HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Stevens.1974
.......;.. :-
c= ,'-;
~( c::UG),0 C
F~~_H'J C'cx ~ \ l ~vJ
~.
---
The conci.U{.oM 06 cmnexa.:Uon .6haU. be a..6 60Uow,,:
A. The Cay On A.6pe.n .6haU. pwu:fta..6e .:the PlUde 06
A.6pen Lode M,{,n1.ng C'/?'('vUn nltOm FUngqu.uA:. FUngqu,Ut .6haU. glW.n;/; ;to .the
4.
~-
-~b7r
~f:. \ .tvun6 .to be $10,000.00 down paymen;t will the ba.tance paya.b.t,e .<.n Mve
, I I, '()'-' i
jlv..t1r1', (5) equal annual '<'1'l.6.taU.ment<l 06 plUnupal. .toge..thVt wUh .<.n;tVtU.t
(Jil" <?
HN , (}.D~~.e(2,~ the Jta:te 06 e.<.gh:t peJLcen;t (8%) pVt annum. FUngqu.u,.t .6haJ..t gIW.,Lt
IIJC-J-- Of)J .:the option nolt a peM.od 06 one-hal.6 (1/2) yeM 60Uow.<.ng the glW.n;t.<.ng
f)" j.J.-tOS' 01 .:thepe.:tU:.<-on 101t annexa.:Uon.
r6rr' U U
Cay 06 A.6pen an option to pWtd:a..6e the PrJ.de 06 A.6pen Lode .'.{.<.rU.ng
CtcUm ontlte 60Uow.<.ng tvun6:
$ 60, 000. 00 total. pWtc.ha..6 e plUce w.W:
B.
RobeJLt G. SteveM .6haU. ,beent..Ue.ed ;to COI1.6.tJtuct
aplVLtmen;t Oft condonU.rU.um Ll.l'U.:t6 accOftcUng :to one 06 .:the 60Uow.i.ng .two
plaYl.6:
(1) FoJLtY~6even (47) un.U.mUed ulU.:t6 on .the S.<.btey
Lode M<.n1.ng Ctcun and the .60u.h.t one-hal.6 (1/2) 06 Bloch. 54, Cay 06
A.6pen. The he.<.gh-t 06 .the buUcUng.6 .6haU. not exceed 38 6ee;t al.ong the
avVtage glW.de upon wlUch .the buUcUng .w .6.<.:tua.ted and each w,...u 6haU.
, ,con.t.:U.n no mOfte, .than 1/500 .6qtuV1.e 6ee;t 06 Uv.<.ng Mea.
(2) 1 n .the even;/; .:the Cay and S.tevel1.6 .6hal.t agltee
:tha.t aU. 06 .the ulU.:t6 .6haU. be placed in ui:;: .to 60Wt bu1.tcUng.6 in a
concen:tJta.ted '''.tea. dnd S.tevel1.6 .6haU. decUca.te to .:the CaLf :the en;l:,Ur,e
Utt.e.e Cloud Lode 1/"('rU.ng ClcUm .to be duigna.ted and c.oM:tJtu.c);ed a..6 a
PMR, h.nown a..6 FUngqu.u,.t & S.teveM PMh. by .the Cay. The lie.<.gh:t 06 .the
buUcUng .6haU, no.t exceed 38 6e,e;t al.ong .the avVtage glW.de u.pon which .the
buUding .u:, 6.aua.ted.
C. The Cay .6haU. agltee to aU.ow S.teveM .to u;Ut<-ze
.the buUding.6 Jte6eNted .to above a..6 long .tvun lten;ta1. hOMing Ll.l'U.:t6 .to be
conveJLted a.t .the option 06 S.tevel1.6 to condomirU.um u.rU.-u, 60ft .6al.e.
Stevel1.6 .6haU. agltee tha.t no commVtual. .6pace .6haU. be incf..uded .<.n .the
pM j ec;U, .
V.S.tevel1.6 and R.<.ngqu.u,.t 6haU. glW.n;/; ea..6ement6, :to
the Cay 60ft the 60Uow.<.ng:
(1) TltaM., ea..6eme,l.t6 wlUc.h Me now .<.n place on .the
pM pew(!/.);
,.;;.' _N".~".'. ._,...,.,-....,"...~'"'~...=.;..~.~'-".......-..',-'~,..~'."
.
~."""
,'-
~
(2) AdcU:uona.t.t.JUU1. eMemenv., a.t anl} ,tW,- /tCquv,ted
by ,the Cdl} r>llov.<.ded :thel} do Hot r';'e wd,un and ..i.ntVle6Vle will :the
devetaped Mea/;;
(3) MaM .t,~alU>d eM emen.u: The mM.6 .tllalU>d
eMenlen.-tb .bhaU. n6.t cxc.eed 25 6ee:t.<.n w.<.d:th, exc.ep.t.tha.t.the w.<.d.th mal}
be vcvUed ..i.6 .0t daeiJ na.t .<.ntVl~Vle w.0th .the devetaped MeM 06 .the
pltOpVt.ty and '<'6 d .u nec.eiJ/;My 60lt .the pltOpVl c.OIU>:tIw.cUon 06 a mM.6
.tJum~d /;l}/;tem. The eMement .bhaU. ~oUow .the .toe .06 .thc lUll on .the
S.<.btey Lode /;0 M not .to .<.ntVl6Vle w.Uh .the OWnVl'.6 devetopment p.ta.lU>.
(4) uUU:tl} eMemen.-tb. AU uti.Ut<.eiJ .6haU. be
p.ta.c.ed undVlgltOund.
E. The Cdl} .bhaU. pltOv.<.de aU. uti.Ut<.eiJ nec.e.4.6aJuj
60lt .the devetopment 06.the pltOjecM. AU dedi.c.atiolU> and glUl.n.-tb 06
eMement .6haU. be deemed to .6a.;ti.!; 6l} any and aU. ltequbtemen.-tb 06 .6ub-
di.v..i..b.un /tCguta.tiOIU>, Cdl} ZoiUng Oltdi.nanc.e.4 and bu.Udi.ng Oltdi.nanc.e.4
and .any o.thVl ltequbtemen.-tb 06 .the Cdl} lteta..t.i..ng .to dedi.c.a.tion 06 a
pVlc.enta.ge 06 .the pltOpVt.ty .to .the CUy Olt a CMh c.ontJUbu.tion .<.n lieu
.thVleo 6 .
f. 1.t may be de.4.ur.abte 60lt S.tevelU> .to pWu,ue a
PM pVt.ty :tJta.de will .the BWleau 06 Land, Management w.Uh lte.4 pca :to a
pomon 06 .the S.<.btey Lode M.<.iUng C.&Wn and o.thVl pltOpVt.ty owned by
.the BWleau 06 L,,-/td Management adjo.<.iUng Btoc.k. 54 and .the S'[btey Lode.
The C-Uy .6ha.U agltee .to endo/U,e .the pltOpVt.ty :tJta.de and .to appltOve d .i.n
teJVn.6 06 .6ubdi.v..i..b.i.on Mqubtemen.-tb and any o.thVl govVlnmental. agenc.y
ltequ..iJLement .60 tong M .the pltopVt.ty:tJta.de doe.4 not CJlea.t a .6epCllltLte
'bu.Udi.ng .6de Olt tot and StevelU> agltee.4 to .i.nctude.the .tJtaded pltOpVt.tl}
.6o.tety 60lt .the pWlpO.6e 06 c.onveiUenc.e to .the pltojea c.oYLta..i.ned hVlun.
G. StevelU> .6hill have 6.i.ve (5) yeaJl.6 601U71 .the date
06 annexa.tion appltOva.t .to c.ommenc.e applic.a.tion 60lt bu.Udi.ng peJunU.6 60lt
.the c.olU>:tIw.cUon 06 .the pltOjec.:a pltov.i.ded 60lt heJlun.
(I) AU watVl :ta.p.b .6haU. be bMed on :the 6ee
.6chedute.i.n e66ea on Vec.embVl 37, 7973.
H. StevelU> .6haU. no.t be /tequbted .to glUl.nt .the
eM emen.-tb Oft make the dedi.c.a.tiolU> pltOv.i.ded 60lt .i.n .th.U .6ecUon ur..tU.
and an1.e.4.6 h.U pltOjea ..i..b appltOved bl} .the VcvUOll!; cay age.nue.4 and
,~
^-,-.",," ,,',.... .
,I""',
t"'"i',
c.omnu.-I-I.i.on1> tuUh Mopea .to alt ltequ,{.1lemen.t-l and .the blMi...tcUYLg peJ'J1'..i;to
aM -w-Iued, M by c.oYWta.a Me pitov.i.de,d 601t w.i.:th c.vr;ta.i.Y!:trj a.nd wUh no
-Iub-lequen.t e6&ec..t by .i.n.te/tve.ru.ng leg-wla..ti..on.
1. U -w :the .i.nteY!:t 06 .theoe c.ond.i..UOn1> :to pltov.i.de
a plan wlU.c.h w-Ue. bene6d S:teven1> and R.i.ngqu.l.6.t by eo:tabwhmeY!:t ax.
the ,.tUne 06 annex.a..ti..on to the Cdl} the den1>drj, Ube,and o.the.ll Ituax.ed
ma..tteJ'..-I 6M 6u.tUlte C.On1>,tJt((c;Uon OI'L .the..i.1l pltOpeJt.t.i.eo, and wh.i.c.h w-Ue.
benc6d .the Cdy 06 A6pen by eo.ta.bwhmeY!:t 06 .the elUvneY!.:t6 -leX 60m,
.
a pMR 06 deohted, and m.l.rUinal delUdy 6M nea4ty .the en:0te blUe 06
Shadow Moun.ta4n. '
.
1""'\,
~
.'
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION
We, :the u.ndvu,.ig ned, bung .ta.ndowneiu. wUlUn :the ex:teJUOJt
bou.ndcvUU 06 :the :tetrJvU:oJty heJtuna6;teJt dUCJUbed, do heJteby Jtupec.:t-
6utty p~on :the CLty Cou.nclt 06 :the CLty 06 AApen, CotoJtado, :to
annex Mud :tetrJvU:oJty :to :the c.U:y .in accOJtdance wLth :the pJ1.Ov.u,.iOY/A 06
Chap:teJt 139, Mtic.te 21, CotoJtado Rev.u,ed S:ta:tu.:tu, a6 amended, and
aU.ege a6 60U0W6:
1. It.u, dubtabte and necucMy :that cu.ch :tetrJvU:oJty be annexed
:to :the CLty 06 AApen.
2. The Jtequ.lJtemen:tc 06 cectioY/A 139-21-3 and 139-21-4, C.R.S.,
1963, a6 amended, ew:t 0Jt Me met.
3. The c),gnvu, 06 :tfW, p~on compwe :the tandownvu, 06 mOJte
:than 50% 06 :the :tetrJvU:olUj .incl.u.ded .in :the Mea pJ1.OpMed :to be annexed,
exc.tu.c.ive 06 c:tltew and aU.eyc.
Landownvu, and Lega.t DUCJUp:ti..on 5 /
1. Roben;t G. S:teveY/A: Uttee C.tou.d -TVL~ 1~lnl( ~ ~
U~MS 9025 ~'I- r I t{7 /hS '&V ~Lo el b (/
S-<.btey I .
USMS 9606 0
II Loey lUngquM.:t PlUde 06 AApen /iJ"J."/f~ /~ .t1.btq~
USMS 7364 (d7 7 (0)< 2.t13 NO/l, ~!lfR7j r;;., 10 / _~
AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR
I heJteby ceJ!.ti6Y :that each c.igna:twr.e heJtun .u, :that 06 :the pvu,on
whoce lUU1Ie Lt pWtpoltb.. :to be.
STATE OF COLORADO)
)M
Cou.nty 06 P),tk),n )
Su.bcCJUbed and cwOJtn :to be60Jte me :t1Uc 19:th day 06 Ju.R.y, 1974,
by Roben;t G. S:teveY/A, cUJtcu.R.a;tOJt. WJUriMc my hand and 06MUa.e. ceaL
./
~.~~~
o:taJty , Pu. c v
My Go~~nh:;[:Jn cXjJ;res la;1liary 9. 1978
~
,,-,,
4. The c.oncLU:.LoY!6 On annexa.t-[on .6hall. be a6 noUO<<!6:
A. The Cay On Mpen may pW!.c.ha6e .the PlUde On
Mpen Lode M<.iUng C.e.a.un nftOm 1U.ngqu.i.6t. 1U.ngqui.6t may gltant :to .the
Cay On Mpen an opUon to pW!.c.ha6e .the PlUde On Mpen Lode M<.iUng
CltWn on the noUow-ing teJUnl>: $60,000.00 to:ta.e. pW!.c.ha6e plUc.e w.U~ '
teJUnl> to be $10,000.00 down payment w-ith .the balanc.e payable -in n-ive
(5) equal annual -iY!6.taUmeY1.t.6 0 n plUnupa1. :tog ethvr. w-ith -intvr.ut at
.thel1.a.:te on ught pvr.c.ent (8%) pvr. annwn. 1U.ngqui.6t may gltant.the
opUon nM a pvUod on one-ha1.n (1 /Z) yeM noUow.{.ng the gJta/t.t,(.ng On
the pe.t-<.tion nO~ annexa.t-[on.
B. RobeM; G. SteveY!6 .6hall. be en.ti:tled to C.OY!6.tJmct
apaM:ment M c.ondom-iiUwn unao ac.c.Md.i.ng to one On the noUow.{.ng two
plaru.:
(1) Twe.ntY-noW!. 1 Z4) urtUmaed unao on .the S-ibley
Lode M<.iUng CltWn and the .6Outh one-ha1.n (1 /Z) on Bloc.k. 54, Cay On
Mpen, nOW!. on wfUc.h will be employee hoaiimg. The hught on .the
blLUd.i.ng.6 .6hall. not exc.eed Z8 neet along the aviVtage gltade upon wfUc.h
.the blLUd.i.ng ,u .6i;tu.ated and eac.h (.(I1);t .6haU. c.ol'ltlUn no mo~e than 1500
.6quaJte neet On Uv..Lng Mea.
(Z) In.the event .the C..uy and SteveY!6 .6hall. ag~ee
that all. On the unao .6hall. be plac.ed ..Ln one to nOW!. blLUd.i.ng.6 ..Ln a
c.onc.entnated Mea and SteveY!6 .6hall. de.d..Lc.ated to the Cay the e~e
Utile Cloud Lode M<.iUng c.e.a.un and that paJr;!; On .the S..Lb.tey not w.,ed
nM development to be du..Lgnated and .{mp~oved a6 a pMk..
C. SteveY!6 and 1U.nflqui.6t .6hall. g~ant ea6emeY1.t.6 to
.the Cay nM the noUow..Lng:
( 1) T.ILaU. ea6 emeY1.t.6 wfUc.h Me now ..Ln puc.e on .the
pM peJLtJ..u;
(Z) Adcf,i;t.,i.onal Vr.aM. ea6emeY1.t.6 at any ;(;{me ~equuted
by the Cay pMv..Lded .they do not Ue w);tfUn and ..Lntvr.nvr.e w.Uh the
developed Mea6;
( 3) Ma6.6 bta.Y!6a e.a6 emeY1.t.6 : The ma6.6 bta.Y!6a
ea6 emeY1.t.6 .6 hall. not exc.eed 50 I ..Ln w..LcU:h, exc.ept that .the w..Ldth may
be valUed ..Ln a dou not ..Lntvr.nvr.e w.Uh the developed Me.a6 On .the
,-,
,~
,<
.'
pltOpeJLty and .i.6 U "u, nec.v..<lMy 60lt the pltOpen c.oru,tltuc;Uon 06 a
maM br.aru,U <lY<l:tem. The ea.6emen:t <lhaU 60il.ow :the :toe 06 :the IUft on
the S.i.b.tey Lode J.>o a.6 no:t :to .i.n:ten6e.Jte w.Uh :the ownen' <I devdopmen:t
p.taru, ;
(4) U:tiLUy ea.6emen:tJ.>. Ail. u;t:,U,i;Uv.. <lhail. be
p.tac.ed undengltOund.
V. The CUy <lhail. pltOv.i.de aU u;t:,U,i;Uv.. nec.v..<lMIJ
60ft the devdopmen:t 06 the pltOjec.:tJ.>. AU. decUc.atioru, and glLal1:tJ.> 06
ea.6emen:t <lhaU be deemed :to <la.U66Y any and aU Jtequhtemen:tJ.> 06 <lub-
cUv"u,.i.on ftegu1.atioru" CUy ZOn.<.ng OftcUnanc.v.. and bu..UcUng OltcUnanc.v..
and any o:the.Jt ftequhtemen:tJ.> 06 :the CUy ftdating :to decUc.a:t.<.on 06 a
penc.en:tage 06 the pltOpeJLty :to :the CUy Olt a c.a.6h c.oiWtibu.:tWn .i.n Ueu
thene06.
E. S:teveru, <lhail. have ;(;limeelJeaM~Mm.ithedtUe
06 annexation appltovaR. :to c.ommenc.e appUc.a:t.<.on PlIt bu..UcUng pVt/n.Uo 60lt
the c.oru,tltuc;Uon 06 :the pltOjec.:tJ.> pltOv.Lded 60lt henun.
F. S:teveru, <lhail. no:t be Itequhted :to gltan:t :the ea.6e-
men:tJ.> Olt make the decUc.a:t.<.oru, pltov.Lded 601t .i.n :tIUJ.> gc;Uon W7.:t.u. and
unlv..<I h.L6 pltOjec.:t "u, appltOved by :the VaJUOM cU:y agenc..Lv.. and
c.omm"u,<I.Loru, wUh Itv..pec.:t :to aU ltequhtemen:tJ.> and :the bu..UcUng pVt/n.Uo
Me "u,<lued, Olt by c.on:tJta.c.:t Me pltov.Lded 60lt wUh c.eJVta..Ln:ty and wUh no
<lub<lequen:t e66ec.:t by .Ln:tenven.<.ng .teg"u,.tation.
G. It"u, the .i.n:ten:t 06 :thv..e c.onc;U;t.[oru, :to pltov.i.de
a p.tan wlUc.h wU1. bene6U S:teveru, and 1UngqlUJ.>:t by v..:tabwhmen:t at
the :time 06 annexaUon :to :the CUy :the deru,Uy, Me and othe.Jt Ite..tated
ma:t:teM 60lt 6utwr.e c.oru,tltuc;Uon on :theVc. pltOpeJL;Uv.., and wlUc.h w..u..e.
bene6U :the CUy 06 N.pen by v..:tabwhmen:t 06 :the ea.6emen:tJ.> <let 60m,
a pMk .L6 dv...ur.ed, and m.uumaR. deru,Uy 601t ne.Mty :the en.tUte ba.6 e 06
Shadow Moun:ta.i.n.
_.~"""-:"!,,
~
~~C?~
~ ,
4.
The conditions of annexation shall be as follows:
.l':
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 Rirrgquist, Ringquist,shall grant to the City of Aspen an
option to purchase the Pride of Aspen Lode !-lining Claim on the
following terms: $60,000.00 total purchase price with terms to be
$10,000.00 down payment with the balance payable in five (5) equal
annual installments of principal together with interest at the rate
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 (l/2)
of Block 54, City of Aspen. The ,height of the buildings
shall not exceed 28 feet along the average grade upon which the
bui,lding 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 ct,concentrated area and Stevens shall
~. ... ... ..... "'...::'.'.>. ,
~"'~~~"';'~~I">lI"'I"!""'l<'~,~"""~~""'
..... .. '.
.,'. .,."''':',': ..,'.;".
<\~.~~,4~~~~'!'i'>'.~
~
i
I
",. J
...:.....':sM.~;......;,;,..,lr_~"""'\~,..,;,;...",:,.....""."'"""""/O...>^--""'."'-",""..."c".':"'.......,.~''>',.''"..y_...~,.''''''''",'''
~Jl
.
,
,-.,
r--..
dedicate to the City the entire Little Cloud Lode Nining 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 conver~ed 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:
(l) 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: ~le 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 ~f the property and if i" is necessary for the proper
construction of a mass transit system. The easement shall follow
the toe of the hill 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
F. It may be desirable for Stevens to pursue a property
I
I
I
I
j,
I
ments of subdivision regulations, City Zoning Ordinances and
building ordinances and any other requirement of the City relat-
ing to dedication of a percen1age of the property to the City
or a cash contribution in lieu thereof.
trade with the Bureau of Land Management with respect to a
portion of the Sibley Lode Mining Claim and other property owned
- .'
.'""'"
,-,
f
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 fer 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.
'.
I
.'
f"I
.t"""\
//
.;~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Laave.s
.::.:~~;:.._:~:..Z:Y:'::Lg~~;;j~-=-=,-=-~.._........._-===--==.:=..~.,;::~-=-=--=-"';'';~==--'-:.-::::.--''~--''-''~--~~-'::='~---- -~'"=';=';::;=-~-=:~'~':,:;:,.~,;:C-;.,-~
~e<J'lla;:: l1eeti ng
1',spen.Planning & Zon:"!1g.
March-- 'S, :.1974
able that is required under Ordinance #19.
Schiffer questioned what had been decided about the
proposed market.
Schottlandstat2d that he would research what is in-
volved as far as hOvl much space the law allows.
Johnson quoted from the zoning ordinance (Commercial
Core): "All permitted and conditional cOI1'Juercial and
retail business uses shall be restricted to a maxi-
mum gross floor area of 12,000 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 might except that is public tran-
~portation facilities~ City or County Buildings, ware~
h.ouses, anda11 uses of the AR-Iaccommodations- rec-
reation district permitted und.er 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
.l.'8vels.
Schiffer stated that he would like to recommend a
variance to provide for more square footage for the
market. Feels 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.
y
S.chiffer stated that since the Planning Office had
recoffil1.ended no more employee housing in this phase,
would go along with that.
Schottlandstated that what is happening, is that they
'will provide the housing, just not at this point.
v
Vagneur made a motion to ap'prove the preliminary and'
~inalunder Ordinance #19 presentation for the Aspen
!Center with. the reco!1:uuendation that the Conm'.i.ssion
~uld encourage a variance for a reasonable increase
:in the grocery s.tore space should that be. needed to
make it more feasible and that the developer make
best possible efforts to work with Sinclair. Motion
seconded by Johnson.
'Jenkins stated that his vote would be conditioned net
on whether or not Sinclair should be down there, but.
<antil the Commission faces ,the prOblems v7r-,ic~ they
,create when they permit this to happen, cannot vote
on another project like this. Feels that :it generates
too much of a problem for the City.
Main Motion
All in favor with the exception of Jenkins who voted
nay and Lq.ndry who abstained. Motion carried.
'~~VBNS ANNEXATION ~
Bob Stevens was present and submitted map of th,~ pro--
posed annexation.
Stevens stated that they were .trying to annex the prid,
of Aspen, the LitLle Cloud Lode Mining Claim, Siblinq
Lode ~lininCJ Claim, etc...
-16-
(\
t"""\
. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
_~~.7:~~~~~'<;~~~.:~~.:.~' a. ~. ~~,
-....---------,------.-.--.-
-----...-.....,,--.---- "----_.
Regular Neeting
Aspen planning & Zoning
Haren 5, 1974
Stevens state;d that basically, are looking 2.t. the
City purchasing a 10 acre claim from. Loewe Rir>.gquist
for $60,000, which wouldlle $IO,OOO down, the ba-
lance over 5 years with equal annual installroents
with 8% interest. Stevens giving the 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. S.tated that Brumder has an access problem
in that he would have to go through pri.vate condem-
aation 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 90Q.
,.
t
1;
~:
~.'
,
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 J::Ie should' mine it. .,
1:
i
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
aroundl6 acres. Pointed oU.tthat 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 same
right-of-way, giving Stevens a parcel of land in the
south for development.
Stevens located the 8040 line for the Commission on
the map. Stat:ed that all the monument.s are in placc.
-17-
.~","~,.~=--_.._....-
f"I
.--..
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
.,,".,, <:.. ',. ",,'..~,.~_~ O. ~. ~ L. (;~.
~"- _..~"--_."
"^----
--.'.----.--------.-
---.-----.--.--.-.;.,..
\egular l-1eeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
March 5, 1974
and concreted in with brass caps. Stated that below
the 8040, they are allowed under the proposed County
zoning 3 dwelling units per 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
giving the City the waterline easement, the mass
transit easement, would have their settling pond
easement as recommended by the Wright-McLaughlin plan,
would get a large park, and Shadow Mountain would not
be built on helter-skelter.
i;
'i
,
,~
Vagneur questioned.if Brumderwould 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. 1
Stated that Brumder's only use for it to get his money'
out of it is to probably spread that out over a five (
year period on a land gift situation as a tax write-
off. Felt that he could get the land appraised for
a couple hundred thousand dollars.
Stevens stated that he had 'an agreement with Ringquist
for the Pride of Aspen as far as accesses, etc...
Stevens stated that the City would be getting a park
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
worth approximately $IO,OOO, the 10-acre Pride of
Aspen worth $60,000, and all the upper Sibley Claim
which is worth $50,000. Stated that the City would
be getting approximately $300,000 worth of land. for
$60,000, and transfer:t'ing the density allowed from
below the 804.0 on these claims and forgetting the
density,on the upper part of the claims, to the piece
of' property Stevens' proposes to de.velope, which" wouJ..d
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 Vlould grant this annexation
and say that they could put in the units. Stated
. that there would be a great number of ramifications
and he considers himself to be in the hands of City
Council and is passing the buck back to Counci.l and
telli.ng them. to inform him what to do about approving
the alley. Stat~d that the City must say ,~hat they
are going to do with .that alley, and h,= wi 11 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 ren:t'al-incomc 'produci ng
units. Stated that in other projects he has done in
Aspen, thGY are totally occupied by local residents,
and will continuG to do so. Stated that at some fu-
ture dat.e \.,ould like to be able to convert to condo-
miniums. H.ou1<..1 give the tenants first shot at: buy-
ing the units. Felt that he would get 60% of the
-18-
^
.,-"
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
~~~~.:::_ c. F.II"f~~',. e,~. & ... ~'~
---,-------_..-_._------~._.._....-
._------- -.-------------
Regular Meetihg
Aspen Planning' & Zoning
~la.rch 5, 1974
pe'Ople who. a.re living in the units. Stated that the
units would be designed fo.r permanent resiC:ent:s.
Would hope to start constructien a year from this
spring.
Stevens pointed out to the Commission that the City
stands first in line for the BLM tracts of land.
S~hiffer 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 .IS units.
Chairman Gillis stated the Commission would be unable
.to. g.ive aPP1:"oval 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 Cornnission 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 Cemmission vlere 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-
,ing the cost of a.nnexing undeveloped land as opposed
:to developed land. Stated that there is developable
~andwhich ,could possibly be annexed.
,
.,
stevens stated that he agreed with the economic study
and 'would agree to de a site plan 'f.or the Commission. ,
F'elt that it. would be beneficial for the Commission .
to. 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 written off
for $200,000 that was bought for only $25,000.
Stevens stated that he took the lowest appraisal of
threeMAI appraisals on half of the claim, which was
$35,000. Stated that the MAr will back this up and
the IRS .a.pproves that. Stated that .under i:he IRS
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 seme kind of
zoning for it. StaLe<l it must be an outright g1ft in
'Order to be tax deductible.
simmons stated although he did not know too much 011
-19-
I""'-
~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
.,,,; ':;:..l". '.t"'f',><:h e. e. (; L. ~~.
..~._-_.-
.._-~.._--,--.
,:"'gular Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
March 5, 1974
the concept of transferrable development rights, but
his understanding at '.:he IDOInent is that it is illegal.
Stated that the City of BOulder has requested that
the ;:;tate consider passing a law to make it legal,
which 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
PUD. 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 Conunission had made any
decisions about the possible rezoning of that area.
Stated that she would hesitate because of the ISO
people the project would generate and the 150 cars.
Stated that she would not like to encourage Mr. Ste-
vens. Stated that if she were asked to vote at this
point, would vote no. Would like to wait and see what
the City decides in the way of rezoning and the.use
of. the automobile.
~
lilt~.
':~ ';
\~
Chairman Gillis pointed out that this situation and
proposal involved a different trade-off than what
IIIiOst developers pr~sent, . '. ' , . :
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 J
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.
J.ohnson stated he did not have the same concern and
felt that if the City could get .assurance that. a lot
more property would not be developed ,\vould be in
favor of looking into the matter further.
Simmons pointed out that he felt the,. major issue in
terms of a cost st,udy is really hm" much it is going
to cost the City relative to what else will happen.
Stated that we (10 not haw~ to concern ourselves w.i.th
how many jobs j,t is going to generate I for t.he most.
-20-
t"""\
.t"""\
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1 GO Leaves
~ :."" '., C, F_ ~,:'F.G~1;L e. 9. e ,. to.
-------------------
-------.-.--.--..--..-.,-...-,.--
;;:::;::::;:;;.:....~:
Regular Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
March 5, 1974
part, and that type of consideration. Should concern
ourselves with items like 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. Sta..ted that the price he
gave the City at that time looks extremely cheap at
this point.
I
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 matt~r 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 BL~1 tracts.
Stated that cannot do much additional .work on the plan
ning without getting to some conceptual maps. Feel
the next sequence would be to have Simmons start and
give the Co,nmission 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 ~smore ofa continu-
-' ing project.
,'-"
-
, Landry pointed oilt.that.this was. on the agenda as ap
::: annexation at the. request of City Council and should
z_~ 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 some
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.
::~enkins 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 he would be doing
over the next month would be directly applicable to
what the Conunission has asked him to do. Stated that
it would be preferrable to build this within every-
thing c IDe and let it flow out of the tot:al work h<'
would be doing, rather than concentrating on it.
~21-
~:::;. .:.r.::;~".:..':..,~:\
("",
~
,-'~'l)':
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leav"8
Harch :~~_ 197 i
:!'egular Meeting
. -"----.-,.,-.-.-.--
----,.__.-"~
._ -"""7.7':::;:.,;_",'0'_..,'=,===.==:-;:;',;.,
Aspen Planning & Zoning
~RDINANCE #19 REVIEWS
3rd Generation Building -
?~eliminary & Final
~.
Simmons .further stated that in terms of a cost study
per se, feel that when all is said and done, the
Commission will ask which i:heywant, the high density
in a small area with a lot of open space or the sprawl
type of approach.
Geri Vagneur withdrew from discussion and voting due
to conflict of interest.
Neil 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 ~hat the Planning Office con-
siderations were as follows: (1) Engineering De-
partment recorrooendations 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 buyout 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 rollout. 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 pointed out that they do not have access to an
alley. Pitman stated that he did not know what kind
of requirements they would run into if they were to
run the ramp to the street. ' Stat~d 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 undesirable from
the point of view of the Engineering Departmen"t: 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'.~,
~~ ~op;~~~~m.Further felt that Snow build-up could I I.:...
Pitman pointed out that snow build-up would not be a
problem because the walkS are heated.
f
I
I
Johnson questioned how they would get the container
across the snO\v build-up and into the street.
Pitman st.ated that: they ~lOuld just have to keep that
cleaned up.
-n-
{36~~/l
/:?rt/t!.R~i;01V'
t"""\
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
Robert G. Stevens
Box 1147
Aspen, Colorado
May 10, 1973
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.
Z. The city can have until September 1973 to do a complete $tudy 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,
/:;lfg~
Uobert ~ ~
Rs/gw
,
'!1\ r..__,~
. 4
~
.,-.,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ramona Mat!:,rka1 nlJ . {
Yank Mojo I . . 1
Stevensroperty 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 t~e 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 8040 NO .CONSIDERATION FOR SLOPE
Mining
Claim
Sibley
Littl e Cloud
Pride of Aspen
Pride of Aspen above 8040
'. Area.
Dens ity*
55,300
69,GOO
70,000
3.6 n.u.
4.6 D.U.
4.6 D.U.
'.'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-
siderationsforslope 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.
.,
1""'-.
,
.~
MEMORANDUM
. Ramona Markalunas
November 25, 1974
Page Two
The P.U.O. 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 devel'1pmer.t will be
.regulated by the slope of the land as measured between property
lines in the direction of maximum slope. Indetermining the
allowable density, the Planning Commission shall considerc the
following standards:
L 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 th~ approval
of the Planning Commission.
.
Utilizing the Standards outlined above, the following dwelling unit.
. densi ty is calculated.
Average Area "New"
Claim Slope Area Reducti on Area O;U.
Sibley 310 55,300 21,000 34,300 2.2
little Cloud 410 69,000 31,000 38,000 2.5
Pride of 510
Aspen 70,000 41,000 29,000 1.9
Pride of
Aspen above 8040 1.0
TOTAL UNITS 7.9
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
Cityof.Aspen. If the zoning on this block is R-6, the resultant
.,..--..-.,.", ^-"""""",~-,,"""",--,-""'''''''''''' -""""'.,,,..*'....'..~.,.~,,....~"""".~'~"'~,~.,- c""c'~":i",..,.."".,, ."'~~:.:.:',.'.>,'."r:'.""..'r'~_~'!"" ,..",,,..~..."""'.,,'t;I,;o.'.' .,,....::.'<-::""'~'!t"~,,.~.~~'.'.;':,J
.
e
,-,
,-,
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.
..,'
,
.
." -".~~_. .~ .-..---. ".,....~....,_.
._.""_.~-_.,
",-.....,.,""'~,-..,,"'_.,-:."..... ,~' "" -""""""'" .-
I '''0
--'_1-____
-,...,.........
~ .\ " ~
i ~ (~_/)..~\ .,.~.<:~/ ,,-
I /' /<" . """ / ' ,
i.. ___,1\ }// ',';' /: /'''" '. ' "', " '/,
/~\. J~'\fl!/\<<..<\\j(.'j. /' ,',
/ C'-", /,(", ". ,...\'\/," .,.... ~ ;:::::~,;:::::)("
, . ..'l!, \ \- :t-::Y:::,:.o~ .-:::-:e'l '. >~, ."'..
,/ ---- /"..". ,~, ,.
~ I ,,.A.//' ~ /
. ,/. ....? v--)" ~._~, /., -----~,~ Y
, x\r,~~yt\---<--y "-.".\ \ \'" ';'3.732?fA \: ';,:0, \:,:,,,,. '"
/ \ " -; '_'. _' '\ \ '\ ~), .~... ;:-;;/Y\\:::-;;c? t::::;,~Y;~:, ~.~, '.
/' \~ --' \;. .-:A /' -~ . ..-'. :::---:.,..../ ,
,. , \ '\ ,"). I '?'/" .,' ~ <;::, :;,';.: :', \'::~ '
/ \ \,/ r~"- ,-'-'"" / ~"';:>I
,____ ,/' _ v' ('/,/ '\ /"c---"
.--- \ ,;' " ,': \/ /~::<\ ~ -, ,/'1
, \;;.e;. '. ',; " >.5('\ \ ',;;.) /v ,....
I I .Ie':\ >/':'; , . \>\ ';,../ .., //,-:'
, '';L /" ,/'Y/ ,,'/ ,/ ,/
v",.;::" ' \,...0 v-" ,/-</' \.-,~-:./
.' ' ,'L' \/'/ ........' ,,,.:/> <:' ,.;:.
)C ( ,V:' \ ~ ,'- ;, v-"rt ..0 I-
/ ,,>"'~ \ f---- / ~,~, /'.~:.I \ ';:;:.::::::\ \/,:',::::-:\ r c---
~~' IC:@~\~~;\\c,*,A\3&. ~~.
. . \ 21'''',. v.0 ~v ;e;"" ';':IY'
/ ,/ ",' A "," \; \\' "'" ee'C'" c>,V cC~;
./ ' ./" l;i?C/"""'" '~\0" ~.;::;~ \3'\::::::-' '.
c ./ " . · c", 0\ \;.:'l a sr~' c:::' .
~".'\" /} ~"\~. /'\ ~~~/ \ ~ \~'~/ 0\:/ .. /:::::\
r' .' .' ?c< · 0 ~-' ,,?\/'
~\), ~@ W0 ~~'\~:
~ _ ~ :.---:' 'C/' \- -
"..,. ." /" ~ ~\/'
?-:'-\ \::'-:1\ ~;...o - 0 ...., 'v-' c/'
/-11- ' ,/" -;'\ .~ .
'~ &\I" ",,\':A"'e
ii: ,'c?'?\ . - . ~~;:A ,Ie'
~: \-~~,. ,,,? ji0 I;
) ".x .' .~: c;:~ ~'\:? ·
'\ . ~ _ ;:.-::\ . IV
, .... 't::--' ~,~
".\" " .~ S:::f~
, . ----= ,/,
I ~,,,,,VI \ ' . '0'>
I _ \\~ /0-
, ,,- _/\\
X ;.-: -,' ," ,~'\
, ....0 ,"" " '
, ;""'0." ,'-1 ~~ \c
,~'( \:8 ~' ~
'''\8' " ' ~".., .~";: ~ ~'\8 ""0
.' g , ;; %/, ,_:~ ';,~' _:~ e~\V::
..., , . 0\" \;/ ~. .
~,' l' ' , ,. .' . '0 ."..... . ~ '.
." y \\' 1,1, . 5 ,'" ~ , C/ -
{~~\;'1~~ "::,'., ~^". t @~-\
. ~ . ,;~~~,.; .' .. ~ \? a. '\By;
\f'i~~ ~/ · 'I"~' '8" 1&">
~,~,. '\ ."',...., _ .' . . !i.. ~
." ~ ,/\",. . ,,' c . . ~ --. Co
,,'.. .' ,., __,'. ' . t '\ "," " ...c' .<;:>, y,' '"
_.... ' <' , 'll" ~ ;:0 ~ ,....~ .... / '?' : ..
'\__.'""'.. \4231 . _' ..r;..,;~ii,\ _\'" ~-::. V;/::.---:: ~:/ ::---:-~ ' ~
~-""'i- _< ,,-__Aji.''\, ,'- / t:-/~' :;;,\;<.-\ ~::< ~>..< ,-:::---,'C/ \ 1\
'!: ... \"._. ' _,./ ,'\ "-~'\' ),' .' ,,' ',' \;". . ,.' v C'
".",: ~:<:, ~/'._' '"""'./ \ _i,Q''''''.'1 ')' ,'~. -,\; ':,~,:;,~ '(,..:;).' r-''-:' v:::
",0: ,~ ~ .. \: '" ""\.";' ';~IJ.'- . ~c.:, \ ; '\1 :, 'c:.:::.^,..u- .~'\ ,,~ ~^ ,- Y\,::
. "", .0 \.~.. .. / \,. -' /<, c
.\;:>\ ,r-.\.~ ..\ ~-. ;,~. >, -:~/.f'J.--.:), 'Ii
.,>-\ L. ",/, ' - ;::l., D
\.-/"i(_..'\ r~-..
, .\ ~~-~ ,J" (~~
{ -
I
I
I
1\
-'
'"
(
,>
So
0'0.\
-----------,/"I
- .-------
~ ~.....\...
'II~"~
.9.~
-------..~_.
\
\
~
..
-"'
...
,-,. ~.
Box. 1147
Aopen, Colo~ado 81611
Augft6.t 22, 1974
I.l~. John S.tp..n6Md
rtan~ng Vepa4Unent
CUy 06 Aopen
bOX V
Aopen, Colokado 81611
VeM John,
TIUo le;t:tVr. I hope. will 6ut6ill .the ne.Ce..6,~My obUgation6
6M my ruv on Btock 54 CUy 06 Aope.n. At .the p~l?Ae.nt fue.
aU. .the. land M owne.d by RobeM: G. S.teve.n6. OM oche.dute. 06
be.g-Ln~ng would be. M Mon M pOM-Lble., and completion:
woutd be. no longVr. .than 60M yea/'J.,.
Ao 6M M OM -Lnte.nt concVr.~ng .the pltOVM-Lon 06 wa.tVr.,
oewVr. and o:tlz.ee.t .unpltOve.me.nto, .they Me. aU. -Ln and aU. we.
have. .to do M tap on and uoe. the. avmable oue.e.:to. At the.
p~e..6e.I'l); fue., gM, oe.LlJeJt, wa.tVr., ele.c..tJUc and tele.phone. Me
aU. 4tubbed -Ln to the. pltOpeM:1j; they Me ~eady :to go.
I hope. tlUo le;t:tVr. will ou6Mce. I6 noUe.t me. know a.t
YOM e.cvrUe..6t conve.~ence..
RGS:M
.>
v'
1""'\
t"""\
.
~"
.<"~,~,
. ~.)
;,<;1
. ,i'__~
"
CITY OF ASPEN
aspen.colorado.8i6~i) box v
., .'
,>""'.-
"'-"'.;.:'"
,...1
..,."
,,;fu
~"<;;: "'1"__
March 13, 1974
Mr. Charles W. Cole,Jr.
The Brown Ice Palace
Post Office Box 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 wan.t 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 th~ 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,
(J~ fJ!/J.
Dave Ellis
City Ehgineer
cc: Bob Stevens
Donna Baer..> /
DE/dc
/"
,
I....,
~AE BROWN ICE PALACE
,-,
OOl{ .110
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
February 22, 1974
Mr. Dave Ellis
City Engineer
Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Ellis:
The new O~n1ers of the Brown Ice Palace are g~v~ng
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 i.nformed 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 plarJling 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
~i ,ely, .'
/y/ .. r!
tr/4CJ."/
Charles W. Cole,Jr.. .
Manager
cc : Mr. Robert Stevens
I
I
I
i
~
'""'"
'""'"
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 ROWand
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 hoasing should be main-
tanned and protected.
c) The dedication of Little Clous Mining Claim
should satisfy any open space requirements, and the relation-
ship om 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 aousing
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 ~n in the next 5 years.
I""
1"""'\
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:
r
The Sibley Lode Mining Claim Mineral Survey #9606 Pitkin
County Colorado. And the South J.;; 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
"
-