HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ud.Aspen Electric Dept.78
,
'""-
~
,^
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM:. Planning Office, Bill Kane
RE: Site 4, City Electric Building
DATE: January 23, 1978
The City's search for a site for a new electric switch gear building
commenced roughly in the fall of 1976. In February of 1977, detailed
plans for a City electric switch gear building were proposed to the
Board of Adjustment for a location at Cemetery Lane and Highway 82.
As you may know, it is necessary to locate this facility in a reasonable
proximity to a feeder line which will come from the Colorado Ute Sub-
station at the Airport Business Center to the City of Aspen to provide
addi ti ona 1 switching ci rcui ts to take) full advantage of the hundred and
fifteen (115 kv) increase into the valley. A variety of locations were
studied in the fall of 1976 with a decision being made for the location
of Cemetery Lane in January of 1977. The Board of Adjustment found
that they could not provide a variance to allow the building to be
constructed in that location and staff was directed to consider alter-
native locations. Subsequent to that exercise, additional planning
has been conducted by Holy Cross who will construct the feeder line
with the County Planning and Zoning Commission and County Commissioners.
The up shot of this process was to locate the feeder line in the Rio
Grande right of way which will provide power .' into the City along
the old railroad right of way will come into the City roughly along
the alignment of Lot 3 of the Trueman Subdivision. Subsequent to the
turn down on the Cemetery Lane locati on, four additi ona 1 sites in that
location were considered. One invol ved.a site on City property further
down the bank towards Castle Creek. The second was on the City's Shop
property and two sites were considered on. the south side of the Hi.ghway
82 bridge along Castle Creek including a site on land owned by Opal
Marolt. For both financial and engineering reasons, sites in the area
of Castle Creek were eventually abandoned. With the final decision
having been made for the alignment of the feeder line to use the Rio
Grande right of way, is incumbent upon the City of Aspen Electric
Department to find the site in a reasonable proximity to the terminus
of that line which again is Lot 3 of the Trueman Subdivision. In
looking at this area of town, 12 sites have been investigated to varying
degrees of detail. I would like to briefly discuss each of these with
you at Monday night's meeting and will hopefully pursuade you, as we
have been, that the Craig site on Puppy Smith Street within the Lakeview
Subdivision appears most appropriate and cost effective at this point.
Site One - Pitkin County No. 2 -- This area is located between
the hospital and Silver King apartments and is that broad open
lot that leads to the trail head to Hunter Creek; This site,
from an engineering standpoint would be expensive to construct
because it would require river crossings and extensive heavy
construction to embed the line across the riverbed to get to
this site. In addition, Pitkin County has considered, on
several occasions, the possibility of using this landfor
additional housing in the area under some form of public
sponsorship. Construction would be expensive and the location
of even this 900 square foot building would preclude potentially
much higher uses for the site. In short, this would be a .
squanderi ng of val uab Ie ground.
.
~
~
, .
Aspen City Council
Page.. Two
January 23, 1978
Site Two - City Storm Ponds -- The engineers have rejected
thi S a lternati ve due to its proximity to the Roaring Fork
River and seasonally high water in. the area which wOuld
present serious maintenance problems to the delicate nature
of the electrical equipment envisioned here. .
Site Three - This is a site study area within'the Aspen
Sanitation District property. Specifically, the site being
considered is on the north side of the existing plant and
is in immediate proximity to the flood plain of the river
and again is a low piece of property with seasonally high
water and is not acceptable from an engineering standpoint.
Site Four - Pitkin County No. 1 -- This is a tract of ground
immediately north of Mill Street and the proximity of the
river. It is covered by a 1 Birge grove of trees and in order to
minimize disruption and cutting in the area a site has been
identified on the north side of this tract of ground and
the objections from the engineers here are the same; that
while it may technically be outside the flood plain, the
site is extremely low and is subject to flooding and seasonally
high Water.
,
Site Five - Holy Cross Property -~ This site may well stand
within the 100 year flood plain due to the channel alter-
ations that have taken place in thi s part of the City. From
a planning standpoint it is highly questionable as to the
wisdom of constructing a building of this nature; immediate
proximity to the Holy Cross Building for which $300,000 has
been budgeted for purposes of renovation of the building for
a visual arts center. We have worked long and hard for
removing the e.lectric utility function from this site to be
supplanted by an art aesthetic function and a decision to
locate an electric building on this site would be difficult
to justify from a planning standpoint.
Sites Six and Seven are Andrews and Cap's respectively. Both
of these consist of existing buildings and both present engine-
ering and planning problems. From the engineering standpoint,
both buildings would have to be so thoroughly renovated to
accommodate the electrical gear that any building on these
sites would have to include complete removal and replacement
of the buildings. In both cases, tremendous costs would be
involved. Mr. Andrews presented to us last year, and as of
a year ago, has paid over $400,000 for both buildings and land
in the location of the Andrews' site. We have not completed
an appraisal nor do we know what Cap's would want for their
property; but you can well imagine that it would be an expensive
property to acquire and it should be balanced against the needs
sought.
Site Nine - The Aspen One Property -- As you know, from the
staff level we have made repeated attempts to discuss planning
on this property with the owner and have recommended that the
City acquire this land for purposes of restoring the original
channel of the river and locating the Roaring Fork Greenway,
a pedestrian-oriented highly landscaped river front park.
Needless.to say, an electric building would be totally con-
trary to the goals as they are established in the adopted
S.P.A. plan for the Rio Grande property.
,-.,
.~
Aspen City Council
Page Three
January 23, 1978
Site Ten - Land north of the Obermeyer Building within City
ownership along Spring Street. WhHe this site would be
expensive from the standpoint of,engineering, in that itwou]d ,r,).
require extension of the feeder line for an additional two
thousand to twenty-five hundred feet; it is one that could
feasibly be developed from a planning point of view. However,.,'
it would seem an unfortunate decision from the standpoint of
setting a circulation pattern and land use pattern on a two
million dollar piece of property to satisfy the needs of one
900 square foot building.
Site Eleven - Baker site -- which is land zoned R-6 within
Lakeview Subdivision in an immediate proximity to the Trueman
Lot 3 and the alignment of the feeder line. Though we have
found this site to be initially acceptable and we are pursuing
the idea of acquiring this for purposes of the building;
several complications have arisen with respect to this site.
First of all , the site is small and is going to create space
problems regardless of various City required Board of Adjustment
processes! So there is some question about the utility of the
site from an engineering standpoint. Secondly, there are
numerous variances that wi 11 be required by the bui 1 ding and
this will require a fairly lengthy review by both the Board
of Adjustment and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Complaint
has already been received by the immediately adjacent neighbors
and it looks like ,to feasibly develop this site, would require
the acquisition of the entire Baker. property to include the
Caparella house to the immediate west. This would result in
a land cost of $150,000 for this facility.
Site Twelve - Our recommended, site is the Craig property which
is south of Puppy Smith Street and immeidately behind Lot 2
of the future site for the Post Office behind the Rio Grande
property. The plan consists of almost 15,000 square feet. It
would be an adequate area to carefully design the building and
screen it, landscape it so that it could be bought off in a
totally compatible residential design leaving a,large balance
of the tract and open spa.ce. Cost for this land would be
$119,000. Of the sites investigated, we feel this would be
superior due to: l) engineering costs and ease of construction;
2) size and location of land from a land use planning standpoint;
3) the time'consuming City reviews that would be required with
each of the alternative sites. From the point of view of all
three of these, the Craig site is clearly superior.
Conclusion
The decision for the location of the switch gear building is becoming
critical. Feeder line construction will be completed in the summer of
1978. This building is the critical completing link to the overall
distribution network for the City of Aspen which will be necessary to
take advantage of the 115 kv line which is nearing completion now. We
will appear at Monday night's meeting, have the engineers available to
discuss each of these sites, solicite any comments from the Council
and hopefully receive your approval for the purchase of the Craig site
with authorization to proceed.
,."...,
~
(.C, -G. C'i"\
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office (BK)
DATE: February 16, 1978
RE: Conditional Use Hearing for the City of Aspen
Electric Building
At Tuesday's meeting, you will be presented with an appli-
cation for conditional use approval for the location of a 1,500
square foot City of Aspen electrical switch gear building on
the craig property within the Lakeview Subdivision. As you will
recall, at your meeting of December 20, 1977, the Board voted
to find that the electric building envisioned would qualify as
a public administration building and, therefore, is eligible for
consideration under the conditional use list of the R-6 and
R-15 zones. In granting conditional use approval, the code
envisions that you consider the impacts of this specific and
unique use on the general character of the surrounding area.
In conducting such an investigation, certain pertinent facts
are in order. First of all, the Planning Office has supported
this site principally by virtue of the changing character of
land use in the area, and the site's immediate proximity to the
feeder line which will provide service to the City along the
Rio Grande right-of-way or Lot 3 of the Trueman Subdivision.
This site consists of some 15,000 square feet and is the first
residential property on Puppy Smith Street as one enters the
Lakeview Subdivision. This building will be immediately adjacent
behind, and for all practical purposes, totally screened by the
post office building on Lot 2 of the Trueman Subdivision. The
balance of this area is zoned R-15 and is residential in
character with several old miner's cabins fixed up and currently
lived in.llith the development of Puppy Smith Street, the
eventual development of Lot 3 of the Trueman Subdivision, the
construction of the Aspen Venture Building, the post office
and the Trueman Building, it is rather obvious that the character
of this area is undergoing transition. In fact in our previous
proposal some years ago to rezone this area to R-30 to preserve
it as extremely low residential density, the Council indicated
an interest in preserving this area at R-6 and even considering
rezoning it to RMF as a site for potential lower cost or employee
housing. In considering the electric building, certain things
should be borne in mind. In our various considerations, we have
encouraged the applicants to design a building that would be
in fitting with a residential scale and, therefore, should use
soft materials such as wood exterior, adequate landscaping,
reasonable height limitations, set backs, etc. Greg Cole has
prepared several drawings of a building that is very similar in
design to the Park Maintenance Building in that it involves earth
berms and a building that is low with fairly simple lines. From
a design standpoint, the building appears to be quite compatible
with the area now and compatible with anything that may develop
in that area. From an activity standpoint, the majority of this
1,500 square feet will be occupied by about six to seven hundred
square feet of switch gears space, six hundred square feet of
parking space for two vehicles, and the balance will be for
meter storage and a small desk. I think from the plans shown
the activity that will take place on the site will also be
consistent with the character of the area.
Mike Jones of Merrick & Co., consultants to the City of
Aspen Electric Department, will be present at your meeting on
~
~"
,-,
.r,J:,. (,?,)
Tuesday to present these plans and take comments from.the Board
and request will be made for conditional use approval. As you may
have gathered from recent reports on the radio and in the newspaper,
in conveying this land to the previous owner, Mrs. Paepcke had
placed a restrictive covenant on the site restricting it to
residential use only. This problem is being attended to by the
City Attorney and Manager, and we have indication that this
restriction will be released. At any rate, such covenant is not
pertinent to the deliberations before the Board. You will be
required simply to look at the building and make a determination
as to whether it fits the surrounding area and whether the
activities envisioned are compatible with the surrounding area.
Given the information to date, we find the design and
proposed use to be compatible and at Tuesday's meeting will
recommend approval of this project.
BK:mc
,-.,
..,......."
~
~,.
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office, Bill Kane
RE: Site 4, City Electric Building
DATE: January 23, 1978
The City's search for a site for a new electric switch gear building
commenced roughly in the fall of 1976. In February of 1977, detailed
plans for a City electric switch gear building were proposed to the
Board of Adjustment for a location at Cemetery Lane and Highway 82.
As you may know, it is necessary to locate this facility in a reasonable
proximity to a feeder line which will come from the Colorado Ute Sub-
station at the Airport Business Center to the City of Aspen to provide
additional switching circuits to take full advantage of the hundred and
fifteen (ll5 kv) increase into the valley. A variety of locations were
studied in the fall of 1976 with a decision being made for the location
of Cemetery Lane in January of 1977. The Board of Adjustment found
that they could not provide a variance to allow the building to be
cons tructed in that 1 ocati on and staff was di rected to cons ider' a lter-
native locations. Subsequent to that exercise, additional planning
has been conducted by Holy Cross who will construct the feeder line
with the County Planning and Zoning Commission and County Commissioners.
The up shot of thi s process was to locate the r~eder line i nthe Ri 0
Grande right of way which will provide pewter : into the City along
the old railroad right of way will come into the City roughly along
the alignment of Lot 3 of the Trueman Subdivision. Subsequent to the
turn down on the Cemetery Lane location, four additional sites in that
location were considered. One involved a site on City property further
down the bank towards Castle Creek. The second was on the City's Shop
property and two sites were considered on the south side of the Highway
82 bridge along Castle Creek including a site on land owned by Opal
Marolt. For both financial and engineering reasons, sites in the area
of Castle Creek were eventually abandoned. With the final decision
havi ng been made for the ali gnment of the feeder 1 i ne to use the Ri 0
Grande right of way, is incumbent upon the City of Aspen Electric
Department to find the site in a reasonable proximity to the terminus
of that line which again is Lot 3 of the Trueman Subdivision. In
looking at this area of town, 12 sites have been investigated to varying
degrees of detail. I would like to briefly discuss each of these with
you at Monday ni ght's meeti ng and wi 11 hopefully pursuade you ,.aswe
have been, that the Craig site on. Puppy Smith Street within the Lakeview
Subdivision appears most appropriate and cost effective at this point.
Site One - Pitkin County No.2 -- This area is located between
the hospital and Silver King apartments and is that broad open
lot that leads to the trailhead to Hunter Creek. This site,
from an engineering standpoint would be expensive to construct
because it would require river crossings and extensive heavy
construction to embed the line across the riverbed to get to
this site. In addition, Pitkin County has considered, on
several occasions, the possibility of using this land for
additional housing i n.:thearea under some form of public
sponsorship. Construction would be expensive and the location
of even this 900 square foot building would preclude potentially
much higher uses for the site. In short, this would be a
squandering of valuable ground.
~
. .
~.
o
Aspen City Council
Page Two
January 23, 1978
Site Two - City Storm Ponds -- The engineers have rejected
this alternative due to its proximity to the Roaring Fork
River and seasonally high water in the area which would
present serious maintenance problems to the delicate nature
of the electrical equipment envisioned here.
Site Three - This is a site study area within the Aspen
Sanitation District property. Specifically, the site being
considered is on the north side of the existing plant and
is in immediate proximity to the flood plain of the river
and again is a low piece of property with seasonally high
water and is not acceptable from an engineering standpoint.
Site Four - Pitkin County No. 1 -- This is a tract of ground
immediately north of Mill Street and the proximity of the
river. It is covered by a large grove of trees and,.ir:l: ord-e1" to
minimize disruption and cutting in the area a site has been
identified on the north side of this tract of ground and
the objections from the engineers here are the same; that
while it may technically be outside the flood plain, the
site is extremely low and is subject to flooding and seasonally
high water.
Site Five - Holy Cross Property -~ This site may well stand
within the 100 year flood plain due to the channel alter-
ations that have taken place in this part of the City. From
a planning standpoint it is highly questionable as to the
wisdom of constructing a building of this nature; immediate
proximity to the Holy Cross Building for which $300,000 has
been budgeted for purposes of renovation of the building for
a visual arts center. . We:' have worked lon9 and hard for
removing the el ectri c uti 1 ity functi on from thi s si te to be
supplanted by an art aesthetic function and a decision to
locate an electric building on this site would be difficult
to justify from a planning standpoint.
Sites Six and Seven are Andrews and Cap's respectively. Both
of these consist of existing buildings and both present engine-
ering and planning problems. From the engineering standpoint,
both buildings would have to be so thoroughly renovated to
accommodate the e 1 ectri ca 1 gear that any building on these
sites would have to include complete removal and replacement
of the buildings. In both cases, tremendous costs would be
involved. Mr. Andrews presented to us last year, and as of
a year ago, has paid over $400,000 for both buildings and land
in the location of the Andrews' site. We have not completed
an appraisal nor do we know what Cap's would want for their
property; but you can well imagine that it would be an expensive
property to acquire and it should be balanced against the needs
sought.
Site Nine - The Aspen One Property -- As you know, from the
staff level we have made repeated attempts to discuss planning
on this property with the owner and have recommended that the
City acquire this land for purposes of restoring the original
channel of the river and locating the Roaring Fork Greenway,
a pedestrian-oriented highly landscaped river front park.
Needless to say. an electric building would be totally con-
trary to the goals as they are established in the adopted
S.P.A. plan for the Rio Grande pr-operty.
.,..."
~\
.
.
Aspen CityCounci 1
Page Three
January 23, 1978
Site Ten - Land north of the Obermeyer Building within City
ownership along Spring Street. While this site would be
expensive from the standpoint of engineering, in that it would
require extension of the feeder line for an additional two
thousand to twenty-five hundred feet; it is one that could
feasibly'be developed from a planning point of view. However,
it would seem an unfortunate decision from the standpoint of
setting a circulation pattern and land use pattern on a two
mi II i on doll ar piece of property to sati sfy the needs of one
900 square foot building.
Site Eleven - Baker site -- which is land zoned R-6 within
Lakeview Subdivision in an immediate proximity to the Trueman
Lot 3 and the alignment of the feeder line. Though we have
found this site to be initially acceptable and we are pursuing
the idea of acquiring this for purposes of the building;
several complications have arisen with respect to this site.
First of all , the site is small and is going to create space
problems regardless of various City required Board of Adjusttrlent
processes! So there is some question about the utility of the
site from an engineering standpoint. Secondly, there are
numerous variances that will be required by the building and
this will require a fairly lengtby review by both the Board
of Adjustment and the Planning and Zon.ing Commission. Complaint
has already been received by the immediately adjacent neighbors
and it looks like to feasibly develop this site, would require
the acquisition of the entire Baker property to include the
Caparella house to the immediate west. This would result in
a land cost of $150,000 for this facility.
Site Twelve - Our recommended site is the Craig property which
is south of Puppy Smith Street and immeidately behind Lot 2
of the future site for the Post Office behind the Rio Grande
property. The plan consists of almost 15,000 square feet. It
would be an adequate area to carefully design the building and
screen it, landscape it so that it could be bought off in a
totally compatible residential design leaving a large balance
of the tract and open space. Cost for this land would be
$1l9,000. Of the sites investigated, we feel this would be
superior due to: 1) engineering costs and ease of construction;
2) size and location of land from a land use planning standpoint;
3) the time consuming City reviews'that would be required with
each of the alternative sites. From the point of view of all
three of these, the Craig site is clearly superior.
Conclusion
The decision for the location of the switch gear building is becoming
critical. Feeder line construction will be completed in the summer of
1978. This building is the critical completing link to the overall
distribution network for the City of Aspen which will be necessary to
take advantage of the 115 kv line which is nearing completion now. We
wi II appear at Monday night's meeti ng, have the engineers,lava il abl e to
di scuss each of these sites" sol i ci te any comments from the Council
and hopefully receive your approval for the purchase of the Craig site
with authorization to proceed. '
',.
1""",
~
1'....\
COST OF CONNECTING THE EXISTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
TO THE PROPOSED SWITCHING STATION AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS
Fixed Costs:
Extra Costs:
Variable Costs:
(Switchgear, Pads, Connectors, Risers)
(RiVer Crossing)
(Cable and Trenching)
47,850.00
10,000.00
Location
LAN 0 Fixed Costs
.., Pitkin County #2 !:-'-'/'" $ 47,850.00
, ? Aspen Sanitation '?, rill\;- 47,850.00
? Baker 150)000 47,850.00
Craig l''',Sol> 47,850.00
~ Pitkin County #1 'fQ, 000 47,850.00
Holy Cross -0 - 47,850.00
Andrews 4l.!;,ooo 47,850.00
Rio Grande -0 _ 47,850.00
? Caps 47,850.00
lr'i/$liAtJ LfJ"l' 3400,000
4' 7 r~,rf}
)
CITr 'S'1,mPl PDVPSt-o- 47, ~)O.o.
$
Trenching 14.00/ft.
Cable uTIL/t'i 1,475.00/1000 ft.
WOt'l'N$
Variable Costs;\ Extra Costs Total
/ \
$ 119,890.00 tooo $10,000.00 $ 177,740.00
81,000.00 2400
'128,850.00
72,900.00 5000.
120,750.00 Z7SP;D
//1 0>'0. <n
,-l~ HI, ~)o
69,200.00 <1700
88,640.00 _0 -
97,020.00 7Z.oo 10,000.00
81,450.00 -0 -
96,650.00 48.00
136,490.00
154,870.0016Z,07o
77 ,090.00 _c_
129,300.009'14,;00
144,500.00/49,}oo
124,940.00
7 ~ <7frO
75j~
42..00
~5Ii(D()O
~,
.,.-"
, Aspenl~it
130 s
nning Office
December 30, 1977
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET:
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will beheld on January
17. 1978. at 5:00 p.m. in the CityCouncn Chambers. Aspen, before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Convnission for a conditional use hearing
for a switch station and operations. facHity for the.>Cityof Aspen to
be located on Lot 1. Block 4, Lakeview Additi"n, 224 Puppy Street.
A copy of the application may be examined in the Office of the City!
County Planner. City Hall, during regular business hours..
lmk
,~.
^
"
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office, Bill Kane
RE: Use Determination for City of Aspen Electric Department Switch
Gear Site as a Conditional Use within the R-15 Zoning District
DATE: December 16, 1977
At your meeting on Tuesday, you will be presented with a request to find
that a proposed building for the purpose of housing City of Aspen
electric switch gear falls within the intention of a public administration
building as specified within the conditional use list for the R-15 zone.
This facility as proposed to be located in the Lakeview Subdivision
immediately adjacent to Lot 3 of the Trueman Subdivision. The land in
question is at the "Y" that is created by Puppy Smith's Street as it
continues through Lakeview Subdivision and the turn to the right formed
by the old D&RGW Ra il road ri ght of way.
The City has been trying for some 18 months to find an adequate location
for a facility to house approximately 900 square feet of equipment and
immediate work space. As you may recall, a request was made before the
Aspen Board of Adjustment sometime ago to locate this facility on City
owned land at the intersection of Cemetery Lane and Highway 82. While
there is a broad exemption within Section 24-2.7 of the Municipal Code
which provides an exemption from zoning "utilities" and "essential
services" the Board, at that time, found that the accessory parking and
small office space that was proposed in the building at that time was
not something covered by the exemption and therefore it was denied. The
building and application has been modified in several ways. The previous
site was located in the "Park" zone which does not provide for public
administration buildings. Now the R-15 and R-6 zones does, as a conditional
use. The amount of space accessory to the swith gear has been substan-
tially reduced and now consists only of a small room to store electric
meters and additional room with a table to provide space for maintenance
logs for the faci 1 ity. We propose thi s appl i cati on be brought to you in
two steps: 1) at Tuesday's meeting, you are being requested to find
that this facility is intended,to be covered by the conditional use
specification within the R-15 zone; and having accomplished that then
you will be presented with detailed building plans in fulfillment of
the requirements of the conditional use hearing at your meeting on January
3. We will have conceptual drawings and indication of the building
available for your inspection, at your meeting on the 20th; and we will
supply a greater detail for the January 3rd meeting and will solicite
any comments or additional recommendations that you may have at that time.
The construction of this building is critical to the electrical needs of
the City of Aspen. It should not be looked upon as a frivolous building
that could be located ina variety of other locations. But the plai~n 'fact
of the matter is the City is coming down to the wire on finding a location
for this equipment. As you may recall, Colorado Ute is about to complete
the construction of a new 115 kv line in the Roaring Fork Valley to
supply additional power to Aspen, which for the past two winters, has
faced the immediate prospect of blackout and we were saved from that
fate by having low energy demand during the winter season. We believe
that a fair and adequate consideration has been given to alternative
sites to include: land at the golf course, land at the intersection of
Cemetery Lane and Highway 82, of City Shops below the Castle Creek
Bridge, City Water Plant sHe, Rio Grande property, Lot 3 of the Trueman
Subdivisi6n and now this site. From a cost standpoint and from a land
use standpoint, it makes more sense to locate this thing adjacent to the
""'"
~.
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Page Two
December 16, 1977
Rio Grande right of way. Plans now call for the construction of an
underground power line to come from the Colorado Ute Substation behind
the Airport Business Center down the bank to the Roaring Fork River and
into the City along the Rio Grande trail. We feel that this is a far
more environmentally suitable solution than the originally proposed
overhead strung wires to come in along Highway 82. In order to take
advantage of thi s locati on, the switch gear whi ch wi 11 be necessary to
provide power to the City from this new line will be required to be
constructed in some reasonable proximity to the Rio Grande trail. Our
most recent attempt, we approached Jim Trueman with the idea of purchas-
ing Lot 3 of the TrUeman subdivision and found upon the appraisal of
some $400,000 that we are incapable of spending that much for such a
limited facility.
We feel that through adequate design, landscaping and site orientation,
this location will be quite suitable for the facility with minimal
or no impact to the neighborhood.
After a consideration of the application, and one-and-a-half-years of
trying to find alternative sites for this facility, we recommend that
you find the proposed switch gear site to be within the definition of
a public administration building as listed within the range of condi-
tional uses within the R-15 zoning district, You should also recognize
that by taking such action, this does not open up the spector of having
additional public administration buildings throughout the zone of
similar nature but only finds that in this instant case that the facility
proposed is appropriate for the site in questi on. Dave Ell is wi II
appear at the meeting on Tuesday to answer any additional questions
that you might have.
Imk