-
The total average daily traffic (ADT) generated for this project according to the ITE will be
41.40 vehicles per day (VPD) (see Exhibit I), Our experience with the proposed Williams Ranch
Subdivision Development suggests that there is more than ample reserve capacity at the Gibson
A venue/Lone Pine intersection to support the additional peak hour trips generated from the Mocklin
Subdivision in order to maintain an "A" level of service. In fact, according to the Leigh Scott and
Cleary traffic study, a conservative estimate of the Gibson Avenue/Lone Pine Road intersection
suggests that an additional 144 trips could be added before the level of service drops to "B". This
assumes that the existing reserve capacity of the intersection is around 800 VPH. The subject
development will only increase the Peak Hour trip generation rate, according to the ITE Manual, by
about 3.37 vehicles per hour (VPH), less than three (3) percent of the estimated reserve capacity of
the intersection to maintain a level of service "A".
-
-
-
-
-
....
BANNER
-
-
March 15, 1995
Mr. Sunny Vann
Page3 of 3
....
In conclusion, the following points should be reiterated:
1.)
Given the proximity of the project to the central core area, and the nearly 60%
employee housing ratio, this project will provide a large auto disincentive to its full
time residents.
....
....
2.)
The traffic generated by this project will not push the existing access routes beyond
an operating capacity of Level of Service "A"
....
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any question or comments.
-
-
Sincerely,
~C~
Hans E. Brucker
Design Engineer/Aspen Office Manager
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
....
HEB:heb
....
c:\wpwin60\doc\8304\lraf.sty
-
....
....
-
....
-
-
-
-
"""
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"""
BANNER
EXHIBIT I
TOTAL TRAFFIC GENERATION ANALYSIS
MOCKLIN SUBDIVISION
WEEIillA Y TRIP GENERATION RATES (ADT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description Number ITE ADT/ Total
of Units of Units Designation Unit ADT
Free Market 6 210 6.9 41.40
Single-Family
Free Market 2 230 0 0
Multi-Family*
Deed Restricted 6 230 0 0
Apartments*
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL A VERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC GENERATED
41.41
* Units are already in existence
EXHIBIT II
TOTAL TRAFFIC GENERATION ANALYSIS
MOCKLIN SUBDIVISION
WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION RATES (VPH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description Number ITE VPH/ Total
of Units of Units Designation Unit VPH
Free Market 6 210 0.561 3.37
Single-Family
Free Market 2 230 0 0
Multi-Family*
Deed Restricted 6 230 0 0
Apartments*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC GENERATED
3.37
* Units are already in existence
....
-
~,
....
-
....
-
-
....
-
-
-
.~
-
-
-
-
, f. tr~ r;u
;" ~t \"'1, ~. :-
~'Jd'} :r-bI (iljh(
. ::":"'\--".'_:~ :~.(\ ":.;..
~;':-: .,(! n m ", I !,:!,'-.
,~ J{,.--":",,."
. '""1'1'...111":,.:-..:...,,..... '
. - ~,' r..",!'
EXHIBIT 2
Aspen/Pit
130
Asp
(303) 92 -
ing Office
treet
611
920-5197
June 26, 1992
Mr, Sunny Vann
Vann & Associates
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sunny,
Please forgive this very late response to your April 20, 1992
letter regarding Mr. Mocklin I s property. I have discussed the
letter with the City Attorney, Zoning Officer and Planning staff.
First, staff had to determine whether the eight dwelling units were
legal dwelling units. Based upon the 1982 BOCC Resolution that
resolved the County's pending litigation with Mr. Mocklin, we have
determined that the Resolution, legalized Mr. Mocklin's eight units
as a legal non-conforming use and structure subject to building
inspections by the building official for health and safety issues.
However, it is our position that before the eight dwelling units
are considered legal units for GMQS replacement credit, the
appropriate building permits, 'albeit retroactively, must be
obtained. Although, building inspections were a requirement of the
1982 BOCC Resolution, we have no evidence that those inspections
were conducted and any building violations rectified.
In addition, the Zoning Officer is aware that there have been
additions and expansions made to the building without building
permi ts. These expansions may only be approved pursuant to a
successful rezoning of the property that will remove the building
,from a non-conforming status.
Ipertaining to your inqUiry of Section 24-8-104 A.I. (a) "Exemption
~y Planning Director", staff supports the concept of awarding
replacement credit for dwelling units that do not need to be
demolished for future free market development. A Planning
Director's interpretation of Section 24-8-104 A.l. (a) will be
necessar~ ~ award credit, and will be made when an application is
sUbmitte~
Before credit is awarded, a thorough inspection of the dwelling
units by a building inspector and the Housing Authority will be
@ recycled paper
,1"-,
,-
....
....
....
....
-
....
-
-
....
....
....
-
-
-
-
....
....
required in order to assure the City that the preserved units
comply with UBC and Housing Authority standards. If upgrading is
necessary, the applicant will have to improve the units before deed
restrictions will be accepted for a Planning Director GMQS
Exemption. We followed a similar process with the Smuggler
Mountain Apartments before the Housing Authority would accept those
units for housing mitigation.
I'm sure that the inspection necessary to legalize the units can
be coordinated with the Housing Authority in order for staff to
determine whether replacement credit is appropriate.
(lhope this letter answers your preliminary questions. Of Course
th.e next step for Mr. Mocklin would be a preapplication conference
pending preparation of an application for development review.
incerely,
....
ffi1 .
D~ane Moore, Ci~rector
cc: Leslie Lamont
Bill Drueding
Jed Caswall
..
EXHIBIT 1
..
-
VANN ASSOCIATES
Clacnlng Consultants
-
April 20, 1992
HAND DELIVERED
-
..
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Mocklin GMQS Exemption Application
..
Dear Leslie:
-
..
As you requested, outlined below is the approach which I would like to utilize in
preparing an application for a GMQS exemption for the development of the Mocklin
property, which is located adjacent to Gibson Avenue and Lone Pine Road in the City of
Aspen. The property consists of two (2) separate parcels, which total approximately four
(4) acres, and is presently zoned R-15A, Moderate-Density Residential. Existing devel-
opment consists of eight (8), free market dwelling units, which are located in a single,
multi-family structure.
-
-
As we have discussed, Mr. Mocklin could demolish the existing multi-family building and
reconstruct eight (8), single-family, free market residences on the property exempt from
the GMQS, subject, of course, to compliance with the affordable housing replacement
provisions of City Council Ordinance No. 90-1, and the applicable requirements of the
underlying zone district. Ordinance No. 1 would require the provision of on-site, afford-
able housing in sufficient quantity to replace fifty (SO) percent of the existing building's
net livable area, configured in such a manner as to also replace fifty (SO) percent of the
bedrooms which are demolished.
-
-
-
In lieu of demolition, Mr. Mocklin would like to simply deed restrict all or pan of the
existing building's units in exchange for a GMQS exemption for an equivalent number of
free market, single-family residences. While the Land"Use Regulations do not specifical-
ly provide for such an exemption, this approach should be attractive to the City, in that
it results in a one-to-one mitigation of the proposed project's affordable housing impact.
For example, if we demolish the existing eight unit, multi-family structure, only half of its
bedrooms must be replaced in exchange for a GMQS exemption for eight new free
market, single-family residences. On the other hand, if we deed restrict all eight existing
units in exchange for a GMQS exemption for eight new units, no existing bedrooms will
be lost as a result of the project. It is interesting to note that a GMQS application for
eight, free market units on the property would theoretically result in the provision of
-
-
..
-
230 ~ast Hopkins Avenue. Aspen, Colorado 81611 . 303/925-6958' Fax 303/920-9310
..
I"'"
-
Ms. Leslie Lamont, AICP
April 20, 1992
Page 2
"'"
-
even fewer affordable housing units, as an applicant need only house a minimum of
thirty-five (35) percent of the new project's total population. It seems absurd that Mr.
Mocklin must demolish a perfectly good building to obtain a GMQS exemption for the
units, and then have to reconstruct half of the building to mitigate the impact of its
demolition.
-
-
While we have not designed the proposed project, it is anticipated that the majority of
Mr. Mocklin's existing units would be deed restricted as affordable housing. in exchange
for an equal number of new free market units. The portion of the property on which the
existing units are located would be rezoned from R-15A to RIMF, Residential/Multi_
Family, to eliminate the units' present status as a 1J9l!:-eonforminguse. An appropriately
sized parcel would be created for the units, and the remainder of the property subdivid-
ed into R-15A, single-family lots to accommodate the exempt free market units.
-
-
Mr. Mocklin's land use application would request GMQS exemption, subdivision and
rezoning approvals. The POO process would also most likely be utilized to provide
flexibility, and toinhance the project's site plan. The application would meet all
applicable submission and procedural requirements. Should the Planning Office wish, we
would also include appropriate language for a code amendment to clarify our GMQS
exemption approach in our land use application.
-
-
-
,
I would appreciate it if you-would provide me with a formal response to Mr. Mocklin's
proposed application. Obviously, we wish to clarify the Planning Office's position
regarding this matter prior to proceeding with the preparation of an application.
-
Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please do not hesitate
to call.
Sincerely,
-
VANN ASSOCIATES
-
-
-
SV:cwv
cc: Peter Mocklin
-
c:\bus\city.ltrlltr16291.Ul
-
-