HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Pitkin County Library 120 E Main St.113A-89Pitkin County Library Rezoning
2735-124-38-002 113A-89
OdfoAC vll -'-
Z
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090 ? a 7 ado
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES J�
City
00113-63250-134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL
-63270-136
GMP/FINAL
-63280-137
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
-63300-139
SUB/FINAL
-63310-140
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63320-141
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
-63340-205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
-63340-190
HOUSING
00115
-63340-163
ENGINEERING
SUBTOTAL
County
00113
-63160-126
GMP/GENERAL
-63170-127
GMP/DETAILED
-63180-128
GMP/FINAL
-63190-129
SUB/GENERAL
-63200-130
SUB/DETAILED
-63210-131
SUB/FINAL
-63220-132
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63230-133
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
-63450-146
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
-63340-205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
-63340-190
HOUSING
00113
-63360-143
ENGINEERING
PLANNING OFFICE
SALES
00113
-63080-122
CITY/COUNTY CODE
-63090-123
COMP. PLAN
-63140-124
COPY FEES
-69000-145
OTHER
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Name:
Phone:
Address:
Project:
Check #
Date:
Additional Milling:
#of Hours:
J9 4
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 12/20_/89
DATE COMPLETE: 12/26/89
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
2735-124-38-002 113A-89
STAFF MEMBER: LL
PROJECT NAME:_Pitkin County Library Rezonin
Project Address: 120 E. Main Street
Legal Address: Lots O, N & part of M, Block 66
APPLICANT: Board of County Commissioners
Applicant Address: 506 E. Main Street, Aspen, CO 81611
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann, Vann Associates
Representative Address/Phone:_230 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611 5-6958
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $1,500 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 6
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: X
P&Z Meeting Date 2/6/90 PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES
NO
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC
HEARING:
YES
NO
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES
NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
REFERRALS:
X City Attorney
Mtn. Bell
School District
City Engineer
Parks Dept.
Rocky
Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir.
Holy Cross
State
Hwy Dept(GW)
Aspen Water
Fire Marshal
State
Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric
Building Inspector
Envir. Hlth.
Roaring Fork X
Other
County Mgr.
Aspen Consol.
Energy Center
_County
Atv.
S.D.
DATE REFERRED: 12Z27/89 INITIALS: DS
FINAL ROUTING:
City Atty
Housing
------------
DATE ROUTED:
City Engineer Zoning
Other: /1
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
INITIAL:
Env. Health
ORDINANCE NO. 15
(SERIES OF 1990)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A MAP AMENDMENT
AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE LIBRARY PARCEL, 120 FAST MAIN FOR LOTS
N, O, AND PART OF M, BLOCK 66
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7-1103 of the Aspen Land Use
Code, a development application for an amendment to the Official
Zone District Map may only be submitted on or prior to February
15 or August 15; and
WHEREAS, the applicant requested the Commission to waive the
rezoning deadline; and
WHEREAS, the applicants requested a map amendment to rezone
the library parcel from public to office; and
WHEREAS, the applicants also requested a GMQS Exemption for
a change in use to convert the building frori a public use to an
office use; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on
February 6, 1990 to consider the application for a change in use
and map amendment, at which time the Commission reviewed the
application; and
WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations and
commitments made by the applicant and approved the change in use,
sponsored the rezoning application and recommends the map
amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Commission recommends to City Council the map
amendment with the following condition:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. or a
Certificate of Occupancy (whichever is required) the
purchaser shall ultimately be required to provide
parking in accordance with the Code provision or may be
provided through cash -in -lieu and employee housing
acceptable to the Housing Authority using the formula
indexed to the current Housing guidelines and the
change in use provision in the Aspen Land Use Code. It
should be noted that the Library has received credit
for their existing employees as part of the Rio Grande
SPA approval. This means that the user of the Libra--y
building must mitigate all of the employees associated
with the new use. The Housing Authority Guidelines
establish a generation rate of 3 employees/1000 square
feet in the Office Zone.
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the
Commission's recommendation for a map amendment does wish to
grant a map amendment approval with the above mentioned
condition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASP-N, COLORADO:
Section 1:
That it does hereby grant a map amendment for the existing
library parcel 120 East Main Lots N, O, and part of M, Block 66.
Section 2:
That it does hereby grant a map amendment with the
previously mentioned conditions recommended by the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission, for 120 East Main.
Section 3:
That is does hereby grant Vested Rights for this map
amendment for a period of three (3) years from the effective date
hereof in accordance with the terms a:d provisions of Section 6-
207 of the Aspen Land Use Code.
2
E
0
Section 4:
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the
adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 5•
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 6:
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any
right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to
the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be
continued and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 7: n
A FZijhearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 7
day of , 1990 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published one in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the /�� day of
1990.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
3
0
G
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this c3� day of
1990.
William L. Stirling, May
ATTEST:
A�"-)
Kathryn . ':och, City Clerk
11/cc.library
M
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Bill Efting, Interim City Manager
v
FROM: Amy Margerum Vnning Director and Leslie Lamont
RE: RFTA Easement Request of the Library Board and Second
Reading of Ordinance 15
DATE: April 23, 1990
SUMMARY: At the April 9, 1990 meeting the Council tabled the
second reading of Ordinance 15 approving the rezoning and change
in use of the Pitkin County Library parcel. Council tabled the
Ordinance because RFTA has requested an easement in front of the
existing building for future transit improvements such as
erecting a structure for waiting passengers.
Because Council tabled the Ordinance, it is necessary for council
to read and it desired, approve the Ordinance on Second Reading.
Attached for your review is the April 9 Council memo with
Ordinance 15.
FINDINGS: RFTA is requesting an approximately 13' 10" x 68.95'
easement in front of the existing library. The easement will be
used for future construction of a covered passenger waiting area.
RFTA's is unsure as to the size of the structure that may be
necessary for this "stop" hence the large easement request. RFTA
would like the ability to site a future structure in the best and
most efficient location within that area.
After meeting with both the County Land Use Engineer and Dan
Blankenship of RFTA, staff has complied the following as a
condition for rezoning and change in use:
Prior to a certificate of sale for the building, the
applicant shall grant an easement to RFTA for the benefit of
the public beginning at the southwesterly corner of said
property of Lot M; thence north 10 feet; thence east
approximately 35 feet; thence southerly for 3.8 feet; thence
easterly 33.8 feet to the easterly boundary of Lot O.
(Please see attached site plan).
This easement gives RFTA the ability to incorporate benches into
the brick wall/planter while the building's large roof overhang
afford protection from the weather. The easement also ensures
the Library Board/purchaser that only 50% of the front of the
building will be obstructed by a structure. The width of the
easement enables a shorter but wider building that will not
stretch across the front of the parcel.
•
•
RFTA in June of 1989 received a
for a passenger shelter. Staff
another shelter is constructed
small easement be vacated.
5' x 3' easement from the County
also recommends that at such time
or benches are added, that the
It should be noted: any development of a structure at that
location will require review by the Historic Preservation
Committee to ensure compliance with the Main Street Historic
Overlay District. Further, any or improvements to that site for
transit or pedestrian use must also comply with the guidelines of
the proposed Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan.
STaff believes that to obtain
juncture is appropriate for this
is sold RFTA will have to contend
gain a benefit for the community
a workable easement at this
application. When this parcel
with a private sector entity to
at large.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the above condition
language for the proposed easement.
2
I
s i
i 1
V i -
Z
I i
I
L.J
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
ICI DI vto] ,.ZDili u
Mayor and Council
Bill Efting, Acting City Manager
Amy Margerum and Leslie Lamont, Planning
Library Rezoning, Second Reading Ordinance 15
April 9, 1990
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to rezone the existing library
parcel from Public to Office. Because the application was
submitted before February 15, the applicant requested that the
Planning and Zoning Commission waive the rezoning deadline. The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the
rezoning and approved the GMQS Exemption for a change in use for
the building to convert from a public use to an office use.
Staff continues to recommend denial of the rezoning. Until an
analysis is conducted to determine the future need for public
facilities, it would not be prudent to lose one of our publicly
zoned sites.
At the March 12 hearing, the Council moved to read Ordinance 15
at first reading. Please see attached Ordinance.
Council also requested staff to find the specific language of the
Mill Levy approved in 1982. Staff also researched what the
library's budget requires to successfully build the library.
COUNCIL GOALS: Approval of the rezoning would comply with
Council's goal #11: to work together with all people and
organizations in the Roaring Fork Valley. To work with all
local... agencies to assure that we are responsive to each others
needs.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 1989, Council approved a final SPA
plan for the new library on the City's Rio Grande property.
BACKGROUND: The Planning and Zoning Commission, at their
February 6, 1990 meeting, recommended approval of the rezoning
and approved the change of use with conditions.
PROBLEM DISCUSSIONS: The applicant (the Board of County
Commissioners and the Library Board) intends to rezone the parcel
to office and sell the parcel to offset the cost of developing
the new library.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the
rezoning. A change -in -use was requested by the applicant in
order to enhance the sale of the parcel. The Commission
•
0
approved the change -in -use with the condition that the ultimate
purchaser shall be required to provide housing and parking per
their use and occupancy.
Please see the attached memo to the Commission for a review of
the rezoning criteria. The memo also outlines staff's
recommendation for denial and, if approved, the condition of
approval.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: 8 FOR 0 AGAINST
KEY ISSUES: 1) Council requested staff to find the ballot
language for the Mill Levy for the Library. The language from
the 1982 levy that was approved is as follows: "Shall the Board
of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, be authorized
to increase the maximum tax levy from 1.5 mills to not more than
2.5 mills for the establishment and maintenance of public
libraries. Further, shall the Board of County Commissioners,
pursuant to this authorized increase, set a mill levy of 2.5
mills, total, upon all taxable property in the Pitkin County
Library District for the year 1983, payable in 1984, for the
establishment and maintenance of public libraries?"
Although a recent reassessment of property reduced the Library's
mill to 1.314, the revenue source is still the same but is
growing at a slower rate. The reduction in the mill rate is
state mandated from the Division of Local Government.
2) According to Kathy Chandler, the County Librarian, the
Library is short approximately $1.7 million in their budget for
the new Library. The Library hopes to get at least at $1.4
million from the sale of the building. If that price is reached
the Library will still need to borrow approximately $300,000 from
the County.
The Oden debt for the Rio Grande site is not included in the $1.7
million debt.
3) The Commission did not want to hold up the future development
of the new library. Two years ago the planning review process
for the new library identified resale of the existing library
parcel necessary for funding the new library. The Commission
believed that this was too late a date to hold up the resale for
a future needs analysis.
4) The P&Z felt that the rezoning and providing a change -in -use
at this point would not preclude the City or the County or any
other government agency from utilizing the site.
5) The Commission felt that public good may be served best by
not reserving prime real estate for something that doesn't
necessarily need to be right on Main Street. However,
2
I �
alternative sites for public uses have yet to be identified.
6) Please see attached Commission Resolution to Council
recommending review of this property for possible acquisition.
Specifically, this site could be a better location for uses such
as a teen center or CMC use. The building could be converted at
very little cost when balanced against the construction cost of
the "Free Land" site.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval of the rezoning of the parcel from public to office with
the following condition of approval:
1) Prior to the issuance of a building permit or a Certificate
of Occupancy (whichever comes first), the purchaser shall
ultimately be required to provide parking in accordance with the
Code provision or through cash -in -lieu and shall provide employee
housing acceptable to the Housing Authority using the formula
indexed to current Housing guidelines and the change in use
provision in the Aspen Land Use Code. It should be noted that
the Library has received credit for their existing employees as
part of the Rio Grande SPA approval. This means that the user of
the Library building must mitigate all of the employees
associated with that new use. The Housing Authority Guidelines
establish a generation rate for 3 employees/1000 square feet in
the Office Zone.
Staff recommended denial of the rezoning at the Planning
Commission hearing.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Council could deny the rezoning which limits
the permitted uses on the site but does not preclude the sale of
the property to the City or other purchasers. For example, the
Youth Center or CMC.
2) Council could approve the rezoning with conditions.
3) Council could deny the rezoning to study, in conjunction with
the Aspen Land Use Element and Community Facilities Update, how
this asset may be applied toward our community facility needs.
It is anticipated that this would be completed in one year.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the rezoning of the library
with conditions or I move to deny the rezoning of the library
parcel at 120 East Main.
"Move to adopt Ordinance 15, Series of 1990, on Second Reading."
"Move to approve Ordinance 15, Series of 1990, on Second
Reading."
C
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Ordinance 15
B. Planning & Zoning Commission Memo, February 6, 1990
C. Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 90-2
D. Letters from Citizens
4
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council Anril 23, 1990
the library. Staff and RFTA met with the applicants. Staff is
recommending approval of this ordinance with a condition, "prior
to a certificate of sale for the building, the applicant shall
grant an easement to RFTA for the benefit of the public beginning
at the southwesterly corner of said property of Lot M; thence north
10 feet; thence east approximately 35 feet; thence southerly for
3.8 feet; thence easterly 33.8 feet to the easterly boundary of Lot
O". Chuck Vidal, representing the applicant, told Council the
condition is too specific regarding the processes he has to go
through. Vidal said he would like the condition to say, "prior to
certificate of sale for a condition of rezoning, an easement
satisfactory to the library board and RFTA be created". This would ,
allow the library board and RFTA to work this out with the
Commissioners. Dwight Shellman, RFTA Board, suggested the
language, "subject to the RFTA and Library Boards to agree on
mutually acceptable modifications.
Councilman Tuite moved this be the language; seconded by Councilman
Gassman. All in favor, motion carried.
Vidal said he would also Council to address the employee housing
can be satisfied through cash -in -lieu payments. Vidal said if the
purchaser has other ways to deal with employee housing, he can come
to Council and propose those. Vidal said this way prospective
purchasers will know exactly how much the building and mitigation
will cost. Baker told Council the library has gotten credit for
all their employees they currently have; whoever occupies the
building will be required to mitigate all their employees. There
is no credit. Baker said the change in use language allows Council
discretion for situations like this. Councilman Peters asked how
Council will determine whether this should be low or moderate.
Baker said typically in GMP, staff looks at the proposal and
determine the type of housing that should be in there. There will
be no competition for this building. Councilwoman Pendleton said
she does not want to approve this request before knowing what will
go in the building. Councilman Gassman said he can see an argument
for cash -in -lieu if the existing building is used.
Mayor Stirling moved to accept cash -in -lieu if the building is not
razed and entertain proposals on cash -in -lieu but not determine
what they would be tonight, for any reconstruction or expansion,
this would meet the code; seconded by Councilman Peters. All in
favor, motion carried.
Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing.
Councilman Tuite moved to adopt Ordinance #15, Series of 1990, as
amended; seconded by Councilman Peters.
C.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 23 1990
11. Mayor Stirling said there is a pedestrian bicycle .committee
field trip planned for April 27 to Vail and Boulder.
12. Mayor Stirling said the Board of Adjustment has requested a
study session with Council to discuss the code and areas of
responsibility. Council scheduled this for June 18th at 5 p.m.
13. Acting City Manager Bill Efting told Council the parks
association, historical society and city worked together on Earth
Day at the Marolt property and removed truck loads of trash.
14. John Goodwin, police chief, requested Council take VIII(1)
off the agenda to coordinate this request for staff with the rest
of his requests at a later date.
15. Bob Gish, city engineer, told Council it is not convenient for
recyclers to go to the end of the hill by the art park. Gish
proposed these bins be relocated in the old impound lot and dress
this area up more. Council agreed. Councilman Tuite said some
people are being told their trash rates are going to go up because
of recycling. Councilman Tuite said he would like to stop these
rumors. Councilman Tuite said recycling increases the life of
landfills and eliminates costs of purchasing new ones.
CONSENT AGENDA
Councilman Peters moved to approve the consent calendar; seconded
by Councilman Gassman. The consent calendar is
A. Marolt House Stove Clean Burning Insert (Lee Cassin)
B. Attorney Employment Contract
C. Storm Runoff Requirements
D. Valley High Settlement Agreement
E. Transfer of Funds - Police Department
F. Minutes - April 9, 1990
G. Liquor License Renewals - Wheeler Opera House; Aspen Mine
Company; Asia, Espana
Councilman Peters asked about the storm runoff policy. Chuck Roth,
engineering department, told Council the policy is being changed
in that previously built duplexes will not have to comply with the
storm runoff requirements.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #15, SERIES OF 1990 - Library Rezoning
Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing.
Tom Baker, planning office, reminded Council at the last meeting
there were concerns about the transportation easement in front of
5
•
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Bill Efting, Acting City Manager
FROM: Amy Margerum and Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Library Rezoning, Second Reading Ordinance 15
DATE: April 9, 1990
SUF!MARY: The applicant proposes to rezone the existing library
parcel from Public to Office. Because the application was
submitted before February 15, the applicant requested that the
Planning and Zoning Commission waive the rezoning deadline. The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the
rezoning and approved the GMQS Exemption for a change in use for
the building to convert from a public use to an office use.
Staff continues to recommend denial of the rezoning. Until an
analysis is conducted to determine the future need for public
facilities, it would not be prudent to lose one of our publicly
zoned sites.
At the March 12 hearing, the Council moved to read Ordinance 15
at first reading. Please see attached Ordinance.
Council also requested staff to find the specific language of the
Mill Levy approved in 1982. Staff also researched what the
library's budget requires to successfully build the library.
COUNCIL GOALS: Approval of the rezoning would comply with
Council's goal W11: to work together with all people and
organizations in the Roaring Fork Valley. To work with all
local... agencies to assure that we are responsive to each others
needs.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 1989, Council approved a final SPA
plan for the new library on the City's Rio Grande property.
BACKGROUND: The Planning and Zoning Commission, at their
February 6, 1990 meeting, recommended approval of the rezoning
and approved the change of use with conditions.
PROBLEM DISCUSSIONS: The applicant (the Board of County
Commissioners and the Library Board) intends to rezone the parcel
to office and sell the parcel to offset the cost of developing
the new library.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the
rezoning. A change -in -use was requested by the applicant in
order to enhance the sale of the parcel. The Commission
approved the change -in -use with the condition that the ultimate
purchaser shall be required to provide housing and parking per
their use and occupancy.
Please see the attached memo to the Commission for a review of
the rezoning criteria. The memo als-) outlines staff's
recommendation for denial and, if approved, the condition of
approval.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: 8 FOR 0 AGAINST
KEY ISSUES: T) Council requested staff to find the ballot
language for the Mill Levy for the Library. The language from
the 1982 levy that was approved is as follows: "Shall the Board
of County Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, be authorized
to increase the maximum tax levy from 1.5 mills to not more than
2.5 mills for the establishment and maintenance of public
libraries. Further, shall the Board of County Commissioners,
pursuant to this authorized increase, set a mill levy of 2.5
mills, total, upon all taxable property in the Pitkin County
Library District for the year 1983, payable in 1984, for the
establishment and maintenance of public libraries?"
Although a recent reassessment of property reduced the Library's
mill to 1.314, the revenue source is still the same but is
growing at a slower rate. The reduction in the mill rate is
state mandated from the Division of Local Government.
2,� According to Kathy Chandler, the County Librarian, the
Library is short approximately $1.7 million in their budget for
the new Library. The Library hopes to get at least at $1.4
million from the sale of the building. If that price is reached
the Library will still need to borrow approximately $300,000 from
the County.
The Oden debt for the Rio Grande site is not included in the $1.7
million debt.
3) The Commission did not want to hold up the future development
of the new library. Two years ago the planning review process
for the new library identified resale of the existing library
parcel necessary for funding the new library. The Commission
believed that this was too late a date to hold up the resale for
a future needs analysis.
4) The P&Z felt that the rezoning and providing a change -in -use
at this point would not preclude the City or the County or any
other government agency from utilizing the site.
5) The Commission felt that public good may be served best by
not reserving prime real estate for something that doesn't
necessarily need to be right on Main Street. However,
2
•
•
alternative sites for public uses have yet to be identified.
6) Please see attached Commission Resolution to Council
recommending review of this property for possible acquisition.
Specifically, this site could be a better location for uses such
as a teen center or CMC use. The building could be converted at
very little cost when balanced against the construction cost of
the "Free Land" site.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval of the rezoning of the parcel from public to office with
the followi^g condition of approval:
A Prior to the issuance of a building permit or a Certificate
of Occupancy (whichever comes first), the purchaser shall
ultimately be required to provide parking in accordance with the
Code provision or through cash -in -lieu and shall provide employee
housing acceptable to the Housing Authority using the formula
indexed to current Housing guidelines and the change in use
provision in the Aspen Land Use Code. It should be noted that
the Library has received credit for their existing employees as
part of the Rio Grande SPA approval. This means that the user of
the Library building must mitigate all of the employees
associated with that new use. The Housing Authority Guidelines
establish a generation rate for 3 employees/1000 square feet in
the Office Zone..
Staff recommended denial of the rezoning at the Planning
Commission hearing.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Council could deny the rezoning which limits
the permitted uses on the site but does not preclude the sale of
the property to the City or other purchasers. For example, the
Youth Center or CMC.
2) Council could approve the rezoning with conditions.
3) Council could deny the rezoning to study, in conjunction with
the Aspen Land Use Element and Community Facilities Update, how
this asset may be applied toward our community facility needs.
It is anticipated that this would be completed in one year.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the rezoning of the library
with conditions or I move to deny the rezoning of the library
parcel at 120 East Main.
"Move to adopt Ordinance 15, Series of 1990, on Second Reading."
"Move to approve Ordinance 15, Series of 1990, on Second
Reading."
3
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Ordinance 15
B. Planning & Zoning Commission Memo, February 6, 1990
C. Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 90-2
1p. Letters from Citizens
a,3 Uj/ -4 6 L) cft��
4
•
•
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. 15
(SERIES OF 1990)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A MAP AMENDMENT
AND VESTED RIGHTS FOR THE LIBRARY PARCEL, 1.20 EAST MAIN FOR LOTS
N, O, AND PART OF M, BLOCK 66
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7-1103 of the Aspen Land Use
Code, a development application for an amendment to the Official
Zone District Map may only be submitted on or prior to February
15 or August 15; and
WHEREAS, the applicant requested the Commission to waive the
rezoning deadline; and
WHEREAS, the applicants requested a map amendment to rezone
the library parcel from public to office; and
WHEREAS, the applicants also requested a GMQS Exemption for
a change in use to convert the building from a public use to an
office use; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on
February 6, 1990 to consider the application for a change in use
and map amendment, at which time the Commission reviewed the
application; and
WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations and
commitments made by the applicant and approved the change in use,
sponsored the rezoning application and recommends the map
amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Commission recommends to City Council the map
amendment with the following condition:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or a
Certificate of Occupancy (whichever is required) the
purchaser shall ultimately be required to provide
parking in acc:;rdance with the Code provision or may be
provided through cash -in -lieu and employee housing
acceptable to the Housing Authority using the formula
indexed to the current Housing guidelines and the
change in use provision in the Aspen Land Use Code. It
should be noted that the Library has received credit
for their existing employees as part of the Rio Grande
SPA approval. This means that the user of the Library
building must mitigate all of the employees associated
with the new use. The Housing Authority Guidelines
establish a generation rate of 3 employees/1000 square
feet in the Office Zone.
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the
Commission's recommendation for a map amendment does wish to
grant a map amendment approval with the above mentioned
condition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
That it does hereby grant a map amendment for the existing
library parcel 120 East Main Lots N, O, and part of M, Block 66.
Section 2:
That it does hereby grant a map amendment with the
previously mentioned conditions recommended by the Aspen Planning
and Zoning Commission, for 120 East Main.
Section 3:
That is does hereby grant Vested Rights for this map
amendment for a period of three (3) years from the effective date
hereof in accordance with the terms and provisions of Section 6-
207 of the Aspen Land Use Code.
Fj
E
Section 4•
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the
adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 5•
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 6:
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any
right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to
the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be
continued and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 7•
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the
day of , 1990 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
hearing a public notice of the same shall be published one in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
, 1990.
3
William L. Stirling, Mayor
•
0
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
1990.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
11/cc.library
n
ATTACHME0B •
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Library Rezoning & Change in Use GMQS Exemption
DATE: February 6, 1990
SU2AMARY: The applicant proposes to rezone the existing library
parcel from Public to Office while seeking a GMQS Exemption for a
change in use. Because the application has been submitted prior
to the February 15 date for rezoning, the applicant requests that
the P&Z waive the rezoning deadline. Staff recommends denial of
this application.
APPLICANT: Library Board, 506 East Main Street, Aspen
PROPERTY OWNER: Pitkin County, 506 East Main Street, Aspen
LOCATION: 120 East Main Street, Lots O, F, & part of M, Block 66
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Rezone the parcel from Public to Office,
and GMQS exemption for a change in use.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see the attached referral from the
County Manager's Office. In addition, the County Manager's
office has provided an analysis of the library building's ability
to house Health and Human Services.
PROJECT SUMMARY: As you know, the development of the new library
was approved for a portion of the Rio Grande property. In order
to help defray their costs, the Library Board proposes to sell
the existing library parcel. Presently, the parcel is zoned
Public. To facilitate a sale of the property the Board requests
a rezoning of the parcel from Public to Office.
In addition to rezoning, the applicant's are seeking a GMQS
Exemption for a change in use of existing structures. Although
the change in use language does not include a change from a
public use to an office use, Alan Richman, at some point last
year, made the interpretation that the change in use section is
appropriate for a conversion of Public use to Office use. Staff
concurs.
According to Section 7-1103, a development application for an
amendment to the Official Zone District Map may only be submitted
on or prior to February 15 or August 15. Because the applicants
have submitted well before February 15, they request the P&Z to
waive the rezoning deadline. Waiving rezoning deadlines does not
commit the P&Z to support the application, it only enables the
application to be processed.
Historically, it has been the policy of the City to entertain a
rezoning application with a specific development proposal for the
site. At this point, there is not a purchaser for the site,
however, the applicants wish to proceed and will include
conditions of approval with the sale of the property to be
fulfilled by the purchasers.
STAFF COMMENTS: The rezoning of the parcel to Office is both
consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses along
Main Street. Staff is recommending denial because this parcel is
one of only seven Public zoned parcels in the City. Until staff
can conduct a public facilities analysis and determine current
and future public service needs it would be careless to eliminate
a publicly zoned parcel from the City and County inventory.
Map Amendment: Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of
review for a map amendment are as follows:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The application is consistent with the requirements of
the Land Use Code. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the
surrounding zoning and the existing building complies with the
dimensional requirements of the Office zone with the exception of
parking, there is no parking on site. The provision of parking
is discussed under GMQS exemption.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Land Use Plan identifies this area as single
family residential, thus the current use of the site and the
proposed rezoning are inconsistent with the Plan. Obviously the
majority of land uses in this area of Main Street are also
inconsistent. The proposal is, however consistent with the rest
of Main Street as it is zoned primarily for Office use. As the
applicants point out: "the primary purpose of this zone is to
provide for the establishment of offices and associated
commercial uses..." Staff agrees, but the current zoning is also
appropriate.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: The majority of the west end of Main Street is zoned
Office. The parcels on both sides of the Library, the Sardy
House and the Aspen Clinic, are both zoned office. Although
there are some residential uses along Main Street, the majority
of land uses are office/commercial in nature. The proposed
2
rezoning is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: Adverse impacts upon the existing road system are not
anticipated. Depending upon the future of the building, the lack
of on -site parking may have a detrimental effect on the
surrounding roads. If the parcel is rezoned, a cash -in -lieu
payment would be appropriate. Any reconstruction should
incorporate new parking.
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: The applicants do not intend to redevelop the
parcel. The rezoning should have little impact upon the
provision of public services to the building, e.g., sewer, water,
electricity. The building is, however, zoned for public use.
Staff is seriously concerned about rezoning a public parcel for
private sector office space. The City/County has limited
publicly zoned parcels. Including the existing library, there
are only seven sites that are zoned for public use within the
City. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that if the
County and City wish to eliminate a parcel zoned for public
services then a public facilities analysis should be conducted to
determine the future capacity needs for public services. This is
certainly a study that could dove -tail into this Department's
review of the Land Use/Community Facilities Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
RESPONSE: The proposal should have no impact upon the natural
environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: The proposal to rezone the property to office is
consistent with the surrounding zoning of Main Street which is
predominantly Office. In addition, as stated in the application,
uses allowed within this zone district are consistent with the
existing character of the Main Street corridor.
3
•
•
H. Whether there have bl-en change:: conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surroundin., neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: The library is being relocated to the Rio Grande
property. The application states that: "In the absence of an
alternative public use..." rezoning is appropriate. As stated
above, staff is uncomfortable rezoning a public parcel without a
thorough analysis of the community's public facility needs, and
an identification of plans for expansion of public facilities.
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.
PESPONSE: The applicants propose the sale c`. this parcel to help
defray the costs of the new library. Although staff supports the
development of the new library, the public zone district is very
small and designed to meet a specific community need. Like the
LP, NC, and SCI zone districts, the pul.iic zone district is
designed to meet specific community needs. These zone districts
are in short supply. For example, there are seven sites that are
zoned public within the City: Rio Grande SPA, Sanitation
District, City Hall, Fire Station, Court House/Jail, Rubey Park,
and the Library. To rezone a parcel that is in short supply may
be premature at this time.
It may be debated that the community is in desperate need of
office space. However, it is staff's opinion that there is
adequate Office zoning within the City and it is the limitations
of GMQS that is creating an office shortage. During our review
of the Land Use Element and the subsequent analysis of GMQS, due
to begin in April, public facility needs and other land use needs
shall be identified in a more focused manner.
In summary, staff would like to emphasize that our denial
recommendation does not preclude the sale of this property to
generate funds for the new library. We are only recommending
denial of rezoning for the previously stated reasons. The
Library property could be sold to another public entity.
Growth Management Exemption: It is difficult to process a change
in use unless the future use has been identified thus allowing
staff to evaluate whether or not the applicant is effectively
mitigating impacts, especially housing. Staff recommends that a
change in use review occur, under a separate application, when an
actual use is proposed for the building.
If the Commission believes that a change in use review is
appropriate at this time the following review is provided.
Pursuant to Section 8-104 B.1(b) a change in use is a GMQS
4
Exemption provided it can be demonstrated that the change in use
will have minimal impact upon the City. The following standards
are as follows:
1. A minimal number of additional employees will be generated by
the change in use and that employee housing will be provided for
the additional employees generated.
RESPONSE: The applicants submit the following formula: 1) the
building contains approximately 8,000 square feet of gross floor
area; 2) assume for discussion purpose that 85% or 6,800 square
feet is net leasable; 3) using the Housing Guidelines, 3
employees per 1,000 square feet are generated; 4) thus
approximately 20 full time equivalent employees.
The applicants also propose that there are approximately 9 full
time employees (8 full-time and 2 part-time) working at the
library. Therefore the conversion to office would generate an
addition of 11 new employees.
Staff agrees that this is the formula that should be applied to a
change in use. However, since the purchaser and future use of
the building is unknown, the true number of employees generated
cannot be formulated at this time. The applicants propose either
to establish a figure that is acceptable with both the Housing
Authority and City or condition the rezoning to a figure
determined at such time that the building is sold and a use is
identified.
As the site is constrained making on -site housing difficult, the
applicants require that cash -in -lieu be an acceptable form of
mitigation.
2. A minimal amount of additional parking space will be demanded
by the change in use and that parking will be provided.
RESPONSE: No off-street parking is currently provided on site.
A similar scenario exists with a determination of the number of
spaces depends upon the use and the amount of net leasable. The
applicants offer the same alternatives: agree upon the number of
spaces now or wait until the building is sold and identify the
number of spaces required. In any event a cash -in -lieu payment
is appropriate as there is no room for on- site parking.
As potential mitigation and to ensure effective transit in the
future, the County manager's office has recommended that the
applicants should consider donating 10 foot wide easement along
the south property boundary for mass transit purposes. The
proposed easement will give RFTA future flexibility to locate a
bus shelter on the site.
5
3. Minimal visual impact upon the neighborhood from the change
in use.
RESPONSE: The proposed rezoning should have no significant
impact upon the neighborhood. If the building were to be sold
and either demolished and reconstructed or renovated to expand
the current bulk on the site, then visual impact may become an
issue. However, the property is located in the Main Street
Historic District and any redevelopment would be subject to
review and any additional square footage would require growth
management allocation which includes architectural review.
4. Minimal demand will be placed on the City's public facilities
from the change in use.
RESPONSE: The loss of a publicly zoned parcel could exacerbate
the problems now being experienceG by our community facilities
and within our public buildings. Therefore, it is staff's strong
recommendation that the rezoning be denied until staff, at the
Council's and the Boards direction, analyze our existing and
future public facilities' needs.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of this proposal until
such time that a facilities analysis is conducted to determine
the future public facility needs for both the City and the
County.
ljl/lib.rezon
R
•
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
FROM: Tom Newland, Assistant to the County Manager
RE: Pitkin County Library Rezoning
DATE: January 23, 1990
I have reviewed the information submitted and would like to
forward the following comments to you:
Employee Generation: I fail to see how the existing library
staff (9 FTEs) can be subtracted when determining employee
generation figures. The library employees are moving to a new
site and will not be lost. The figure based on total usable
square footage (20 FTEs) is more appropriate.
Parking: If and when a more comprehensive parking analysis is
developed, it should take into account the amount of parking
required for the existing use (library). The new parking garage
is 3 1/2 blocks east of the proposed rezoning.
ass Transit: The County is desirous of maintaining the bus stop
in front of the property. Although the sidewalk and street curb
I
s not a part of the property, it is recommended that the
applicant consider placing a 10-foot wide easement along the
south property boundary for mass transit purposes. This proposed
easement will give RFTA future flexibility with respect to
overall use of the site.
•
TO.
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Reid Haughey
Tom Newland
►JI LU EF ► K3�,
AI I t pg2_ :Fv u C�e.
Ar, MAu ,,,
Feasibility of Using Library for Health and human
Services Building
January 24, 1990
This is to inform you of my research into, and conclusions
concerning use of the existing library building to house Health
and Human Services.
Existing Conditions: The library site is located on Lots O, N
and a portion of Lot M, Block 66, City and Townsite of Aspen.
The parcel contains approximately 8,800 square feet, on which an
8,000 sq.ft. one-story brick building with basement was
constructed in the late 1960's. Surrounding uses include the
Sardy House to the east, Paepcke Park to the south, Aspen Clinic
Building to the west, and the Mountain Bell building parking lot
to the north. No off-street parking is available on the site.
Can the library building be used to house Health and Human
Services? Of course, anything can be done. However, there are
advantages and dis-advantages to doing so:
Advantages:
- Location is centrally located in town;
- Property is already owned by the County;
- Location is on mass -transit lines;
- Property is historically known as used for public purposes.
Acquiring/renovating an existing building for health and
human services is a faster process than constructing a new
building. Therefore, the Community Center employee housing
project would be started sooner.
Dis-advantages:
- Structure has about 6,800 usable square feet. As
established in recent. studies, Health and Human Services
require about 14,000 square feet;
Structure is over twenty years old and has probably lived
out its's useful life;
Library is dependant on the anticipated $2 Million sale of
the building to fund new library on Rio Grande site;
No room is available on the site to insure parking for
users. Other than relying on street parking, the new
parking garage is the closest available parking area (3 1/2
blocks).
- Building may not be entirely accessible to the
developmentally disabled. The is certainly no room for even
one handicapped parking space unless it is designated along
the street.
CONCLUSIONS
It is recommended that the County not pursue placement of Health
and Human Services at the old library site. The building is old
and has insufficient usable space. Although the building could
be enlarged, it is felt that replacement is a better use of the
money. The cost of acquiring the site ($2 million for new
library) is more costly than building a new structure at the
hospital ($1.4 million). Parking is a big problem (health and
human services generates the need for at least 52 spaces).
Please contact me if you have any questions.
u-�
•
C7
ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN
CONSIDER THE LOSS OF A PUBLIC ASSET
WHEN REZONING THE PUBLIC LIBRARY PARCEL FROM PUBLIC TO OFFICE
Resolution No. 90-2
WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on
February 6, 1990 to consider the rezoning of the existing library
parcel from public to office; and
WHEREAS, the Commission approved the change -in -use and
recommends rezoning to the Council; and
WHEREAS, the Commission wished to express their concern, to
Council, about losing a public asset recommending that Council
consider this potential public asset very closely for uses such
as a teen center, CMC office space or other public use.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Commission
that it recommends to the Aspen City Council careful
consideration of the existing library parcel for other public
uses.
APPROVED by the Commission at their regular meeting on March
6, 1990.
ATTEST: AS PEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Fred Gannett,
City Attorney
C. Welton Anderson, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Any Margerum,
Planning Director
I
ATTACHMENT D
February 2, 1990
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
330 S. Galena Street
2nd floor meeting room
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: Pitkin County Library Rezoning
Dear Commissioners:
Although I am unable to attend the public hearing
on Tuesday, February 6, 1990, I wish to go on
record as supporting the recommendation of the
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office and oppose the
application requesting rezoning of the property located
at 120 E. Main Street, which currently houses
the Pitkin County Library. ,�-
En/at
'Singer y,
i
/r
dwar Neisser
114 E. Bleeker Street #102
Q
HAZLET-r, BURT&NVUSoNT, Imo.
George S. Weaver Jr. Memhers
President NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITY DEALERS. INC.
SECURITIES INVESTORS PROTECTION CORPORATION
"A Cenarn of senice"
February 05, 1990
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
330 South Galena Street
Second Floor Meeting Room
Aspen, CO 81612
Re: Library Rezoning
Dear Commissioners:
As a long time property owner at 114 East Bleeker, I wish to support
the recommendation of the Planning office to oppose the application for
rezoning of the Library property at 120 East Main Street A
GSW/mja
CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS
One Central Union Building
Wheeling, W.Va. 26003
(304)233-331-
WV Watts (800) 85:-5413
George S. Weaver, Jr�
114 East Bleeker
BRANCH OFFICE
Bank One Building
Stcubem ille, Ohio 43952
(614) 282-2781
BRANCH OFFICE
One PNB Square
Parkersburg, W,Va. 26101
(304) 485-6441
Marietta (614) 374-3707
\VV watt, (8001 (ti1-260;
•
0
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and Council
Bill Efting, Interim City Manager'
Amy Margerum and Leslie Lamont, Planning
Library Rezoning
March 12, 1990
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to rezone the existing library
parcel from Public to Office. Because the application was
submitted before February 15, the applicant requested that the
Planning and Zoning Commission waive the rezoning deadline. The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the
rezoning and approved the GMQS Exemption for a change in use for
the building to convert from a public use to an office use.
Staff continues to recommend denial of the rezoning. Until an
analysis is conducted to determine the future need for public
facilities, it would not be prudent to lose one of our publicly
zoned sites.
If ehe rezoning is approved, the Council must also read Ordinance
1. Please see attached Ordinance.
COUNCIL GOALS: Approval of the rezoning would comply with
Council's goal #11: to work together with all people and
organizations in the Roaring Fork Valley. To work with all
local... agencies to assure that we are responsive to each others
needs.
But to deny the rezoning is consistent with Goal #9: to maintain,
renovate, reconstruct and manage the capital assets of the City.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 1989, Council approved a final SPA
plan for the new library on the City's Rio Grande property.
BACKGROUND: The Planning and Zoning Commission, at their
February 6, 1990 meeting, recommended approval of the rezoning
and approved the change of use with conditions.
PROBLEM DISCUSSIONS: The applicant (the Board of County
Commissioners and the Library Board) intends to rezone the parcel
to office and sell the parcel to offset the cost of developing
the new library.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the
rezoning. A change -in -use was requested by the applicant in
order to enhance the sale of the parcel. The Commission
•
•
approved the change -in -use with the condition that the ultimate
purchaser shall be required to provide housing and parking per
their use and occupancy.
Please see the attached memo to the Commission for a review of
the rezoning criteria. The memo also outlines staff's
recommendation for denial and, if approved, the condition of
approval.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: 8 FOR 0 AGAINST
KEY ISSUES: 1) The Commission did not want to hold up the
future development of the new library. Two years ago the
planning review process for the new library identified resale of
the existing library parcel necessary for funding the new
library. The Commission believed that this was too late a date
to hold up the resale for a future needs analysis.
2) The P&Z felt that the rezoning and providing a change -in -use
at this point would not preclude the City or the County or any
other government agency from utilizing the site.
3) The P&Z felt that public good may be served best by not
reserving prime real estate for something that doesn't
necessarily need to be right on Main Street. However,
alternative sites for public uses have yet to be identified.
4) The Commission also requested a Resolution to the Council
recommending Council review of this property for possible
acquisition. Specifically that this site is a much better
location for a use such as a teen center and the building could
be converted at very little cost when balanced against the
construction cost of the "Free Land" site. CMC may also be a
possible user. Please see attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval of the rezoning of the parcel from public to office with
the following condition of approval:
1) Prior to the issuance of a building permit or a Certificate
of Occupancy (whichever comes first), the ultimate purchaser
shall be required to provide parking in accordance with the Code
provision or through cash -in -lieu and shall provide employee
housing acceptable to the Housing Authority using the formula
indexed to current Housing guidelines for the occupancy and type
of use in the building.
Staff recommended denial of the rezoning at the Planning
Commission hearing.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Council could deny the rezoning which does not
preclude the sale of the building but limits the permitted uses
2
on the site and this does not preclude the sale of the property
to the City or other purchasers.
2) Council could approve the rezoning with conditions.
3) Council could deny the rezoning in order to study, in
conjunction with the Aspen Land Use Element and Community
Facilities Update, how this asset may be applied toward our
community facility needs. For example, the Youth Center or CMC.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the rezoning of the library
parcel with conditions at 120 East Main or I move to deny the
rezoning of the library parcel at 120 East Main.
I move to read Ordinance
Ordinance /5- .
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
I move to adopt at f irst reading
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Ordinance
B. Planning & Zoning Commission Memo, February 6, 1990
C. Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 90-2
D. Letters from Citizens
3
•
ATTACHMENT B
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Library Rezoning & Change in Use GMQS Exemption
DATE: February 6, 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to rezone the existing library
parcel from Public to Office while seeking a GMQS Exemption for a
change in use. Because the application has been submitted prior
to the February 15 date for rezoning, the applicant requests that
the P&Z waive the rezoning deadline. Staff recommends denial of
this application.
APPLICANT: Library Board, 506 East Main Street, Aspen
PROPERTY OWNER: Pitkin County, 506 East Main Street, Aspen
LOCATION: 120 East Main Street, Lots O, N, & part of M, Block 66
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Rezone the parcel from Public to Office,
and GMQS exemption for a change in use.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see the attached referral from the
County Manager's Office. In addition, the County Manager's
office has provided an analysis of the library building's ability
to house Health and Human Services.
PROJECT SUMMARY: As you know, the development of the new library
was approved for a portion of the Rio Grande property. In order
to help defray their costs, the Library Board proposes to sell
the existing library parcel. Presently, the parcel is zoned
Public. To facilitate a sale of the property the Board requests
a rezoning of the parcel from Public to Office.
In addition to rezoning, the applicant's are seeking a GMQS
Exemption for a change in use of existing structures. Although
the change in use language does not include a change from a
public use to an office use, Alan Richman, at some point last
year, made the interpretation that the change in use section is
appropriate for a conversion of Public use to Office use. Staff
concurs.
According to Section 7-1103, a development application for an
amendment to the Official Zone District Map may only be submitted
on or prior to February 15 or August 15. Because the applicants
have submitted well before February 15, they request the P&Z to
waive the rezoning deadline. Waiving rezoning deadlines does not
commit the P&Z to support the application, it only enables the
application to be processed.
Historically, it has been the policy of the City to entertain a
rezoning application with a specific development proposal for the
site. At this point, there is not a purchaser for the site,
however, the applicants wish to proceed and will include
conditions of approval with the sale of the property to be
fulfilled by the purchasers.
STAFF CONMENTS: The rezoning of the parcel to Office is both
consistent and compatible with the surrounding land uses along
Main Street. Staff is recommending denial because this parcel is
one of only seven Public zoned parcels in the City. Until staff
can conduct a public facilities analysis and determine current
and future public service needs it would be careless to eliminate
a publicly zoned parcel from the City and County inventory.
Map Amendment: Pursuant to Section 7-1102 the standards of
review for a map amendment are as follows:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The application is consistent with the requirements of
the Land Use Code. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the
surrounding zoning and the existing building complies with the
dimensional requirements of the Office zone with the exception of
parking, there is no parking on site. The provision of parking
is discussed under GMQS exemption.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Land Use Plan identifies this area as single
family residential, thus the current use of the site and the
proposed rezoning are inconsistent with the Plan. Obviously the
majority of land uses in this area of Main Street are also
inconsistent. The proposal is, however consistent with the rest
of Main Street as it is zoned primarily for Office use. As the
applicants point out: "the primary purpose of this zone is to
provide for the establishment of offices and associated
commercial uses..." Staff agrees, but the current zoning is also
appropriate.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: The majority of the west end of Main Street is zoned
Office. The parcels on both sides of the Library, the Sardy
House and the Aspen Clinic, are both zoned office. Although
there are some residential uses along Main Street, the majority
of land uses are office/commercial in nature. The proposed
6
•
rezoning is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: Adverse impacts upon the existing road system are not
anticipated. Depending upon the future of the building, the lack
of on -site parking may have a detrimental effect on the
surrounding roads. If the parcel is rezoned, a cash -in -lieu
payment would be appropriate. Any reconstruction should
incorporate new parking.
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: The applicants do not intend to redevelop the
parcel. The rezoning should have little impact upon the
provision of public services to the building, e.g., sewer, water,
electricity. The building is, however, zoned for public use.
Staff is seriously concerned about rezoning a public parcel for
private sector office space. The City/County has limited
publicly zoned parcels. Including the existing library, there
are only seven sites that are zoned for public use within the
City. It is the opinion of the Planning Department that if the
County and City wish to eliminate a parcel zoned for public
services then a public facilities analysis should be conducted to
determine the future capacity needs for public services. This is
certainly a study that could dove -tail into this Department's
review of the Land Use/Community Facilities Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
RESPONSE: The proposal should have no impact upon the natural
environment.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: The proposal to rezone the property to Office is
consistent with the surrounding zoning of Main Street which is
predominantly Office. In addition, as stated in the application,
uses allowed within this zone district are consistent with the
existing character of the Main Street corridor.
3
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: The library is being relocated to the Rio Grande
property. The application states that: "In the absence of an
alternative public use..." rezoning is appropriate. As stated
above, staff is uncomfortable rezoning a public parcel without a
thorough analysis of the community's public facility needs, and
an identification of plans for expansion of public facilities.
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 applicants propose the sale of this parcel to help
defray the costs of the new library. Although staff supports the
development of the new library, the public zone district is very
small and designed to meet a specific community need. Like the
LP, NC, and SCI zone districts, the public zone district is
designed to meet specific community needs. These zone districts
are in short supply. For example, there are seven sites that are
zoned public within the City: Rio Grande SPA, Sanitation
District, City Hall, Fire Station, Court House/Jail, Rubey Park,
and the Library. To rezone a parcel that is in short supply may
be premature at this time.
It may be debated that the community is in desperate need of
office space. However, it is staff's opinion that there is
adequate Office zoning within the City and it is the limitations
of GMQS that is creating an office shortage. During our review
of the Land Use Element and the subsequent analysis of GMQS, due
to begin in April, public facility needs and other land use needs
shall be identified in a more focused manner.
In summary, staff would like to emphasize that our denial
recommendation does not preclude the sale of this property to
generate funds for the new library. We are only recommending
denial of rezoning for the previously stated reasons. The
Library property could be sold to another public entity.
Growth Management Exemption: It is difficult to process a change
in use unless the future use has been identified thus allowing
staff to evaluate whether or not the applicant is effectively
mitigating impacts, especially housing. Staff recommends that a
change in use review occur, under a separate application, when an
actual use is proposed for the building.
If the Commission believes that a change in use review is
appropriate at this time the following review is provided.
Pursuant to Section 8-104 B.l(b) a change in use is a GMQS
4
Exemption provided it can be demonstrated that the change in use
will have minimal impact upon the City. The following standards
are as follows:
1. A minimal number of additional employees will be generated by
the change in use and that employee housing will be provided for
the additional employees generated.
RESPONSE: The applicants submit the following formula: 1) the
building contains approximately 8,000 square feet of gross floor
area; 2) assume for discussion purpose that 85% or 6,800 square
feet is net leasable; 3) using the Housing Guidelines, 3
employees per 1,000 square feet are generated; 4) thus
approximately 20 full time equivalent employees.
The applicants also propose that there are approximately 9 full
time employees (8 full-time and 2 part-time) working at the
library. Therefore the conversion to office would generate an
addition of 11 new employees.
Staff agrees that this is the formula that should be applied to a
change in use. However, since the purchaser and future use of
the building is unknown, the true number of employees generated
cannot be formulated at this time. The applicants propose either
to establish a figure that is acceptable with both the Housing
Authority and City or condition the rezoning to a figure
determined at such time that the building is sold and a use is
identified.
As the site is constrained making on -site housing difficult, the
applicants require that cash -in -lieu be an acceptable form of
mitigation.
2. A minimal amount of additional parking space will be demanded
by the change in use and that parking will be provided.
RESPONSE: No off-street parking is currently provided on site.
A similar scenario exists with a determination of the number of
spaces depends upon the use and the amount of net leasable. The
applicants offer the same alternatives: agree upon the number of
spaces now or wait until the building is sold and identify the
number of spaces required. In any event a cash -in -lieu payment
is appropriate as there is no room for on- site parking.
As potential mitigation and to ensure effective transit in the
future, the County manager's office has recommended that the
applicants should consider donating 10 foot wide easement along
the south property boundary for mass transit purposes. The
proposed easement will give RFTA future flexibility to locate a
bus shelter on the site.
5
•
•
3. Minimal visual impact upon the neighborhood from the change
in use.
RESPONSE: The proposed rezoning should have no significant
impact upon the neighborhood. If the building were to be sold
and either demolished and reconstructed or renovated to expand
the current bulk on the site, then visual impact may become an
issue. However, the property is located in the Main Street
Historic District and any redevelopment would be subject to
review and any additional square footage would require growth
management allocation which includes architectural review.
4. Minimal demand will be placed on the City's public facilities
from the change in use.
RESPONSE: The loss of a publicly zoned parcel could exacerbate
the problems now being experienced by our community facilities
and within our public buildings. Therefore, it is staff's strong
recommendation that the rezoning be denied until staff, at the
Council's and the Boards direction, analyze our existing and
future public facilities' needs.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of this proposal until
such time that a facilities analysis is conducted to determine
the future public facility needs for both the City and the
County.
ljl/lib.rezon
11
ATTACHMENT C
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN
CONSIDER THE LOSS OF A PUBLIC ASSET
WHEN REZONING THE PUBLIC LIBRARY PARCEL FROM PUBLIC TO OFFICE
Resolution No. 90-2
WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on
February 6, 1990 to consider the rezoning of the existing library
parcel from public to office; and
WHEREAS, the Commission approved the change -in -use and
recommends rezoning to the Council; and
WHEREAS, the Commission wished to express their concern, to
Council, about losing a public asset recommending that Council
consider this potential public asset very closely for uses such
as a teen center, CMC office space or other public use.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Commission
that it recommends to the Aspen City Council careful
consideration of the existing library parcel for other public
uses.
APPROVED by the Commission at their regular meeting on March
6, 1990.
ATTEST: ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Fred Gannett,
City Attorney
C. Welton Anderson, Chairman
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Amy Margerum,
Planning Director
•
E
ATTACHMENT D
February 2, 1990
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
330 S. Galena Street
2nd floor meeting room
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: Pitkin County Library Rezoning
Dear Commissioners:
Although I am unable to attend the public hearing
on Tuesday, February 6, 1990, I wish to go on
record as supporting the recommendation of the
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office and oppose the
application requesting rezoning of the property located
at 120 E. Main Street, which currently houses
the Pitkin County Library.
'Sing y,
i
dwar Neisser
En/at 114 E. Bleeker Street #102
•
EXHIBIT A 0
That part of Lots N, O and part of M, Block 66, ORIGINAL ASPEN
TOWNSITE according to the plat on file in the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recirder, known as the "OFFICIAL MAP,
CITY OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY STATE OF COLORADO". The boundary
being more fully described as follows:
Beginning at the southeasterly corner of said Lot 0; thence
westerly North 75 degrees 09 minutes 11 seconds West, along the
Mher.ly property and Block boundary of said Lots O, N and M,
eet; thence North 14 degrees 50 minutes 49 seconds East
8.33 feet; thence South 75 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds East,
68.95 feet more or less to the easterly boundary of Lot 0;
thence South 14 dearees 50 minutes 49 seconds West, along said
easterly boundary 8.50 feet to the point of beginning.
r
►,
0 EXHIBIT A
•
That part of Lots N. 0 and part of M, Block 66, ORIGINAL ASPEN
TOWNSITE according to the plat on file in the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, known as the "OFFICIAL MAP,
CITY OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY STATE OF COLORADO". The boundary
being more fully described as follows:
Beginning at the southeasterly corner of said Lot 0; thence
westerly North 75 degrees 09 minutes 11 seconds West, along the
southerly property and Block boundary of said Lots 0, N and M,
68.95 feet; thence North 14 degrees 50 minutes 49 seconds East.
6.00 feet; thence South 75 degrees 17 minutes 40 seconds East,
68.95 feet more or less to the easterly boundary of Lot 0;
thence South 14 degrees 50 minutes 49 seconds West, along said
easterly boundary 6.17 feet to the point of beginning.
1
Louis H. Buettner Surveying
0040 West Sopris Creek Road
Basalt, Colorado 81621
(303-927-3611)
February 21, 1990
Pitkin County
Roaring Fork Transit Agency
20101 West State Hiahway no. 82
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Att: Kennv K. Osier
Director of Maintenance
Dear Mr.Osier
The accomoanving map and descriptions are for the purposed
transportation easement at the Pitkin County Library.
The man shows the existing improvements at the Library. The
map also shows the area(s) that RFTA wishes to obtain for the Bus
loading and unloading.
The descriptions for the land are as follows:
Description no. 1 (You will find a 1 in the lower right
hand corner of the page).
This description is for •the property between the
southerly property boundary and the base (bottom) of
the sloping brick wall in front of the Library. The
East-West limits are the easterly property boundary and
the easterly side of the Library entrance walk.
Description no. 2 (The 2 is aaain in the lower right
hand corner of the page).
This description covers the area of description no. 1
plus the sloping brick wall. Part of this description
is located under the Library roof overhang.
Description no. 3 (The 3 is in the lower right hand
corner of the page).
The description covers the area of descriptions no. 1 8
2 but extends to the front of the Library building.
This description will have approximately 7 feet under
the Library building roof overhang.
You will note that each description is labeled EXHIBIT A.
This labeling was done so the description would not need copying
to any document, but only a reference needs to be made with the
attachment. The included property descriptions are based on
field observations. I have reviewed the descriptions for errors
and found them to be accurate to the best of my knowledge and
belief. Any change, addition or cjeletion to the description will
i
any expressed or .plied responsibility that I might
act to void ect property
the subj tact me.
have towards lease feel free to con
If you haVe any questions P Library map in
copies of the for each
Attached are two
°f <2> reduced one copy is colored
the library building•
the area tion areas.
o,f the des"
Sincerely
H• guettn LS 13166
er
Lou i s fa`FyJ
K• Shellman, Jr.
cc: Dwight
MI V • c . b lwi
TO: City Attorney
County Manager
County Attorney
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
RE: Pitkin County Library Rezoning
DATE: December 27, 1989
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attached for your review and comments is an application from the
BOCC for the rezoning of the library property at 120 E. Main
Street from Public to Office zone district.
Please review this material and return your comments to me no
later than January 19, 1990. Thank you.
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
December 27, 1989
Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
230 E. Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Pitkin County Library Rezoning
Dear Sunny,
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that this application is complete.
We have scheduled your application for review by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 6, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm. The Friday
before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy
of the memo pertaining to your application is available at the
Planning Office.
If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner
assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
i
Pitkin County
November 1, 1989
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Permission to Represent
Dear Ms. Lamont:
Please consider this letter authorization for the Pitkin County
Library Board to represent the Board of County Commissioners in
the processing of our application to rezone the existing library
property located at 120 East Main Street. The Library Board is
hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to all
matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned application
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the County Manager.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
�_j L"J /L ( ,,- L
Herschel Ross
Vice Chairman
TEW/hfs
cc: Kathy Chandler
twl2.459
Administration County Commissioners County Attorney
530 E. Main, 3rd Floor Suite B Suite I
Aspen, CO 81611 506 E. Main Street 530 E. Main Street
(303)920-5200 Aspen, CO 81611 Aspen, CO 81611
FAX 920-5198 (303)920-5150 (303)920-5190
Personnel and Finance
Suite F
530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(303)920-5220
Road and Bridge
Fleet Management
20210 W. Highway 82
Aspen, CO 81611
(303)920-5390
0 CITY OF ASPEN 0
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT:-OVw'Cl
• APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE:
REPRESENTATIVE' S IPH11O//NE: S _
OWNER'S NAME.- i n L
pq
LJ
SUMMAR
1. Type of Application: �V-`koQj
SQr
2. Describe action/type of development being requested: 1
4 Z (_) e, ` In L40 s Q..0�t
3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond,
types of reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent Comments
4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC Only) (�_(P&Z then to CC)
5. Public Hearing: -(YES (NO)
6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNERS? (YES) (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YES) (NO)
7. What fee was applicant requested to submit C S O O
8. Anticipated date of submission:
9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS:
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
November 10, 1989
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Pitkin County Library Rezoning
Dear Leslie:
Please consider this letter an application to rezone the
Pitkin County Library property which is located at 120 East
Main Street from PUB, Public to O, Office (see Land Use
Application Form attached hereto as Exhibit 1). The applica-
tion also requests an exemption from growth management to
permit the use of the building to be changed.
The application is submitted by the Pitkin County Library
Board on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, the
owner of the property (see Exhibit 2, Consent to Applica-
tion). A Warranty Deed evidencing the County's ownership of
the property is attached as Exhibit 3. Permission for Vann
Associates, Inc. to represent the Applicant is attached as
Exhibit 4. A list of landowners within three hundred (300)
feet of the property is attached as Exhibit 5.
As you know, a new library has bee
the City's Rio Grande property whi
the municipal parking garage. Th
facility is anticipated to commen
The Applicant wishes to rezone t
consistent with surrounding zoning
for such use(s) as may be allowed
district. The proceeds of the sa
the cost of the new library.
Existing Conditions
c
n approved on a portion of
ch is located adjacent to
e construction of the new
e in the spring of 1990.
he existing library site
and to sell the property
within the O, Office zone
Le will be used to offset
As the accompanying survey illustrates, the existing library
site consists of Lots O, N and the easterly twenty (20) feet
of Lot M, Block 66, City and Townsite of Aspen, as well as
. ___. nuns r,:enue • Asoen. Coioraoo 81611 • '1 9-
0
Ms. Leslie Lamont
November 10, 1989
Page 2
the southerly ten (10) feet of the alley which is contiguous
to these lots. The alley was vacated by the City Council
pursuant to Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1961. The property
appears to have been zoned Public in connection with the
general rezoning of the City in 1975.
The parcel contains approximately eight thousand eight
hundred (8,800) square feet of land area and is accessible
from both Main Street and a portion of the vacated alley.
Manmade improvements to the property are limited to a one
story brick building with basement. The existing library
building was constructed in the late 1960's and contains
approximately eight thousand (8,000) square feet, including
the basement.
The property is bounded on the north by the vacated alley and
the Mountain Bell building's parking lot. The Sardy House
lodge and the Aspen Clinic building are located to the east
and west of the library, respectively. Paepcke Park is
located across from the library south of Main Street.
Existing zoning in the immediate site area consists primarily
of 0, Office and LP, Lodge Preservation. Paepcke Park is
zoned P, Park, while the area behind the library is zoned R-
6, Residential. The property is located in the so-called
Main Street Historic Overlay District. The library building,
however, has not been individually designated.
Rezoning
Pursuant to Section 7-1103 of the Land Use Regulations, an
application for rezoning may only be submitted on or prior
to February 15 and August 15 of each year. As this year's
annual deadlines for the submission of such applications has
passed, the Applicant respectfully requests that the P&Z
initiate the rezoning. In view of the public benefit to be
derived from the rezoning, and the proposed construction
schedule for the new library, the Applicant's request, I
believe, is reasonable. It is understood, however, that the
P&Z's willingness to initiate the rezoning does not represent
a commitment to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning
to the City Council.
The specific review criteria for rezoning applications, and
the proposed rezoning's compliance therewith, are summarized
as follows.
1. "Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter."
Ms. Leslie Lamont
November 10, 1989
Page 3
To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, the proposed
rezoning is consistent with the requirements of the Aspen
Land Use Regulations. The existing structure appears to
conform to all dimensional requirements of the O, Office zone
with the exception of parking. No parking is presently
available on the library site. It should be noted, however,
that none was probably required when the building was
constructed. Significant public parking is available in the
immediate site area. W LQJ
2. "Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan."
The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan indicates that the project site
is located within the so-called "Residential/Single-Family"
land use category. The intent and purpose of this category
is to allow for the development of single-family permanent
residential uses. The current use of the property is
obviously inconsistent with this classification, as are the
majority of existing lands uses in the immediate site area
and, arguably, the area's existing zoning.
While residential development is a permitted use within the
O, Office zone district, the primary purpose of this zone is
"to provide for the establishment of offices and associated
commercial uses ...". As O, Office is the predominant
zoning classification of the Main Street corridor, and given
the fact that the corridor was zoned Office following the
adoption of the Aspen Land Use Plan, the proposed rezoning
is consistent with the City's prior zoning of the area.
To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, no other element
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan contains recommendations
which preclude, or otherwise pertain to, the proposed
rezoning.
3. "Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics."
As the City's Zoning Map illustrates, the majority of the
area surrounding the project site is zoned for, and occupied
by, commercial uses. The Sardy House lodge, which is located
east of and adjacent to the site is zoned O, Office, as is
the Aspen Clinic building located immediately west of the
site. In fact, with the exception of Paepcke Park, and the
various lodges which have been rezoned to LP, Lodge Preser-
vation, the entire Main Street corridor is zoned O, Office.
0 0
Ms. Leslie Lamont
November 10, 1989
Page 4
Based on the above, the Applicant believes that a rezoning
of the library property to O, Office would be compatible with
the existing zone districts and land uses in the immediate
site area. While there are various residences scattered
throughout the area, the Main Street corridor is unques-
tionably commercial in character. It should also be noted
that the area's residences are increasingly converting to
commercial use (e.g., the Elisha house and the log cabin at
Third and Main).
4. "The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic genera-
tion and road safety."
The proposed rezoning should have no adverse effect upon the
existing road system. The only commercial uses which are
permitted within the 0, Office zone district are professional
and business offices. It would appear reasonable to assume
that the trip generation characteristics of these uses would
approximate those of the existing library, resulting,
therefore, in no significant increase in traffic levels. In
fact, trip generation levels may actually decrease depending
on how a purchaser actually uses the property.
5. $'Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on4ub�_ facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water
supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical
facilities.,$
No significant impact upon the various public facilities
which presently serve the existing library is anticipated.
Main Street is currently functioning below its acceptable
capacity level in the immediate site area. Existing water,
sewer and drainage systems are either adequate to handle the
existing structure or will be upgraded by the purchaser as
may be required. Similarly, no significant impact upon the
City's parks, schools and emergency medical facilities should
occur as a result of the proposed rezoning.
6. "Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.,,
The Applicant's proposed rezoning should have no impact upon
the natural environment.
0 0
Ms. Leslie Lamont
November 10, 1989
Page 5
7. 'Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of
Aspen. 11
While compatibility with the City's "community character" is
obviously a subjective criteria, the Applicant believes that
the uses that are allowed within the proposed O, Office zone
district are consistent with the existing character of the
Main Street corridor. As discussed previously, the predomi-
nant zoning classification of the immediate site area is O,
Office.
8. 'Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment."
The so-called "changed conditions" which support the Appli-
cant's request for rezoning are the relocation of the Pitkin
County Library to the Rio Grande property and the termination
of the existing building's use for public purposes. In the
absence of an alternative public use, rezoning of the
property to allow redevelopment consistent with existing land
uses and zone district classifications in the immediate site
area is appropriate.
9. "Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter."
Inasmuch as the proposed rezoning would facilitate the sale
of the property, which in turn would generate much needed
funds to help defray the cost of the new library, the public
interest would appear to be appropriately served by approval
of the rezoning request. As discussed previously, the
proposed rezoning is consistent with existing land uses and
zoning in the immediate site area and with the purpose and
intent of the City's O, Office zone district.
Growth Management Exemption
Pursuant to Section 8-104.B.1.b. of the Regulations, any
change in use of an existing structure between the residen-
tial, commercial/office and tourist accommodations categories
is exempt from growth management provided it can be demon-
strated that the change in use will have minimal impact upon
the City. While this language does not specifically address
the conversion of public structures, the former Planning
Director has determined that such changes in use should be
reviewed pursuant to this Section.
Ms. Leslie Lamont
November 10, 1989
Page 6
The applicable review criteria for a change in use growth
management exemption, and the proposed rezoning's compliance
therewith, are summarized as follows.
1. "A determination of minimal impact shall require a
demonstration that a minimal number of additional employees
will be generated by the change in use and that employee
housing will be provided for the additional employees
generated.,,
As discussed previously, the existing library building
contains approximately eight thousand (8,000) square feet of
gross floor area. If we assume for purposes of discussion
that approximately eighty-five (85) percent of the building,
or six thousand eight hundred (6,800) square feet, is net
leasable, conversion of the library to commercial purposes
would theoretically generate approximately twenty (20) full-
time equivalent employees (i.e., 6,800 Sq. Ft./1,000 Sq. Ft.
x 3 Employees per 1,000 Sq. Ft. Net Leasable).
The Pitkin County Library is currently staffed by eight (8)
�full-time and two (2) part-time employees, or approximately
. nine (9) full-time equivalent employees. As a result, the
change in use of the Library building to O, Office, would
generate a net addition of eleven (11) new employees.
However, as the purchaser, and the ultimate use of the
building, remain unknown, a definitive statement as to the
additional employees generated cannot be made at this time.
To resolve the issue, the Applicant proposes to either
negotiate with the City and Housing Authority to establish
a mutually acceptable generation figure at this time or to
condition the rezoning upon a future determination to made
at such time as the building is sold and the actual use
ascertained. In either case, the responsibility for mitiga-
tion will be assumed by the purchaser. As the extent to
which employee housing can be accommodated on -site is
presently unknown, the Applicant requests that a cash
payment -in -lieu of housing be established as an acceptable
form of mitigation.
2. "That a minimal amount of additional parking spaces will
be demanded by the change in use and that parking will be
provided."
As discussed previously, no off-street parking is presently
provided on the library property, due most likely to the
absence of a on -site parking requirement when the building
was constructed. Present regulations, however, require from
Ms. Leslie Lamont
November 10, 1989
Page 7
one and one-half (1-1/2) to three (3) spaces per one thousand
(1,000) square feet of net leasable area, depending on
whether a cash payment -in -lieu of parking is utilized.
Again, if we assume that the existing building's net leasable
area is six thousand eight hundred (6,800) square feet, the
resulting parking requirement would be approximately ten (10)
to twenty (20) spaces. However, as we do not know how a
purchaser will ultimately use the space, a more detailed
computation of the additional parking requirement generated
by the change in use cannot be determined at this time.
Regardless of the requirement, it should be noted that no
on -site parking can be provided if the existing building is
retained. As in the case of employee generation, a solution
can either be arbitrarily determined at this time or the
rezoning can be conditioned upon satisfaction of the City's
parking requirement at such time as the property is sold and
its future use determined. Given the limitations imposed by
the existing building, the ability to mitigate parking
impacts via a cash -in -lieu payment is essential to the sale
of the property.
3. "That there will be minimal visual impact upon the
neighborhood from the change in use."
No significant visual impact upon the neighborhood is
anticipated as a result of the proposed rezoning. As the
property is located within the Main Street Historic Overlay
District, any modification of the building's exterior would
be subject to the Historic Preservation Commission's review.
Similarly, any expansion of the building would be subject to
the receipt of a commercial growth management allocation, the
approval of which also requires architectural review.
4. 'That minimal demand will be placed on the City's public
facilities from the change in use."
In view of the property's location, it is reasonable to
assume that no significant impact on the City's public
facilities will occur as a result of the library's conversion
to commercial use. Existing utilities should be adequate to
serve the change in use and additional utility tap fees would
be paid by the purchaser as may be required. To the best of
the Applicant's knowledge, no other public facilities would
be adversely impacted by the proposed rezoning. Any impacts
resulting from the future expansion of the building would be
addressed in connection with growth management review.
Ms. Leslie Lamont
November 10, 1989
Page 8
Should you have any questions, or require additional informa-
tion, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
�MMMO—ft
VANN 4SSOCIATES, INC.
Sunny Vary( AICP
SV:cwv
Attachments
EXHIBIT 1
ATTAa NERr 1
,( BLAND USE APP11CATLON MEM
1) Project Namel�l`
2) Proj ect Location
( indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where
appropriate)
3) Present Zoning / `�' 4) Lot Size end
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # /
6) Represe itative's Name, ddreSS & Phone #
7) Type of Application (Please check all that apply):
Conditional Use tual SPA Coanoeptual Historic Dev.
Special Review Final. SPA Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline Conoeptual PUD Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin Final PUD Historic Dcmolition
Mountain View Plane Subdivision Historic Designation
Ct�initnni nation vZ Tr..xt/Map Amendment GM S Allotment
Lot Split/lot Line GMS Exeptio n
Adjustment
nt
8) Description of Existing -sting Uses (rx rater and type of existing structures;
approximate sq. ft. ; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the
Party) -
9) Description of Development Application
10) Have you attached the following?
Response to Attaciment 2, Minimml Submission Omtents
✓ Rem to Attachment 3, Specific Submission its
✓ Re`spaise to Attachment 4, Review Stan3az S for Your APplIcat.ion
Recorded at....1.Z.:_1q......oclock M.. •Iune_.28I_1965 2---- G13
. �K
Reception No..._..121049 Peggyj, Coble .............. _...........Recorder.
FRED GLIDDEN
a'hoseaddressis Aspen, Colorado
County of Pitkin , and State of
Colorado , for the consideration of Ten dollars
and other valuable considerations
gpHwn. in hand paid, hereby well(,) and convey(@) to
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO
whose address is Aspen, Colorado County of
Pitkin , and State of Colorado the following real property in the
County of Pitkin , and State of Colorado, to wit:
The Easterly 20 feet of Lot M, all of Lot N and all of Lot
0, in Block 66, and the Southerly 10 feet of the vacated
alley through the block adjacent and contiguous to said
Lots N, 0 and the Easterly 20 feet of Lot M. Block 66, in the
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, also, but without
warranty, an casement as described in Book 202 at Page 429.
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder"s Office for joint use for
purposes of egress and ingress only to the above described
property, over and across the northerly 15 feet of Lots K and
L and the Westerly 10 feet of Lot M, and the Southerly 10
feet of the alley through the block adjacent and contiguous
to said lots,
pith all its appurtenances, and warrant(s) the title to flip same, subject to Patent reserva=
tions, easements and rights of way of record, and 1eK,HW-;sdRac note
in favor of Bank of Aspen for $10,000.
Pitkin County Rfatom Muir also taxes for 1965 payable in 1966,
all of which Grantee assumes and agrees to pay.
Sigurd this day of June , 19 65
i
STATE OF COLORADO
County of Pitkin
The foregoing instrument teas acknou•Iedgrd before me this o28
/4,
day of June .1965 ,by Fred Glidden.
My commission expires J; /9Z7
Witness my hand and o forsal seal
!/ O O r;••r•n wel�
nteful"11 Ac4norl,dp,nnt.—If by natural person ar 1#non Here Inert n.me m Hymn: 1f hr Dpee •ouno In ..'rrv-s.•�uurr nr
of ticl.l naNcll/' or .. ptlnrneYY-In-!•el, Nen Ineer[ n•me of D:'r•nn U e•rculorr •n„rneyIn-f eel r other cuppsa ItT or drKrlp•
t•on tlnnb nanrinarlL eorpor•Ilnn, then Inert Hams of sit ofI.c.r or ofticen, .. Me 1'n.ld.nt ur olh.r n.ff_ of such eor•
\o. 897 P'•rnnlT D•N--6Mrl 131-1•I11u.—eN INf.
—U ndfnrd.l!a4•w P,1atlaaC n r, 1111241e 61—f:lml• Denny, tol.•ndr
477
I
I
i
I
I
EXHIBIT 5
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 subject property set forth on Schedule "A"
attached hereto and made a part hereof, as obtained from the most current Pitkin County
Assessors Tax Rolls.
NAME AND ADDRESS
CONSTANCE M. HOGUET
333 EAST 68TH STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 100021
GEORGE S. WEAVER, JR. AND
SHIRLEY M. WEAVER
C/O VIRGINIA HURST
1 CENTRAL UNION BUILDING
WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA 26003
EDWARD NEISSER AND JUDITH E. NEISSER
C/O HARRIS ASSOCIATES, L.P.
ROOM 500
2 NORTH LA SALLE
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60602
WILSON V. GARRETT AND
JANELLA H. GARRETT
7158 HILLSGREEN
DALLAS, TEXAS 75116
BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PT LOT 0, ALL LOT P, & PT LOT Q,
BLOCK 65
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
114 EAST BLEEKER STREET CONDOMINIUMS
114 EAST SLEEKER STREET CONDOMINIUMS
LOTS L AND M, BLOCK 65,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
EDWIN J. GROSSE AND ADELINE M. GROSSE LOT K, BLOCK 65,
34135 HUNTERS ROW CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
FARMINGTON HILLS, MICHIGAN 480331
LARRY SALITERMAN BLEEKER HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUMS
2240 LEE AVENUE, NORTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55424
MARY ESHBAUGH HAYES
209 EAST BLEEKER STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
WHEELER SQUARE ASSOCIATES
C/O THE DONALD J. FLEISHER CO
710 EAST DURANT AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
ETHEL McCABE AND FRED PEARCE
P.O. BOX 531
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
LOTS C AND D, BLOCK 73,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
LOT K, BLOCK 73,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
LOT N, BLOCK 73,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
CONTINUED...
•
•
RICHARD CARTER AND CLAUDETTE CARTER
202 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81622
METHODIST CHURCH
200 EAST BLEEKER
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
CLAUDE M. CONNER AND
CLAUDINE M. CONNER
P.O. BOX 345
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
MATTHEW BUCKSBAUM AND
CAROLYN S. BUCKSBAUM
215 KEO
P.O. BOX 1536
DES MOINES, IOWA 50306
ROBERT G. HAMMOND AND YVONNE HAMMOND
P.O. BOX 280
EVERGREEN, COLORADO 80439
PRISCILLA ANNE SADLER
P.O. BOX 2989
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
ASPEN CLINIC BUILDING, A GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP
100 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
THE HOTEL ASPEN
730 EAST DURANT AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
JAMES W. DAVIS
2349 N.E. 28TH CT
LIGHT HOUSE POINT, FLORIDA 33064
DAVID SLOVITER
C/O CURTISS LABORATORIES
2510 STATE ROAD
BENSALEM, PENNSYLVANIA 19020
LEONARD HOROWITZ AND ARLENE HOROWITZ
86 ACORN PONDS DRIVE
NORTH HILLS, NEW YORK 11576
PHILIP SILVERSTEIN AND
ROSALYN SILVERSTEIN
225 KNOLLS CRESCENT
BRONX, NEW YORK 10463
LOTS L AND M, BLOCK 73,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
LOTS K, L, AND M, BLOCK 72, AND
LOTS A AND B, BLOCK 73,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
LOTO A, B, AND C, BLOCK 74,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
LOTS K AND L, BLOCK 74,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
PT LOT R AND ALL OF S, BLOCK 65,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
PT LOT 9 AND PT LOT R, BLOCK 65,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
LOTS K, L, AND PT LOT M, BLOCK 66,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
UNITS 101, 109, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208,
209, 210, 211 THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
UNIT 102
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
UNIT 103,
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
UNIT 104,
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
UNITS 105, AND 112,
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
CONNTINUED...
Ll
JOHN W. BLONIARZ AND
DONNA L. BLONIARZ AND
JAMES P. BROTSOS AND MARY BROTSOS
1839 N. ORLEANS STREET, APT 1
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60614
MARK W. COOPER AND LARRY A. CAPUTO
518 SUSSEX ROAD
WYNNEWOOD, PENNSYLVANIA 19096
ROBERT FERGUSON
C/O PAUL 0. WALKER
478 WATERLOO STREET
LONDON, ONTARIO N6B2P6
M/L RANCH ASSOCIATES
C/O HERB KLEIN
P.O. BOX 12035
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
FRANK E. BOYNTON AND
ELIZABETH J_ BOYNTON AND
HOWARD PAUL KLEIN AND
CAROLYN SUE KLEIN
1026 CLINTTON STREET
CARROLLTON, TEXAS 75007
LINDA BOSNIAK
1 SOUTH ARLENE DRIVE
WEST LONG BEACH, NEW JERSEY 07764
WILLIAM M. KAPLAN AND KATE KAPLAN
SUITE 4,
MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING
200 KING'S HIGHWAY
MILFORD, DELAWARE 19963
MARC S. COOPER AND BARBARA S. COOPER
746 SOUTH NINTH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19147
CORY J. CIKLIN AND RICHARD B. CRUM
515 NORTH FLAGLER DRIVE
SUITE 1900
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401
RICHARD G. LUBIN
PENTHOUSE SUITE
REFLECTIONS OFFICE CENTRE
450 AUSTRALIAN AVENUE, SOUTH
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402
UNIT 106,
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
UNIT 107,
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
UNIT 108,
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
UNIT 111
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
UNIT 114
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
UNIT 115,
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
UNIT 116,
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
UNIT 117,
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
UNIT 118,
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
UNIT 119,
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
CONTINUED...
L�
6
FRANCIS FOSTER AND
JOAN MORGAN FOSTER AND
IRVIN B. FOSTER
C/O LARRY SNYDER REALTY
1 ABINGTON PLAZA
JENKINTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 19046
ALAN CIKLIN AND BLAIR J. CIKLIN
C/0 515 NORTH FLAGLER DRIVE
SUITE 1900
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401
LOUIS M. SILBUR AND
BARBARA J. PARIENTE
SUITE 855
400 AUSTRALIAN BLVD
WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401
GEORGE T. SCHNEIDER AND
ANN L. SCHNEIDER
OCHSNER CLINIC
1514 JEFFERSON HIGHWAY
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70121
ROBERT STEINHART AND JO STEINHART
306 MILL RACE STREET
NEWTON, PENNSYLVANIA 18940
ASPEN SKI LODGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
101 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN
130 GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
ASPEN SCHOOL DISTRICT
110 EAST HALLAM
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
NORTH AND SOUTH ASPEN ASSOCIATES
200 SOUTH ASPEN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND
TELEGRAPH COMPANY
MBC 3130 K.D. COX
1801 CALIFORNIA STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80201
UNIT 120,
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
UNIT 121
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
UNIT 122
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
UNIT 201
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
UNIT 202
THE HOTEL ASPEN CONDOMINIUMS
ASPEN SKI LODGE CONDOMINIUMS
BLOCK 67
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
LOTS R AND S, BLOCK 57,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
PT LOTS F, G, H, AND I, BLOCK 66, AND
LOTS P, Q, R, AND S, BLOCK 66,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
LOTS C, D, AND E, AND PT LOTS F, G, H, AND I,
BLOCK 66,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
BY
AUTHORIZED SrGNATURE
SENDER:
• Complete items 1 and/or r additional services.
• Complete items 3, and 4 .
• Print your name and add n the reverse of this form so
that we can return this card to you.
• Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the
3. Article Addressed to:
SJr.n� Vanr,
IAsscxl a��2
5. Signature�A4dressee)
MM
e+Ta-
I also wish ceive the
following servicelar an extra
feel:
1. ❑ Addressee's Address
4a. Article Number
4b. Service Type
�.+e ".�
❑❑ Registered
❑ Insured
M Certified
❑ COD
❑ Express Mail
❑ Return Receipt for
Merchandise
7. Date of, Delivery
/ G"/ / I /
8. Addr ssee's Address (Only if requested
and fee is paid)
PS F , 11, ctober 1990 *U.S. GPO: 1990-273-861 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT
United States Postal Service
0
Official Business
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE
USE, $300
Print your name, address and ZIP Code here
�, c:-„ cam_ W 11lzc„—.
Aspewl"Hwi- +, etanning 01hGc
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
��11 e.r' tee.. � ✓�.1� r � ,...s�i-p.� a�1.�.1�-, o� .
----------
r
i
K L
O CONCRETE WALK -
9
M A I N STREET
N
IL
0 5 10 20 30 40 50 FT.
SCALE 111= 10
BASIS OF BEARING FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN.
-INDICATES A CONCRETE PLANTER, 4 FEET IN DIAMETER
I
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP ACCURATELY DEPICTS A SURVEY MADE
-� UNDER MY SUPERSION ON JUNE 5, 1989, OF LOTS 0, N, AND THE EASTERLY
20 FEET OF LOT M, BLOCK 66, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. THE BUILDING
WAS FOUND TO BE LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES OF
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OFALL
BUILDINGS, IMPROVEMENTS, RIGHTS -OF -WAY IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TOME,
AND ENCROACHMENTS BY OR ON THESE PREMISES ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN.
NO RESEARCH WAS DONE FOR EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
0
ALPINE SURVEYS, INC
JUNE 15, 1989
BY: LS'ZtolQ1--
s
NOTICE. Accord,ng to Colorado yaw vo,, must , ommenc -, iegal a, t
,ased upon any defef:t in this survey within 3 vears alter you lust oisrn
such tlefect. In no event may any action haied upon any tlefect ,n this survey
02 commenced more than ten years from the date of the rerhhcation showr
hereon
Alpine Surveys, Inc.
Post Office Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 81612
303 925 2688
Surveyed 6. 5 -89 CC Revisions
Drafted 6. 15.89 ER
Title IMPROVEMENT SURVEY
PI T KI N COUNTY LIBRARY
LOTS N , 0 , AND THE EASTERLY
20 FT. OF M , BLK. 66, C. 0. A.
Job No 89-86
Client PITCO
z
z
NOTICE According to Colorado law you must commence any tegnl acLon
based upon any defect �n th,s survey with-n 5years .her you first disrovn,
such defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect n, this survey
be Commenced more than fen years from the date of the r'er liliC 1— show^
hereon
K L
O - CONCRETE WALK _
s
M A I N STREET
Alpine Surveys, Inc.
Post Office Box 1730
Aspen, Colorado 81612
303 925 2688
Surveyed 6. 5 -89 CC Revisions
Drafted 6. 15.89 ER
N
0 5 10 20 30 40 50 FT.
SCALE: I"= 10.
BASIS OF BEARING FOUND MONUMENTS AS SHOWN.
0-INDICATES A CONCRETE PLANTER, 4 FEET IN DIAMETER
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP ACCURATELY DEPICTS A SURVEY MADE
UNDER MY SUPERSION ON JUNE 5, 1989, OF LOTS 0,N, AND THE EASTERLY
20 FEET OF LOT M, BLOCK 66, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. THE BUILDING
WAS FOUND TO BE LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES OF
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OFALL
BUILDINGS, IMPROVEMENTS, RIGHTS -OF -WAY IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TOME,
AND ENCROACHMENTS BY OR ON THESE PREMISES ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN.
NO RESEARCH WAS DONE FOR EASEMENTS OF RECORD.
ALPINE SURVEYS, INC. BY:
JUNE 15, 1989 LS
Title IMPROVEMENT SURVEY
PI TKI N COUNTY LIBRARY
LOTS N , 0, AND THE EASTERLY
20 FT, OF M, BLK. 66, C.O. A.
Job No 89-86
Client PITCO