The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.pu.City Market PUD.2-814 No. G~p~ CASELOP.D SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen I. DATE SUBMITTED: III 2. APPLICANT: STAFF: UAC~~~D{1nS6V1 '~kl- 0`150 3. REPRESENTATIVE: 4. PROJECT NAP1E: 5. LOCATION: 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning P.U.D. Special Review Growth Management HPC Subdivision Exception Exemption 70:30 Residential Bonus Stream Margin 8040 Greenline -View Plane .Conditional Use Other 7. REFERRALS: Attorney Sanitation District -School District Engineering Dept. Fire Marshal -Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas -Housing Parks -State Highway Dept. -Water Holy Cross Electric Other City Electric Mountain Bell 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: 9. DISPOSITION: P & Z ~ Approved / Denied Date ~~5. Z4-~ 1981 ~r'eoy~-+~ conlc~ru~~ DuD -e~b~; onl Inl pa>zk-,~N_e~u~2~h~/T5 To >~,zi~i7 5 A~or i ionlAti hP~ ~'oe ->~~ e~ 38 (3 ~ 15r~~•1G). mho wai ~r~ GP~nI .sP~: ~~~P~I ~'~ . L~rnlDr/rianl~i of APP2oyAt, f~ivra~~~Nc~. WrTH- ~r~~rtil~~~rNG y`/I~Ma Dra-r~D s ~ Ig81 ~G~PT `tFf~tT ~~- SFIALL ~.Wtknl(~- ~Oh'I Qi7 Tb ~8 ~~F~i Nlo'ftoni' (3't' H°DF~~SECCA1o ~l' ANDE~n~ IJnJA~dil'n°rvUS 7-® Council / Approved ~ Denied Date u~cL. ~q ~~~ I~ ~ ~ 10. ROUTING: Attorney Building Engineering Other Box 729, Gn ,~up(:tion, CWorado, 81502 (3031 241-0750 DATE: T0: FROM: ~ ~V ~~v S. Q2~~',uf~~ (,c)~LL ism W~~~~~ - 73/ ~ D~,e.~ r ~D 5 ~. C'oDrce. ,c25OL.r). ~0 S/~O/l /~µ1'~o K ~ e"t ~ Item 79009 ~ + "~~~ / ~ ~ /~ / DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJ: Box 729,Gn ,~urv.tion, Colorado, 8150213031241-0750 ~n ' i Q r'~D~~ -- /7fJ,vrly 7~2~~ r ~3 z F- ~ooP~2 >~P~~, ~ g~6J1 Item 79009 ~ J ~.~~ 90 ~e<~=~~ ~x ~~~ - /~ ~yu~ ~~ ,, ~~ ~ce~r_~ljGo '~ ~~~ y~c~. ~ Ll~7l~ ~~~r~ - ~ ozv,Le~~ ~~cra~tt real ~~~ ~ . ~~- '' ~~~o''`_ 'rom taco no c~j_ ~~~'; e~ - ~ i4 ~ ~c~ Nel~aJ'alazr r 3~`h~i~~~ sas j~ 9rCWal ~~ ~ ~~~ Sohn G~+~n, ~~~;h~~ MEMORANDUM T0: Jack Johnson, Planning Office FROM: Fritz Bruggemeier, Engineering Department ~~~ DATE: April 10, 1981 RE: City Market - Preliminary Plat Submission The Engineering Department feels the parking configuration and proposed traffic circulation pattern submitted by City Market is unacceptable. The driving lane of 10' 7" (ten feet, seven inches) connecting the parking area with the alley would not handle two-way traffic and would only cause congestion. The one-way only entry and exit would probably be respected as well as the one-way designations at the new post: little to none. There seems to be a lack of effort and ingenuity in designing a feasible parking area and traffic circulation pattern. The Engineering Department would like to submit an alternate parking design which we feel would be more conducive to on-site and off-site traffic circu- lation while providing the required thirty-eight (38) parking spaces. If the applicant finds the attached parking design to be unacceptable, we feel an alternate design should be requested rather than accepting the present submittal. MEMORAWDUM T0: City Engineer FROM: Jack Johnson, Planning Office RE: City Market - Preliminary Plat Submission DATE: March 26, 1981 Attached is an application for preliminary plat approval for City Market building expansion and parking facilities. Conceptual approval was granted by City Council, March 9, 1981, wherein open space requirements were waived and only five additional parking spaces were required by this expan- sion. This application is scheduled for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on April 21, 1981; please review and return any comments to the Planning Office by l•Jednesday, April 8, 1981. Thanks a lot! ... .... PUBLIC fJOTICE RE: City t4arket Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Submission NOTICE IS HEREBY GIUEIJ that a public hearing will be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 21, 1981 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, to review the preliminary plai submitted by City Market, Inc. requesting approval for expansion of existing building and the parking area. For further information, contact the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 224. s/Olof Hedstrom Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on April 2, 1981 City of Aspen Account Inc. Jack Johnson Planning Department 130 South Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Box 729, Grend ~~ Coloredo, 81502 (303) 247-0750 ~!~-'~~ich TO 1981 ~1~=` ! - ~`, ~l.fl~die v... 117 v'-~'~t Dear Jack, Per your request and per SEC 20-11, phase find enclosed (5) copies of our preliminary plat. Per SEC 20-12, we have included on this plat the following information: a) Drawn at a scale of 1" = 20'-0 Sheet size 24" X 36" (We have not included a vicinity map.) b) N/A c) As shown d) As shown e) As shown f) N/A g) As shown h) N/A i) N/A ~) N/A k) N/A 1) Please let us know if any required. m) N/A n) N/A o) N/A p) If this is required, please let us know immediately so that we might obtain them. q) N/A We have also shown parking spaces on this plat for (38) cars as required by P & Z and council. We have retained this design for the following reasons. 1) The design by the engineering department is unacceptable because: the car stops wouldn't last a season; they have also revised and relocated the curb cut on Cooper Street which we understood was unacceptable; the ten spaces against the building would require wheel stops; and we have found this doesn't work. 2) We will require a separate entry and exit as shown. This will solve the problem at Spring and Cooper as mentioned by the engineering department. i f...y ?..R.. ~~ ~. 4....Y' ~Y If this is acceptable, we request a public hearing before P & Z on preliminary plat approval as soon as possible. Yours very truly, h~ DAVID K. MACK Architect Oy m E m b 3 S D r r m .- ~! .. 0 i t' MEMORANDUM T0: City Council FROM: Jack Johnson, Planning Office RE: City Market Conceptual PUD ~ _~..__._....__ . v. _. DATE: March 3, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR CITY COUNCIL`` Background The applicant, Cit,~ Market, Inc., is rgquesting conceptual PUD approval for _.._ __ .. its rocery store ,use.,~.o~,~_ south,of ,~gop~r„e,e~ b~tw,p~n....brigin~aJ„ and„ Sp~g"'SSt"reels. Specifically, the request for P D a oroval involves a r__P-dar_- :_ i~ion~ofi"ia`ie parking requirements. and waivers to the open space requi~'rements in .M. _... _ ~.,..._ ,,.. h..F..~ tfieftC$"'tl~ "~ necessary for tlie-exp°a'r~'~'9oTi o"f'°'an""aC'~it"iona'1"°f'welwe fiee'~ of ui~ding space into the existing parking area. re 'n use s uare foot e imi at'ons from P & Z to gxp;~~ its bu dMin~ an additiona 3 square f~e~i;, w ich a 't~~'net~'-ef`~"ect of permitting square ~"eet of space over the maximum gross floor limita- tions (15,000 square feet). Twelve hundred (1200) square feet of expansion to the store front and 2300 square feet of basement space were granted by this previous request. The ex ans on of City Market by an additional 3500 M rket currentl Provides 33 s aces, whereF48_ ~.SA~.Ifi€Q--~e.,&T.>d~,~~t~, re uirementswo4 r~auire aPditi~nah,p,~,rki0 ould_be~necessary to meet C~1,e q per Tt'yUC~""square feet of .loor space. 'However; `" ket 7S"~"'F"'°lega"`nonconforming structure which is allowed to be enlarg~d:q~r,,,,gx~dedl ~FdV7tl'~C'T'is~e's,,,,n";;,~p,~rgygs~„}'"i;sTy, nq~nc,~n~o~rm.'~"'~`fi re e~ore "lie nonconformity ""dF' r ing only 33 spaces for the original ,000 square feet of maximum gross floor area rather than 48 is permissable, provided the expansion of the building does not reduce the number of parking spaces below 33. l The 74 arlriition~~narkinn~pa~s required by 3500 square feet of expansion would necessitate the total parkinc~,re~cuirements of 47 spaces 33 existing require y expansio'~ ~"~"` "®" """" The area and bulk requirements of the P1C, Neighborhood Commercial, zone district are by and large established through the PUD process for individual applications. ~q~arga,~,n„d bulk rgauiret,s do, however, specifv~ Applicant's Request It is through the PUD process that variations to the area and bulk require- ments and parking requirements are permitted. The applicant is willin t~o,,,, provide 50% of_ the_ regui_rgd~ark_j~g,_;0~;~7,..~,par~~s, n cessi a e y e building request to vary the balance reauestina variations of t oiuu square reel. virtual space be provided because and parking lot use. Staff Evaluation The Engineering Department requests improvements to the sidewalks, curbs and gutters on Cooper, Spring and Original Streets and the replacement of existing concrete automobile access ramps to the site. The parking plan submitted should be revised to accommodate at least 40 cars or the parking plan as diagramed by this Department should be adopted (see attached memo dated February 3, 1981 and diagram). An encroachment agreement with the City of Aspen will be required. The Planning Office offers application meets the purep des iona~'(A°rticTe V~fI requirea parking, In addition to a he 2~q open.sp~c~ requirements, or approximately ly no open space Curren y exists nor can open the coverage of the lot is exhausted by building the following comments: T1i se of the Flanned U~~it Deve . ~,. which a Memo: City Market Conceptual PUD Page Two March 3, 1981 more desirable environment by utilizing the PUD process to vary parking requirements and open space requirerr~nts for a site which has aggravated problems because of deficiencies in both parking and open space is not an accomplished objective of the PUD, To grant a variance fora redu tion i,p required arkin for a use as essentiTan3 ~n Ra:~,~C~Sh~a"n~`dema ~~. a~ grocery store, w is is 'a lreaciy"~e~~icie tin its parking needys, wed akens the vaTtllT't~°`5~`~fie""~~k't~g'4Y'eq;~`T'F'emEntis ~'f"the Code ahd" opens up the-PCJT7'"-`""" process ~ misuse ~f its indent and purpose. It could be construed that the 2300 square feet of expansion in the basement for commercial storage will not in and of itself generate additional customer ,vehicular trips to the grocery store. Further, that the additional parking provided will supply the additional demand associated with the 1200 snuare foot store front expansion and partially offset parking deficiencies which currently exist. Should such a hypothesis have validity, it could be debated that the parking related problems of the City Market are being partially mitigated with approval of this application. This, then, may have the effect of accomplishing the objective of creating a more desirable environment. However, these arguments are subjective and beyond the purview of the Code. It is incumbent upon the applicant to show justifiable reason why application of the Code to the property in question is unreasonable and deserving of reductions in the parking requirements and a waiver of the open space require- ments. The fact that 25%, or 6100 square feet, of open space as required for this site is non-existent and is requested to be waived is not of significant concern to the Planning Office. This deficiency existed in this case prior to the adopted ordinance requiring such open space and, therefore, becomes a pre-existing nonconformity. The granting of a waiver on the oxen space reouirements would... stea. s V Y~-~ P & Z Action: At its regular meeting on February 24, 1981., the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval qf ,-~"~,}c„Mamat„Gpp~,~#yw.7.,.21ap., Included with th's_,F~~~orue~dattAn. ~„sip{i.roval were_retlu&,ti_ons_,]J~,.t,~~," arki_n~ re 'rte Pnts only five (5~ of_ irhe regy~i,ped 1Q p;~t,~~ng..spaces.s~~~ecommend"e_d) and a wgj,~er ol'~the„~,pe~, space re4uireementso, Thie recorrmenda~i„qn i,~„cwo~~~j;;:" ° 'Eioned upon compliance with the~E~neering requirement as per memo dated Fe6ruar ~798T, except tfiat'3$ spaces"ins'~ead of 40 spaces s`fiouT'd`5e"noted in con~,~,`#°~,~,~Q,,.~;~,, (The applicant has consented to these cond~'tibr'P5`~` The P & Z concluded that the required number of parking spaces (9) necessary to provide parking for the 2300 square feet of expansion in the basement were unnecessary as additional vehicular trips would not be gene.°ated by commercial storage in the basement. further that only five (5) spaces were necessary to accommodate the 1200 square feet of actual store front expansion. Recommendation: The Planning Office maintains the position, that~the pu, of the PUD is not"'fo°""G`e u`sed' as a beM~l~;f~x.yarxin~such essential re ~.. _ -....a~ .,~ ~ . , ,. s_ ,, r ,_npen-space..rel~pirements SubjeCtiltd.lYwy=thq...P,.~d[ii~:]d19,.Off not h ~' lYP.,ByE.fVlbgl,mi,p~, concerns in_this particular, case and supports the evaluation of this a Mica, ion. "° '' """°""°"` ~. ..~..., ~,~.,.....PP ~..~ a Shou cur with P & Z' i the aooro- "I move to approve the City Market Conceptual PUD to include reductions in the parking requirements to require only five (5) additional spaces and a waiver to the open space requirement subject to the following condi- tion: - Engineering requirements as per memo dated February 3, 1981, except that No. 4 should be changed to require 38 instead of 40 spaces. ,,~,. .,> ~.~. MEMORANDUM T0: City Council FROM: Jack Johnson, Planning Office RE: City Market Conceptual PUD ,~~ DATE: March 3, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR CITY COUNCIL Background The applicant, City Market, Inc., is requesting conceptual PUD approval for its grocery store use located south of Cooper Street between Original and Spring Streets. Specifically, the request for PUD approval involves a reduc- tion of the parking requirements and waivers to the open space requirements in the NC zone district; necessary for the expansion of an additional twelve feet of building space into the existing parking area. On September 2, 1980, City Market obtained a variance of Section 24-3.6 regarding use square footage limitations from P & Z to expand its building an additional 3500 square feet, which had the net effect of permitting approximately 700 square feet of space over the maximum gross floor limita- tions (15,000 square feet). Twelve hundred (1200) square feet of expansion to the store front and 2300 square feet of basement space were granted by this previous request. The expansion of City Market by an additional 3500 square feet would require 14 additional parking spaces to be provided. City Market currently provides 33 spaces, where 48 would be necessary to meet Code requirements of 4 per 1000 square feet of floor space. However, City Market is a legal nonconforming structure which is allowed to be enlarged or expanded provided it does not increase its nonconformity. Therefore, the nonconformity of providing only 33 spaces for the original 12,000 square feet of maximum gross floor area rather than 48 is permissable, provided the expansion of the building does not reduce the number of parking spaces below 33. The 14 additional parking spaces required by 3500 square feet of expansion would necessitate the total parking requirements of 47 spaces (33 existing plus 14 required by expansion). The area and bulk requirements of the NC, Neighborhood Commercial, zone district are by and large established through the PUD process for individual applications. The NC zone area and bulk requirements do, however, specify a 25Y open space requirement. Applicant's Request It is through the PUD process that variations to the area and bulk require- ments and parking requirements are permitted. The applicant is willing to provide 50Y of the required parking, or 7 spaces, necessitated by the building expansion. This would be a total of 40 parking spaces. In addition to a request to vary the balance of the required parking, the applicant is requesting variations of the 25% open space requirements, or approximately 6100 square feet. Virtually no open space currently exists nor can open space be provided because the coverage of the lot is exhausted by building and parking lot use. Staff Evaluation The Engineering Department requests improvements to the sidewalks, curbs and gutters on Cooper, Spring and Original Streets and the replacement of existing concrete automobile access ramps to the site. The parking plan submitted should be revised to accommodate at least 40 cars or the parking plan as diagramed by this Department should be adopted (see attached memo dated February 3, 1981 and diagram). An encroachment agreement with the City of Aspen will be required. The Planning Office offers the following comments: The degree to which this application meets the purpose of the Planned Unit Development Article is questionable (Article VIII - Section 24-8.1). The objective of creating a Memo: City Market ConceptualrPUD Page Two March 3, 1981 more desirable environment by utilizing the PUD process to vary parking requirements and open space requirements_for a site which has aggravated problems because of deficiencies in both parking and open space is nog an accomplished objective of the PUD. To grant a variance fora reduction in required parking for a use as essential and in as constant demand as a grocery store, which is already deficient in its parking needs, weakens the validity of the parking requirements of the Code and opens up the PUQ process for misuse of its intent and purpose. It could be construed that the 2300 square feet of expansion in the basement for commercial storage will not in and of itself generate additional customer vehicular trips to the grocery store. Further, that the additional parking .provided will supply the additional demand associated with the 1200 square foot store front expansion and partially offset parking deficiencies which currently exist. Should such a hypothesis have validity, it could be debated that the parking related problems of the City Market are being partially mitigated with approval of this application. This, then, may have the effect of accomplishing the objective of creating a more desirable environment. However, these arguments are subjective and beyond the purview of the Code. It is incumbent upon the applicant to show justifiable reason why application of the Code to the property in question is unreasonable and deserving of reductions in the parking requirements and a waiver of the open space require- ments. The fact that 25 %, or 6100 square feet, of open space as required for this site is non-existent and is requested to be waived is not of significant concern to the Planning Office. This deficiency existed in this case prior to the adopted ordinance requiring such open space and, therefore, becomes a pre-existing nonconformity. The granting of a waiver on the open space requiremen~:s would not abridge a general public need, as open space does not and has not existed. However, to aggravate the parking problem further by allowing a reduction in the required number of additional spaces may create safety hazards to the general public. L Memo: City Market ConceptualpPUD Page Two March 3, 1981 more desirable environment by utilizing the PUD process to vary parking requirements and open space requirements_for a site which has aggravated problems because of deficiencies in both parking and open space is nog an accomplished objective of the PUD, To grant a variance fora reduction in required parking fora use as essential and in as constant demand as a grocery store, which is already deficient in its parking needs, weakens the validity of the parking requirements of the Code and opens up the PUO process for misuse of its intent and purpose. It could be construed that the 2300 square feet of expansion in the basement for commercial storage will not in and of itself generate additional customer vehicular trips to the grocery store. Further, that the additional parking provided will supply the additional demand associated with the 1200 square foot store front expansion and partially offset parking deficiencies which currently exist. Should such a hypothesis have validity, it could be debated that the parking related problems of the City Market are being partially mitigated with approval of this application. This, then, may have the effect of accomplishing the objective of creating a more desirable environment. However, these arguments are subjective and beyond the purview of the Code. It is incumbent upon the applicant to show justifiable reason why application of the Code to the property in question is unreasonable and deserving of reductions in the parking requirements and a waiver of the open space require- ments. The fact that 25q, or 6100 square feet, of open space as required for this site is non-existent and is requested to be waived is not of significant concern to the Planning Off ice. This deficiency existed in this case prior to the adopted ordinance requiring such open space and, therefore, becomes a pre-existing nonconformity. The granting of a waiver on the open-space requirements would not abridge a general public need, as open space does not and has not existed. However, to aggravate the parking problem further by allowing a reduction in the required number of additional spaces may create safety hazards to the general public. P & Z Action: At its regular meeting on February 24, 1981, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the City Market Conceptual PUD. Included with this recommendation for approval were reductions in the parking requirements (only five (5) of the required 14 parking spaces are recommended) and a waiver of the open space requirements .This recommendation is condi- tioned upon compliance with the Engineering requirement as per memo dated February 3, 1981, except that 38 spaces instead of 40 spaces should be noted in condition No. 4. (The applicant has consented to these conditions.) The P & Z concluded that the required number o~ parking spaces (9) necessary to provide parking for the 2300 square feet of expansion in the basement were unnecessary as additional vehicular trips would not be generated by commercial storage in the basement. Further that only five (5) spaces were necessary to accommodate the 1200 square feet of actual store front expansion. -_:~. Recommendation: The Planning Office maintains the position that the purpose of the PUD is not to be used as a vehicle for varying such essential regulations as parking-and open space requirements. Subjectively, the Planning Office does not have overwhelming concerns in this particular case and supports the P & Z evaluation of this application. Council Action: Should Council concur with P & Z's recommendation, the appro- priate motion is as follows: "I move to approve the City Market Conceptual PUD to include reductions in the parking requirements to require only five (5) additional spaces and a waiver to the open space requirement subject to the following condi- tion: - Engineering requirements as per memo dated February 3, 1981, except that No. 4 should be changed to require 38 instead of 40 spaces. , Inc. T0: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: City Market, Inc. RE: Conceptual P.U.D. Approval DATE: January 8, 1981 Box 729, Grand Junction, Colorado, 81502 a68130.1,t~760 ~ ,- :.1~ --t. to # ~~ .1,,- „l0 ~. ,i ~l ~~3 .TL... I:r. ._ ~~t The applicant, City Market, Inc., hereby makes application to appear before the P. & Z. for a conceptual hearing on the P.U.D. process. We request approval of the proposed site plan with waivers on the N.C. zoning of open space and the parking requirements as outlined below. On August 25, 1980 the applicant obtained a variance from P. & Z. to expand its present operation by approximately 3700 S.F. This includes a 1200 S.F. addition to the front of the store and 2500 S.F. remodeling to utilize space in the exist- ing basement. Because of this expansion program it is our understanding that we will be required to provide 14 or 15 more parking spaces over the 33 we presently have. The en- closed site plan shows a count of 40 which is the most we feel we can comfortably accommodate. We are therefore requesting a waiver from the required 8 parking spaces. As was previously pointed out to the P. & Z., City Market needs to expand this facility to better serve the area and its customers. We fully realize the in- adequacy of the parking facility. (Normally a unit which handles the customers this store does would require at least parking for 180 cars. These units are of course of a different nature serving more of a region, rather than of a neighbor- hood type.) We also realize that the major access to the store is pedestrian (75 to 80%) which makes it uniquely a neighborhood unit compatible to the Aspen life style. We therefore feel justified in requesting this waiver. ,-.. ~; -___" _.. 'T0: Jack Jcl,os;ri, :'.Lanr~n,; 0`,-icy ;~~ }'1-.'`.T: f ri.-t r, rt•u, <;ci,~',-,:.,, x~~'.:~ ?_~;n~:. Lcpvrtu;ent !;~ Ur,T4`.. 1"e~orua:e~, 19~ t;}.: City ..,'!:et Co.~c~~pc-,a] P.[i.ll..` i'~,:~.,e.icn and ~dai~•cr. oC Park.inp; Rr,qulrcments The }npi; :ur:ir.F, ll.~parJ;,-.. , feels tL~~ f-oi'-~~-:: f• comments shou:Ld be ~cnsidc.rcd for require~ncnts for Con^~Jt~al I.L'.D. approval. 1'he ap;~l ~-~.nt .;hc~ulc'. ~e red ntec to: ~_. Remove - ~a~_iug vs~:?!-~1-t ..;deualhs on S,~ri.rg, `~_<.e-L, Coop~,r Avenue., and Or;Rin«~ Street a-nd ,~e-place -cL~'m wi-th ~_,ici: concretE si.rlc,aalk, as ner Resoltrtinn No. 19, Se;rie:~ of 19';5. 2. Removea.nd rc;,place existi::g curb and gutlc;r on Siring StrF,et, Cnopcr Avenue. and ~~ •i.^inal Street as }~e„ Section 19--103 of the Cite Cede. 3. I:emovc and replace exi-stinL4 concrete antomob?_1e accc..~ ramps 4. Reoise submitted parkin„ plan for at least 40 cars or dopt the hn~q.inecrri.ng lleparin:cnt':: plan (se~~ a':~c,ci~~d dray;ing). if the applicant ;:.dopts t:he En~;inc:erinFr, Depar~tmcnt's plan, ha sliotild Le required t:o supp~-y -^_?r• stops and paint par'..<ing configurations on the parking area a~ pe,- plan. 5. Require. sn enemaehment license;; from the City ox° Aspen for the p1a?tiers on Spr~ir,g Streei, Coouer Avcmue, a~°_u ('r~i.&:~-n_.i ,tr~cet; a.1_;o the e: h<•ci a-~d ~`encc on Ox i^~i.nal. Street. ~. L~! _i ~; i U 4U W ci i;' '_ , ~~ ~ t ie~ s .. ~.~ i c"C,' .. D1LP1D'~AtcDUrl r~l: Asi'ten Planning ~n~i Zcnin~V Cov,.nlsslon FROil; Jac!< Johnson, Pl::r,nin, Office ilE; City Market Conceptual PUD DATE: FeLruary 12, 19c1 . `. ~'~ (`ti~ ,~. ~ ~'r ~ ~ ~ , ~~ { ,r n ~~ r ,~ i ~ ~, k ~ ~~ ~~~~` , ~ .,~ ~ r_ . _ ,r ~ . ~~ U f ~ Nf G ~ ~` °~ (.;rv ~-i t ~.wt _~. ~ 1~.6, 24- (~1 The appl i can±, Ci t~Y Market, Inc. , i s r~ge~j ng conceptual .PUD ~~~roval fbr its grocery store use located„-south of Cooper..Street bett:reen~i-igln.~T._a~.,4 ring Streets. Specifically, the request for NUI] appr~l~al l,~.olv„gs a reduction of tY`,e uarkl ~ g~iregulrE meats and w_, a%ygrS. to ntr~~ open apace~requi re,- rnents ~n the...NG zone district; necessary for the expansion of an a~`d'tlonal t~~e ve feet of"5u~ ing space rnto the existing parking area. On September 2, 1980, City_Mat~ket obtained a vari"<~nc~,.of Section ?_4-3.6 °•`~- expand it, 5uildin ..._.__ rega~di~nY use square footage,limitat~9ns from P.E~ Z_tq 9 an"'-~ditlonal 3560 sa,"are feet, which had the net effect o1= permltting approxlma~ely~00~square feet of space over the maxlmurn grass floor line Ca- tions (15,000 square feet;. T~relve hundred (1200) square feet of expansion to the store front and 2300 squ~.re feet. of basement space were granted by this previous request. The expansion of. City Market.,-.by an additional 3500 j~" souurg feet would reaulC~ 14 a~i¢itlonal, parking spacas.,Lo be provided. City. Market currently, provides 33•spaces, vrher,,w48 wo4Jld bYe necessary to .meet ,a, o e requlrements'of 4 per 1000 squure~eet of floor ~~ace. However, City, _ arket is_.a le~alxnonconforning sttc„cture .lich i° allr~red to 6e, enlarged or expanded prevideed it dges„not increase its nonconfornity-. `•>°fierefore, the IG(.~ti~ u.w.. ~-~•~' nonconformity of providing only 33 spaces for the original 17,000 square feet - of maximum gross floor area rather than 48 is per missable, provided the expansion of the building does not reduce the numoer of parking spaces belova 330 The 14 additional parking spares required by 3500 square feet of expansion ~; would necessitate the toi:al parking requirements of 47 spaces (33 existing /'o~~ t~l '~ plus 14 required by expansion),. i. ,;,!~~ The area a.nd bulk requirements of the NC, Neighborhood Commercial, zone ~ti":J,~t district are by and large establi~n~d through the PUD process for individual /~' applications. The i~-,~c~n,e area-and'bul~urequiremEn~, do, however, sped aw 25 open"sJparE requir~IDet"!x• ~`, It is though the PUD process that variations to tie area and bulk require- ~~ meats and parking requirements are permitted. T„~,d,.P.P,aicant.,,s wi,_ll,in9 to J;:, provide. i0°o of the required parking; or 7 s~M,~es~, necessitates bvtij~.,~~+ildiy~c, r4'~~ ~~~si,.41~• This would...be•a totarl Df 4p..parking ~p~~ In acids ~lon to a ~;gpest tQ,very the balance of,th~-re4u.ired pat'king, Che a arlcant is r~~~eyyues"ting,variations of the L5°o open space re.gu~tame~y~,, or approx'~m'~tely EI00 squarF feet. 1r,~~,G.ly no o!:en spacr_ cr~rrently exls*s ncr can open • space be provided-because the coverage of the lot is exhausted by building and parking lot use. `'~ The ~4?„°er_ing Dc~~at r.mrnt repq~yu~cstlr}1P~~r ~ts..andotheo ~l~acr1knl:,.,ofroSisl,in`-i •t+ ' , (~ t(~ ~ on LC70`a.C1=r-~4''C llis~ wl[i. 'i.'1.~ Il ~Uii(~l ttC' r~ cor~crr_te a tosn4oile any,-s` r ~.p;, io the ~,`-c .. The pa,r4ing-Rl..d shoulc~_.ce r°`~'lsed to acct nod<.te aL iea5t 40-cars c~ i.hF Parking plan as iagramed by this C`~partmert ~~ho 1ci beadopted ~(scc °t2arhf_d memo dated FetJY"trct`t°y 3, 1981 and di;:gram). Par~oncriia~hn~~nt agreement with the City of Aspen tvi 11 be rec,ui red. The P1<~nning Office' offer , tl:e follv.~'im.i r.,mmenl the dcgrc^ {~~ wh?ch t! i „~ aplllcicion ni~pL~ th(=.RUr~'QS`_4~ tn, liana<<I Un U telopm~nt Ar'rcrs~?' questlola~le (Artnle VIlT ~ecilnn „7. ,.1) ..~I ~ cojcctivc of rr~~~' r'~! `' m01~C di'Sl t'abl8 erl~~IrOnfnCrit !~y U~11l~lnCJ 1!18 !'i1i) !~11~ C'~~ t0 Vflr' pirklll~ ~~1/C j'('C l~l9~.1181"li.l rOt i9 :'tC Wnl Ch na" cC)gl"". V<~~ rrunirrmcnLs and r,{~ryi ! ~ .:,~~ ~~, pt OillydllS !1(CaUSp OY deflc~~nr.:LS In bo1,i1 ~hYkli°J dn~! Cn 1 !)Jla ~ OII ~ n i ~ ~_-_lnt d. ddrli. i!CC il)r R t~ !Lf L~„_ accc`q,lishcd o~;jcr' i ~~~ of (~u- ~ if . To y _ a rC.gUl t' :! ~dl'kl nf~ l Or.,, a .11'.1' as CS':Bnt:V tl i dn'1 1 n 7 - COriSt rh 1!Clau!i'i h5 -Mr,nio: Citg 1~Lu-krat Coucri:tual PUU February 12, 19~i1 pane lwo rgcery sto"p~, v+hich_~s alrtiady.defaercnL in ids Parktlag..r.~,.~.d:;, wea4"rn; ~F~iwalidity,._of tft~ parking rufu~remcnl of the Coda and ~>~nr~; up_t~Y,r~_„ ~,~ process for misuse of its intent an8 puroosc~ ~It~could be construed that the 2300 square feet of expansion in the basement for commercial storage will not in and of itself generate additional customer vehicular trips t.o the grocery store. Further, that. the additional parking provided will supply the additional demand associated with t:he 1'L00 square foot ;.tore front expansion and partially offset parking deficiencies which currently existe Should such a hypothesis have validity, it could be debated that the parking related problems of the City Market are hcing partially mitigated with approval of this application. This, then, may have the effect of accomplishing the objective of creating a more desirahle environment. However, these arguments are subjective and beyond the purview of the Code. It 'iJent,__t+pa+i th~,._aPP.l.icant to show. justfi.able.reasnn why app.~.i.cati.arl a the Codr. to the property in question is unreasonable.axrd dcsgpvi119..gf re~.i:i,ans_in the._Parking requirements and. a wai,ver,of,the,~~en„~prlce=~45~1"Y'~.~~ mew ~'`~ The,fact that 25°6, or 6100 square feet, of o en s ace as required for this site be waive i s not of si cAy>~i j„cktr~,,,~,;1gG.~'n Vti~ is -P..xis~nt and is requested tGQ„_,,_,_, --- .. - `~~ '~~~ to the Planning Office:`~'rhis deficiency ex~s~ed_~P ~l~iisy~case rior to the " da opted ordinance re,~,uiring such omen space and, there~oRre,,,'~'~"i~,s..~.,~~'~~•~~= ~ on n~rmi~~~7~he grantin.g,,,f1f a Y+aiv~r prl the open space r~ctrltreme~,t„~,~ld r ,~no abr~~e a general pr.~,ic needy as open space does not and has."not.PXI V ~r~ Noweve~r, to~aggravate the~par~cing,_,prublslll.f~rther by allotnng.a reduc;~;i,gg~,~„~, -,ii~_r_e_q~u~iredYnumber of addi,Ipnal...~pa~5.-t~~y.create safety hazar•d,~,,,~o,~t1??, ~~ `;.C,<'~ gener~,c~ 3 ~' Recommendationo Th~,Plann_i,~g.Office~:does not see .overwhelming t~er~efi„ts accruing to the City or the generall public 1n.tlle, approval of the PUD a~~,lica- tiot`~n ~£hP gu~gmenl= or "t"fie P & Zt should a hardship exi t with this particular4~roper~y to trig effec£ that variations to~the' park~nc~ and open space requirements of the lode a.re"wal^Pe.., tie follov'~tng' ct5t~'B'it~ons s"houlc'i°` e """ . placed upon, the a~proval,cf the application: - Engineerir}y.~,r~tU~rt~ -as•,pr.r ,ma°t~~ dated February 3, .1951 tta~che` ~~ L _~ ~, Lu, F .! !, 1: Ui 1 G` •) r ~~ ~ t. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ \•, ~ ;\ ply ~~'•~ ~~, ~. ~~, •~ . . ~~ •_ ~ ~_ . _ . _ .,. - ,~ i 2 i <I _~__ ___. -+ \t ~ ~2 l ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~< W _ I~ O V/ n t `~ ~ `.~ ~v$ r ~~..2-. ~..<+-~ ~,. p- i. „~-....~.,,m, •J 9.-f O ~.. 2,.c R ~.:j1 Ij JOr'GG I _° C. •T ~<-~ TJ y+ '~ c~ ~~ ~ ti ~ A [$~ • ~`~` 9••? C 4'a ~~ w:us- cis. .. .v+~ - ..~-.:1.'A.; .;~ . L~ ~.,,~ C~ :.. t 1 '~ q LCn_ L _ _ -~ - '' 3,G4,O9~t•iN ~ T- f i i~d 1 i_~ C:2 `~- ~! .J _~ S W S W ~~U C` ,. U r 5 ~~ t_ ~ 0 U1 `rnry, 1 -.~:.. L1 m m~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~};.~';P r~N r `Cw- ~' `v ~~ s c ~, co u ~; ~ \, ~ ~~ ~~. ,~ ~ ... .,-. .~ ~- =~-- _*_. Y= 1` _~ ~~ S Tb n . S x X m A ~' S ~ p~ 7~ - r I r ~ ~m ~' s' F ~ ~. ~ ~4 ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ t ` ~ : : ~' r /, n ~~ r 0 ~~ ~ o~ o ~~ U VI a .m z m ;:, , , , P.Pa/~ osED A60/7-jp~/ N 5 N J is s ,~ r ~ ,~, ~ S -,- al w y a _: c • o ~ N N .~ W N 0' ~ ~ ~: ~, 0 e_ ~ ~n n Nm a- _ ~ _Trj 0 ~ ~( -l ~ ~ ,- r. ~~ I® - T., N a :. ~: ,~ f ~~ ~$ ,~ ~) l 3 I I I w a ~ _ H~ 2i W a. n - w z J K W H Z~ UI I W ~ d any O U n ~ I 1 i . y I i I J o ~ v -- --~ -- W J Q ~W ~. N> U ~ U' W F O ~" W J J Q 2 2 3 NO MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jack Johnson, Planning Office RE: City Market Conceptual PUD DATE: February 12, 1981 The applicant, City Market, Inc., is requesting conceptual PUD approval for its grocery store use located south of Cooper Street between Original and Spring Streets. Specifically, the request for PUD approval involves a reduction of the parking requirements and waivers to the open space require- ments in the NC zone district; necessary for the expansion of an additional twelve feet of building space into the existing parking area. On September 2, 1980, City Market obtained a variance of Section 24-3.6 regarding use square footage limitations from P & Z to expand its building an additional 3500 square feet, which had the net effect of permitting approximately 700 square feet of space over the maximum gross floor limita- tions (15,000 square feet). Twelve hundred (1200) square feet of expansion to the store front and 2300 square feet of basement space were granted by this previous request. The expansion of City Market by an additional 3500 square feet would require 14 additional parking spaces to be provided. City P4arket currently provides 33 spaces, where 48 would be necessary to meet Code requirements of 4 per 1000 square feet of floor space. However, City Market is a legal nonconforming structure which is allowed to be enlarged or expanded provided it does not increase its nonconformity. Therefore, the nonconformity of providing only 33 spaces for the original 12,000 square feet of maximum gross floor area rather than 48 is permissable, provided the expansion of the building does not reduce the number of parking spaces below 33. The 14 additional parking spaces required by 3500 square feet of expansion would necessitate the total parking requirements of 47 spaces (33 existing plus 14 required by expansion). The area and bulk requirements of the NC, Neighborhood Commercial, zone district are by and large established through the PUD process for individual applications. The NC zone area and bulk requirements do, however, specify a 25% open space requirement. It is through the PUD process ments and parking requirements provide 50% of the required pa expansion. This would be a to request to vary the balance of requesting variations of the 2 6100 square feet. Virtually n space be provided because the and parking lot use. that variations to the area and bulk require- are permitted. The applicant is willing to rking, or 7 spaces, necessitated by the building tal of 40 parking spaces. In addition to a the required parking, the applicant is 5% open space requirements, or approximately 0 open space currently exists nor can open coverage of the lot is exhausted by building The Engineering Department requests improvements to the sidewalks, curbs and gutters on Cooper, Spring and Original Streets and the replacement of existing concrete automobile access ramps to the site. The parking plan submitted should be revised to accomnodate at least 40 cars or the parking plan as diagramed by this Department should be adopted (see attached memo dated February 3, 1981 and diagram). An encroachment agreement with the City of Aspen will be required. The Planning Office offers the following comments: The degree to which this application meets the purpose of the Planned Unit Development Article is questionable (Article VIII - Section 24-8.1). The objective of creating a more desirable environment by utilizing the PUD process to vary parking requirements and open space requirements fora site which has aggravated problems because of deficiencies in both parking and open space is not an accomplished objective of the PUD. To grant a variance for a reduction in required parking for a use as essential and in as constant demand as a ~,. Memo: City Market Conceptual PUD February 12, 1981 Page Two grocery store, which is already deficient the validity of the parking requirements in its parking needs, weakens of the Code and opens up the PUD process for misuse of its intent and purpose. It could be construed that the 2300 square feet of expansion in the basement for commercial storage will not in and of itself generate additional customer vehicular trips to the grocery store. Further, that the additional parking provided will supply the additional demand associated with the 1200 square foot store front expansion and partially offset parking deficiencies which currently exist. Should such a hypothesis have validity, it could be debated that the parking related problems of the City Market are being partially mitigated with approval of this application. This, then, may have the effect of accomplishing the objective of creating a more desirable environment. However, these arguments are subjective and beyond the purview of the Code. It is incumbent upon the applicant to show justifiable reason why application of the Code to the property in question is unreasonable and deserving of reductions in the parking requirements and a waiver of the open space require- ments. The fact that 25~,or 6100 square feet, of open space as required for this site is non-existent and is requested to be waived is not of significant concern to the Planning Office. This deficiency existed in this case prior to the adopted ordinance requiring such open space and, therefore, becomes a pre-existing nonconformity. The granting of a waiver on the open space requirements would not abridge a general public need, as open space does not and has not existed. However, to aggravate the parking problem further by allowing a reduction in the required number of additional spaces may create safety hazards to the general public. Recommendation. The Planning Office does not see overwhelming benefits accruing to the City or the general public in the approval of the PUD applica- tion. In the judgment of the P & Z, should a hardship exist with this particular property to the effect that variations to the parking and open space requirements of the Code are warranted, the following conditions should be placed upon the approval of the application: - Engineering requirements as per memo dated February 3, 1981 (attached). CIT' 130 s aspe MEMORANDUM PEN treet 31611 DATE: January 23, 1981 TO: Jack Johnson FROM: Bob Edmondson RE. City Market Conceptual PUD Submissionn I will need to talk to you about this. RBE:mc ,..~ „,~ ~rl~.D N ,G . SrAfi~ ~VA~-UA-Tio-~ (gyp, Ig63) WAS v~.E2 -~ cam- sue''" Pte, ~ ~EM~ ~ :_ Girt-r t~~r.'..r_~.=t.__~'.,~+~~~~~~4 ~ u-~-~~~ ` --- _ - ~- -I-i-I~1-cKj o~ ~F'f'i.lC.+~t'TI~J.I vUN~. 1~1~6 `~."__--~ C'0G~`E1MUrJlC.,~ i~.D~~, ~ C-Eye.~`~j%~Nl~r;.,:w~~`Y>~'~W~.~1.1 ~' ~'r^(' ~ ~:~ L(C.~'i~l c:r~.t~iJ,F'"~i~,.a(; C~1~ ~~i~lirtl0~~'~ ~` INTE,C~Y~~'~ f:Ti~'fi~~~ ~U~j~ ~, f:_~~v _---~~ Ci`rT ~~.T ~Uf,~T F-o~- ~Pan~~a~l Svur 24~)~~> ---~ M~,~v ~ ~:v~~~ +4G~NU~ s = ~u~~~~,,n_ ~N ~~~ar~~ ~Wus ' ~~ i-1f,~ ------~~ ~~~ N ~ ~nr~e 3.~ i~, 1~o Nn kkv ~~w ~ = ,sac i ~5 A~t,~'.~aT i~~, 'Ea' ''~'{~~LC~NNiNG p~ N1~Mo Tv Y~Z ~£ccMNI~N'vr~ -3~Ni~1. ~U~U~'i I ~~ laab ----~-_, ~~Z rnc~j iN~ _ -C;~ Bc.F. I Tenn Un~T~ ~, .:~ - 2 vV ~ t.i~.J~ ~~LSr ~, lam; ---~: ~~n~:~~N~ 1=~.~r ~~;-~ ~ ~Z U~~~~~.; ~, r u~~~ ~~.pr Z~ I`I~ °----~ ~~` L ~-~';~vJ~i% bJi tN N~ IN~~G~~vN ~ tfl~~~i ~PK~, P~ U A~i;~vcr~ N~~~ ~-j ~or~n {30 , v~ ~~ v.S i~~~s r~ , - _ r' ~~Z,(~-tr~„~ ~~ ~ -I t~16 ---~ ,~'7-'L ~G~ Q'7'~Zj ~ ~IArJG~ -~~i'/~ ~ I ~~~ ~vA-~ ~' ~~ 14~~ ____~ X~~P~ICAN' 2-£.C~u£ST5 Co~cE~~-rvr~ Park ~~rPr~ou~ W i ~+ W~'NV~~Z-5 oIJ 1J L Z~~JI~~, OF o1/~~ SF~•~~j (~=6, DCMflN~= JA-r~~~-, (3 I ~8I M~r~o -Tv ~~~ ~~~g = ~~ o~J ~U p , ~ ~~ MEMDRAtJDUM TO: Dan McArthur, City Engineer Paul Taddune, City Attorney FROM: Jack Johnson, Planning Office RE: City Market Conceptual P,U,D. Submission DATE: January 13, 1981 The attached application requests conceptual P.U.D. approval and a waiver of the parking requirement for the proposed City Market expansion. This application is scheduled for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Com- mission on February 17, 1981; therefore, may I please have your comments no later than February 3, 1981? Thank you. nr;ttn};.~r:.wrt t T0; Jack Johnsa-,, Plannint; Office /,.,/~ pROtq; Fritz Fir•uSLemei.er, Sant=,S.n.:e.rin~; Dcpnrtme,nt ~~'i DA'LS: Pebrnar}, 3, ].951 RE; City l9xirket Concr..ptuaJ F.U.D. Snhmi.^si.on and lluivcr oP Parking Re.4u.iremc:nts The Engineering Department feels the foi].owing comments should ~ Le considered fpr requirements fcr Conceptual Y.U.D. approval. The applicant should be required te: 1. Remote existing asphalt sideualhs on Spring Street, Cooper Avenue, and Original Street <rd replace tl,am with 4-inch concrete si.dcwalk, as per rtc'so].u'eic,n i o. 19, Series of 19'75. 2. Remove and replace existing curb and gutter ~n Spring Street, Cooper Avenue, and Original. Street as pe" Section 19--103 of the City Code. 3. Y.emove~and replace existing concrete automol;i.l.e -%~ces . ramps 4. Revise submitted parkin; plan for at least ~:0 cars or adopt the Engineering Department's plan (see at'cached drawing). If the applicant adopts the Engineering ' Department's plan, he should be required to supply car stops and paint parking configurations on the parking area as per plan. 5. Acquire an encroachment licensee from the City of Aspen for the planters on Spring Stree-c, Cooi~cr P.venue, a~ad • Original. Street; also the shed and. fence on Origin a]. Street. -- ~ ~r t~ '~ ~ ~ . .. i ~- :~ _ . - rr~~ N 14° 5049° E 100.' Or_ _ _ _~= I ~~ ~ I UA - = --_- ,B~ I __ ~ K . ~~ K ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ r ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aJ aj ' ~ .~ ~ ~ emu, KJ `~ I z i ~ ~ ~ .^( ~ ~ ~ - ,N .. ~ ,. J ~ . (r ~ p O Z ~ ~ .. _ ~ ~ ~ ~m ~ ~ I iY~ „ E r - N o, ~' ~, ~ h -c .m r ' y 'z o m N { N ~ ' 'i ~_ 100. 6-z ~ ~ ~ \ j . I ~~.~ ~~ ~ \, ~' :, .. ~ 5 i I~ I ~ ~ r .. ' 1 ~~ ~~ V Y~4~ Lr'~_ ,~~~~ ~~ o~~"`~ ^~, %lb ~5~~ J'~D ~/~,'k ` ~~~~~.! The Subdivider shall comply with the Engineering Department memorandum ~J~~ ~~ dated February 3, 1981 annexed hereto. Numbers 1, 2 and 3 shall be W`/~ t ~ accomplished prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. `~ Plumber 4 should be changed to require 35 car spaces instead of 40. Number 5 shall be satisfied prior to recordation of the final plat and/or issuance of a building permit. 3. The Subdivider shall submit the encroachment license as aforementioned ~~~, to be approved as to form by the City Attorney prior to signature by ~,al~ ~ the Mayor. ~~4. Subyydivider shall enter into this PUD Agreement with the City which ~~olald be approved as to form by the City Attorney and executed by ¢~d W M ~~ the Mayor prior to issuance of a building permit. N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunder set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. CITY OF ASPEN, a Colorado Municipal Corporation By Mayor ATTEST: Bv: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: City Attorney I - MEMORANDUM // T0: Jack Johnson, Planning Office `la~~//~ FROM: Fritz Bruggemeier, Engineering Department 1 %~, DATE: May 14, 1981 RE: City Market Final Plat The following requirements as specified in Sections 20-14 and 20-15 of the Municipal Code need to be fulfilled by the above applicant prior to final plat recordation: 1. Final plat of mylar with permanent ink. 2. Sheet size 24" x 36" with margins. 3. Scale - 1" = 100' or larger engineering scale. 4. Bar type or graphical scale. 5. True north designation. 6. Vicinity map inset. 7. Date of preparation. 8. Accurate dimensions for all lines, angles, and curves, including curve data. 9. Description of survey monuments found and set. 10. Basis for establishing bearings. 11. Location of existing streets and alleys. 12. Location and dimensions of existing easements. 13. Location and size of existing utilities. 14. Identification of adjoining lots. 15. Certificate of licensed land surveyor. 16. Certificates of approval for City Engineer and Planning & Zoning Commission. 17. Certificate of approval and acceptance for City Council. 18. Certificate of filing for Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder. Jack Johnson City Market Final Plat May 14, 1981 PAGE TWO Two further comments are: 1. The auto access ramps to the parking area should not be designated as one-way only. 2. The description in the encroachment license document of the two planters located in the right-of-way of Spring Street should not include the driveway between the two planters. _~ SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEJ~JT CITY MARKET, INC. THIS AGREEMENT, made this _ day of 1981, by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado (hereinafter referred to as "City") and City Market, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Subdivider"). bIITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on September 2, 1980, the Subdivider obtained a variance of Section 24-3.6 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado regarding use square footage limitations from the Planning and Zoning Commission for the purposes of expanding its building an additional 3500 square feet, which had the net effect of permitting approximately 700 square feet of space over the maximum gross floor limitations (15,000 square feet), and WHEREAS, upon receipt of said variance, the Subdivider needed subsequent approvals from the City for purposes of receiving a reduction in the parking requirements of the Municipal Code (Section 24-4.5) and waivers of the open space requirements in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zone district (Section 24-3.4), which could be granted under application fora Planned Unit Develop- ment, as set forth in Article VIII of the Municipal Code, and 4JHEREAS, the Subdivider made application to the City under Article VIII, Planned Unit Development, for reductions in the parking requirements and waivers of the open space requirements and received conceptual approvals before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council on February 24, 1981, and March 9, 1981, respectively, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat (PUD) approval subject to specific conditions on April 21, 1981, and the City Council granted final plat (PUD) approval and also accepted an encroachment license subject to specific conditions on May 26, 1981. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the actual covenants herein contained, the encroachment license, and the approval, execution and acceptance of the plat for recordation by the City, it is agreed as follows: 1. That the Subdivider shall comply with the Engineering Department G~ ~~emorandum dated May 14, 1981 annexed hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A". .~ ~r ~.~ ~~ -~ MEMORANDUM T0: Aspen City Council FROM: Jack Johnson, Planning Office RE: City Market Final Plat Submission DATE: May 26, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~ ~(' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~tu~~"c Applicant's City Market, Inc, is requesting final p at approv for its Request: grocery store use, located south of C per Street between Original and Spring Streets. Also, acceptance of encroach- ment license for same property. Background: - February 24, 1981, the P & Z recommended approval of the conceptual PUD application which made requests fora reduc- tion of the parking requirements and waivers to the open space requirements in the NC zone district; necessary for the expansion of an additional twelve feet of building space into the existing parking area. - March 9, 1981, the City Council approved this conceptual PUD with the condition that the applicant comply with Engineering requirements as per memo dated February 3, 1981 except that No. 4 should be changed to require 38 instead of 40 spaces (see memo attached). April 21, 1981, the P & Z approved the preliminary plat subject to compliance with the Engineering Department memo dated February 3, 1981 as required by City Council in conceptual PUD approval with. one modification, that the 40 spaces required by Engineering, which was reduced to 38 by City Council, should be reduced to 35 for efficiency in movement and safety purposes, The approval was further conditioned upon accomplishing Wumbers 1, 2 and 3 of this same Engineering Department memo prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; and accomplishing Number 5 prior to final plat submission in order for the encroachment license to be considered by City Council along with the final plat. Recommendation The encroachment license is being requested for the purposes of permitting certain private improvements associated with the City Market grocery store use which encroach within the city's right-of-way. These encroachments include planters within the parking area, the awning over the Steak Pit Restaurant, and fencing and storage adjacent to Original Street. The Planning Office recommends approval of the City Market Final Plat and acceptance of the encroachment license subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Engineering Department memo dated May 14, 1981 (attached). Compliance with the Engineering Department memo dated February 3, 1981 as modified by the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 21, 1981 and consented to by the applicant, and 3. The encroachment license being approved as to form by the City Attorney prior to signature by the mayor. ~~~~nc. P.O. Box 729, Grand Junction, Colorado 81502, (303) 241-0750 April 24, 1981 Jack Johnson Planning Office City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Jack: Per our telephone conversation, I am forwarding to you (5) copies of the final plat showing the revisions as suggested by P & Z of their meeting April 21st, 1981. Further as shown on these drawings we consent to complete during construction the following items as requested by the Engineering Department: 1. Remove existing asphalt sidewalks on Spring Street, Cooper Avenue, and Original Street and replace them with 4-inch concrete sidewalk, as per Resolution No. 19, Series of 1975. 2. Remove and replace existing curb and gutter on Spring Street, Cooper Avenue, and Original Street as per Section 19-103 of the City Code. 3. Remove and replace existing concrete automobile access ramps. We are in the process of obtaining the encroachment license as requested and will forward as soon as completed. Jack, it's been a pleasure working with you on this project and thank you for all your help. Sincerely, V',~~7`~l~il yl dam/ David K. Mack - - ~ ~' Corporate Architect DKM:sl D Enclosures ~j ~~ APR ~'7 1981 L~ HSf'EIV / PfTrll~! r, PLANCVIivi.i=>::;t~ ~...., . ~~ PIEMORAIJDUM T0: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jack Johnson, Planning Office RE: City P1arket Preliminary Plat Submission DATE: April 21, 1981 Applicant's The applicant, City Market, Inc., is requesting preliminary Request: plat approval for its grocery store use, located south of Cooper street between Original and Spring Streets. Background: On February 24, 1981, the P & Z recommended approval of the conceptual PUD application which made requests fora reduction of the parking requirements and waivers to the open space requirements in the NC zone district; necessary for the expansion of an additional twelve feet of building space into the existing parking area. The City Council approved this conceptual PUD on P~tarch 9, 1981 with the condition that the applicant comply with engineering requirements as per memo dated February 3, 1981, except that PJo. 4 should be changed to require 38 instead of 40 spaces. (This memo is attached.) The City Engineering Department has reviewd this preliminary plat submission and has continued concerns over the parking layout and circulation patterns. The Engineering Department feels the parking configuration and proposed traffic circula- tion pattern submitted by City P1arket is unacceptable. The driving lane of 10' 7" (ten feet, seven inches) connecting the parking area with the alley would not handle two-way traffic and would only cause congestion. The one-way only entry and exit would probably be respected as well as the one-way designations at the new post: little to none. There seems to be a lack of effort and ingenuity in designing a feasible parking area and traffic circulation pattern. The Engineering Department would like to submit an alternate parking design which we feel would be more conducive to on-site and off-site traffic circulation while providing the required thirty-eight (38) parking spaces. If the applicant finds the attached parking design to be unacceptable, we feel an alternate design should be requested rather than accepting the present submittal. (See attached parking diagram.) Recommendation: The Planning Office recommends approval of this preliminary plat submission subject to the following conditions: Compliance with Engineering Department memo dated January 3, 1981 as required by City Council in conceptual PUD approval. Numbers 1, 2 and 3 should be accomplished prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Omit "lumber 4 in place of condition tJumber 2 below. Accomplish Number 5 prior to final plat submission in order for the encroachment license to be considered by City Council along with the final plat. Utilization of the revised parking design for 38 spaces submitted by the Engineering department as per attached diagram. ~~ P T0: Jack Jc~l~n.~•~n, P.lanninl; Office /> j -~ % ~"'. FRCtq; Fx•.itz. Drugt,emeier., I;nLr,S.n«c°ring Dcpar'C-memt DATE: February 3, 19&1 R};: C-i.ty t4arket Conc,ept•,ra7 F.CI.D. Suhmir,si.on and ldaiver, of Parking Requirement: The Engineerirg Departmerrr. fecle; the following continents should ' be considered for requirements fcr Con cept'~ial F.L.n, approvsl. The applicant should be required to: 1. Remote exi-sting asphalt si.de.wa]-lcs on Eprir.g Str.<:et, Cooper Avenue, and Original Street ar~d rep]-ace tLam orith 4-inch concrete sidewalk, as per Reso]uiion No• 19, Series of 19'75. 2. Rc_move and replace existing curb and gutter cn S,:r.ing Street, Cooper Avenue, and Origi.na]- Street as pe'-' Section 19,-103 of the City Code. 3. Y.emove and replace existing concrete automobi-]-e ccees ramps. 4. Revise submitted parking plan for at least 40 cars or adopt the Engineering, Department's plan (see atcaci~~d drawing). If the applicant adopts the Engineeing Department's plan, he should be required to supp)-} car stops and paint parking configurations on the parking area as per. plan. 5. Acquir•c. an encroachment licensee from t:he City of- Aspen for the planters on Spring Streei, Cooper Avenue, at:d Original Street; also the ~hcd and fence on OriRi_na] Street. l i l .~ w O LLO Z Z v N a~i - ~ °D L ~ O a G ? a N 3 m m ~ w lA >, O d ¢ N S _ .3 ~ m « O m a `O LL _ m o a Q m u y a d ~ °~ Q T m v N Q A `° ` J c7 o a ? y r a Z ~ O N O ~ U C y d Q y W W LL Z O O O O O I rn W O N Q O Q U J d ~ N M O N O n d Q M M M M M M M W cD tD (D t0 t0 t0 t0 N ~ I ~ z Q C o' O o J U O t~ `~ ` v \, 0 0 e~j U a a Q Q .o m m ~ ` tO c .u a a ~ °i c c o a v ~ C` Q C , -. n 'c E o ~o N N C U d LL W D: U O O O O T O O O N M O ~ fD N N N N N N n n n n n n M M M M M M t0 t0 t0 t0 tD t0 I O T O U o d N N v m c m m y Y ~ ~ LL N C c a w > m ~ g E a t U C7 Q V O O O O O w I J W N W O U_ LL' N M LL ~ ~ O c~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z Z O Q O a °o i ~- ~: } `'a; ~.. . r"t ~ 4..~-. \~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~. 1,` ,~: M° <-.~:~ - J U m a `~ i ~ O ~ 4~ :~~ I ~ ~~~ M L y Y E v a0i rv 9 t Z Q U a O Z a K