Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.en.Spring street associates.1978 J 0 MEMO TO: MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FROM: DAVE ELLIS CITY ENGINEER i ts DATE: May 17, 1978 RE: Encroachment Request - ;Spring Street Associates Building Spring Street Associates has requested agenda time to present a revised encroachment request which addresses the con- cerns which the engineering department stated and which were the basis for Council's action in tabling the matter at the May 8 meeting. Also, in your agenda packet is a letter from John Kelley which describes the revisions in the original plan and the re- quested encroachment. John's letter accurately reflects our discussions and the engineering department does recommend approval of this encroachment subject to the four conditions enumerated on page three of my May 5 memorandum and item 2 of John Kelly's May 12 letter. jk cc: Mick Mahoney Dorothy Nuttall Clayton Meyring Tom Dunlop John Kelley r ,JOIIN 'l'IIODIAS KIELI.Y ATTORN AT LAW TELF_ EI0NE P057 OFFICE BOX IIOB ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 May 12, 1978 City Council , Mr. Dave Ellis City of Aspen City Engineer 130 South Galena 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Mr. Clayton Meyring Ms. Dorothy Nuttall Building Inspector City Attorney 130 South Galena 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Encroachment Request Ladies and Gentlemen: This matter is a request by Spring Street Associates for an encroachment onto the city right -of -way at Spring and Main for an access stairway leading to a proposed residential duplex to be located on the partnership property. The request was first brought before Council at your last meeting on May 8, 1978. At that meeting Dave Ellis recommended disapproval of the request based primarily on the fact that, since the proposed building was situated on the northerly boundary line, there would be no practical access to the building in the event the city needed to use all of the right -of -way for some future public purpose, which use would require that the encroachment be removed. Since this is obviously an area of legitimate concern by the city, the matter was then tabled in order to see if some type of more favorable arrangement, from the city's point of view, could be worked out. After consultation with our architects, our contractor, Steve Crowley, and myself met with Dave Ellis, at which time we submitted the following proposal: R e.. c F, fn � � e 'vRADO May 12, 1978 Page 2 1. We have agreed to amend, and, in fact, have redrawn, our site plan so as to relocate the building four (4) feet further to the south. The purpose of the relocation is to allow for alternative access in the event the city requires that the proposed encroachment be removed in the future. By moving the building four (4) feet further into our property, we would have the ability to construct a single stairway on the Spring Street side of our property, which would provide access to the duplex. In summary, we propose that we still be allowed to have the stairways situated partially upon the city right -of -way as per our original plans, but now we have the ability, due to the four foot shift of the building location, to construct an alternate access from the east, should the city require the removal of the front steps. This, we believe, eliminates Dave's concern regarding the encroachment (i.e. that the city could conceivably be put in the position of forcing the removal of the only practical access to the building). 2. In addition to the foregoing, we further agreed that in the event the city should require removal of the encroachment for whatever reason, such removal and the construction of the alternate access stairway shall be accomplished solely at our (or our successor's in interest) expense. This would be a covenant running with the land. 3. We have also agreed that the encroachment license shall contain all of the standard provisions set forth on page 3 of Dave's memo (copy attached). It is our belief that the proposal is satisfactory to the City Engineer's Office and that Dave will recommend approval. Accordingly, we respectfully request that Council grant our application. We feel that the request is fair and reasonable in that it addresses the chief concern of the City Engineer and still allows us to maintain the design integrity of our building as it faces Main Street. Respectfully submitted, John Thomas Kelly for Spring Street Associates JTK /jeo i MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council SUBJECT: Spring Street Associates Encroachment Request FROM: Tam Scott, for Spring Street Associates DATE: May 5, 1978 Spring Street Associates is a regular partnership. Present partners are myself, John Kelly, Dave Baxter and Buzzy Ware. In September, 1974 we purchased the two lots with the old Smith house and office building located there- upon at the southwest corner of Spring and Main from Bob and Judy Smith. Since then we have been trying to settle on a project, which would make sense to us from an economic standpoint and also be acceptable to the City from a public standpoint. The plans for a small (2,600 sq. ft. ) residential duplex before you today are the final results of this three + year effort. In addition to the building plans, I have brought along colored sketches of our landscape- sidewalk- entrance scheme (as approved by the Board of Adjustment) and a model of the proposed building. We are on the verge of getting a building permit. Final financing arrangements have been made with the Bank of Aspen and contractors and subcontractors have been lined up to start construction of the duplex on or before mid - month. The problem, the subject of this request, is with regards to the entrance stairs at the front of the building on the Main Street side. Last word from Dave Ellis is that he will recommend disapproval of our encroachment request, which necessitates our getting on your agenda at zero hour on Friday and making this presentation to you today at your regular meeting. To put it mildly, we were dismayed to find out that Dave is of a mind to recommend disapproval of our front entrance stairway plan. Perhaps a short history may be in order. Last spring Buzzy, myself and Gordon Pierce, our architect, reviewed the duplex concept with Bill Kane and Joe Wells in the Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office. We showed them some preliminary sketches and the same model of the building, which is here today. Included on the sketches and the model and in our discussions were references to the front entrance plan. Bill explained to me that technically we would need to review same with the City Engineer and probably have to obtain City Council approval for these stairs. Basically, Bill and Joe's reaction to the entire project, including the front entrance plan, was completely favorable. They seemed to like the project because it was simple, straight- forward, fairly good looking and functioning and better than any number of possible commercial schemes we might have proposed under the existing code. L4ter on, after our first regular preliminary architectural plans were available, Architect Pierce and I showed the front -2- steps scheme to Lou in the Engineer's Office. Lou indicated to us that there was no particular problem and again advised that when final plans were ready, we ought to check back with the Engineer's Department and finalize the approval process. Again, later on, last fall, after the original stair plan was changed to the present layout, I personally checked with Dave Ellis by way of showing him the colored sketches and the site plan of the duplex project in order to find out how things stood with regards to obtaining approval for the front entrance stairs, in addition to the curb cut and side- walk portions of the project. Dave quickly looked at these things and discussed it with me, sounding absolutely no alarm. Finally, around the middle of the last week in April, Clayton reminded me that we would need some sort of official approval for the front stair plan, as we had originally contemplated. So, I talked to Dave about it on Thursday of last week, and he said that he would check it out with Clayton and let me know if there were any problems. Yesterday, one week later, Dave did check the plans and told me that there may be a "problem" with the front stairs, which problem we discussed at some length and, hence, our dismay. We feel that our request for approval of an encroachment is fair and reasonable because: -3- (1) All past official references and comments on the project as a whole, including the front entrance plan, were entirely favorable, as explained above. (2) The final design of the front entrance stairway plan is, in our estimation, simple, functional and attractive. (3) All segments of the front entrance stairways will be between the new sidewalk (to be installed at our expense) and the new building. (4) Practical considerations of the developments on our side of Main Street (Aspen Savings and Loan and the Playhouse Theatre building) clearly indicate that our proposed landscaping of the City right -of -way area and use of it for the front stairs to the duplex building will not foreseeably conflict with any likely or logical future changes within the public right -of -way areas on that part of Main Street. We, of course, are completely agreeable to executing the standard form of encroachment agreement, which protects the City to the fullest extent. As of this writing, I am unaware of any other reasonable alternatives for attaining entrance to the front of the proposed duplex building, considering the rather peculiar, pre- existing and tightly knit configurations of our lot and building site. I am presently trying to get in touch -4- with Architect Pierce in order to discuss the situation with him and may by the time of the Monday meeting be able to come up with some other alternatives, which may be as good or better than the ones presented thus far. My final comment is that I hope that this request and our presentation in support of it will not be seen as a vendetta against Dave or anything of that sort. Admittedly, we do feel more than slightly misled, inadvertently, by the mentioned official responses received from the city reviewers as to the project and the entrance part of it. Basically, it is, practically speaking, a little too late to change our entire architectural scheme. Contractors, subcontractors are lined up. Final financing has finally and painfully been obtained; and all of this was done on what I would call fair and reasonable reliance on our part based upon the official reactions we had been getting from City Hall in connection with the project. Lastly, we do not feel that Dave's points about the steps being unacceptable on account of being integral parts of the building a very fair or realistic way of appraising the problem, considering the existing developments on this part of Main Street and the size and shape (four lane) of Main Street itself. Thank you for your consideration of this last- minute item, and I hope that you will be sympathetic with our plight. Respectfully submitted,tr, Ivc&E Tani Scott, for Spring Street Associates -5- v xfJ � MEMO TO: MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL FROM: DAVE ELLIS - CITY ENGINEE ` � -2 - DATE: May 5, 1978 RE: Encroachment Request - Spring Street Associates Building This encroachment request is being made by Spring Street Associates for the construction of an exit stairway within the Main Street right -of -way. The stairway would be the primary en- try and exit for a duplex building at the corner of Main Street and Spring Street. After discussions with the building inspector and Tam Scott, a thorough examination of the building plans, and a field inspection of the site, the engineering department recom- mends that the encroachment be denied. In arriving at this recom- . mendation we have examined both our general policy on encroach- ments and the specific site conditions. In support of our recom- mendation for denial of the encroachment we offer the following: 1) A standard conditon for any encroachment is that the City may require the encroachment to be removed from • the public right -of- way at any time for any reason. Consequently, in reviewing encroachments considera- tion is given to whether or not the encroachment is an essential or nonessential element of the structure i.e., could the encroachment be physically removed were it necessary. In this particular instance the stairway is integral to the functionality of the building due to the fact that the entry elevation of the building is six feet above'existing grade and over seven feet above proposed sidewalk grade, Re- moval of the stairs would amount to removal of the required exit. 2) The engineering department adheres to the policy that new construction and major remodels should accomodate existing street grades. If the developer wishes to utilize some grade other than existing grade for his entry,then it is the developer's responsibility to incorporate all necessary structures within limits of the private property, 3) In reviewing the building plans and site plan there does not appear to be any sufficient reason for not locating the required stairs within the confines of the building, or in the alternative, to moving the entire building southerly by four feet to accomodate • Page Two Encroachment Request . Spring St. Assoc. Bldg, May 5, 1978 the permanent structures outside the building yet within the limits of the private property. 4) The applicant has argued that there is no foresee- able use for the Main Street right -of -way since the street is presently four lanes with two parking lanes. The engineering department feels this is an unaccep- table argument in that the City is public trustee for public rights -of -way and cannot possibly foresee all future events which might necessitate the use of public right -of -way. Two examples which illustrate how earlier encroachments have created detrimental conditions are the stairs at the Eagles Building and the stairwell at the Elks Building. Only twenty years ago no one would have thought that separate bikeways would become a common usage within the public right - of -way. It is this type of changing environment which nullifies any argument regarding a lack of specific plans for utilizing the present right -of -way. 5) Tam Scott has stated that he received favorable and encouraging responses to all prior inquiries, This is definitely misleading and out of context, Tam, if anyone, knows how many inquiries this department receives, and he also knows that we do not give final decisions based upon conceptual renderings or pre- liminary drawings. This department has never seen anything which would alert us to the fact that the building entrance was at a minimum of'six feet above existing grade. Had we seen such plans, it is beyond belief that anyone would have authorized such a plan, What was referred to in our numerous phone conversa- tions was "a sidewalk "; sidewalks are commonly at street grade, 6) Exactly one month ago a similar request was made by • Andre Ulrych for an encroachment in the alley to construct an exit stairwell, We recommended against the granting of this encroachment, and in fact, it was denied by Council. In objectively comparing the ele- ments of the Spring Street Associates request with those of Andre's request we cannot find any substan- tial difference. Our feeling is that consistency and • equality in the enforcement of City policy and regu- lations is what gives government credibility. • • • Page Three Encroachment Request - Spring St. Assoc.. Bldg. May 5, 1978 Should you decide to grant the encroachment we would offer the following four standard conditions for inclusion in the encroachment agreement: 1) That the applicant agree that the license for en- . croachment is solely at the discretion of the City Council and permission may be withdrawn for any reason at any time. He agrees that on such request he will remove the structure from•any City right- of -way and all cost of removal and /or demolition • • shall be assumed by him. 2) The applicant agrees that he will be responsible for any. maintenance and repair of the structure or right -of -way necessary to keep the same in a clean, safe, and attractive condition as determined by the City of Aspen. 3) The applicant agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any and all damages or liability by reason of death, injury, or property loss suffered by any person as a result of the placement of the improvements within the right -of -way. In addition, if the City Council shall ever require, he agrees to obtain comprehensive public liability insurance covering property loss and bodily injury or death in an amount at least equal to the comprehensive liability insurance maintained by the City at the time. 4) That the conditions hereinabove imposed upon the granted right to encroach shall constitute covenants running with the land, binding upon him, his heirs, successors, and assigns. • jk cc: Mick Mahoney Clayton Meyring Dorothy Nuttall • • •