HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.ShaperySri � �h kv," —�
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-2020
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113 - 63721
47331
52100
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
63722
47332
- 52100
GMP/PRELIMINARY
63723
47333
52100
GMP/FINAL
63724
47341
52100
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
63725
47342
52100
SUB/PRELIMINARY
63726
47343
52100
SUB/FINAL
63727
47350
52100
EXCEPT/EXEMPTION
63728
47350
52100
REZONING
63729
47360
52100
SPECIAL REVIEW
SUB -TOTAL
County
00113 - 63711
47331
- 52200
GMP/GENERAL
63712
47332
52200
GMP/DETAILED
63713
47333
52200
GMP/FINAL
63714
47341
- 52200
SUB/GENERAL
63715
47342
52200
SUB/DETAILED
63716
47343
52200
SUB/FINAL
63717
47350
52200
SPECIAL REVIEW
63718
47350
52200
REZONING
63719
47360
52200
SPECIAL APPROVAL
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00113 - 63061
09000
52200
63063
09000
52200
63062
09000
00000
63066
09000
00000
63069
09000
SUB -TOTAL
COUNTY CODE
ALMANAC
GMP
COPY FEES
OTHER
SUB -TOTAL
TOTAL
Name: 4Z1 / Phone: �`f IV,,11711
Address: Project:
Check No.
Additional Billing:
Date:
No. of Hours:
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ORDINANCE NO. 416
(Series of 1978)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING LOT 2, TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL PROJECT SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO AN
APPROVED SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA MASTER PLAN FOR
THE SITE, THE ELEMENTS OF WHICH MASTER PLAN WILL
CONSTITUTE THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE
AREA ALL AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER 24
OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a request to rezone
Lot 2, Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project Subdivision
within the City of Aspen according to the specially planned
area (SPA) procedures of Article VII of Chapter 24 of the
Aspen Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the proposed Master Plan
presented and. wishes to approve the same all as provided in
said Article VII;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That it does rezone Lot 2, Trueman Neighborhood Commercial
Project Subdivision, according to the SPA Master Plan submitted,
a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by this
reference. The area rezoned is more specifically described
as:
Lot 2, Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project
Subdivision, Pitkin County, Colorado
All development in the above -described area shall be in con-
formance with the elements of the approved Master Plan, and
the definitional, regulatory and other general provisions of
Chapter 24 of the Aspen Municipal Code shall, when not in
conflict with the approved plan, continue with equal force
and effect within such area. Subsequent to the effective
date of this ordinance, a copy of this approved Master Plan
shall be recorded in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD O F PROCEEDINGS
and Recorder and remain of public record; and constitute the
development regulations applicable to the Specially Planned
Area unless and until amended by authority of the City of
Aspen.
Section 2
If any provision of this ordinance or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications
of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application, and to this end the provisions of
this ordinance are declared to be severable.
Section 3
That a ublic hearing on this ordinance be held on
1971cm, at 5:00 P.M. in the
City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 South Galena Street,
Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing public
notice of the same shall be published once in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as provided by
law by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at its
regular meeting held at the City of Aspen on the day
of 1978.
Stacy IIIMayorrandley
ATTEST:
F:athryn V Koah
City Clerk q
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved on the O/ d ay of
197?.
ATTEST: Stacy S andley III
Mayor
Kathryn S Koch
City Clerk
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD O F PROCEEDINGS
STATE OF COLORADO )
Ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
CERTIFICATE
I, Kathryn S. Koch, City'Cle•xk�`of Aspen, Colorado,
do hereby certify that the above and foregbing�ordinance was
introduced, read in full, and passed on
reading at a regular meeting of the City'Council of the
City of Aspen on , .:`and published
in the Aspen Times a weekly newspaper of _general circul-
ation, published in the City of,Aspen,-'Colorado, in its
issue of 197 and was finally adopted
and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council on
197_?, and ordered published as
Ordinance No. Series of 1979 of said City, as
provided by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
the seal of said City of Aspen, Colorado, this-�
day of 197�.
SEAL
Kathyrn S. Coch, City Clerk
Deputy City Clerk
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 29, 1979
I
l
A
ROARING FORK VALLEY FOUNDATION FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS - Funding Request
j Funding Request
firing Fork
Mayor Standley reminded Council they had had a presentation last fall from this group
!j Valley
explaining their purposes. One of the things the have done was to take on the P 9 Y promotional
Foundation
effort of the real estate transfer tax, and they worked hard to get that passed. The
V for the
passage of the real estate transfer tax makes the Morrison stud P g y particularly pertinent
Performing Arts
Wheeler. Ritchie Cohen told Council the Morrison study will be very practical and
toll
will be an asset to the Wheeler development plans. Cohen told Council his group had told
Council they would fund this study themselves; now, however, a good portion of their
efforts will be entirely devote to the Wheeler. On that basis, some City support should be
i
forthcoming. Jeffrey Sachs told Council when this group first proposed to do this work,
they were going to do it without asking for any money. At that time the real estate trans-
fer tax had not been proposed. Sachs told Council a lot of manhours have gone into the
passage of that tax, and the group used up some of their assets. This group is asking for
$3,000 support from the City. Mayor Stan dley said this figure is the unexpended amount
of the Federal grant and does not represent a supplemental appropriation by the City.
I
I
Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the $3,000 expenditure; seconded by Councilman Parry.
All in favor, motion carried. i
ROLLER SKATE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
1
City Manager Mahoney had submitted a memorandum directing the Chief of Police to allow j
roller skating on the two short streets at the end of the mall between Galena and Durant.
Roller Skate
There has been some negative comments from bus drivers. Mahoney said he did not feel there
Enforcement
is a great problem with the roller skaters. Council has not taken any steps to prevent
Program
roller skating in the mall. Councilman Van Ness said he felt that skate boards are more
dangerous, and there is a distinction between that and roller skates. No one on Council
disagreed this was a big problem.
A-95 REVIEW: State Comprehensive Plan
i
Ms. Smith, planning director, told Council the state has never organized their local {
affairs planning assistance department very well, and that would be her comment. The
planning office has an application in for funding under the 701 program for both the
implementation of the open space program and master plan as well as revision of growth
management ordinance. Ms. Smith said she would like permission to make favorable comment
with the suggestion that the state get organized and decide who is responsible for
administering the program.
I
Councilman Behrendt moved to forward with favorable comment and with Ms. Smith's comments;
t j
seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
S/C/I REDRAFT !
Ms. Smith told Council this item is for comment and input and is here informally. This j
S/C/I redraft
had been requested by Council several months ago, and is on this agenda for suggestions to
send back to P & Z. Ms. Smith reminded Council there was substantial amount of public
interest in this over the issue of a commercial bakery in the S/C/I zone district. City
j
Attorney Stock is following up on inspections in that zone district for alleged violations
I
of the district. Ms. Smith pointed out the S/C/I district is not very clear in all
respects that it is limited in retail and industrial. The proposal of the planning office
II
would try to clarify that by inserting that the intent of the zone be limited to retail
and industrial uses that do not require high traffic volume and that permitted uses will
not sell daily of frequently bought items.
Ord. 48, 1979
SPA for USPO
i
1
i
I
i
Ms. Smith told Council the City is seeing a lot of pressure to allow uses in the S/C/i zone
that are high turnover, more heavily retail than was intended for that district. Ms.
Smith said from a planning standpoint, it is important to reserve zone districts to handle
uses that are mundane. There has been a gradual dilution of the commercial zone district;
there is pressure in town to allow more commercial uses, especially since there is a control
on the addition of commercial space. This redraft is an attempt to reserve and preserve
the S/C/I for special and certain type uses. Councilwoman Anderson said she felt this got
to the heart of it in frequency of use and the daily uses and the traffic generation aspect
of the redraft. Ms. Smith told Council she was dissatisfied with the redraft as it is hard
for an administrator to say what is frequently or daily bought items. Ms. Smith said she
would like to find a more precise standard to follow.
Councilman Parry pointed out this S/C/I zone is absolutely retail. Stock told Council that
the existing problems in this zone will not be solved by this redraft. Mayor Standley
asked if a proposed ordinance would constitute a clarification as opposed to a rezoning.
Stock told Council the law is that if something is illegal and there is a modification or
change, it remains illegal and never obtains a non -conforming use. Ms. Smith told Council
Stock has gone through the applications for building permits to establish whether they were
legal at the time. Stock said his interpretation for the coin -op laundry was not legal at
the time of application. Councilwoman Anderson said she felt this redraft is moving in
the right direction. Councilman Wishart asked if there are any other areas available for
S/C/I; Ms. Smith said the only other similar zone is the Airport Business Center, within
the current city limits it is diffi n
ORDINANCE #48, SERIES OF 1978 - SPA for U. S. Post Office ;!
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. Mayor an told Council the building foot-
print is 20,000 square feet on 102,000 square feet which is below FAR. Joe Wells, planning
office, told Council he had not gotten an answer on the number of boxes; it appears there
could be an expansion of number of boxes. Councilman Behrendt noted that home delivery is.:
free, but people that have to move around a lot prefer to have boxes. Councilwoman
Anderson said she felt that combination boxes should be best. Mayor Standley said that is
not within the business of the Council. Joe wells told Council all the changes that were
made since P & Z review are of a technical nature, cleaning .up easements, general engineering
but the building is generally the same as it has been for sometime.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May Ly, 19/9
Wells presented the drawings for the SPA plan, and told Council the engineer had objected'
to a two-way street because of parking. There is a bikepath on the front and across the
back of the property. The engineer has asked that approval be conditioned upon the
granting of as -built utility easements, the survey show four easements and that the !^`
drawing9 submitted meet the requirements of SPA; that the 10 employee parking spaces be
minimum of 9 feet.
Mayor Standley closed the public hearing.
Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #48, Series of 1978; seconded by Councilman Van
Ness. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #48
(Series of 1978)
AN ORDINANCE REZONING LOT 2, TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PROJECT
SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO AN APPROVED SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA MASTER PLAN
FOR THE SITE, THE ELEMENTS OF WHICH MASTER PLAN WILL CONSTITUTE THE DEVEL-
OPMENT REGULATIONS FOR THE AREA ALL AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE VII OF CHAPTER
24 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE was read by the city clerk
Councilman Wishart moved to adopt Ordinance #48, Series of 1978, on second reading and to
incorporate the concerns of the city engineer; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Roll call
vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, aye; Anderson, aye; Parry, aye; Van Ness, aye; Wishart,
aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - ZG Builders
Subdivision
Councilman Parry moved to approve with the four conditions; seconded by Councilman Wishart. cn
ZG Builders
Ms. Vrchota, planning office, told Council the only question was the width of the driveway
that was allowed, which is 18 feet. This is an abutting driveway, but it will be limited
to 18 feet. Councilman Behrendt asked if they would agree to join a street improvement
special district if that should come up. Council agreed to add that as.one of the
conditions.
All in favor, motion carried.
WATER PLANT EMPLOYEE HOUSING STATUS REPORT
Councilman Behrendt told Council the housing committee had met and agreed after going Employee Housing
through the proposals and interviews that the group they wanted to work with was water Plant
Adventura Realty and Development Corporation. Adventura will be working with a local Status
builder. Councilman Behrendt told Council that Adventura does have projects underway
in this area, and it seemed they were the obvious people to go ahead and write up a
formal contract to get started on this employee housing project. Councilman Behrendt
recommended the Council accept this group and sit down and negotiate final contracts.
Mayor Standley said the contract would be negotiated for consideration of the entire
Council. Mayor Standley reminded Council the sub -committee was directed to go through
all the proposals and interviews necessary and pick out a group. Councilman Behrendt
said the sub -committee is asking for approval for beginning of further negotiations.
Councilman Wishart moved that the sub -group did what they were asked and to go ahead and
have administration go into negotiations with Adventura for full Council approval;
seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilwoman Anderson asked what the timing would be. Mayor Standley told Council that
Adventura could move as fast as the City could. If they can break ground this fall, it
could save up to 10 per cent. Councilwoman Anderson asked if the City has officially
adopted the guidelines for rental for low, moderate and middle income. Mayor Standley
said that everyone who submitted a proposal was given the guidelines, and the range for
building and rentals wnet from 46 cents to 78 cents/square foot. The Adventura group
came in at 48 cents per square foot, a studio would be $295 per month and a two bedroom
would be $584. There were three groups between 51 and 53 cents per square foot.
Councilman Behrendt pointed out the sub -committee said they had problems with the City
proceeding slowly on annexation, and that statement was that the planning department,
because of its affialiation with the county decided the location might be inappropriate.
Ms. Smith, planning director, told Council this is absolutely untrue, and the planning
office has never made any statement regarding annexation or the location of the housing.
The planning office has never been asked to make any statements, and they are not
negatively disposed towards that annexation. City Attorney Stock told Council the delay
in annexation has been due to the fact that the City cannot force annexation and the
City does not have boundaries contiguous to this property. The City will need to receive
support from one of two groups in order to annex.
ORDINANCE *32, SERIES OF 1979 - Supplemental Appropriation, Sixth Penny
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Standley Ord. 32,1979
closed the public hearing. 6th Penny
Appropriation
Councilman Parry moved to read Ordinance #32, Series of 1979; seconded by Councilman
Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. j
ORDINANCE #32
(Series of 1979)
AN ORDINANCE MAKING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION IN THE 6TH PENNY SALES TAX
FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $63,700 FROM CURRENT YEAR UNAPPROPRIATED SALES TAX
REVENUES AND APPROPRIATING EXPENDITURES OF $63,700 FOR MISCELLANEOUS 6th
PENNY SALES TAX FUND EXPENDITURES was read by the city clerk
11
FINAL PLAT
SCALE 1 50
CURVE G34TAs
�.= 12500
K. `'5.00'
A = 170 Z7'
L% = ' � Z7'
CH•= 118: z3
CH. = Pi1.86'
7E-T KEOAK 4 CAP
SET teEtSAR C SAP
r-Now
PeVELOI'1=1Z
JAME5 K. 7KUC-MAN
` 288'1 CsUILrOIZI?
GOLUMr�)US, Ot-110
AKeGt-1 I TEGT
GOF�LANp FINHOLM HAC-ryMAN
YAV/ LT V.
C')OX Z 7'.�
A5f EN , GOL•OKAt20
rLANNr.�-
pES1C�N WORKSHOP
IZSO 0717-� AVM,
Ae)PEN , GOL_012AC-,O
SUR�/�YoR.�
JAM E5 1=. t nt)f-f e
TletcO MANAGzFE.MENT
C30X 173(D
ASPEt`t , GOLOIZAI�
ATTOIeNi~Y:
fZOC�El2T �ieu�-Tf?fz.
1gT N^TIONAL K3ANK rLnC�.
ASPEN, COL02AK70
R. = 19900'
K = 105.00'
K 7500'
d = 45"IB'Do"
.1 ' 49° 16 3D"
A = 45° IC 30"
T. S(o.',5'
T = 43.071'
T. 31 30'
L.- 10(0.7(0'
L. = 83.03'
L. ".51,
CH.=104.00'
(H.=00-'79'
CP. '9i77V
MC r->AK 4 CRP
-f-�-f FzSDAR 5 CAP
t'r-T KED4R 5 ChP 20
CEKTIFlc-^TE CF
TITLE lN5UR/4\NCft CONP/A ' Y
THf= UNPeRsIC� A CORD TE T -T
M5M CAP
PASIJ OP Vr-AILINGS:
V5C d G5 ASPEN TO A5rr-ri AZIMUTH
q 08, Z2' 08"
TIE - N 0'02o; WW TJ4Z.4Z'
O
WEST %r COP, 9EG. 7 U
T. Io 5. , K. 8,f W. 0 A
MgNI ALUMINUM GAP
OUT PAeGEL "A"
lo.o2s ac. )
12
� 6
i4
�, M5M ALU. Ac Qom\
�MSM rarzAss CAP
\ 1 ��
\ \ \ FvoQ O R C
\\ 5 ALLAM I Q
QQQQQ Qon
on®r Q°vQ� i�
02„ \
--/IQOQQQQ vQQQ7/
V(CAHITY MAF
°%. I'V. •SCALE: I - (WCJ�PX.)
s4 \
9S.
?�T R�BAtZ k C.AP
- - rev 1r 1 1 -1
57KEETS, LC7T5, AND OUT PAKCELS ARE 5HCWN- AND NOTED ON THE FIVE -(. 5)
SHeETS COMP)�ISINCS THIS PLAT; AHD tie 11- FUR7f-+e1Z KNOWN -(HA.T DAMES K. TKUEMAN:
N i ORA - I 'LE INSURANCE ,.• r;
COMPANY, AUTHORIZffP TO DO tt3U51NESS IN -THF- STATE •�"$�\�\ - ,u� v� z
A. 120�5 HEREBY MEDICATE TO THE PU15UC FOR PUBLIC KI0iI7-OF-wAY PURP05E5:
OF COLOiZ.4170 D01=5 FiERE.(_'jY CERTIFY THAT THE
A5a, c
MSM 6x.AP
I. THE MILL 7T. IeICaHT-OF-WAY AS SHOWN AND NC3TE'D HEREON;
2. THE PUPPY SMITH 5-T. KICzHT -OP - WAY A5 SHOWN ANp NO-7f=17 HEREON ;
°A"
IZIITS- OF -WAY HEREBY PffPICATEt7 WITHIN TH15 \�\
TKI IL. A UTIL.I7Y
3. QU'T PARCrL AS SHOWN ANO NOTED I-)EREON;
T70ES Y GRANT TO THE GITY OF ASPEN POK 7HE USE OF THE PUBLIC,
PLAT ACE F IKEE ANV C-EAle--���� ALL L Il is rttJ
5ET -
BASEMEN i Tom. ryp. 3 DEBAR
A-
OLLC)
7HE. FOLLC�...'INC3 EASEMENTS:
ENCUMbUFANCES, PATEP THl3�_ 17AY OF 977
wlr.Zec3AR q C11P
/ , / T
\\ LOT
I. "THE. FIRE AMP. UTILITY EP.SEME.NT ON LOT 1 As SHOWN HI-REON;
-7KAIL
-TRANsAMEKtcA -TIT
/
Z. THE FIFTEI=Ti ,19) POOT WIDE JOINT AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON L0751 Z
AND 4, AS JHOWN HEREON�11
r_')Y
1 r 177-
3. THL F'IFTEC'Pi (ly) FOOT WItJE JOINT PRAINAC-sE, UTILITY; ANl9 AC!'ltgS EA5r--
M�NT LO'Y 3N SHOWN HEKEOI I •
j ; II^) Fm-7 -
4. THE*F`- WIDE TRAIL E,��EMENT Ol`l LOT 1 AS SHOWN H>=.REON;
5• THE. SIDEWALK CASEMENT ON LC7T 1 AS SHOWN HERt orN;
FKOFr- l2TT VE5Ci IrTION
C. POE.S +4EKE6Y GRANT IN PLACE r-AS1=.MENTS i=0K EXIS-TIN65 WATER, 5AN1 -
TARY EWER., C3A7, POWER AND STORM 'OEWUTIITICS WI-IICH AP.E
ER L
SHOWN AND `10.1E'D ON SHF.F�-T 7 AND WHIGIi .ARP. NO-r -ram 3F. A.CSANr.lT,�=r,,
/� T-ACT-T OE LAND 51TUATI=D N Tf-11E 50UTt1We5T. %¢ OF SECTI0I7 7,
5TORl0rVIM I�eVrz RR`..�F4AL.L-I BECT-WEN7-y (20) E r At IN W?D-TH 4(3C'IHG MCI N /0/)���� ON R, WATER
-AC4-I -THE EXI5TING
TOWN5t11P 10 �OUTt1, FANC3E 84 Wi=ST OF Ti-If. GTM IFRINCAf-AL ME-.
�. CAP
jlP car- 7HE. CENTEKL.IT'1C• of UTILITY. EASEMENT`, FOP,
ALL OTH=R U-TILI-T'IES SHALL DE FIFTEEN (15) FE'ET IN W!G'TH OE.VEN ANTI
?eIrIAN, GITY Of= ASPEN, GOLOKADO, MO2ff I=ULLY i7E5CRl6Ef7
ec"� 1.
_
ONE-h1AL.F (75) FEE7 EACH 51pE � -r"M �EM,TEKLINE OF THE E`XISTINC-s LiTILITY,
A5
,p ,,,Doz':.�"t'
D. VOrb HFREESY ACnl > f-7 -TO GRANT AS -BUILT 1=ASEM"'l-5 F•OTZ ALL MODIFIED Oft
�
6� '
RELC>GA T1 C7 UTILITIIcS AS 51-1pWN AND ty0701R oty SH ET -f FL-I)E 7 NTH
oIe SANITARY SEWER WA-T'Cr2., 9TOfZM OEWE� SHALL �E Tw(=N-TY_
p�ff�trANINC-s AT A POINT \^JHENC-= Tt1E WEST ��+ CORNEIC OF SAIf7
I
N I �
(AND
l-�E C FF HEN EVIS-TINE- U- IILI-TY.ENEASEMFNTS CR AI.L 0ON ffACH TFE'li U-TIl-.�71F5 N.5N4L.L
SECT 101`1 7 C'�E/�IZS N 38 Oro 14° W, 15�t Z.'i2 EET Tmf-.NCE `> I 1°91'02'I W,
7�5 cA? rn I
5 DEFICF T E (GE)NTEF-wNE OFT 1t. EX 5T INGr)DUZ(LITYALF ; 75) FEI=T FAGH
y �5.73 T EET ; T MF-NGiE i t't3° 10 39 W ro3. 17 FEET; THENCe
N
E. POFg 1-1ggR.Er'3Y GRANT FOK 7 F COMMON U E OF LOT 1 ANp Z A TWENTY
-TO
N i SOf9" E , `15-49'FEET ; THEryGE N 71i°09' 1 I" W , 157. 76 t=eaT�
O
POUR (24) FOOT Wfor. COMMON GKIVEWAY FOK ACCE55 THERE. AS GEM-
ERALLY t)"C)W�../N A1iD NOTED C" SHEE�T 3 HEREOF ro DE MORG 5P> s 1Fl-
THENCE N-!-3° 10' 3z+` W 139. 3,c P•EE-T ; TrtEHNC� 5 74" 57'4'Z"E , 8.8G EET;
s8T Re[34R ��' see io'e eo
�, CAP
GALLY DE5CR113ECi AFTF_R GONSTIZUC.TION, AS SET FOR TH HER1=11y 6�LoW,
THENCE= N 13° 04! �}91 E G0.49 FEET ; T HENCE H IZ° 5`I' IS" E 14. G7 FEET;'
F kKouaHl 3kAL7CD LAERFCL.OtCATGV A5SNOWN ANDTNOTEDMON HE.ETTHgE LSt&IK
-,v'-
,
THENCE N23°09'O7"W, II(o.Z'{-FEET; THENCE N7B°93'`i�0°W, (05.98FEET;
-
(i75) F -r- EAACC.I-IFI`IIDE�Or ` THE. FCENTERILDINt f PEf FINNAL' MrK ft-lCNT
' '
THENCE `5 I-f''i 2'OZ" W , 81. 2Co FEET ; TtIENCe. N z+3° 08' 33" W ., 279. mil FEET;
LA.C-n- HAa LP(1=.,I C-ATEG An GLASE: TO TI-tE EAS-TERLY 30UNt7AfZY OF
THENCE. NSZ°OZ'31'E_ , K.,8. 57- t==ET� THENCE N05'0425Z"E -+7.`r- FEE-F
4; MSM D Ass cAl-
- HA�IF
,
THr-NCE N `fZ*41' ` '1" �. , 10I.57 FEET -I THENCE N �-O°ZZ' Soll E , 150.64- FEET;
'�
8(3),Mq{vv D`4) BSc F.Y ^L HM.cAf,Og�- 'HI ReNETLOCATEl7!ARE o � rirl'r-
3F-)
TIlff-NCE Nod°�i7'14"(✓, 6'{.82 FEET; THENCE N76'14'3'rW, 20.35 FEET;
SUKVEYOIZ.`5 GEKTIFICATE
F< - .+ r•' er-�:'S.. = �.uc-�Mr c�-i 10N (� FI>-rI;1eIT_. rEvt�LnvME[i�: ' r: Ld-r z.
ThffNCE t'1'9-I' '%je' *3"E., 97 3,- FEET ; 7hE-rICE h 07' 5B' 20" W , 4Z7. (-O FEET;
--
;`•t l, IN PARAC: RApH'S C, T7, E -,Nt7 F• A-,OYr-, -JHALL E5E MORE -
�•PEc IFicA,LLY pEsrr�IPeD AND �GNVEYED IN AF'FKCP?;` IA=1*E WRITTEN IN5TROMENTS
p
THENCE N 82° OI' 2l E , 100,01 EEET ; THENCE` 5 07' S'I' 10" E , rJ%g. OZ FEET;
I, SAMES 1 h2ESEtZ , LICEI 15EI� SURVEYOR, t70 HEfZeF3Y CERTIFY
LSY l-M9AL. 1r.5CRII`-.V)7NS TAKr�pI FRC'M. "THE. ° IN PLACP--" PR<�WINC---, HERE:fJF, aFTL'IC
-THE. INSTAL.I_.ATION ANT,' ( :MF'LETICUN �.. :rV'D EP.= F'IENTS ANp 'R.I�N I-_.-�'-wA�,-, �
THENCE Z22. IZ. FEET AI -ON& THE Ai C- OT� A CUTizVE. TO -THE L- FT
THAT THIS FLAT OF-FKUf=MAi`1 COMMERCIAL
t1AVING5 A KzADIUS OF CG8.00 FEET, THE CHORD OF WHICH CUtKVE
PROJECT WA5 UNDER MY SUPEiK\-/ISION ANp THAT T111=
6EAR5 5Z5°40'011f= 22I.09 FEET; THENCE 5GG.48'31°E 14LI( FEET;
OUTSIIDE Lois, IZOAIPS ANP OTHER FEATURES AKZE
�L�M ?UPSU4o-r To 4 TbwEIC• of
THENCE 5 19 S2' 31 �✓ BF- 87 FF-E-F3 -FOF- iCE 3�9° 23 30" g6•% FEET;
COrK C.TLY StHOWn HEREON , THAT THE SAM>= AKE E5ASEf7 ON
7A s IV- -1-Nu N AT%�IJE�I F1��p FOB 2£COtD
CONTAIi-DING 7.91(- ACRt=S,f Moma Oiz LESS.
A KE-MONUMEN-T/�T-IOTI SUfzVEY FEKF�O MEV UNVEiZ MY
SUPER.Vlla[Ot PUKING TtIE SUMM=tz OF I`jT3 ANt7 THf�T Tt1E
-10 ll�"D QiQD[DEt of -pi-r ik.1 CDUIJ'Ty,
:)TATe C'I- COLORAt:;O COIO Abo 14T aW K 304 p" fE 3s- iLr. SS Q
COUNTY OF' PITKIN
T'HE. FORE.0 01N�- IN.Tr-,UMt�:rr I WA= AG k.tyOV./LE.CiC-�l� P�Ef�:�r;E. ME. THIS T- -
PAY OF , 1'1,7 7 C3Y JTAMES R.. TK.UEMAN. 3N4 1105Err'p 4j2L4.Yjgt
WITNCSS MY HAND AN17 OFPiC�A�L�S��A,L_•WA_ AlybewEElf - 1i"h C'Ac"r
MY COMMISS� ION XhT� l
IRE5: �- Jim)
-
NOTAKZY pUt3Ll G
013LITi=KATE-P MONUMF-NTS Oi== THE OKIGzI"AL \,/ERE
�E- ESTA�L1St IEI7 IN AC-C.GKV/'\K'iC-E WITH GENERALLY ACGEf-TE-P
SURVEYING PK2ACTICES ANt7 COL01eAPO STATUTES
IN WITNESS WHEtZEOP , 2 Hh,\/E gET MY t1 W Ai`ID SEAL 011
5TATE OF co�oliADO rTAME F. RESf=F-
COUNTY OF-' PIT KITI
-rNE- FOREC-SOINCa I-N'�S/�T�RUMENT' WA/5� ��A�CwK�t,ryOWLE.�L E-17
i7EFORFF ME TFIIS =1,. Y OF I�yW1/�CA`. , 1977
by LTAP'IES F RESEIz.
WITNESS MY "ATlp ANp OFFICA!_. S�iL G
P'IY COMMISSION EXPIRE--:
r'oTARY PUBLIC
`IR8 L UTILITY C,A7�MCNT N 'PETT REDA.R '4 GAP
8R3zS, F3, szo ;� �,< \ OUT PARGeL 415-
O -Fo CIE CONvf-7YE17 -ro
2.h
DJAC1T OWNER FOr- ACCe55.
a \0 n/3 ti
D / N P
r z
s lo• m' a
I �0
-GYVE 2S10' 44
PUMP HOUSE
AN A(:,,Mt✓I 4f p,ETWEEN. -1K11EMM ARD A51eN eAVI46
MD WAN "THAT EFFECTS -TNE MZOM9V {-IMIN 15 FII,EP
114 L'wK 3 25) P 520 e-J• - _ee • I N -Mt- tZFCMD5 OF THE
afWICv AI
v�-V� M609-DElz- bF 174 ; GOUFM( OE ffi A) STAB
x JX" IM C: NCKF-TE t)F 6-oL4IY`t-,C,
"LPP,N NlNr6 4 ZONINC5 GOMI" 1155101`! AI'I'iZ.OVAL
TH15 FLAT OE TIZUEMAN NEIGH150KI-10012 COMI`lZIZCIAL. rKOJEC-C
WA5 Ali rKOVEG <3Y THff CITY OF ASPEI I PLAririlttG ANV
ZON(NCz COMMISSION TH15 � sr nAY OFF,
GHAiKMAN
rARKS b! ►2 G i OIz e°-,r r K,CVA\L
TH15 f (_AT Off TiZUEMAI i COMMERCIAL PKOJECT
WA5 APPKROVr-P t'-?Y THE PIKZECTOK OF PAIZK'? OF Tt11= CITY
OF A`lPE h CO LC PA PO; T I-113 g+`` 17AY OF , 1 `17 7 .
R. w.
P i KE C.T-OI,
G ! �" Y �. �`I C� I N !✓ � i� A.F I' �.0�/A L
Tt115,PLA7 O{= TRUf-MAN NriGrr-,oKt-IOOC> GOMMEKKC.IAL
I KOJEGT WAGJ Ar r r?,oVI=-p PAY TY1E CITY ElyCslfyEEft OF TNT-
C,iT-i .Of= f�SPEN , C LO�P�DC Tt115 OF Ayi 1-177.
CiTY Cslf 1 ER
A5PEN GITY C•OUi�!GlL
/&l,rr OVAL 0 AGGEFTANCE
TrllJ PLAT OF TKUEMAN NEIC-5ME CK ,"OOP GOMMEI�CIAL
rIZO �7ECT ANI2 THE VARIOUS &KANT5 fANt7 t7fFICATfON5
TO 7t1f-� PUBLIC SHOWN AND NOTI=.D HEREON, AtZE
Hf=1Zt= 6Y ACC- -F T [-�77 ANp AFFR-OVED T3'( THf✓ CITY
OF AEDI-P- I , COLOV�A120 TH 15 8t` VAY OF P7 1, I `i 77.
MAYOR /
CITY G KKK
1 ff-C-0 .I2I NCl GEKTI FICATE
T HEKZI=i3Y Cr-KTlf=Y THAT TtltS PLAT OF TRUI=M%` N
Nf=1C-si-II5OKHOOl2 GOMMEfZCIA.-- PKOJf-CT WA5 ACCEPTEP
F012 PILINC-s IN MY 01=FICA AT O'C-ocK _M,
ON THr- B � f2AY OF 1'177 ANP WAS PULY
PILEn IN FLAT BOOKr AT M-76-KZE.C. NO.
Ti-KE ACCOMr^NYING SUi: C,UIVISION ACrREEMENT 15 t'ZECORDf=.D
IN r---.(DC)K- 3.Z? AT t:AC-TES zS-38,
VITKIN C(OVN-TY -
CLLIzi; AI P Rf C-OF-PER.
H N
O
Zui>O
W 3 U
f-Q Wrfamr >
accxuw
130 U cc
Q
J
N
3 Q
Q
Q
ZM
�N
.0)
QM0
Z0
W
co
J
O
=
=
Y
Z�
11�
3 Y/
cc
Z w
Z w
ace
Z
(nQ
O cc
W J
t) Q
o a
•
0 0 00 0 0 82,6117
a*
Witrlcw.
o�4
7A
15 R.
tullsr- Irzft
so
GrORAOS U14 1 i's s 5 x 20, - I bo SQ, Fr
CqUAga ro�
r. F-;
, -1 724
,4ePS�-1 I-lir-TVC PLAN'7 PFIVS-T4-11C 2140 FL, U*ClIVOft a 4,015,2 f
t5ArEW PLAt-47
t)IQIVeWAr
4-
rl+4 FS WAIr
4qj
4�
TOTAL. G"S 5QUAgr. FCOrW.e Z! C)S(
5 1 Te HaR "S Acpr. 400
7arA L. 2 1) 8510
VA
JSN�� ACIAIR PAR44
I-V
=-A4erl C-070t4 'A97C1:6
5E(:,-TION
SPA el7E- RA'N' �a
A5FES
A WAP.� OU55 1= iLxrT� For-
LIA i4vt.L.A) CA.
NOVSHmp 53 1'9%,
0 0 0
Pr<ot::�5<FY t�?51C-C�I Fn ors
A Tl�Ar,7 OF L,6,N12 SiTUA-fT�tD IN THE ZO THVVE5T I/4 �EGTION
-TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH , r-�,P,NC->✓ 84 WEST OF THE (DTH PI<INGIIAL
MEY--,IbIAN , CITY OF A51:'Ettl , GoLOI�ADo , MoRC-bEscrzlP�-
!:D AS f-OL t ow-5 ;
►3EGINHM9 A POINT WHENce TI+E WES-r /4 GOIZNl=1i OF AID
SEc.rrioN 7 5EAIzS N 30 °O4,' 14'I W 15.42 ,42 F5ET I THENCE 5 19 ° 5l 02"W,
4°ID,73 r5ET; TH5NL5, N 43° 10VW CP3,17 FEET; ThF-NG6
-N 14°50'4,1"E, 630,4G FEET ITI-,ENG1E� N 75 001'�'tl" W> 1�7,7& FEET;
7HC-N4i� N 4?j" 10' 34" W , I ,3FfE•
(o S ; THENCE S J4 8,S6f=8E"'
THENCE I. 7' °G4' 49" E , (p0,461 F✓ET 7HF-NGE �l 12 S9' 15"E , 14 , (07 FaST-
-7H�1GE N 23' O9, 07„ W, Il(P.Z4 �T ; -rHI=� N 78 33 4o,, W-, (05, FE�'r
7II;NGE s 145 Q-2' o2" W, 81,Z(, I=F-6T THi:-N6- N 43° 6291.33"W, Z-Iq "iI try
TFIENG� N S2 ° O2_' z,.,l " C; , oe . 52 rvet7 THF-Mc e N 85 ° 041 52 " e) 47 , J(v I16E7 ;
THENCE N 4Z° 4-I' 4c1" E, 101,57 Mr-'T TH�NGE N 4022' S0"E) I51D,64 FAT;
THENCE N 400 t,-7 ' 4" E , 94,62 P: E" ; Tt-f5NGI: N 76 ° 14 1 -64 " VV,, 2 0, 35 FI%i: f �
lT4,F CIE Ni 41 " :t3 ' 43" I✓ , q7, 3& FFZT ; T`HM0e N 0'7° 156 ' 20" W, 4-Z7, Coo P:F?T;
7+I5w,e N 62' o f ' 2 I" 1®, 100.01 FEET TH6NIGE E7 07 ° " ' 10 " 5, 526,o2 FEI✓T;
THENCE 27-Z.12 MET ALONG 'THE AfZG Ot-A GVmVe- TO THI: L-F-r I+,AVIN6 A
�iAt7WS OF (405 .00 1^EET , THE G012D DF• WHIGF+ CURVE I✓t':�Ame Z5040, 0( A
221,Oo) DEBT; THE5NC.E c-, &6 '45' 31 "E 141. 11 t=5: � THENGt� 5 1 d 6' 31 w
TH- c-F- 5 r 1 ° 23' 30 " 3�.9r FEET; coNTAINING 7.�11(0
A KZ 55 Mo Ke oK LESS
OP
A
�2Vi;Y I�ESOtzIt�tIU�1 SEr: A CV5
LOG4TION OF KOAPS ANp
ALL '5, ; SEE SITE f-LPrN
kvAILAFsIL-ITY OF UTILITIES
ALL- A.VAILA�I.E ON 51-17
LANP�POAC'I N6 ; SEE
Pl NA -I. p(,pT
PP5TKIGT : S SUMMF+iZY SELOW
TO-rAL LOT SIZE S u75
TOTAL PIZCPOSI:h CIIU;iiN/
�7,000 jf]
r7le/EGOPF-<
UAMES tZ, TRUEMAN
A77 ORrvMY ;
R2OSEIZT GRV�
2e09 GUMLFON--D
GOI.UMF3US t3H I(]
lc-rt NATIONAL DANK 13LG�,
A�;,PF-N� GOL0 fie d
Ar<fH 1TEGT ;
CoPELAWP �=INHOLM HAGMAN SUPZVE?'Orz
4 YAW LTD
5OX 273(o
-)Ames p, rz5SM✓iz
7F-1- GO (%AW,6C-NMr-T[T
ASPEN , G0IL0F?-A00
r;ox 1130
ASIzr--N, (,-OLOI2AbU
Fl-ANNElz,
DE`�I6N VUOKIC�+Ot�
1280 (JT E AVE,
,ASS-F- , COL -OP -ADO
IiU I :�Av\IV)AKIT
#T fir, WVrH
LOT
I
2, -,52 AG
ZW'
I,OT
2,7,00 AG
2
LOT
1,14.7 A G
_
100 '
Qt
.4-77 AL
54' --
4
----
,r�3��c
MIN FRONT
MIN `--)I.-E
MIN
MAX 6LG
MIN -';ZT
tlE!W ITT
f- f',
YARD
YAKC
YA 12D
H EI61-1T
[ ;w, SLC�
USES
STKL < TU12E
N,A,
rAME A5
ONE 47,000 1 FEUILpINB
A[-ON6 M I LEST,
5,'.I t NG
GOMMEAr-AL 37 , 000 T
r�ESIPErIrIAL ABOVE I ,000 (�
N,A,
NA,
N,4'
N,A,
DNA,
'Z.U,W.
N✓Ir� % N,,A I ' Wrl ftF PLIC,NUot-
*NO DEVELOPMENT OF= LQTS 2, 3, AND 4- �I,,L TXtKE RAGS Prior-'
TO AFFROVAL OF A lFEG1 FIG Sf'o t N f=OK 5*4G1-F I.OT IMI.+I GHF
OtIALI, GONyT'ITUTE AMENDMar TO -rHe SflA MA57r-z pLM
acF�ls O SSA Fzlnl(�Z '
USG �G�✓ ASf'gJ f+Z1MVTN
Sos Z' o8°E
'W55T I/ GOK
SEGTI '1
T IO1f $4-W
MSM A�JMMGAP
OLfI-- 41PNiZGEL- 'r4
o, oz e, ,+c
lip
)T 2
ADO ac -.+1
\��T2A1L EASEMENT
m
r
c 121
MSM SS CAP
S 4°
l! 1
'LOT 4
r 4/ ®,4Z7 2c
c-(ov10,t Ig.Do'
msm 15MASS CAI-
Y:
f
Y , i
MIN 0-"EN OrF S;r1<E?T C716NA055 GONST�<UGTION
ZeAGE HAK4I ING tZf�91,ILATION SGHe 9ULE
25%
I13 MIN
'AI\T'Uf =qL� ,< '`IN5'7-7
NES'ChiTA -18Mo 0.'v FOLLoIMNFi
GCM1 '%E-�� N ,��E GOMM�izlGAL
^LIF
E
z
N(7 AVAI LA E5LZ
s
o p
OT" - AVA) I.A ?',I.E
N,A, -
• 9 0
NO 3 r<e6AK
� .N �c�Nc�iE7fe
Y
� C
4)
C
�>eeofp
^
tj
o,
N
o°
N
u
3 Q
Q
1�
ZM
QN
i
,�
o
p
Z p
S01k
i W
W
=
Y
'
Z
-
cc
ov
O
�ccc
Q F'
Z Z
� Z
CL
Ooc
w�
UQ
oa
SPA
SUBMISSION Z
SCALE 1.:50.
No Now
506b 150
aza-in
Lj
CITY OF AS^RN,
AGF1,EE11ENT i11IT11 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS AS FOLLO"!S:
1. Abandonment of 10' water easement following, old Rio Grande
track alignment.
2. Installation of new 12" D.I.P. water line from Hallam Street
to boundary of Trueman nronerty.
3. Installation of new 1.2" D.I.P. 'laterline from Trueman
property line to Mill Street water main, 1•i: -h li�,drant.
4. Installation of new 12." D.I.P. water lane adjacent to
Trueman property along mill Street.
5. Installation of new R" D.I.P. water line along Punny Smith
Street, with h,-•drant.
6. Installation of new S" D.I.P. branch line along Lot 1 and
Lot 2 property boundary.
7. Location of water taps as shown. i
1. Relocate existing 1- Taell line:
Agreed: BY
City of Asnen, C I���aeer'
Date:-- ?7 ---
"emarl<s :
ASPEN SANITATIONI DISTRICT.
ASP1;N 11ETRO SANITATION DISTRICT
AGREEMENT WITH PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS AS FOLLOWS:
j Abandonment of 10' sewer easement following old Rio Grand
j track alignment.
2. tlodify 12" Mill Street sewer outfall.as shown on the drawing
with easement for same.
3. Easements per drawing No. 2. for 15" First Street outfall:
Lakeview subdivision line, diversion box and the T?oarina. Fork
outfall line.
ai
n
v Ly
g V ICr TO R1:AMI N Z^ Z Y> ZO
EXIST '-li4 �'S 5 K W 3 U M N
to
PLACE 1;4V Ii/ " SEftVIGE W i- a w a. >
a�xaw
SNSTALI, N � c c U -4 CC
T(i NEW t3VILt�(Ald
RELOCATE EXIST. TELE.61
T.V. CABLES UNDERGROUND
BY TRUEMAN ��!i�'- `ft
v�
HOLY CROSS -j / ABANDON EXISTING 12" SEWER EXISTING 3/4" GAS LINE TO BE ABANDONED. TO REMOVE
B RELOCATE AS SHOWN
s •
LOT 1
ABANDON EXISTING 372
Bpi ? C.I.P. WATER LINE
�� �/• 25 KVA TSFR �
FOR STREET W N;kw,
i LIGHTING &Y�'&Jj0 jv
P
�F gATFR�� F.H.
//. . NE
'
LOT 3
r,
r
r
1 r
%
NEW TELE.61 T.V.
CABLES TO LAKEVIEW
SUBDIVISION
CONNECT TO EXISTING
C.I.P. WATERLINE
CITY OF ASPEN I.LI:CTRIC DEPAIIIIIENT h
AGREEMENT' WITH PROPOSED POWER M011IFICATIONS AS FOLLOWS:
I. Remove Pole and line segment from subdivision as shown. j
Provido underground lower to i,ot 1, as shown, to include
rrri;:inp, lot li-.htin,I..
3, 0 1e1 o i.ot 2 in future to come from ,)r i nary vault on lot
4. ;,ill i1•''imary from 600 VA transformer to vault on Lot 4
as shown (by City) i
Trueman and City of Aspen to share costs of above ground
street lighting facilities on Puppy I'
Smith Street. � _ ---- --
\+;rc BY--- perCANYO'l CABLT T.V.
City o asn Lil.ectrc he,iartment
A('nr:EF!ENT '.'?ITii PnOPOSi:T) T.Y. Srn1.rICP *')T1IrI(:ATIO*iR A
AT !I if 1 4wR.
:�ir�i�iiuT�u�. •�•
Agreed: BY , Asnen Sanitation District
DATE:
BY
Aspen 1Tetronolitan Sanitation District
DATE:
Remarks:
r�
ST
`q 12"02 p N
SEE CROSS SECTION BELOW
FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS IN
PUPPY SMITH ST. I Q / HOLY CROSS TO STY
REMOVE LINE 61 POLES
i/ram MODIFY AS
I ^AS 11�lE i� / / NECESSARY TO `
INS7A" NEW 1!4 v L MAINTAIN ACCESS )
AL�h1G PUpP'r SM(TH ST. / W
AS 544OWN � a STomm Sewzvt
JUNCTION Aox
/ NEW 12" VCP SEW R `
NEW 12" D.I.P WATERLINE
BY TRUEMAN. 4" OVERSIZE
X y o'U BY CITY OF ASPEN.
0 %` �� o
o Lei LEAVE AS IS.TRUEMAN TO p0P c
Ix EXECUTE EASEMENT �. m
ON COMPLETION OF
0
RELOCATE POWERLINE
UNDERGROUND TO 600
KVA TRANSFORMER
CONTINUED AS SHOWN
x CONSTRUCTION. RELOCATION /
/
UCHANGE ALIGNMENT OF B��C.I.P.
UNDERGROUND IN PUBLIC R.O.W. AS NECESSARY TO AVOID BLDG.
IS PERMISSIBLE ` FOUNDATION.
NEW 12" D.I.P. WATERLINE
FROM HALLAM STREET BY
ICITY OF ASPEN
�^ P/ UTILITY CROSSECTION PUPPY SMITH STREET
not to scale
L 0 T 2 tv0� Or�
2
COVER (TY)
I Q/LOT 4 ELECTRIC POWER CABLE —
S rnLL.n'- ` r� r� T.V. CABLE WATER LINE
TELEPHONE CABLE -GAS LINE
IT
HOLY CROSS TIT?CTRIC ASSOCI^.TIr)'1 across the subdivision. EXISTING ELECTRICAL
1. Abandonment and removal. of existing overhea<T service l nes \� ` I APPROX. LOC. OF
2. Installation of new underground service cable alon7,11ill >L�
AGRF.ETIF,iT WITH PT?OPOSFD 11ODIFICATImIS AS 1-OLLO'IS: S d' t 1,A, T 1 T'u��nv Smith Strr(,* �2 VAULT BURIED POWER
1. Remove two street li.-ht Palos and associated
. Easement for overhead dower across Lots 3 an°
` reed: BY�
Holy Cross Electric Association
DATii : '✓- -1-77
ilOFT1ITA.i11 BELL TEh] P1lO"I". CTIP.K'iY
Ar,R -771T NT '9ITir pnOPOSrT)
1llI,F.P1i0"1F. S7TWICr•, 110DIFICA,TIn'iS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Abandonment and removal of existing overhead lines across
the subdivision.
2. Installation of new underground service cables along
1±ill Street adjacent to subdivision and along Punny Smith
Street to serve Lot 2 and Lakeview subdivision.
All easements and public ways must be to final grade prior to start of
construction.
Agreed: BY r_
Mountain 'iell Telenhone Company
DATE.: � � 7 7
treet a Jacent o su .zviston anr, a on
to serve Lot 2 and Lakeview subdivision. LEGEND
3. Service to Lot 1 as shown.
4 r S SEWER
Agreed: BY � �t>,1�,; ;rf�j�y�-��L(_-(: � �. � l
W
Canyon Cable T.V. - WATER
� tt
1'* . y� - /i - ,71c 1 — — — TELEPHONE/T.V.
DA
i CITY OPr ASPEN POWER p
---------- POWER
9 GAS
NOTES:
EASEMENTS
NEW UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE TO
BE EXECUTED AFTER CONSTRUCTION
AND RECORDED ON AS BUILT DRAWINGS.
In.•1.�i1 1 I�i rc __ to EASEMENTS FOR EXISTING UTILITIES
THAT REMAIN THE SAME WILL SIMILARLY
r: BE EXECUTED AND RECORDED ON THE AS
BUILT DRAWINGS .
CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS
TO BE APPROVED BY INDIVIDUAL UTILITY
COMPANIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
-QW_-F_RF TELEPHONE E T.V_
MAY ELECT TO INSTALL IN SAME TRENCH
WITH MUTUAL CONSENT AS TO SEPARATION.
,w
UTILITY MODIFICATION PLAN
GENERAL SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
0 50 100 1';0 F..1
SCALE 1"= 50'
(n
O
3 Q
Q
Q
�
�
M
aN
.�
��
V O
Z O
m
m
�
a
J
=
Y
U.
Z�
ZW
0Z
J=
a. C)
cn Q
0
WJ
UQ
no.
I 2A
G
0 11
:
CITY/CW4TY PLAN 114 1 NG-07FICK
ISO S. GAS �_E NA
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
.:_rlizabefh Paepcke
Box 1032
.";��' spent* -Colorado
r 7 7
ollw.
C e, U011-6101
81 � M�)
177n
tASPEN / PITKIN CO.
PLANNING OfFICE
op-------------------
so
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Adoption of an SPA Plan for Lot 3, Trueman Neighborhood
Commercial Project
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, April 5, 1983 at a
meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall,
130 S. Galena Street, Aspen to consider the adoption of an SPA plan amending
the Trueman Neighborhood SPA, of which the property in question is one
parcel (Lot 3). The purpose of the SPA plan amendment is to consider the
construction proposal known as the Aspen Downtown Storage warehouse project
which was awarded a GMP allocation this year. For further information, contact
the Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 223.
s/Perry Harvey
Chairman
Published in the Aspen Times on March 3, 1983.
City of Aspen account.
CRONOLOGY: TRUEMAN CENTER
The purpose of this document is to provide a historical perspective to the
development of the North Mill Commercial Complex by the establishmer:t of the
complete public record from the review of that project. This chronology
is intended to be comprehensive so as to respond to many of the questions
raised by members of the public during the GMP review of the storage project.
In following the approval process of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial
Project (TNCP) from the Initial Phase of the Conceptual Plan through
Preliminary Plat Review and Final Plat/SPA, many major changes were made
in the project. The size of the grocery store/commercial facility
was the most debated topic and was substantially reduced from early
phases to the final product. Consequently some of the early thoughts
on the amounts of open space, parking and use of the property also changed.
In November of 1975, when the Conceptual Submission was made, the
decision had not been made whether this would be a 2, 3 or 4 lot
subdivision. In a letter dated 11/11/75 from Bob Grueter, attorney for
Mr. Trueman, to the City of Aspen, he states that the only parcel they
anticipate selling for sure is Lot 2 to the United States Postal Service.
11/18/75
The "initial phase" of the Conceptual Plan shows the panhandle property
occupied by paddle tennis courts, a 1000 square foot one-story recreation
building and parking. Dave Ellis, City Engineer requested in a referral memo
that the option of using Lot 3 for an approved access from Red and Smuggler
Mountains to Mill Street be reserved.
Conceptual Submission
TABULATION OF DATA
Lots
R.O.W.
1.27
ac.
Lot I
2.76
ac.
Lot II
2.95
ac.
Lot III
1.24
ac.
Total
8.22
ac.
Land Use Program
R.O.W.
1.27
ac.
Remaining Land
6.95
ac.
Open Space (25% of 6
Total Footprint of
All Buildings
Parking
Recreation
Setback and Buffers
Total
Structure and Units
95 ac.) 1.75 ac.
1.15 ac.
2.37 ac.
1.25 ac.
.43 ac.
6.95 ac.
1. Recreation Building - single story, 1000 sq. ft.
2. Post Office - Single Story 23,000 sq. ft.
3. Trueman Building - Single building or tight building cluster, three
stories, NC, office, res.
For the record, he recommended that the area be kept free from any
obstructions at this time until final subdivision is reviewed. (The
Cronology
Page Two
question was whether a Smuggler Mountain connection should be via the
panhandle or an upgrading of Mill Street).
11/25/75
The Planning Department recommended to P & Z that dedication of the panhandle
property for a road to Red Mountain be required in conjunction with the
development of the site. Kane asked P & Z to approve a plan thatdoes
not show improvements on the site. Grueter would not agree to the dedication
of the land for an extension to Red Mountain. He said the applicant would
agree to provide all the roads within the subdivision that are needed
to serve the subdivision but not to serve Red Mountain.
11/28/75
Memo from Dave Ellis concerning existing encumbrances on the property:
A water and sewer easement bisects the property along the old railroad alignment.
12/2/75
Planning Office recommends a new road alignment through the Trueman
property and that the proposed R.O.W. be shown clear of obstructions and
the assumption be made that dedication of the roadway will be required
in part or whole by the City in connection with subdivision.
Stuller responded that she felt there was benefit to the tract specifically
as well as benefit to the City. She proposed a compromise by which a
formula would be worked out involving some dedication by the developer and
some condemnation by the city.
12/9/75
Motion passed by P & Z that the right-of-way be reserved through the
panhandle and that any improvements to that section are at the risk
of the owner or developer. No value would be added for improvements in the
case of condemnation for a period of 5 years and any uses would be
conditional. Also that they recognize that if the road alignment goes
through this parcel, they will be expected to be involved to some degree
in terms of land dedication.
12/23/75
Panhandle - Planning Office advocating getting a dedication of some
percentage for the possibility of developing a new access to Red Mountain Road.
1/21/76 (Revised conceptual)
Letter to Bill Kane from Joe Porter
Lot III - remain the same
Lot IV - remain undeveloped in its present SPA category with no
additional obligation for future use or approval by either
the City or the developer.
1/22/76
Memo from Bill Kane
re: Conceptual Subdivision
Recommendation that the balance of the site remain as a separate SPA
restricted in S/C/I uses only.
Cronology
Page Three
3/8/76 - Council Meeting
Issue remaining: Use of land in the panhandle.Motion passed to hold the
panhandle in moratorium for one year.
6/1/76 - Presentation to P & Z outlining conceptual approval.
Any plan approval on Lot III is subject to a one-year moratorium pending the
decision on the extension of Mill Street to Red Mountain.
Preliminary Plat tabled for site visit.
Preliminary Plat Checklist.
Open Space for Dedication 1.99 ac.
Other Open Space 1.24 ac.
6/15/76 - Preliminary Plat Approved by P & Z
(No specific mention of Lot 3)
Note: The files on this process are very unbalanced. The Conceptual
Review is heavily documented and issue -laden. The only
information on Preliminary Plat is contained in the minutes and
the above -mentioned checklist. The Final Plat and SPA are
documented in the recorded documents and the Subdivision Agreement
and Amendment.
8/23/76 - Letter from Jim Trueman to Mick Mahoney
"In our conversation we discussed the possibility of some sort of
trade in regard to the 'panhandle property'. Subject to the city's
desire to acquire this property, I am totally willing to negotiate
any reasonable swap arrangement. With the timing of the subdivision
fee payment to be sometime in the future, it does give us some
time to work out an arrangement on that piece of property if, for
instance, the subdivision fee were involved in the acquisition
negotiation."
10/14/76 - Mahoney Memo - Calculation of Park Dedication Fee
No commercial value was assigned to Lots 3 and 4 for park dedication fee
calculation, however, that did not mean that they could not have a
commercial use. The Trueman Center (Lot 1) was valued at $7.50/sq.ft.
the Post office site (Lot 2) at $6.00/sq.ft. and Lots 3 and 4 were
averaged in, bringing the overall value to the $5.00/sq.ft. No development
plans were proposed for Lots 3 and 4.
12/10/76
Grant of the following easements to the public:
15'wide joint drainage, utility and access easement on Lot 3.
1/5/77
Mill Street improvements estimate from Dave Ellis for regrading,
filling and widening from Main to Puppy Smith Street.
Cronology
Page Four
* Note: A meeting held with Bob Grueter on March 23, 1983 indicated
that when the City decided to go with the Mill Street
improvements, there was some consideration of the relocation
of Cap's Auto Supply to Lot 3 and the construction of an
auto repair shop.
1110177
Council - Final Plat Approval & SPA with recommendations of the City
Engineer.
Mayor authorized to approve the Subdivision Agreement.
4/8/77 - SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT Book 327, Pqs. 25-38
The $90,000 park dedication fee was to be paid at the time a certificate
of occupancy was issued for the project to be developed on Lot 1, or
on June 1, 1978, whichever first occurs.
Trueman and the City further agree that the aforesaid sum constitutes the
sole and only cash (or land in lien thereof) dedication which will be
required in connection with the subdividing of the within lots, TNCP.
The City agrees to vacate and waive its presently existing water right-of-way
recorded in Book 241 at Page 887 of the Pitkin County Records, and
located along the old Rio Grande Railroad right-of-way through the TNCP.
12/19/78 - Amendment Agreement
Ord.#4, Book 6 p.2552 1st Reading 1/8/79
Adopted 1/22/79
Lot 3 - The parties hereto further recognize that it is their intention
that the City shall be granted a right of access through Lot 3,
TNCP. Toward this end, Trueman shall grant to the City an
irrevocable license of access through all of Lot 3, TNCP, which
license shall become null and void upon the construction of
future improvements on the property together with the grant
to the City of a specific access easement through Lot 3, TNCP.
1/4/79 - Memo from Ron Stock
"The agreement amends the Subdivision Agreement in that the City is granted
an irrevocable license of access through all of Lot 3 until there is
construction of future improvements on the property together with a grant
of a specific access easement through Lot 3. This allows the developer
to construct the proposed drainage improvement with new specifications
and plans to be drafted by him and approved by the City."
Sewer Easement, Book 241, Page 810
Subdivision Agreement - Acceptance of the Final Plat by the City shall not
be deemed to constitute a vacation of the existent water and sewer
easements within the TNCP, and no interest in the same shall be deemed
waived or conveyed until such time as all water and sewer improvements
have been completed as shown on sheet number (4) of the Final Plat.
P. 4 Final Plat - Utility Modification Plan -Abandonment of 10' sewer easement
following the old Rio Grande track alignment.
SPA Plan Language
"No development of Lots 2, 3 and 4 shall take place prior to
approval of a specific SPA plan for each lot which shall constitute
amendments to the SPA Master Plan."
Cronology
Page Five
The bottom line of all this is that the parcel is developable within the
S/C/I zone. The only requirement is that a specific SPA plan for the lot
must be approved, which shall constitute an amendment to the SPA Master
Plan. The easements on the lot have been vacated or relocated and do not
present a problem in the development of the lot.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
(Please add to your cronology of the Trueman Center)
The Planning Office memo of June 7, 1976 which dealt with the Trueman Property
Preliminary Plat indicated that Lot III was comprised of 1.24 acres and that
1.24 acres would be used for recreation and 1.99 acres for open space. The
memo never specifically describes the areas which will be dedicated to open
space or recreation, but since the 1.24 acres matches the amount of space in
the Lot III parcel, one could assume that this area was considered for a recrea-
tion use.
This memo was introduced to the record at the Public Hearing held before the
Planning and Zoning Commission on April 5, 1983 by Hal Clark. Also introduced
was an untitled plan that was part of the files on the Trueman project held by
the City Engineering Department. The plan was drawn in 1975, updated on May 5,
1976 and coincides with the information in the Planning Office memo concerning
Preliminary Plat review. Since it appears that no official Preliminary Plat
was recorded, it is possible that this plan was the Preliminary Plat submission.
The recommendation of the Planning Office in the June 7 memo was for "approval
of the Preliminary Plat based upon the above broadly described conditions..."
The minutes of the June 15, 1976 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting show
that preliminary plat approval was "recommended" and "conditioned upon recom-
mendations of the Planning Office and the City Engineer." An error was possibly
made in the minutes, since P&Z does not "recommend" Preliminary Plat approval,
they take final action.
Section 20-14 of the Code outlines Final Plat Procedure. The statement is made
in this section that "the final plat shall conform to the approved preliminary
plat and shall include all changes as required after consideration by the
planning commission." If the approval by P&Z in fact intended to limit the use
of Lot 3 to recreation purposes, it certainly seems that some discussion would
have occurred and tighter assurances been made than are reflected in the record.
If this was indeed intended to be part of the Preliminary Plat approval, it
was not carried over to the Final Plat and violates the continuity required by
the Code. However, a copy of an official Preliminary Plat cannot be located
and the Council did not condition the use of Lot III in Final Plat approval.
This ambiguity in the record leaves us at an inconclusive point and we cannot
definitively say whether or not the lot was limited on the preliminary plat
and therefore should have been limited on the final plat.
350
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council July 11, 1983
BOARDS AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
Mayor Stirling said the Council had almost twenty applications for the openings. The
Cbu=il las appointed Doug Allen to the Housing Authority; David White will be a P & Z
3egprlar-member, and Paul Sheldon will be the new alternate; John Herz will be a regular
Board c>`i Adjustment member and Jon Hollinger is the new alternate. The Commercial Core
a t c.,,,,i,;— Commission member is Mary Karen Euler
SHAPH3}Y PROPERTY REPORT
(City Manager Chapman said Council has asked him to meet with Shapery and also to get an
«pinion of value on the property. Shapery presented an offer, and indicated he is unwill-
ing to negotiate down from that. The offer is purchase price of $650,000; Shapery will
contribute $10,000 to landscaping the parcel, if the city is willing to match that amount.
The city will pay taxes pro rated from June 27 to closing, and 10 per cent interest on
$650,000 from June 27 until closing, which is estimated at $8,200. The $650,000 purchase
price includes a $300,000 note to Trueman; there is a due -on sales clause in the note.
There is 12 per cent interest payable quarterly, principle payment of $100,000 January 10
1984 and $200,000 due January 10, 1987. Chapman told Council letter from High Country
Appraisals indicates that $650,000 is a fair price; the letter says the price is probably
more than fair.
Chapman told Council the staff has been doing some work on the $4,000,000 open space bond
issue to determine the best way to finance this property. Chapman told Council he had
discussed financing the $350,000 with Shapery; there is some uncertainty with this. The
$300,000 note with Trueman will probably get wrapped up with the unpaid park dedication
fee on this lot. There are approximately $460,000 worth of bonds that have not been issued
out of the $4,000,000; it is recommended by Joe Barrows that these be issued. The bonds
proceeds will be invested. Chapman told Council the city feels Trueman owes $130,000 for
the park dedication fee, $90,000 plus interest; Trueman feels he owes $17,000. Mayor
Stirling suggested the staff submit a contract with a contingency.
Gideon Kaufman, representing Shapery, said he feels when Shapery's application for SPA
was turned down June 27, inverse condemnation took place, and the city effectively purchased
the property. Kaufman said Mollica did an appraisal on the property, in which he stated
the property was worth $800,000 to $1,000,000. The city has a letter of opinion stating
that $650,000 is a good price. Kaufman said he did not believe this is now a negotiating
situation. Shapery is willing to sell the property for $650,000. Kaufman said there are
some time constraints under the laws of Colorado, and he would like the city to act on the
offer. Kaufman said he would like to avoid the time and added costs of getting into
arbitration. Kaufman said he felt the $650,000 figure is justifiable, and he would like
to end this and cut down the costs.
Mayor Stirling said the Council can act rapidly in the next two weeks. The city has not
had an opportunity to negotiate with Trueman. Mayor Stirling said the city ought to
prepare an agreement for sale and put the contingencies in it and move the next step.
Chapman told Council the staff has not been able to get ahold of Trueman's attorney.
Chapman said he is meeting with the then -city manager this week to see if he could get
a confirmation about the city agreeing to waive the commercial park dedication fee.
Chapman said Mick Mahoney did not confirm that. City Attorney Taddune said Mahoney wants
to go through the history before confirming anything.
WATER EXTENSION LINE TO THE M.A.A.
Councilman Collins said at the last meeting, Council approved to extend the water line to
the M.A.A. If Council wants to reconsider this action, it has to be done at the next
meeting. Councilman Collins said he would be willing to put this over a day or two. Tom
Dunlop, environmental health director, told Council the sanitation districts combined
their two Boards and voted 9 to 1 in favor of funding the sewer extension, based partly
on what happened at Council two weeks ago. The sanitation boards voted to provide $191,000
based on re-evaluated engineering costs. Dunlop told Council the sanitation boards knew
their approval was approval of the entire project, knowing the Council's approval was
conditioned upon their approval.
Dunlop told Council the sanitation districts put a condition upon their approval that if
the property ever sells, that the gift is no longer a gift and someone has to pay the
sanitation district back. Councilman Collins said he would like the city to be consistent
with whatever the sanitation districts did. Chapman suggested the staff prepare a specific
agreement with the M.A.A. The staff will work with the sanitation district to get the
agreements in synch and them submit this back to Council. Councilman Collins said he
wanted more discussion on this, and would be willing to continue this.
Councilman Collins moved to continue the meeting to Tuesday, July 12, 1983, at noon;
Council agreed.
TED RYAN LAND AT ASHCROFT
Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Resolution #18, Series of 1983, in support of the Ashcroft
.Land exchange; seconded by Councilwoman Walls. All in favor, motion carried.
Council left Chambers at 9:15 p.m.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Continued Meeting Aspen City Council July 12, 1983
Mayor Stirling called the continued Council meeting to order at 12:05 p.m. with Council -
members Blomquist, Collins and Walls present.
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen, colorado 81611
July 12, 1983
Mr. Sandor W. Shapery
La Jolla Cove Plaza
8008 Girard Avenue, Suite 410
La Jolla, California 92037
RE: "Additional Billing" on Shapery Adoption of an SPA Plan
Attached is the "Additional Billing" for the time spent over the allocated
hours on the Shapery Adoption of an SPA Plan. There are 11 hours allocated
for an SPA process and 23 hours were spent on this project. Therefore, 12
hours at a rate of $90.00 per hour has been charged to total an amount due
of $1,080.00.
Should you have any question in regard to this bill, please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Colette Penne, Planner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
CP/klm
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 13, 1983
Mayor Edel agreed to let the new Council face this issue. Councilman Collins moved to
continue the public hearing to the next regular meeting; seconded by Councilman Knecht.
All in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman Michael. Motion carried.
SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS - Aspen Rugby Club
Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the special event permits for 3.2 beer for the Aspen
Rugby Club; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #24, SERIES OF 1983 - Lada Vrany Settlement
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Knecht moved to adopt Ordinance #24, Series of 1983,•on second reading; seconded
by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Knecht, aye? Collins,,.
abstain; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #26, SERIES OF 1983 - Aspen Skiing Company/Little Nell Extension of SPA
Mayor Edel stated he believed he had a conflict of interest and will not vote. Councilman
Knecht said he would like to put this off until the next meeting. City Attorney Taddune
asked Council.to read his memorandum interpreting SPA zoning mechanism. Andy Hecht also
entered a letter he would like Council to have.
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing.
Councilman Knecht moved to continue the public hearing and table this until June 27, 1983;
seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, Mayor Edel abstained. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE 027, SERIES.OF 1983 - Buckhorn Lodge Rezoning
City Attorney Taddune told Council he has included language indicating that the owner of
the property has induced the city to consider this by volunteering an FAR of 1:1 and has
changed some whereases. Taddune said this does not change the character of the ordinance
but tightens up the 1:1. Colette Penne, planning office, told Council that the planning
office and P & Z recommend Council not rezone this C/L but recommend rezoning to L-3 for
the four reasons listed in the planning office memorandum. i
Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, pointed out one of the objections to the
rezoning is that C/L has a higher FAR. If the applicant were seeking a 2:1 FAR, there
would be some concern. However, the applicant has agreed to an FAR for this parcel of '
1:1. This is the same FAR as L-3 zone. Kaufman said by rezoning this to C/L, the Council
is not creating more density, commercial space or any new lodge units but would allow Mr.
Kelly to be conforming. This property has been the same way for over 20 years. Mayor
Edel said one of the delights of Garmisch is the tiny lodges. The only reason they exist
is because of the commercial space downstairs.
Bil Dunaway said in C/L zone, there are no parking requirements. One of the benefits of
this building is that there is good parking in an area that is congested. Kaufman said
there are no parking requirements in either the commercial zone or the lodge zone.
Mayor Edel closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #27, Series of 1983, on second reading as
amended; seconded by Councilman Collins.
Councilman Collins stated he has had problems with the L-3 zone since it was passed by
Council. Consistent with his position on L-3 as spot zone, Councilman Collins stated he
must take the position this is spot zoning. Councilman Collins also agreed with the four
points in the planning office memorandum.
Councilman Knecht moved to table Ordinance #27, Series of. 1983; seconded by Councilman
Collins. All in favor, with the exception of Councilwoman Michael. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 1983 - Subdivision Exception and SPA Amendment for Marolt
City Attorney Taddune told Council he is
prior to granting subdivision approval.
and continue it.
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing.
trying to iron out all problems of the closing
Taddune requested Council open the public hearing,
IIII
Councilman Knecht moved to continue the public hearing and to table this until June 27, f`
1983; seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. ()
ORDINANCE #29, SERIES OF 1983 - Shapery Downtown Storage SPA Plan
City Attorney Taddune reminded Council they have been advised as to their options with
respect for an S/C/I use in this zone, and the ramifications for failure to act on this
application. Taddune said, on the other hand, there has been a lot of interest in pur-
chasing that property as open space. There have been negotiations with the applicant
about purchasing the property. Gideon Kaufman said if something is going to be worked
out to purchase this property, that has no legal bearing on the application. The applicant
is entitled to a hearing on the application. This application has been in process almost
a year. Mayor -elect Stirling suggested a negotiating team be formed to work in the next
two weeks to bring this to a resolution in another form instead of developing the property.
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council June 13, 1983
Councilwoman Michael moved to table Ordinance 029, Series of 1983, until June 27, 1983;
seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Knecht.
Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #30, SERIES OF 1983 - Appropriations
Finance Director Sheree Sonfield explained to Council these expenditures have been
previously approved by Council. These are Alley clean up $14,286; trash barrels $4000;
flower box project $16,215; mall operations $5000; roof repairs $11,825 and truck leases
at $4000. The appropriation ordinance corrects the transfers from the land.fund and the
transportation/mall fund to the general fund.
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Edel closed the
public hearing.
Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #30, Series of 1983, on second reading
seconded by Councilman Knecht. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Collins, aye;
Knecht, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #31, SERIFS OF 1983 - Doppes Settlement
Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. City Attorney Taddune explained this is an appropria-
tion ordinance to settle a claim against various defendants. The city's share is $600.00
and is less expensive than litigation.
Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Ordinance #31, Series of. 1983, on second reading;
seconded by Councilman Collins. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Knecht, aye; Michael, aye;ll
Collins, aye; Mavor Edel, aye. Motion carried.
GOLF PRO SHOP CONSTRUCTION FINAL REPORT AND SALE OF OLD PRO SHOP
Jim Holland, parks director, told Council the original budget for the pro shop was $74,000�
and the actual expenditure was $211 over budget. Holland said the architectural fees �I
has an upset figure of $6400. After the job was completed, the architects Hagman -Yaw
reported to Holland that their actual time was $2311 over the job. Holland said he felt I;
the architects had done a great job, and the pro shop is a beautiful facility. Holland I�
recommended Council add the $2300 to Hagman-Yaw's contract. This brings the project to ''II
only $211 over budget. N
Councilwoman Michael moved to give authorization to staff to increase Hagman -Yaw Architects
Ltd. contract by $2315.78; seconded by Councilman Knecht. All in favor, motion carried.
i
Holland told Council he had advertised in the paper for disposition of the old pro shop. l
Holland received three proposals in writing; the Lions Club in Basalt asked for donation
of the building for a community center; a cash offer of $3250 from Joe winerise.
The third offer is from the Stones for a child care center. The offer has been changed i.
from the last meeting, the original offer was to move the building to Iselin at their
expense. The new offer is that the city move it at their expense, and the Stones are
willing to lease it for a minimum of five years. Councilman Collins asked if the new
offer to lease the space might come close to balancing the cost of the original offer.
Holland said they may well. Councilman Collins suggested going back to the Stones to
firm up the costs and lease payments.
Councilman Knecht asked for an update on the landscaping. Holland said he will advertise
for bids July 7. The earliest starting date would be 30 days from that. Councilman I
Collins asked if this included berming and paving of the parking lot. Holland said no.
Mayor -elect Stirling said he had been contacted by students in the high school as a
possibility of using this building as a teen center. Mayor Edel said this Council would
not make a decision on the old pro shop.
MAROON BELLS BUS PROGRAM
Monroe Summers told Council this Program has had seven successful years. The city took l
it over from the county three years ago and is proud of the fact that the program has
been kept in the black. This year the Aspen Highlands is foregoing its sky ride operation..
In the past, the city's relationship with Highlands has always been extremely cooperative.!
The Maroon Bells bus program has been a non-profit cooperative effort of the Aspen Skiing
Company, who provides the buses, some insurance, and the physical barricades; the Aspen ('
Highlands, who provides the parking lot and half the expense of a ticket taker; the
City of Aspen and U.S. Forest Service. The four entities have worked well together.
This year in the absence of the sky ride, the city has been negotiating a new arrangement
with Highlands in order to keep the Maroon bells bus program going, fiscally viable and
acceptable to the general public.
Summers told Council last year a professor from CSU did a follow-up study, which showed
the Maroon Bells bus program had achieved an acceptability with the public between 80 -
90 per cent. The study showed that the bus program could handle at most a fare of $2.25.
Summers told Council taking all financial things into account, he arrived at $5,000 for
the lease of the Highlands parking lot. Summers told Council he has had numerous meetings
with Highlands, and they have not arrived at terms. Summers said he offered Highlands
$5,000 for a three year lease. Summers asked Council to find acceptable the offer he ;i
made to the Aspen Highlands.
Mayor Edel asked what the alternatives were. Summers said the Forest Service can affect I,
a temporary day time blockage of the road. Summers said they have also investigated the
alternatives of operating the bus program at the high school, the Iselin pool. This
would create a bigger problem. Summers said for the long-term solution, they have looked ;I
into a parking lot and staging area at the forest service boundary. The city could get
out of the program and simply lease buses. The forest service has long range plans to
do this and has funds for 1985. A landscape architect from the Department of Agriculture
is coming to look into sites that might be appropriate for this operation.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Shapery Downtown Storage - SPA Plan
DATE: June 13, 1983
Background
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ��/
This project successfully competed in the 1983 Commercial Growth
Management Competition in meeting the required minimum thresholds of
the scoring process. The original submission was for three storage
buildings and a total of 24,750 square feet. An amendment was made
to the application which reduced the size of the project to 21,056
square feet in a two building configuration. Planning and Zoning
Commission re -scored the application, it again met all required
minimum point thresholds and the recommendation they sent to Council
was for an allocation of the full 21,056 square feet to complete the
project in one construction year. Along with the recommendation for
quota, they resubmitted Resolution 82-12 which encouraged Council to
buy the parcel for open space. You reviewed their recommendations
and granted the project an allocation of one year's quota in the
S/C/I zone, which is 7,000 square feet.
Applicant's Request
As shown on the SPA submission of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial
Project, "no development of Lots ...3... shall take place prior to
approval of a specific SPA plan for each lot which shall constitute
amendments to the SPA master plan." The applicant is, therefore,
submitting the enclosed site plan as the specific plan for the
development of Lot 3, which if approved, would constitute an amendment
to the Trueman SPA Master Plan.
Referral Comments
The City Attorney requested that the attached research concerning
the history of the Trueman SPA be completed. Also that the P&Z and
Council be advised that the considerations generally applicable to
applications for zone changes apply to this application.
The City Engineering Department had several areas of concern that
have in large part been addressed by the applicant to their satisfaction.
The remaining information they need is detail on the grading require-
ments for the parcel.
The Environmental Health Department made the following comments:
Noise: There is a 15 minute idling ordinance in the Municipal
Code which will regulate vehicles using the facility.
Perhaps signs at the entrance to the storage area will be
beneficial to notify vehicle operators to turn off their
engines when loading or unloading.
Site
Drainage: "It will be the request of this office that all run-off
from paved areas and roof drainage be contained on the
site. This can be accomplished by using on -site drywells
or non -discharging holding ponds.
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Two
June 13, 1983
The use of the existing storm sewer holding pond located
in Jenny Adair Park to contain this project's run-off is
not recommended. This is due to the inadequate treatment
given to street run-off currently entering the pond from
the west end of Aspen. Any increase in hydraulic loading
to this pond will simply exacerbate the situation of
inadequate water treatment prior to discharge into the
Roaring Fork River."
Development Plan
The development proposal is for two storage warehouse buildings with
a total gross square footage of 21,056 square feet. The development
allotment for this construction season is for 7,000 square feet.
The total buildout proposed by the applicant is the subject of this
review, since the only way to adequately consider its impacts is to
review the total potential project.
The project breakdown is as follows:
56 storage units @ 8'xl8'=144 sq.ft.
56 storage units @ 8'x20'=160 sq.ft,
Gross storage square footage
Drive -through 2nd floor corridors
Total Gross Square Footage (storage)
Office
On -site manager's apartment
Total
Lot Area is 1.147 acres
8,064 sq.ft.
8,960 sq.ft.
17,024 sq.ft.
4,082 sq.ft.
21,056 sq.ft.
400 sq.ft.
400 sq.ft.
21,856 sq.ft.
= 49,963 sq.ft.
This site plan is being reviewed as the specific development plan
for Loe 3 of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Porject Specially
Planned Area. If adopted, its final form shall constitute an amendment
to the SPA Master Plan. The underlying zone category is Service/
Commercial/Industrial.
Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses
In considering the compatibility of this storage warehouse proposal
with surrounding land uses and the existing neighborhood, the evalua-
tion literally depends upon which direction you face. To the
southand east are neighborhood commercial and S/C/I uses with which
this proposal is consistent. To the west and north are the pristine
natural settings of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies with
their open meadows and wildlife sanctuary and the river. The Roaring
Fork Greenway and the Rio Grande Trail will both be affected by the
placement of this project. If you consider the north and west sides
of the "neighborhood", this project can only be considered to be an
intrusion and a negative impact on an environmentally sensitive
area.
The applicant has responded to this sensitive area in severaly ways.
The most significant of these responses is the offer to dedicate to
the City and landscape the rear 120 feet (closest to the river) of
the property for use as a park (total area of 12,000 square feet).
This offer is certainly a positive step in keeping intact the integrity
of the Greenway. A second response is the applicant's proposal to
relocate the Rio Grande Trail to the west side of the property.
This proposal is a preferable location for the trailhead, in that if
the storage warehouses are built, having the trail between them and
the sewer plant does not represent an experience nearly as positive
as the open views of ACES that would be offered by the relocated
trail.
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Three
June 13, 1983
The downside of moving the trail to the west side of the property is
that (1) there is no positive assurance offered by the applicant
that the easements necessary from the adjoining property owners can
be obtained; (2) the applicant is agreeing to construct only the
segment of the trail which lies on his property and that segment is
very small; (3) the City will be incurring expense to rebuild the
trail and possibly to secure the necessary easements. In addition
to the obvious higher degree of aesthetics of the relocation of the
trail, there is the added possibility that,a linkage could be made
to the trail which connects Lots 1 and 2 of the Trueman Center to
the West End residential area. The applicant has further responded
to the sensitive nature of surrounding land uses by fencing the
project (with a natural wood fence) to reduce the visual impact of
renters accessing their units and to limit the hours of operation
and therefore limiting the lighting needed.
Relationship of Lot 3 to the Remainder of the Trueman SPA
One of the fundamental problems of this development on thissite is
the fact that the original Trueman SPA was parcelled into four lots
and all attention then turned to the details of development of Lot
1. When Lot 2 was developed by the U.S. government as a post office,
no amendment to the original SPA was filed. The result of these two
actions is that the total traffic and pedestrian circulation from
these projects was never fully evaluated and the development of Lot
3 cannot be addressed without recognizing its cumulative effect on
the existing situation. Several assumptions can be made: (1) merchants
operating in Aspen who need quick access to their stored goods will
opt for one of these spaces rather than one at the Airport Business
Center; (2) the long-term renter most likely will choose the ABC
unless there is not a significant price difference, in which case
he/she would probably choose the first space available; (3) a tenant
of a storage unit space will use a private venicle to come and go
from this project; and (4) a trip to this location will be multi-
purpose. Based on these assumptions, we can conclude that the
porject may not be as low impact in terms of traffic generation as
is typically the case for a storage warehouse project.
However, since a grocery store, post office, drug store, bank branch,
liquor store, etc., already generate considerably daily trips, the
lessees of a storage unit may combine one more stop in an already
planned trip to this activity center.
This area is densely developed and more emphasis should have been
placed on balance of open space, landscaping and effective circulation
than is apparent from the record of the Trueman Center approvals.
Site Specific Considerations
The storage warehouse proposal is a relatively low -impact use in the
S/C/I zone. Compared to a car wash, a lumberyard, or a vehicle
sales facility, all of which are permitted uses, warehousing and
storage (also a permitted use) is much "quieter." Employee generation
is minimal and the housing need is being met. The manager's office
and housing unit are being housed in the historic Koch Lumber Co.
Building which will be located at the entrance to the project.
Parking is being provided at one space in front of each unit, which
is adequate, but at least three spaces should be provided at the
office location. One space for the manager's car and two for customers
should be provided. Easements exist on the property for utilities
and access (a 15' easement on the west side of the property, which
allows the City access to Jenny Adair Park). A sewer trunk line
exists on the eastern side of the project. No structures will be
placed over the trunk line, it will be covered by the driveway. The
site plan is well -executed, with a good circulation plan and an
interesting design for this type of facility. The structures are
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Four
June 13, 1983
intended to have the appearance of large barns and because of the
grade of the site will not show up as full two-story structures.
The structures will have the visual impact of reducing a view of
Ajax from the Rio Grande Trail as it nears town and the view of the
trail and green space from Puppy Smith Street will be lost.
Area and Bulk Requirements
The applicable area and bulk requirements of the S/C/I zone are as
follows:
Minimum lot area
Minimum lot width
Minimum front yard
Minimum side yard
Minimum rear yard
Maximum height
Minimum distance between bldgs.
Percent open space
External FAR
Internal FAR
6,000 square feet
No requirement
5 feet
No requirement
No requirement
32 feet
No requirement
25%
1:1
No requirement
The proposed project meets all these requirements except that the
placement of the Koch Lumber Company Building offers a 5 foot front
yard rather than the 10 foot front yard normally required in the
S/C/I zone. The applicant placed the structure in this location to
maximize the area available for dedication as a park, and the P&Z
agreed with this placement.
Other Review Criteria
The project is compatible with the Aspen Area General Plan, 1966, as
amended in that it is located in the "Neighborhood Commercial -
Limited Industrial" area. All of the Sanitation Plant, Hallam Lake
and the river area are in the "Open Space" category. The project
will not impact air and water quality in the vicinity of the site
provided run-off is contained on -site. The closest point of the
development to the river will be at least 100 feet and since the
City's settling ponds are between the development site and the
river, drainage impacts should not affect the river (with one possible
exception of during construction). The question of overall community
balance can be approached from the perspective that by meeting the
need for storage nearer the Commercial Core, merchants who use it
will not be traveling on Highway 82 to the Airport Business Center.
Some individuals have raised the question of the appropriateness of
storage facilities in this location. It should be noted that such
facilities are a permitted use in the S/C/I zone which is the underlying
zone of this parcel.
Summary
Issues
Land Use Compatibility
Rio Grande Trail
Traffic
Pro
Trueman Center;
Sewer Plant
Relocation closer
to open areas
Multi -use trips
Con
ACES;
Roaring Fork
Greenway
No guarantee of
easements
Excess traffic now
Site Plan Relatively low Bulky development
impact at trailhead
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Five
June 13, 1983
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
The attached resolution is the recommendation.
Council Action
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that if Council
approved the SPA plan, the GMP allotment be increased to allow full
construction of the project. The language in the Ordinance allowing
for this was removed from Ordinance 29 at first reading.
The appropriate motion is:
"I move to adopt Ordinance 29, Series of 1983 (as amended)."
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Shapery Downtown Storage - SPA Plan
DATE: June 271 1983
Background
APPROVED AS TO FORM
This project successfully competed in the 1983 Commercial Growth
Management Competition in meeting the required minimum thresholds of
the scoring process. The original submission was for three storage
buildings and a total of 24,750 square feet. An amendment was made
to the application which reduced the size of the project to 21,056
square feet in a two building configuration. Planning and Zoning
Commission re -scored the application, it again met all required
minimum point thresholds and the recommendation they sent to Council
was for an allocation of the full 21,056 square feet to complete the
project in one ccnstruction year. Along with the recommendation for
quota, they resubmitted Resolution 82-12 which encouraged Council to
buy the parcel fcr open space. You reviewed their recommendations
and granted the project an allocation of one year's quota in the
S/C/I zone, which is 7,000 square feet.
Applicant's Request
As shown on the SPA submission of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial
Project, "no development of Lots ...3... shall take place prior to
approval of a specific SPA plan for each lot which shall constitute
amendments to the SPA master plan." The applicant is, therefore,
submitting the enclosed site plan as the specific plan for the
development of Lot 3, which if approved, would constitute an amendment
to the Trueman SPA Master Plan.
Referral Comments
The City Attorney requested that the attached research concerning
the history of the Trueman SPA be completed. Also that the P&Z and
Council be advised that the considerations generally applicable to
applications for zone changes apply to this application.
The City Engineering Department had several areas of concern that
have in large part been addressed by the applicant to their satisfaction.
The remaining information they need is detail on -the grading require-
ments for the parcel.
The Environmental Health Department made the following comments:
Noise: There is a 15 minute idling ordinance in the Municipal
Code which will regulate vehicles using the facility.
Perhaps signs at the entrance to the storage area will be
beneficial to notify vehicle operators to turn off their
engines when loading or unloading.
Site
Drainage: "It will be the request of this office that all run-off
from paved areas and roof drainage be contained on the
site. This can be accomplished by using on -site drywells
or non -discharging holding ponds.
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Two -
June 27, 1983
The use of the existing storm sewer holding pond located
in Jenny Adair Park to contain this project.'s run-off is
not recommended. This is due to the inadequate treatment
given to street run-off currently entering the pond from
the west end of Aspen. Any increase in hydraulic loading
to this pond will simply exacerbate the situation of
inadequate water treatment prior to discharge into the
Roaring Fork River."
Development Plan
The development proposal is for two storage warehouse buildings with
a total gross square footage of 21,056 square feet. The development
allotment for this construction season is for 7,000 square feet.
The total buildout proposed by the applicant is the subject of this
review, since the only way to adequately consider its impacts is to
review the total potential project.
The project breakdown is as follows:
56 storage units @ 8'xl8'=144 sq.ft.
56 storage units @ 8'x20'=160 sq.ft,
Gross storage square footage
Drive -through 2nd floor corridors
Total Gross Square Footage (storage)
Office
On -site manager's apartment
Total.
Lot Area is 1.147 acres
= 8,064 sq.ft.
= 8,960 sq.ft.
17,024 sq.ft.
= 4,082 sq.ft.
21,056 sq.ft.
400 sq.ft.
400 sq.ft.
21,856 sq.ft.
49,963 sq.ft.
This site plan is being reviewed as the specific development plan
for Loe 3 of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Porject Specially
Planned Area. If adopted, its final form shall constitute an amendment
to the SPA Master Plan. The underlying zone category is Service/
Commercial/Industrial.
Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses
In considering the compatibility of this storage warehouse proposal
with surrounding land uses and the existing neighborhood, the evalua-
tion literally depends upon which direction you face. To the
southand east are neighborhood commercial and S/C/I uses with which
this proposal is consistent. To the west and north are the pristine
natural settings of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies with
their open meadows and wildlife sanctuary and the river. The Roaring
Fork Greenway and the Rio Grande Trail will both be affected by the
placement of this project. If you consider the north and west sides
of the "neighborhood", this project can only be considered to be an
intrusion and a negative impact on an environmentally sensitive
area.
The applicant has responded to this sensitive area in severaly ways.
The most significant of these responses is the offer to dedicate to
the City and landscape the rear 120 feet (closest to the river) of
the property for use as a park (total area of 12,000 square feet).
This offer is certainly a positive step in keeping intact the integrity
of the Greenway. A second response is the applicant's proposal to
relocate the Rio Grande Trail to the west side of the property.
This proposal is a preferable location for the trailhead, in that if
the storage warehouses are built, having the trail between them and
the sewer plant does not represent an experience nearly as positivo
as the open views of ACES that would be offered by the relocated
trail.
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Three
June 27, 1983
The downside of moving the trail to the west side of the property is
that (1) there is no positive assurance offered by the applicant
that the easements necessary from the adjoining property owners can
be obtained; (2) the applicant is agreeing to construct only the
segment of the trail which lies on his property and that segment is
very small; (3) the City will be incurring expense to rebuild the
trail and possibly to secure the necessary easements. In addition
to the obvious higher degree of aesthetics of the relocation of the
trail, there is the added possibility that.a linkage could be made
to the trail which connects Lots 1 and 2 of the Trueman Center to
the West End residential area. The applicant has further responded
to the sensitive nature of surrounding land uses by fencing the
project (with a natural wood fence) to reduce the visual impact of
renters accessing their units and,to limit the hours of operation
and therefore limiting the lighting needed.
Relationship of Lot 3 to the Remainder of the Trueman SPA
One of the fundamental problems of this development on thissite is
the fact that the original Trueman SPA was parcelled into four lots
and all attention then turned to the details of development of Lot
1. When Lot 2 was developed by the U.S. government as a post office,
no amendment to the original SPA was filed. The result of these two
actions is that the total traffic and pedestrian circulation from
these projects was never fully evaluated and the development of Lot
3 cannot be addressed without recognizing its cumulative effect on
the existing situation. Several assumptions can be made: (1) merchants
operating in Aspen who need quick access to their stored goods will
opt for one of these spaces rather than one at the Airport Business
Center; (2) the long-term renter most likely will choose the ABC
unless there is not a significant price difference, in which case
he/she would probably choose the first space available; (3) a tenant
of a storage unit space will use a private venicle to come and go
from this project; and (4) a trip to this location will be multi-
purpose. Based on these assumptions, we can conclude that the
porject may not be as low impact in terms of traffic generation as
is typically the case for a storage warehouse project.
However, since a grocery store, post office, drug store, bank branch,
liquor store, etc., already generate considerably daily trips, the
lessees of a storage unit may combine one more stop in an already
planned trip to this activity center.
This area is densely developed and more emphasis should have been
placed on balance of open space, landscaping and effective circulation
than is,apparent from the record of the Trueman Center approvals.
Site Specific Considerations
The storage warehouse proposal is a relatively low -impact use in the
S/C/I zone. Compared to a car wash, a lumberyard, or a vehicle
sales facility, all of which are permitted uses, warehousing and
storage (also a permitted usc) is much "quieter." Employee generation
is minimal and the housing need is being met. The manager's office
and housing unit are being housed in the historic Koch Lumber Co.
Building which will be located at the entrance to the project.
Parking is being provided at one space in front of each unit, which
is adequate, but at least three spaces should be provided at the
office location. One space for the manager's car and two for customers
should be provided. Easements exist on the property for utilities
and access (a 15' easement on the west side of the property, which
allows the City access to Jenny Adair Park). A sewer trunk line
exists on the eastern side of the project. No structures will be
placed over the trunk line, it will be covered by the driveway. The
site plan is well. -executed, with a good circulation plan and an
interesting design for this type of facility. The structures are
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Four
June 27, 1983
intended to have the appearance of large barns and because of the
grade of the site will not show up as full two-story structures.
The structures will have the visual impact of reducing a view of
Ajax from the Rio Grande Trail as it nears town and the view of the
trail and green space from Puppy Smith Street will be lost.
Area and Bulk Requirements
The applicable area and bulk requirements of the S/C/I zone are as
follows:
Minimum lot area
Minimum lot width
Minimum front yard
Minimum side yard
Minimum rear yard
Maximum height
Minimum distance between bldgs.
Percent open space
External FAR
Internal FAR
6,000 square feet
No requirement
5 feet
No requirement
No requirement
32 feet
No requirement
250
1:1
No requirement
The proposed project meets all these requirements except that the
placement of the Koch Lumber Company Building offers a 5 foot front
yard rather than the 10 foot front yard normally required in the
S/C/I zone. The applicant placed the structure in this location to
maximize the area available for dedication as a park, and the P&Z
agreed with this placement.
Other Review Criteria
The project is compatible with the Aspen Area General Plan, 1966, as
amended in that it is located in the "Neighborhood Commercial -
Limited Industrial" area. All of the Sanitation Plant, Hallam Lake
and the river area are in the "Open Space" category. The project
will not impact air and water quality in the vicinity of the site
provided run-off is contained on -site. The closest point of the
development to the river will be at least 100 feet and since the
City's settling ponds are between the development site and the
river, drainage impacts should not affect the river (with one possible
exception of during construction). The question of overall community
balance can be approached from the perspective that by meeting the
need for storage nearer the Commercial Core, merchants who use it
will not be traveling on Highway 82 to the Airport Business Center.
Some individuals have raised the question of the appropriateness of
storage'facilities in this location. It should be noted that such
facilities are a permitted use in the S/C/I zone which is the underlying
zone of this parcel.
Summary
Issues
Land Use Compatibility
Rio Grande Trail
Traffic
Pro
Trueman Center;
Sewer Plant
Relocation closer
to open areas
Multi -use trips
Con
ACES;
Roaring Fork
Greenway
No guarantee of
easements
Excess traffic now
Site Plan Relatively low Bulky development
impact at trailhead
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Five
June 27 , 1983
Planning and Zoninq Commission Recommendation
The attached resolution is the recommendation.
Council Action
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that if Council
approved the SPA plan, the GMP allotment be increased to allow full
construction of the project. The language in the Ordinance allowing
for this was removed from Ordinance 29 at first reading.
The appropriate motion is:
"I move to adopt Ordinance 29, Series of 1983 (as amended)."
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE:
Shapery
Downtown
Storage - SPA
Plan
DATE:
May 23,
1983
APPROVED AS
TO FORM: 0f '
Background
This project successfully competed in the 1983 Commercial Growth
Management Competition in meeting the required minimum thresholds
of the scoring process. The original submission was for three
storage buildings and a total of 24,750 square feet. An amendment
was made to the application which reduced the size of the porject to
21,056 square feet in a two building configuration. Planning and
Zoning Commission re -scored the application, it again met all required
minimum point thresholds and the recommendation they sent to Council
was for an allocation of the full 21,056 square feet to complete the
project in one construction year. Along with the recommendation for
quota, they resubmitted Resolution 82-12 which encouraged Council to
buy the parcel for open space. You reviewed their recommendations
and granted the project an allocation of one year's quota in the
S/C/I zone, which is 7,000 square feet.
Attached for your review also is the history of the Trueman Neigh-
borhood Commercial Project as it relates to Lot 3. Our research
shows that Lot 3 is a developable parcel with S/C/I zoning and an
SPA overlay and that provisions were made for the vacation of ease-
ments at the time of development.
Applicant's Request
As shown on the SPA submission of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial
Project, "no development of Lots ...3... shall take place prior to
approval of a specific SPA plan for each lot which shall constitute
amendments to the SPA master plan." The applicant is, therefore,
submitting the enclosed site plan as the specific plan for the develop-
ment of Lot 3, which if approved, would constitute an amendment to
the Trueman SPA Master Plan.
Referral Comments
The City Attorney requested that the attached research concerning
the history of the Trueman SPA be completed. Also that the P&Z and
Council be advised that the considerations generally applicable to
applications for zone changes apply to this application.
The City Engineering Department had several areas of concern that
have in large part been addressed by the applicant to their satisfaction.
The remaining information they need is detail on the grading require-
ments for the parcel.
The Environmental Health Department made the following comments:
Noise: There is a 15 minute idling ordinance in the Municipal
Code which will regulate vehicles using the facility.
Perhaps signs at the entrance to the storage area will
be beneficial to notify vehicle operators to turn off
their engines when loading or unloading.
Site
Drainage: "It will be the request of this office that all run-off
from paved areas and roof drainage be contained on the
site. This can be accomplished by using on -site drywells
or non -discharging holding ponds.
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Two
May 23, 1983
The use of the existing storm sewer holding pond located
in Jenny Adair Park to contain this project's run-off
is not recommended. This is due to the inadequate treat-
ment given to street run-off currently entering the pond
from the west end of Aspen. Any increase in hydraulic
loading to this pond will simply exacerbate the situation
of inadequate water treatment prior to discharge into the
Roaring Fork River."
Development Plan
The development proposal is for two storage warehouse buildings with
a total gross square footage of 21,056 square feet. The development
allotment for this construction season is for 7,000 square feet. The
total buildout proposed by the applicant is the subject of this review,
since the only way to adequately consider its impacts is to review
the total potential project.
The project breakdown is as follows:
56 storage units @ 8'xl8'=144 sq.ft.
56 storage units @ 81x20'=160 sq.ft.
Gross storage square footage
Drive -through 2nd floor corridors
Total Gross Square Footage (storage)
Office
On -site manager's apartment
Total
Lot Area is 1.147 acres
= 8,064 sq.ft.
8,960 sq.ft.
17,024 sq.ft.
4,082 sq.ft.
21,056 sq.ft.
400 sq.ft.
400 sq.ft.
21,856 sq.ft.
49,963 sq.ft.
This site plan is being reviewed as the specific development plan for
Loe 3 of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Porject Specially Planned
Area. If adopted, its final form shall constitute an amendment to
the SPA Master Plan. The underlying zone category is Service/
Commercial/Industrial.
Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses
In considering the compatibility of this storage warehouse proposal
with surrounding land uses and the existing neighborhood, the evalua-
tion literally depends upon which direction you face. To the south
and east are neighborhood commercial and S/C/I uses with which this
proposal is consistent. To the west and north are the pristine
natural settings of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies with
their open meadows and wildlife sanctuary and the river. The Roaring
Fork Greenway and the Rio Grande Trail will both be affected by the
placement of this project. If you consider the north and west sides
of the "neighborhood", this project can only be considered to be
an intrusion and a negative impact on an environmentally sensitive area.
The applicant has responded to this sensitive area in severaly ways.
The most significant of these responses is the offer to dedicate to
the City and landscape the rear 120 feet (closest to the river) of
the property for use as a park (total area of 12,000 square feet).
This offer is certainly a positive step in keeping intact the integrity
of the Greenway. A second response is the applicant's proposal to
relocate the Rio Grande Trail to the west side of the property. This
proposal is a preferable location for the trailhead, in that if the
storage warehouses are built, having the trail between them and the
sewer plant does not represent an experience nearly as positive as
the open views of ACES that would be offered by the relocated trail.
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Three
May 23, 1983
The downside of moving the trail to the west side of the property
is that (1) there is no positive assurance offered by the applicant
that the easements necessary from the adjoining property owners
can be obtained; (2) the applicant is agreeing to construct only
the segment of the trail which lies on his property and that segment
is very small; (3) the City will be incurring expense to rebuild
the trail and possibly to secure the necessary easements. In
addition to the obvious higher degree of aesthetics of the relocation
of the trail, there is the added possibility that a linkage could
be made to the trail which connects Lots 1 and 2 of the Trueman
Center to the West End residential area. The applicant has further
responded to the sensitive nature of surrounding land uses by
fencing the project (with a natural wood fence) to reduce the visual
impact of renters accessing their units and to limit the hours of
operation and therefore limiting the lighting needed.
Relationship of Lot 3 to the Remainder of the Trueman SPA
One of the fundamental problems of this development on thi site is the
fact that the original Trueman SPA was parcelled into four lots and
all attention then turned to the details of development of Lot 1.
When Lot 2 was developed by the U.S. government as a post office, no
amendment to the original SPA was filed. The result of these two
actions is that the total traffic and pedestrian circulation from
these projects was never fully evaluated and the development of Lot 3
cannot be addressed without recognizing its cumulative effect on the
existing situation. Several assumptions can be made: (1) merchants
operating in Aspen who need quick access to their stored goods will
opt for one of these spaces rather than one at the Airport Business
Center; (2) the long-term renter most likely will choose the ABC
unless there is not a significant price difference, in which case he/she
would probably choose the first space available; (3) a tenant of a
storage unit space will use a private venicle to come and go from this
project; and (4) a trip to this location will be multi -purpose.
Based on these assumptions, we can conclude that the porject may not
be as low impact in terms of traffic generation as is typically the
case for a storage warehouse project.
However, since a grocery store, post office, drug store, bank branch,
liquor store, etc., already generate considerably daily trips, the
lessees of a storage unit may combine one more stop in an already
planned trip to this activity center.
This area is densely developed and more emphasis should have been
placed on balance of open space, landscaping and effective circulation
than is apparent from the record of the Trueman Center approvals.
Site Specific Considerations
The storage warehouse proposal is a relatively low -impact use in the
S/C/I zone. Compared to a car wash, a lumberyard, or a vehicle sales
facility, all of which are permitted uses, warehousing and storage
(also a permitted use) is much "quieter." Employee generation is
minimal and the housing need is being met. The manager's office and
housing unit are being housed in the historic Koch Lumber Co. Building
which will be located at the entrance to the project. Parking is
being provided at one space in front of each unit, which is adequate,
but at least three spaces should be provided at the office location.
One space for the manager's car and two for customers should be
provided. Easements exist on the property for utilities and access
(a 15' easement on the west side of the property, which allows the
City access to Jenny Adair Park). A sewer trunk line exists on the
eastern side of the project. No structures will be placed over the
trunk line, it will be covered by the driveway. The site plan is
well -executed, with a good circulation plan and an interesting design
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Four
May 23, 1983
for this type of facility. The structures are intended to have the
appearance of large barns and because of the grade of the site will
not show up as full two-story structures. The structures will have
the visual impact of reducing a view of Ajax from the Rio Grande
Trail as it nears town and the view of the trail and green space from
Puppy Smith Street will be lost.
Area and Bulk Requirements
The applicable area and bulk requirements of the S/C/I zone are
as follows:
Minimum lot area
Minimum lot width
Minimum front yard
Minimum side yard
Minimum rear yard
Maximum height
Minimum distance between bldgs.
Percent open space
External FAR
Internal FAR
6,000 square feet
No requirement
5 feet
No requirement
No requirement
32 feet
No requirement
25%
1: 1
No requirement
The proposed project meets all these requirements except that the
placement of the Koch Lumber Company Building offers a 5 foot front
yard rather than the 10 foot front yard normally required in the
S/C/I zone. The applicant placed the structure in this location to
maximize the area available for dedication as a park, and the P&Z
agreed with this placement.
Other Review Criteria
The project is compatible with the Aspen Area General Plan, 1966, as
amended in that it is located in the "Neighborhood Commercial -Limited
Industrial" area. All of the Sanitation Plant, Hallam Lake and the
river area are in the "Open Space" category. The project will not
impact air and water quality in the vicinity of the site provided
run-off is contained on -site. The closest point of the development
to the river will be at least 100 feet and since the City's settling
ponds are between the development site and the river, drainage impacts
should not affect the river (with one possible exception of during
construction). The question of overall community balance can be
approached from the perspective that by meeting the need for storage
nearer the Commercial Core, merchants who use it will not be traveling
on Highway 82 to the Airport Business Center. Some individuals have
raised the question of the appropriateness of storage facilities in
this location. It should be noted that such facilities are a permitted
use in the S/C/I zone which is the underlying zone of this parcel.
Summary
Issues
Land Use Compatibility
Rio Grande Trail
Traffic
Pro
Trueman Center;
Sewer Plant
Relocation closer
to open areas
Multi -use trips
Con
ACES;
Roaring Fork
Greenway
No guarantee of
easements
Excess traffic now
Site Plan Relatively low Bulky development
impact at trailhead
Memo: Shapery Downtown Storage
Page Five
May 23, 1983
Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
The attached resolution is the recommendation.
Council Action
If Council concurs with the recommendations of the Planning and
Zoning Commission, the appropriate motion is:
"I move to read ordinance{G% ( Series of 1983)."
"I move to a�rove Ordinance (Series of 1983)."
Cr
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Shapery Downtown Storage - SPA Plan
DATE: April 25,1983
Background
This project successfully competed in the 1983 Commercial Growth Management
Competition in meeting the required minimum thresholds of the scoring
process. The original submission was for three storage buildings and a
total of 24,750 square feet. An amendment was made to the application
which reduced the size of the project to 21,056 square feet in a two
building configuration. You re -scored the amended application, it
again met all required minimum point thresholds and the recommendation you
sent to Council was for an allocation of the full 21,056 square feet to
complete the project in one construction year. Along with the recommendation
for quota, you resubmitted Resolution 82-12 which encouraged Council to
buy the parcel for open space. Council reviewed your recommendations
and granted the project an allocation of one year's quota in the SCI
zone, which is 7,000 square feet.
Attached for your review also is the history of the Trueman Neighborhood
Commercial Project as it relates to Lot 3. Our research shows that Lot 3
is a developable parcel with S/C/I zoning and an SPA overlay and that
provisions were made for the vacation of easements at the time of development.
Applicant's Request
As shown on the SPA Submission of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial
Project, "no development of Lots .. 3 .. shall take place prior to approval
of a specific SPA plan for each lot which shall constitute amendments
to the SPA master plan." The applicant is, therefore, submitting the
enclosed site plan as the specific plan for the development of Lot 3, which
if approved, would constitute an amendment to the Trueman SPA Master Plan.
Referral Comments
The City Attorney requested that the attached research concerning the history
of the Trueman SPA be completed. Also that the P & Z and Council be
advised that the considerations generally applicable to applications for
zone changes apply to this application.
The City Engineering Department has requested that attention be given to the
following items:
1. There may be potential problems with utilities and in -place
easements that currently exist on the parcel. The applicant should
be required at this time to obtain comments from the Aspen Sanitation
District and Holy Cross Electric Association regarding existing
facilities, setback needs, and any potential relocations. The City
will require a minimum twenty foot easement along the westerly property
line for storm drainage and access to Jenny Adair Park.
The applicant should be required to obtain some assurance from
adjacent property owners that easements are available to accommodate
the trail relocation, grading and landscape needs.
Shapery Downtown Storage - SPA Plan
Page Two
April 25, 1983
3. Proposed location of the Koch building does not appear to honor
the proposed setback from Puppy Smith Street.
4. How will access be provided to the phase one construction? Will
the elevated driveway portion of the structure be built in total
during the first phase? This should be clarified.
5. Neither the original GMP site plan nor the current site plan
adequately addresses grading requirements for the parcel. The
grading to accommodate the elevated drive and realigned trail may
extend significantly on to adjacent ownerships. Reconstruction
of the trail should not interfere with access to Jenny Adair Park.
The Environmental Health Department made the following comments:
Noise: There is a 15 minute idling ordinance in the Municipal Code which
will regulate vehicles using the facility. Perhaps signs at the
entrance to the storage area will be beneficial to notify vehicle
operators to turn off their engines when loading or unloading.
Site
Drainage: "It will be the request of this office that all run-off from paved
areas and roof drainage be contained on the site. This can be
accomplished by using on -site dry wells or non -discharging holding
ponds.
The use of the existing storm sewer holding pond located in Jenny
Adair Park to contain this project's run-off is not recommended.
This is due to the inadequate treatment given to street run-off
currently entering the pond from the West end of Aspen. Any increase
in hydraulic loading to this pond will simply exacerbate the situa-
tion of inadequate water treatment prior to discharge into the
Roaring Fork River."
Planning Office Review Development Plan
The development proposal is for two storage warehouse buildings with
a total gross square footage of 21,056 square feet. The development
allotment for this construction season is for 7,000 square feet. The
total buildout proposed by the applicant is the subject of this review,
since the only way to adquately consider its impacts is to review the
total potential project.
The project breakdown is as follows:
56 storage units @ 8'xl8'=144 sq. ft.= 8,064 sq. ft.
56 storage units @ 8'x2O'=160 sq. ft.= 8,960 sq. ft.
Gross storage square footage
=17,024
sq.
ft.
Drive-thru 2nd floor corridors
= 4,082
sq.
ft.
Total Gross Square Footage(storage)
=21,056
sq.
ft.
Office
= 400
sq.
ft.
On -site Manager's Apt.
= 400
sq.
ft.
Total ....
=21,856
sq.
ft.
Lot Area = 1.147 Acres
=49,963
sq.
ft.
This site plan is being reviewed as the specific development plan for Lot 3
of the Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project Specially Planned Area. If
adopted, its final form shall constitute an amendment to the SPA Master
Plan. The underlying zone category is Service/Commercial/Industrial.
Shapery Downtown Storage - SPA Plan
Page Three
Apri 1 2b, 1983
Compatibility With Surroundinq Land Uses
In considering the compatibility of this storage warehouse proposal with
surrounding land uses and the existing neighborhood, the evaluation
literally depends upon which direction you face. To the south and east
are neighborhood commercial and S/C/I uses with which this proposal.is
consistent. To the west and north are the pristine natural settings of
the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies with their open meadows and
wildlife sanctuary and the river. The Roaring Fork Greenway and the Rio
Grande Trail will both be affected by the placement of this project.
If you consider the north and west sides of the "neighborhood", this
project can only be considered to be an intrusion and a negative impact
on an environmentally sensitive area.
The applicant has responded to this sensitive area in several ways.
The most significant of these responses is the offer to dedicate to the
City and landscape the rear 120 feet (closest to the river) of the
property for use as a park (total area of 12,000 sq. ft.). This offer
is certainly a positive step in keeping intact the integrity of the Greenway.
A second response is the applicant's proposal to relocate the Rio Grande
Trail to the west side of the property. This proposal is a preferable
location for the trailhead, in that if the storage warehouses are built,
having the trail between them and the sewer plant does not represent
an experience nearly as positive as the open views of ACES that would be
offered by the relocated trial. The downside of moving the trail to the
west side of the property is that: (1) there is no positive assurance offered
by the applicant that the easements necessary from the adjoining property
owners can be obtained; (2) the applicant is agreeing to construct only
the segment of the trail which lies on his property and that segment
is very small; (3) the City will be incurring expense to rebuild the trail
and possibly to secure the necessary easements. In addition to the
obvious higher degree of aesthetics of the relocation of the trail, there
is the added possibility that a linkage could be made to the trail which
connects Lots 1 and 2 of the Trueman Center to the West End residential area.
The applicant has further responded to the sensitive nature of surrounding
land uses by fencing the project (with a natural wood fence) to reduce the
visual impact of renters accessing their units and to limit the hours
of operation and therefore limiting the lighting needed.
Relationship of Lot 3 To The Remainder of the Trueman SPA
One of the fundamental problems of this development on this site is the
fact that the original Trueman SPA was parcelled into four lots and all
attention then turned to the details of development of Lot 1. When Lot 2
was developed by the U.S. government as a post office, no amendment to
the original SPA was filed. The result of these two actions is that the
total traffic and pedestrian circulation from these projects was never
fully evaluated and the development of Lot 3 cannot be addressed without
recognizing its cumulative effect on the existing situation. Several
assumptions can be made: (1) merchants operating in Aspen who need quick access
to their stored goods will opt for one of these spaces rather than one
at the ABC; (2) the long-term renter most likely will choose the ABC
unless there is not a significant price difference, in which case he/she
would probably choose the first space available; (3) a tenant of a storage
unit space will use a private vehicle to come and go from this project;
(4) a trip to this location will be multi -purpose. Based on these
assumptions, we can conclude that the project may not be as low impact in
terms of traffic generation as is typically the case for a storage
warehouse project.
However, since a grocery store, post office, drug store, bank branch,
liquor store, etc. already generate considerable daily trips, the lessees
of a storage unit may combine one more stop in an already planned trip
to this activity center.
This area is densely developed and more emphasis should have been placed
on balance of open space, landscaping and effective circulation than is
apparent from the record of the Trueman Center approvals.
Shapery Downtown Storage - SPA Plan
Page Four
April 25,1983
Site Specific Considerations
The storage warehouse proposal is a relatively low -impact use in the S/C/I
zone. Compared to a car wash, a lumberyard, or a vehicle sales facility,
all of which are permitted uses, warehousing and storage (also a permitted
use) is much "quieter". Employee generation is minimal and the housing
need is being met. The manager's office and housing unit are being housed
in the historic Koch Lumber Co. building which will be located at the
entrance to the project. Parking is being provided at one space in front
of each unit, which is adequate, but at least three spaces should be
provided at the office location. One space for the manager's car and two
for customers should be provided. Easements exist on the property for
utilities and access (a 15' easement on the west side of the property,
which allows the City access to Jenny Adair Park ). A sewer trunk line exists
on the eastern side of the project. No structures will be placed over the
trunk line, it will be covered by the driveway. The site plan is well -
executed, with a good circulation plan and an interesting design for this
type of facility. The structures are intended to have the appearance of
large barns and because of the grade of the site will not show up as
full two-story structures. The structures will have the visual impact
of reducing a view of Ajax from the Rio Grande Trail as it nears town and
the view of the trail and green space from Puppy Smith Street will be
lost.
Area and Bulk Requirements
The applicable area and bulk requirements of the S/C/I zone are as follows:
Min. lot area
Min. lot width
Min. front yard
Min. side yard
Min. rear yard
Maximum height
Min. distance between
buildings
Percent open space
External FAR
Internal FAR
6,
000
No
requirement
10
feet (from Puppy
No
requirement
No
requirement
32
feet
No requirement
25%
1:1
No requirement
Smith Street)
The proposed project meets all these requirements except that the Koch Lumber
Co. building is set right on the front property line. Within this SPA
process, the front yard can be varied if you feel the rationale of the
applicant warrants it. The applicant placed the structure in this location
to maintain the line with the existing houses on Puppy Smith Street and
to maximize the area available for dedication as a park. The applicant
is prepared to move the building back 10 feet if required.
Other Review Criteria
The project is compatible with the Aspen Area General Plan, 1966, as amended
in that it is located in the "Neighborhood Commercial -Limited Industrial" area.
All of the Sanitation Plant, Hallam Lake and the river area are in the "Open
Space" category. The project will not impact air and water quality in the
vicinity of the site provided run-off is contained on -site. The closest point
of the development to the river will be at least 100 feet and since the City's
settling ponds are between the development site and the river, drainage impacts
should not affect the river (with one possible exception of during construction).
The question of overall community balance can be approached from the perspective
that by meeting the need for storage nearer the Commercial Core, merchanges
who use it will not be traveling on Highway 82 to the Airport Business Center.
Some individuals have raised the question of the appropriateness of storage
facilities in this location. It should be noted that such facilities are a
permitted use in the S/C/I zone which is the underlying zone of this parcel.
Shapery Downtown Storage - SPA Plan
Page Five
April 25 1983
Planninq Office Recommendation
In summary, the above discussion reviews positive and negative aspects of
several issues as outlined below:
Tcciiac
Land Use Compatibility
Rio Grande Trail
Traffic
Site Plan
Pro
Trueman Center;
Sewer Plant
Relocation closer
to open areas
Multi -use trips
Relatively low
impact
Con
ACES
Roaring Fork Greenway
No guarantee of
easements
Excess traffic now
Bulky development
at trailhead
Weighing all these factors, the Planning Office recommends that you recommend
the approval of the Specially Planned Area plan for the Downtown Storage project
with the following conditions (recognizing that additional conditions may result
from discussion):
I. Retention of the existing easement for storm drainage and access
to Jenny Adair Park along the westerly property line.
2. Evidence of agreement from the Aspen Sanitation District and Holy
Cross Electric with the plan regarding existing facilities, setback
needs and potential relocations prior to final Council approval.
3. Evidence of assurance from adjacent property owners that easements
are available to accommodate the trail relocation, grading and
landscape needs prior to final Council approval.
4. Repositioning the location of the storage buildings and the Koch
Lumber Co. structure such that a foot front yard exists on
Puppy Smith Street.
- 5. Grading and access requirements for the parcel be submitted to and
accepted by the City Engineering Department prior to construction.
6. The Koch building (manager's office and residence) be hooked up to
City Water and AMSD sanitary sewer lines.
7. 'Signage be provided on -site to notify vehicle operators of the 15
minutes idling ordinance.
8. All run-off from paved areas and roof drainage be contained on the
site.
9. Provision of three parking spaces at the Koch Lumber Co. building site.
10. Fencing be provided of natural materials which is high enough to
obscure the view of first level storage activity.
11. Lighting be low-key and have limited hours of use in consideration
of the wildlife sanctuary.
�— U VN v O r
40
i-l��.CC'dt-� o-�qJ �A�I ✓t-� c.�
�,VUZvtC a.4j o C-a
t4z) L,
Z o `� I Q 1�QX�7 �.
PP ru �`r c �j > Qc ►✓i �n� Q
r
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
LAW OFFICES OF
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
BOX 10001
611 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
October 19, 1982
Heiko Kuhn
Aspen Sanitation Department,
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Sandor W. Shapery
Dear Heiko,
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
•:- 925.8166
I write this letter to put in writing the agreement
that my client Mr. Shapery has reached with the Aspen
Sanitation District. Per our conversation, it is my
understanding that the Aspen Sanitation District will allow
Mr. Shapery to put the trail on the Sanitation District's
land, in the rear of your property, as shown on the enclosed
Plat and as discussed with Jim Reser. When the trail is
realigned per the Plat, Mr. Shapery will plant a number of
Aspen trees between the trail and present employee housing
of the Aspen Sanitation District. In addition, Mr. Shapery
will help defray the cost of moving the two underground
sprinklers that are presently located on Mr. Shapery's
property.
We appreciate your help in this matter and have enjoyed
working with you. I hope that you will convey our thanks to
the Board.
Heiko Kuhn 1982
October 19,
page Two _
�to this
or changes lease sign
any questions Otherwise, P
If you have Please let me know.
letter below and return to me'
understanding,
this ours
Very truly yours',
I, KAUFMA
N,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON
fessional Corporation
a pro
Ci
By Ka-u man
Gideon
GK kw
enclosure
tation District
Aspen Sani
y Kuhn
Heiko
HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC
TION, INC.
3799 HIGHWAY 82
P. O. DRAWER 250
GLF.NWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
March 30, 1983
Thomas Wells & Associates
Mr. Tom Wells
330 E. Main
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Lot 3, Trueman Subdivision
Dear Tom:
We have reviewed the proposed site plan for the above referenced
property and are requesting that additional easements be provided as
indicated on the site plan. The existing transformer located to the
east of the property is capable of providing electric service to the
building.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
HOLY CROSS EELLECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC.
Ken Roberts,
Engineering Department
KR:1sz
cc:File:Area90-58
AREA CODE
303
945-5491
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
LAW OFFICES OF
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
BOX 10001
611 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
February 10, 1983
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925-8166
Re: Sandor W. Shapery/Lot 3, Trueman Neighborhood
Commercial Project -- Adoption of Precise SPA Plan
Dear P & Z Members,
Please consider this letter an application for the
adoption of a precise SPA plan for Lot 3 of the Trueman
Neighborhood Commercial Project as depicted on the enclosed
SPA Submission Map. This application is made pursuant to
Sections 24-7.1, 24-7.2 and 24-12.5 of the Zoning Code of
the City of Aspen. We are submitting this application on
behalf of our client, Sandor W. Shapery, the owner of Lot 3,
Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project. Mr. Shapery's
address is La Jolla Cove Plaza, 8008 Girard Avenue,
Suite 410, La Jolla, CA 92037,
In accordance with the requirements of the SCI zone, we
propose the following requirements for Lot 3.
Lot Area
Minimum Lot Width
Minimum Frontyard
Minimum Sideyard
Minimum Rearyard
Maximum Building Height
Minimum Distance Between
Buildings
Permitted Uses
1.147 acres
100 feet
10 feet (from Puppy
Smith Street)
No Requirement
No Requirement
32 feet
No Requirement
Same as SCI
P & Z Members
February 10, 1983
Page Two
Proposed Structures
Off-street Parking
External Floor Area Ratio
Internal Floor Area Ratio
Construction Schedule
Self -storage warehouses
and Office Building with
Employee Apartment as
depicted on SPA Submission
Plan
As per § 24-4.5, Aspen
Zoning Code
1 : 1
No Requirement
7,000 square feet to be
built each year beginning
spring of 1983, unless
greater allotment is
awarded in any one year
These requirements are all either identical to or stricter
than the requirements set forth in the zoning code for the
SCI zone.
The location and characteristics of streets, other
rights -of -way and utilities shall be as depicted on the SPA
Submission Plan and/or on other maps and plans submitted in
conjunction with the GMP Submission for Lot 3, Trueman
Neighborhood Commercial Project.
The dimensions and grading of parcels of the lot and
the dimensions and siting of the structures shall be as
depicted on the SPA Submission Plan and/or maps and plans
submitted in conjunction with the GMP Submission for Lot 3,
Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project.
Even though one of the purposes of the SPA is to allow
flexibility for a developer to seek greater density and vary
the underlying area and bulk requirements and uses, we have
designed this SPA Precise Plan and the project to conform to
all the requirements of the SCI zone.
Enclosed please find a list of the names and addresses
of all owners of real property within three hundred feet
(300') of Lot 3, Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project and
our check to cover processing fees and an estimated
publication cost.
{
P & Z Members
February 10, 1983
Page Three
I look forward to discussing these matters with you at
the soonest available meeting. If you need anything
further, please let me know.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN,
a Professional Corporation
By -
Gideon fman
GK kw
enclosure
cc: Sandor W. Shapery
Owner's Signature:
("VS a /A
andor W. Sha r
a G
k Aspen Center for Environmental Studies
R
February 23, 1983
Mayor of Aspen
Aspen City Council
City Hall SYG11
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mayor Edol and council Members Michael, Co.l].ins, Parry,
��
D niiCCl1:.
Aspen Center for
Ass to
and the Asp- objections
The pitkin County Parks to the Rio
Environmental Studies have aedoposed at theientry r ob)�flc-,
Tr P
to the min our
project
Grande trail. Our objections are broad -based, site spe.
They are enumerated as follows:
and procedural..
1 • Aspen Are.-� Planning Obiectives Business CentF`r,
ears ago the Aspen Airport
Over ten y was to locate tY,.ose service -
was developed. Its purpose which necessitate��
commercial projects outside the city
storage facilities and generated minimal traffic
large Thissquare feet mini -warehouse facility
flow. This 24,000
is exactly this type of use and should be locate
outside the city•
2. The Trueman Special_y_ Plann..��J Area final
The mini -warehouse site livisionIII
appro ed bylgthe
four lot Trueman SPA S ).ba
in 1976 • Tlhi., 1_,roposal should be reviewed in
city the
re representations of
1
t,ion
c, hi.,torica P .�.
relation t0 the r•t^+-
developer, the current S ,�-
and the appropriateness of this use 1 Gi: that site.
ents
ng Lo the
A review of the do'the developer1representedrLot�;ill
S.P.A. plan sl,c.w Commission
to the City co nci.l. and to the Planning tus S . P.A.
for ,recreationa.L development". The
honceptual Yaw,
plan submitted by the project planner,
shows paddleball_ courts and a small recreational
7, 1976)
building on Lot Ili. Planning office memos i
recommend preliminary plat approval with I,ot III as
Due to expected heavy ::raf f i c_
recreational use. Due
Lot 1.11 was also
generation from the Truemar. project,
serlousiy considerednd Sls a t31�1nglareas ttO�<►VOla the -,
to Red Moiar:t�iin a
Mill Street bridge corgestion• This route was later
� d from ,_-uns.ider��t;ian • The only other use considered
dropped space, was for parking for
or Lt III, ba`,ides open sp believed
fo
for Lyees oft,, yrueman Center. It was widely
a mu
that the Lot. w ..: ,,nl��.zi ldatle due to 56itude of
P.O. Box 8777 • Aspen, Colorado 81612 0 (303) 925 57
-2-
easements.
The Park Dedication fee required of the Trueman
Development (originally for $90,000 and still unpaid)
was calculated in a memo by the City Manager, Mick
Mahoney. The memo clearly shows that no commercial
value was attributed to Lot III for park dedication
fee purposes.
An amended S.P.A. plan was never filed for the Post
Office building on Lot II of the Trueman S.P.A.
We assume this is because it is a federal project
which claims exemption from local zoning laws. If
this were the case, the original developer should
have filed the amendment since city S.P.A. regulations
require a "precise plane for a S.P.A. area. While it
is clear that Lot II was to contain the Post Office
facility, it is also certain that auto and pedestrian
circulation through the Post Office site is a mess.
In 1982 nearly $30,000 was spent by the city, county,
PCPA and others to attempt improvement of this mess
by construction of a sidewalk between the Post Office,
grocery and west Aspen area. The original developer
refused to contribute to this project.
The recorded Trueman S.P.A. plan shows potential Lot
III uses not as SCI uses but as uses set only by the
S.P.A. plan. This is an important technical distinc-
tion and should influence your consideration of the
application. There is no public zoning action that
only SCI uses are appropriate for this site.
Certain landscaping features shown on Lot I of the
Trueman S.P.A., specifically 30 aspen trees, have
never been installed. Landscaping is also not completed
on the Post Office site. A sidewalk improvement district
was discussed with the developer but never pursued by
the city. Certainly more sidewalks are needed through
this area. We do not know if any other engineering
issues remain outstanding.
In summary, we feel that the original approval of the
Trueman S.P.A. project contemplated only limited
recreational development of Lot III, and certain issues
are still unresolved. In our opinion the developer of
the Trueman S.P.A. has already received credit for
minimal recreational use of Lot III by approval of a
commercial center on Lot I and a Post Office on Lot II.
To apply for commercial development of Lot III would
be "double dipping" his allowable densities for the
whole S.P.A. Additional commercial uses in this area
can not be justified and were never contemplated in
the original S.P.A. planning.
-3-
3. The Mini -warehouse Plan for Lot III
This 24,000 square foot facility massively impacts
an environmentally sensitive river front area and
trail head park. It constricts the Rio Grande trail
with a sewer plant on your right and a 40' warehouse
on your left. This is simply atrocious land use
planning.
The project itself covers virtually the entire
surface area of Lot III. Roads are on each side
of the warehouse together with a turn around near
the river. Much of the landscaping would occur off
of Lot III. The project proposes relocating two
sections of the existing trail onto property owned by
the Aspen Sanitation District. We expect the owners
of the trail easement, Pitkin County, will oppose
the relocation of the trail through the sewer plant
property.
Night lighting may be added to the warehouse for
security reasons. This would be very destructive to
wildlife at the Hallam Lake sanctuary and along the
river corridor.
Due to the nearness of this warehouse space to the
Aspen retailing areas we feel traffic impacts will be
greater than that for normal warehouse buildings.
The tendency will be for use of the warehouse as
extended retail space, i.e., "Come see what we have
in our nearby warehouse" or, "We'll get the other
model for you right away. It's only at a nearby ware-
house." This warehouse will have a locati.onal advantage
over similar facilities presently at the Airport
Business Center which the city and county deliberately
located outside the city.
It is ironic that these issues are relevant to the
S.P.A. plan, not the G.M.P. application which preceded.
Thus the applicant was able to obtain a G.M.P. allotment
for this site.
We urge the City Council to enforce the conditions of the original
Trueman S.P.A. plan and deny this ill-conceived, destructive
project.
Sincerely,
Hal Clark
President, Aspen Center for
Environmental Studies
Vice President, PCPA
Former Assistant City -County Planner
cc: Aspen P & Z Commission
Pitkin County Commissioners
Aspen Times
ASPEN06PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
APR 151983
ASPEN / Pi i KiN CO.
Colette Penne, Planning Office
Thomas S. Dunlop, Director'77D
Environmental Health Department
April 14, 1983
RE: Aspen Downtown Storage
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following comments are offered concerning the above
referenced submittal.
Air Pollution:
The only impact that can be seen at this time would be increased
vehicular emissions as a result of site specific traffic
volumes. These traffic flows are not present at the site at
this time due to it's unused state. This will probably not
cause undue hardships on the neighborhood since the vehicles
will not be constant given the proposed use of the property.
Site Drainage:
It will be the request of this office that all run-off from
paved areas and roof drainage be contained on the site. This
can be accomplished by using on -site dry wells or non -discharging
holding ponds.
The use of the existing storm sewer holding pond located in
Jenny Adair Park to contain this project's run-off is not
recommended. This is due to the inadequate treatment given to
street run-off currently entering the pond from the West end of
Aspen. Any increase in hydraulic loading to this pond will
simply exacerbate the situation of inadequate water treatment
prior to discharge into the Roaring Fork River.
Noise:
Increased vehicular traffic in the area mentioned in this submittal
will be the only significant noise generating element. It is felt
at this time that no violations of the Aspen Noise Abatement
Ordinance will be realized. However, there is a 15 minute idling
ordinance in the Municipal Code which will regulate vehicles using
the facility. Perhaps signs at the entrance to the storage area
will be beneficial to notify vehicle operators to turn off their
engines when loading or unloading.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020
Page Two
April 14, 1983
Aspen Downtown Storage
In summary, this application was
to this office. Therefore, the
a storage only structure. That
occupancy of the structure and n
personnel will he allowed.
TSD/co
very incomplete when submitted
above comments assume this is
is to say there will be no
o businesses requiring on -site
A G E N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 5, 1983
5:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
City Hall
Regular Meeting
I. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Change in Use (to be tabled)
B. Shapery-SPA Plan Adoption _>
C. Rubey Park SPA
IV. RESOLUTION
A. Satellite Dish Regulations
V. ADJOURN MEETING
r-Q11 i, i J d
L q 44 t }vl rj
l
jl'Vj� 4P
r I K
Certificate of Occupancy for the improvements constructed on
Lot 1, TNCP, the parties hereby agree 'as follows:
1. DRAINAGE I?,ipnOVI:r•iI,NTS - LOT 2. The parties hereto
recognize that it is their intention that all drainage improve-
ments.required under the Subdivision Agreement on Lot 2, TNCP,
&Mill be constr6�7-d by the United States Post Office, the
purchaser from Trueman of this real property. If the United
States Post Office refuses to construct -the drainage pond as
shown*.*on the drainage plan heretofore approved by the City,
Trueman agrees that he will construct said drainage pond within .
ninety (90) days of the receipt of the written request of the
City to'proceed.
:•� DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - LOT 3. Trueman agrees to
construct all drainage improvements required under the Subdivision
It is agreed that the aforementioned
Agreement on Lot 3, TNCP.
agreement requires.the construction of a simple grass -lined
Swale in accordance with specifications and plans which are to
be drafted by Trueman and approved by the City to allow construction
within the easement designated on the Final Plat of the TNCP
which plat is of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder
in and for the County of Pitkin.
0 The parties hereto further recognize that it is their
intention that the City shall be granted a right of access through
Lot 3, TNCP. Toward this end Trueman shall grant to the City an
irrevocable license of access through all of Lot 3, TNCP, which
license shall become null and void upon the construction of
future improvements on the property together with the grant to
City of a specific access easement through Lot 3, TNCP.
3. PUPPY SMITH STREET - ABOVE GROUiTD LIGHTING. Trueman
agrees to bear fifty percent (50,) of the cost of the above
ground lighting improvements. It is estimated that Trueman's
cost for these above ground lighting improvements will be
approximately One Thousand Three hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,350.00).
—2—
wv.-'�....,.�,��r�..!r�.�..N�.•1R7'.''^7g1r•`.�^'..�.^...."'r• .+.• "r.�.n"rt�7!'R�!!YR,"' __ ^'_�.�'!F+n^�.�+ ... w. ...'.'v'.`rrswr
r•
MEMORANDUM
o/f 0/76 c.
TO: Aspen Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE:-i Trueman Property Subdivision Preliminary Plat
DATE: June 7, 1976
This is a request for Preliminary Plat approval for the Trueman
Property Subdivision. The area of the project is divided as
follows:
Lot I 2.74 acres
Lot I1 2.39 acres
lot III 1.24 acres
Lot IV .49 acres
ROW 1.36 acres
8.22 acres
Building Footprints 1.26 acres
Parking 2.37 acres
Recreation 1.24 acres
Open Space 1.99 acres
ROW 1.36 acres
8.22 acres
The plan for Lot I as approved'by the City Council called for the
following:
1. Food Store 15,000 square feet
2. Service Related Retail -
Basement 10,000 square feet
3. Neighborhood Commercial 10,000 square feet
4. Employee Housing 10,000 square feet
S. Basement Storage 2,000 square feet
47,000 square feet total
The plan as submitted has eliminated the 2,000 square foot basement storage
and increased the first floor building size by 2,000 square feet for an
enclosed loading area.. .We have scheduled the applicant for City Council
agenda on June 14, 1976 to discuss this change and to report on progress
with the application. Also, we have included the minutes of the Council
action for your review.
The comments of the Planning Office on the Preliminary Plat are as
follows:
1. Title - the title to the property is not clear. A dispute
exists with Mrs. Paepcke, and Carol Craig. Clear title
must be obtained by Trueman before recordation of the Final
Plat. --
2. Pedestrian Access -
A.- Major trail is located in disputed area. Needs
be surveyed around existing cottonwood trees.
B. Trail access to Bennett site either by Mill Street
sidewalk or along west of grocery building.
fb
r
MEMO
Trueman Property Preliminary Plat
June 7, 1976
Page Two
3. Housing - a schedule for building employee housing units
must be develcped by applicant and approved by P & Z
and Council. Otherwise no guarantees exist for construction
of the units. Present plan calls for 13 units on second
floor, but construction not part of first phase of project.
Parking spaces need be allocated on the Trueman site for
these residential units.
4. Parking (0
-
A. We are in agreement with the number of 123 spaces
for the commercial complex provided housing
spaces are reserved.
B. Parking for Lot II, the Post Office, is not shown.
We feel the Post Office will argue for an excessive
amount of parking space. Such space will supplement
that available for the commercial space.
C. The design for the parking lot is massive and should
be "broken up" by additional landscaping buffers.
S. lot II - Post Office site is left in undeveloped state
precipitating the following concerns:
A. Parking spaces?
B. Auto circulation through site?
An easement is needed from Lot II to serve
commercial access road or the lot lines between
Lot I and Lot II should be described by the access
road.
C. Lot II approval should be conditioned on meeting
the design standards of the City of Aspen Sub-
division Regulations (Section 20.16-17).
6. fire Protection - per Dick Miller, Aspen Fire Chief:
A. Two fire hydrants will be required.
B. Emergency fire truck access is needed to the rear
of the commercial building either by easement through
Sennett's property or by shifting the building to
the north.
C.. The mall needs redesign to accomodate fire truck access.
7. loading Area - for grocery needs to accomodate pull off zone
for taxi's, limousine.
8. Transportation A. A bus stop is located on Mill Street .An provides
access to the site.
B. Auto access is via one road cut on Mill Street.
C. No auto access is provided to serve the contiguous
Bennett properties forcing an additional road cut
to serve the Bennett site.
r
MEMO
Trueman Property Preliminary Plat
June 7, 1976
Page Two
3. Housing - a schedule for building employee housing units
must be develcped by applicant and approved by P & Z
and Council. Otherwise no guarantees exist for construction
of the units. Present plan calls for 13 units on second
floor, but construction not part of first phase of project.
Parking spaces need be allocated on the Trueman site for
these residential units.
4. Parking (0
-
A. We are in agreement with the number of 123 spaces
for the commercial complex provided housing
spaces are reserved.
B. Parking for Lot II, the Post Office, is not shown.
We feel the Post Office will argue for an excessive
amount of parking space. Such space will supplement
that available for the commercial space.
C. The design for the parking lot is massive and should
be "broken up" by additional landscaping buffers.
S. lot II - Post Office site is left in undeveloped state
precipitating the following concerns:
A. Parking spaces?
B. Auto circulation through site?
An easement is needed from Lot II to serve
commercial access road or the lot lines between
Lot I and Lot II should be described by the access
road.
C. Lot II approval should be conditioned on meeting
the design standards of the City of Aspen Sub-
division Regulations (Section 20.16-17).
6. fire Protection - per Dick Miller, Aspen Fire Chief:
A. Two fire hydrants will be required.
B. Emergency fire truck access is needed to the rear
of the commercial building either by easement through
Sennett's property or by shifting the building to
the north.
C.. The mall needs redesign to accomodate fire truck access.
7. loading Area - for grocery needs to accomodate pull off zone
for taxi's, limousine.
8. Transportation A. A bus stop is located on Mill Street .An provides
access to the site.
B. Auto access is via one road cut on Mill Street.
C. No auto access is provided to serve the contiguous
Bennett properties forcing an additional road cut
to serve the Bennett site.
.
MEMO
Trueman Property Preliminary Plat
-- June 7, 1976
Page Three
,
'
.
^.
^�
�
D. .bor���iim- the contiguous ownership to the north
' would be serviced by the Trueman access road' Property
between the road right-of-way and property line should
' be deeded to the City to control north side access
thus providing a mechanism for repayment (through the
City) of road costs to the developer (Trueman)'
' '~9. Kill Street Improvements -
AL The City must schedule and budget improvements to Main
' Street to accomndate increased use generated by Trueman
development.
B. �o Mill Street may necessitate a new access
point for Capp's Auto through the Rio Grande site. Or
the City may wish -to purchase Capp's as an alternative
- ' to providing Rio Grande access.
C. Since the improvements to Mill Street by the City will
' We precipitated by the Trueman development, the developer
' should pay a share of the improvement costs'
' The previous 5chnttland development was committed to
' pay SU% of the costs of improvements on Mill Street
' which fronted the development. Such improvements would
, include, cutting, filling, grading, regrading, paving,
sidewalks, curbs and gutters. It would be appropriate '
to pay such sums to the City upon commencement of such
, Improvements. We feel this is an appropriate requirement
for the Trueman development.
10. Public Use Dedication - we recommend a cash dedication of
6% of the market value of the land to the City.
'
11. Engineering Comments - As of this writing, specific comments
of the City Engineer have not been received' Numerous
meetings have occurred among the planning staff, Trueman
. representatives and the EnnineerinO Oeoartmenc' Should
' Preliminary Plat be granted by P & Z, such approval should be
conditioned on the design standards Section 20-16-17 of the
_ City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations'
'
In summary, the Planning Office recommends approval of the Preliminary
~ Plat based upon the above broadly described conditions and upon aporoval
by the City Council of the revised configuration of the grocery store
/ which now contains a 15,600 square foot food store and a 1,500 square foot
enclosed loading area. Essentially, the 2,000 square foot basement
storage has been transferred to the first fluor for loading and checkout
' services. We feel the City Council should be consulted as to this alteration
in their Conceptual Subdivision approval'
`
`
'
. .
|
,
.
.^W.
w
I
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
1. S.S L. CO.
Regular'Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 1976
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Chic Collins at 5:10 p.m. with members
Danny Abbott, Roger Hunt, John Schuhmacher, and Allison Dowing present. Also
present was City Attorney Sandra Stuller and Hal Clark of the Planning
Department.
Motion Hunt made a motion to close the continued meeting from
June 1, 1976; seconded by Abbott. All in favor, motion
carried.
Collins opened the regular meeting for June 15, 1976.
minutes of coincide with the
Approval of Minutes Hunt moved to table the/%say 18, 1976 to/ current set
of minutes; seconded by Abbott. All in favor, motion
carried.
Trueman Subdivision Clark mentioned Council was going to have a joint study
Preliminary Plat session with the Planning and Zoning at 6:00 p.m. on
the Trueman Subdivision and asked that any discussion be
held at that time.
Motion Hunt moved to table any discussion on the Trueman propert
until later in the hour at which time there will be a
joint study session with the Council; seconded by
Schuhmacher. All in favor, motion carried.
Public Hearing Clark asked the Commission to table this item since the
Rezoning Notice notice was not published in the paper.
Procedures
Motion Hunt moved to table the public hearing on the rezoning
notice procedure; and to reset the public hearing to July
6, 1976. The motion was seconded by Abbott. All in favor
• of the motion, the motion was carried.
Conditional Use Clark explained this is a conditional use public hearing
Apartments in Durant to consider the apartment change of use in the Durant
Mall Mall from office space to apartment space. The apartments!
consist of two 1-bedroom units at 875 and 900 square feet.
-Also a two bedroom unit of 1250 square feet. These
apartments will affect only the internal space of the
Durant Mall. The recommendation from the planning office
is for approval conditioned upon a leasing requirement
of a minimal of six months duration for the use of the
units.
Leonard Oates was present on behalf of Block 106 Associate
and developers of the Durant Mall. Oates pointed out
that with the approval of the requested apartments, that
will make a total of 11 apartments within the project and t
is requesting that two of the apartments be released from
the requirement that there be a minimum of a six month
term and the remainder have that requirement for the
six months.
Collins opened the public hearing on the conditional use
of the Durant Mall apartments. There was no discussion
from the public. Collins closed the public hearing. !
Collins read into the record a letter from Marcia
Rothblum, Aspen Square, Aspen, CO 31611. The letter
disapproved of any use in the location of the Durant Mall
which would involve the influx of one other automobile.
Oates mentioned there is provided parking spaces for the
P P g P
above requested apartment units.
-1-
Planning and Zoning Commission
June 15, 1976
Hunt questioned the short term eases being requested on
two of the apartments. Hunt asked the reason for the
request; and how will the units be managed and asked
where the manager will be located.
John Ginn, owner of the Durant Mall, was present and
explained to Hunt that the apartments will be managed
through Interwest Realty on the site. Ginn also explained
the reason for the request is economic. Oates continued
explaining that two of the units will be 1200 square feet
which will make them too large to be economically feasible
for employee housing.
Collins felt the six month minimum lease was established
under Ordinance #19, Series of 1974; and felt maybe
some arrangement could be worked out between the parties
involved for short term rent; however, the commission
cannot waive the 6 month lease requirement.
Abbott moved to approve the apartments as conditional use
subject to the planning office's recommendation that there
be a 6 month lease requirement; seconded by Bunt. All
in favor, motion carried.
Conditional Use
Clark explained that the City Council did not act on
Museum in R-6 Zone
second reading to approve the zoning change allowing
museums as a conditional use in the R-6 zone. Therefore,
this has to be tabled until Council acts on the zoning
change.
Motion
Hunt moved to continue the public hearing concerning the
conditional use of museums in the R-6 zone to the June
29, 1976 meeting; seconded by Abbott. In favor was
Abbott, Hunt, Schuhmacher, and Collins. Motion carried.
Old Business
Abbott asked to have Brian Goodheim, Housing Authority,
scheduled on the June 29, 1976, agenda.
It was also requested to have the secretary prepare the
zoning code, PUD, and subdivision regulations for the
P&Z members.
New Business Clark explained that this is a conditional use hearing for
Use Determination Wunderkind Store located in the Durant Mall. The store
Wunderkind Specialty will be a childrens ski shop and offer recreational
Clothing. equipment retail facility. The planning department's
recommendation is it would be an appropriate use in the
CC and C-1 zone. It is not appropriate in the Neighbor-
hood commercial zone and recommend denial of the request.
Mr. Oates was also present on behalf of Wunderkind Specialt
Clothing shop. The proposal is for a children's ski
shop and outdoor activity shop. Oates feels a ski shop
type of activity is a legitimate and appropriate use within
a neighborhood commercial district inasmuch as the
orientation of the community is towards this type of
activity. The proposed activity is necessary and will
service the recreation needs which are required in this
town of the children of the community. Under the proposal
Mr. Plantec, owner of Wunderkind, will have the following
activities in his business: there will be a program
where back trades and equipment will be handled, also
a service will be provided that will work closely with
the schools in that a rental programs providing equipment
and items to children who might not otherwise have an
opportunity to ski because of economics of the matter.
They will service people at competitive prices and not
high prices. At present there is nothing available outside
the commercial core and Oates feels the commercial core
is not appropriate for this use.
Collins mentioned there was a study session on the
Neighborhood commercial concept. The questions is are
-2-
FOAM to C. F. MOECNEL e. !. S L. CO.
Regular Meetinc
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Aspen Planninq and Zoninq Commission
100 Leaves
June 15
1976
these uses appropriate for neighborhood commercial zone. 1
There is Commercial -one areas that are zoned for this
particular use. Collins would like to see the uses
designated for the neighborhood commercial zone be kept 1
in line with the 14/C concept as it was originally establisj
by the P&Z corunission. This use is not compatible for '
the N/C and should not be approved.
Mr. Plantec mentioned he had looked at other places in
the City and feels the Durant Mall appears, both from i
the community and their own personal standpoint to be
the most effective location. Also the fact that the t
Durant Mall is adjacent from Little Nell. Mr. Plantec
explained that children will be able to rent 80 cm
skis of which there is a need.
Hunt agreed that a ski repair and wasting shop as an N/C us
in that vicinity; but couldn't agree with a retail sports
shop of this type. Hunt feels the integrity of the zoning
should be maintained and feels this shop belongs in the
C-1 zone. I.
Hunt made a motion to have the request for a use determing
tion requested for the Wunderkind Specialty Clothing
be denied on the basis it is not designed and intended
to serve the value of frequent trade or service use of
the immediate surrounding neighborhood; and is in fact
more appropriate in the CC or C-1 zoning in the Aspen
core area. The motion was seconded by Schuhmacher.
All in favor were Hunt, Abbott, Schuhmacher, and Collins.
The motion was carried.
Downing arrived at 6:15 p.m.
Trueman Subdivision This was a joint study session between the City Council
Preliminary Plat and the P&Z members. Members present from the Council
were Councilman Ttiishart, Councilman Behrendt, Councilwom
Johnston, and Mayor Standley.
Clark began by reading the comments from the planning
office on the Trueman Preliminary Plat from the memo
dated June 7, 1976. The comments dealt with the following
Title, Pedestrian Access, housing, Parking, Lot II -Post
Office site is left in undeveloped state precipitating
the following concerns, Fire Protection, Loading Area - f
for grocery needs to accommodate pull off zone for taxi,
limousine, Transportation, Mill Street Improvements,
Public Use Dedication - recommended is a cash dedication
of 60 of the market value of the land to the City, and
the Engineering Comments. In summary, the Planning i
Office recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat based
upon the above broadly described conditions and upon
approval by the City Council of the revised configuration.;
of the grocery store which now contains a 15,500 square
foot food store and a 1,500 square foot enclosed loading i
area. Essentially, the 2,000 square foot basement storage
has been transferred to the.first floor for loading and
checkout services. The planning department feels the
City council should be consulted as to the alteration of
the grocery store in their conceputal subdivision
approval. j
The Council and P&Z members went through the presented
plans with the Trueman developers and the planning C
department.
-3-
z'1011111,Vj an(A Goning U0111MIsslon June 15, 1976
Kai explained that Council is L-resent to give their
comments on the size of the food store. City Council
approved in conceptual terms, a 15,000 sq.ft. food store
on one grade and in general, 2,000 sq.ft. in the basement
for storage. The 2,000 sq.ft. was understood by the
Council and Kane to be miscellaneous storage and not
specifically relegated to grocery storage. The architects
have worked with Associated Grocers and have come back
with a plan for approximately a 17,000 sq.ft. food store.
The architects are arguing that they need more space
for an enclosed unloading ramp and more space will be
added for checkout counters. Kane asked for an interpre-
tation on the part of the Council as to what was meant
by the 15,000 sq.ft. approval and to give direction to
the architects as to how to proceed.
Yaw explained they are present for preliminary approval
from P&Z. Yaw asked for Council's opinions and comments
so when they do come in for final approval there isn't
any time lapse.
Yaw began explaining the food store. It will be an
independent food store. At the conceptual meetings,
the architects didn't know about the specifics of grocery
store operations. Therefore, they went to Denver to
learn about grocery store layouts. A grocery store has
three distinct functional areas; 1) grocery sales area;
2) loading and operations; 3) and check-out sales area.
The plan presently shows the 15,000 sq.ft. on the main
level and 2,000 sq.ft. down below. Yaw explained what
the truck does after it has unloaded the goods being
brought to the grocery store. Yaw doesn't want to see
the area that the truck comes into being left open. He
would like to enclose that area. Yaw feels from the
conceptual level of approval, the 2,000 sq.ft. was
in the context of the grocery store for basement storage.
The planners at Associated Grocers told Yaw that a
grocery store has to operate at one level. Therefore,
Yaw would like to put a 2,000 sq.ft. enclosed secured
loading area and would slope down to meet the berm and
to cover the area where the truck is. From the architectua
standpoint, the enclosed area would improve the massing
of the building, and will improve two views those being
from the Hotel Jerome area and vehicular traffic down
Mill Street. It will not increase the net grocery sales
area. The question is if the council would like to see
the area enclosed or would like to see it surrounded
with a chain linked fence. f
Councilman Wishart suggested to Yaw to take the 2,000 sq.ft�
out of the sales area. i
Councilwoman Johnston felt the 2,000 sq.ft. was never
intended for grocery storage. There is nothing in the
minutes that says 2,000 sq.ft. will be for grocery storage.
The 2,000 sq.ft. was for other storage only. I
Coucilman Behrendt remembers when the developers requested
for storage for the other stores. Councilman Behrendt
also never thought a grocery store could be operated on
two levels; therefore, the storage was for the other
stores in the complex.
Mayor Standley felt the 2,000 sq.ft. was non-specific
and non-exclusive. It was to be used any way they wanted
to use it. Other Councilmembers intent was the storage
would be exclusive of the food storage, other Councilmember
didn't care, and others encouraged the space to be for
food storage. The Councilmembers present feel that if
the grocery store is on one level it should be only j
15,000 sq.ft. and no more. If the storage is enclosed
it has to be included in the 15,000 sq.ft. and cannot
be a 2,000 sq.ft. trade off for the non specific storage
on the underground level. That is the issue.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
FORM M C. F. MOECKEL e. e. a L. CO.
100 Leaves
Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 15, 1976
Motion
Yaw mentioned he would like to enclose the area becuase
it is an aesthetic side of the building. Councilman
Wishart once again suggested to take the 2,000 sq.ft.
out of the 15,000 sq.ft. Yaw feels the independent
grocer is not going to want to make that tradeoff and
Yaw is trying to find a way to deal with the aesthetic
problem.
Mayor Standley suggested leaving one of the ends of the
ramp open; because as soon as something can be left out
over night and is secure that space would be considered
as storage and then it should be included in the building
mass.
Councilman Wishart left at 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Standley suggested to Yaw to leave the area open
and leave it a potential "eye sore" and if the Council
then determines that through Tom Dunlop, Environmental
Health, the City cannot control the problem of papers
blowing, the Council will come back and ask Yaw to
enclose it.
Hunt moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat
of the Trueman property shown on the 15,000 sq.ft.
grocery plan; conditioned upon recommendations of the f
planning office and the City Engineer. With the additional
recommendation of unsecured carporting of the ramp
loading area of the grocery for the purposes of better
visual appearance on that side of the building. The s
comments of the planning department's mem dated June
7, 1976. Also theconstruct�g�n for the1C�rOSO feet of
parking space be 50% included in two years and
additional 5000- completion at the end of four years.
include
Hunt amended his motion to khe correction of paragraph ;
four of the planning department's memo dated June 7, 1976
to indicate rather than 123 spaces to be 113 spaces.
The motion was seconded by Downing. All in favor of
the motion. Motion carried.
Hunt moved to continue the meeting to June 22, 1976;
seconded by Downing. All in favor, motion carried.
Abbott moved to adjourn at 7:25p.m.; seconded by Hunt.
All in favor, motion carried.
Li by M. :l m; ep y City Clerk
OWNERSHIP AND ADJACEN I )W[d-R(l I I P
RCPORT
Order Reference
FEE: $100.00
THE COMPANY hereby certifies that from n scorch of the company's
property account (compiled from records cot (c:ined in the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder',(, :.4-f ice) that the
real property- escribed below is veste(I of r-Cord as of the
date of this report in the name of:
RECORD VES I 1 NG : SANDOR W. SHAPERY
ADDRESS: 443 WEST "C" ST
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY: LOT 3,
TRUMAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PROJECT
within 300 feet of
THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED RL.AI. PROPRI h '; APPI.AR 10 I;I1 AD 4,=_N4=
TW THE REAL PROPERTY ABOVL DLSCR I B1 1), ANl) API, V1 I L.D OF RLCORI)
IN THE NAME(S) SET FORTH IMMEDIA11 LY ! !)I l OWIN(l 1.ACH DESCRIPTION:
DESCRIPTION OF ADJACENT REAL_ PROPER rY
RECORD VE`:T I NG : SEE ATTACHED PAGES
ADDRESS : SEE ATTACHED PAGES
DESCRIPTION OF ADJACENT REAL PROPERIY:
RECORD VESTING:
ADDRESS:
SEE ATTACHED PAGES
THIS REPORT IS NOT A TITLE POLICY, NOR AN OPINION OF TITLE, NOR
A GUARANTY OF TITLE, NOR AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, AND IS ISSUED
WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE: THE INFORMATION
SEi FORTH HEREIN TO BE ACCURATE, THE COMPANY ASSUMES NOR WILL IT
BE CHARGED WITH ANY FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY WHATSOEVER
ON ACCOUNT OF ANY INCOMPLETENESS OR ERROR IN THE INFORMATION CON-
TAINED HEREIN, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT OF THE FEE PAID HEREUNDER,
SHOULD LIABILITY FOR THE INFORMATION BE DESIRED, THEN PLEASE MAKE
APPLICATION FOR THE APPROPRIATE 1'ITLE: INSURANCE POLICY OR GUAR-
ANTY.
TRA!
UNDERWR' I TTEN BY SAFECO TITLE I NSURANl:�
111LE INW AN(j
8
REAL FStA1f Cl �51Nc; TRACY TITLE. LTD. ;; 601 FAST HYMAN
i . Y - {+At?p 8161 1 1) W)) 9?0.1123
-ter I *. ,
LOT 1,
TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PROJECT
TRUEMAN ASPEN COMPANY, AN OHIO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
4355 Davidson Rd
Alin, Ohio 43002
LOT 2,
TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
BLOCK 4,
LAKEVIEW ADDITION,
ELIZABETH PAEPCKE
P.O. Box 1032
Aspen, CO 81612
FRANK E. CHRISTOPHER II
P.O. Box 8449
Aspen, CO 81612
BLOCK 1,
LAKEVIEW ADDITION
CAROL CRAIG
P.O. Box 1283
Aspen, CO 81612
ELIZABETH PAEPCKE
P.O. Box 1032
Aspen, CO 81612
AREA WEST of LOT 3,
TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PROJECT
CITY OF ASPEN
P.O. Box V
Aspen, CO 81612
AREA EAST OF LOT 3,
TRUEMAN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PROJECT
PITKIN COUNTY
c/o COUNTY COMMISDSIONERS
P.O. Box 4096
Aspen, CO 81612
AREA EAST OF LOT 3, (CONTINUED)
ASPEN SANITATION
P.O. Box 2810
Aspen, CO 81612
MILL ST VENTURE
P.O. Box Q
Aspen, CO 81612
MEMORANDUM
TO- City Attorney Department
Engineering
PLANNER: Colette Penne Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project
RE: Adoption of an SPA Plan for Lot 3,
DATE: February 23, 1983
or
application submitted oTrbemanfof NeighboahoodhSPA,y
Attached please find an Pp Lot 3)
which seeks to adopt an SPA Plan amending parcel
ro erty in question is one p Office
of which the p p our comments to the Planning
please review the application and return y
P le s the item is scheduled for a March 22 P&Z meeting•
no later than March 10, a
Thank you.
K
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on March 1 , 19 83 a true and
correct copy of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding Adoption of an SPA
Plan for Lot 3, Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project
was deposited into the United States mails, postage prepaid, and addressed
to the following:
See attached.
Martha Eichelberger
PUBLIC NOTICE
do tion of an SPA Plan for Lot 39 Trueman Neighborhood
RE: A P
Commercial Project
IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before
NOTICE , 1983 at a
and Zoning Commission on Tuesday,
April 5 Hall,
the Aspen Planning m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall,
amending
meeting to begin at 5:00 p• in question is one
. Galena Street, Aspen to consider the adoption of an SPA p
130 S property
se of the SPA plan amendment is to considerthe
the Trueman Nei( Thehpur se of which the p own Storage warehouse project
parcel (Lot 3)•
construction proposal known c the Aspen Downt
a GMP allocation this year. For 925r2020�iextrm223 tion' contact
which was awarded Galena Street, Aspen,
the Planning Office, 130 S.
s/Perry Harve
Chairman
Published in the Aspen Times on March 3, 1983.
City of Aspen account.
The Honorable Mayor and
The Planning Commission
The City Attorney
The Director of Planning
Dear Sirs,
City Council of Aspen
February 23,I983
I refer you to the proposed Downtown Storage facility
scheduled for an SPA amendment hearing on March 22,I983
before the Planning Commission.
In researching the files in the City Clerk and Engineering
department files at City Hall I have discovered the following
pertinent information as it relates to the use of Lot III
or the "panhandle property" commonly known as the land
adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail entryway.
The documents supporting the Preliminary Plat approval
forwarded to the Planning Commission on the Trueman Subdivision
under the SPA plan stipulate that lot III (tile panhandle
property) would be used for recreation purposes. The enclosed
land use plan shows that this 7 22 acres was to have paddle
courts and a small recreation -building as a permitted use.
Also enclosed is a memo from the planning department that
further reinforces this planned recreational use on the
subject property now proposed for a storage warehouse use.
It seems to me that the clear intent of the developer, Mr.
Trueman, and the City of Aspen was to allow only a recreation
use on said land. I believe that there is a clear mandate
and it is wholly within the rights of the City of Aspen under
the SPA provisions to preclude this amendment and disallow the
proposed material alteration -of the existing SPA plan.
The plan approved in the Truem.an development balanced the
intensive use of a portion of t'he'property used for the
supermarket and post office with a _non-commercial use of
the panhandle property; lot I -II.
Supporting the non-commercial intended use for the subject
property is the emitter from Mr. Mahoney to the Council at
that time in which the City Manager specifically states that
he assigned no commercial value to lot III in arriving at
the $90,000 park dedication fee. This fee was due to be
paid at the time a certificate of occupancy was issued for
the Trueman project but it appears it is still outstanding
at this time.
Lot III never was developed with paddle courts and in fact from
I978 until last year was used for storage of a semi -trailer used
during construction of the sho-ping center as well as drums and
sewer pipes some of which is still lying on the property.
An innocent third party has purchased lot III and has chosen
to interpret the SCl/SPA zoning as one permitting him to
develop the property with a storage warehouse. I believe this
flies in the face of the facts as reconttructed from that time
and that it never was the intention to allow commercial use
on this property.
I respectfully submit that there is nothina to justify the
alteration to the original SPA plan and in fact, pragmatics
dictate that we not add to the chaos and confusion of the
already overintensive use of the property surrounding the
supermarket and the post office.
Thanking you,
Most sincereley,
Marc S. iedberg
Box 8747
Aspen Co. 8I6I2
Encl. Land Use Plan
Memo from Planning Dept.
MLMORANOUtI !�
TO: Aspen Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE:r Trueman Property Subdivision Preliminary Plat
DATE: June 7, 1976
This is a request for Preliminary Plat approval for the Trueman
Property Subdivision. The area of the project is divided as
follows:
Lot I 2.74
acres
Lot 1I 2.39
acres
Lot_1II 1.24
acres
LOCH .49
acres
ROW 1.36
acres
8.22
acres
Building Footprints
1.26
acres
king
2.37
acres
1.24
acres,
.Recreation
Open Space
1.99
acres
ROW
1.36
acres
8.22 acres
The plan for Lot I as approved by the City Council called for the
following:
1. Food Store 15,000 square feet
2. Service Related Retail -
Basement 10,000 square feet
3. Neighborhood Commercial 10,000 square feet
4. Employee Housing 10,000 square feet
5. Basement Storage 2,000 square feet
47,000 square feet total
The plan as submitted has eliminated the 2,000 square foot basement storage
and increased the first floor building size by 2,000 square feet for an
enclosed loading area. Ile have scheduled the applicant for City Council
agenda on June 14, 1976 to discuss this change and to report on progress
with the application. Also, we have included the minutes of the Council
action for your review.
The comments of the Planning Office on the Preliminary Plat are as
follows:
1. Title - the title to the property is not clear. A dispute
exists with Mrs. Paepcke, and Carol Craig. Clear title
must be obtained by Trueman before recordation of the Final
Plat.
2. Pedestrian Access -
A. Major trail is located in disputed area. Needs
be surveyed around existing cottonwood trees.
B. Trail access to Bennett site either by Mill Street
sidewalk or along west of grocery building.
Public tr
-_Pro o j� f Parking % p sed.�' row _
,, app` 60 cars
�
- r _._Pedestrian/ bicycle. -circulation
cli
II ' • • ' shy / - ` I i
:� • •
Lot III ,� -
rking
- f _,- --. • '� 108,263 sq. ft.
• 'addle - ennis Post office site,
� • +
' ,Courts . •' • �- 23, 000 sq.. ft. '-�� �tv_S-� • ,
,. • . Parkin 142 cars ; J
Recreation - g�
• ' •• building 661 s1 �:►
l
4
i ASyrN
1.30 south galena vstreet
aspen, colorado.° 81611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 4, 1979
TO: Members of City Council
FROM: non Stock
RE: Amendment to Subdivsion Agre meat Of the
Trueman Neighborhood
CV W4- (a, P .
Neighborhood Commercial Project has encountered
The Trueman I have negotiated
which were not anticipated or addressed in the Sub-
problems To solve these problems, I
Agreement. reement.
division Ag er to amend the Subdivision Agreement.
With the develop our approval of this agreement,
request and recommend Y T have included
agree with my position.
of his memorandum
Pave Ellis does not ag agrees that problems
in the packet for your consideration a CO he
which expresses his opinion. Bascic�llY,
se roblems were caused by
which are unaddressed and un1esolped in the Subdivision
he
exist wh he believes these
Agreement. 'owever, er has failed to address t
the developer or that the develop
problems when found. s
T ' ited extent, Dave is correct that thehdaVeefouund,that
�o a limited art of the problem but I Further -
to in good faith.
action has created p follow
the developer was willing to new fail to
1 must
ore, there seems to be nOicalernati conclusion�ve in that if which we all
m argument to Ln log reement wh
Dave s the Subdivision Ag seem to be in the
negotiate thus leaving Such action would not 1 Tequest
know to be defective. For this reason,
best interest of the community•
your approval.
Drainage Improvements
- Lot 2
Per has sold lot 2 to the United States Post Ofimpe
The develop freed to construct bythe athe�City,rove-
and the Post Oated n plans previously p
ments as indicated on p
Memo to City Council
January 4, 1979
Page 2
The Subdivision Agreement requires Trueman to complete this
construction prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
to the building being constructed on Lot 1. The developer
has requested and the amendment reflects the agreement on
the part of the Post Office to construct these improvements.
;;owever, part of the drainage on Lot 1 is to be deposited in
a drainage pond located on Lot 2. Since we may be unable to
coordinate the construction of the drainage system I have
included the provision which will require the developer to con-
struct this drainage pond in the event that the Post Office
would refuse.
On the preliminary plan submitted by the Post Office, they have
indicated to us their intention to construct these drainage
improvements as required.
Drainage Improvements - Lot 3
Everyone, including our engineering department, was under the
mistaken belief that the road constructed on Lot 3 was located
on the westerly lot line. Based on this assumption, they
requested and obtained an easement parallel to the westerly lot
line on which easement the City was allowed utility and access
use. The developer agreed to construct a grass line swale within
this easement. After a survey of the property, it was determined
that the lot line was further west than believed. As such, it
was impossible to construct a grass line swale for drainage and
to allow vehicular access within the easement as granted.
Utilities had been constructed within the easement. Therefore,
considering the shape of the lot it became unreasonable to
move the easement.
The agreement amends the Subdivision Agreement in that the
City is granted an irrevocable license of access through all
of Lot 3 until there is construction of future improvements
on the property together with a grant of a specific access
easement through Lot 3. '7his allows the developer to construct
the proposed drainage improvement with new specifications and
plans to be drafted by him and approved by the City.
Puppv Smith Street - Above -Ground Li�-_htin
At the time of Council approval of the project, the Council
conditioned its approval upon the developer agreeing to bear
one-iialf of the cost of the above -ground lighting improvements
on Puppy Smith Street. Kowever, this condition was not
included in the Subdivision Agreement. The agreement amends
the Subdivision Agreement by making this a requirement upon the
developer.
Memo to City Council
January 4, 1979
Page 3
Utility Improvements
The Subdivision Agreement requires the developer to remove
two power poles owned by Holy Cross Electric Association from
the property. :Holy Cross has demanded of the developer the
payment by him of the cost of replacing this service to its
customers. The developer would probably agree to this require-
ment except that Holy Cross wants the developer to pay for the
entire cost of underground service rather than above ground
service.
It is the City's position that the poles must be removed and
that the cost of removing them is a matter of negotiation
between Holy Cross and the developer. The City will not take
a position in these discussions.
The developer has requested and the agreement provides for a
one year period in which to resolve this conflict. ;.iowever,
to protect the City since Certificates of Occupancy will have
been issued,*I have required that he place a performance bond
in the amount demanded by Holy Cross to insure the full and
faithful performance of this obligation.
Puppy Smith Street
Puppy Smith Street is to be paved at the expense of the developer.
however, both the developer's engineer and our engineering depart-
ment failed to require the placement of a culvert at the inter-
section of Puppy Smith Street and Mill Street to handle the
drainage resulting each spring. The developer was required in
the Subdivision Agreement to construct Puppy Smith Street according
to plans and specifications approved by the engineering department.
These plans and specifications have been approved but they do
not include the culvert.
The agreement amends the Subdivision Agreement by requiring
both the City and Trueman to pay for one-half of the cost of
the culvert with the developer providing the cash to pay for
the acquisition of the culvert and the City providing services
in kind to install the culvert.
Since there is some likelihood that the City will present to
the voters a plan to improve Mill Street at the next general
election, this agreement recognizes this possibility. In the
event that the City does submit such a plan to the voters and
it is approved, there will be no need for the installation of
a culvert and the developer will be relieved of this responsi-
bility.
Memo to City Council
January 4, 1979
Page 4
Because paving of Puppy Smith Street will be delayed until
after the May election to avoid the expense of paving the
entire street and then removing this paving to install a
culvert, I have required the escrow of cash in an amount
equal to Elam's bid for paving. This escrow will protect
the City when it issues Certificates of Occupancy prior to
the completion of this paving project.
Pump House
An agent of the developer agreed with the engineering depart-
ment that it would replace the pump station if we would remove
it for their convenience in establishing a new grade. The
City acted in reliance upon this agreement and removed the
existing pump house. The City has no legal right to have a
pump house on Trueman's property. We leased this location
from the railroad for $50 in 1962. Since that time we have
not had a legal right to occupy the property. In 1968 the
railroad prosecuted a quiet title action which listed the
City as a defendant and an order was issued by the District
Court stating that we had no right, title or interest to the
property. Therefore, Trueman has a legal right for compensation
for the taking of the pump station site. '!is legal right
to compensation was recognized in the Subdivision Agreement
but not resolved.
The agreement requires the developer to deed to the City this
site at no cost including an access easement for operation and
maintenance as well as easements necessary for the operation
of any water delivery system from the pump house. Further,
the developer agrees that he will regrade the area around
the pump house as necessary to accommodate construction.
In return the City agrees to construct the pump house at its
own expense.
In all other respects, the Subdivision Agreement remains in
full force and effect.
I believe that the City is adequately protected in that each
Certificate of Occupancy can be conditioned upon full completion
of the requirements of the Subdivision Agreement as amended.
No Certificate of Occupancy need be issued on Lot 2 or Lot 3
unless full compliance is met. The building office may issue
Certificates of Occupancy regarding the improvements on Lot 1
until it reaches a point, perhaps somewhere near one-half
occupancy,when the structure must be completed before another
Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Finally, on the two items
which allow for completion in the future, the City is protected
by a performance bond and a cash escrow.
RWS:mc
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: RON STOCK
CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: DAVE ELLIS
CITY ENGINEER
DATE: December 18, 1978
RE: Amendment Agreement to Trueman Subdivision
Improvement Agreement
The purpose of this memo is strictly to reiterate the verbal com-
ments I had regarding the Amendment to the Trueman Subdivision
Agreement. In the last 20 months since the approval of the sub-
division and the execution of the original subdivision agreement,
the engineering department has attempted to work as closely as
possible with the Trueman construction personnel. We advised them
in June 1977 and again in the spring of 1978 of the need for modi-
fications in the drainage system. We have also dealt with them
repeatedly on the matters of the street improvements. Not until the
final hour, when a certificate of occupancy for the market was desired
and the weather was too severe to reasonably complete the remaining
subdivision improvements, did Trueman approach the City in an attempt
to resolve the matter.
With regard to the pump station, it is clear that Trueman does have
some legal recourse for compensation for the taking of the pump sta-
tion site, and hence, some negotiating leverage. However, it is also
perfectly clear to me beyond the slightest doubt that the verbal
understanding reached between myself and James Lakin, Trueman's job
superintendent for eighteen months, was extremely clear as to each
party's responsibility in reconstructing the demolished pump station.
Likewise, I feel the original subdivision improvements agreement is
quite clear as to responsibilities and the conditions under which
a certificate of occupancy will be issued.
It is for these reasons that I strenuously object to entering into
any amendment which would allow occupancy of the remainder of the
project prior to the completion of the subdivision improvements as
envisioned in the original agreement. I have not seen any indications
from Trueman in the last twenty months which leads me to believe that
he will honor the amendment any more readily than he has honored the
previous commitments. Quite clearly the only effective leverage which
the engineering and building departments have for enforcing the agree-
ment is the withholding of the certificate of occupancy. It is now
Page Two
Re: Amendment Agreement to Trueman Subdivison
Improvement Agreement
December 18, 1978
approaching three years since the approval date on a similar sub-
division, the Aspen Club project, and we are still trying; to obtain
compliance on a few remaining items which were not complete at the
time a certificate of occupancy was issued. The engineering depart-
ment nor the City has the time to spend in this fashion on another
protracted subdivision project.
One final note I would like to add is that Clayton has already been
approached for certificates of occupancy on additional buildings in
the complex, and I have had absolutely no indication that the items
not covered in the amendment are even being worked on. These include,
among other things, as-builts of all the utilities and granting of
as -built easements for all utilities,
cc: Mick Mahoney
Clayton Meyring
jk
- �- b.�w...�..-_ a�.svu�s......a:..w_... �_— �,�c..r..o..,,� :. _,.._...�-.a_.-......._...,..,. -- �...r��=s_.�_...,w.' ':...ate...+.:....._- �1:�.. �.�;:.+..'a...� - .._�- __' '�.• ..._; w..��.�
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Planning Connnission and Aspen City Ccuncil
FKU.,;: Planning Staff- (Bill Vine)
Truerian Property - Conceptual Subdivision
DATE: December 1, 1975
After careful review of the Conceptual Subdivision proposal for the
Trueman property we recornrliend in general:
1. A redaction in the size of the multi-purpoee
commercial building and
2. Clearer provision for a new road alignment through
the site.
SIZE OF CO'rMFRCIAL FACILITIES
The property is currently zoned S.C.T. and 11. C. , Neighborhood Comm>I,c i al
with a Specially Planned A;,ea- overlay. It' is our un(lerstandl-i ul that
zoning categories were applied to establish use requln atlo:: while
in genera.1 deferring to the S.P.A.'review process to determine more
detailed matters such as bulk, height, density, circulation, etc.
The applicants are at this time requesting conceptual appiroval for a
23,000 square foot Post *Office and an additional 75,000 square feet
for co„r-lercial, office a!id residential purposes. All of the parinitted
uses in the i•l.C. zone are submitted helcw alone ,,'i th the respective
floor area lim.itations tic), provided for in the Code. Assuflning that
tha Planning Office recolllm2ndation to reduce food store areas fro,!!
20,050 square feet to 12,000 square feet is rejecter!, it is clear from
the list thz,,t tho total range of permitted uses in 'the N.C. zono would
require 35,10,00 square -feet.
j
yr
i
J
MLMO
Truciaan Propert:y
December 1, 1975
` Page Two
NEIGHBORHOOD COP-',AFRC1Ai_
PERT BITTED USES
Food Stores
Pharmacy
Liquor Stores
Dry Cleaning & l_aunry Pickup
Barber & Beauty Shop
Shoe Repair
Post: Office Branch
TOTAL FLOOR AREA REQUIRES
FLOOR AHEM LILMI TAT 101 (Sec.24-3.5)
SQUAk1 FELT
20,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
(Presumably not nvicessary)
35,000
Assuming an additional 10,000 square feet for anticipated "conditional uses"
and G,000 square fc rr it for ten (10) civ:el l i r;n emits at 16,00 sir:_ re feet each
it is hard to imagine space requ'ireirent:s beyond 51,000 square feet. This
also. assumes that the pending recomi:--ndati ons for zoning changes will not
be haaded. Vie reccmmcnd that �:,n examsti ve supply o-17 nei g`:hurl oo 1 commercial
services could easily be provid d in u 50,000 square feet builditlg. In
addi Lion v!e vmnder about the propriety of approving some 35,000 square
feet of speculative space based on the assumption than conditional uses
will be grasited practically at the will of the developer. Approval for
s ace for uses not: ermitted i t the N.C. zone should be rr:serve pen inet
appro pri a to coed i t i onT.l use her ri nu, . it 75,000 square.. foot )li : (S I ng
repre s,.m s a shopping center that vJ 11 draw upon the entire Aspen market
ar:,a and is thus in fundamental coni:w:.di cti ors to the intention of the
Neighborhood Comme-rcial zone which is in part "to alloy: convenience
establishments as part of a neighborhood, designed and planned to he com-
patible with the surrounding neighborhood". Also 25,000 square feet is
shown for office spice. The current zoning amend„u3nts proposed I.:y the
Planning Office are predicated on the belief that ton much office space
already exists with 170,000 square feet curr::ntly under'censtruc-ion.
ROAD ALICNMENT
The Man for Smuggler and Fred Mountains, prepared by tile. Planning Office
and presen d to the Planning and Taming calls Igor a new road
alit„rcn:_ thm,011 the Trueman property. While the plan hi.-s not been
api roe, ct ri? that
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Loaves
IMM 11 C. I.II!ClRII. 1. 1.
Iteqular meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 1, 1.976
City Attorney Stuller asked the P«Z to considol" all
amendment to the code to give some enforcement technique
if that is the uncle rstanding that P«2; has of the open
space requirement.
Collins opened the public hearing of the zoning code
arnendr'tent to preclude thei .use of open space areas for
commercial use.
There were no comments from the public. Collins closed the
public hearing.
Bunt felt a vendor should be able to go through some proce-
dure that would allow vending in the mall on special days.
City Attorney explained that what Ilunt is suggesting is
when a public right of way is being used for commercial
activities that the open space should be able to be used
in conjunction with that. that would mean that public
determination could be made at the time of the issuance
of the public streets permit and once that is administra-
tively approved that would be an acceptable approach.
Restaurants would be automatically accepted. INhenever
activity is permitted on the public right of way, it will
automatically be permitted on the abotting private pro-
perty. However if it is a restaurant e:•:tension that will
be left up to the Mall Commission to grant.
Motion
I1unt moved to approve the zoning code amendment to Section
24-3.7(d) to preclude the use of open space areas for
commercial uses with one amendment. The provision should
include an exception that would permit the required open
space to be used for commercial purposes when used in
conjunction with a permitted commercial activity on
abutting public right of way. This would allow those on
and off the raall to use their open space if the City has
previously issued permission to use abutting public pro-
perty. The City Attorney was directed to draft an
amendment to that effect. Downing made a second to the
motion. All in favor, motion carried.
Public Hearing
Clark asked the Planning and Zoning to set a public
"Carriage Clouse"
hearing for the carriage house for June 15. The notices
would be going out before Council acts on the request.
Motion
Hunt moved to set a public hearing for the discussion
of conditional use of the Stallard I -louse Museum in the
R-6 zone for June 15, 1976; seconded by Downing. All in
favor, motion carried.
Trueman Property
Clark explained this is the public hearing on the prelim -
Preliminary Sub-/"
inary plat for the Trueman Property Subdivision. New
division Plat
plans for the Trueman property were just submitted to
the City Engineer, Dave Ellis, and Ellis has not had a
chance to review the revised set of plans. The Planning
Department is recommending to table the Trueman property
until possibly next Tuesday for consideration after the
site inspection of the property. Clark mentioned there
is still a problem with the title as to the west side
of the property. There is an encroachment of the fence
and the map notes it is disputed land. Clark suggested
the Commission go through the plans to see what the
developers have in mind for the project.
For the sake of the new planning and zoning members, non
_3_
1
P ning and Zoning Commissi June 1, 1976
Esign was present to bring the members up to date on the
Tr.uentan development. The development is being done udder
Ordinance 1,71. There have been some changes made since
the conceptual presentation. Esign explained his respon-
sibilities are the site planning and the organization of
the review process. The review process is 1) the concep-
tual presentation; 2) preliminary plan approval; 3) final
plan approval; 4) recordation. The conceptual approval
has been through P&Z and Council and granted. The City
staff has reviewed the development and the notices have
been sent out for the public meeting and are requesting
preliminary approval from P&Z. The changes in the concep-
;.tual Presentations are: 1) the right-of-way on smugg er
Chas been e::pan_ e rom 40 feet to �0 feet; —2 ) —an y plan
approval on lot thre for a year pending the decision on
the extension of Mill Street and Red Mountain; 3) lot
four has been expanded from 15,000 sq.ft. to 21,000 sq.ft.
4) the open space has been increased from 1 3/4 acres
to 2 acres; 5) and building changes.
Yaw went over the plans with the commission members. Yaw
asked to reserve premission to provide for in the future
a stair and elevator for the apartments which will be
a ae to t e up —per T vel in the future.
Yaw also e,:plained that he had talked to the planning staff
at Associated Grocers to see how a grocery store works.
Associated Grocers explained that a grocery store is made
up of three components. Those being: 1) a grocery sales
area which takes up 60% of the space; 2) check out area
which accounts for 150 of the space; 3) and an operations
and back room which accounts for 250 of the space. What
happens in the bac}:room is delivery, unloading, meat
processing and taking vegetables out. Yaw suggested the
following for the planning and zoning recommendation:
One of the cardinal rules of floor planning is to have -
all the space on one level. When the request for the
2,000 sq.ft. down below was made, it was made before the
developers had talked to Associated Grocers and have been
informed that it is not functional. Therefore, Yaw asked
that P&Z recommend to bring the 2,000 sq.ft. upstairs.
The 2,000 sq.ft. would be used to cover the area that the
trucks come into to unload the merchandise. The merchand.is
could be left in this area until it was time to be used.
Presently, the space has to be used as open space. There-
fore, Yaw recommended putting a chained -link fence to
surround the area.
The Trueman Developers asked Planning and Zoning members
for the following: 1) their consideration on the future
stair element; 2) the deletion of a health club; 3) and
to add 2,000 sq.ft. to the second floor of the building.
Hunt mentioned he had not seen a sufficient area for
taxies and shuttle type vehicles. Yaw mentioned he would
look into that.
Collins opened the public hearing for the preliminary
subdivision plat of the Trueman Property. There were no
continents from the public. Collins closed the public
hearing.
Motion Abbott moved to table the Trueman property pursuant to the
on -site i 1I_- pection of the nett regular meeting and -- -
_
completion of information_ from the City Engineer; seconded
by Hunt.
Motion Abbott amended his motion to continue this meeting to
June 8 at 5: 00 p-.m.__at which time t}icrc dill be an on -
site inspection of the Trueman Property; seconded by Hunt.
All in favor, motion carried.
-4- 1
,mow••,,;;,;,,... ..._...r...z:�""'"`".M �
often ::o9ether ';i
5ubdivisi.nn ,
Conceptual Edwards had 9 St.uller
PRO t geeti-119 harry 4. City Attorney
`a+1 - added to lot r Or
ke it
;RUF..1FAt� PR at since thel-ad been �utxlivi.•,ion, r.-'id r-lie
told Counci.l that
a note m,,};r a two l.ot ; t.u110,I"
Porter Stoller ttc,i� e} )taUle
J°e pttorneY altcrnat lac i CI t) r f..,u+ t h, C� t? ','Led r:hat. acceF q
with City there were two t.ie dvn•• four, Fput o:as a develoPlnPnt rights.
that tYlc al,(le- two �'s• Lp limit. the
said that
�i7'cl i;liLil]f- )y�,i)U�ytlU'i Uf wanted to CIO,
f�,ur Sul i the 1 what o trr+at the lefto�'c`r. grace,
, putt Truelpan how t F -):- t
di,1 nurse to Perpetuate s to q° ever; ,;. i.,:;t
three thine- i r, icrnisirg, c�ruocrY
lanr3ua; there were ,::i H
Council ;.> 1J.Q00 scFua' spa^e: Council had
told ril ttaa vut�ci
Porter ,'Ls7 �uut: uare feet of. other retail 7
second f]0or was coo much.
feet; 000 s4 on the ecc^d
of� 20 r 000.`nuare feet of office space �bj
cvc:r i s<uare Crc�cloti.o had eu le in ".
store that 15.000 1 Cr,uncilm:ir, lie a M. ,'ble to P P
indicated th= r,a:;emr nt • e made There would II rediss health cluh would b to
w:.ntott t° said the who wanted oirL.
g:p.. Y:c True+l+z,n a.nd anyone else to include Z*+other ,,000
Por.ier club• storey W°old also like shoe shops, sumePl.ace
she health of the said he air., mare foot base -
off managCrs Porter L,.,cs like Tv rep 000 sq
the office-5, serviC°This would be a total 10,
100 melc'b`'r�a1Pmelct for
1)e the t :� s ace.
square feet in a hard retail P r department:
office Se the plannLn i I
between the F,lanninq cle}••artment to
this at this time because seconded by
meat- .roved to table should g° to c uncil:
rendt these Pest to l iIc front Uf �'
Councilman $eh ciis cttsW d thii is not ready be
has not seen or w,)1},uJ out.; cIli2�timm and ultimate
ha ,roUl. na;
Ve to [ •tun• 1) orgy
Cuuncilwur''n JvhI�J unr•zsolved are lane rccc)num:r+cied a two lot
thinr7- that remain et the building• a 2L),p00 foot food II
rest , siH which would contain u
id tlic lay i anct l�) the 1q
o.ition tic` 1.000 3 _.
King foot 1)uildin9
disp
o t •;c u:, I o
subdivision an`F s 45r d_.
�� .---P,
r .
t,
. �Jtj,
A3pert,_City,Council .._-. February_.9,_l976,_ F
tt Err ,Ono square feet of incidental neighborhood retail uses; 10,000 officepace, and
IO
ndditi.onal 10,000 of housing- City Attorney St.uller said the best ap roach
two lot s:uhdivision, this is the most secure position for the City. his. Ftul.ler;;
;a t"
"•'". ,, s w<�approached that if. Trueman wr.:rted a four lot subdivision, what language '
"i,, I,t)t on the plat to qualify development potential. The u
40,
rnr .tnndley said lie could see no reason to table this project, the Council had been
,,>Rrn9 at a building of 45,000 square foot maximum. That is not what is presented
<
, i•
wi0` ol,p^sed to the motion. Motion NOT carried.
City L)lginaer Ellis pointed out that the road alignment was i.mportarit in conceptual., It
determine lot configuration and even placement of the buildings. Ellis said earlier I,
tt was noted that there would not be a through street connecting Spring with Mill through
tie Rio Grande property. Ellis told Council that if they accept the conceptual plan as f
S show, it totally precludes doing anything on the City's side in the way of a sensible
trnffic Eituation. Ellis said he felt the road was shown too far to the north. Ellis j
i caid he would like to see elimination of direct access by curb cuts and service entries li
I on Mill street back in the plan, compatible with any future regarding of Mill street.
u
Councilman r.2hrendt rmv,•ei not to approve the subdivision and to direct the anr,li.c.:nt• to
toit:z c* , er.3in,-aring a:,d pla:rr.inc office; �aeondad iy Council-.c.:ac:n Pccicr,.en.
Mayor Standley stated there are basic constructs that are not acceptable to Council; (1)
the road alignment and problems that Dave Ellis has bnd (2) size of the building. Kane
recommended a 45,900 square foot building; 20,000 in food, 10,000 in office space, 5,000
adjacent neighborhood commercial uses, 10,000 in housing with a two lot subdivisions.
Porter said he had drawings of various alignments for the road. Porter also requested
this be tabled until Trueman could be present to make the final request of Council.
t Kane stated in planning for the Rio Grande property, the planning office asked Council for
a decision on Spring street extension. Council's general policy commitment was to drop
y the Spring street extension. When the Spring street extension was dropped, Porter moved
his road to the north to accommodate more development.
Councilman Wishart moved to table the Trueman project; seconded by Councilwcman Johnston. iI
Mayor Standley said when the project comes back all things Council is
be included; road alignment, number of lots in the subdivision, square
the planning office and engingeerinr, departments have recormnendatioris.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE f2, SERIES Or 1976 - Electric Appropriations
talking about should
footage, and tnat !'
f!
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comr.)ents. Mayor Standley closed
the public hearing.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance 92, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilman !`
Wishart. -All in favor, motion carried.
ORDIN?,NCE 02 '
(Series of 1976)
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING FROM ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT REVENUES FIVE THOUSANO
($5,000) DOLLARS FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTING COSTS INCIDENT TO I11PLLEENTATION'
OF THE ELECTRIC UNDERGROUNDING PROGRAM; AND AN ADDITIONAL FIVE TIIOUSANL +i
($5,000) DOLLARS FOR LEGAL FEES TO PROSECUTE; TIIE PROCEEDINGS PROTESTING THE ,
PUBLIC service rate increase was read by city clerk
ti
C,ouncilwonian Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 1976, on second reading;
S�ecorded by Councilman Wishart. Roll call vote; Councilmeiabers Behrendt, aye; De Grar?erio,•
aye; Johnston, aye; Parry, aye; Pedersen, aye; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion
carried.
ORDINANCE 03, SERIES OL' 197G - L•'mF)loyee Retirement i
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. Councilwoman Johnston told Council the
committee accented the retirement plan without amendment. Mayor Standley closed the
Councilman De Gregorio moved to read Ordinance t3, Series of 1976; seconded by CouncLl-
woman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
oRT)121Ancr # 3
(Serien of 1976)
e\N ORDINANCE REPEALING AND Rf:ENi.CT: SG THEE%IPLOYF.£.S' RS'i'I YMENY PLAN AND
9 RUST Or THE CITY OF ASPLU; R1:11Li,CING THE PRPSENT TRUSTEE AND AUTHORIZING
Am.IN STPATION n!' TITF, PLAN .7%1,11) THf,ST IIY THE Rl:'CTFI:'•II:1J'I' COI:`i1".TTr:T: AND
I)l !U:CTOR Ole' PINANCE; USTA111,15HTt:(1, A FCI!I:1A)I,E BY VII'TUP OF 111TICII T"F
CO:i'tPJBUTION ",,'ODE I3Y TIIE CITY 1.:1LL VL:T IN 1:?IPLOYUEII i,C'COI1.U1N13, Tr) YEARS
OP S1:RVICL1 : 'O '1'lll; CITY; I7'R6IIZING I liIULI.`;:�ITU,T:; INVESTME vrS AND AU'f'1(C)T:IZItlG
THE CO64111UCLiNG OF PLAN PUtIDE, ALL AS MOPE. PARTICULAPLY DESCRIBED 114 TfIL
Ok1)114ANC1; was read by the city clerk.
Counci lw,unrtn Pederson mnvacl to adopt Ordinance 13, Series or: 1976, on second rvar! i no;
seconded by Councilman WLshart:.
Pehul ar Mo.etin9...._.... City . Councils i :" .._YTanuarx 26,- 19.76 _...:'.�� -- .._�.......
'Leke (:lymer, fire department, told Council it was getting to be a problem parking when II
15 to 20 vehicles suddenly cos verge on the fire department for an emeigency. Clymer
risked if the City would consider converting part of the par]: along the east side of the I
fire station for parking. Clymer said that daily, for some reason, three or four fire-
men come to the station to work and there is no place to park. Clymer said converting li
the 1•°.rk into a few parkinq pla;:es would riot he o%pellsive for the City. Tht_ fire
district would stand any expenses; the fire 3epartment would uonate time and equipment.
yor.Standl.ey said he would rather than this under advisement and look at alternatives .
such. as designating an official zone, or part of City hall parking lot. Mayor Standley
directed City Manager Mahoney to work with the fire department, get their requirements,
work out a solution and bring it back to Council.
A }ENVIEW - Reapproval of final plat
Mayor tandley explained this project conformed to zoning, there were no problems,
the Council was reapproving the subdivision.
Councilwomah-,,Pedersen moved to reapprove AspenView final plat subdivision; seconded
by Councilman -Parry.
Councilwoman John.., on asked if there were any changes since the first approval. There
were none.
All in favor, motion car "ed.
i
CLARENDON - Reapproval of final plat
City Attorney Stuller toll( Council there has not been a recorded and accepted subdivision
agreement. Also the Clarendon anticipates an exchanges of deeds to clarify the western
boundary. Council will have to authorize the Mayor to sign that deed. V
Councilwcman Pedersen moved to reapprove the subdivision plat and accept for recordation
to authorize Mayor Standley to execute the subdivision agreement; and to authorize
Mayor Standley to execute the quit claim deed; seconded by Councilman Parry.
Councilwoman Johnston pointed out that there are several blanks in the subdivision
agreement. City Attorney Stuller said that Engineer Ellis had to calculate the amounts
for escrow and dedication fees. Clarendon will accept Ellis' estimates for these
figures.
Councilwoman Johnston moved to amend the motion to include approval subject to the
amounts being okayed by the City administration; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen.
A1.1 in favor of the amendment, motion carried.
All in favor of the main motion, motion carried.
TRUEMAN PROPF,RTY Conceptual subdivision
Kane told Council the P & Z had approved the conceptual subdivision with a*general
configuration of 23,000 square foot post office and 75,000 square foot general commer-
cial building. The Council had tabled the conceptual subdivision at the last meeting
and required that the plan be amended to reduce the size of the commercial building.
Also required was that the balance of the property be reserved for future rezoning or
mechanism that would allow the developers of the land to come back, to Council and ask
for further development. Porter's reduction is proposed to go from 75,000 square feet
to 55,000 scivare feet, which includes 10,000 for housing. Kane recommended the 1.0,000
square feet for housing only if coordinated with the housing authority with some
assurance that it be employee housing. Kane told Council there is 15,000 square feet
of office space being proposed. The planning office is recommending, city-wide, that
office space and retail/commercial be cut back. The planning office's general position
is that if the developers feel. this is a reasonable use of land, there should be some
assurance that this is preserved -as office space and not be converted into more retail.
Kane reminded Council there is a general downzoning proposal pending before P & Z.
One of the recommendations in this proposal is to take food stores from 20,000 to
15,000 square feet. The planning office is recommending that 5,000 square feet be
sacrificed from this building, if the Council accepts a food store at 15,000 square
feet.
Joe Porter told Council this development is proposed 55,000 square feet; 5,000 square
feet in the basement that will be health facility primarily for people that will use
,AI 4. buildiliq; .)'i3O:)0 ;:q u.0 t` lt•. •t_ of it -tail ::1,.tc, • 20,000 .;q u.l t't• iooL •11-oct,,Vy :it.ore. .
On top of that 15,000 square frut of service and doctor office space; on top of that �
1.0,000 square feet of housing. Porter said he had no problem going through the housing
authority, or with the contingency on the office space.
rortrr smid at the last: Council wout.intl the Council had discussrd phasincl the original
71,000 ;square foot pruiect. Porter said they p.lrinnc,d to phnae Lltc• con,lrucL•ion also,
rtartiug with the rr_Lail first.
Councilman Behrendt asked for in explanation of the conceptual block plan with clotted
line:;. Porter replied thn:;r were futnro circulation plan,, trail. dr,ignations. These I
411(l `,•r•rt; .I,rn i.nl.tl, 0IIIl: i 1m.lu U."111•'Ildt ;I::L•I'd by h•I•dinq .I :;ul.tlivi::ir,n with tv.() l()t!;,
,,n.' i "I (Iw 1,t,:.1 ()[I it,- •i;1,1 OIlt• I t`l t h'. I t•I .I i ] , i:.11' 1. III,- 0)1111..• 1 I •.1 ,••Il l lit_1 ! t.::/• 11. ill)
to pru,s;nrr, from tho drvvloprr in III(- future. Kano said very dofinitoly. Kan( Said I
Ih•` Ct•llit•'ll 11.1d 11.11 th.11 V),009 !:,111.11,• f.•I`t W.I.! 1,111 l,i(f, hilt. in.tyl„' of !;(,m(' I ititt` in
the fuluio iL wtlu.ld be i1i:0 it flat. Tll,• 10011110111 011 it'-- !;,)it[ Lu uitl h-ick the` huildinq
but. leave in the 1.1e„ibility for future development. on that nitro. L
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 26, 197G
Councilman Behrendt said if they subdivide once, there is a right to use that land implied
Kane said 31 the balance of land were left undeveloped and made SPA, if would carry some
bias for development. `Phu planning office felt that the size of the proposed building
! represented too much retail use of the site. They recommended that thu size of the
building lie cut back and some other neaded S/C/I uses be included on that site in the
future:. Kane said cre.tinci two specially planned areas would create a greater responsi-
lbi.lity on the Counci.l and P & 7, to approve a development on that site in the future.
City Attorney Stuller explained that if the developer were to parcel off lot 4, you
would have an owner with no developable rights at all. Ms. Stuller said if the City
has to request a dedication from that land for a right-of-way and it is under separate
ownership, it would make it difficult. Mayor Standley said if the building were ccndo-
minimized and the tenants were tenants -in -common of lot 4, it could be a problem.
Porter said he wanted 55,000 square 'feet with no obligations on behalf of the developer
or the City for anything in the future. When the need arises, the developer can come
back through some predetermined process. City Attorney Stuller suggested when they
develop the final plat to note that no development rights automatically pass to lot 4.
Bob Grueter, representing Trueman, said he anticipated this land continuing to be a
specially planned area.
Councilman Behrendt asked what advantages accrued to the City to consider this development
as a two lot subidivision, its. Stuller said the developer's disadvantage would be the
dedication of open space. Grueter said they were not asking for condominiazation.
Ms. Stuller suggested then that they maintain lot 4 as open space as an adjunct to lot 2
with no lot designation.
Mayor Standley reiterated that if at some point in the future there was a need for further
development, under SPA, the developer could come back for more development. The Council
diet not imply to come up with a subdivided piece of land that had a separate lot that
could be sold. Mayor Standley suggested that the Council deal with the building size
at this point.
Mayor Standley said Porter was asking for a 20,000 square foot market and asked if that
included storage. Porter said that included everything, storage, etc. Elmer Beamer
spoke to Council about a 20,000 square foot food store. Beamer said the families of
Aspen want a store with sufficient shelf space to carry various sizes of merchandise,
where aisles are wide enough to carry through., and a store that is willing to handle
their own brand of merchandise. Beamer said that everything points towards a reduction
of traffic by having a large enough store with storage. The main traffic drawer will
be the post office. If people can go to one store and buy everything, one will not need
to be trapsing all over town.
Beamer told Council that one and a half million dollars were spent in Basalt and Glenwood
with $50,000 sales tax lost and one million miles driven on Highway 82. This could be
prevented by having a store here with sufficient space to keep people here. Kane
replied that the City Market•in Glenwood is 20,000 total square feet with 4,000 square
feet'storage and 3-4,000 accessory use. Kane said the planning office was suggesting
15,000 square feet as a way to control against accessory junk items. They are concerned
about bulk and massing of the building. Kane said that cross town traffic could not
be eliminated.
Councilwoman Johnston asked if the post office would be located on this site. Iry
Sherrick, U. S. Post Office, told Council they were interested in the land. They do
have floating boundaries. This post office will replace the present two in town.
Porter told Council that anybody that opened a grocery store in Aspen will not have to
look for unique ways to draw people into the store. Porter said the planning office
picked 15,000 square feet for a grocery store because they were concerned about massing;
Porter said he could illustrate that the massing can be dealt with. flans Gramiaer
questioned the allowed 82 parking spaces, and pointed out that normal Safeway procedure
was to provide 3 square feet for parking, driveways, walkways, landscape per every square
foot of building. Gramiger also pointed out that only one street would be serving this
grocery store. Porter said they were not using the same kind of parking ratios as
large cities, as a number of people would be using the minibus or pedestrian system.
Council decided they were ready to make decisions on the size of the market.
Councilman Behrendt moved to allow a 15,000 square foot total grocery store all inclusive
1ii Motion died for lack of a second.
Councilman Behrendt moved to allow a 20,000 square foot store all inclusive; seconded by
counciAman 1:i.shart. All in favor, with the cxception of Councilmrmb-r Jolin::ton. ?i()t wil
carried.
Councilman Wishart moved to allow 10,000 square fret of residence conditioned on going
through Goodheim's office and it be tied up with the housing authority; seconded by
Councilman De Greqorio.
Councilman 13rhrendt ;:aid the purpose of the hou.inci authority was to qet property info
the pads of people that can't buy in this. town. A rental plan does not protect that
very cirouh. Councilman Wi.shart answered by going through Goodheim it does not tie it
to rental or sale, this is conceptually trying to keep it for these people.
Al l in Cave),-, plot inn varrird.
II
,
ASPEN
Department
13 0sOil'QAa ;^�c� a street
as�>en 1 "�)?S�ri� ��0") ' 81 61 1
D. `
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office (Bill Kane)
RE: Trueman Property, Conceptual Subdivision
DATE: January 22, 1976
Please find enclosed a letter from Joe Porter describing the revised
Trueman Plan. In short, the proposal includes a reduction of the
75,000 square feet building to 55,000 square feet with 10,000 square
feet of housing and a 5,000 square foot basement health club.
We recommend the following:
1. The 10,000 square feet of housing only makes sense
if developed in connection with the Housing Authority
and Brian Goodheim.
2. The 55,000 square feet proposal includes a 20,000
square foot grocery store. We are still recommending
a maximum of 15,000 square feet with or without
storage. Should this recommendation be accepted
then 5,000 square feet of area should be sacrificed
from the building.
3. That the office space in the building be restricted
to office space by covenant.
4. That the balance of the site remain as a separate
Specially Planned Area restricted in Service/Commercial/
Industrial uses only.
r
ltegttlur- Meeting `...�� + N� r Aspen City Council .' w � January 26,.1976�,.�
vor the second floor uses, doctors and services offices, the planning office is recom-
uiendind that, they be covenanted to those uses ::pecif:iced to stop creeping commercialism.
The planning office wants this space restricted to office only so that the 1' & Z will
not be faced to conditional use hearings. Mayor Standley said he would be willing to
accept. 15,000 square feet of bona fide office and medical uses. Councilman Parry said t
he'felt it should he opo n to what the need is; Council has no idea whatthe need will
he. Mayor Standley hoint.:d out that that sets up rating of uses; the developer can � f
rate other buildings in town.
Councilwoman Johnston moved that Council determine the footprint of the building at
this point; seconded by Councilman }Behrendt. Councilmembers Wishart, Pedersen, Johns
Behrendt in favor; Councilmembers Parry, De Gregorio, Mayor. Standley opposed. Motion
carried.
Councilman De Gregorio moved to accept a 25,000 square foot footprint; seconded by
Councilman Parry.
Planner Kane told Council it was irrelevant to discuss footprint. This building will
not be uniformly two or three stories. The uses appropriate will make it a staggered
building; it could be 30,000 square feet on the first floor and only 5,000 square feet
on the second floor. The Council will get two shots at the architectural design of
this building.
Everyone opposed. Motion NOT carried.
Councilman Berhendt moved to reject 15,000 square feet for doctors and services;
seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Parry moved to accept neighborhood/retail at 5,000 square feet; seconded by I;
Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Behrendt moved to reject the health and recreational facility at 5,000 square'
feet; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen.
Councilman Wishart questioned this facility. Porter said it would basically be handball,
court, and sauna for the people that live there. Councilman De Gregorio said he could 'I
see this becoming another health center; there are two in town already. This would
be increasing the value or cost of the apartments that the Council is trying to keep
as low --cost housing. Councilman Wishart agreed, but said he was not opposed to a
separate underground facility.
All in favor, motion carried.
The Council has approved 20,000 square foot grocery store; 10,000 square feet of
residential; and 5,000 square feet of neighborhood/retail, for a total of 35.,000 square
feet. There is 20,000 square feet left unresolved.
Kane told Council there was a fairly tedious procedures to go through regarding
engineering questions. Council decided to consider this on the next agenda; Councilma
De regorio a ouncil Chambers.
Iry Sherrick, U. S. Post Office, told Council they were under a mandate from the Post-
master General to study all alternatives possible to reduce capital expenditures.
Sherrick said they might be able to drop the size of the building in Aspen to perhaps
19,000 square feet. Sherrick said the lack of capital funds does not affect the
project in Aspen; their interest still runs high. If anything does changes, Sherrick
said he would contact the City. Sherrick said their parking would be adequate to
handle customers; they propose 95 customer parking stalls.
ORDINANCE #59, SERIES OF 1975 - Vacating Alley 92
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. Mayor Standley told Council that the
Commissioners had gotten the requested easements from the adjacent property owners.
There were no other comments. Mayor Standley closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Johnston moved to read Ordinance #59, Series of 1975, on second reading.
seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #59
(Series of 1975)
P.ia ORDTi;ANrr W..CATTtM AT.L nF TIfE PT,ATTT:D AT.T.T.'YWAY T,YT"I(7, TN AND BETQrr.N
lil,OCK 92, CITY ANO T0'::i:"lT1: O, itiiT`I ;:, i-N11 ! A Cl: 1'), Ta\.;T A:-!11::1 ADIJI:'ION'AL
TOWNSITE (LYING WESTERLY OF A NORT1117RLY 'EXTENSION OF THE EAST LINI: OF
LOT 13, EAST ASPEN ADDITION) SAID VACATION BEING PURSUANT TO SECTION
43-2-301, ET.SEQ, C.R.S. 1973, AND BEING CONDITIONED ON RESERVATION OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR UTILITY LOCATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO
LOT:! A,i 10l % l t:G THI: WW.ATUD I`11I..i ZU::.. OF TILT: ALI.Kl'WAY w,i s read by the
city clerk.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance #59, Series of 1975, on second reading;
seconded Ly Councilt-uman Johnston. Roll call vote; Councilmembers 1•chrendt, aye;
Johnston, aye; Parry, aye; Pederson, aye; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion
carried.
0UDTNAtWE 1e)1, of-igI:R nF ln71 - Pezoni.ng Thomas Propor.ty to C, Conservation
Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Staudley
closed the public hearing.
, i ?
Special Meeting-_ - - Aspen City Council T December 23, 1975
Larry Yaw stated that the architects disagree with the planning office on the size of
the building. The specially planned area will set the zone for that. The overlay is
S/C/I in neighborhood conunercial zone. Yaw explained they are seeking conceptual
approval from the Council. During the preliminary planned area, all the architectural
aspects of the project will be presented. In the final plan there will be a complete
review of all the architecture, engineering and another Council approval. Then there
will be recordation of the PUD subdivision and the final zoning. Yaw mentioned they
do need a quick decision; they are presently behind schedule.
Yaw explained their obicctivesL_to provide a neighborhood service center that will be
a one —stop shopping service, and will provide space for the post office, to develop
a project which is consistent with the conomics of the land, and to connect with the
paths and pedestrian systems of _the city, and to provide the City withseasonable
flexibiT1Ey with fhe Red (•fountain extension.
Yaw explained the development program. The post office will be 23,000 square feet;
the service commercial building will be a total of 75,000 square feet and will be
comprised of a 35,000 square foot footprint, 25,000 square feet of offices and service
shops, 10,000 square feet of residential; a 5,000 square foot recreation facility.
The total square footage would come out to 98,000 square feet. The parking would be
for 300 cars. The architects would like to have a shared_ parki�_concept. They
would_Ee air e to have more efficient parking and less congestion on the site. —
Yaw told Council that they would not develop on the panhandle for a period of five
years and enythinq that was developed on it would not be toward condemriaion. The
right-of-way is 1.27 acres leaving almost 7 acres remaining. The open, space is 25
per cent, or another acre and three-quarter. The total footprint is an acre .15,
parking is 2.37, set backs and buffers is another 1/2 acre. The total acreage is 3.22
Yaw mentioned that the planning office and the architects are not together on the
concept of the neighborhood shopping center. The architects do not fee]. that the
concept of having a neighborhood shopping center spread throughout various areas in
Aspen would fit the economic or functional model of Aspen. It would take about 12,000
people to support a full basic service neighborhood shopping facility. The alternative
to that is neighborhoods can support small grocery stores, but when taking a?I'o_fFer
facilities teat belong wit a shopping center, it will create cross town rrl
What is being proposed is something that takes all the basic service uses and puts
them in one destination, one -stop shopping area.
In terms of the malls, Yaw felt that it was an unarguable economic phenomenon that
tourists oriented commercial uses are using up downtown Aspen. Yaw felt that many of
the uses should be in the Trueman area so that shopping can be done all at once.,
Yaw asked the councilmembers what they thought about the building. Councilman Behrendt
said that he would not vote for a building over 40,000 square feet; the food market
of 12,000 square feet plus 3,000 for storage is agreeable to him and the need for odd
stores in that area that are necessary.
Councilwoman Pedersen felt that the market size should be compatible with that which
can be feasibly attempted as far as size is concerned in the west end and any other
markets in town. Pedersen was leary about the 20,000 square feet of combined and
cc::.;itional uses, too open enc?ed.
Councilman Parry was interested in it.
Mayor Standley felt that the size of the building was too large and suggested that a
service station be down there in a separate structure becuase the parking is too
much massing of open space. Mayor Standley also suggested that a restaurant be down
there to service the employees of the area. Mayor Standley said he would not want
to see any office space or retail facilities that are duplicated in the downtown area.
Mayor Standley said lie did not see any problem with the housing, but in terms of
commercial space he wanted nothing over 40,000' square feet. The supermarket retail
area shouldn't exceed 12,000 or 15,000 Square feet.
Councilman Behrendt moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:30 p.m. seconded by Councilwoman
Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
I iza eth M. Klym,
Deputy City Clerk
^'�p,.•.A,�.}�s•--�.:-,._r...r.w,...�.ar_r:...,.,-_.....,.,.n,sx�r..k--..__-.._.._,..�,_,�_......._...,,,...irs+�•n.,,,,. .. .w.C„a.,. � _-+.�n.,,.�,•e,.---,...�...s..,,e,.�.,�,.-�.._�.�...,,,T,.. r.�,,,,,Q�
192,
Special Meeting Aspen City Council December 23, 1975
ORDINANCE 0103
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE RECOGNIZING UNANTICIPATED PLANT INVESTMENT FEES, INTEREST
INCOME, STOCK SALES AND COMMERICAL SERVICE REVENUES IN THE WATER
DEPARTMENT; APPROVING APPROPRIATIONS FROM WATER DEPARTMENT REVENUES �
FOR THE RED MOUNTAIN STORAGE TANK, GREATER ASPEN DEVELOPMENT CORPORA- 1
TION TAP FEE REFUNDS, RED MOUNTAIN PUMP STATION, UTILITY MAINTENANCE
PLUMBING SERVICE AND EQUIPMENT RENTAL; AND DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY
y EXISTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT was read by the deputy city clerk
Councilman Parry moved to adopt Ordinance #103, Series of 1975, on second reading;
seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. Roll call vote: Councilmembers Parry, aye;
Pedersen, aye; Behrendt, aye; Wishart, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Motion carried.
TRUEMAN PROPERTY - Conceptual Subdivision and PUD
q Kane presented the Trueman Property explaining that Conceptual Subdivison is the first
step of a three step process. Larry Ya, Bqb Grueter and Joe Porter are representing Mr.
Trueman and have appeared before the P & Z with conceptual subdivision. They were
advised to proceed along the lines of the PUD Ordinance, which is Ordinance #71, Series
of 1975. The steps are conceptual, second step is preliminary, and third step is final.
Kane noted a couple of issues involved in the Trueman property; automobile circulation,
the panhandle which the ahning `oTfI-ce-would iike to g-- eta -dedication of some percentage
for t_e- ossiblTity Y-deve3oping'a new access to Red Mountain Road, and—Te si2-e—
of the building.
The general problem is the size of the building. The two main structures are a post
office, which is 23,000 square feet, and a three level structure with a total of 75,000
square feet F.A.R. and a 25,000 square foot foot print. The planning office recommends
that a building of 75,000 square feet is too large. Because of downzoning, the
architects are not sure what square footage to use until the new downzoning is in
effect. The downzoning currently permits a 20,000 square foot supermarket. The planning
office is recommending that a food market be 12,000 square feet with one at City Market,
one on the Trueman property, and one at the west end of town. The site is zoned Service/
Commercial/ Industrial S/C/I. The original intention was to create a neighborhood
commercial outlet with the addition of some S/C/I uses, i.e. commercial support
facilities; however, because of the post office, which took away from any kind of S/C/I
development, there is a building of 75,000 square feet with retail type functions.
The site is zoned neighborhood commercial, S/C/I,- and specially planned area. The
reason it was zoned this way; the neighborhood_ commercial would establish the range of
uses; S/C/I zoning would establish the range of uses and the question of density and
building size would be settled when the plan came to P & Z and Council. The reason
there are two zones was because it gave P & Z and City Council the right to be able to
set density and bulk height massing of the building and arrange for parking and auto-
mobile circulation.
The planning department feels that the scope and size of the building is too large
because the intent of neighborhood commercial uses are to allow the development of
commercial retail facilities on a neighborhood basis. The planning department is
recommending that the maximum FAR of the building be 20,000 square feet with five other
uses at 3,000 square feet each. This would allow a maximum building based on permitted
uses at 35,000 square feet. Anything beyond 35,000 square feet means there will be
conditional use hearings and approvals. There is also added residential space, which
would be ten units at 600 square feet each. This would be consistent with employee
housing. A building larger than 50,000 square feet is questionable if it would still
be within the intent of neighborhood commercial zone.
There is a lot of criticism from the Mall Commission. The merchants on Cooper street
argue that with mall expansion and de-emphasizing the automobile on Cooper street, and
with 300 parking spaces for the people on the Trueman property, it will be easier for
people to shop there instead of walking to the businesses on Cooper street. Kane
noted that neighborhood commercial uses do not compete with the commercial core; they
are uses that satisfy the neighborhood and not satisfy the entire city-wide or regional
shopping needs. A 75,000 square foot building would constitute a regional shopping
facility; but a 30,000 square foot building would be more consistent with meeting the
need of a neighborhood commercial concept.
Mayor Standley asked Kane what the planning office's feeling is regarding the storage
area for the super market. Kane replied that they are recommending a total building of
15,000 square feet which will leave 3,000 square feet for storage.
Mayor Standley asked Kane what would make the neighborhood commercial detract from the
downtown area, for example if a liquor store and erug store go down there, that would
be detracting from the downtown area; however, they are essential to creating L neighbor-
hood commercial area. Kane replied that the heart of the center will be a grocery store
and pharmacy. The other permitted uses are beauty shop, dry cleaning pick up, and post
office branch. It is only for daily shopping kinds of needs. The range of uses is
the control for the commercial core.
Councilman Parry felt tliat it would become a local shopping center anal shops in the malls
would become tourist oriented. Kane mentioned that in a 75,000 square foot building, it
would be hard to speculate what kind of uses will be put down there. Councilman Parry
also felt that the supermarket is too small. Councilman Wishart felt that the building
is too large and would be creating competition for the downtown core.
Councilman Wishart left the Council Chambers
.1.
i
1 �
January
21, 1976
Mr. Bill Kane, Planning Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Pill:
Attached is our revised conceptual plan of the Trueman property.
As the map illustrates, we are requesting that Lot I
accommodate
a neighborhood community complex with the following program:
-Basement - Health and recreation facility
for building residents and employees
5,000. sq.ft.
Ground floor - Grocery store
20;000 sq.ft.
Neighborhood retail
5,000 sq.ft.
Second floor - Doctors and service offices
15,000 sq.ft.
Third floor - Residential
10,000 sq.ft.
TOTAL
55,000 sq.ft.
Lot II is the post office site, as per our first request.
Lot III remain the same, and
We are requesting that Lot IV remain undeveloped in
its present SPA
category with no additional obligation for future use
or approval by
either the city or developer.
Please put us on the city council agenda for Monday,
January 26 so that
we can request conceptual approval as outlined in Ordinance
71.
,-'Thank You.
1
Sincerely,
,-
r -
Joe A. Porter
J P/PP
Attach.
de .ic+n inc. 4 maidon lane ralc-igh, north carolinn 27G07
phone 919 833-5714
11