Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
coa.lu.an.Stevens.1974
AN- S- -eVc,se197y f° Stevens Annexation (Not Annexed) `Base of Aspen Mountain 7 -X tOKj 4. The conditions os annexation shaU be as 6ottows: A. The City o6 Aspen shaU purchase the Pt i,de o6 Aspen Lode h{in,ing C.Zacm 6rom Ringquis.t. Ringquist shaZZ grant .to the h City o6 Aspen an option to purc%.az e .the Pn.ide o s Aspen Lode "! n,i.ng C.Zaim on tthe SoZZow.ing teams: $60, 000. 00 .to-ta.Z purchase price with /y� N .teems .to be $10, 000. 00 down payment with the batanee payable .in Give v All (5) equa.Z annuaZ .ins-taUmentz o6 pn.inc i.pa.Z togetJietc with .interest ® , e f mat the hate o6 eight percent (8 0) pen annum. Ringqu.ist shaft grant ( %C the option bon a pehiod o6 one-ha.Z6 (1/2) year So.ZZow.ing the granting o6 .the petition Son annexation. B. RobeAt G. Stevens shaZZ .be entitZed .to eons.tr�uct apaAtment on condominium units aceoading to one o6 the 6otZow.ing .two ptans : (1) Fo&ty-seven (47) untZn ted units on the S.ibtey Lode Mining Ctain and .the souh.t one-ha.Z6 (1 /2) o6 SZoch, 54, City o6 Aspen. The height o6 the buiZdings shaZZ not exceed 38 6ee.t along .the average grade upon which .the buiid.ing is situated and each unit shaU ,contain no more .than 1 /500 square 6ee-t o6 Ziving area. (2) 7n the event .the City and Stevens shaZZ agree .that aU o6 the un.c is shaZ.Z be pZaeed .in to 6oun bu tidings .in a concentica.ted-,T.cea dnd Stevens shall dedicate to the City the entihe LittZe Mud Lode "'. ning C,Za.i,m to be designated and co"t&ucted as a par4k known as Ringqu,i,s t 5 Stevens Panfz by the City. The height o6 the bui.Zding shaeZ not exceed 38 Se.e.t along .the average grade upon v (hich .the bui°ding is situated. C. The CZty shaU agree .to allow Stevens to utif-ize .the buildings %e6ea4ed .to above as .bong .team rental housing units to be eonveAted at the option o6 Stevens to condominium units Son saie. Stevens shaZ.t agree .that no commenciaZ space shaU be .incPuded .in .the prof ects . D. Stevens and Ringqui.6t shalt grant easements .to .the City bon the 6ottow.ing : (1) Trait easements which are now .in place on .the pro pen:ties; t (2) Add.t:tionat A'-haiz' cgsuicnt-s at a;.y tirn- PequezAfcd by •",e City p,wvcdcd -they do not a.-C.e wit,zii-L and developed ahem; ( 3 ) ,'•{ass .i tansit eas ementb : The mass vians.i t easements shar,Z n6•t exceed 25 fleet .in width, except ,that .the may be varied � Q it does not i)—,tu � v e with ti,:e developed areas o s the prLopetty and .i6 it is necersany }on tihe ppopeh con,,,. Luc.Lion o" a mas3 tnans.c t system. The easement sha Z 'oZZow .tie .toe .o6 .the hiU on the Sibtey Lode so as not .to .in,telcLehe ta. th .the ownet's development ptans. (4) Utc i ty easements. AZZ u-ti hies shaZZ be ptaced undengjLound. F. The City shall pn.ovide aU uti.i.i,ties nece6ea.-4 Son the development o S the pnLo j ects . AZZ dedications and grants o6 easement s ha t be deemed to s atis s y any and att nLequiAements o s s ub- div-i,siin tegutati.ons, City Zoning OAdinances and building mdinarces and any other ltequ.irtements o s .the City aerating to dedication o6 a pe-tcentage o6 .the pnopenty to the City on a cash contti.bution in .Z-i,eu theheo S . F. It may be des.ueabte Son. Stevens .to pursue a pnopenty tAade with .the Bureau os Land ,Management with Ampect to a po&t i.o n o6 the S.ibtey Lode Mining C.Za,i m and other, pntopen ty ocored by the Bureau o6 Lured Management adjoining Btoeh 54 and the S-4:b•Zey Lode. The City shatt agree to endorse .the p&openty .thade and to app"ve it in teams o6 subdivision nequ kements and any o.therL govennmenta.Z agency n.equ.ize-ment so tong as the pnope&ty tkade does not eAeat a sepahate buitding site oil tot and Stevens agrees to .incZude .the VLaded pAopen,ty sotety Son. the purpose o6 convenience to the project contained heae.in. G. Stevens shc,U have S ive (5) years Sonm .the date o6 annexation appnovoZ to commence appt.ication Son bui,Z•ding peAmitz Son the consttAuct%on o6 the pro jests puv.ided Son hehe.in. (1) AZZ wa.teA .taps shatZ be based on :the See zchedute .in e6sect on De.cembet 31, 7973. H. Stevens shat',t not be /Lequ Aed .to gaant .the easements on make .the dedications pnov.ided Son .in .this section unti,Z and unless his prLo jest is appn.oved by ,the vaA.Zous city agencies and Ii commi,szion3 with kespec t .to aeC tegtUAementz and the bu Uding puinits ate .issued, on by contAact are pnov.ided Son w4,Uz certainty and with no subsequent e66ecti by .intervening teg-istation. i. It" is .the .intent os .these conditions .to provide a ptan which tviZZ benej t Stevens and Ri;-gqu,id-t by utab.tishment at .the time o6 annexation .to .the City .the density, use and other-eZated matterd Son. 6uture eonstAucti.on on theit pnopenti.es, and which w.c t bone S.ct the City 06 A.apen by ea-tab.Zi.d {ument o 6 .the easements d et 6or th, . a park o 6 deli, ed, and min.imat den-6 to Son nearty .the en tihte bade o 6 Shadow Mountain.. PETITION FOR ANNEXATION We, the undeAzig ned, being tandownene within the exten i.on boundat ieb o4 .the teAAitony hene.ina�ten des en ibed, do heneb y nespee t- Wt y petition the City Counci e o f the City o4 Aspen, Cotonado, to annex said teA i tony to the city .in accondanee with the pnovizionz o { Chapter 139, Ant i cte 21, Cototado Reviz ed Statutes, as amended, and attege as �ottows : 1. It is desiAabte and neeebbany that such tent.itony be annexed to the City o4 Aspen. 2. The nequi4ements o� sections 139-21-3 and 139-21-4, C.R.S., 1963, as amended, ex,zt on ate met. 3. The zigneu of this petition eompnise the tandowneu o4 mote than 50% o4 the teAA tong included .in the area proposed to be annexed, exctuusive of stn.eets and alleys. Landowne z and Legat Ducti.pti.on 1. Robert G. Stevens: Little Cloud fj L � 16t, m7 4 sti AIS ey025 I �,-lX 11 7 (bI-o,�l6(l US�,,q 9606 IT Loey R.ingquizt Pntide o4 Aspen 9X2 - USP:4S 7364 6OR3�j p 3 %�%i2 t'. AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR �� I hereby cettiy that each aignatute herein is that oA the pennon whose name it putpon ts to be. STATE OF COLORADO) 1,5,6 County of Pit in ) Subsenibed and zwonn to be4one me this 19th day o4 Juty, 1974, by Robert G. Stevens, citcutatok. W trim my hand and o66iciat sea. My Com.rriis:;ion expires 1a.luary 9, 1978 4. The conditi.anz o� annexation shaU be as 6oUowvs: A. The City o� Aspen may puAehase the Ptci.de of Aspen Lode Mining Claim 6Aom Ri.ngquizt. Ringquist may gttant to the City o� Aspen an option to puAchase the Pte,i.de o5 Aspen Lode Mining Claim an the !o 22owing tems : $60, 000. 00 totat puttehas e ptc i.ce with tetum to be $10,000.00 down payment with the balance payable .in 4ive (5) equal annual instaU-ments o 4 pA.incipat tog etheA with .inteAest at the tcate o{ eight peneent (80) pets annum. Ringqu-�st may gttant the option 4oA a pe&iod any one-hatj (112) yeatc 4ottowing the gnanti.ng olo .the. petition 4m annexation. S. RobeAt G. Stevens shatt be enti ted to constAuct apatctment oA condominium unity accoAding to one o, the �ottowing two plans: (1) Twenty- 4ouA (24) untim.i ted units on the Sibley Lode gin.ing Claim and the south one-hat4 (112) al Bloch 54, City of Aspen, 4outt o 4 which Witt be employee hotaing . The height o� the bui eding,s shaZe not exceed 28 feet along the aveAage gttade upon which .the building i,5 situated and each unit t haU contain no matte than 1500 .squatte beet o� tiv.ing area. (2) In the event ,the City and Stevenz ShaP.e agree that a t o� the unity sha,E',e be placed in one to {nowt buie.dings .in a eancentAated autea and Stevens shall dedicated to the City the entute Lithe Cloud Lode AGining Claim and that pawl o6 the Sibley not used 5oA development to be designated and .impAoved as a poAk. C. Stevens and Ringquist tshaU gAant easements to the City 4oA the 4ottow.ing: propeAt e,s; (1) TAa.i f easements which aAe now in place on the (2) Additional tltai t easements at any time Requested by the City provided they do not tie within and .inteA6eAe with the developed atteas; (3) Ifa s s tAans-it eat emend : The m"/s tAansit easements shah not exceed 50' .in width, except that the width may be vaAi.ed io/ it does not .intn4eAe with the developed atteals o� the ptcopetcty and i4 it ,ins neeessaAy 6o t the pAopeA consttcuction o6 a mass tAans,it system. The easement shaU 6ottow the toe ou the hitt on the S.ibZey Lode so as not to inteA6eAe with the owneA's deveeopment plans; (4) Utitity eas ement5. AU ut 2i t is shaU be 19taced unduLgtound. D. The City shaU pAovide att utiti i a neeessaty joA the development o6 the pto j ects . AU dedications and gAan is o6 eaa ement s hatt be deemed to s atiz �, y any and att Aeq u,UAement5 o � s ub- d.ivi,s.ion tegutatiou, City Zoning OAdinances and bui,E'di.ng otdinances and any otheA Aequ semen is o 4 the City utating to dedication o f a peAeentage of the ptopetrty to the City oA a cash eontAi.buti.on .in Zieu theAeo 6 . L. Stevens shaft have three ycaAs 6Aom the date o6 annexation apptovat to commence app.Pication OA buizding peAmit,6 4ot the constAuction o6 the pAojects ptov.ided 6oA heAein. F. Stevens shat,t not be AequiAed to grant the eaae- ments oA make .the dedications ptcov.ided �oA in this section untit and untess his pAo ject is approved by the vaAioua city agencies and eommi,ssionz t th Aespeet to att AequiAements and the buitding peAmits ate issued, oA by contAac t ane pAov.ided Jot with cetc tainty and with no subsequent e6jeet by inteAvening .tegistati.on. C-. It iz the intent o6 these conditions to pAov.ide a p.tan which witt bene6 t Stevens and Ringquist by estabLL6hment at the time o6 annexation to the City the density, use and otheA tetated matteAz 6ot 6utute eonstAuetion on thew ptope ties, and which wilt bene6it the City o � As pen by estabt.i s hment o 5 the easements set JoAth, a pcmk ,i6 des.i.Aed, and minimat den6ity 6otc neatc,t y the entice base o6 Shadow Mountain. 4. The conditions of annexation shall be as follows: A. Loey Ringquist (hereafter "Ringquist"), shall be allowed to build nine (9) unlimited apartment or condominium units on the Pride of Aspen Lode Mining Claim. These units shall not exceed 1,500 square feet each of living area and the height of the buildings shall not exceed 28 feet along the average grade upon which the building is situated. In the event the City of Aspen desires to purchase the Pride of Aspen Lode Mining Claim from Ringquist, Ringquist.shall grant to the City of Aspen an Option to purchase the Pride of Aspen Lode Mining Claim on the following terms: $G0,000.00 total purchase price with terms to be $10,000.00 down payment with the balance payable ii-i five (5) equal annual installments of principal together with interest at the rare of eight percent (8%) per annum. Ringquist shall grant the option for a period of one (1) year following the granting of the petition for annexation. B. Robert G. Stevens shall be entitled to construct apartment or condominium units according to one of the following two plans: (1) Twenty-five (25) unlimited units on the Little Cloud Lode Mining claim and thirty-five (35) unlimited units on the Sibley Lode Mining Claim and the South one-half (1/2) of Block 54, City of Aspen. The,height of the buildings shall not exceed 28 feet along the average grade upon which the building is situated and each unit shall contain no more than 1,500 square feet of living area; (2) Fifty-five (55) unlimited apartment or condominium units on a portion of the Sibley Lode Mining Claim and the South one-half (1/2) of Block 54, City of Aspen. In this event the City and Stevens shall agree that all of the units shall be placed in one or two buildings in a concentrated area and Stevens shall dedicate to the City the entire Little Cloud Lode Mining Claim to be designated and constructed as a park, known as Stevens Park, by the City. The height of the building shall not exceed 28 feet along the average grade upon which the building is situated. C. The City shall agree to allow Stevens and Ringquist to utilize the buildings referred to above as long term rental housing units to be converted at the option of Stevens and Ring- quist to condominium units for sale. Stevens and Ringquist shall agree that no commercial space shall be included in the projects. D. Stevens and Ringquist shall grant easements to the City for the following: (1) Trail easements which are now in place on the properties; (2) Additional trail easements at any time requested by the City provided they do not lie within and interfere with the developed areas; (3) Mass transit easements: The mass transit easements shall not exceed 25 feet in width, except that the width may be varied if it does not interfere with the developed areas of the property and if i'r is necessary for the proper construction of a mass transit system. The easement shall follow the toe of the trill on the Sibley Lode so as not to interfere with the owners development plans. (4) Utility easements. All utilities shall be placed underground. E. The City shall provide all utilities necessary for the development of the projects. All dedications and grants of easement shall be deemed to satisfy any and all require ments of subdivision regulations, City Zoning ordinances and building ordinances and any other requirement of the City relat- ing to dedication of a percen`�age of the property to the City or a cash contribution in lieu thereof. F. It ray be desirable for Stevens to pursue a property trade with the Bureau of Land Management with respect to a portion of the Sibley Lode Mining Claim and other property owned by the Bureau of Land Management adjoining Block 54 and the Sibley Lode. The City shall agree to endorse the property trade -and to approve it in terms of subdivision requirements and any other^governmental agency requirement so long as the !property trade does not create a separate building site or lot and Stevens agrees to include the traded property solely for the purpose of convenience to the project contained herein. G. Stevens and Ringquist shall have five (5) years from the date of annexation approval to commence application for building permits for the construction of the projects provided for herein. H. Stevens and Ringquist shall not be required to grant the easements or make the dedications provided for in this section until and unless their respective projects are approved by the various city agencies and commissions with respect to all requirements and the building permits are issued, or by contract are provided for with certainty and with no subsequent effect by intervening legislation. I. It is the intent of these conditions to provide a plan which will benefit Stevens and Ringquist by establishment at the time of annexation to the City the density, use and other related matters for future construction on their properties, and which will benefit the City of Aspen by establishment of the easements set forth, a park if desired and minimal density for nearly the entire base of Shadow Mountain. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 LI-.1aues p�gula.et _ng %sper, PIan. , ng �; March 5, 1974 able that is required under Ordinance 419. Schiffer questioned what had been decided about the proposed ma-rket. Schottland stated that he would research what is in- volved as far as how much space the law allows. Johnson quoted from the zoning ordinance (Commercial Core); "All permitted and conditional commercial and retail business uses shall be restricted to a maxi- mum gross floor area of 1.2,000 square feet, excluding ,any basement area used exclusively .for storage pur- poses or underground parking, etc..." Felt that 12,000 square feet is the gross allowable. Felt that the only thing that r,,i.ght except that is public_ tran- sportation facilities, City or County Buildings, ware- houses, and all. uses of the AR-1 accommodations- rec- reation district permitted under paragraph 24-7(c), shall not have a square footage limitation, which Might mean that they could build a warehouse. Pointed ,out that a grocery store could not operate on two levels. 'Schiffer stated that he would like to recommend a variance to provide for more square footage for the market. Heels it is essential to have an efficient type of market in that area. Landry stated that she was abstaining from discussion and voting on this project. .Schiffer stated that since the Planning Office had :recommended no more employee housing in this phase, would go along with that. Schottland stated that what is happening, is that they will provide the housing, just not at this point. Vagneur made a motion to approve the preliminary and final under Ordinance 11119 presentation for t:!-.e Aspen Center with the recommendation that the Commission would encourage a variance for a reasonable increase in the grocery store space should that be needed to make it more feasible and that the developer :Hake best possible efforts to work with Sinclair. Motion seconded by Johnson. Jenkins stated that his vote would be condi.ioned n^t on whether or not Sinclair should be down there, but. until the Commission faces -the probl ours w. �._,,-h they create when they permit this to happen, canr_ct vote on another project like this. Feels that .L t j enera ts too much of a pro` l m for t,ae C _ty. train Motion All in favor with the exception of Jenkins who voted / nay and Landry who abstained. Motion carr-e(5. STEVFNS ANNEXATIOP, V Bob Stevens was present and submitted map of th,� Pro-- posed annexation. Stevens stated that they were trying to annex the Yr_,:r, of Aspen, tho Cloud Lode ,lining Claim, Sibl.i.r j Lodc tlinincl Claim, eLc... -16- «: csular ITeetin RECORD OF PROCEED14"iG`3 100 Leaves Ashen Planning-; & Zonia Ma rc n 5, 1. 7 " Stevens stated that basically, are lock.i-ng at the City purchasing a 10 acre claim frcra• Lcc,,. e F:a:.g�ruist for $60, 000, t.rhich would 2De $10, 000 down . 7:, ba- lance over 5 years with equal annual ins !�allr n.ts with 8% interest. Stevens giving tte City of Aspen 2.01 acres (Little Cloud) as a park. Stated that presently there is a road into the Little Cloud. Stated that this could be utilized to the City for trash removal, etc... Stevens pointed out that the trails which go all the way to the base of Strawpile start at the Little Cloud Lode Mining Claim, curve into the Pride of. Aspen and go up through the 66. Stated that he has given the County the 66 and the B & S for parks -recreation. No buildings can be constructed on those pieces of property. Stated that moving from the Little Cloud, go over to the Copperopolis, which is owned by the Quaker Realty Company, which is in fact J. Christopher Brumder. Stated that Brumder has been asked to give this to the City. Stated that Brumder has an access problem in that he would have to go through private condem- nation through Shaw, Ringquist and Stevens. Stated that Brumder has applied to the BLM Office in Glen- wood Springs for access twice and has been turned down both times for access into the Copperopolis. Stated he probably would not have gone to that trouble to get access into that claim if he thought he had access in any other manner, because access through BLM is a perfect cliff at almost 90�. Stevens stated that he has contacted an attorney in Denver and a law firm in Aspen and asked about the question of Brumder getting access to the Copperopolis for the purposes of developing it. Stated that it- was the general opinion that he has a form of access, a donkey trail which is for the removal of ore from his property -if he should mine it. Stevens stated that when Brumder purchased the propert, he was told that he had no access. Stevens stated that he offered $25,000 (the amount which Brumder had paid) for the same land. Stated that he felt Brumder is landlocked for development. Stevens stated that the City would end up with a park trail system, which would amount to approximately 24 acres. Stated that that was including the Brumder pieces. Stated that less the Brumder pieces, would be around 16 acres. Pointed out that in turn, the City would then be able to run there waterline through, would be able to utilize area for the change of mass transit easement. Stevens stated that they would in turn move the rail- road right -of. -way over so that the new right-of-way would go through BLM and still connect with the ✓ailie right-of-way, giving Stevens a parcel of land in tie south for development. Stevens loc'-ite l th , 8040 lire for. the CommissiOn -,!n the map. Stated that all the nionuiiients are In -17-- PECGRD or- 100 Leaves Asoen Planning & Zcn.ing March 51 1974 ular ;?eeting - -- — and concreted it ','?Lth brass caps. Stated that below the 8040, they are allowe under the proposed County zoning 3 dwelling units p--r acre. Stated that they would like to transfer the development rights from the tract that they would be donating and put it in that section. Stated that this would be talking 47 units in that area. Reitterated that this would be Waiving the City the waterline easement, the mass transit easement, would have their settling pond easement as recommended by the Wright-Mc:�aughlin plan, would get a large park, and Shadow Mountain would not be built on helter-skelter. Vagneur questioned if Brumder would be building this as a joint venture. Stevens stated that he would not. Stevens stated that he was not going to purchase the Brumder property. Stated that Brumder's only use for it to get his money out of it is to probably spread that out over a five bear period on a land gift situation as aisedrfor off. Felt that he could get the land appra a couple hundred thousand dollars. Stevens stated that he had an agreement with Ringquist for the Pride of Aspen as far as accesses, etc. • •ark Stevens stated that the City would be getting P which would be worth approximately $150,000, a water- line easement which would be worth approximately $10,000, a mass transit easement which would be worth approximately $30,000, a settling pond which would be wof orth approximately $10,000, the 10-errSibleye PrideClaim Aspen worth $60,000, and all the upper which is worth $50,000. Stated that the City would be getting approximately $300,000 worth of lard for $60,000, and transferring the density allowed from .below the 8040 on `these claims and forgetting the density -on the upper part of the claims, to tine piece of, property Stevens proposes to develope, wh.+-ch'-Would be 47 units. Further stated that,in this, would not be dedicating 4% *land or cash. Gillis questioned if he had a use for the alley. Stevens stated that he would not have a use for the alley if the City Council would grant this annexation and say that they could put in the units. Stated that there would be a great number of ramifications and and he considers himself to be in the hands of City Council and is passing the buck back to Council and telling them to inform him what to do nsjouL a-IIpr3 �i_r!g the alley. Stated that the City must say SJ;�at they are going to do with that alley, and Iie; wi:li go along with it provided he gets what he wants in the area he proposes to develope. Stevens stated that basically what they are talking about building there are rental -income -producing units. Stated th,.t in other projects he has done in Aspen, they are totally occupied by local resi.c.��nt.s, and wi-1.1continue to do so. Stated that tit ture dale would like to be able to ccllvc.rt to ec>'16:3- miniurtic . `r'ou I.c1 cJive the tenants f ir. st= shot at: k ey- ing the units. felt that he would get 60`', of the y �e -18- 4 t_K 9. a. Y L. , . LaMar Nieeti.ng Aspen planning & ZonIng March_,, 1.974 people who are livi_nq in the u-:its. Stt�: th t t:.e units would be desigred for permanent Would hope to start construction a year frcrn this spring. Stevens pointed out to the Commission: that the City stands first in line for the SLM tracts of lard. Schiffer questioned how many units would be allowed ;on the land proposed for development without the density transfer. Stevens stated that figuring 2 units per lot, could build 18 units. Chairman. Gillis statdd the Commission would be unable to give approval to this proposal at this meeting. Feel they would like to see a site plan for the en- tire project, and would like to see a topographic map for the area. Stevens suggested the Commission have a site inspec- tion as soon as the snow is melted. Landry stated that she did not agree with this pro- posal even to the point of asking for a site plan. Gillis stated that if the Commission were to consider this proposal, would want a cost evaluation from the City Economists as to the ramifications of costs to the City. Landry stated she would also like information concern-- sng the cost of annexing undeveloped land as opposed to developed land. Stated that there is developable land which could possibly be annexed. Stevens stated that he agreed with the economic study ,and 'would agree to -do a site plan *for the Commission. .Felt that it would be beneficial for the Commission Ito make a site inspection. Felt that in dollars and cents, if the City is ever going to put a mass transit ,system in and the waterline, etc... the City would need this land. Felt that this would be a way of not having to condemn property and saving a cost to the City. Johnson questioned how something could be ,�,r_itten o-ff for $200,000 that was bought for only $25,000. Stevens stated that he took the lowest appraisal of three MAI appraisals on half of the claim, which was $35,000. Stated that the MAIL will back this up and the IRS approves that. Stated that under the 1RS ruling, could take advantage of that without capital gains tax. Stated that this is how cities acquire some of the things which they need to acquire. Stevens pointed out that his gift is not tax deductibl, because the City would be giving him some kind nf zoning for it. St.ac_eu it must be art outright gi_f �. in order to bey ta:. deductible. Simmons stated although he did not know too much -19- IRECORD Or PROCEE.1"I"�GS 100 Leaves eqular meeting Nspen Planning & Zoning March 5, 1974 t ,,e concept of transfcr—,ble dcvelopme.nt rig its , but his understandinc_, at .;he -ricr:;ent is that it i.. iilec alp Sated that the City of. Boulder has requested that! the State consider passing a law to make it legal, whhich would mean that the only way this proposal could come about would seem to be through zoning changes. Stevens stated that it could also come about through PTJD. Further stated that in Denver, they have done some transferring of development rights and there are three specific cases which he has record of. Simmons stated that as far as the study is concerned, was told this morning to conduct a cost -benefit study of this with an annexation aspect of it, to be com- pleted sometime by August or September. Questioned when the Commission would like the study completed. Stevens stated that for planning purposes, would like to move on this as quickly as possible. Jenkins questioned Stevens on what his alternatives to the annexation would be. Landry stated that she does object to the use of the land which Stevens proposes to develope, and stated that she did not feel the co:Iunission had made any decisions about the possible rezoning of that area. Stated that she would hesitate because of the 150 people the project would generate and the 150 curs. Stated that she would not like to encourage Nir. Ste- vens. Stated that if she were asked to vote at this point, would vote no. W,uld like to wait and see what the City decides in the way of rezoning and the -use of the automobile. Chairman Gillis pointed out that this situation and proposal involved a different trade-off than.. what most developers present. Vagneur stated that she had no problems with pursuing the matter as far as the economic study was concerned if it fits into the list of priorities. Questioned Simmons on where it would fit and how much he could do. Simmons stated he would like to check with the City Manager, etc.. to see where it would fit into the list of priorities. Jenkins stated that he had reservations about that density in that area. Johnson stated he did not have the same concern and .felt that if the City could get assurance that a lot snore property would not be developed, would be in favor of looking into the matter further. Simmons pointed out that he felt the major issue in terms of a cnsi_ s;i-.udy i.s; really how much it is doing to cost. the City r_ i- lti ve t-o what else will h ippen. Stated tl,at we do not hZvo to concern o?zr s`�l:c with how many jobs it is going to generate, for the most. -20- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves c:.K 9:. 9. 9. 4 l.. 1 1 ular l�tec t171q Asper, ��l chi":nll_:i7 �—GJt?i.i1:7 March 5 �� part, and that. type of consideration. Should concern ourselves with items likes sewer, etc... Stevens stated that he has investigated water, sewer, natural gas, etc... Stated that this is the last piece of developable property which he owns in Pitkin County. Has considered selling it to an outside de- veloper, thought about leasing it to the City and they were going to do a study on that which never really got off the ground. Stated that the price he gave the City at that time looks extremely cheap at this point. Bartel stated that he had discussed the matter with. City Manager Mick Mahoney, and he had agreed that the cost analysis was in order. Stated that his only concern in that matter is that does not feel that the final decision on annexation can be based on the cost alone. Feel there are social considerations, environ- mental considerations, etc... Stated that have made in a County application to lease those BLM tracts. Stated that cannot do much additional work on the plait ning without getting to some conceptual maps. Feel the next sequence would be to have Simmons start and give the Commission a preliminary report as quickly as possible, and hopefully within that period of time can resolve some of the use questions., and from that go into the site plan. Schiffer questioned how this would affect the priori- ties as far as Simmons and Mojo are concerned and the economic impact studies on rezoning. Questioned if this project was something which the City felt should be done immediately. Bartel stated that he felt this is more of a continu- ing project. Landry pointed out that this was on. the agenda as an, = annexation at the, request of City Council and should go 'back to City Council. Stated that the Commission has said that they did not want to review any new things until have had a chance to work over some of the old problems. Felt that'it would be the decision of the Council. Schiffer stated that he felt they were discussing sor°c thing which may have some real benefits to the City, and would like to get more information, but would not like to tell Stevens to forget it. Johnson stated that he felt the Commission should vote on it, and expressed interest in looking at the pro- ject further. Jenkins stated that he did not feel this required a vote and stated he would like to inspect the property. Simmons stated that most of the work lie would !De doin_; over the next month would be directly applicable to what the Co.ridoission has asked him to Flo. Stated tliat it would c;u, to Luild this within ovf r thin(f _. >c and let it flow rut of the t_ot:al. work. 1.! would bc, doing, rather than concentrating on it. -21- RECORD C?F Fries EE��i,y�a,5 Aspf n P1ninc� & 7o.zi�g march >, 197<' regular N, jng ______ann0---- Simrlcns further stated that in terms of ;_i cD.. t study per. se, feel that when all is said and do.1.� , t"qe Commission will ask which they want, the high. density in a small area with a lot of open space or the sprawl type of approach. )RDINANCE #19 REVIEWS Geri Vagneur withdrew from discussion and voting due .�rd Generation Building - to conflict of interest. ?reliminary & Final Nail Pitman, representing the developer, was present and submitted a model for the project. Ms. Baer stated that the plans conform to the con- ceptual presentation and that the referral letters are positive. Stated that the Planning Office con- siderations were as follows: (1) Engineering De- partment recommendations re: run-off retention and ice build up as shown on plan; (2) Method of trash storage and removal - building is not located on an alley; and (3) Parking - to satisfy the regulation, applicant must contract to buy out parking (-in numbers required by the Code) if the Court case is decided in favor of the City. Pitman stated that he had talked with Vic Goodhard and Goodhard stated that there would be no problem with trash removal, that they could use the vestibule (ser- vice entrance). Rather than having a stoop like they had previously planned, will have a ramp so they can use the one yard trash container on wheels which they can roll out. Stated that Goodhard thought it would be better from the City's point of view, not to have trash containers out it the open. Would come inside and get it and roll container back. Pitman Dointed out that they do not have access to an alley. Pitman stated that he did not know what ki_r_d of requirements they would run into if they were to run the ramp to the street. Stated that Goodhard felt that was a minor consideration, but would be better to eliminate the curb there to street level, but if they could at least get a ramp down to the walk, that would be sufficient. Ms. Baer stated that she did not think they could eli- minate the curb. Felt it might be undesirab.lE� from the point of view of the Engineering Department and parking. Pitman pointed out that there would be an extra charge for the service, but would be willing to pay that. Commission expressed doubt that Aspen Trash would -real- ly do this. Further felt that snow build-up could be a problem. Pitman pointed out that snow build-up would rot be a problem because tale walks are heated. Johnson quostioried how they would get the container across the :ono%,7 build-up and into the street. Pitman stated t1lat they would just havo to keep th'it cleaned up. Robert G. Stevens Box 1147 Aspen, Colorado May 10, 1973 City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado Gentlemen: I would like to lease to you all of the south 1/2 block 54 and the Sibley Lode mining claim. You may use this land as you see fit; but I would recommend its use for: 1. Mass transit right-of-way. 2. Employee housing. 3. The house could be preserved as a historical sight, as it is one of the oldest in Aspen. 4. Other land in Sibley Lode mining claim to be given to the city parks and recreation. 5. BLM adjacent could be used for additional housing or parks and recreation. 6. Total cost to the city $20,000.00 annually. Payable semi-annually or by agreement and geared to cost of living increases. 7. The city can have until September 1973 to do a complete study on this property for $200.00 U.S. dollars per month. These are just a few of the things that entered my mind; many things could be changed before a satifactory agreement is reached between both parties. I shall appear May 14, 1973 to discuss this matter at the city council meeting as arranged by Lorraine Graves. Sincerely, tobert G. ` L- RS/gw MEMORANDUM TO: Ramona Markalrnas Yank o�o ( �, FROM: Y nk M ' , Id SUBJECT: Stevens roperty at the Base of West Aspen Mountain DATE: November 25, 1974 About the third week in October, you asked me to compute the allowable density on the property owned by Bob Stevens. The original Stevens Annexation proposal included the "Pride of Aspen" mining claim. At the time of your request I asked if you wanted me to include the area below the 8040 line of the "Pride of Aspen" claim. You answered in the affirmative so I included that area in my calculations. Those calculations are as follows: DENSITY CALCULATIONS R-15 - COUNTY BELOW 3040 NO CONSIDERATION FOR SLOPE Mining Claim Area Densitv* Sibley 55,300 3.6 D.U. Little Cloud 69,000 4.6 D.U. Pride of Aspen 70,000 4.6 D.U. Pride of Aspen above 8040 1.0 D.U. 13.8 D.U. * No duplex provision in the County On October 18, 1974, I called you and reported that without any con- siderations for slope a density of 13-14 units could be supported by all three claims. However, I stressed that there was considerable slope in the area and that a more careful analysis of the area would be required before I could state unequivocally that a certain number of units would be allowed. s MEMORANDUM Ramona Markalunas November 25, I974 Page Two The P.U.D. section of the proposed City Zoning contains a section devoted to slope in Residential Areas Section 24-8.13. Paragraph C of this section states: C. The overall density of the planned unit develnpmert will be .regulated by the slope of the land as measured between property lines in the direction of maximum slope. In determining the allowable density, the Planning Commission shall consider the following standards: 1. 1 - 10% slope - density shall be that for the zoning district; 2. 11% slope and up - density shall be that for the applicable zoning district calculated on a lot size that results after deducting 1,000 square feet of the tract to be developed for each percentage over 10%; 3. Slopes in excess of 40% as defined above shall be con- sidered for development only upon receipt of the approval of the Planning Commission. Utilizing the Standards outlined above, the following dwelling unit, density is calculated. Average Claim Slope Sibley 31° Little Cloud 410 Pride of Aspen 51° Pride of Aspen above 8040 Area "New" Area Reduction Area D.U. 55,300 21,000 34,300 2.2 69,000 31,000 38,000 2.5 70,000 41,000 29,000 1.9 1.0 TOTAL UNITS -T_.T_ Without utilizing the density provided by the "Pride of Aspen" the total buildout in the County would be 4.7 or 5 units. The remainder of land under consideration is 17,100 square feet of Block 54 of the City of Aspen. If the zoning on this block is R-6, the resultant MEMORANDUM Ramona Markalunas November 25, 1974 Page Three density is 2.85 units, if it is R-15, the density is 1.14 units. If it were possible under the zoning laws to "PUD" uncontigious tracts of land then the total buildout would be 5.84 - 7.55 units depending on the zoning of Block 54. 1 �a�ba Os L\ i _0 �>7850-�J uPT ~ l+ Ims F� U --_ - _-/- IAJ /YNo Realljo 0 Box 1147 Aspen, Coronado 81611 Aujcurt 22, 7974 Mt. John St2an6 td RCanning Depattment City o6 Aspen Lox V Aspen, Cototado 81611 DeaA John, This tenet I hope wilt 5ut6itte the necusaty obtigations jot my PUD on Btoek 54 City o6 Aspen. At the ptezent time a Z the Land i.6 owned by Robert G. Stevens. OuA s eheduZe o6 beginning woutd be as soon as poss.ibte, and eompteti.on- woutd be no tonget than 6ouA yeau . As San as out .intent coneetn ing the pto vi4 ion o6 water, sewer and street .improvements, they ate att .in and aZZ we have to do .is tap on and use the avaiZabte streets. At the ptesent time, gas, sewet, water, etect ie and tetephone ate aCt stubbed .in to the ptopetty; they ate ready to go. I hope tlws tettet wilt su66iee. 16 nottet me know at your eatiest convenience. But tega,%4 , eat G. evens LIR�� CITY OF ASPEN aspen ,00 c am, box v March 13, 1974 Mr. Charles W. Cole,Jr. The Brown Ice Palace Post Office Bcx 710 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Brown Ice Palace Inquiry about Vacation of Alley in Block 54. Dear Mr. Cole: My immediate reaction at this time is that the city does not want to vacate the above alley. However, I feel it is premature to discuss any possible vacation since Mr. Steven's plans are still far from final. Mr. Stevens did contact me and state that his position would be in accord with the city at this point pending the city's approval of his development proposal. I will be glad to discuss this matter with you if the situation should change. Very truly yours, --Ci-Lt' -cJo Dave Ellis City Engineer cc: Bob Stevens Lonna Baer DE/dc Mr. Dave Ellis City Engineer Box V Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Ellis: _ _.E BROW. IN ICE PALACE ZAOX 1110 ASPEN, COLO�ADO 81611 81611 February 22, 1974 The new owners of the Brown Ice Palace are giving immediate attention to the possibility of installing expan- ded seating capacity sometime in the future. This additional seating can go in only one place - along the south side of the arena and into the area now occupied by the alley. We are informed that Bob Stevens is discussing with the City plans for development of his property immediately to the south of the alley. This has prompted me to inquire now rather than later regarding the City's vacating the alley together with comprehensive planning involving the three parties I have mentioned in this letter. We would like to discuss this situation with you, Mr. Stevens, and any other city repesentative who would necessarily be concerned at everyone's earliest convenience. CWC : sy cc: Mr. Robert Stevens Siiee�ely, J Charles W. Cole, Jr. Manager TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Stevens Annexation DATE: March 5, 1974 This office cannot adequately determine impact, advantages and disadvantages on the basis of the information supplied. 1. The city would gain a transit ROW and park land. 2. If proposed housing is long term, permanent housing, a recognized need could be satisfied. 3. Density appears to conform approximately to the County rezoning proposal, but if annexation occurs, density should comply with results of land use plan presently underway. Before the proposal can be fully evaluated for a positive recommendation, the following conditions should be met: 1. An economic cost/benefit analysis which demonstrates the impact on public services and their relation to revenues. 2. a site plan demonstrating all subdivision requirements (fire protection, drainage, access,etc.) can be met. a) All development should be north of the pro- posed transit ROW. b) Existing low density housing should be main- tained and protected. c) The dedication of Little Cloud Mining Claim should satisfy any open space requirements, and the relation- ship of open space to the development would be identified by a site plan. page 2 Stevens Annexation d) Access solution should preserve the mini park proposal at the end of 2nd Street; based on present information, access should probably be from Cooper Street. 3. The City should allow Stevens to convert housing units to condominium units for sale only if the City and Stevens agree to some method whereby the housing will remain long term, resident housing. 4. Endorsement of a property trade between Stevens and BLM depends upon more specific information, e.g. location of land to be traded. 5. Before addressing a favorable recommendation for annexation the City would have to know if the project could be approved in terms of the specifics outlined above. (See paragraph H of Stevens proposal.) An annexation agreement should not, for example, bind the Building Inspector or exempt the developer from any future policy decisions being formulated now or in the next 5 years. LEGAL NOTICE Notice is hereby given, that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission shall hold a public hearing on October 1, 1974, at 4:00 p.m., City Council Chambers to consider the Stevens Subdivision, more particularly described as follows: The Sibley Lode Mining Claim Mineral Survey #9606 Pitkin County Colorado. And the South 2 of Block 54 City and townsite of Aspen County of Pitkin State of Colorado. Proposal is on file in the office of the City/County Planner and may be examined by an interested person during office hours. /s/ Lorraine Graves City Clerk Published in the Aspen Times September 12, 1974 Notices mailed to all adjacent property owners �J 0 P�2 C�) pC) S E D A N N EXAT 1 CD ti -ro THE CITY OF ASvEt.J� PiTK1N CR C-c-L-o. w a to 0 2x, vim. lcn '&I r.. I L�UAL D21PTio B K1 i N 1 rJ C� A-T p. Potr-I r- F¢om 14h ic-%A co{z Ns tz 7 ASPEN'CQw4t-.1SY-YE $EAizS N �jS'-t�►1N 15q�•2�✓' TNETacE S SS�_t� E ttST.IS �LON�t iH� E�cIST. CITY LtM1TS LINE j Tt-tENGE N 7S©--�W 2.54.oO' .LONG -rj-4E t toRrN L1hliE Or- T-HE- MOLLIG 6q THENGr-- StS�oo'w Zc>o 42' .a'1_ON(f4 THE WEsf LtNC- Op -1-t1E MoLLIE c--t j 1t1lNG_G NTg`-Gdk�1 2-95.60'/AL4DN6a THtc >--7rk4 LI ►,4= C3F THE i*J-(E5 'r"1=NC.E fs.LrJNG� `I -HE-: >cCVP�izoD�is, "rHI=Ncz-: N 30"' c>o' ALONG.-1 -7-9E Noiz.T'H LINE ot= -r1.48 <bpPt=}aopLtS T I1>=r�1c� s c-Oa c�c�v� 5a5.o'pNG -f f }!_ WES I L-lh-7t= Ut= THE �oi�PE#�L�f2Pt_�S � -T'H E=NG� 5 21 °-cao w IQ 26' "t F- oF -r-Ht~ ptz-1t�t: 01= As�til ;-j'F-tEt�sc•.''= Nk�9�w 3t� . oo' .hL�ti�� i HE Soc,T H LI►J1= ot= '-t-lA Lt DJ E p E= -TH-E FIF-I DE T HE- t- l0 tZ-r t-+- L-i"' TH-c To THE Pohl-t- ->= cm- oti-ral� NOT r-- ; 1. T-oTAc L PERIMETER 2• CC)NTIUU(DUs TC> S>( IS-rtNC, CITY UMIT5 = 1187-I S 5. To-7A L AR1=1> = 14.5 4 It ROE,EjZ_D• MAHN�E t Do HEREHY CGR•TIFY THAT TF}tS MAP WAs P2EPsatREp BY ME 1= Rot�A PLATS O to P-EGO(LD AT T'NE BL••M OFFICE tij DEr3Vr--f?• C.OLO,t PL-^-1 S —j F-Ec-orzo 1N i-HE PtTI�lN Ca. GOU 2T ntTs �FA>z►ttcy 511owN HOUSE, $ sufzVE�Y PL.^-T- P>Y C4• H PESM.dnt t, W ice. D MAH1�k E. THE oVTS1GE gjpuNp�Y Y-JITH ALL MI t tllay PLA rs poEs Nv6-r V-' POSE-"T AN �-.UIZVay ot,t -r N � � �o V r� z✓ [ZnCm E-R_- p M A H N K-E GOLO(zAL� G- 868 1: 2 C t am