HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Creektree.1978
,-,
^
hk ~t~
eIT
130 s
,,?c:,.
-LS'" IC.~-/
September 7, 1978
Karen Smith
Planning Director
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Creek tree Subdivision
Dear Karen:
Please be advised that under Section 24-8.26(a) you have
authority to authorize modification in the PUD provided it
does not cover an area of land greater than 2,285 square
feet.
t<uly :~~
Ronald W. Stock
City Attorney
RI"lS:mc
cc: Tom Dunlop
Clayton ~1eyring
,
-.
" ,
^, "
:k'ii':t, ~
"I;
,-,., t""'\
Copland Hagm. law LId Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen Co, ,30 81611 303 925 2867
August 31, 1978
Plann~ng Department
city of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Attnl Karen smith
Dear Karen I
This letter is ~n response to your request ~or an
explanat~on of the changes wh~ch have occurred to the
Creektreecondominiumbuilding footprint. As you
know our firm was not theoriginalarch~tect, there,~
fore when we took over the project we had OU:l:' consulting
engineers review the project. They made the following
recommendations:
1. In order to maximumize solar heat~ng potential the
build~ngs: be reoriented to a more north~s:outh
direction.
2. To preclude the useofsewageejecto:t:'s thestructUX'es:
should be moved northwest as much as: poss:~bleto
meet the proposed sewer l~ne's invert elevations.
We tried/attempted to incorporate these rec01lllllendat~ons
into the des~gn of the complex . This determined the
subsequent change in build~ng footprint configuration.
If your office needs additional supportive information
please call-me.
Yours truly
Copland Hagman Yaw, Ltd.
tJ~.~
W~lliamB. Campbell
WBC/cs
.',.;;
Recorded 1: 22 PM Feb~ 14, l\3F',Reception #
'i~; :,~~
~0187a
J~~+e' Hane Recorder
',.-"
'j(:
IlOO~ 343 P~tE 534
41-
:biG
,
SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
CREEKTREE SUBDIVISION
THIS AGREEMENT, made this /.B'-/h day of ~1ULr1-'
1978, by and between THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO (hereinafter
sometimes called "City"), and GUY F. GROVER (hereinafter
called "the Owner"), and ANDRE ULRYCH (hereinafter called
" the Subdivider").
WIT N E SSE T H
----------
WHEREAS, the SUbdivider with the consent and approval
of the Owner has submitted to the City for approval, execution
and recordation, the final plat and development plan of a
tract of land located within the City of Aspen as shown on the
plat of the Creek tree Subdivision final sUbdivision and plan-
ned unit development plat (hereinafter "Plat"); and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered such Plat,
the proposed development and the improvement of the land
therein, and the burdens to be imposed upon other adjoining
or neighboring properties by reason of the proposed develop-
ment and improvement of land included in the Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute and
accept for recordation that Plat upon agreement of the Owner
and the Subdivider to the matters hereinafter described, and
subject to all the requirements, terms, and conditions of the
City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations now in effect and other
laws, rules and regulations as are applicable; and
WHEREAS, the City has imposed conditions and require-
ments in connection with its approval, execution and acceptance
for recordation of the Plat, and that such matters are neces-
sary to protect, promote and enhance the public welfare; and
. .
,-,
~
8001<343 r.\GE535
WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 20-16(c)
of the Municipal Code of the City, the City is entitled to
assurance that the matters hereinafter agreed to will be
faithfully performed by the Subdivider.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises,
the mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval, exe-
cution and acceptance of the Plat for recordation by the City,
it is agreed as follows:
1. Upon the recording of the Plat of Creek tree Sub-
division, Lot 1 as shown thereon shall constitute one single
family residential lot and Lot 2 shall constitute a site for
two (2) structures each consisting of two (2) duplex or con-
dominium units, subject to the other provisions hereof.
2. Lot 3. consisting of 0.522 acres, more or less,
shall be conveyed by the City and the Owner to the SUbdivider
by the deeds attached hereto as Exhibit A and shall then con-
stitute a site for the construction by Subdivider of a new
club building for the Fraternal Order of Eagles, said building
to be constructed according to the Plat Plan submitted for
the final Creek tree Subdivision Planned Unit, and Final SPA
plan for Lot 3.
3. The Park as shown on the Plat, consisting of
1.875 acres, more or less, shall be conveyed by the Subdivider
and Owner to the City by good and sufficient warranty deed
subject to the other provisions hereof.
4. Lot 4, consisting of 0.337 acres, more or less,
shall be deemed appurtenant to Lot 2 for the purposes of
providing access, parking and utilities to Lot 2. The owners
from time to time of the duplex or condominium units of Lot
2 shall be deemed to own equal undivided interests in Lot 4
for said purposes; subject, however, to a perpetual easement
and right of way for the benefit of Lot 3 for the installation
2.
""""
,-.,
I}OOI( 343 i'Att 536
and maintenance of utilities for Lot 3 and for roadway access
as more fully described in paragraph 13 hereof.
5. Future Improvements- North spring Street and
Bay Street:
A. Subdivider and OWner covenant and agree that
they will affirmatively consent to and join in the
formation of any street improvement district,
encompassing all or any part of the Subdivision,
that may hereafter be prol?osedor formed for the
construction of any improvements within or on North
Spring Street and Bay Street as required by the
Ci ty' s subdi vision ordinance now in force and effect.
Improvements may include, but shall not be limited to
grading, paving, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, lighting
and drainage.
B. In the event that the City, at any time or
from time to time, shall constructor install any
street improvements or other improvements required by
the City's subdivision ordinance, as now in force and
effect, without formation of an improvement district,
which improvements service or imprOve a general area
including the lands within the Subdivision, Subdivider
and Owner agree, upon demand, to payor reimburse
the City for that portion of the actual cost of such
improvements which is properly allocable to Lots 1, 2,
3 and 4 of the Subdivision.
In the case of improvements to Bay Street, the properly
allocable share for Lot 1 shall be based upon frontage
abutting Bay Street. In the case of improvements
to Spring Street, the properly' allocable shares for Lots
2, 3 and 4 shall be based upon the combined frontage
of Lots 3 and 4 abutting Spring Street. The cost
attributable to the combined frontage shall be allocated
3.
1"""1
~
1\00K343 fAGE537
thirty four (34%) percent to the Eagles Club and
sixteen point five (16.5%) percent to each of the
four (4) dwelling units located on Lot 2.
In no event shall the Subdivider's and Owner's
obligation hereunder exceed their properly allocable
shares of the total cost of such improvements as
determined by the customary competitive charges and
rates for such construction then prevailing in Aspen and
its environs.
6. Water, Sewer, Dr.ainage and Other Utility Improvements:
Owner and Subdivider shall construct those water, sanitary
sewer, gas, electrical, telephone, cable television and drainage
improvements as shown on Sheet 2 of the Plat and as described
in Wright-McLoughlins' preliminary engineering utilities
report, revised December 1977. Owner and Subdivider shall
also provide all necessary engineering and inspection services for
the design and construction of above improvements. Final
construction drawings and specifications shall be submitted to
the City Engineer and shall be approved by the City Engineer
prior to commencement of construction. All of the above
utility improvements shall be completed prior to the date of
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any buildings on
Lots 2 and 3. The agreed estimated. costs for construction
of these improvements is as follows:
Water $ 10,621.00
Sewer 6,575.00
Gas 750:00
Electric 6,210.00
Telephone/T.V. 525.00
Drainage 6,406.00
7. Roads, Parking and Related Improvements:
Owner and Subdivider shall construct the road, parking
areas, and retaining structures. The Plat shall provide all
4.
1'"'\,
,'-"
8oox343 ~53B
necessary engineering services for the design and inspection of
these improvements. Final cons.truction drawings and specifications
shall be submitted to the City Engineer and shall be approved
by the City Engineer prior to commencement of construction.
The agreed estimated costs for construction of these improvements
is $14,400.00.
8. Landscaping:
Owner and Subdivider shall landscape Lots 2, 3 and 4 and
revegetate all disturbed areas as shown on the Plat. All such
landscaping and revegetation shall be completed prior to
November 1, 1978.. The agreed estimated cost of this work is
$2500.00.
9. As Built Plan's 'and war:ranty:
Before the City shall finally accept improvements
enumerated in this Agreement, Owner and Subdivider shall
submit as-built surveys and plans to the City Engineer. All
public improvements shall be conveyed to the City or the
respective utility SUbject to a one (1) year warranty against
defects or failure.
10 . E scrowArrangement :
It is estimated that the aggregate cost of constructing
and installing of all of the improvements herein described in
Paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 above, will not exceed $47,500.00.
In order to secure the performance of the construction and in-
stallation of the improvements herein agreed to, the Subdivider
and Owner and their Lendorguarantee, by acceptance of this
Agreement, that funds in the amount of the aforesaid estimated
costs of construction are held in an escrow account which is
specifically designated for use in construction and installation
of the improvements herein described. Documentation of the
escrow account shall be supplied to the City prior to the Plat
being recorded. By signing this Agreement, Subdivider, Owner and
s.
f""""',
t""i
m343 1'4!l539
Lendor agree that so long as any of the improvements herein
described have not been completed, 'or the conditions have not
been met as hereinabove provided, there shall be withheld
from disbursement and withdrawal so much of said funds as
is estimated, from time to time, to be ne,cessary to complete
the construction and installation of said improvements. In
any event, however, that any portion of the work and im-
provements have not been installed according to the conditions
contained herein, then, and in that event, the City may have
such remaining work and improvements completed by such means
and in such manner by contract with or without pUblic
letting, or otherwise, as it may deem advisable, and Subdivider,
OWner and Lendor, by signing this Agreement, agree to reimburse
the City, out of the escrowed funds for their account, for the
City's costs incurred in completing said work and improvements:
provided, however, that in no event shall Lendor be obligated
to pay to the City more than the aggregate sum of $47,500.00
less those amounts previously paid and approved by the City,
by reason of the default of Subdivider or Owner in performance
of the terms, conditions and covenants herein contained.
From time to time as work to be performed and improvements to
be constructed hereunder progresses, Subdivider or OWner may
request in writing that the City Engineer inspect such work
and improvements as are comp leted, ,and may submit to the City
the cost of such completed work and improvements. When the
City Engineer is satisfied that such work and improvements as
are required to be completed, have in face been completed
in accordance with the terms hereof, and in no event later
than twenty (20) days from date of such request for inspection
by the City Engineer, the City Engineer must submit to the
Lendor his statement that he has no objection to the release
of so much of the above specified escrow fund, or detailing his
objections to release of so much of the above specified escrow
6.
1'"'\
1"'\
BOOK343 ~540
funds, as are thought necess'ary to pay the cost of work
performed and improvements installed pursuant to the terms of this
Agreement. All partial releases from escrow funds shall be
subject to a ten (10%,) percent ,retainage until final acceptance
of the project improvements. Should the City Engineer fail to
submit his statement in a timely fashion as hereinabove
provided, then Lendor shall have the right to release the said
escrow funds necessary to pay said costs forthwith. The
procedures for completion of improvements and work by the City
and reimbursement of the City therefor by Lendor shall apply whether
there be one or more defaults, or a succession of defaults on
the part of Subdivider or Owner in performing the terms,
conditions and covenants contained in this agreement.
By reason of the above created escrow arrangement,
Subdivider or Owner is in no way relieved of any obligations
to make the improvements above provided for, nor is the City
obligated to assume the responsibility for these improvements
by acceptance of this escrowarrang'ement.
11. The dedication of the Park to the City shall
constitute compliance in full for all obligations for land
dedication as required by the provisions of the Aspen
Municipal Code, Section 20-18, as amended by the provisions
of Ordinance No. 63 (Series of 1976) with respect to all
of the properties shown on the :Plat. By its acceptance and
recording of the conveyance of the Park to the City, the City
agrees that said parcel shall be used as open space for
public park purposes.
12. The roadway and parking area shown on the Plat
as Lot 4 shall be a private road, not dedicated to the public
and shall be used only as access to Lot 2 except that the
Fraternal Order of Eagles shall be entitled to use said
roadway to a point no further east than the southeasterly edge
of the proposed Eagles Building as an alternate access to their
7.
"""
:"""
.
~343 ml541
club building solely to enable the delivery of equipment and
supplies. Said roadway shall not be used as access by the
public to the Park. Easements for maintenance or construction
operations by the City and Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation
District shall be as provided on the Plat.
13. The Subdivider acknowledges and agrees that the
condominium or duplex units to be constructed on Lot 2 shall not
be leased for a period of less than six (6) months. However,
each unit shall be allowed two (2) short-term leases (less
than six (6) months) in anyone calendar year. Acceptance of
this prohibition isa condition for sUbdivision approval, and
each and every instrument by which title to one of said
units is conveyed shall contain the fOllowing covenant:
By his purchase and recording of the instant deed,
purchaser agrees that the condomini urn unit
conveyed hereby shall never be leased for a period of
less than six (6) successive rronths, except that each
unit shall be allowed two (2) short term leases (less than six
(6) rronths) in anyone calendar year. This restriction
shall constitute a covenant numing with the title to the
subject unit and be enforceable by the City of Aspen.
Subdivider further agrees that an identical leasing
restriction will be incorporated in any governing Condominium
Declaration so as to provide record notice of such limitation.
The covenants and agreements of the Subdivider herein with
respect to Lot 2 shall be deemed covenants that run with
the land and shall bind and be specifically enforceable
against all present and subsequent owners thereof, inCluding
Subdivider, his heirs, personal representatives, successors
in interest and assigns.
14. The City agrees to provide vehicular access to
Lots 2, 3 and 4.
15. Obligation to COrlformto Laws:
Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary,
Owner and Subdivider, in developing the property contained within
the said Plat, and the other improvements as herein described,
8.
.....
~
, .
~
.
SOOK 343 rAGE 542
shall fully comply with all applicable rules, regulations,
standards and laws of the City, and other governmental
agencies and bodies having jurisdiction.
16. Upon execution of this Agreement by the parties
hereto and by the Lendor, and provided all other conditions as
herein contained have been met by Owner and Subdivider, the
City agrees to execute the Plat and accept the same for
recordation, upon payment of recording fees and costs to
the City by Owner and Subdivider.
17. Binding Effect:
This Agreement shall extend to and be binding upon the
parties hereto, their successors and assigns.
OWNER:
GUY F. GROVER
Route 1
Rowley
SUB\J:IDER:
By: r- ,UL1J
are uW
P.O. Box 2202
Aspen, Colorado 81611
CITY OF ASPEN~
'Ill yf~
By: /~~tan ey,
MAYOR
By Michael Behrendt,
Mayor Pro Tern
ATTEST:
~H~U~~-
Ci ty Clerk."m..
" ",.,..;\'...."1./
- -: ,.. " "
':J _........... "
...=.) -:...... .' '..
":.... .
9.
_.~----~
~-
^
""""
if 1-
S~(;I
?;^'~? ~ ...."..
M EM
" .
U M
-----
'-~--...~-------
---...--...,
TO: As pen City Council
FROM: Planning Office, Bill Kane
RE: Creektree Subdivision Trail
DATE: January 19, 1978
At your review of the Final Plat of the Creektree Subdivision of the
City Council, by majority vote indicated the requirement for an easement
for a trail through the subdivision on the west side of the Buchanon
House on the far side of the river, that is the north side of the river.
Because this specific trail alignment had never been shown at a public
hearing, and the Council was unable to adequately take public comment
at the time, we rereferred this decision to the Planning Commission for
review at a public hearing. This hearing was duly noticed and held
over two meeting periods, at which many of the area residents had an
opportunity to comment. Additional research was done and financial
data was presented on each of the trail alternatives. The up-shot of
these two meetings was for the Planning Commission to essentially
agree with the decision made by the City Council, Having had that
decision made by Council, we feel that it would be unnecessary to bring
this issue back to you any further. We feel, at this time, that all
the procedural requirements of the City Codes have been met with respect
to the trail. Council has been advised of it, has voted for that
alignment, by majority vote, and the Planning Commission has considered
that alignment at a duly conducted public hearing. Unless there are
several Council members who would like to reconsider this plat, we
intend to proceed with the Engi neeri ng Department and s i gni ng off and
having it recorded at this time. Should you have any questions, please
give me a call.
lmk
~~
.~,
-..=--
/
.."
,
;
." , .",,""
f
< P
'"
'f
"
!:'''l;
'J:
T~
,..&
I
.~.,
J_i
C
0
...
1I
N
f"
f
"Y
~
^
50G E. MAiN STnFET
/lJEl10m,NDU!1
TO: Bill Kune
PEO!,!: ,Te ff Diwis
DA'!'E: January 17, 1978
,.-"
ASPr,N, COLori/\DO B1Gl1
RE: Bike Pa,t:h Cost 'l'hrough Oklahoma Flats
Lis-ced belovl is the cost breakdo,'1D for the two al terna ti vos.
ALTERNNl'IVE 1 (East of House)
Approximate Length
1 Bridge
Asphalt & Gravel
Fencing or Screening
600 Feet:
60 Peet Long @ $25!ft2
600 Feet
(1 slde)
10%'Enginoering overrun
l,L'T,'EH?oJATIVE 2 (Host of House)
Approximate Length
1 Bridg-e
Asphalt & Gravel
Fenoing or Screening
520 Feet
70 Feet Long @ $25!ft2
520 Peet
(2 sides)
10% Engineering overrun
$12,000.00
, 3,000.00
1,500.00
-16-;' 50-0--:0 0
_0~~~_
$18,150.00
$J.ll, 000.00
2,350.00
2,500.00
18 f 8'50.6'0
.,_l-...! 8 8 5 ..Q.Q
$20,735.00
(A) From an engineering standpoin'c Alternative 2 is
not accept2ble in terms of grade. ~'rom the
attachQd HW_p you can see that: the contours are
tigh t:ly sp"ced. Cons truction v,'ould require a
v(~ry large amount of fill and the resulting CjJ:'ades
would still be 25%.
NOrr1.l::S:
(B) B)~idge abutnents \"ill be higher due to existing
flood plain, hOvleVe): this is a problQm at both
sites..
(e) -Land acquisition costs not included.
.
",'
f
<
.
,-,
."
VillHOW\NDUH 'J'O: Bill l<anQ
FHOt1: IJ(~ff .Davis
HE: Bike 1'111:11 Cost. Through Oklahoma Flats
Page rJ\"lC)
AVEEKiNrIVE 3 (Eas t of House)
l\pprQ}d,rante ]~cnsth
1 Bridge
As plwl t,
p...sphal t
Railing for Protection
Heve g(~ tat:i.on
Soil 1':orY: (Disturbed Soil
Drainage
Cribbing
600
60
(200
400
Feet
Feet Long @ $25/ft2
Feet Hand \'lork)
Feet
Nust Be Hecompacted)
.
~
25% Contingency
$12,boo.oo
2,500,00
1,750.00
800.00
500.00
450.00
100.00
2 , 500 ' 0'0
$20;-66-0 . 00
_~_=2.9_,_9_~
$25,750.00
NOTE: Due to e'xtreme snO\,' cover this al terni:d:ive is difficult, to
estimat:e costs ~ It appears' that existir~g terrain is different
as what is shm"n by map. (See sketch) The computed cost could
be sligl1tly high but is accurate for planning purposes.
(
.
~
,
"
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
>,
\
\
\
\
\
,
.
\
\
\
\
\-
\
\
.
,
\
r-...
\
,
\
\
\
...---),.\
( \
I \
oI~ \ t
\ c ,
"0,
\ ~i
.. I
:1
\ "I t-
\ \i ~t, D
:'i ~?,~
\ ;'i......'
" '.,
'\ ~ i
"'.~
\
f:.. :;, ~,.., :'':;' ..~. ~~. ~~
'\ 1.:1 ~~i)
&
C.i
~~
"
\\
\
\
\
~~ ~'. s.. <? !i; :...~
t'i0)..1-';';i:-~iF::]
.1"-
,/'
..
~
.~
^
1;0:)
',-,
.'
\
\
i "
I
i
i "
j \,-
.',1
I D
k,
i 'j
I
I
I , \IJ
.. d
I j
<:
I-
I ,0
I D
i
i 0 '-J
I r,\
I ":S.
I ",
'..
"
(~J ..
! -, ' 0
C'J ' ,,'
.~ "
~:
I {'.
I \~ <\)
I II
i
t " ~l
"-
"
"
I Vl
\ 0
"-
,
J \)
I
I
I
I "
'"
c,
,
~s~
./
Au,~:n QIl1atettUx 1&a1:)'
720 East Hyman Avenue
P. O. Box 4949, Aspen, Colo, 81611
(303) 925,1400
Specialists: CONDOMINIUM
-Development
-&lIes
- Rentals/Management
January 11, 1978
Board of Commissioners
of the City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning
City of Aspen
130 South Ga 1 ena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Commissioners:
Attached is a copy of the letter I wrote of January 9 when it did not appear
that I would be able to be present for the site inspection that was held last
Tuesday. Since all of the matters contained in this letter are still perti-
nent I wanted to pass it on to you.
We all appreciate the open-mindedness with which you have approached this
material and hope that you will either vote to have no trail or to put it on
the easterly edge of the Creektree property.
At the site inspection, Bayard made the point that they had no plans to move the
house that now exists on the site. It is obvious that with the property on the
market at a price of $160,000.00 this house is not going to be bought to live
in, since the dwelling is practically uninhabitable. Its obvious that Bayard
was trying to influence the P & Z not to consider the site to the east and it
should be pointed out that the statement he made last Tuesday contradicts the
statements that he has made at past hearings, incl udi ng hi s statements at the
p & Z Meeting just a week ago.
Thank you again for your interest.
Sincerely,
~~~
mt
Attachment
.
Anpa Q.t4utruux i8tali~
720 East Hyman Avenue
p, 0, Sox 4949, Aspen, Colo. 81611
(303) 925,1400
Specialists: CONDOMINIUM
-Development
-Sales
-Rentals/Management
Janua ry 9, 1978
Board of Commissioners
of the City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning
Ci ty of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Commissioners:
First of all, on behalf of all the residents of Oklahoma Flats, I want to
thank you for the very careful consideration you gave to the unique problems
created by a trail through Oklahoma Flats at your Meeting last Tuesday. We
all appreciate your interest and time.
Although I'm trying to change my plans, I am presently scheduled to be away
from Aspen next Tuesday, so it is quite possible that I will not be able to
attend your site inspection. Therefore I wanted to put in writing a few
thoughts that you may want to consider.
No trail through Oklahoma Flats. This is obviously the overwhelming desire of
both the developer and of all residents of this area and the point that Frank
Donofrio made at the meeting should be considered carefully. No other trail in
Pitkin County connects two major population centers through a small quite resi-
dential area. The residents of Oklahoma Flats should not be made to suffer be-
cause of past mistakes of County planning in the area to our north.
It is the unanimous opinion of the Oklahoma Flats' residents that the way to
solve the problem, if one in fact exists, is to improve pedestrian access along'
Mill Street, and along Neal Street and across the recently installed Holy Cross
bridge. These will continue to be the primary access for the people from Silver-
king, the Smuggler Trailer Park and the Smuggler Mountain area to the City for
they are by far the easiest and shortest routes and pedestrians will tend to take
the line of least resistance.
.
,~.
~
~oard of Commissioners
of the City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning
-2-
January 9, 1978
The proposed tra i1 through Okl ahoma Fl ats wi 11 of course be used to some extent
and the mere building of the trail and primarily the bridge will heavily impact
our area--especially if it touches Bay Street and allows access to Bay and
Spring--but the majority of the public isn't going to want to walk one third a
greater distance to get from home to town, just to use a trail.
It is further our contention, that the steep grade on the hill in back of the
Buchanan property will make a trail down this route difficult for bicycle access
year around and impossible for pedestrians in the winter. Bill Kane and Joe
Edwards stated that this grade was about 10%. We have had it surveyed and in
parts it is actually 15%. You will be able to see for yourself next Tuesday
what it would be like to get up in the winter.
Today I took pictures of the ducks that make their home on the river in prac-
tically the exact location that a bridge would cross if a trail were placed on
the westerly end of the Creektree property. I have drawn the bridge in with a
magic marker so that you can see where the bridge would be. It is our conten-
tion and request that before any decision is made to place a bridge in this
location that an environmental impact study should be made of the effect on the
wi 1 dl ife and that the Si erra Club and other envi ronmenta 1 groups shoul d be con-
sulted. Those pictures will be forwarded when developed.
One last point; the County plans to put a trail along the south side of the
river (the area across from Oklahoma Flats) and make that area a passive park.
Where will people that want to use this recreational area leave their cars?
Herron Park parking lot is already crowded. There is no access through the
Elk's Club property and the Rio Grand Parking area is quite remote. If there
is a bridge across the river in Oklahoma Flats its obvious that park users will
park in Oklahoma Flats and then walk across the bridge as people will always take
the line of least resistance. Our streets are narrow and substandard now and
the area just can't handle the congestion and traffic that this would create.
Location of A Trail. Both the developers and the residents strongly urge
that no trail go through Oklahoma Flats and that the three existing bridges
(Mi11-Street, Holy Cross and Neal Street) plus the one proposed bridge (Herron
Park) in a half mile stretch of the Roaring Fork River are enough. What other
half mile stretch of the river has five bridges over it?
However, if you decide that a trail absolutely must go through Oklahoma Flats
we strongly urge that it go on the east side of the developer's property.
Basically, only two arguments have been made against this location.
,
,~
~
Board of Commissioners
of the City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning
-3-
January 9, 1978
The first argument was cost and you heard Joe Edwards say that the County isn't
particularly concerned about any additional cost of this location and is will-
ing to foot the bill. Further, there is some real doubt as to whether or not
the additional cost would be substantial. There might be some cribbing nece:;-
sary depending upon how far into the bank they decide to cut but it is quite
possible that this could be minimized. Certainly, there would be some savings
because this alignment is far shorter which means less paving and they could
use the existing bridge abuttments that are already in place to cross the river.
So cost is really not a consideration.
The second argument is the developers contention that the trail to the east would
heavily impact their house on this site. First they make the point that the
easterly trail will pass between 10 and 15 feet of the existing house, but then
they state that this house is going to be torn down. It it is their stated in-
tention to build a new house further to the east.
While the easterly part of the lot may be the most scenic, it is also the most
scenic for a trail and the developer is placing a house on a lot that is almost
400 feet wide over 250 feet from the westerly boundary. They have the option
, to place the house ~ place on that site and there is no reason why they can't
move it substantially to the west as you will see when you make your site in-
spection.
The developers don't want the trail next to their house but they are happy to
put it next to somebody elses: If the trail is put on the westerly side of the
developer's lot as proposed it will be approximately 250 feet from where they
proposed to build their residence. However, the lot that is immediately to
the west of this trail is only 75 feet wide in total. Obviously a future house
built on this site will have to be within ten or fifteen feet of this trail.
That just can't be fair.
The building site to the west is further impacted because the proposed trail
would not only be adjacent to it but would also be on a bank approximately 8
feet above it. Thus, under the development proposal the lot to the west would
not only have a brdige blocking its view but would have people using the trail
looking down on it completely destroying the privacy of the site and of the
existing dwelling to the west.
The developers are the ones who are subdividing one of the largest parcels of
property recently subdivided in the City of Aspen and they went into the sub-
division process knowing that quite possibly they were gOing to have to give
a trail easement. They have substantial profit in their exchange with the Elks'
,
~
,-...
...-"
Board of Commissioners
of the City of Aspen
Planning and Zoning
-4-
January 9, 1978
Club, in the two duplex units that they are building on the south side of the
river, and the desirable building site they are still left with on the north
side of the river. Why should Oklahoma Flats lose its privacy; and why should
we as neighbors to the west lose our privacy; and why should all of Oklahoma
Flats be opened up to the problems that the trail will bring to further enhance
the developer's profit.
In summary the citizens of Oklahoma Flats are strongly opposed to any trail
through our area and feel that if we must have a trail against our wishes it
should be on the east side of the Creektree Subdivision. We thank you for your
consideration.
Respectfully sumitted,
/~~
Nick Coates,
r-.,
,-.,
HOWARD HANSON
1834 East Lake Drive
Littleton, Colorado 80120
January 9, 1978
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gentlemen:
I understand that you were to make a site inspection on the trail through
Oklahoma Flats today.
I would like to go on record again as strongly favoring no trail through our
quiet residential area.
I, like the other residents of the area, feel that we want no trail at all
but that if there has to be one we strongly urge that it go along the easterly
edge of the property that is being developed.
I have hopes of building my permanent home on the 75 ft. lot that is to the
west of the developers' property and I don't feel that it is fair that the
privacy of this site should be destroyed by a trail that would look down upon
my home and by a foot-bridge that would be almost directly in front of the house
and would obviously affect the view.
If you should decide that we must have a trail and you can't see your way
clear to put it on the east side of the developer's property where all the
residents of Oklahoma Flats would like to see it, I strongly recommend that
you go back to the original Bay/Spring Streets location that was shown on the
original County Trails Map and not severly impact private property. The Bay/Spring
Streets alignments would use the existing public right-of-way and a route that
existed in the 1890's.
PLEASE:
1.
2.
3.
No Trail
Trail to the east
A poor last choice--a trail that crosses the river at Spring Street.
Yours truly,
~p~~
,~
Howard Hanson
.
.,-..,
/-'
Memo to Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
December 28, 1977
Page 2
and we would recommend that additional detail be provided to the
Building Inspector on actual construction specs f;or this retaining
wall. 'Our objective here is to avoid the large concrete retaining
wall kinq of design. Such a wall WOUld constitute a visual blight
for all the residents living across the river, including Smuggler
Hountain and Oklahoma Flats. A much more aesthetically pleasing
design could be accomplished with the use of natural materials,
i. e. boulders, railroad ties, and land'scaping which would grow over
the years and form a nice vegetative cover for the bank. 'Plans
as submitted to the Building Inspector at this point show only
general language which says cribbing. We don't feel that the
application should be held up pending more detailed plans, but that
simply P&Z should make a condition of their approval the showing
of a detailed plan with l!)aterialsand landscape materials to be
submi.tted to the Building Inspector prior to building permit issuance.
We would also like to see a commitment to landscape the islands within
the parking lot. These islands exist at the north and south sides of
the driveway entrance to the parking lot. Even though parts of these
is.land are within the right-of-way for Spring Street we would like
to seethe developers provide some landscaping for those areas.
The Eagles Building itself appears to be set back sufficiently
far f;rom the top of the bank so as not to require retention, but
should any disruption to the bank take place from the construction
of the Eagles Building, I would also recoinmend use of natural materials
and cribbing and retention.
We feel that the design is essentially compatible with the
surrounding area given the fact that theObermeyers and an assortment
of service commercial industrial buildings exist to the inunediate
weat of this site. Concept 600 is immec1iately northwest of the site,
and land immediately south is zonedRHF and at some point will permit
buildi~gs up to 28 feet in height. The building proposed here is
approximately 26 feet high and with its limitation to two floors
above grade will fit the scale and character of the neighborhood.
With conc1itions for more detail in the landscaping of the bank and
landscaping the parking area, we recommend approval of the Eagles
Building. We will have detailed drawings of the building to show
choice of; materials amassing scale, color, .etc. at your meeting on
Tuesday. '
BK:mc
,/
~
,~
, "t.....
f} (fir".1
" t
M E M Q RAN DUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff (BK)
RE: Conditional Use Hearing for the Eagles Building
DATE: December 28,1977
At Tuesday's meeting you will be conducting a public hearing
to consider the grant of conditional use for the Eagles Building
at the location ,of Spring Street and Bleeker Street extended. As
you will recall, you did review this building in some detail within
the context of the CreektreeSubdivision earlier this year. However,
upon the second check, we discovered that fraternal organizations
were permitted only as conditional uses in the Rio Grande Specially
Planned Area which covers the area to be traded to Andre Ulrych
for purposes of the additional exchange to the Eagles for the
construction of the Eagles Building. While the building concept
and location were approved during the Creektree review, technically
no action was takeri on grant of conditional use, so at Tuesday's
meeting we are formally conducting a hearhlg to clear that part
of the process as required by the City code. Again, this is
required because the land to be traded to Andre was originally part
of the overall City-owned SPA and, if you will recall, during that
SPA process, we listed fraternal organizations as uses permitted
only as conditional us'es. Under Section 24-3.3 of the Municipal
Code and in Section Cd) you are to consider the general compliance
of the application with cn all requirements imposed by the zoning
code, (2) compatibility with the objectives and purposes of the
zoning code, and (3) compatibility with the surrounding area. In
considering the building for compatibility with zoning in the
surrounding area, ,there are several ,key factors that should be
considered: (1) is the building size CFAR) and its relationship
to the surrounding area, . (2) is the relationship of parking to the
building, arid (3) is adequacy of circulation, landscaping and
general site design. The building as proposed consists of three
stories, two above grade, with a total building area of 7,900 square
feet. The plans call for the provision of 16 parking spaces with
access directly off of Spring Street. During the Creektree Sub-
division reviews, ,the subject of parking and building size were
discussed and while the 16 'spaces shown represents a parking supply
at somewhat below typical commercial standards in the City, a
variance to the normal parking requirements was enabled by virtue
of the site being located within a Specially Planned Area which
allowed the parking to be regulated and varied in accordance with
the submission of a detailed plan. Representatives of the Eagles
presented information to suggest why 16 spaces wer.e adequate and
this reasoning mainly dealt with the proximity of the facility to
the downtown area and the high level of walk-in traffic.
While this review is largely a formality, there are two small
detailed questions that remain unresolved and we would recommend
clearing these areas up as a result of the conditional use process.
The first i,s a need for more specific detail on the treatment
of the bank which drops off into the Roaring Fork River on the
north side of the proposed parking'lot. The plans show this parking
lot to be overhanging the bank whichsugge~ts cribbing, filling, etc.
'"
1""\
1""\.
r;;1
f i
MiEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Sta;ef (BK)
RE: CreektreePUD/Subdivision Plan Amendment
DATE: December 28, 1977
TheCreektreePUD is coming back to you for reconsideration
of the trail alignment through the site. As you will recall, at
the time of preliminary plat,wementioned the need for the
location of the trail through this subdivision to connect residences
in the area of Smu9gler Mountain and, specifically, the Smuggler
Trailer Court withtlieRio Grande, Herron Park and downtown area.
At the time of preliminary plat, the specific trail alignment was
not resolved subject to several conflicting views from the developer,
county and area residents. We took the issue of the trail and the
general issue of its existence to the City Council and presented
them with essentially four alternatives for resolution of the trail
issue. This information was presented at their meeting of November 23,
1977. Given the controversial nature of the trail, we made the
determination at that time that regardless of the Council decision
on trail alignment that any deCision for a trail in this specific
location would constitute a substantial amendment to the plat and,
therefore, have to be re":referred to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for further review and comment and then back to City
Council for a final plat amendment. For your information, please
find attached the memo from the Planning Office to the ,City Council
dated November 23, 1977. At this point in time, four alternatives
exist with respect to the location of this trail:
1. No traiL With this alternative, pedestrians would
continue to use Neal Averiue for a pedestrian thoroughfare
from Smuggler Mountain to town. , This alternative was
supported by' many of the residents, "of the Oklahoma Flats
area and the developers themselves, but it was strongly
opposed by our office, Pitkin County and the City Engineer.
Reasons for our opposition are that Neal Street and the
Neal Street bridge are simply inadequate with respect to
width to handle both pedestrians and automobiles. There
are no sidewalks on this street now and during winter there
is barely enough room for two vehicles to pass, not to
mention pedestrians. The area of the street as designed
now is totally inadequate for handling any volume of
pedestrian traffic and currently serves as a discouragement
to people in the Smuggler Trailer Court area to walking to
town. Thereisa legitimate need for a formalized pedestrian
walkway from both Silverking and the Smuggler Trailer Court
to town and this property is the most ideally situated.
It is an old tenent of both proper subdivision review and
the law of the matter to require dedications for both streets
and any necessary walkways through the subdivision procedure.
Requirement for trails dedication in this subdivision does
not constitute any unique or unusual requirement. We
recommend that this alternative simply does not deal with
the problem adequately.
."""",
.-'
Memo to Planning and Zoning Commission
December 28, 1977
Page 2
2 . Tr;ail alignments within the suhd'ivsi'on.
a. The adopted traiTs planaIternative. At the time of
the preliminary plat, you were presented with a trail
alignment that was in conformance with the adopted City
and County Trails Plan of 1973. This alignment had the
trail coming down the old access to Oklahoma Flats from
the top of Gibson Avenue swinging west just in front of
the house on the north side of the river along Bay Street
and throughout the Oklahoma Flats Suhdivision and then
crossing the Roaring Fork River at Spring Street extended.
This alternative poses two rnajor disadvantages, first
being that it would convey a high volume of pedestrian
traffic through an established residential area, and in
sympathy to the residents of that area, we did not
recommend this alternative even though it is the adopted
one. The second technical consideration is that the
Spring Street location for bridge construction offers
several expensive obstacles. A substantial grade
difference exists from between the north and south sides
of the river requiring either filling on one side or
substantial cutting on the other. As you will recall,
the Board reacted somewhat negatively to this alternative
at the preliminary plat hearing in response primarily to
complaimtsfrom the neighborhood and, much in sympathy
to the objections raised, we recommend that this
alternative not be selected.
b. A second alternative within the subdivision exists
on the extreme eastern end of the property. We could
have the trail coming down the old Oklahoma Flats access
from Gibson Avenue skirting along the steep bank to the
north and east of the existing house on the north side
of the river and then crossing the Roaring Fork in the
location of the old railroad bridge abutments. After
crossing to this side, then the trail splits and goes
east through Herron Park and west to the Rio Grande
Property and up Galena Street and into the City. This
alternative represented the number one choice, should
there be a trail, by the residents of Oklahoma Flats
and represented the least desirable choice from the
point of view of the developer. While the County would
be somewhat neutral to this location as opposed to
others, we'd prefer a better location from the stand-
point of cost of construction in running this trail along
the steep bank. The trail in this location also offers
an impact to the privacy of the existing residence in
that the trail would pass within twenty feet of the
existing house. Due to the cost of construction and
impact on the existing residence, we do not recommend the
selection of this alternative.
c. Alternative three of aD. alignment within the sub-
divi,sion would have the trail going west of the existing
house along the property line between Oklahoma Flats
and the existing residence. This alternative has been
agreed to by the City Council, ,the Planning Office, the
County and the developer but is still receiving some
resistence from the arE)a residents. We feel that this
is the best alternative. It provides a low-grade
crossing at the river, it is sufficiently removed from
the existing residences in Oklahoma Flats to not create
an impact in that neighborhood. It is sufficiently
rernoved from the existing residence as to not create
~
,-
Memo to Planning and Zoning Commission
December 28, 1977
Page 3
an impact on that dwelling and represents the least
cost from a construc:tionpointof view. At the discussion
with the City Council, the objeCtion was raised concerning
the increased pedestrian traffic that would result in
Oklahoma Flats, the concern being that with the trail
located in this area, pedestrians would be encouraged to
walk through the Oklahoma Flats area coming from west to
east to cross the river. To help mitigate this impact,
the developer has agreed to construct a fence and gate
along the trail alignment that would be operated only by
the residents of the existing house and, therefore, would
preclude the possibility of pedestrians walking through
the Oklahoma Flats Subdivision to the trail,and then across
the river. with the provision of this gate, we feel that
this alignment is the best offered to date, and we
recommend that you approve the plat with the amendment
showing the specific easement for this trail. We will
have a plat available 'for your inspeCtion at Tuesday's
meeting which shows the precise alignment of the trail
on the plat, and we will ask for your approval at that
time.
BK:mc
OJ z-z-' ,'-' t
Aspen/Pit
..,. 130 s
f1 B.- c.-
ning Office
December 20, 1977
TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF EAGLES BUILDING:
Noti ce is hereby gi ven that a pub 1 i c heari ng will be held on January
3,1978, at 5:00p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen, before
, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission for a conditional use hearing
for the Eagles Building; which application has been made by Andre
Ul rych .
A copy of the plat may be examined in the office of the City/County
Planner, City Hall, during regular business hours.
bM~
lmk
~& ~ ~ cf~~~
~ ~ ~ .~. " C}lv./
..1 "II
'//.1. t
rJi)v'-
",....."
\
MEMO
TO: H.J. Stalf
TRANSPORTATION
FROM,: DAVE ELLIS ~
ENGINEERING
DATE: December 13, 1977
RE: Bus Depot Relocation Schedule
b
~ 4=7
.,::$'(,(..'
~
.
"
Contrary to what was discussed at last week's projects
Task Force meeting, Andre'Ulrych has indicated that he
is very interested in proceeding with .construction of
the Eagle's Club building this winter; However, he has
not given any thought to what is to become of the bus
depot. I suggested that he advise the City in writ,ing
of his anticipated schedule so that the matter could be
coordinated, The way things are moving on the subdivi-
sion plat and agreement, I anticipate that they will be
ready to record everything by early January. The convey-
ance of the bus depot ~roperty would be simultaneous with
the recording.
,.
jk
eel Mick Mahoney
Bill Kane
'}
...
cr:JJJ\cfL lu\ U r
~(~=eo~U- ~
?"'\KOV''1'\ 912:~~;
Cl~
41-
su
Mayor of the City of Aspen
and
Aspen City Council
HAND DELIVERED
Re:
ubdivision and
ch
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
This letter supplements the instruments submitted
for the final approval of Creektree Subdivision. All parties
to the proposed subdivision agreement for Creektree Subdivi-
sion understand that in order to provide the means by which
the City is acquiring the Park from me, I have entered into
an Agreement with The Fraternal Order of Eagles, Aerie #184,
(Eagles) which provides, among other things, that I shall
build a new Eagles building on Lot 3 in accordance with cer-
tain plans and specifications to be used by the Eagles as
their new club building and that upon completion of the new
Eagles building it shall be conveyed by me to the Eagles in
exchange for the conveyance by the Eagles to me of the old
Eagles building and property located at 312 South Galena
Street, Aspen, Colorado. Upon such acquisition of the old Eagles
building it shall be remodelled and used as a bar and restaurant.
The purpose of this letter is to make a record of my intentions
with respect to the exchanges of property involved and with re-
spect to remodelling the old Eagles building inasmuch as my
future acquisition and use of the old Eagles building in ac-
cordance with the intent expressed herein is my paramount pur-
pose in providing the present means for the acquisition of
the Park by the City. These intentions are fully known by
the City governmental authorities and the City has encouraged
and authorized me to enter into the various transactions in-
volved with the understanding that the following expressed
intentions be carried out.
1. Immediately upon completion of the new
Eagles building and the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy the City, upon proper application
therefOre and upon compliance with pertinent govern-
ing ordinances and statutes, the City shall author-
ize the issuance or transferal of the existing
Eagles liquor license and all other pertinent
-
-
Mayor of the City of
and
Aspen City Council
November 29, 1977
Page Two
Aspen
licenses so that the Eagles club can operate and
function in its current manner in the new premises
without interruption.
2. Immediately upon acquisition of the old
Eagles building I shall be authorized by the City
to remodel the old Eagles building for a bar and
restaurant operation, upon proper application being
made for a building permit in compliance with pertin-
ent governing ordinances and statutes. Recognizing
the desirability of preserving the historic qualities
of the old Eagles building, the City is expected to
give full consideration for historic designation of
the building under Article 9 of Chapter 24 of the
Aspen Municipal Code. In any event it is under-
stood that the following design objectives may be
utilized in the remodelling of the old Eagles building.
a. The building may be remodelled within
its existing exterior walls with varying inter-
ior levels and skylighted vertical open spaces;
provided that the structual integrity of the
building is not impaired and meets the struc-
tural criteria of the Uniform Building Code.
b. The building may be remodelled so as
to expose existing brick interior walls and
areas of fenestration on the southerly exposed
exterior wall may be provided.
c. The existing entrance way. and steps
may be restructured, provided that the same
does not exceed existing restrictions of
pedestrian traffic on the existing front side-
walk, and an alternate business access to the
premises may be constructed through the
southerly exterior wall. In the event the
adjacent property currently known as the
Sinclair Station is hereafter acquired by the
City for use as open space or for park or mall
purposes, I shall cooperate with the City to
effect a compatible use of the area.
,-.,
,-.,
Mayor of the City of
and
Aspen City Council
November 29, 1977
Page Three
Aspen
No interim zoning ordinances or growth management
plans shall be applied or construed to inhibit the
purposes and objectives set forth herein.
3. The City, upon proper application therefore
and upon compliance with pertinent governing ordin-
ances and statutes, shall authorize the issuance of
a new liquor license for the restaurant and bar
premises immediately upon completion of the re-
modelling of the building and the issuance of a cer-
tificate of occupancy.
If I am not entitled to rely upon the foregoing in
order to carry out my expressed ultimate purpose, I shall
greatly appreciate knowing that prior to my entering into the
agreements whereby r am obligated to convey the Park to the
City.
Very truly yours,
Andre Ulrych
,-,
,,-..,
CI'T' Y QT"'InA5PEN
' "", '" ,': 'Il--C" ' -i
'" 'JL," ,',. ",
:,
.
"
1 3 0 SOU tit g a ~
aspen, '<:ol~ruijo,"""
a street
81611
,
,
MEMORANDUH
DATE: November 28, 1977
TO: Karen Smith
FROM: Dave ElliS~
RE: Creektree Subdivision Final Plat
(2nd Draft) Review
Since the November 16 memo on the first draft, the building
envelopes and parking areas have been staked in the ,field and are
acceptable to the engineering department. Comments on the sub-
cdivision agreement have been given to the City Attorney and will
be incorporated into the fourth draft which will be available for
the council meeting.
The following is a listing of those items included ,in the
'November 16 punch list which have not been revised 'to date:
Sheet 1 of 2: Items 2, 8, 10, 12, 16, 19-24, 26 and 32.
Sheet 2 of 2: Items 1, 3, 5 and 11.
The revisions to the dedication language on the plat have
not been made pending resolution of the terms of the subdivision
agreement. 110 revised landscape plan nor utility report has been
received to date.
There are also a couple of new comments. The greenway and
fisherman's easement should apply to the river area within Lot 1
as well as Lot 2. The profiles on the roadway and parking area
were submitted, but ,there is an excessive cross slope to the
parking area and both grades need to be,revised. .Andre Ulrych
should appear as the subdivider,ont;heplat in accordance with
the subdivision agreement. Finally,it,;(appears that the entranc,"
to the Eagles site 'does notabut,public,right-of-~Tay, but'rather
the city-owned Rio Grande proper,ty.:"Thi,sdoesn 'tpresent, any
practical problems, ,but will reguire:a~,:access' easement,frOllr the
City ,to Grover and Ulrych"/3::J.,it;:H; ,;:~;:,: . '.
'^^';,'_:,,': """:'; /':,;'
''',''':--" "
-,'".-,"',,"
,,"~ ,<:'i
'DE:mc
.
,..
, .
'.
,
""~l",-
,
--~'
.....,
,~
.-'.
,
~1
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office, Bill Kane
RE: Creektree Subdivision - Final Plat
DATE: November 23, 1977
On Monday, you will be presented with the request for appnoval of the final
plat of the Creektree Subdivision. As you will recall, the final plat
procedure is really intended to formalize in detailed legal and engineering
arrangements - those agreements that were consolidated at the preliminary
plat review. The Creektree Subdivision consists of approximately 6 acres
of limd and calls for the separate development of two duplex units on the
south side of the Roaring Fork River and one existing unit on the north
side. As of this writing, numerous detailed, engineering and legal comments
on the subdivision agreement and final plat remain unresolved and we are
assuming that these will be cleared up to everyones satisfaction by Monday's
meeting. At this time, from a planning point of view, only two major issues
remain unresolved. First is the trail and second is the actual planning and
location of the Eagles Building itself.
Trail
Under the City Ordinance, we are required to have dedications for any trails
shown on the adopted City of Aspen Trails Plan. The original plan for the
trail irrthis area came from Gilison Avenue on the north side of the river
and then across Bay Street and through Oklahoma Flats. At the public hearing,
at preliminary plat before the Planning and Zoning Commission, this adopted
trails plan alignment wa-s opposed vociferously by residents of Oklahoma Flats
and the agreement for the P&Z Board was to find an alternative location to
the trail. A general alignment,east of the existing unit on the other side
of the river was settled upon. But upon closer inspection, reveals substan-
tial number of problems from the standpoint of construction costs, engineering
suitability of the site and proximity to the existing residents. In discussing
the appropriate alignment for this trail with the developers, specifically
Bayard Hovedsen, it was agreed that a better alignment could be found on the
west side of the existing house, crossing the river at a,'low point where a'small
wooden bridge could be constructed. In discussing this alignment, Bayard
mentioned that he felt that he would need an additional dwelling on the
other side to provide the economic basis for renovating the existin9 unit
and completing any landscaping or berming or additional construction that
would be required to screen the residences on the north side of the building
from the trail. In Bayard's mind, the provision of an easement for the trail
should be equated to the approval of a second unit on the north side. Our
response to this is that the addition of the second unit on the north side
of the property constitutes a substantial amendment to the plan as was
presented at the preliminary~stage and, as such, would be required to go back
through process and require P&Z reapproval. Bayard argues that the same
thing is true for the trail in that the alignment that was settled upon by
the staff earlier this week was one that was never presented to the P&Z. I
feel that he is technically correct, and that both the trail alignment and
the consideration of a second unit on the north side should both be re-,
reviwed. However, I feel that qnly the particular alignment of the trail
should be considered and not the bigger concept of whether we should have a
trail or no trail has been the City's position right from the beginning of
this subdivision that a trail should be provided on the north side of the
property and I agree with the applicant only to the extent that P&Z should
have a re-review of the location, but that a trail in one location or another
1
,~-.
'-"'..
'-..
Aspen City Council
Page Two
November 23, 1977
should be granted to the City. To the contrary, the idea of the second unit
is something that is entirely new, has not been discussed before and should
be a matter for some discussion before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
In other words, we do not feel that the provision of an easement should
equate to a second unit; but that only the alignment of the trail should be
something that should be eligible for rediScussion at this time. With
resoect to this subject, we recommend that the Council condition any approval
on the provision of general language on the plat to say that a trail easement
shall be given on the location to be determined by P&Z.
Location of Eagles Building
As you will recall, the proposed site for the Eagles Building sits within,
at this point, City-owned SPA pr~perty at the end of Spring Street. During
the SPA approval process, we had' specified that fraternal clubs would be
permitted as conditional uses within this SPA zone. Therefore, specific
construction drawings and site planning details will have to be presented by
the applicants to the P&Z in the framework of a conditional use hearing.
In addi ti on, the SPA plan went on to say that all buil di ngs and improvements
on this site should be set back 10 feet from the edge of the bank which drops
off into the Roaring Fork River. This requirement was specified to specifically
exclude the possibility of large and unattractive retaining walls being con-
structed on the bank which would create aylear visual blight for the resi-
dents of Oklahoma Flats. The final plat and PUD plan that you are approving
Monday, shows the building location immediately adjacent to the edge of the
bank and parking that would overhang the bank and require the construction
of fill and retaining walls. There may be no other solution to this problem,
but it is something that is going to have to be considered in more detail via
the conditional use hearing process and should construction be required as
shown on the plan, then the SPA plan will have to be amended to allow that
to take place. At this point, we recommend theapplj.cants carefully constder
the rearrangement of the parki ng and bui 1 di ng so as to set all improvements
back from the edge of the bank.
In addition to these outstanding issues, there are some minor comments that
should be noted: 1) Council action should show that this is a subdivision
and PUD approval, that was not clearly noted at the time of conceptual sub-
division, this is a m.inor and technical point and the application has been
processed as a PUD through the entire process;. 2) we should not~,toyou that
the land is zoned R-15 and R-30 PUD to correct an earlier statement at the
time of conceptual subdivision whereas zoning was shown at R-6 and R-30.,
Most of the detailed comments in review of this subdivision will come from
the City Engineer and City Attorney. As of this writing, Dave Ellis has
indicated to me that he has not received a revised plat which indicates all
the changes that he has recommended since this should be made to comply with
the city subdivision regulations. It is our hope that this plat can be
submitted in a timely way so that Dave will have a chance to review it and
find everything to be correct by Monday. The7same is true with Dorothv's
detailed comments on the proposed subdivision aqreement. Dorothv has re-
drafted the aqreement, resubmitted it to the applicants and we are awaitinq
their response at this time. Again, we hope to have this tied up by Monday
so that you may take action.
lmk
^
,-.,
Aspen City Council
Pa,ge Two
November 22, 1977
.
,"
InaSmuch as the purposes of subdivision regulations ,will be met, the
Planning and, Zoning Commission recommended approval on November 15th
based on the ,following conditions:
..'.,.....
1. Payment of the appropriate park dedication fee which ,shall
be calculated according to rules for mixed residential
and commercial development (Section 20-18 a.c., Municipal
Code) . '
2. Six month minimum lease restriction on the residential
'units.
3. That any material change in duplex plans be resubmitted
to the Planning Office for a determination whether further
approvals are necessary.
Better maps wi 11 be brought to the meeti ng .
lmk
enc.
"
~,
~
/"
/
~'
MEMO
TO:
KAREN SMITH
PLANNING OFFICE
FROM:
DAVE ELLIS ~
ENGINEERING~~
NOVEMBER 16, 1977
DATE:
RE:
Creektree Subdivision Final Plat
(1st Draft) Review
The engineering department has reviewed the Creektree
final plat including the landscape plan and utilities
report. The attached list of comments and corrections
was reviewed with Andre Ulrych, Bayard Hovdesven, and
Jim Reser in a meeting this morning. They will attempt
to have the corrections made and revised prints submitted
by 5 p.m., November 18 for the council meeting at noon
November 21. The attached list will be our only written
comment prior to the special council meeting. The sub-
division agreement was also reviewed for engineering
concerns and comments have been given to the City Attor-
ney who is following up on the agreement.
In reviewing the preliminary plat the Planning & Zoning
Commission conditioned their approval upon several items,
including 1) that the duplex building envelope be staked
in the field, 2) that the eagles parking lot and build-
ing be staked and 3) that no improvements encroach into
the steep bank areas. The building and parking lot en-
velope will be staked by Monday. Based upon the field
inspection made yesterday with Jim Reser, the buildings
will not overhang the steep banks, but the parking lot
will encroach several feet at the west end.
jk
cc: Andre Ulrych
Bayard Hovdesven
Jim Reser
Dorothy Nuttall
1'"'\,
No~mber 16, 1977
., ~
CREEKTREE SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT (1st DRAFT) REVIEW
Sheet 1 of 2
1; Sheet index n~eded.
\
\
2. Vicinity map inset needed.
3. Revise drawn and written legal description
to eliminate all outlots except outlot C.
Re-label C to A. All outlots except C will
be considered as adjacent holdings and will
be reviewed as appropriate, pending future
disposition.
4. Show point of beginning for legal description.
5. Correct corner number 47-Tract 40 to 0-47 and
identify which corner it refers to.
6. Show overall exterior dimension for bearing
N 150 30', ,00" E.
7. Indicate dimension of 16.78 as interior dimen-
sion on outlot C.
8. Give interior dimension and correct exterior
dimension on call N 880 40' 00" W 160.22 feet.
Clarify apparent angle point in call N 50Q 14'
11" W 118.32 feet.
9. Include total area in written legal description.
10. Indicate any survey monuments found versus those
set.
11. Show right-of-way width on Spring Street.
12. Show revised right-of-way on East Bleeker Street.
13. Indicate paved improvements within Spring Street.
14. Show Roaring Fork River and island.
15. Show private road and parking area as a sep-
arate lot and identify.
16. Planning Department will be making a formal re-
commendation that the trail on the north side of
the river through Lot 1 follow the high route
along the easterly property line connecting to
~ .,........",
Creektree Subdivision Final Plat
(1st Draft) Review
Page 2
the river. This will require a detailed legal
description based upon field staking of the
vroposed route by the county trails coordinator.
17. Add an access easement for city and metro sani-
tation vehicles across the private roadway and
the parking area to the park.
18. Provide specific legal descriptions on the
plat for utility easements where necessary
or provide for granting as-built easements
upon completion of utilities.
19. Provide more precise location Of building
envelope on Lot 2.
20. Show building footprints within building enve-
lope On Lot 2.
21. Show a fisherman's and greenway easement on
Lot 2 extending from high water line to pro-
perty line.
22. Identify common areas within Lot 2.
23. Title should be "Final Subdivision and Planned
Unit Development Plat."
24. Certificate of attorney or title insurance com-
pany will be required for park dedication.
25. Last line of surveyor's certificate should read
"on, and that the same are based on field survey."
26. The city engineer's approval should be possessive
rather than plural.
27. Aspen City Council Approval should read "This
subdivision plat of the Creektree Subdivision
and the dedication of the park and grant of
easements are hereby approved and accepted by
the Aspen City Council this _ day of _ 1977."
28. Zoning is misspelled in the title and text of the
Planning and Zoning Commission Approval.
29. A blank is needed before the wcird "day" in the
recording certificate.
~
i-'
Creektree Subdivision Final Plat
(1st Draft) Review
Page 3
, ...i
30. The Parks and Recreation Approval should be
Parks Department Approval~
31. Further comment will be mide on the well ease-
ment pending receipt of comment from the city's
water attorney.
32. Oklahoma is misspelled in Oklahoma Flats.
33. Comments on the statement of subdivision, de-
dication, and grant of easements will be defer-
red until the agreement has been refined.
Sheet 2 of 2
1. Correct title to "Final Subdivision and Planned
Unit Development Plat,"
2. Show limits of paved improvements on Spring
Street and connection to private roadway.
3. Show size of sewer, gas ,and water lines.
4. Show interior lot lines.
5. Indicate nature and location of drainage im-
provements. Include any detention ponds, ditches,
channels or culverts.
6. Clarify utility legend.
T. Add note that all aerial electrical and commun-
ication utility facilities on Lots 2,3, &4 are
to be abandoned by subdivider.
8. Show routing for buried power, cable TV andt~iephone.
9. Show proposed grades on private roadway. Show
proposed plan including width of pavement and
type of pavement surfacing.
10. Show removal and replacement of curb and gutter
at intersection of private road with Spring Street.
11. Show parking lot and site grading in vicinity of
parking lot including approximate height of re-
taining structures.
^ ,-,
Creektree Subdivision Final Plat
(1st Draft) Review
Page 4
Landscaping Plan
1. Scale is one inch equals fifty feet. not one
inch equals twenty feet.
2. Some type of planters of barriers should be
shown to delineate parking at the Eagles from
the Spring Street extension.
3. Caliper of trees should be included.
4. General note should be added stating that no
existing trees are to be removed for building
or other improvements.
5. Landscape plan should be titled as such and
shown on separate sheet rather than overlay
bf Sheet 1.
6. Grading for parking lot and'roadway can be shown
on landscape sheet as an alternative to showing
it on Sheet 2.
Field Survey Work
1. Northerly corners of parking lot and building
envelope within Lot 3 must be staked as re-
quested by P & Z.
Utilities Report
1. On page 11-1 the Spring Street well has not
been abandoned. Reference to abandonment is
to be deleted.
2. On page 11-2 the existing electric lines are
City and Holy Cross, new service will be from
the City of Aspen Electric Department according
to the terms of the new City/Holy Cross fran-
chise agreement.
3. On page 111-2 drawing #3 is needed to review
drainage proposals.
4. On page 111-2, under "Electric Power," power will
be supplied by the City of Aspen as mentioned
earlier and coordination should be with the City
,....,.
~.
Creektree Subdivision
(1st Draft) Review
Page 5
Final Plat
Electrical Department. Reference should be made
to drawing #2 rather than drawing ffl.
5. On page 111-3, under "Tel{ephone/TV," drawing #1
should be drawing #2 and ~ note should be added
that all aerial facilities are to be removed
by subdivider.
6. Cost estimates are still being reviewed and will
be commented on later.
h ...,...._~..,_ .":'_'.:'_
"'\"~~~"',-"'" "-.il.'
1"-0\
~
, -"
y:f
C:;,,<'\}'
L.l .
/) t,"j"{' ~<." ;,
, ,\ , '$" ii) Ii" i
L/i .'I...".....,'...,~
~' ,~".
CITY
130 s
treet
1611
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
CITY COUNCIL
MICK MAHONEY 't'~ V1/1
NOVEMBER 10, 1977
ANDRE'S TRADE
We have an application before the planning, engineering and legal departments
for the Andre's/Eagle's/Buchanan trade. My view is that Andre's group did
not get the right professional help to start with, and, therefore, the pro-
cess has been delayed. The latest submittal was made Monday. Dave Ellis,
Bill Kane and Dorothy Nuttall could not properly process the application in
time for this Council meeting, however, we will be able to have it processed
by the middle of next week.
Andre is concerned because!of the interlocking finance/construction con-
straints; it might jeopardize the whole program. As the City is in on the
trade and we see a benefit, I request that the Council consider the final
plat at a special or continued hearing later in the week.
PSM/pm
~
.~
HOWARD HANSON
1834 East Lake Drive
Littleton, Colorado 80120
The Honorable City Council
of the City of Aspen;
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
and the Aspen Planning Commission
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gentlemen:
Although I live in Denver, I have been coming to Aspen with my family since
the early 1960's and for the past eight years I have owned an apartment in
the Chateau Roaring Fork. Several years ago, I purchased one-half of a
duplex in Oklahoma Flats.
My purpose in purchasing the Oklahoma Flats unit was to have a retirement
home as I have always planned to move to Aspen upon retirement -- in
possibly two years. In the meantime, I have rented out this property on
a long term basis.
When I came to Aspen last weekend with my family I was shocked to learn that
the City is planning on putting a trail through Oklahoma Flats. I would
like to register my strong objections to this proposal.
Unfortunately, prior business commitments make it impossible for me to be in
Aspen in person to be present at the Council Meeting Monday. However, I
hope the Council will read this letter and take my views into consideration.
The very reason I purchased property in Oklahoma Flats was the peace and
solitude of the area, and I know from talking to other people that I have
met who live there and own property there that they have the same feeling.
Oklahoma Flats has the unique situation of being close to town yet being a
very quiet and undisturbed area. Any kind of trail through the area would
bring people in from Silver King, the trailer park, etc., and would surely
destroy this tranquility.
On Sunday I drove around the area and it does not appear to me that a trail
through Oklahoma Flats would offer any appreciable shortcut to town. The
time saved by people going through Oklahoma Flats would be minimal and the
impact on our area would be dramatic!
I strongly urge that the Council reject any proposal to put a trail through
our area.
Sincerely, ~'
/-L / ~.'"~,./
/XplU/lN/ p.u
Howard Hanson .........
ab
;-.."
A,
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen' City Council
FROM:. Planning Office, Bill Kane
RE: Rio Grande Bus Depot - Subdivision Exemption Request
DATE: November 9, 1977
(II-. "frt', "-,, ,
U tJVL...~,'J ~
Request is being made here for the exemption from the full subdivision
procedures to allow the transfer of some 26,000 square feet of city
owned property to Andre Ulrych/Eagles for the purposes of constructing
the new Eagles Club. As you will, no doubt, recall this tranfers as
part of the overall Eagles/Andre Ulrych/City of Aspen trade which will
have the Eagles Club moving to this property; Andre Ulrych moving into
the existing Eagles Club; the City of Aspen acquiring two acres of park
land along the Roaring Fork River and four residential units being
constructed on the Buchanon property. We submit that no useful purpose
would be served by going through the full and lengthy subdivision
procedures to accommodate this transfer in and that all the particulars
for planning this site has been accomplished through the S.P.A. master
planning process. We will have available for your review at the Monday
meeting an accurate description of the land to be conveyed and a more
and precise estimate of the total land area to be provided. We recommend
that the exemption be approved.
lmk
'~"
,~ REe
{' 4'0,: ~',- kl'"
, .' " Cl)
~, r
USUFE TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY of Dallas. herein called the Company, for vClluable consideratIon. hereby commits to issue its po cy
or pO,licios of title insurance, as identjfied in Schedule A. in favor of the proposed Insured named in Schedula<A. as owne(or mortgz,gee
01 the estale or. interest cov.r~d hereby in the land described. or ref."ed"d in Schedule A, upon payment'"llhe p',e,mium, S hn,dJChrgeS
. therefor; all subJectto the provls,ons of Schedules A and Band to theCondll'o'nsand StIpulations hereof. "~;;? ";':">'. . -' f
This Commitment s~all_be: effective only when the identity oltha proposed:lnsured and the amount of the PQti{f"or'PPJjci'(Js<cO'~mjtted
for have be_en inserted in SchMule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of issuance of this Commitment or by 'snbseQ~'a{)rsement,
This Commitment is prc,liroin,.;lryto the issuance of such policy or policies'ottitle insurance and all liability ,and obligatiOns; t+ercunder
shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever
first occurs, provided that the failure to issuesu'ch policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. This Commitment shall not be valid
or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent.
CT'mm tment
for Title Insurance
^
Schedule A,
1. Effective date Octo her 20,
2. Policy or policies to be issued:
1977
at 8:00 A.M.
Cas. No, 77-07-31 C-2
Aspen Title Company
Inquiries directed to---2.25-444lc_
A.ALTA Owner's Policy Proposed Insured:
+
Amount $325.000.00
Premium $ 830.75
5.00 Tax Cert.
GUY F. GROVER
B.AlTA loan Policy Proposed Insured:
Amount $
Premium $
c,
Amount $
Premium $
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this commitment and covered herein is fee simple and title thereto is
at the effective date hereof vested in:
G.E. BUCHANAN and THE COLORADO NATIONAL BANK OF DENVER, TRUSTEE
4. The land referred to in this commitment is described, as follows:
PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED.
Schedule B-Section 1 Requirements
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
Item (a) Payment to or for the accQuntof the grantors ormortgagorso~ the full COrlsidCnltion for the estate or interest to be insured.
Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. to-wit:
(c) Upon payment of the premi.um as set forth in this commitment and subject
to instruments affecting subject property hereafter recorded, the policy
of title i.nsurance will be issued.
",'a
.~.'
(OVER)
Formerly DALlAS TITLE ANP~GUARAN'ry COMPANY
FOR.'t.IO'i' (cQ) SM11.'.H
.
1'"'\
^'
Street Address of Property _
..
Schedule B -Section 2 Exceptions
Tho policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless tho same atet disposed of to thesalisfaction of the
Company:
1. Rights or claim;; of panies .in possession not shown by the. public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies. conflicls in/,boundary lines, shortage inarea;:encroachments'.,and any f(lets which a correct survey and inspection of
the premises would disclose;3nd which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien. or right loa lien. for services., labor' or material theretofore or 'hereafter,furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the
public records.
5. Defects,liens,encumbra'pc~s, adverse daims or otherm41tlers, if any, crcated;::firstappearing in the pubJicrecords or attaching subsequent
to theeffective.d~te hereof. but prior. to the date the proposed insured acquiries of record for value the e~tate or interest or. mortgage
thereon covered by this Commitment.
Exceptions numbered are hereby omitted,
6.Taxes due and payable: The lien of all taxes and assessments for the year 1977,
, and thereafter.
7.Reservations and exceptions as contained in United States Patent recorded December 14,
1900 in Book 39 at Page 136 as follows: any vein or lode of quartz or other rock in
place+ bearing gold, silver, cinnabar ,lead, tin, copper or other valuable deposit
claimed or known to exist on March 23, l885,'and reservations and exceptions as
~ontained in United States Patent recorded August 29, 1958 in Book 185 at Page 69
as follows: rights of way for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of
the United States.
8.All existing easements, licenses, rights or rights of way for pipelines, pole and
wire lines, roads, ditches or otherwise, upon, along, over, or across subject propert
as reserved in instrument recorded in Book 175 at Page 581.
9.Terms and conditions of easements to Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District recorded
in Book 244 at Page 683, in Book 244 at Page 686 and in Book 258 at Page 256.
10.Any possessory interest as evidenced by deed recorded February 7, 1964 in Book 205
at Page 579 and subsequent conveyances.
11. Right of way for Gibson Avenue as presently existing, and the rights of the Public
therin and thereon, (Affects Parcel A)
12.Any tax, assessments, fees or charges by reason of the inclusion of the subject
property in the Aspen Fire Protection District, Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation Distri'
and Aspen Valley Hospital District.
Conditions and Stipulations
1. The term "mortgage:' when vsedherein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, (lr other security instrument.
2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, <Idverse claim or other matter affecting
the estate or interest or mortgage thereon. covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and. shalf fail to
disclose such knowledge 10 the Company in writing, the Company shalt be relieved from liability for any loss or dam~ge resufting from
any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed lnsu;ed
shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, Cir if the Company otherWise acquires actual k:nowledge of any such defect. lien; enc:umbretnce,
adverse claim or other maHer, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitmenfaccordingfy, but such amendment
shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipull'ltions.
3. Lia,bility of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the n<.'lmed proposed Insured and such parties included under the
definition of Insured in the form of policy orpolides committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking
in good faith (a) to comp!y with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule S, or (c) to acquire or create
the estate of interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Com'mitment.I,' no event shall such liability exceed the amount st<lt..-sd in Schedule
A for the polieyor policies eommitted.for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions, exclusion from coverage, and the Conditions
and Stipulations of the form of policy or policies.committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated byreferellce
and are made 3 part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein.
4. Any cl.aim of loss or damage, whether or>not based on negligence, and wh;~'hDrises out of the stotusof the title to the estate or
interest or the lien of the insured mortgage covered hereby oranY-'3ction assertingsllch claim, shallbe restricted to the provisions and
conditions and stipulationsof this commitment
~">-);.~.~~!..:~t,,,
'/.. "...'t:.
: SEAL,lo
~\., . /i
~~.!;t~~:..~~)',
~-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theCOOlpony has, caused this Commitment to be signed and sealed, to become vaiid when countersigned by
an authorized officer or agent of the Company, all in accordance with its By-laws. This Commitment is effective as of the date shown
in Schedule A itS "Effective Date."
USLlFE TiTlE INSURANCE COMPANY of Oall,.
~c..
/Yl~
President
~-%~
Attest: SMior VicC'.Prtlsidtml. .SecretIJry & Treasursr
":?20!~//'S &;ZttC~
.'Avt/lof;udS'gnMVfS, .-,.. . ~~~.:...
.
~
r-.
^.
EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED AND MADE A PART HEREOF /I 77-07-31 C-2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Two parcels of landlbcated in the
one-quarter of Section 7, Township
P. M., described as follows:
Scutheast'bhe-quarter of the Southwest
10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th
.,
Parcel A
BEGINNING at corner No. 270f Tract 40 East Aspen Townsite;
thence North 150 30' East 125 feet along the East line. of Lot 12, Block 2,
Oklahoma Flats;
thence South 700 35' East 110 feet along the South line of Bay Street;
thence North 150 3D' East 282 feet along the East line of Block 3,
Oklahoma Plats, to the Northeast corner of said Block 3;
thence North 820 50' West 55 feet along the North line of said Block 3;
thence South 770 30' West 99.46 feet along the North line of said Block 3;
thence North 150 30' East 174.06 feet to the North. line of said South,east
one-quarter of the Southwest one~quarter;
thence South 890 25' 42" East 125.17 feet along said North line to corner
No. 22 of said Tract 40 East Aspen Townsite;
thence South 44" 35' 50" East 199.79 feet to corner No. 23 of said Tract 40;
thence South 450 West 150 feet to dorner No. 24 of said Tract 40;
thence South 450 East 129 feet to corner No. 25 of said Tract 40;
thence South 150 22' West 261.38 feet to corner No. 26 of s.aid Tract 40;
thence North 740 30' West 300 feet to corner No. 27 of said Tract 40,
which is The Point of Beginning;
EXCEPT: That portion of subject property conveyed to Zupancis in Book 175
at Page 580 and in Book 198 at Page 480; and that portion of subject property
conveyed by Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company to Kopp in
Book 175 at Page 592 (and subsequent conveyance by Kopp to the Board of
COlmty COflli'Tlissioners of Pitkin County in Book 198 at Page 457); and that
portion of subject property conveyed by said Railroad Company to Herron in
Book 180 at Page 1 (subsequent conveyances describe said portion by metes
and bounds as follows: "-'-to angle point No. 24 of said Townsite, thence
North 240 05' 24" East 139.28 feet, thence North 350 06' 55" East 241.91
feet--").
Parcel B
BEGINNING at a point which is
East Aspen Townsite, with the
Tract 40 East Aspen Townsite,
South 370 20' West 5.55 feet;
thence North 370 20' East 117.55 feet;
thence North 550 32' West 80.85 feet;
thence North 400 04' West 64.20 feet;
thence ?Jorth 4r 09' East 36.95 feet;
thence North 750 East 38.72 feet to the South bank of the Roaring Fork River;
thence South 670 33' East 92.34 feet along said South bank;
thence South 830 26' East 28.17 feet along said South bank;
thence North 370 20' East 23.26 feet to corner No. 29 of said Tract 40;
thence South 450 East 32.15 feet to the South bank of said River;
thence South 700 39' East 115.20 feet along said South bank;
thence North 150 30' East 118.06 feet to corner No. 27 of, said Tract 40;
thence South 740 30' East 265 feet;
thence South 170 19' West 28, feet;
thence South 430 46' East 10 feet;
thence South 340 20' West 99.87 feet;
thence South 410 57' East 54.20 feet;
thence South 020 23' West 111.76 feet;
thence South 500 19' West 48.60 feet
thence North 880 40' Nest 177 feet;
the intersection of the North line of Block 21
line between corners No. 29 and No. 30 of
from whence corner No. 30 of said Tract bears
....:Jill
(continued)
.'"
':tt
1""\
LEGAL DESCRIPTIO;, (Parcel B) - continued.
(77-07-31 C-2)
thence South 4P 08"Ylest 222.50 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 18,
Block 21, East Aspen; ,
thence North 140 50' East 100 feet along the East line of said Lot 18;
thence North 750 09' 11" West 44.10 feet along the North line of Lots 18 and
17 of said Block 21,
thence North 360 22' East 26.46 feet;
thence North 60 35' Ivest 85.92 feet; "
thence North 590 18' West 56.37 feet to the North line of said Block 21;
thence North 750 09' West 131.53 feet along said line to The Point of
Beginning;
EXCEPT: That portion of subject property conveyed by the Denver and Rio
Grande Western Railroad Company to Trueman in Book 276 at Page 604; and
that portic2>n of subject property described,inBook 198 at Page 480 and that'
portion of the', subject I;',r?pertyconveye~ to the 'Estate 'of' Arthur W:' Mikkelsen in Book 311
't'p '67"- '-,' " ',,^' .. ,"
a ~ age.' -' - ..... :. ... ~ -~ '~'::1-=:' - '-",'..
All of the above described property being in
Pitkin County, Colorado.
~b
.'0.:--.'
~
,~
MEMO
TO: KAREN SMITH
PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: DAVE ELLIS 1)~
ENGINEERING OFFICE .
DATE: October 14, 1977
RE: Creek tree Final Plat Submission
This is to acknowledge that the engineering department
did receive what was supposedly a final plat for the Creek
Tree Subdivision on October 11. Since the single drawing
submitted is grossly deficient I wanted to advise you of
the matter. Under no circumstances will the project be
ready in time for the October 24, City Council agenda as
proposed by the applicant. The majority of the checklist
items reviewed at the two hour meeting with the applicant
on September 22, have been left unresolved. Although not
exhaustive by any means, the following is a brief list of
problems and ommissions:
1) Boundary with county is indefinite.
2) Existing rights of way, easements and utilities
are not shown.
3) Building envelopes are not tied by survey to
boundary description.
4) Building sites and parking areas have not been
staked on the ground as requested by P&Z.
5) No description of trail easement.
6) No utility plans for water & sewer extensions.
7) No grading plans or road profiles.
8) No easement for existing City Well #2.
9) No physical features shown on map - i.e., river,
flood plain, landscaping, etc.
10) Change in owner and no new title commitment.
11) No certificate of title for dedicated land.
12) No subdivision agreement.
As you can well see,there is very little point in attempting
a detailed "final" review of the project. As recently as
Thursday, October 6, I verbally detailed on the phone a
similar list of deficiencies to Bayard Hovdesven, so I am
extremely perplexed as to why the final submission was attempted.
cc: Mick Mahoney
Stacy Standley
Bayard Hovdesven
r'\
~
~
,..
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Phyllis Kenny, Administration
FROM: Karen B. Smith, Planning Department
RE: Board of County Commissioner's Letter of September 27, 1977
Re: Creektree Subdivision
DATE: October 7, 1977
The Commissioners have correctly pointed out that the adopted 1973 City/
County Trails Plan shows a trail alignment on portions of the proposed
Creektree Subdivision of Andre Ulrych. Section 20~17(b.)(8.) of the Aspen
~~uni ci pal :COae furthermore states that "Whenever a tract to be subdi vided
includes any part of a bikeway, bridle path, cross country ski trail or
hiking trail designated on the Aspen Trail System Plan, sufficient ease-
ments shall be provided to accommodate the plan within the tract."
Although the Planning Office recommended the inclusion of the trail ease-
ment in the plat, Planning and Zoning declined to require same. I believe
they acted because of fear of opposition from Oklahoma Flats people and
out of ignorance of the specific code requirement. City Council, therefore,
is the only body that can insist on the trail's inclusion when they consider
the Final Plat. I have already notified the subdividers of the County's
request and the Planning Office position. We would appreciate the con-
currence of Stacy and Council or, if Council di sagrees, some noti ce so we
can retract the request. In the meantime, we are scheduling a meeting with
the Oklahoma Flats people, Andre, and the Planning Office to appraise
them of the proposed change. Not only would we point out the Code's
trails requirements, but also the fact that the plan has been changed once
to accommodate Oklahoma Flat's desire to have no new development on their
side of the river: one lot was deleted in the preliminary plat with density
transferred to the south side of the river..
I have reviewed the Trails Plan and confirm that it shows a Trail align-
ment using the old Oklahoma Flats access and crossing the river at the
Spring Street extension. It does not, however, show the trail coming up
through the old Riverside Trailer Court connecting with Bleeker. The
connection with Bleeker is made at Spring and the Bleeker Trail extends
east to the river, but south of the Creektree boundaries.
Incidentally, I have notified Dorothy Nuttall about the potential plat
change. She has advised me that since the change is not a discretionary
one and since it was recommended by the Planning Office at the preliminary
plat hearing before Planning and Zoning, the matter will not require a
new public hearing. The trail then could be included in the Final Plat.
With respect to disposition of county lands previously shown within the
subdivision, we understand that Bayard and Andre are working that out with
the County. The result will probably be to remove land from the subdivision,
but we do not yet know what, if any, effect this will have on density cal-
culation. We suspect it will not have any.
Please call me if you would like me to explain further.
lmk
cc: George Ochs, County Manager
f"""',
.~
October 3, 1977
Ms. Karen Smith.
Planning Dept.
Aspen, Co. 81611
Subject: Creektree Subdivision
1. Regarding holding title to areas of joint use, the Bus
Station property and Eagles Building will be a separately
deeded property belonging to the Eagles. The utilities to
serve the Eagles building will have any necessary easements
to main water lines, underground electric and sewer lines
as may be required over lot #2. The 2 duplexes or four
1/2 duplex units, will be separately deeded and will own
a 1/4th undivided interest in Lot #2 in the same manner'
as a condominium association.
2. The maintenance of open space and common facilities
will be handled in the same manner as a condominium
association.
3. Marty Kahn will be preparing our Subdivision agreement
for submission to the City Attorney.
4. The construction schedule will be to commence the Eagles
building and the four 1/2 duplex units within 8 months of
final subdivision approval with completion of said constr-
uction to occur within 8 to 12 months from that start date.
5. Landscaping plans are to shield the four 1/2 duplex
units with approximately 50 Aspen trees spotted along the
West side of the units. No particular landscaping is
planned for the Eagles building site except for some small
bushes and possibly a clump or two of Aspen trees~
6. Preliminary design/layout drawings for the Eagles
building and sketches of the elevations for the two
duplexes are attached.
7. The density reductions for slope is to be handled by
Tri-Co Survey and is presently outlined on the Preliminary
Plat as approved on September by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
;p-ncerely, /1'
~~ .
~--i~fard sven
cc. Dave Ellis, Marty Kahn, Jim Reser, Andre Ulrych
,...""
~.
f"""',
~
September 30, 1977
Mr. Dave Ellis
City Engineer
Aspen, Co. 81611
Dear Dave,
Regarding utilities for the Creektree Subdivision,
I have spoken to Heiko Kuhn, Aspen Metro, Stogie,
Aspen Electric, and Jim Markalunas, Water Dept.
All of the above have reviewed the Preliminary
Plat for Creektree and have indicated that they
saw no particular problem in providing their
respective utilities to the site.
Heiko indicated that we should tap the sewer line
as I have indicated on the attached map. This is
the same way we have already discussed with the
three buildings then tapping on to .the one centrally
located tap.
Stogie said electric was on the West side of Spring
Street and could be run underground down the road we
now show as access to the two duplexes.
Jim Markalunas said water was on the West side of
Spring street and could be run down the access
road in the same manner. He also reiterated that
he wanted to preserve access to the existing spring
presently under the existing Bus Station. I indicated
that the area of the spring would be covered by a
parking lot and he thought that sufficient access
could be arranged with that use without too much
nroblem.
cc. Jim Reser
Karen Smith
Andre Ulrych
-...
".....,
~ 1/'#/77
~//~
. fi />1 .,z
S&tp#l
e ve72-
EX! S17 tV'~
~ rlj-Y7~
_..-----"--',-~.
~Li::
I'~
/
./
/ I
I~ /". l
"\7( " I ,
_~r_ \:. ~~
'- -,- ,
.- I \
/1//0.1//, " y \ (
//IT_......:, 'J?-/,.~/ I
'-W6/i2
5~ lAP
-.
.&e'/P$~P
G".4,:J,~c> ;gL.ot;.
;
I
I, .
"::::::':::::::::.:.:.::.:.:~.. :'.:;:.:::::::~:~ ...::""'--.-......._".
fu-~=~~cT . \
~ . I
~ / :
0) /.!
he-cTA2;C .c,/ %
~ .. 1- IJ/f}7i:::'A. iAcCEf5 e-s
;:: \ Il;vf) VV', / "pvr>t- Y';K
~ \./-I IV ti'5 ,,/
Vi .~_~/
I
..4'
$/-EC ~-;e) c
;Jw!J 111/1 T.~/{
tJ/'/ WAr r ._
...:::.!' j),,-
t/- _
~.. S~>.y7'
~C- "'-.,
-,.. '-"c. t'?'~..
<~. ,';- l
P
I
T
K
I
N
c
o
U
N
T
Y
t"""'I.
506 E. MAIN STREET
/"""""I
~,,~
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
.
September 27, 1977
Aspen City Council Members
Mayor Stacy Standley
Aspen City Hall
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The Board of County Commissioners reviewed
Subdivision at their regular meeting yesterday.
comments to make with regard to the subdivision
and considered further.
Andre Ulrych's Creektree
The Board has several
which they hope are noted
The first problem is one of County ownership of a considerable amount
of the northeasterly portion of the property proposed for subdivision. It
has long been known that the County has owned a portion of that property
which is included in the subdivision and we would like to see that portion
of the subdivision deleted or rededicated to the County. It would seem
peculiar for the developer to include County property in his subdivision
and then rededicate it to the County, so perhaps the only acceptable alter-
native is to have that property deleted from the subdivision. The Board
has asked County Attorney Sandra M. Stuller to initiate quiet title action
on this property.
The City/County Trails Masterplan calls for a trail to be built linking
Gibson Street and the Smuggler Trailer Court area to town directly by
using the old access to Oklahoma Flats and coming across the old Riverside
Trailercourt and on up connecting with Bleeker Avenue. Apparently, the
City P & Z disregarded the Trails Masterplan and suggested an alternative
route requiring bikers and pedestrians to use a longer route by following
the river and eventually coming up into town at Galena Street. We would
appreciate your insistence upon the developer complying with the Trails'
Masterplan and providing a direct trail connection from Gibson Avenue through
his development connecting Bleeker Avenue. We feel that this trail would
be a valuable asset to a large segment of the community located in the
Smuggler Trailer Court area, as it would give them a direct access to town
on an alignment totally separated from the automobile.
Dave Ellis appeared at the Commissioner's' meeting and requested that
the County allow for a right-af-way dedication from the center line of
Gibson Avenue thirty feet to the south, so that the City would have a full
width right-of-way for the south side of Gibson Avenue, in case any future
improvements or widening occur. This request creates no problems for the
,
.
...~. '
,_.,-~-
I""'"
r>,
Aspen City Counci~ & Mayor
September 27, 1977
Page Two
County and if City Council is interested in that right-of-way, they may
proceed forward as this is acceptable to the County.
We are pleased to see that this subdivision is finally coming to
fruitation as it has been a very complicated process - fortunately we
have been on the outside observing this one. We would hate to see the
trail link lost as this is one of the most attractive features of this
potential subdivision and is a very high priority for this County
Commission. We would appreciate your inclusion of this trail into the
subdivision approval.
Very best regards,
<f!;!/,,/f4J1
Chcurman /
Board of County Commissioners
/
(
MK:kals
cc: Bill Kane
,
.
^
,
~,
CITY OF ASPEN
I:~O south galena
aspen, {~olorado
street
81611
MEt40RANDUM
DATE: September 26, 1977
TO: Stacy Standley
FROM: Phyllis Kenny
Per your request for the projected timetable on the SPA-
Rio Grande Master Plan, and Andres' purchase of the bus
depot property, Karen Stanford has advised that the quick-
est possible timing, barring any hold up at either P & Z
or Council review of the plan, would be as follows:
1. Final consideration of the Rio Grande
plan before P & Z - October 4th.
2. First reading before Council - October 11th.
3. Public hearing, which requires 15 days notice,
- November 8th (unless you decided to hold a
special emergency meeting, which could be
held the'week prior.
4. The exemption from the SPA for the bus depot
property could be considered by P& Z as
early as October 18th and come to Council
on the same date as the public hearing for
the SPA Plan, i.e. November 8th or at a special
meeting held prior to that time.
5. The bus depot property could be purchased by
Andre as soon as the exemption is approved
by Council.
The major obstacle affecting the SPA Master Plan passage
appears to be the issue of Caps Auto Store and the Andrews
McFarland trade.
pak
cc: M. Mahoney
K. Smith ~
I"'"'
I~'
v
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
George Ochs, County Manager
Sandra M. Stuller, County Attorney
FROM: Planning Office (KS)
RE: Creektree Subdivision - Information Item
DATE: September 22, 1977
As you may know, Andre Ulrych has purchased some six acres from Mr.
Buchanon including the area behind the City-owned bus depot across the
Roaring Fork River and up the slope to Gibson Avenue. His PUD sub-
division proposal includes two duplex structures on the south side of the
river, donation of a less than two acre parcel along the Roaring Fork
to the City for park purposes, relocation of the Eagles to a new building
on the site of the bus depot, and one single family lot with an existing
structure on Oklahoma Flats. The matter has been referred to you since
the County is an adjoining land owner.
The Planning Office has recommened approval of the subdivision/PUD and,
in fact, the City Planning and Zoning Commission did grant preliminary
PUD and subdivision plat approval at their September :20th meeting.
The matter will be scheduled for City Council for Final Plat approval
later in October. The proposal does have some obvious public interest in
the land acquired for park completing a link in the Roaring Fork Greenway
Plan and restoration (by Andre) of the old Eagles building downtown.
The proposal, however, is not without some problems. Among them are
overlapping boundaries with adjacent property owners, including Piktin
County. An earlier approval was conditioned on granting the area north
of Gibson jointly to the City and County for open space purposes. How-
ever, in the preliminary plat it became apparent that some of this land
may already be owned by the County. Andre seems to be willing to dispose
of the property in anyway that will make all parties happy, so we suggest
you look at the extent of the apparent conflict and let us know what your
preference is regarding resolution of the title dispute.
Of interest to you also would be the trail easement which is shown across
the property to be donated as City park. The Planning Office recommended,
without success, that a trail be located on abandoned right of way
running SQuth from Gibson Avenue to cross the Roaring Fork River and
join with the trail on the south side. Even though the rough alignment
is shown on the trails plan, P&Z did not feel the trail was justified
because of the access newly located across the river at the Holy Cross
site and because of opposition of the Oklahoma Flats residents.
Sandy will be given a copy of the plat before and one will be brought to
the meeting. Please let us know any other comments you wish to make to
the applicant or City Council.
lmk
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
~-t"(. ~ .1JJ
J. . vR
;'l.N"<JJA. ,4 -d'
j\J>o !!,,'j\)v to ;, I-.c
/ J"y- Ipr:,."
[./;J." ....,,\....
~ . --\2? C,_
: iL C6V'0.V
4110,Jfl ~,
t~-\:;I\ \)0' W~
){t)~~S'
\..J
;-..,.
.,,-,
-
.
KAREN SMITH
PLANNING DEPT.
DAVE ELLIS (\"'\L.
CITY ENGINEER' \I~L/
September 20, 1977
CREEKTREE SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW
(Second Submission) .
,
The engineering department's review of this second pre-
liminary submission reveals many details remaining to be
worked out. For brevity the relatively minor items(sheet
index, vicinity map, etc,) have been omitted here and will
be handled directly with the subdivider's agent on the
project. The more important items are grouped together
in broad categories for discussion below,
Boundary Survey And Property Conflicts
The major prob~em is that the description of the tract
oVerlaps three other owners (Pitkin County, Herron, and
Garrishl for sure and possibly a fourth (Tacker). These
conflicts must be resolved before proceding to final
review. Some of the metes and bounds on various lots
are missing, and'legal descriptions and areas will be
needed for the Gibson Ave. right-of-way and open space;
Also, all easements encumbering the property need to be
shown and noted with book and page~
City Ownership and Subdivision Exemption
For purposes of clarification and emphasis, although
noted on the plat, the City of Aspen is the present
owner of the bus depot site which is approximated on
the plat as Lot 3 (Eagles site). Before final plat
approval the City must obtain SPA approval on the
Rio Grande Property and a subdivision exemption to
convey this parcel to Ulrych.
Utili ties
In this category a written comment from the Aspen Metro
Sanitation District is needed to establish the require~
ments for sewer service. Also, the electric department's
comment is needed on the details of the underground
power extension (point of connection, transformer sites,
etc.). Telephone and cable television have been omitted
from the utility plan and need to be included;
Building And Street Improvements
Layouts for the private lane, cul-de-sac and/or other
turnaround feature, parking details and curb cuts are
needed. These must be adequate for service and emergency
vehicles. Architectural drawings are also needed on the
proposed Eagles building. Since the plat is not accurate
enough to determine where the building sites are relative
to high water, the setbacks or building envelopes should
be established in the field and then tied to the field
survey. Finally, landscape and grading changes have
been omi tted.. '
cc: Bayard Hov.desven
Jim Reser
,A
J"
,.-
v- r' "
M E M 0 RAN 0 U M
. Q'Z6'{(
U~AH"" ,
V v', C OK,IV'ct
" I>.. . I I' I::;
y? be i~ lTu,.{- k
'2btv1 it,t, [ 'I V'^-j (
"'.. ~l, tU~ (c,!,-tA.,,\.
'-'Ol).," I <,), ., .
- ~ ,~. , ~
0.." ' . '-\ r ")-0-,).) -, Li
. 0",'- "(P(I.A c4f.. t;, RM ; )/
e 'I ~ L~' I l' . "(yO'tV'
vcr{ <"'.<7 (,Iv,
~,,'fi/"''''''~
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office (KS)
RE: Creektree/Andre Ulrich Subdivision/PUO - Preliminary Plat
DATE: September 16, 1977
Next Tuesday, we will be asking you to look at several matterS concerning
the Creektree Subdivision behind the City bus depot. The project is
located on the Buchanon property north and south of the Roaring Fork
River and encompasses the bus depot property which is proposed as the
new site for the Eagles building. On the following issues, the
applicants ask for your a~.P,ljro~v ,al ,: V- #.
, fa ,~ *' ~ 20 t<..ItU r~ ...- (.{X<.!-
1. Preliminary plat approval for the subdivision.
..., f-
I/";.,"'''N.. :
"'), ~ " . .
2.
PUO preliminary plan approval.
<''':/'.-;
.~:'-?-1.-'~
I" \
U~
3. Stream margin review.
In addition, we also ask that you amend your motion of August 2nd
meeting when you approved the conceptual subdivision plan. The motion
should also reflect approval of the conceptual PUD plan.
The preliminary plat has undergone some changes since conceptual approval.
We think that the most recent submisssion reflects a good number of
technical engineering improvements and also offers better land use
consistent with our preference expressed at the time of conceptual
approval. That is to say, the design has been changed so that four
units will be clustered on the south side of the river in two duplex
structures. These units will enjoy better access to town and are
consistent with the higher density of the surrounding zoning. Service-
ability by utilities is improved by this configuration. The new proposal
therefore eliminates one of the lots on the Oklahoma Flats side, leaving
only one lot on which there is an existing house. The avoids the previous
rather'awkward squeezing in of the new unit and results in more open
sp~ce in a low density area,
Although the revision results in one additional unit, we submit that the
benefits outweigh any disadvantage of the extra unit. Since the units
will be smaller, presumably they will be somewhat lower in price. In
view of this and the general land use benefits, we do not believe that
tne revision warrants referral to the conceptual phase.
The preliminary plat does show a trail through the portion of land which
is to be dedicated as city park and is consistent with trails planning
and Rio Grande master planning efforts. The Planning Office would like
to see a trail from Gibson Avenue through Lot 1, which would cross the
river and link with the trail on the river's south side. We believe
this would establish an important pedestrian link to town for those
'living in the Smuggler Mountain area. The applicant states that the
trail would either have to cross a 30% slope area or be too close to the
house. Nevertheless we will ask the Trails Coordinator to comment.
The PUO submission also includes drawings which show building placement
and massing on the site. After a quick overview we find these to be
acceptable and suitable for the surrounding area as well as to the
topography of the site.
Since the revised plat was just submitted Dave Ellis will be devoting
Monday to it and will have comments by Tuesday's meeting
~~.... /;
,,:, ',;.', ,.' ~~... "C' ','
14~,.( h&c" ''/0....
I
"1-z5"f)
1v~ p~
iYl/\
In\
,
'HV~A
~
,
...ii ,{;
.Jr' ,,' ,
1;,""""\....)(
1\
LI
/!h.. ',("1 u I" :! i: /
Icjf""'t/',. ",:~VtA',./,,1. /
. /
ASPEN METROPOLITAN SANITATION DISTRICT
Box 2810 Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2537
September l5,l977
City of Aspen
Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 8l6~l
RE: Herron Park Subdivision
Att: Karen Smith
Dear Ms. Smith;
In response to your memorandum on the proposed Herron Park Subdivision
we will be able to supply sewer service to it.
Wright & McLaughlin our engineers are doing a little further research
on this proposed project and they may contact you.
If the developer would like to come to the next Metro-District meeting
he ',could outline his project for the preliminary report which is the next
step in the planning process.
Sincerely
ASPEN METffBPOLITAN SANITATION DISTRICT
~ ;:;:::::L
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
HK/ld
,
A
~,
PUBLIC NOTICE
Re: Creektree
Preliminary Plat
Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held on September
20, 1977, at a meeting starting at 5:00 p,m. in the City Council
Chambers, Aspen, to be held before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission to consider the Preliminary PUD and Subdivision Plat
submission for Creektree, formerly known as the Buchanan property.
The application proposes a PUD/Subdivision on 6 acres + in the area
behind and includin9 the City-owned bus station, -
A copy of the preliminary plat may be'examined in the office of the
City/County Planner, City Hall, during regular business hours,
Published in the Aspen Times, Thursday, September 15, 1977
/
/s/ Kathryn S. Hauter
City Clerk
,.,......
~\
Aspen/Pit
130 s
aspen
ning Office
treet
1611
,
//
September 9, 1977
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
/
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on September
20, 1977 at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen, before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the Preliminary
PUD and Subdivision submission for the Buchanon Property. The appli-
cation proposes aPUD/Subdivision on 6 acres + in the area behind
and including the City-owned bus station. -
A copy of the preliminary plat may be examined in the office of the
City/County Planner, City Hall, during regular business hours.
Returned from:
Wedum-Pardee Group
c/o Randy Wedum
P.O. Box 3900
Aspen, CO 81611 On9-16-77
.
",...."
r-\
Aspen/Pit
130 s
aspen
ningOffice
,
//
September 9, 1977
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on September
20, 1977 at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen, before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the Preliminary
PUD and Subdivision submission for the Buchanon Property. The appli-
cation proposes a PUD/Subdivision on 6 acres + in the area behind
and including the City-owned bus station. -
A copy of the preliminary plat may be examined in the office of the
City/County Planner, City Hall, during regular business hours.
RETURNED FRON:
Dorothy t1ikke 1 son
P.O. Box 1132
Aspen, CO 81611 On September 16, 1977
.
."-".
'-"'\
Aspen/Pit
130 s
ning Office
,
",/
,/
September 9, 1977
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
/
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on September
20, 1977 at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen, before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the Preliminary
PUD and Subdivision submission for the Buchanon Property. The appli-
cation proposes a PUD/Subdivision on 6 acres + in the area behind
and including the City-owned bus station. -
A copy of the preliminary plat may be examined in the office of the
City/County Planner, City Hall, during regular business ,hours.
RETURNED - WRONG ADDRESS September 23, 1977
Anne Peterson
P.O. Box 2987
Aspen, Colo.
'"
.,..."
I.'
Aspen/Pit
130 s
,
//
,..."
ing Office
treet
1611
September 9, 1977
TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
/
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on September
20, 1977 at 5:00 p,m, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen, before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Colltl1ission to consider the Preliminary
PUD and Subdivision submission for the Buchanon Property, The appli-
cation proposes a PUD/Subdivision on 6 acres + in the area behind
and including the City-owned bus station. -
A copy of the preliminary plat may be examined in the office of the
City/County Planner, City Hall, during regular business hours.
.
~
,-"
,-,
TRI-CO Management, Inc.
Planning. Design. Surveying. Engineering. Construction
and Management of Land
~1'"''''1 ~ C;\
\('"\':'J\ \c,..,",.
ADJOINING OWNERS - HERRON PARK SUB.
Wedum-Pardee Group
c/o Randy Wedum
Box 3900
Aspen
Stan Laureski
Box 803
Aspen
Smuggler Trailer Park, Inc.
Box 506
Aspen
Anne Peterson t, r,~~J)'N'-
~.",p
Box 2987 -glv'O fJ~.
Aspen
Mike Garrish
Box 621
Aspen
Dorothy Mikkelson
BA-"--TT~ cz, I,^",'lt.. f,O '
Aspen P
Board of County Commissioners of
pitkin County
506 E. Main
Aspen
Nick Coates
Box 4949
Aspen
Russel Volk
c/o Richard Volk
217 N. Water St.
Wichita, Kansas 67702
Richard Holmes
Barb Dykstra
Ruth Hoffman
Rose Young
Box 432
Minturn, Colorado 81645
A Subsidiary of Trico Corporation . Offices throughout the West
Box 1730
Aspen
Colorado 81611
303-925-2688
.-
I"'..
I"'..
,
TO:
Karen Smith - Planning
,FROM:
DATE:
Marky - Water Department
September 6th, 1977
,
SUBJECT:
Preliminary Plat of the Herron Park Subdivision
We are responding to your inquiry of 8/29/77 concerning the
Herron Park Subdivision. The City of Aspen Water Department
would like to point out to the Planning Office that prior to
the final acceptance and/or approval of this subdivision that
the subdivider be required to reserve to the City of Aspen
Water Department a perpetual easement for the operation and
maintenance of Aspen Well #2 - (W-6208). The well in question
is now located beneath the existing bus station at the North
end of Spring Street. This well has been operated:and main-
tained by the City of Aspen since August of 1960, but was
shut down and temporarily discontinued from the system in
1965. However, the City of Aspen Water Department has never
considered this well as being abandoned and has reserved
access to this well for future use.
Therefore, the purpose of this memo is to notify the Planning
Office that Well #2 AKA - Spring Street Well, is an adjudicated
water right of the City of Aspen for 2.3 second feet and that
no plan should be approved, which would interfere with the
future use or operation of this well and that easements for
the future operation of this well shall be written into any
subdivision approval and entered upon the plats for same.
We would like to review the final subdivision approvals prior
to acceptance by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Sincerely,
M~
JM:jmr
cc: Attachments - Decree for Well #2
cc: Dorothy Nuttall
cc: Lee Leavenworth
cc: Dave Ellis
.....,......
"
,
"
"
,.
.....:....::4.._::.
'-...,"
. . ,.. ,"_C.', ",:~',;:,,;;.:: ..'~.~_""':,. ~"': ,.>-~:.;:. t.;~ {'C': . :"o:..:.c..._..._...."
-.';".--. .:_....;....,'-_..,,~.-....,..::....... "". -:...;.I..~'~~../~..~ ...~.." -.......... ~._._- ~~.- ---
.. ...' ."-'__,~'.. .,...._ .... '___'H ..........-,.._........_............_..
LAW Of"rlCrS Of"
yYb~
.
.
VRANESH AND MUSICK
2120 13t1l STREET
P. O. 'DOX 811
BOULOER, COLORADO 80302
TELEPHONE 303/.443.61$1
GEORGE VRANESH
JOHNO. MUSICK.JR.
September 24, 1976
OF' COUll$[l
OAVID "P. PHILLIPS
Yl\YNE e. SCHROEDER
STEPHEN T. WllLIA'MSON
ALAN E. SCHWARTZ
RICHARD L. F'ETTER
//
Ms. Sandra Stuller
.. City Attorney /'
City of Aspen
P. O. Box V
Aspen, CO 81611
Re:~ell No.2; W-::)
Dear Sandy:
Enclosed is the final decree for Well No.2, signed
by Judge Lohr on September 16, 1976.
As you can see, Judge Lohr reversed the referee's
denial of the application, particularly on the crucial
point that the water right had been abandoned. Accord-
ingly, Judge Lohr entered a decree for 2.23 cfs absolute
with an appropriation date of August 18, 1960,
VerY truly yours,
VRANESH AND MUSICK
LEL: sew
Enclosure
cc: Rich Cassens
/.
..
/
. .
.....-.;..'7;~..--:-.~::_"7-....".
".,~.."'I'O......'..
II
. ;:~~'~'-
..' .
\
h
. '
,
:. ,.
. ,
-,
"
I "
'/'t
1N 'I'IIE DISTRICT COUR'rIH 1\:ND !:'OR
WATER DIVISION NO. 5
STATE OF COLORADO
Case No. \'1-2608
.....
"
!"
"
IN r1TKIN COUNTY
TilE APPLICATION )
OF TIlE CITY OF )
) FINDINGS OF
) CONCLUSIONS
) AND DECREE
):-;::::-;~ .
//
>1 .
FAc'r,
OF LAW,
IN THE HATTER OF
FOR \'1ATER RIGHTS
ASPEN, COLOHADO
" ' IN THE. J:<OARING FOHK RIVER
,
\ '
THIS MATTER, an App,licati9n for water rights by
- .
the city of Aspen,
for hearing before
Colorado in the Roaring Fork
,',y ,
this Court on July 30, 1976.
River came on
The, Applicant
appeared by and through its counsel, Vranesh And Musick. Tpere
were no objectors to this Application.
, ,
'The Court, having heard and reviewed the evidence and
;.
.
arguments presented and evaluated the rel~vant points of law,
and being fully advised in the premises, enters these Findings
of Fact, Conclusions o~ Law, and'Decree:
,~indings of Fact:
,1;, ,1,\n "Appl~cation For Underground Water Right" was
filed in this Court by the Applicant on December 31, 1974 and re-
ferred by the Water Judge of this Court to the Water Referee on
January 3; 1975 pursua?t tb,Article:92 of Chapter 37, 1973 'Colorado
,Revised Statutes. On July 28, 1975, following two Orders Extending
Time, grant,ed to the Referee by the Court:, the Referee denied the
" '
, ,
'Application,' c;:oncluding that the'wellhad been ,condemned as unsafe,
, ,
, that it 'was abandoned, and also that 9-, building had b~en constructed
, .... ~.'
~.'
.
over it,' Timely protest to the
, Applicant' onAu~u'st8' '197{ )tV
:,:. 2. 'I'he well is:
Referee's decision' was made by the
~:.. .
.......
"
~ "
, '
:','
. ~:
,t.
,
" (a)
"
" (b)
.,
(c)
. .
known as Aspen Well No~ 2 or the Spring
Street Well
87' deep
.\. :.
locate~in thcSE1/4 5W1(4, S,7, T,10S,
R. B4\'1, ,Gth.,ip.M, ilt it point 1450' Eilst of the
Westlin'o and 4BO' North of the South line
of said Section 7.
. ,
"
,
" ,
't'," "
"
, ,
..
,
.,
'.
'.
"
.'
..x:~
:'
"
", '
~ :;
.: . '
.';'//",
:~'.- :,' ',.:;,
..
"
.....
..
\ ~.
(dl claimed 1"'\ 'l'he city of Aspen, Co 10'-"0 ;
P. O. Box V, Aspen, Colorado.
!
"
'On ~uly 22. 1975, Mr. James Markalunas,
then employed as th.e Supervisor of the
,City of Aspen Water Department, stnted
in a signed and sworn Affidavit that
,he was familiar with this well nnd that
it was not the ,intent of the City of Aspen
to nbandon this well. 'rhewcll, according
to the Affidavit, was bein~ helel for emer-
gency needs and would be redrilled if
necessary. This Affidavit was filed with,
this Court as Exhibit A. '
.j'
, ,
"
4.
A second Affidavit, identified as Exhibit B,
was submitted to this Court under the sig-
pature of Mr. David C, ,Pierce, Vice President
and General Manager of San Juan Tours, .Inc ,',
lessee of the land owned by 'l'he City of Aspen
under which lies the,weJI in question. The
,Affidavit states that ~he City DfAspen "agents
and employee~shall'have reasonable access to the
well which is presently covered by its (San
,Juan's) existing structures, which access shall
include the right of 'entry to inspect, examine,
.and otherwise .make full use of the well (com-
patible with the operation of the bus depot)
for which water right this application is mad~."
, .
--
--
,Conclusions of Law:
- ~~.
. 1, The Water Judge has jurisdiction to render a
decision in this case for thisnis a "water
matter" as contemplated by C.R.S. 1973
537-92-203 (1) ,
;,
.'
','
, .\
, ,
"', .
'.
,
, ,
.::.: ',f
.:.'
/
,2. ,It is also a matter coming under the juris-
diction of the Water Judge under C.R.S. 1973
, 5,37-92-304, it being a protest to a <,iecision
, , by the ivater Referee. '
3.
, Abandonment "must be
use and intention to
Ditch Co. v. Carwin,
1282, 1285 (1975).
proved by
abandon."
Colo.
evidence of non-
Upper Harmony
, 539 P.2d
4.
'There is, furthermore,' a distinction in Co.lorado
.. water law between abandoning a structure and aband-
,oning a water right. ~he abandonment of the
structure does not include or imply the abandon-
.. m~nt of the right. New Mcrcer Ditch Co. v. Armstrong,
,21 Colo. 357, 40 P. 989 (1895), Boulder & Larimer
,~ounty Irrigating and Mfq. Ditch & Reservoir ~o.'v.
, Culver, 63 Colo.32, 164 P. 510 (1917}, San LU1S
" :., Valley-Land and Cattle Co. v. Hazard, ll~ Colo. 233,
157 P.2d 144 ,(1943). ,
Because this well is in eiIstence and water diverted
thereby has been put to beneficial use, a decree con-
firming the appropriation must be granted. Cresson
Consolidated Gold ~lin. & Mill Co. V-. \~hitten.!. 13'9
Colo,273, 338 P.2d (1959); C.R.S. 1973 ~37-92-305(1).
....
5;
"
, ':
"
"
- 2
,
. ~
.
"
f~
r,
0,<. "
WlllmEFOHE n~ DECI<EIW TJlA'l':
"
The City of Aspen is her;eby decreed 2.23 cfs absolute
in its Aspen \'/ell No.2 or Sprinq Street Well, which
well shall carry an appropriation date of, Augm,t 18,
1960. This well shall produce water for irrigation,jf
domestic, municipal, rnaft1;:lf.'fte{,"tJr.-i-n~"t'n4--.,'rl-:l--e-t::hcr 11&
ben€,f,,i-e-i-al uses. Land to be irriqated under this J}
decree includes property wi thin and immediately -4/
around the City of Aspen, Colorado. " " ~?~~
'7': J. I I II f /I II," 0 I'D I' . .Idle..,.i W'!'"
/Cl //,>, c;rfC'lr 1/74 7"" (/<I{l/2';;/;'70 IYVIJ?' (1/- 1)</(,'((' I/I/?(V> /
is accordingly ORDERED' that this ruling shall be -!I,,/ Ow,,;J" .
. ~y~
filed with the Water Clerk and shall. become effective upon such ;'Pt/i:'Fj(,
"
,1.
, .
.
n:.'
.
"
"
;.,
\ '
2.
-- 3:
. -- It
'rho well known liS Aspen Well No: 2 or the spring street
Well which is located in the Sln/4 SWI/4 S.7" 'l'.lOS,
R,!l4W, 6th P.H. at a point 1450'Ellstof the Went
.lin(! 11nd 480' North of the Sou th line of said Section
,7 and is owned by the c'i2ty of AI'lJcn, Colorado has
,not been abandoned by said Olmcr, the City of Aspen,
tlor have the water rights from such well been abandoned
'P'Y the City of Aspen. '
filing,
,: It' is further
'.
/,
ORDERED
/
that a copy of this ruling shall
,be filed with the appropriate Division Engineer and the S,tate
Engin'eer,.
" Done' ak-th,,; Ci Ly vI GhwwuoJ 3pr iftg-s-r-€0'J:~-G-,-this
/
/( day of '- _9'l~-v
"
';
'.
. .
.'
I'.t
..
~~
..
"
~ "
"
\,
l'
"
"
'.
. '
"
, ,
.
'.'
. '
'.
"
....;-:: .-.: ~.:
. I'" ....
. ...
, ,
"
..'
.'
~/
"." .,:.
"
.'
'.
.. '.
, .
, .
, .
r
'i
,
.'
.,
..
.
..
.
"
"
. .
.., 3
.
.....
, .
. ..'.
. .
.
.
TO:
FROM:"
RE:
DATE:
-,
.'-'
ME M 0 RAN D U'M
~"1. .
i,
City 'Engineering D~partment
City Water Departm~nt
City Parks Department
Fire t~arshal !
Ci~Electric Department
~ky Mountain NatJral Gas
Mountain Bell [
Aspen Sanitation D~strict
i
Karen Smith, Pl anni!ng Offi ce
~v
///~
i
Preliminary Plat oil the Herron Park Subdivision
August 29, 1977
:;
y
Attached is the preliminar~ plat submission for the Herron Park Sub-
division (also known as th~ Eagles/Andre Ulrych Buchanon Property).
The application propose$ a!six lot subdivision on 6 acres + in the
area behind and including ~he City-owned bus station. Zonlng is a
combination of R-6 and R~3~ (Oklahoma Flats portion) mandatory PUD and
SPA. Four single family Lots would be created by .the proposal; the .
two remaining lots would b~ involved in a land trade in which the City
would acquire a 2 acre pardel (Lot 6) adjoining the river to be used
I . . .
for park purposes. Conver$ely, Mr. Ulrych would acquire the bus
station area (Lot 5) where Ihe proposes to build a new "Eagles" building.
The applicant desires to h~ve the matter placed on the September 6th
Planning and Zoning Agenda! However, in talking with the City Engineer,
September 20th i.s probablyimore realistic. We would appreciate your
comments as soon as possible.
J.J?~ ~ ;2~~00~~~~$er&(J~
~ F ~,.d: tJ-R~'~.-?4- ~eL ~
/t6 ~ ~ ~,o- flaZ ~
cJJ I!
lmk
enc.
.
,-,." I, .-"""'\,
AIt(,
CITY,,,,dF:~'ASPEN
1 3 0 s 0 ~ t h g a1 e n ~ s t r e e t
aspen, !;~~9Ioradoyi' ,81611
i' ''''"'~'''-'':,,\~.; :",><~,,~""J;~ v
iSeptember 1, 1977
"
/"
./
Mr. Andre Ulrych
Box 3809
Aspen, Colorado,
81611
,/
,I
A
Dear Andre:
At a recent staff meeti~g, we discussed your proposed subdivision
and noted that there a~e several inconsistencies in the plan
submitted. For examplel, it is insufficient in detail and survey
discrepancies.
The City is very intereisted in this subdivision, but it must take
care that it observe itls own ordinances. I think it might be
necessary for you, Davel Ellis, John Stanford, Stacy and myself to
have a meeting to disc~ss the timing element of the subdivision.
Sincerely,
Y\A. lO.....( L
Philip S, Mahoney
City Manager
,PSM/pm
cc: D~e Ellis
Ifi;hn Stanford
Stacy Standley
.
""'"
.-'
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
City Engineering D~partment
City Water Departm~nt
City Parks Departm~nt
~ Harshal ;
,
City Electric Depa~tment
Rocky Mountain Natyral Gas
Mountain Bell !
Aspen Sanitation Diistrict
Karen Smith, Pl annilng Offi ce
,LL/
p;;
..//'
.
FROt1 :
RE:, Preliminary Plat o~ the Herron Park Subdivision
DATE: August 29, 1977
V
Attached is the preliminary plat submission for the Herron Park Sub-
division (also known as the Eagles/Andre Ulrych Buchanon Property).
The application proposes a Isix lot subdivision on 6 acres ~ in the
area behind and including the City-owned bus station. Zoning is a
combination of R-6 and R-3d (Oklahoma Flats portion) mandatory PUD and
SPA. Four single family Lqts would be created by the proposal; the
two remaining lots would bcl involved in a land trade in which the City
would acquire a 2 acre pardel (Lot 6) adjoining the river to be used
for park purposes; ConverSely, Mr. Ulrych would acquire the bus
station area (Lot 5) where !he proposes to build a new "Eagles" building.
The applicant desires to h~ve, the matter placed on the September 6th
Planning and Zoning Agenda.: However, in talking with the City Engineer,
September 20th is probablyimore realistic. We would appreciate your
comments as soon as possiblie.
,
lmk
enc.
c) ~,. /~., V'-(.,j' al1.~ /-c_-e;--hZ&/G'l/, ^
, _ /~~ v . .JU:X-CZ:1tC
I~) '1" //h-L// .::-r . . ^ ../ _<'
_y/v'~' '--I ;" , ~)- \.-'~ i,
F /l/-L< /[/l0SG'-'V;Z-~f"
/ff-- (2
/({-c /~v-<--v\((;:"
~
.~
~ E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: City Engineering Department
City Water Departm~nt
City Parks Departm~nt
Fire Marshal <
City Electric Depa*tment
Rocky Mountain Nat~ral Gas
Mountain Bell '
Aspen Sanitation District
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office ~
RE: Preliminary Plat of the Herron Park Subdivision
DATE: August 29, 1977
Attached is the preliminary plat submission for the Herron Park Sub-
division (also known as the Eagles/Andre Ulrych Buchanon Property).
The application proposes a!six lot subdivision on 6 acres + in the
area behind and including the City-owned bus station. Zoning is a
combination of R-6 and R-3D (Oklahoma Flats portion) mandatory PUD and
SPA. Four single family L~ts would be created by the proposal; the
two remaining lots would be involved in a land trade in which the City
would acquire a 2 acre par~el (Lot 6) adjoining the river to be used
for park purposes. Conver~ely, Mr. Ulrych would acquire the bus
station area (Lot 5) where! he proposes to build a new "Eagles" building.
<
The applicant desires to h~ve the matter placed on the September 6th
Planning and Zoning Agenda!. However, in talking with the City Engineer,
September 20th is probablYlmore realistic. We would appreciate your
comments as soon as possib~e.
!
lmk
enc.
''J.v
tf~
P
/
~
.r-'\
../,
MEMORANDUH'
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning OffiCe (KS)
RE: Buchanan Property - Subdivision Exemption
DATE: 'August 18, 1977
The(subdivision exemption request for certain portions of the Buchanan
subdivision follows discussion at your August 8th meeting when you
approved the conceptual applicati on. ,TlJe exempti on request is preci p-
itated by the location of certain portfons of the Buchanan property
which are located in the unincorporated.area of Pitkin ~.
At their August 16th meetin~t~~an~i~!nd(~ommission recommended
approval pf the exemption c ditioned upon that land (north of Gibson
Avenue) being dedicated to pen space and future right of way uses.
Since no development potential and no new lots are created, the exemp-
tion from full subdivision review procedures is warranted. Such an
exemption also avoids the undesirable possibility of creation of an
irregular and definitely substandard building site on those lands in
the County. The public interest is served by preserving options for
future street realignment. '
~~l dfr.~
lmk <{. ~.') I
'[>Y~~'f( ~ t2u-
&- ~"'~~ r ~ ~
~,l.. ff, -
~ (.,l.~.
waC AL~ r"..w'~
~ ~...,t-.~
r-.
1""'.
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office (KS)
RE: Buchanan Property - Subdivision Exemption
DATE: August 11, 1977
Between your August 2nd meeting and the City Council meeting on August
8th, the City and County Attorneys met to discuss the problem of how
to address the portion of the Buchanan Subdivision which is located in
the County. Everyone agreed that annexation was too cumbersome and
the idea of the city processing a subdivision exemption on that portion
was thought to be a good alternative.
We are therefore recommending to you approval of a subdivision exemption
on that portion of the property north of Gibson Avenue, subject to the
condition that the area be deeded to use as open space and right-of-way.
A second condition would be that the applicant meet with both city and
county in order to work out an agreement concerning public ownership
and use by either city or county. That should be done prior to Council
review of the exemption application.
The exemption is justified under the subject conditions since there
will be no development potential if the land is restricted to open
space and right of way use. This will also avoid the creation of an
irregular building site posed by the ownership pattern which overlaps
two jurisdictions. The public interest is also served by the dedi-
cation of land to open space and right of way since the latter may be
necessary for street improvements.
No park dedication is recommended for the exemption: a dedication
will be required of the larger subdivision.
lmk
^
~.
August 11, 1977
Ms. Karen Smith
Planning Office
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Karen,
Would you please process an exemption from subdivision
procedures for those parcels of land North of Gi~son
Avenue which are part of the Buchanan property which
I have under contract to purchase.
r will donate these lands to the, appropriate Governmental
authority pending your processing of this request and
notification of the proper way to proceed in this matter.
l".
Sincerely,
;Iv~~
Andre Ulrych
^
'-",
~
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office (KS)
RE: Buchanan Conceptual Subdivision
DATE: August 4, 1977
The attached application by Andre Ulrych proposes a six lot subdivision
on 6 acres ~ in the area behind and including the City-owned bus
station. Zoning is a combination of R-6 and R-30 (Oklahoma Flats
portion) mandatory PUD and SPA. Four single family Lots would be
created by the proposal; the two remaining lots would be involved in
a land trade in which the City would acquire a 2 acre parcel (Lot 6)
adjoining the river to be used for park purposes. Conversely, Mr.
Ulrychwould acquire the !:ius station area (Lot 5) where he proposes to
build a new "Eagles" building. City Council approved the concept at
a June meeting.
The Planning Office supports the proposal. The major benefit of the
land trade is to complete an important link in the Roaring Fork Green-
way Plan by creating a park area on a two acre parcel along the river-
front. The acquisition of that property was considered by the City
and County two years ago. Another ancillary benefit is the relocation
of the Eagles building creating off-site benefits in the commercial
core. Mr. Ulrych will acquire the existing Eagles Building and has
plans to restore that key piece of property. An historic building on
Galena Street will therefore be improved.
Lot 5 of the proposed subdivision is now included in the SPA plan for
Rio Grande site. This is the site proposed for the new Eagles location.
Two alternatives are possible for future development of this site:
1) to remain subject to SPA procedures or; 2) to rezone the property to
O-Office or some other category which accommodates fraternal organiz-
tions. The latter makes sense because the Lot 5 or bus station property
is a dog~leg and not integral extension of the,Rio Grande Planning.
In either case, the proposed use is consistent with a zoning of the
adjacent areas.
The only reserva.tion we have is that we would prefer the appl icant to
take advantage of the flexibility which the PUD offers to va ~ lot
sizes and cluster residential units on the town side of the river.
This could leave more open area on the Oklahoma Flats portion and
leave the housing where access to town is better and where the sur-
rounding area is zoned for higher density residences. As the proposal
now stands, the single family lots are created in irregularly shaped
parcels which attempt to avoid some topographical limitations, but are
not ideal from a subdivision design standpoint.
While the applicant is reluctant to vary from the 4 single-family
configuration due to the intricate nature of the financing for this
trade, we have persuaded the applicant to make some lot boundary
changes based on discussions among ourselves, the City Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Engineer. The revised plat may not be
available for your packet, but will be in our office and at the meeting
Monday.
..-....
,-...
Memorandum
Page Two
August 4, 1977
Another technicality surfaced in recent reviews, the resolution of which
will be reported to you Monday. Involved is a question of how to treat
certain small portions of the subdivision which appear to be outside
the city limits. The cleanest resolution would be annexation which
would require City Council acceptance of an annexation petition prior
to Planning and Zoning acti!on. In view of the applicant's tight
timetable, this route was at the time of Planning and Zoning consideration
not preferred and Planning and Zoning considered only those portions
within the City.
Provided that the jurisdictional p~oblems could be resolved, Planning
and Zoning acted last Tuesday, August 2nd, to recommend approval.of the
conceptual presentation conditioned on the further consideration o~
several concerns expressed 'by Planning and Zoning members, and the
Planning and Engineering Office as follows:
1. That before Council review of the conceptual presentation,
the applicant show zoning in the plat and consider amending
boundaries between Lots 1 and 2 and Lots 3 and 4 in order
to provide common access to these lots and for parking and
uti 1 iti es ,and further that the appl i cant reconsider ci r-
culation patterns for Lots 1 and 2. In addition, the plat
should show the area north of Gibson as area to be dedi-
cated to open space and right of way and show approximately
an 80 foot right of way along Gibson.
2. The City Engineer notes that the private road shown to
Lots 3 and 4 may not be wide enough and that any widening
required through the preliminary presentation may affect
the layout of building and parking on Lot 5 (proposed for
the new Eagles Building).
3. The City Engineer also notes that a curb cut may not be
desirable on Spring Street.
4. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended consideration
of PMH-type zoning on Lots 3 and 4. No agreement was
reached after further talks with the applicant.
lmk
encs.
r"'-~.
i-'
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
RE:
Planning Office (KS)
, (!,
i J,>>)
i/\/)}" t
Conceptual Presentation (~OJ!.i~L: ~~P<l.tgj
}j"->C/I' C
Herron Park Subdivision -
DATE: July 28, 1977
~
(
The attached application is by Andre Ulrych and proposes a 6 lot
subdivision on 6 acres + in the area known as Herron Park which borders
and crosses the Roaring-Fork River and includes the city-owned bus
station property (a portion of the Rio Grande property). The property
encompasses portions .of Oklahoma Flats. Zoning is a combination of
R-30 (Oklahoma Flats) and R-6 PUD (The old Riverside mobile home park)
and SPA. Four single family lots would be created by the proposal;
the two remaining lots would be involved in a land trade in which the
City would acquire a 2 acre parcel (Lot 6) adjoining the river to be
used for park purposes. Conversely, Mr. Ulrych would acquire the bus
station area (Lot 5) where he proposes to build a new "Eagles" building.
City Council approved the concept at a June meeting.
The Planning Office supports the proposal. The major benefit of the
land trade is to complete an important link in the Roaring Fork Green-
way Plan by creating a park area on a two acre parcel along the river-
front. The acquisition of that property was considered by the City
and County two years ago. Another ancillary benefit is the relocation
of the Eagles building creating off-site benefits in the commercial
core. Mr. Ulrych will acquire the existing Eagles Building and has
plans to restore that key piece of property. An historic building on
Galena Street will therefore be improved.
Lot 5 of the proposed subdivision is now included in the SPA plan for
Rio Grande site. This is the site proposed for the new Eagles location.
Two alternatives are possible for future development of this site:
1) to remain subject to SPA procedures or; 2) to rezone the property to
O-Office or some other category which accommodates fraternal organiza-
tions. The latter makes sense because the Lot 5 or bus station property
is a dog-leg and not integral extension of the Rio Grande Planning.
In either case, the proposed use is consistent with a zoning of the
adjacent areas.
The only reservation we have is that we would prefer the applicant to
take advantage of the flexibility which the PUD offers to vary lot
sizes and cluster residential units on the town side of the river.
This could leave more open area on the Oklahoma Flats portion and
leave the housing where access to town is better and where the sur-
rounding area is zoned for higher density residences. As the proposal
now stands, the single family lots are created in irregularly shaped
parcels which attempt to avoid some topographical limitations, but are
not ideal from a subdivision design standpoint.
We have included the summary and vicinity map in your packet, but have
omitted the conceptual lot layout. That can be examined in our office.
The City Engineer will have comment at the time of the meeting. Aspen
Sanitati.on Di stri ct notes that there is a trunk 1 i ne underneath the Lot
proposed for the Eagles Building and careful engineering will have to
be done at the Preliminary phase. The only item missing from the
application is a title commitment which the applicant promises to
provide in time for your meeting.
We recommend conceptual approval with detailed design problems to be
worked out at the preliminary phase.
.,j
"
,I
[j
!
lmk
,
\:"
TO: '
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
,-.,
M E M 0 RAN DUM
Dave Ellis, City Engineer
Jim Markalunas, Water Department
~pen Metro Sanitation District
Karen Smith, Pl anni ng Offi ce
Buchanan Property ,
/
July 26, 1977
,~
.
.
,This is an application for Conceptual Subdivision and is scheduled for
the next Planning and Zoning meeting which is August 2, 1977, in City
Hall at 5:00 p.m., City Council Chambers. Please return any comments
you may have before that time.
Thank you.
A /~-c/TYD ~~..)-~
V?/e/ _
,J /c--:;J a-- ~ ~
L ~~ -' ~ -~ (../4
(~~.
iJ&L~ ,#j~~ ~
10 ~u-lr~
'~~.
.
~ v&V~
r~
4# ~~
J;k...~c.---y--
., .
.J~4J At
III ,,~
f0.~S~~&b~
~""~iA
~ ~~41~""1WI
~ .~ "61 ~ ':)
~ :0: ~< '" VJ
~ id~ f !
t ~ '" J,r~ '" !
~~),.. I~;-
i!::: Q'
~ (J
~
~
\ ,\
Ill.--
~~;;l
~~,~'
~'Q'\~
~}@\~L
E:-1 _ _'~
t:====:\ F=:),q
e~lll~ ''r..:<
~J~\~~L
~ 1. t::::i~
,~'23~ ~
t'" \Ie:; m\~e:':::' ,/
, ~~1 ~~ ~/'
..~ .,-
'05 ~~ 86 ~~
9N~~d'S' l_n~~~:w
t-:'j. z L-':~;::8 \---'
~ ~ ~ ;..---)"-- ~
. ",~::\ & "2 t:::'..J
-\3 I6s, m
! .Si .. \~~.~J
- ~ '1 ,,7., ~.
, III .",I'l ''S r:i
. ~ ~3'll.1'5 ~ 8:,
,'\II/'l',a \ ;. \~\ J\~.
\' -~ t - ~ __-- '";
t::= ~ 0 -\ ~~,a()" S
- -':1; III m \---""'
-~ S~I/'l 1-" 11 r~-9B '0___- 0
!l ~~~_ ~ '---"1," \:,.:;::1
1;\3-dJ: r:-__\ - - : ~.-\ .. ._' t::.:j' ,,~'s
t:--~ ..--; ,,~ \:::" j.'S ,,3e1 r -"
- ~~. 2~~s-~-- e<J~~:W 4j~~3 ~~~:'
-' . -I" ::::~r-_' \::;::::1 ~~ _" C- \ ~ '~_ \ __~
-- '" :::Jr- - ..')d~V r' --4 r--.:.:>-:-.:\ .....-,
f:::.:"'\ ."'-:l~<;_~,,-::\8> t~J C':.....--\ I='-'-)';:----\. ~J
"'\ ~
Pfol'~e.lJ /VIi#r: ~..e.eQN 1i~K' J;4J,VI&/PA!
*,eeAt:G/e.. , 4cRe-.s -=
4/'M,dr~ ~F 47S/ ~
~ZF p~ LI/1 r-s: <:J:,N'e.;;/~ ~N~~Y ~~~~If/~"'~- I
#- / /.~.3 '>(~~e-~
.2 I. '/~ "
-.3 · .2.'1 I,
~ ' ~o //
..v.etfJ FA4;.u:-S BPa../J/#4J 0/71
:#'$ , $'/ ?f~~6S
H,.4.I ~-,.rY..PA~r
.:;t/~ /-9? -,<f("~r~
7' y PG' t'JjC' L.eJ 7f5.' U';.v4'.(,,!'"' r-""N/-"-,Y R.4V' ;,bt;v,.~;I, ~
.4,,,-.s ~ 2;,.J; ~
s:rRy/t:~ ~""N.r~.....~"", :Z;;Jp..rr~-,,,,,,,
,(.".,. ..r'
#6"" C",,-y II'flPAAP",
4tft1r ~
,~T,e 11& r~ ,eel: ..-94"~,6,e
p~r~ ./
"z:;~;4 ..s'#v~b'" F~/~ """'v.rq
(.i!or..s / r#~tI ..;I)
".vEAl - E"'d;~F.s SIl/~..lI~N'4
(~",- fIII:..sj
,R,A2~ k,:#' 6
~~r4'J I;IJ/M77tf1A1 ~/ J/
~ ~~u AH/~)' 4rr X .,..:: / (0
"* At/,. ~cl€trA4E 191;'/J LoT ~%,t;S ARE" D,c-~/~
Eo'rf;l/AT't$ 7'i:J Ae' YG'~/Fla By .II~T'V;/l. Fie-JJ eS"t/~yq.r.
.
","'~
\\,
I).~'
U vt(>'{
.,-....,
~
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen Ci ty Counci 1
Mick Mahoney, City Manager
FROM: Bill Kane, Planning Department
RE: Eagles/Andre Ulrych
DATE: July 7, 1977
With respect to the Eagles, Andre Ulrych, bus station and City property
trade, there are two key obstacles to a swift resolution of this problem.
Number one'is the Growth Management Plan which indirectly has created
an administrative delay on new subdivisions for residential purposes and
number two is the legal prohibition for the City of Aspen to conveyor sub-
divide any of our Rio Grande property until we have an adopted SPA Master
Plan for all eleven (11) plus acres. As you know, we are quite sympathetic
with the proposed trade and would like to do all that is legally and
practically possible to facilitate this transfer, but I think that some
realistic time projections are in order to not only give ourselves a view
of what we have to do but also produce a response to Andre's time table.
In Andre's letter to you of June 28, 1977, he states two key problems
and two questions. The first relates to the subdivision into four homesites
and Andre's question is basically what kind of assurance can be given to
him from the City to assure that subdivision. The second question requests
what kind of time table we can commit to in terms of conveyance of about
25,000 square feet of land in the current area of the bus station to him
from the City. The situation, as I see it, is as follows: In order for
Andre to even apply for a subdivision, some kind of an exemption from
the administrative delay will have to be granted by the City Council.
Assuming that exemption, any subdivision request will still have to stand
on its own merits and have to meet all the subdivision criteria and rules
and regulations in our subdivision ordinance. Just given a cursory look
at the plat and proposed homesites, I see no problem with the proposed
subdivision. I feel confident that we can recommend approval of it, but
as you know, it is a procedure that does require findings of adequate
access and water and sewer and provisions of public services. Subdivision
generally requires anywhere from three to four months to toally complete
from time of initial submission to final plat recording. In Andres case,
I think he is just looking for a clear reading so that he can proceed with
the property and I think it is realistic and does not anticipate having a
completed recorded final plat prior to acquiring the Buchannon land.
What I have indicated to him is that he should view the conceputal sub-
division process as essentially getting a clear reading from the City as
to whether it would entertain the subdivision or not. Conceputal Sub-
division is something that would take 30 days to get before both the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. My feeling about this,
is that the project is of such significant importance and value to the
City and its residents that it would be worthwhile taking to the Council
this time in order to allow Andre to make a conceptual subdivision appli-
cation. The second part of Andre's question deals with the City's time
table and our ability to convey the 25,000 square feet in the area of the
bus station to him. I think two problems are posed in this conveyance.
First and foremost is the SPA requirement in that the City must adopt a
.
~
,~
~,
Memorandum
Page Two
July 7, 1977
master plan for the Rio Grande property prior to any subdivision. As you
know, I had Joe Wells start this process several weeks ago and subsequent
to that, we ran into the tough luck with Joe going back into the hospital.
However, John Stanford is on thi s now and we wi 11 take a !proposed master
plan to the City Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration at the
Tuesday, July 12 meeting. Prior to that, I will try to have something: pre-
pared for review at our projects meeting on Wednesday, July 6, so you will
have ,an idea what will be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
In terms of estimating a time table for this plan adoption, I think 60
days would be the minimum realistic time requirement.
The second part of this problem is the time table for relocating the bus
station. I know what George Ochs knows about this conceptually, but we
have not met with the bus people and discussed relocation to the airport
or another interim location within the City. However, as it stands:-now,
we are still assuming we can relocate to the airport, but something like
this could be resolved in a quicker time frame than the plan adoption it-
self.
In conclusion, I believe that we should make all efforts to give Andre
a clear reading on his proposed subdivision and trade within a quick time
frame. If exempted from the administrative delay and Growth Management
Plan for now, I believe that Andre could have a conceputal subdivision
review completed within 30 days of submission, As far as SPA Master Plan
adoption goes, I feel as though we could have that together within 60 days.
My real hope in this is that if the Council does consider exempting this
project that that in itself will be a sufficient show of good faith so as
to allow Andre to extend his financial commitments and options and con-
tinue working in good faith on the project. I really don't know of any
legal way to process this program any faster.
cc: Dorothy Nuttall, Esq,
Andre Ulrych
//
r",
~
rCYf/
Lf1
f?!b
All" "
J~:t'~~'~,Le~'
(YJ';t;tt.{/
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office (KS)
RE: Buchanan Property - Subdivision Exemption
DATE: August 18, 1977
The subdivision exemption request for certain portions of the Buchanan
subdivision follows discussion at your August 8th meeting when you
approved the conceptual application. The exemption request is precip-
itated by the location of certain portions of the Buchanan property
which are located in the unincorporated area of Pitkin County.
At their August 16th meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of the exemption conditioned upon that land (north of Gibson
Avenue) being dedi cated to open space and future ri ght of way uses.
Since no development potential and no new lots are created, the exemp-
tion from full subdivision review procedures is warranted. Such.an
exemption also avoids the undesi'rable possibili:tyof creation of an
irregular and definitelj substandard building site on those lands in
the County. The public interest is served by preserving options for
future street realignment.
lmk
".....,
.1""'\
1:::;'
.3ic
'(J{d<L~~
.:..,...
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
,
Aspen City Council
Planning Office (KS)
Buchanan Conceptual Subdivision
August 4, 1977
The attached application by Andre Ulrych proposes a six lot subdivision
on 6 acres + in the area behind and including the City-owned bus
station. Zoning is a combination of R-6 and R-30 (Oklahoma Flats
portion) mandatory PUD and SPA. 'Four single family Lots would be
created by the proposal; the two remaining lots wpuld be involved in
a land trade in which the City would acquire a 2 acre parcel (Lot 6)
adjoining the river to be used for park purposes. Conversely, Mr.
Ulrychwould acquire the bus station area (Lot 5) where he proposes to
build a new "Eagles" building. City Council approved the concept at
a June meeting.
The Planning Office supports the proposal. The major benefit of the
land trade is to complete an important link in the Roaring Fork Green-
way Plan by creating a park area on a two acre parcel along the river-
front. The acquisition of that' property was considered by the City
and. County two years ago. Another ancillary benefit is the relocation
of the Eagles building creating off-site benefits in the commercial
core. Mr. Ulrych will acquire the existing Eagles Building and has
plans to restore that key piece of property. An historic building on
Galena Street will therefore be improved.
Lot 5' of the proposed subdivision is now included in the SPA plan for
Rio Grande site. This is the site proposed for the new Eagles location.
Two alternatives are possible for future development of this site:
1) to remain subject to SPA procedures or; 2) to rezone the property to
O-Office or some other category which accommodates fraternal organiz-
tions. The latter makes sense because the Lot 5 or bus station property
is a dog-leg and not integral extension of the,Rio Grande Planning,
In either case, the proposed use is consistent with a zoning of the
adjacent areas.
The only reservation we have is that we would prefer the applicant to
take advantage of the flexibility which the PUD offers to va ~ lot
sizes and cluster residential units on the town side of the river.
This could leave more open area on the Oklahoma Flats portion and
leave the housing where access to town is better and where the sur-
rounding area is zoned for higher density residences, As the proposal
now stands, the single family lots are created in irregularly shaped
parcels which attempt to avoid some topographical limitations, but are
not ideal from a subdivision design standpoint,
While the applicant is reluctant to vary from the 4 single-family
configuration due to the intricate nature of the financing for this
trade, we have persuaded the applicant to make some lot boundary
changes based on discussions among ourselves, the City Planning and
Zoni ng Commi ssi on and the Ci ty Engineer. The revi sed pl at may not be
available for your packet, but will be in our office and at the meeting
Monday,
".....,
".....,
Memorandum
Page Two
August 4, 1977
Another technicality surfaced in recent reviews, the resolution of which
wi 11 b.e reported to you Monday. I nvol ved is a ques ti on of how to treat
certain small portions of .the subdivision which appear to be outsiqe
the city limits. The cleanest resolution would be annexation whi:ch
would require City Council acceptance of an annexation petition prior
to Planning and Zoning acHon. In view of the applicant's tight
timetable, this route was at the time of Planning and Zoning consideration
not preferred and Planning and Zoning considered only those portions
within the City.
Provided that the jllrisdictional problems could be resolved, Planning
and Zoning acted last Tuesday, August 2nd, to recommend approval of the
conceptua 1 presentati on conditi oned on/the further consi deration on
several concerns expressed by Planning and Zoning members, and the
Planning and Engineering Office as follows:
1.. That before Council review of the conceptual presentation,
the applicant show zoning in the plat and consider amending
boundaries between Lots 1 and 2 and Lots 3 and 4 in order
to provide common access to these lots and for parking and
util iti es ,and further that the appl i cant reconsider ci 1'-
,culation patterns for Lots 1 and 2. In ,addition, the plat
should show the area north of Gibson as area to be dedi-
cated to open space and right of way and show approximately
an 80 foot right of way along Gibson.
2. The City Engineer notes that the private road shown to
Lots 3 anq 4 may not be wide enough and that any widening
required through the preliminary presentation may affect
the layout of building and parking on Lot 5 (proposed for
the new Eagles Building).
3, The City Engineer also notes that a curb cut may not be
desirable on Spring Street.
4, The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended consideration
of PMH~type zoning on Lots 3 and 4. No agreement was
reached after further talks with the applicant.
1mk
encs,
.
r
, "1'
.J~ A J 'Ai.
,.....11I "'~
~. 'U ,~.IrrII\I\~
~.J~tI.......
r ~ '>
~J . 0"'\\ :;).. < A-
., ~ .,.~ '
~~ ~ \l) Iu 4l. '.~" M.
';Z \J ~ ~... ':)
~t\~ .:.~..7~ '-1
~:"It III ~'~
~"l:.::J
~ :;::.)..
'~ 't
.~
~
': 1\
,
'.,
:-J
,
~'
(1"
.
, .
.j,
,"
f"""',
PRofasE.lJ,4/I).A/C.-
"':.
*Re/J~"e: ·
"';tlAI,de-~ f)~ 4rs:
S;ZE' t:).~ Le? :r-.s:
/
'7y''pE r;p L.,eJ~.f
1""'\
.'
"f'c-te.eON ~~,t' J;.bJ,v/~/PAl
" 42,ee;s ::!=
~.
<:D:-..v~LE kN/~Y ~,&e-.v",~
,/" #. / /. ~J '>(~~t..s
2 /. ~~, ..,
..3 ; .2..1 I,
~ .~o"..
..v..e-41 FA~~.s -A'Pa.A/A/& \S/TE"
:#.$ . $"/ ?(e';($.S
tV,..v .... ""rY' ~A~k
.:#~ /.9' ?<1~,('r..s '
.
\S;N'q..t4'" ~#/;t!y 'R.4U' ,.br-'fl'r'.4~' .0r;...
4r.s , ~ 2,. ~ ~
s:r~Y/&~ ~~""';.r-El:::"~~. Z..vJ ~vrA!'"""e.
",pr or
,.v4!"N C,.ry ~AAP~
4t? r- ~
'%t A/..~ ~ cl€~1I ~C I?~IJ LoT~%E""S ARE'" ()~~/d?'
e.6'r1I'//I'TE"S 7D tf5eYe.telF/tJJ BYAc"'~MLAe4J efVtRyq.r.
''1
.~.
.
^
CITY OF ASPEN
13.0 south galena
aspe'n, colorado
?
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 28, 1977
TO: Members of City Council
/'
FROM: Mick Mahoney
sl re e 1
81611
I would like to place the bus station/Buchanan property
trade on the next Council Agenda. Accompanying this
memo is a letter from Andre Ulrychexplaining some of
his problems with the trade.
~ shall ask Bill Kane, and Dorothy Nuttall to comment
by memo prior to the next Council Agenda.
i: see this property along the river as extremely
important to the City's river greenway system tying
Herron Park to our Rio Grande Park. Jiopefully, something
can bend to make the trade work.
,~~~ Bill Kane/'
Dorothy Nuttall
Kathy Hauter
/"'"
'\........--
..",...._<"~''"'"''
.,.'/'...-..--
r
June 28, 1977
Mr. Mick Mahoney
City Manager
City of Aspen
Subject: Proposed City Land Trade - Bus Station Property for Park Land on
River (Buchanan Property)
As we have previously discussed, I have the approximately 5 acre Buchanan property
just North of and adjacent to the City Bus Station property under contract to
purchase for $325,000.00. This contract requires a closing in 60 days with a
possible 30 day extension available contingent on showing reasonable progress
towards completing the contract. About 40 days have elapsed on the contract to
date.
Two integral aspects of this contract are:
1. That the City will trade its existing City-owned Bus Station property
(.51 acres) for 1.99 acres of the Buchanan property lying South of the Roaring
Fork River and contiguous to the Bus Station property.
2. That the City will permit the subdivision into four single family parcels
of the remaining approximately 3 acres of Buchanan property.
These four parcels and the areas to be traded are shown on the attached preliminary
map of the area with all measurements and lot sizes to be verified by actual field
surveys.
As you know the overall purpose of the above contract and related land trades was
to obtain the existing Eagles Building as a new site for my Restaurant (Andre's).
To accomplish this I needed to construct a new Eagles Building and the currently
City-owned Bus Station property could serve as that site. As the City wanted the
land by the South side of the River as a park, I suggested trading that approxi-
mately 1.99 acres for the Bus Station property.
In order to recoup some of my investment in the Buchanan property and to make the
purchase of the property, construction of the new Eagles Building, and modernization
of the old Eagles Building to accommodate my restaurant financially feasible, I need
to sell off the four parcels per the attached preliminary map.
Because of the critically short timing involved in this project it is requested that
this item be placed on the City Council agenda for July 11, 1977, so that reasonable
progress within my 60 day contract timing date may be shown and so that answers to
the following questions can be obtained:
-
;.......
1""'\
~
"'~
~
1. If the City desires to see the above project and related land trades
accomplished, how can the subdivision of the four lots be assured to me so that
I can realistically proceed to purchase the property without risking complete
financial loss?
2. If the trades are desired by the City, how soon could the Bus Station
property be legally conveyed to me in the trade for the riverfront property?
Your help in assisting with the above problems would be greatly appreciated and
in fact. is essential if this project is to finally work.
cr:k ~
Andre Ulrych
.:10-
,
~
1"""\
, ,
P ~1Zb/'17S~(lr~
"
*>/F':'.-
, I
I
l'ht' rorintfd f",tim', cC this form apJH(l,,'C"d hr th~
('ulor:rJ~ nul 1:'IOlh~ C.,mmh,ion (SC :';.lO.jS)
For use in sale of
VACANT U.ND ONLY
---l~
[I
,.
Ii
;
RECEIPT AND OPTION CONTRACT
(VACANT LAND)
May 13
_, 19'12-
RECEIVIW FRmI Andre .!1.!EYch
Purchaser (as joint t("nants), the sum of S--lO) ono j
in the form of ppr"on" 1 rnprk to be b~ld by]!l,vard Y. Hovdesven Re,alty, broker.
in his escrow or trustee account, nscarnestmoney and part payment for the following described real estate situate in
the County of _Pitkin ,eolol'ado, to ,\,'it:
Legal description attached hereto as Exhibit A
and by this reference incorporated in this contract.
.
\v1th all easements <lnd rights of 'way appurten<lnt thereto. ,yhich propert:rpurchaser agrees to buy upon the following
terms and.conditions for the purchase Plice of $: 325.000.00 , payable as follows $ 10) nnnnn
berebyreceiptedfol',. 315.000.00 in certified funds on closing of this contract.
"
,I
"
Ii
Pricetoinc1ude: Former Buchanan residence on Parcel A, Exhibit A and all other
improvements.
1. ~e~!'Oet-~f-~-4:<&-s-e~p.ei:+:t;~Ft..ii~~...;~~ ;Acurrent commitment for title insurance policJ. in
an amount equal 'to the purchase price, at seller's e-r.-t~ expense, shall be furnished the purchase:- on or before
M'~y ?l:l j 19X1-. H-eeP.et-d~~!->;o..Hrrr.~P.-..sa.i4~&U-r..~~t..~ellerv.ill
deliver the title insurance policy to' purchaser after closing and'paythepremium .thereon.~
2. Title shall be merchantable in the seller. Subject to payment or tender as above provided and compliance with
the other terms and conditions hereunder by purchaser, the seller shall exeeute and deHve~ a good and suificient
c:rp(";~l warranty deed to said purchaser on -Se.e--:.a.ad':!. pr-ov. ,19-, or, by
mutual agreement. at an earlier date. conveying said property free and elear of all taxes. except the general taxes
for 19-.J.L, payable January 1, 19~, and except nnne
; free and clear of all liens for speeial improvements now installed. whether assessed 01' .
not; and free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except:
and except easements for: those of record.
and subject to building :md zoning regulations and the following restrictive covena,nts: of record.
3. General taxes for 19-2.1_. shall be apportioned to date of delivery of deed ha~cd on the most recent levy and the
most recent assessment. Prepnid rO:!lts. W:ltcr rents, sewer rents, FilA mCJrt~:uKe jnsur:lOce premiums nnd interest on cr.-
cumbrllnt'l>s, iC::Il1Y. and none
shall be appl/rtionl'u tQ date lIf t!d.i.....tr). of dt:(.~.
__,-1,
---
~u. SC 2G.JO.7:i. Rrui", .nd Ovtton e..nltut C\'.unt f.and) -.Ur.l..lCut.11'u.Llht,il\lt Co.. li.2S.<4.: ~t..ut Slr~t. D"M'..t. C..I.Hado -::1..17
,~
~.
~
J
4. Tho hour nnd pInce of dosinr: shnll he ns dosi!,nnled by _BE?_r_d_ _Y_,-_ll,~~~,sY:~,Il_Rcal t::Y-_,__.
. 5. PQsscssion of premises shall be delivered to Ilurchaser on __2-~!J very o~U~..,gd. __
subject to thcfollowing lenses ortennncies: A month to month tenancy of the former Buchanan
residence,
6. In the e,'cnt the premises are subst....mtiall). dnmaged by fire, flood or other casualty between the date of this
agreement and the date of possession or the date of deliyer). or deed, whichever shall be e~ll'licr. this agreement ma)',
at the option of the purchaser herein, be declared null and void and :my deposit herein made shaH be immediately
returned to purchaser.
7. Time is of the .essence hereof, and if any pn)'ment or any .other condition hereof i~ not made, tendered or per-
formed as herein provided, there shall be the follo'.....ing remedies. In the event a payment or any other condition hereof
is not nmde, tendered or performed by the purchaser, then this contract shaH be null and void and of no effect. and
both parties hereto released from all obli~ations hereunder, and aU payments made hereon shall be retained on behalf
of the seller as liquidated damages. In the event th:l.t the seller fails to perform any condition hereof as provided hel'ein,
then the purchaser may, at his election. treat the contract as te,rminated,and all payments made hereunder ,shall be
returned to the pl;1rchaser: provided, howevcl', that the purchaser may, at his election, treat this contract as being in
full force and effect with the right to an action for specific performance and damages.
8. In the event the seller fails to approve this 'instrument in writing within 14 da)"s from the date'
hereof, .01' if title is not merchantable and written notice of defects is given to the seller or agent within the time
herein prodded ior delivery of deed and shall not be l'endered merchantable within 60 days after such written notice.
then this contract, at purchaser's option, shall be void and of no eifect and each part~. hereto shall be l'eleased from
all obligations llereunder and the payments made hereunder sh<11,1 be returned forthwi~h to purchaser upon return of
the abstract. if any, to seller; providedi howe\'er, that,in lieu of correcting such defects, seller rna)., within said 60
days, obtain a commitment for Owner's Title Insurance Policy in the amount of the pUl'chaseprice showing the title
to be free from such defects and seller shall pay full premium for such Title Insurance Policy.
9, Additional Provisions:
(a) Closing of this contract shall occur 60 days from complete execution of this
contract. Buyer has the option to cancel this contract prior to closing with no .loss
of earnest deposit if Local Government has not approved 2 duplexes on the North side of
the river (Parcel A, Exhibit A) and approved the construction of the new Eagles building
on the bus station property to be traded for Parcel B, Exhibit A. Buyer shall have the
option to extend this contract an additional 30 days beyond the above stated closing
date provided reasonable progress is'being made with Local Government towards obtaining
approval for the aforementioned construction. '
(b) Seller will execute and deliver to Purchaser a quit-claim deed covering any of
the land excepted in Exhibit A as to which Seller appears to have a record interest.
(c) This contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each bearing less
than all of the required Signat~~. Each counterpart shall be deemed an original and ale;
counterparts t02.etlier shall con titute hut nnp an'; thp ~ rr r
10. Upon npprovlIl liereo; by tne sellel' l1lS :lgUen'reTlt snarrbOl:ttIl\e a"tontr&l!''5et'\:.'O~Il,!ere..and purchaser and
\ hall inure ,t\ the b~fit rJthe heO' suceessors,:~j assi: ,o,~ said parties.
'-JY ; \JlA\/\ L~ Agent Bayard Y.Hovdesven Realty
Pu..buer Andre Ul.rych . \J Da"
Purchaser
.~
Seller approves the above contract this day of ~ 19_ and agrees to pay a
commission of nnnp. % of the gross sales price for services in this transaction, and agrees that, in the event of
forfeiture of payment made by purchaser, such payments shall be divided between the s'eller's broker and the seller,
one.half thereof to said broker. but not to exceed the commission, and the balance to the seller.
~/fJ2/.~1-ta~-1.-
Seller Seller
G, E. Buchanan The Colorado National Bank of Denver
Purchnser':i Address
SeHer's Address
.
..
r'\
r-.
/
EXHIBIT A
BUCHANANjULRYCH
APRIL 21, 1977
.
Two parcels of land located in the SE~SW~ of Section 7,
Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal
Meridian, described as:
Parcel A. Beginning at Corner 27 of Tract 40 East Aspen
Townsite; thence N. 15030' E. 125 feet along the East line
of Lot 12, Block 2, Oklahoma Flats; thence S. 70035' E.
110 feet along the South line of Bay Street; thence N. 15030'
E. 282 feet along the East line of Block 3, Oklahoma Flats to
the NEcorner of said Block 3; thence N. 82050' W. 55 feet
along the North line of said Block 3; thence S. 77030' W.
99.46 feet along the North line of said Block 3: thence N.
15030' E. 174.06 feet to the North line of said SE~SW~; thence
S. 89025'42" E. 125.17 feet along said North line to Corner
22 of said Tract 40 East Aspen: thence S. 44035',50" E. 199.79
feet to Corner 23 of said Tract 40: thence S. 450 W. 150 feet
to Corner 24 of said Tract 40: thence S. 45 E. 129 feet to
Corner 25 of said Tract 40; thence S. 15030' W. 257.30 feet to
Corner 26 of said Tract 40; thence N. 74030' W. 300 feet to
Corner 27 of said Tract 40: which is the point of beginning.
EXCEPT: That portion of subject property conveyed to Zupancis
in Book 175 at Page 580 and in Book 198 at Page 480; and that
portion of subject property ,conveyed by Denver and Rio Grande
Western Railroad Company to Kopp in Book 175 at Page 592 (and
subsequent conveyance by Kopp to the Board of County Commissioners
of Pitkin County in Book 198 at Page 457 ): and that portion of
subject property conveyed by said Railroad Company to Herron in
Book 180 at Page 1 (subsequent conveyances describe said portion
by metes and bounds as follows: "-- to angle point No. 24 of
.said Townsite, thence North 24005'24" East 139.28 feet, thence
North 35006'55" East 241.91 feet--").
Parcel B.. Beginning at a. point which is the intersection of the
North line of Block 21.East Aspen Townsite, with the line between
Corners 29 and 30 of Tract 40 East Aspen Townsite, from whence
Corner No. 30 of said tract bears S. 37020' W. 5.55 feet: thence
N. 37020 'E. 117.55 feet; thence N. 55032' W. 80.85 feet: thence
N. 40004' W. 64.20 feet: thence N. 47009' E. 36.95 feet: thence
N. 750 E. 38.72 feet to the South bank of the Roaring Fork River:
thence S. 67033' E. 92.34 feet along said South bank; thence S.
83026' E. 28.17 feet along said South bank; thence N. 37020' E~
23.26 feet to Corner 29 of said Tract 40: thence 5.450 E. 32.15
fee~ to the South bank of said River; thence S. 70039' E. 115.20
feet along said South bank: thence N. 15030' E. 118.06 feet to
Corner 27 of said Tract 40: thence S. 74030' E. 265 feet: thence
S. 17019' w. 28 feet: thence S. 43046' E. 10 feet: thence S. 34020'
W. 99.87 feet: thence S. 41057' E. 54.20 feet: thence S. 02023' w.
111.76 feet: thence S. 50019' W. 48.60 feet; thence N. 88040' w.
177 feet: thence S. 41008' W. 222.50 feet to SE corner Lot'18,
Block 21, East Aspen: thence N. 14050' E. 100 feet along the East
line of said Lot 18: thence N. 75009'11" W. 44.10 feet along the
North line of Lots 18 & 17,of said Block: thence N. 36022' E.
26.46 feet: thence N. 6035' W. 85.92 feet: thence N. 59018' W.
56.37 feet to the North line of said'Block 21: thence N. 75009'
W. 131.53 feet along said line to place of beginning.
EXCEPT: That part thereof not heretofore conveyed by the Denver
and Rio Grande: and that part conveyed to Dorothy M. Mikkelsen,
executrix of the Estate of Arthur W. Mikkelsen, deceased, in
Book 311, page 67.
All of the above described property being in Pitkin County, Colorado.