The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.su.Aspen Savings & Loan !..~- Record"d 11:25 Al~ Dec~r 26, 1975 ",' "!t- Juli-= tldCJ.e R2cor~;.el~ R..'2:ceptiou No. . 1~.. .l:t. ~";!t~.. ,...:......:.~........~............. .....~. ~Ji1I;l;..W' ASPEN SAVINGS AND LOAN BUILDING" SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT "., t ,,,r~'''' THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 24th day of December , 1975, by and between RICHARD J. ~{BEKER and ALFRED C. NICHOLSON d/b/a RIVERVIEW ASSOCIATES ("Subdividers"), and THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a Municipal Corporation ("city"), WIT N E SSE T H - - - - WHEREAS, Subdividers are owners and subdividers of a tract of land within Pitkin County, Colorado, consisting of Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 75, City and Townsite of Aspen, and WHEREAS, Subdividers have submitted to City for approval, execution and recording a subdivision plat of the above-described property, such subdivision to be known and designated as "Aspen Savings and Loan Building Subdivision"; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered such subdivisio:l plat, the proposed development and the improvement of the subject p.r:operty shown thereon, and is willing to approve, execute and accept said plat for recordation upon the agreement of Subdividers to the matters hereinafter described, which matte:r:s are deemed necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public welfare; and WHEREAS, Subdividers and the City wish to reduce said agree- ment to writing, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 1. Subdividers covenant and agree to and with the City that they will affirmatively consent to and join in the formation of any special improvement district, encompassing all or any part of Aspen Savings and Loan Subdivision, that may hereafter be pro- posed or formed for the construction of drainage improvements or ~\ ,-. '. .- -_fAGE It" buried electrical improvements. Subdividers hereby waive and further covenant and agree to waive any right of protest against the formation of any such district. 2. Subdividers covenant and agree to and with the City that they will regrade the entire alley in Block 75 prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on the subject building and relocate any utilities as necessary. The City will have the responsibility of establishing the new grades for the alley. 3. Subdividers covenant and agree to and with the Ci-.:y that they will pave the entire alley of Block 75 with asphalt (approximately 131 lineal feet). This requirement may be post- poned until completion of Subdividers' adjacent project, but in no case later than September 1, 1977. 4. The City Engineer has estimated the cost of the inprove- ments provided for in Paragraphs 2 and 3 above to be $3,654.00 In addition, the City Engineer has estimated the cost of the land- scaping for the proposed subdivision to be $5,065.00 Subdivider agrees with these estimates and further agrees to provide a guarantee for no less than one hundred (100%) percent of the total of these estimates prior to recordation of this instrument. The guarc.ntee shall be in the form of a cash escrow with the City or a bank or savings and loan association, or an irrevocable sight draft or letter commitment from a financially responsible lender. Th~ . guarantee shall give the City an unconditional right, upon default by Subdividers, to withdraw funds upon demand to partially or fully complete and/or pay for the landscaping or improvements pro- vided for in Paragraphs 2 and 3, or pay any outstanding bills for work done with reference thereto by any party. 5. Subdividers agree to pay to the City prior to filing for record of the subdivision plat, the sum of Six Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-Four and 48/100 ($6,974.48) Dollars as full pay- ment for all obligations for payment of cash in lieu of .land -2- ;-- - .. "...... :. -~.~..~ dedicatinnas required by the provisions ot Section 20-18 of the Aspen Municipal Code. 6. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, City agrees to approve and execute the final plat of Aspen Savings and Loan Subdivision and accept the same for recording in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado, upon payment of record- ing fees and costs to City by Subdividers. 7. The covenants and agreements of the Subdividers herein shall be deemed covenants that run with the land, shall burden the land included within the Aspen Savings and Loan Subdivision, and shall bind and be specifically enforceable against all subsequent owners thereof, including Subdividers, their heirs, personal repre- sentatives, successors in interest and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Y~;J:);)= written. r'~,c~c"~~ ALFRED C. NICHOLSON Agreement as of the day and . '--;,. By' /--:;) . /" " /-"./ 07 (_::::::--<:27 EY, III, MAYOR . //f,"/ t ~.. The foregoing was acknowledged before me this 24th day of , 1975, by RICHARD J. MEEKER and ALFRED C. "ICHOLSON. Witness my hand and official seal. expires: October 1, 1979 ,4~~/d.~/;'/~. ~/eP..-?.J .AY c'lot:ary Public Sandra M. Stuller -3- .-.... ,- ....?"'-- -a9J.62 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. : COU~TY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing was acknbwl!'dgedbefore,ljle<this 24th. day of December, 1975, by STACY STANDLlJ:YIII,ascMayor, and ELIZABETH M. KYLM, duputy city cl!'rk of the City of Aspen, Colorado. Witness my hand and official seal. ~1y commission expires on October 1, 1979. "','\1_',;"-,,, .-\.11 i_'" S\~o,:,::L "<~~ /' "\'l . Vi ,,\" .0 '. . "\ - M' . - , ", ".,P-' \",,) .:~_:. ""- "teA "'-..,:. ," '''- [", '../.' '...:.: '",-" \~'\) ',: <) / {'J'..) ." \ .~ G- "~/"/A_ A'Y1 ~~~~ / Sandra M~/s1:~--"" Notary Public -4- ..,.~ ~. ~ Recorded 11:25 AM December 26, 1975 Reception N.O.O.1S.. 0486 Julie Hane Recl"""'~r ~ .... r '. '-" ~ '\ First ~' /' National , ',< ',' ,/' Bank ..-.._M ~o " ,c,i., '~., ' !\lj', .,...', ,,_,~__,l':l9~.... """'y en ~ POST OFFICE BOX 3318 / ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 / (303) 925-1450 '0001(307 l~OC 53 December 24, 1975 .:~ Sandy Stuller, City Attorney City of Aspen Dear Ms. Stuller, As we discussed on the phone yesterday, The First National Bank in Aspen has agreed to conditionally guarantee to provice funds not in excess of $8,719.00 for the purpose of completi~g certain grading and paving of the alley in Block 75, City of Aspen and for landscaping on the subject property. These funds will be ~isbursed upon written request of the City of Aspen accompanied by appropriate invoices covering expenses incurred per the memo- randum dated November 25, 1975 to Hal Clark, Planning Office from David Ellis, City Engineer regarding the Aspen Savings and Loan Subdivision Agreement, (see Exhibit A attached hereto). Further, this guarantee is conditional upon the receipt by Riverview Associates, the developer of the subject property having received their requested subdivision approval and bui11ing permit in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted prior to December 24, 1975. This conditional guarantee shall remain in full force and eff9ct subject to the above conditions until September 1,1977 at which time the bank will pay to the City the entire amount of $8,719.00 unless it has been previously established by agreement between the City and Riverview Associates that the above described impro- vements have been satisfactorily completed. Sin~erelY, f) W.(~, W. Patterson I'" .-.. . R!veR.YIe~associates First National Bank Building. Box8769 . Aspen, Colo. 81611 . 303/925-4493 or 303/925-2331 Richard Meeker A C Nicholson December 17, 1975 Ms. Sandy Stuller City .ofAspen Box V c... Aspen; Colorac:Jo 81 SUBJECT: Aspen Savings &L:oan Building Subdivisl'on Agreerrent Dear Sandy: Riverview is currently Working with the First Nati'onal Bank In in an attempt to 'Obtain satisfactory guarantees for the eompleti'On'Of certain grading and paving of the alley in Bi'Ock 75 and landscaping 'on the subject project. . The amount that we are attempting to have guaranteed is $8,719.00 per Dave Ellis'sc1'lo1culati'Ons as rioted in his memo 'Of November 25. ,:,...,...:;....,:., In an attempt to accur~tely calculate the valuelof the landiQn which Rlver;"iew must pay a 6% dedicatfon fee to the City on thereeording'Of tJ-le subdivisi'On agreement, we enc~ose a copy 'Of the Oontract iofSale and a eopy1ofthe ree:,rded Deed"tjoth reflecting a purchase price 'of ,500.00. We purchased 26,908 sq\.lare.feet'Oflandat a Cost 'of $9. 72 per . #ciot. We are buildingiQn four tots 'or 11,959 square feet. 6% .'Ofthe this land $6, the City wishesfu challenge the value 'Of basis that the above arTiount is theeorrect ;",' ':, .. .. .. ............ .... .. ,'7::"~.:",:,,_:"'~, ',' _.: Please..JQ riot hesitatefu.call me with any ,",'.~,:~;;~<:f; . Very trvly)iours, RJVERVIEW ASSOCIATES 1~114;luL . Richard J. Meeker ". RJMca cc: DaveE11 is Hal ClarkV ~ / ,.., '"" ASPEN SAVINCS & LOAN ASSN. P,O. aOX2121 . Aspen, Colorado 81611 . (303) 925-1474_5 June 8, 1976 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gentlemen: Aspen Savings Is in the process of purchasing the six lots, gener ally known as the Bennett property, just south of the proposed Trueman Neighborhood Commercial Project. In connection with this purChase, we've examined the plans for the Trueman project. met with the Planning Office. and spoken to Mr. Trueman's architect. As a result, we find ourselves concerned ahout the impact that Trueman's project, In its present form, will have on the area in general and specifically on the Bennett property, a rather large parcel of 18,000 square feet. Basically, we feel that the concept of the T~ueman development is excellent; the location is ideal fo~ a grocery sto~e and post offi e. The project could go a long way to ~elieving vehicula~ pressure in the core area. We Wholeheartedly support the ultimate construction of the Trueman Center. However, we are disturbed by its configuration. Quite Simply, the present plan takes no account of the sdjoining Bennett Property, thereby creating a rathe~ serious planning prob- lem when that p~operty is inevitably developed. A reading of the Zoning code, specifically Article VII~24~7.2C, indicates that a developer is required to file a "precise plan for the area which .. must contain a proposal for the entire area designated as a spe~ cially planned area." It would appea~ this hasn't been done in th case at hand, and such an oversight could certainly be detrimental to the community's goal of establishing a functionally designed, es thetically pleaSing neighborhood Shopping center. DEPOSITS INSU~EO BY THE FEOEIW.. SAVINGS & lOAN INSURANCE CORPORATION ---._--,..."------- = . (" Planning and Zoning ~ommls81on Ci ty of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 ,..., June 8, 1976 Page 2. For example, at the front of the property, certainly a critical de- sign point, the Trueman building is set back only four feet from the side lot line of the Bennett tract. The back of the structure runs east and west virtually the entire length of the Bennett lots, making no allowance for the natural and inevitable flow of shoppers Again, we must stress that we certainly voice no opposition to the ultimate creation of the facility planned by Mr. Trueman. Indeed, we support it and its objectives. Essentially. our sincere support prompts us to raise the preceding questions. Consequently, we're concerned by its final impact as relates to traffic flow and shop- per lIlOvement. The six lots presently being purchased by Aspen Savings will ideall be developed concurrently with the Trueman property. We hope that I the Planning and Zoning Commission will take this into consideration in their deliberations. Especially we feel attention should be fop cussed on ways 00 better facilitate traffic and shopper flow betwee the two properties. Thank you. ~~ Patrick R. Dalrympl Executive Vice President PRD/eav ~ 1"""'\ MEMO TO: Hal Clark Planning Office Dave Ellis ~ City Engineer ~ FROM: Date: Nov. 25, 1975 RE: Aspen Savings & Loan Subdivision Agreement The estimates for the required improvements are as follows: 1) Grading and Paving in alley - $3,654. 2) Landscaping $5,065 At this time we still need a verification of the land value for determining the cash dedication. Presently the plat is being circulated for signatures and the engineering department will review the final agreement draft as soon as Riverview Associates revises it to include a specific guarantee of improve- ments by an approved lendor. P.S. According to engineering department calculation there is a $77.05 refund due from overpayment of subdivision review fees. cc: Dick Meeker, Riverview Associates /"aJi\ ,:~, C I'TfV::::.(~F.. . .... AS PEN 1.\ .li,_~",~,._:.. >,c~.. aspen\.c?!t;ttfi~f{t~;.~.~" box v ''W MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City ,Council FROM: Planning Strff (HC) RE: Aspen Savin~s & Loan - Final Plat Approval DATE: October 23,11975 i. , , , This is a request fori final subdivision plat approval of the Aspen Savings and Loan Buil~ing (condominiumization) located on four lots (12,000 square feet) on Hyman and Monarch Streets, immediately west of the Crystal Piace. The property is zoned D-Office which permits financial institutions as a conditional use. The Planning and Zoning Commission ihas granted conditional use approval and preliminary subdivisiqn approval. ! Originally the bUildi1g plan included a drive-up window located on the west side of the b1uilding, but the applicant has by letter dated July 2, 1975 witihdrawn this request. , The Planning Office reF.ommends approval of this final subdivision plat provided the spec~fic concerns of the City Engineer (see attached memo) are met and the $ubdivision improvement agreement concluded. c:. c-''iNC It /J-f/P"V"", . 04" ~ 1 /77.r , r Iv -td .r + 41.7 u" ,;-. I';-of/, OK// tJ'''/h~ /'r"-'/4-(. I'L~ ot'/P"" --- - - I'" 1'""\ R1veRYIeWassociates RichardMee~er fi,,' Ndt;o~~1 ~nk BUilding. _*'69 . A,pen, CO"" 81611 . )O]/925.449JorJOl!925.2l31 AC Nichol n October 16, 1975 MEMORANDUM TO, Hal Clark PlannIng Office City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado FROM, RiChard J. Meeker Rlver",lew Associates Aspen, Colorado Conl'trming OUr recent conversatiom; conceNling scheduled items on the next City CouncU meeting agenda it would be greatly appreciated if you could get us on for the following two projects, Q Asoen Savlnas 8< Loan But Idi'l!J for whIch we 8."" requesting FiN>J PI", Annroval. You have two copies of the Final Plilt plus supplenwnts as does the City Engineer's office and If your appropriate comments and the necessary signatures are affixed by the 27th we> would be able to present to the City Council on October 28 at their meeting. (JJ yol"...-.h;na r.nnrlnminiums have received Concen"'''! C;'Jhrltv;"ir>n Approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, we are now requesting Conceptval Subdivision .Approv,,"j from the City CCXJncll. @ 5.-"'7 (j) riP- P't P-r ~.4PII', t1r.Jtt"'_,r".... /,I'J.-;"'", tT ,.., I'"'i IUve~eWassociates Richud ker Fi"IN.IW,,.lllankBuilding1' _a1M1' ^'pen, Colo. 81611 . 303In5'4493orJ(l]I~l5.nll ACNkholson August 5, 1975 Planning Office City of Aspen Box V Aspen, Colorado 61611 Gent\elTlen, Per Section ~o-11 of Ordinance 22 (Series of 1975) pertaining to Subdivision please find enclosed 21 copies of the Preliminary Plat for Aspen Savings and Loa;n Building being develOped by Rlverview Associates. Also enclosed you wHl find other data required by Section 20-12. We aSk your cooperation in scheduling us for a public hearing before the Planning Commission as soon as possible. Please contact us with any comments Or questions. ACN/md .~, /}. .".'~ "'" ,-" CITy:.::()p<;,t\':S PEN aspen .c~:1,;~r:~dO;$1~i1 box v .""".' 'i.' MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Aspen City Council Planning Office (HC)~ Aspen Savings & Loan July 23, 1975 < This is a request for conceptual subdivision approval of the Aspen Savings and Loan Building (condominiumization) located on four lots (12,000 square feet) on Hyman and Monarch Streets, immediately west of teh Crystal Place. The property is zoned O-Office which permits Financial Institutions as a Conditional Use. The Planning and Zoning Commission has granted Conditional Use approval and Conceptual Subdivision approval. Originally the building plan included a drive-up window located on the west side of the building. The opinion of the planning staff and Planning Commission is that a drive-up window was indicative of an auto-orientation to the development which is contrary to current planning policy for the downtown area. The applicant has "reluctantly withdrawn" hi s dri ve-up wi ndow fad I ity from the proposed office building (see attached letter dated July 2, 1975 from Riverview Associates). Given the above design alternatives, the planning office recommends Conceptual Subdivision approval for the condominiumization of the Aspen Savings & Loan building. .,...." ' , ~ , ,........ .1""\ ! 0~ .,.0'," RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 _eaves . ~u_.!..,. ~..;"_.:._. ...._..___''___.___~-...,-~-..---------.--...~-.--...--.----.- July 15, 1975 Hunt moved to approve the review conditional thdt soil erosion and vegetation replacement be restored to thf' prcs~~nt or b2t:t0r condition,.. the property that is a par'king lot bt' qi\.."nto Lh,:~ Du:r;ant Condominiums in fee simple, trail e')'sc~:'.('nt. dt':dictlti':nl be given, thi.s be the ultimate dcvelopment on t!1P prop..,,-ty <111'1 no impediments on the ski trail. Collins Reconded. All in fxvo~, except for Abbott, who voted nay. !1otion carri"d. .,~ s~vin~Kane reminded members that at last meeting they hild discuRsed the ~~;;.. . appropriateness of a Savings and Loan as a permitted USe i.... the commercial zone. Since then they have received a letter fro.:n Dick Hecker withdral<ing the request to have a drive up .,-indm... Jenkins explilined that they did approve H';dl 1:,:(:.)t8 office.: "',; permitted but left S. & L's il~ condition,:11. O-o~-;ic~'(h<;i'!1LTtion I docs permit Heal Est.:.lte offices by r1c;ht but ~; [. L i~; condi,tio:lal ' and they have to be revic\....ed by P & z. 'l'hi~; i:: al:::o r()t-C'):lC....ltu~lJ i subdivision. GoodhC'irn asked if thir; 'v:ould b(~ do conc!()I:li:1tU::l un"it .' also with i:dnc rcplyin<j in the uffir:':1.:ltivC'." ..Jc'n}~in:; ~:;did .,:,h~lt thci~ hcsit~tion ~~S ~ith gc~cr~{ing ~orc a~tos "i:lio -tf~c core area but they had either been zoned or maIled out of most are.,s. Kane noted that tlwir m"jor ohjection hild Leen the full s"rvice with it more retilil in charilct(,r but ~ith thc'ir..'ith<l!-"",...,l of tilt' request fo:' tlh" drl\'t.."" up \o:intlc)\\', thv j'l~lnnl :1.q u: t : Ci' ....;d:_~ ::~)t l:-~! 1,'d. -_..._~ ,-...---.-. -. ~ --..,-.--..'--- ,-ceoular ~leetino :l/4'O,cont'd '.- ~"-'" -"~,::)tion ,tion .:allah<ln PUD \( Planning and Zoning Commission problem is not severe. Mojo also noted that applicant docs hilve a parking .lot but has agreed to convey it to tl:c condominiums below. Mojo asked that if approvill is given. thrccprovis~ons be included: l) transfer to the DurantCondorniniu:ns the r-arking lot in fee simple; 2) there.be a trail eaRement dedication; 3) that applicant be the ultimate developer on the 10t. Hibberd noted th.)t he has an emergency access but it is closed off during the winter. It is a 40~ slope but the ground is stable and he h~s had Chin and Associates investigate La make sure. Jenkins asked Ellis to COMment but Ellis said he had not seen the property but engineering-I<ise he felt it was pos"ible to build on the slOpe. Abbott asked how the volunteer fire d<'p.1rtr.;ent felt about it and Hibberd said that Chief ClaDDer folt it wo~ldn't be .)nv harder th.)n getting to the 5th Ave~~e's. Mojo silid thatwhat'they .had to look ilt l<ilS: sufficient w.)t~r pressu~e. ~ere there adeq~ate roads for fire, road maintenilnce, etc. Mojo said they probably should get some imput from thcFire Marshall on that. Also they should look at suitilbility of ground (mud flol<s, <:lvalanche potential), watershed problems and accessibility. Jenkins said that they had done an on-site inspection before and feelings had been at the time th"t it \..a5 too steep. Hibberd said that thcY\....ould hZl'/ee:.::its on ....111 l,_~''.'i.~l_~; ',.::.l:1 dd('qU~lt(~ -;.....at(:'r acc\~ss to the house. Ec~ note'(f that he' h:t(~ be' ',-':l C:it: :Jdck by t.!~(' zoning code and at 16 units, Chicf CltlP!)\'.:-'r h,JI :'~;.1i(~ it \':UU1~::1lt be ,a probl en ~ l.tOodhc im ......a s conc('.:;nc'd OV() 1- t; 1,..:> ~.;no'...; pro'",. i cL:d for skis and Hibberd noted thilt the road \..ould ).)" On L,,) north ,;ide; where there would be a buildup of Snm... i t ! Hunt moved t.o' "r-eC();'::i',','n,.:! to Council t. t :1.Jt. t..ht.\, C:l'~lnt lv:',('!\ :~,l'~.i,>,::~ ji', i'lnd Loan conceptual !;\lbdivi~'~ion tine: th.lt. lhe P l~ ;'. 'Jr':lnt condlllon.', ill Ut;C fOJ: thf,'m. G()().:Jh..'":'irn ::;econd""(l~ ;....11 in '[avor, motion c.::n:ricd. Architects Fritz Denedict i'lnd Pat H"ddalone represented the requent. Kane noted thi'lt thi:> wan for Outline Develo!,,1lent Plan and conccptu:ll subdivision. Ka!lC' Bai.d it would br il mixf'd Uf,C' on the Benedict property. Kane felt it inappropriate for the p" &Z to discllss until t:.hc ,two propcrlie!; who~,;c ilnnexation Ih~ti- tionn h':HI ht"c'n fallmd t L('~l to Counci I, \..'t"}"(' ilCCt.t Itf'l f by CCltlTH" i I . If[l!;t niqh1"~; Council }ldd t(jhJ<-~d the pt'tition:: j;(.(."u:;c' no OIlt." b,<ld bt~(~n there to'rC'pre!a~nt tho projcct~ Kanp alsp t'(']<lt'.('d that the , ~ ~ ; I r [ I t ~". i -3- ( I . ~;e.e...t.e..r~ina~" .. " en Sav~ngs f1 . Sin ...__ .. J -;, .,--- Motion et: ing . -. . , . ioninglCbmmission7/l/75 l,: " Mojo presented the Aspen Savings and Loan project to the Planning and. zoning Comnlission. There are four considerations those being 11 Use determination - a financial institution is not a listed conditional USe and they are making <:.n application to the Board to determine if this is a conditional use, 2) 'I'he request calls for the same type of ruling. fora " real estate office. It was questioned if a real estate offiCe .is a committed or conditioned use within the zones. 3) Toe request is for a blanket approval of the conditional useS that are in the office distrIct and would they be al~owed to own.space in this particular building. 4) The issue is a conceptual subdivision Hunt asked what the difference is between financial institutio: and office space. Mojo said that that's for the Planning and Zoning to determine. Hunt said. that it doesn't matter if they are finemeial institutions, real estate offices, o~ insurance companies; they are offices. Jenkins said that tOe problem is in the zoning eode;there are conditional uses and. permitted uses but this is not under either one, they are listed under con~ercial core. Mojo replied that financial institutions are a listed use in cOIMlercial core but not in office space, so it's up to the board to determine w.ether they are a permitted or conditional use in the zonp. . Jenkins suggested that issue *3 be discussed first since it is a conditional use and that means. that it has to be reviewed. The intent. is to look at each individual application and the "Planning and Zoning Con~ission' s recomnlendati;on is to give no blanket permission for all.conditional uses. The P & Z would like to lOok at every use that goes into the building. Issue 11 which questions if a financial institution is a conditional use or permitted use in 0 Office zone. By having a drive up window or an auto oriented office the Planning De>partment doesn't thipk that th<:lt >::hould be in 0 Office zone. '1'h~ P&Z fee.ls that that isn't compatible with 0 Office zone; it isn't within the intent of the zone to have this kind of orientatior Financial instituions are allowed in commercial core for this reason. They operate as a retail functi.on and h,IVC all the good and bad points of a retail function .E\nd for this reason the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that finRncial institutions do .not be permitted for conditional.us€ in 0 Office Zone. 'I'he arguments .for having a drive up window for the Aspen Savings and Loan were that this type of irstitution is a.low key operation, and since the institution is in an automobile o.riented area that by not h<:lving i, drive up window they \'lOuld be doubling up on automobiles. in that areD. Jenkil felt th<:lt if this was approved without the drive up windO\. th< later they may feel that they aren't being treated the same as the other facilities and feel that they cun'tcornpete >::atisfactor i ly because they. don't haveLhc drive up v:inqO\., Jenkins also mentioned that the .Planning and Zoning Commissiol has created the situation where a car orie>nted business cilnnot be put downtown. Jenkins was not in favor of the driv. ul? window. bC,ciH,se it creates a nC'ed for the automob:.le and instead of parking the car in one spot they will be able to drive around with it. Hunt moved to inclu;'le a financi<:ll institution as a conditional Use under 0 Office Zone, seconded by Dobie. All in f.:lvor, motion carried. Noja took the second issu"e whieh was that the requec;t calls f the same type of ruling for real estate offices. H2al estate offices arc .not strict:ly a profcssionalofficc they opc,ratc needing access to vehicles. Jenkins felt that <:l!; l:>ng as the parking meets with the code thot he would have no O,)jcction to the use. . ..2- , ~ <1 , RECORD OF PROCr;:EDINGS 100 _caves ~.. c:.'....~nut..,...I.:~.$. Regular Meeting .. Motion Aspen Planning and Zoning July 1, 1975 Hunt moved that use of 0 Office motion c.arried. real estate office be included in the permitted' Zone, SecQndedby Jenkins. All in favQr, i , j The third issue which is the conditiQnal-use QftheAspen Savings and Loan was discllssed. Kane said that the p.ilQSQphy of the 0 Office zone was that there shQuld be off street parking and it is brQadly lQng term parking. Office space has Qne hQur Qr maybet~"o hQur parking. which attracts cars to. park therefQre it is low key lQW intensity automobile turn:::.ver use. Kane felt that a drive up windQw invites tr.:>ffice and may cars. And that with a drive up windQwpeQple WQuld be taking their cars to. the institution just fQr that reason, therefore creatil more cars in the dQwntO\m area. If .the building has access by parking Qutside and walking inside then people think differently about the way they organize their trip and will spend the day downtown. A drive up facility would not encour- age that. Meje felt ..that if Aspen Savings and Loan turhed into a full scale conunercial institution, like it might have the ability to do, people could have their savings and checking account in one place and may pull business away from the commercial banks and the customer would then have to use the win:1owmaybe ; for 10 minutes at a time. Pat DalrYlnple, representin:l Aspen Savings and Loan, said that if ~h~ Planning and Zondn:l ~elt th.:>t the area already is an automobile orientedi'lrea; Jenkins said that they don't want the preblem compounded. Jenkins. made a motion to. approve the condi tonal use .of Savhlg and Loan in the 0 Office District in the particular Savings and Loan District but that they de not. include or exclude the drive up faeJlity and include in the parking requirements the specif ied zoning park ing requiremetns for the use in;he area. Motion Hunts.:>id that he didn't like the idea of completely shutting them out; if the Commission decides only parking then in the future that will shut out the possiblity of them ever having a drive up windml. Mojo susggested that if thcCommission votes down the condtional use of the building that Aspen Savings and Loan could come back and present another another design Qf the building and come back for anothcr condtional use. Otte suggested that since the Planning and Zoning had two vacancies that this be tabled since they \.wre tied pretty much on the decision. ---Hotio!)---- Dobieu-made a motion- to table until the two vacancies were in favor; Hunt was Oppos(~d. the Aspcn Savings and Loan filled, seconded by Hunt.. /1otion Carried. prQJec All I Pat Maddalone originally requested that the Callahan Subdiv be put on the ilgenda fer official conceptual Subdivision con- sideration. It wasn't possible because there arc portions that are in the ceunty; therefore, before any action is taken the entire area has to belong to. the City until the petition for 'annexation hns been initiated. . Callahan Subdivision !;oritz Benedict presented the Callalliln SubdivisiQn ilnd stilted that all the land' they are interested in \o:as includcd in the project. The zoning is R-15, R-5 illld R-20. lie introduced Lee Drowl} who has suggested to llC'tledict the possibility of usi.ng the land for tcnnin courtn, handbO:lll, squa~~:h,t;'1nd stcambathshowers. Brown would likQ to j,f'C the LH:ility ur;ccl as a single type facility but.still have it open...to._tbe pUbliJ: . -3- , -. -. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Staff RE: Aspen Savings and Loan DATE: July 11, 1975 This is a requ~st for conceptual Subdivision for condomin- iumization of the building and for a determination of uses. At.the July 1, 1975 meeting of theP & Z, the issue of conditional use approval was tabled due to the drive- up window request. The applicant has by letter, dated July 1, 1975, withdrawn the request for a drive-up window faciE ty. In view of this withdrawal, the PlaIlning Office recommends approval.of the conditional use request and conceptual Subdivision. ,... ,..., IUYeRYIeWassociates fi"IN.Hon.lll;onk~vikling. Box87(,<l . A'f>en,Calo.8161\. 30lI91S"'49lD<lOJI92S_Ull RiCh..dMe~ker ACNkhojson July:2 1975 Planning & Zoning Commission Planning Office City of Aspen 8o,V Aspen, Cola 8151j Gentlemen,!, At the July 1, 1975 meeting of the Planning 8< Zoning Commission the issue of a drive_up window for Aspen Savings & Loan was tabled until the next regularly scheduled meeting. In attempting to maintain the spirtt of the new zoning code as well as the wlshee of the Planning Office and some membe..-s of the Commission we reluctantly withd....w OUr drlve_up window facility from OUr pr<;>posed office building. We ask you to schedule uS for your next meeting and speak to the issue of conchtlonal use approval for Aspen Savings and Loan without the drive-up window and also request from you Conceptual Subdivision Approval under Ordinance 22 Appreciative of your consideration We remain Very tl'\Jly YOUrs, ~VERVfEW ASSOCIATES ~/~ iChl~ . Meeker .J>.. ... -,~.~ ~ ,-, ,-... CITY. o;.F' ... S P N :,:.:.::' 'i;;.} :<: A. E 'I....,. "I"".. , aspen .C~f9;~~'O:.8'6'11 box v '.'''.' :," .'. , "'it MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Staff RE: Aspen Savings & Loan Building DATE: June 25, 1975 This is a request for conceptual subdivision for condominiumization of the building and for a determination of uses. The instant appli- cation is to locate Aspen Savings & Loan, a financial institution, in the O-Office zone, and to determine whether real estate offices are an allowed use. The third request is for blanket approval of all conditional uses. Taking 1. the issues in order of presentation: The plans call for the location of Aspen Savings & Loan on the ground floor of the proposed project with a drive- up window located on the west side. It is the Planning Office position that the drive-up window is an indication of an auto-orientation that is contrary to current policy. In addition it is well known that savings and loan associations are lobbying for demand deposits (checking accounts) to be included in their operations. Commercial banks are essentially retail money stores with the attendant traffic and congestion associated with normal retail operations. If this lobbying effort is successful Aspen Savings & Loan could function as a "retail" use and this is clearly contrary to the intent of the zone. ".... . . , .- - ,. MEMORANDUM Aspen Savings & Loan Building June 25, 1975 Page Two Financial institutions are a permitted commercial core use, and it is the opinion of the Planning Offi ce thi s use is i nappropri a te for the. O-Offi ce zone. 2. Real estate offi ces, while not stri ctly "profess i ona T" offices, operate in such a manner that they are a suitable use for the O-Office zone. The type of product that they dea,l in requires access to automobiles in order to market it. It is the Planning Office position that the parking required for the O-Offi ce zone co- incides nicely with this marketing characteristic. The intensi ty ofaetoi useu;is sb6btlilat0ltt does;;.llot;~appear to be in conflict with the intent of the district, and therefore it is our recommendation that real estate offices be a permitted use in the O-Office zone. 3. It is the Planning Office position that blanket approval of conditional uses in any zone is contrary to the intent of having certian uses conditona1. It is our recommendation that each conditional use be evaluated on its own merits. 4. The conceptual subdivision presentation appears to be suitable inmost respects. The defects are noted as follows: a) The tract size is in error, it should be 11,962 square feet instead of 12,000 square feet. . . . '. .- ."""". MEMORANDUM Aspen Savings & Loan Buil ding June 25, 1975 Page Three b) Architectural scales are not acceptable for subdivision submissions. c) The parking space calculation is not in accordance with current zoning regulations. Following correction of the afore mentioned items. the Planning Office recommends conceptual subdivision approval. - ~ . . . . I" .~ . L,o:." ~ .1 Richard Meekj' ACNichol. n fi"tN..",nalllankBuHding' ~&?~q "A'f>"n,Cclo.Blbl1' 3031915.449J0130l/92;.Hll June 17, 1975 Planning Commission Clty of Aspen 80. V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gentlemen: Enclosed please find data necessary to comply with the Conceptual Presentation for Subdivision as p!"Ovlded for In Ordinance 22, Series <:of 1975, Section 20-10. Per 5ubparagraph (a) this material is being presented fourteen days prior to the hearing date which we anticipate to be July 1, 1975. Per Ordinance 11. Sarie.. of 1915, Article II, Section 24-2. 18 we are requesting a determination of uses from the Planning and Zoning Commiesl on the following: (1) Is a Savings & Loan Association allowed to own or lease office space In the o-Of'fl.ce Dtstrict?or more specifically the South one-half of Block 751 Our thinking is that a Savings & Loan has more of a business/professional non-traffic oriented operation than the noN'TlaI ftnanclal institution such as a commercial bank. (2) 1$ a real estate office al lowed to own Or lease office space .n the o-Offlce District or more specifically the South one-half of Block 757 The definition in Article Ill, Section 24-3.1, Paragraph S, does not include real estate offices, but the further explanation of Professional Office would seem to include real estate i.e. "others, who through training, are qualiftedto perform services of a professional nature, and where limited storage Or sale of merchandise exl...ts". - "" .'" . .. . - . Planning Commission Page 2 (3) Will all of the coOOltional uses noted in Or<:linal1Ce 11, Page 9d, Office, be permitted to own or lease space in the South OI'lEl-nalf of Block 75? Appreciative of your consideration of the foregoing, we remam, Very truly yow's, RlVERV1EW ASSOCIATES ~~:L ?? :h~;1& Enclosures J ; DAvtD R. SUMQN A~"T1ioN'Y J. MAZZA JOHN D. LASALU: t"-. "'" SLEMON & MAZZA, P. C. "ATTORNEYS AT.UW 434 EAST COOPER AVENUE POST OPJl1CE Box 3219 ASPEN, COLORADO 81Gll June 13, 1975 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE: 925- 2043 This is to certify that Richard J, Meeker and Alfred C, Nicholson, d/b/a Riverview Associates are the owners of the following described real property: Block 75, Lots K, L, M, N, 0,. P, Q, . R,and S, City and Townsite of Aspen, and that Andrew Burden as executor of the estate of Gero Von Schultz Gaevernitz is the beneficiary of a deed of trust on the aforesaid property and that there are no other persons or entities claiming any interest whatsoever in the aforesaid property. Very truly yours, SLEMON, By: c. , MAZZA & LaSALLE, P.C. 9J,~d1L John D. LaSalle