The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.su.Margaret Meadows . '~> - 'Recorded at 2:Q5 P.M 1teception ijo. .,,-?8429 Oct. 10, 1975 Julie Hane, Recorder ~ BOOK3fi41'l~f B4 RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this~O day of &_7__~) ,1975, between MARGARET CANTRUP (Owner), whose address is 360 Park Avenue, P.O. Box 852, Aspen, Colorado 81611, and THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO (City), a municipal corporation, whose address is P.O. Box V, Aspen, Colorado 81611, WIT N E SSE T H : ---------- WHEREAS, Owner is the record holder of title to Lot 1, Margaret Meadow Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado (the premises); and WHEREAS, the building presently siituated on the premises contains three dwelling units consisting of a two bedroom unit on the first floor and two studio units on the second floor; and WHEREAS, the City's Board of Adjustment did on June 11, 1974 grant to the Owner a small lot variance for the premises in connection with the subdivision of the said Margaret Meadow Subdivision subject to certain conditions as modified on July 3, 1975; and WHEREAS, Owner and City desire to set forth herein the covenants and agreements required of Owner by the Board of Adjustment, NOW, THEREFORE, Owner and City hereby agree as follows: 1. The City agrees that the present use of the premises and the building situated thereon as three separate dwelling units shall be permitted to continue as a nonconforming use subject to all of the provisions defining and governing nonconforming uses as the same '-', -- 8001<304 Pf,GE a5 are set forth in the applicable City ordinances now, or from time to time hereafter, in force and effect. 2. Owner covenants and agrees to and with the City that for so long as the above described use of the premises shall continue and for so long as such use shall be a nonconforming use under applicable laws and regulations, the occupancy of the building situated on the premises shall be restricted as follows: (al Not more than 2 persons shall occupy each studio unit, and (bl Not more than 6 persons shall occupy the entire building. 3. The covenants and agreements herein contained shall be deemed covenants that run with the land, shall burden the premises and shall bind, inure to the benefit of, and be enforceable in law or in equity against all subsequent owners of the premises, including Owner, her heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest and assigns. 4. This Agreement and the covenants herein contained may be amended, altered, modified or revoked at any time by an instrument in writing executed by the City and the then owner or owners of the premises. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed ...... . .l '\' '" \ .,"."'. .:-< ,:..., o. ,'\ thi, Agreenent ao of the day and year firat ~ritten. Ma~~ ~1i ~"-...") '"" / .,./ CITY 6F Age~' /( "",,">~/ ",/ BY ~/ / /) -'AT,TEST::. ; " ,',.."..... ",,- .' , ,~8.'i:',/. ,4 #~~ .' ~ City Clerk ':,"10",>,\\, ~ Mayor ~/ -2- . . 1"""\ 1"""\ , BOOK 304 PAGE 86 STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) foregoing instrument was acknowledged day of c:Y~e-J , 1975, by ~ ~~~?:T and/~___..;..J ,/.,&." ~s City Clerk oflre CITY 0 ASPEN. p7 my hand and official seal. commission expires: &~/ ~ /7' :;:;;' ~.a<'';'c;;,~';;/:P1~~./ - Notary Public The foregoing hnstrument was acknowledged this 9~ day of ,~~~) , 1975, by Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. OF PITKIN ) -3- - ,,,,'.... , Recorded 2":15 PM Octo,....,. 9, 1975 Reception No,. ~. ~ i783~ Julie Hane Recorder teOK 304 P,!,QG 05 SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ~ day Of~~ , 1975, by and between MARGARET CANTRUP (Subdivider) and THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal corporation (City), WIT N E SSE T H : ---------- WHEREAS, Subdivider is the owner and subdivider of the Margaret Meadow Subdivision~which consists of two improved and developed lots within the City as more particularly shown on the final plat of such subdivision recorded on June 16, 1975 in Plat Book 4 at page 521; and WHEREAS, the City approved said subdivision plat on June 9, 1975, upon the Subdivider's agreement to make adequate provision for certain improvements and other concessions deemed necessary to protect, promote and enhance the public welfare; and WHEREAS, the City and the Subdivider wish to reduce said agreement to writing, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Subdivider acknowledges that the present design requirements of the City's Subdivision Code contain re- quirements for street surfacing, storm drainage facilities, sidewalk, curb and gutter construction, undergrounding of utilities and other such necessary improvements. 2. City acknowledges that the general area within which the Margaret Meadow Subdivision lies was platted and developed prior to the adoption of all of the pre- sent design requirements and does not wholly conform '. l"'-. ~. SQOK3U4 PAGE 06 to such design requirements. In lieu of requiring Subdivider, with respect to the two lots in said Sub- division, to install subdivision improvements which mayor may not conform with similar improvements that may subsequently be required in the general area, the City, as a condition to approving the subdivision plat, has required the Subdivider, for herself, her heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest and assigns, to covenant and agree to join, and to waive any right of protest against the formation of, any special improvement district that may hereafter be formed for the construction of such subdivision im- provements. 3. Subdivider covenants and agrees to and with the City that she will affirmatively consent to and join in the formation of any special improvement district, encompassing all or any part of Margaret Meadow Subdivi- sion, that may hereafter be proposed or formed for the construction of any improvements required by the City's subdivision ordinance as now or hereinafter in force and effect. Subdivider hereby waives and further covenants and agrees to waive any right of protest against the formation of any such district. 4. In the event that the City, at any time or from time to time, shall construct or install any improvements required by the City's subdivision ordinance, as now or hereafter in force and effect, which improvements service or improve a general area including the lands within the Margaret Meadow Subdivision, Subdivider agrees, upon demand, to payor reimburse the City for that portion of the actual cost of such improvements which is pro- -2- .---. 1"""\ SODK 304 l;j'~f'!"" r,UI.. 07 perly allocable to the Margaret Meadow Subdivision, pro- vided, however, that the City shall be entitled to such payment or reimbursement only if such improvements are constructed or installed over an area which includes at least one of the following described minimum areas, to-wit: (al Both sides of Park Avenue for the entire length of the city block within which the Margaret Meadow Subdivision is situated, or (bl Both sides of Midland Avenue for the entire length of the city block within which the Margaret Meadow Subdivision is situated. Subject always to the minimum area requirement set forth above, the City shall have the right to construct or install such improvements in phases or increments, e.g. curbs and gutters in one year and sidewalks in a subsequent year, or Park Avenue improvements in one year and Midland Avenue improvements in a subsequent year, and Subdivider shall payor reimburse the City for each successive phase or increment. 5. Subdivider covenants and agrees to and with the City that, at no cost or expense to the City, she will cause the improvements on Lot 2, Margaret Meadow Subdivision to be hooked up and connected to the sani- tary sewer system of Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District on or before October 15, 1975. 6. The covenants and agreements of the Subdivider herein shall be deemed covenants that run with the land, shall burden the land included within the Margaret Meadow Subdivision, and shall bind and be specifically enforceable against all subsequent owners thereof, including Subdivider, her heirs, personal representa- -3- <" ~, -- BOOK 304 P,!GE 08 tives, successors in. interest and assigns. 7. City acknowledges receipt from Subdivider of the sum of $1,200.00 as full satisfaction and discharge of Subdivider's obligations under the applicable subdi- vision ordinance to pay cash in lieu of the conveyance of land to the City for public use purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. "c .~ ~l .J I ,'.{ \. \, '.......... .V/:j , ~ '" <',;::,\>' .... (0," ">~':::;D;~:::~:-"-<:_<-<,, ;, '\ '/;.. . ..' :,',~A;T~s's'll't: ' :,\t.:;;;.,;.,:,,;'.J; / 1 By ,....,~.,..... - 4#a ~ <:/"":"'.': ',~'\"""';'" -.",... ".',' , " ,] ;;<'i~_',!.:;;~~_ ~__ ", L (J'r: ,," ..,.... C~ty Clerk ""'/'"""",\;1"" Mayor ~" STATEQF.COLORADO - '...,~ . ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this ~~ day of &-~-6-W , 1975, by Margaret Cantrup. ,k:.r:,<:' Witness my hand and official seal. .}'m';:.,.,......,,,,.,, My commission expires: ~~ ~?4fc~ 19'.~'~~,,\'1;~c',,:'::~~\ '-1'-'/1 ~'..' Wf"'l'" '::',:, otar'y>p . -- ljcdr ; u. ' """.'.-"-' 0 ,"--.I : Q:. ~. ..~ "!;;., .t . ;> ". i-.,"'" ,( ;;d....'.,.~<\,"'., , ,.... ) "!JlliH\~\~< '~',--,,:,:,' ----''.:::''.r'r~'" The foregoing was acknowledged before me this,~';~(i day of B~ ' 1975, by :/:;!-, ...~ ~7T7 . .' as Mayor and v~~. )~ Ah}. as City k of th~ Ci ty of Aspen - ,,....~.c:;"",,Witness my hand and official seal. '::"::".~::,{:{<~}r;i. commission expires: a.~ --: /9-~ <~\:\;::':,,\ IL~fl;~) r) " :. ~.\ C, : Q . - ~otary Public I () U \-':...-:' .,: /'<;;:<,:. ...... \,><<);".. ii' {'\\ ,.,., ' STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN -4- t Recorded 2:17 PM O~r 9, 1975 Reception }To. .'~ "... 178.......Id Julie Hane Recorder 1I00K3I14 P,\,ijt .. IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this ~ ~ Uay of tJCl;{~ , 1975, between RICHARD and BONNIE FE,RRELL (herein- after called "Ferrells"), and the CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a Municipal corporation: WIT N E SSE T H : vlliEREAS, the City of Aspen did on June 16, 1975, approve the Margaret Meadows Subdivision subject to the agreement by the subdivider, Margaret Cantrup, to make improvements, waive objection to the establishment of improvement districts, or contribute to the construction of improvements, all of which commitments were to be itemized in a subdivision agreement with the City, and WHEREAS, prior to the execution of a subdivision agree- ment, the final plat of the subdivision was recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 521 and Lot 2 of the subdivision was conveyed to the Ferrells, and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties to insure that any obligations to improve assumed by the subdivider are equally binding (with reference to Lot 2) on the Ferrells, and enforceable against them, NOW, THEREFORE, in Consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived therefrom, it is agreed by the parties as follows: 1. The Ferrells, for themselves, their heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest and assigns covenant and agree to join, and to waive any right of protest against the formation of, any special improvement district that includes Lot 2, Margaret Meadow:sSubdivisioIl, and that may hereafter be formed for the construction of street surfacing, storm drainage facilities, sidewalk, curb and gutter,construction, undergrounding of utilities and such other necessaiy<irriprovements required by the City's L.....-. c, -, ,- , ~o0l(3U4 l'AGt18' subdivision ordinance as now or hereinafter in force and effect. 2. Perrells 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 Lot 2, Margaret Meadow Subdivision, that may hereafter be pro- posed or formed for the construction or any improvements required by the City's subdivision ordinance as now or hereinafter in force and effect. Perrells hereby waive and further covenant and agree to waive any right of protest against the formation of any such district. 3. In the event that the City, at any time or from time to time, shall construct or install any improvements required by the City's subdivision ordinance, as now or hereafter in force and effect, which improvements service or improve a general area includ- ing the lands within Lot 2 of the Margaret Meadow' Subdivision, Perrells agree, upon demand, to payor reimburse the City for that portion of the actual cost of such improvements which is properly allocable to Lot 2 of the Margaret Meadow. Subdivision, provided, however, that the City shall be entited to such payment or reimburse- ment only if such improvements are constructed or installed over an area which includes at least one of, the following described minimum areas, to wit: (a) Both sides of Park Avenue for the entire length.of the City block within which the Margaret Meadow Subdivision is situated, or (b) Both sides of Midland Avenue for the entire length of the City block within which the Margaret Meadow Subdivision is situated. SUbject always to the minimum area requirement set forth, the City shall have the right to construct or install such improvements in phases or increments, e.g., curbs and gutters in one year and side- walks in a subsequent year, or Park Avenue improvements in one year and Midland Avenue improvements in a subsequent year, and Ferrells shall payor reimburse the City for each successive phase or incre- ment. - -~- - '., ,-.. - ~oQl<ao4 fN,t .. '\ 4. ,F~rrells covenant and agree to and with the City that, at no cost or expense to the City, they will cause the i~provement on Lot 2, Margaret Meadow, Subdivision to be hooked up and connected to the sanitary sewer system of Aspen Metropolitan Sewer District on or before October 14, 1975. 5. The covenants and agreements of the Ferrells shall be deemed covenants that run with the land, shall burden the land included within Lot 2 of the Margaret Meadow SUbdivision, an<:1 shall bind and be specifically enforceable against all sub- sequent owners thereof, including the Ferrells, their heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest and assigns. 6. It is acknowledged that, by separate subdivision agreement, Margaret Cantrup, the subdivider, will covenant and agree, in like manner, for the construction of improvements for the entire subdivision (including Lot 2), and that.the City may proceed directly against the Ferrells under the provisions of this agreement independently of any recourse it may have, by virtue of separate agreement against Margaret Cantrup, her heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. 7. The City agrees that on execution of this agreement by Ferrells, it will approve and enter into the subdivision agree- ment with Margaret Cantrup and finalize the subdivision approval proceedings for the Margaret Meadow Subdivision. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,t,he parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. ,'"',,.-.... STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. : COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was duly acknowledged before ""'It'~ Y. /? '-,~ ';"....;."H".:.~t;.'\. Witness my hand and official seal. .~ .,.,.. b, ';') v 0.", ~ ~ . .,,: ("\,."" ". ;; ~ ,r '.~ i .~.J .,.$'~xf~~s:' ,s; /97#. ': \' ".!';:'...., \\,).. Q'::::. . '\ "'1'\1\" .:~<; ~ .... ;' ) ,) / .~. :;"' ,5' ."" ,~.~. '-;'] / , J::1 .....f..U.~ 0'/' ,'~ "-,. 'Fl.':' or: C. ,,\' 1""",":1;;"<1,,\1\.,\1 ~ day of ttd"Av , 1975, by RICHARD FERRELL. My Commission ,- ~/~ Notary Public "- -, -3- '" . , --- ,.....- " , s@l(.a04 f-.\Gr JI ~~ '. i . .. BONNIE FERRELL ',) STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. :/ COUNTY OF PITKIN ) me this j.lff day of . d(.JI~ The foregoing instrument was duly acknowledged before , 1975, by BONNIE FERRELL. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission e~~~,~~~.~~/P/r. >7 ,'eI' /~'~':":;:~:~I'~~<~;"'~' '~i ...... .... ~O~y ~A_ -, " ".\ \ \,' \, I" ., '.-' ,,',' -: \,."'" "'-., t ,~":;;" ,~ -<>--:~<".- J. I /_;;? ~ I), ""~ ',j ~~) ~. /" .;, --.' I) '" . / <;) 2 THE CIT OF A ., ORADO "";-;:"""'""""6<;:'':!~'/ .~ /::--~ _ r .'\ "". ;' _~_ --'-" , .' OF" ("\)'.""'_'~"-' .---..'' ...-.. __ " I, .'__' ~ ','.! : ,I., \ \ .,I~: ;'H~:'::"~: ;"';""i,., 1\ F ;..", 0'1,,' ",'1 (;, '; ,,\......,~,H. .';! /,)\. -.. ':":';/"'.""\<'- ....~, ) '%'!T:ES'j::. "',.,? '" ',,' \{~~t>.,:~:~ TJ jT ? .' >, .. ',"',,:,"Xa'lft.l':trYfi'" l $Hauter .:<'ctt.i . C~&r~>: ~,:-.- j-' ,,~,,""t 'r'k' I,. """ ",'''';'''" " '.'~':);'{:.::'!z~.\f~::~ii:t. 'S'FiI:~E OF COLORADO .~.~ ley II~YOr (fi1, . / ~. .' ,~, ':?~. ) ) ss.: ) COUNTY OF PITKIN me this ~ day ot&~ The foregoing instrument was duly acknowledged before , 1975, by STACY STANDLEY III, Mayor, and KATHRYN S. HAUTER, City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado. expires: ,Vitness my hand and &~f,/ft?9 official seal. My Commission ,I \ ~\ \ j \ H ""1 (1,", "" " \~:..~.~JV(/ 1/\'....-\ ._':.~1'p)',~~ . J~i. n / :~:~~V~<" \ _,;,,'_"A" : /~~d~~"l ,) r, ;.'.-. ~ . . \ \) :',", , ~'j~' f '.\ '\ .~"r_~ ,,\. "v '~" ...- ..: .~;:':J )/. ", .." ,.;;. , .F'. c....~~.~. \ ,v,' !, /",~... ",' 1"\\'1>' .' ,,: 0 !:'~ tt:~.,.." "",:, -4- -----'-',,-.~'~-'-~_._"_.,---- " 1"'. 1"', HOLLAND & HAR'r ATTORNEYS I."T LAW n:L.E:PHC'NE 292-9200 ARE:A COOE 303 500 E:OUITABLr;:.aUILDING 730 SEVENTEENTH STREET OENVE:R,COL.ORADO 80202 CAGLE ADDRESS HOl.HART,OENVE:R PLE;A5E REPLY "'0: MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING 1:>. o. BOX 1128, ASPEN,COLORAOO 81611 TELEPHONE: 925-3476 AREA CODE: 303 July 8, 1975 ~,',~ I Yi-""I\\~\5 . The Board of Adjustment Ci t~,. of Aspen P.O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Case No. 75-13, Margaret Cantrup Dear Chairman Dukes and Boar On June 26, 1975 you heard the app ~cation of Margaret Cantrup for eli..Tl\ination or modification of the conditions imposed by your decision of July 11, 1974 in Case No. 74-19. At the close of the hearing, Mr. Smith suggested that the Gondition might be modi- fied to provide as follows: (a) so long as property; Present uses be allowed to continue Hrs. Cantrup or her heirs own the (b) Restrict occupancy of the upstairs studio units to not more than two persons per unit; (c) Automatic reversion to single family residence use upon sale or transfer of the property to a third party. I indicated some concern about Condition (c). Mr. Smith indicated that he was concerned about the poten- tial density of up to 18 persons so long as three dwelling units exist. I agreed to address myself to that problem and make an alternate proposal. I have discussed the matter with Hrs. Cantrup and have made the followingreconunendation with which she concurs. We propose that the present use be allowed to con~ tinue subject to irnnlediate maximmn occupancy restrictions as follows: (a) Not more than 2 persons in each studio 1"""'\ HOLLAND &HART 1"""'\ The Board of Adjustment City of Aspen July 8, 1975 Page Two unit, and (b) Not more than 6 persons in the entire bUilding. I believe that this proposal offers significant benefits to the City and to Mrs. Cantrup's neighbors without unduly prejudicing her. These are: 1. It restricts total potential occupancy to single family density in conformity with the present zoning code, S24-3.lI. of which defines "Family" as: "Any individual, or two (2) or more persons related by blood or marriage or between whom there is a legally recogniz~d relationship, or a group of not more than six (6) unrelated per- sons occupying the same dwelling unit." 2. It is simple and immediately applicable. The simplicity of the condition speaks for itself; a maximum occupancy restriction is merely a matter of counting noses. The fact that it is immediately applicable overcomes a potential legal problem. The law has traditionally looked with disfavor Upon con- ditions that spring into being, if at all, at some undetermined time in the future (Rule against Perpetuities) and upon conditions that tend to hamper the free transferability of real property (Restraints against Alienation). A condition which automatically required reversion to single family pse upon.l'<ale or transfer might be void under either or both of the foregoing legal rules, At the very least it would require a J:air amount of legal research before either the City Attorney or myself could assure you that such a condition would be valid and legally binding. An immediate occupancy restriction avoids those problems. 3. It is enforceable. Occupancy restric- tions have traditionally been upheld by the courts. Both the City Attorney and I are confident that we could draw a legally enforceable document embodying the occupancy restrictions which I have proposed. 4. desirable for of the zoning It affords housing options which are the City. One of the stated purposes code in S24-1.2 is as follows: .- 1"". Hm_I,AND & HART ~ The Board of Adjustment City of Aspen July 8, 1975 Page Three "M. To insure that moderate and low income housing is constructed to satisfy local needs and insure that a proper balance is achieved between tourist and residential housing. " 'Under our prOposal a wide variety of housing options are .available. A couple CGuld occupy an up- stairs studio; or a small family could occupy the downstairs if the studios were occupied, as now, by single individuals. Such options are available without overcrowding problems because of the 6 person maximum building occupancy restriction. . 5. It is fair. The City and the neighbors are concerned primarily with maximum density. This proposal answers that concern by imposing single family density (not more than 6 persons) in an area where the surrounding use pattern as shown by our exhibits is duplex density (up to 12 persons). Mrs. Cantrup is reducing the density potential on her property to ~ of the density potential enjoyed by her inunediate neighbors. That is a fair concession in return for the right to continue her existing use. r believe that our proposal achieves benefits for the City without wiping out the applicant. I further believe it strikes a proper balance between the legi- timate interests of the public and those of the landowner. I earnestly solicit your favorable consideration. Yours ve~~ Moran JTM:mm cc: G!ty Attorney Planning Office Housing Office Mrs. Geraldine T. Hobgood Mrs. Walter Stroud ''''''''-f(' l.~ {,.II} , -'~- ,..., , ~\ '. '. : '. Re")'ular Meeting Aspen .City Council Ju,ne 9, 1975 CounciJ.manBchrendt moved t.o reC\d Resolut.ion #29, Series of 1975, seconded by Council- woman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. RESOJ.,UTION # 29 (Series of 1975) WHEREAS, Ramona Markalunas, has ably and f'ait.hfully served as a member of the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, and, WHEREAS, such service ,has contributed to the continued prosperity of the City of Aspen and the accomplishment of its.goals and programs, and WHEREAS, the City Conncil vJishes to commend Ramona Harkalunas, NOh', THEREFORE, BE 1'1' RESOLVED BY 'l'HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, .'COLORADO, that by this Re~.ollition Ramona t-1arkalunas be, and hereby. is, commended fot her service to the City ot Aspen, and that this commendation be spread upon t:he public record of this Ci ty. BE IT FURTHER RESOI~VF.D that Ramona Markal~n3s as evidence of service a copy of this Resolution be presented to the appreciation of the City of Aspen for , I her Dated this 9th day of June l.975' Stacy Standley, Mayor was read by Councilm<l.n Behrendt Council\voman Pedersen moved to approved Resolutions *27, #28,..iI29, SdJ:ies of: 1975: seconded by Councilman .Wishart., All in favor, motion carried.' ASPEN VOLUNTEER F'IRE DEPAE'l'HEN'I' - Special ~vent, Permit Hugh Slo,,;j.nski and Ri.chard l-Hllcr of the Fire Depal:trncnt presE.mted this permit to t;h~ Cit.y Council. They t.old Council that, the Fi.re Department has in the past had a fircvlOrks disply up on Aspen Hountain. They would like to expand' this into a barbeque and street: dance to be in conjunction with the fi.reworks. ..This.would also be a good lead .in to the Bicentennial .:::;<::J.ebration that is coming up. Slowinski toJd Council that the barbeque \.JQuld be held in \'Jagner Park starting at 4 p.m. 'l'he Fire Department had cont€lcted Parks Director Ted Armstrong and the Fire NarshQl. They \,,)11 be1:-Jilling to comply with any stipulations and rules the City nw.y have. city l'.ttorney Stuller told Council that under: the City's rE:vised criminal code, there is a ~ection that alcoholic beverages may be consumed in a public place Hith the wri ttcn permission of: the City J'.1anagcr. 'rhe applicant. mus,t provide adequate policing f conLrol, and clean up. Slowinski told Council the Fire Department Vlould be \o,'illing to fence off that part of the park used for drinking the 3.2 beer they would like to sell. Councilman Behrendt questioned selling beer during the fireworks and the crowd control during this time with the small children that \"lould be there. Slmd.nski sahl, t_hey were try'ing to run this event as a family affair and only a small portion of the park would be used to' sell beer in. Councih\'oman ."Johnston asked what area ',of the park \vould be used to serve beer ar..d '\\'ould there be a charge for this barbeque. Slowinski' answered f yes, there vlOulcJ be a cha.t'ge. The proceeds'will be used for. equipment for the Fire Department, possibly an expanded paging system v.'ith the, Aspen Police Departmcn't. There \vill be a reasonable price for the bC1rbcque and also a charg~ for the beer.. The arca to be u,sed would be in the neighborhood of the bandstand so that everything would be conta.ined in that area. Res.. # 28 1975 Nal'kalunas Fire Dept.. 4th of July Darbeque & Street Dance Sale of 3.2 Beer Dick l'-!iller also mentioned that there would be an interndepartmcnt.al water fight on Water Fight. 1-1111 s'treet and asked pennission at this time to have the portion of the block from Rubey park south to Durant street closed off. Councilwoman Pedersen asked about indemnification to the City. '1'he Fire Department said Jnsurnnce they did not have ins.urance. City Attorney Stuller suggested haVing the City's insurance compi.'tny put an insurance binder on for this one day. Mayor Standley indicated he felt thi.s ",'las a fair contriblitionto this eyent. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to .approve, the special event permit to sell 3..2 beer in Wagner Park on the Fourth of JulYi seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried. . STREET CLOSURF. ~ Skate B.oard Contest There was no one present to discuss this item. MARGARE'r HEAD01;>;S SUBDIVISION - FinalSubdi.vision James Moran, representing Margaret Cantrup, told Council this 'proposed subdivision is a t the corner of Park and Nidltlnd aVem.le. All the existing buildings have been on this propert.y since 1959. The purp05C of goin9 through sllbdivi~d.on is to give each building its O\"n lot so thtlt one of the lots can be sold. Moran told Council the sUbdivision agreement h.Jd beell given in draft form to' the City and that he and the City Attorney had tlgrced on the modifications' that the City want.s. Moran was' afjking final subdlvison approval from the Council. YDnk Mojo, of till' pl:u1I\inq dq),'lrtmc'llt, t;xpl;:\inNl to Cnuncilthis ....'tlS <1 n~qut':;t In divid\' these' parcels in"t;o two lot.s. In t-1arch 1974 t.he P & Z gran,tcd conili Lion.:)] Pl-"] imin.lry subdivision \vhich crc.:lted two smtlll lots on the provision that Narqdrct Canlrup requL'~;t It VaJ:iallC(~ from the Board of ^djusLm(~nt.. In July 1974 the Bonrd of AdjuslJncnt 9r.J.nted . . Nargaret Headows "!--- ~ ..., ~,'- Hargarct Hcadows ,J -.:.-, Subdivision negulations j .- 1. , i. ~., ,......\ Regular ~1ecting Aspen Ci1.::y coupcil June 9, 1975 , . a small lot variance on ~ t.ilt~ condition tha~: the triplex be turned into a single family residen:cc. In June .1?7:" th8 P & Z gave fl.na.l. approvaJ to the subdivj sian subjcct to thc.c,onditions r:peCl.flcd by the plannl.ng and engJnccring departments. 'l'herc arc no major problemswi.th Ud s subc1ivislon. '1'hc' engllwc>rJ.ng dcpartnl(~nt has requested a five foo.t right-of-way ~llong Pm:k AveJlue, und th<.lt .the subdivider shall commit to join an improvement district. and waive rights of protest.; to an 'improvement district. Mojo told Conncil that the planning office recommends final subdivision approval c~md.i..tion on. compliance with any Board of,Adjustrtwnt decision, Lot ~12 hook up 'to the se....ler by Octobc-::- 3.1, 1975, all leases be restricted to six months if the triplex is allol-Jcd t;o rC!tl,l.ln. A 4 per cent cash dedicati.on is recommended us there is insufficient land already.. The enginpcring department would like a conunitri"\cnt to pZly construction costs for sidewalks, streets, paving, gutters when the City deems this necessary. Noran informed Council t.hat the only problems he had with the requirem'ents is that he would like to be sure that in conunitti.ng to reimburse the City for improvements put in that it be part of a plan that involvlJS at least the entire block, Noran said he wanted to avoid any possibility of call~ng on that pro~i5e for just this piece of property, Mayor Standley asked what the status of the Board of Adjustment decision was. Mor'n ans\V'(>red that this case was scheduled before the Board of Adjustment. If he was unsuccessful, then the triplex must be .t.'eU.u:ned to <'1. Dingle family dwelling. Hayor Standley asked if it vlasC:lppropriate t.o nppr(lvc this subdivision before t.he case had been reviewed h.y tJ1C Board .of Adjustment. City Att,orncy Stuller said that decision did not affect any elements of the Council's approvaL Naja pointed out t.hatthe use of this d\'!clli.ll'J as a triplex or a' single: family' dltlelling ......ould not impact the tr<:l.ffic or parking of this area. '1'he planning offi.ce docs ash that if the triplex is allowed to remain,'- th<1t the ).('Hses should be si.x months at least. City Enl)inecr Dave Ellis t.old Council he had no pJ.~obJ.cms and was only askiTIfJ for an additional cOll'tJai trnent to .pay for. possible cos'lsof going through an im.provement district. 'l'hc City would do these improvements more than on(~ lot. at: Cl. time. Councih\'oman Johnst.on asked if the non-conforming use changes hands, does it remoin non-conforming. City Attorney Stuller said that it does not lose its 'non-conforming status when Changing hands. Councilwoman PedCr3Gn moved to grant final subdivision approvali seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in' felvor, motion carried. SUEDIVIsro~ LAND DEDICNJ'ION REQUIHEHEli'J'S Planner Bill Kane told <:;oullcil that on April J.4, 1975, the new subdivision regulation were adopted Ly Council. Subdivision activity is, par<J.llcl to new population to the communi t.y, therefore, lRnd dedicati.on requirements should be made to deal wi t,h the needs for public park lands. The old requirements wen:;~ based on flat percentag'e basis. Any form of land dedication should be adjustC;.~d on population basis. Yank Mojo, planning department, expl<:J..i.necl t.o Council he would be using two terms to relate t.o the dedi.cat.ion requirements; "new" which are t.he requirements in the code at: present and \-l{ll become law after sixty days, "proposed" Hhich are the changes recommcnd(:~d by the planning and zoning conrrnist;ion c:md the planning dcpar-lmcnt. . Mojo told Council that both the new and proposed land dedication requirements hi the commercial and offi.ce areas are a 6 per cent straight value of the improved lnnd; 6 per cent of the market value of the land, For R/MF, Mojo used a chart t.o illustrate the proposed requirE::ment:.s. A tract of 12,000 square feet in the H/NP zone could contnin 9 on02:-b~droom units,S t....m-bcdroom units or 3 three-bedroom unibj. Bas(,!d on the people multiplier in the subdivision rcgulntions, there would be 1. 3 people. per one-hedroom unit and?. 7 pcoplcp0.rtwo-b.edroom uni t. If you take that multi.plier a.nd multiply by t.he number. of units, you get the number of people on t.hc site. You t,hcn multi.ply the number of people by 5 acrcs per ~,OOO pcople or .005 acre per person. If you take 'these three numbers, you end up wlth a dedication of 28 per cent- of the t.re.ct of 12,000 square feet. Nojo pointed out: on the chart. tha t 'lhist.Jould be all of one 3,000 square foot lot ~md part of a second. '1'he proposed requirements would change the dedication multiplier to 2.5 acres per 1,000 people which \-,ould reduce the dedication in halft.o 14 per. cent in~t.ead of 28 per cent.. Mojo reminded Council that the old dedication requi.rements in the !vlF zone were a straight 4 per cent, but. most conc1ominium projects 9'ot out of that under the lots and. block exemption provision. In the R-6 and R-l5 7.ones Mojo told Council that the siz.e of the tract did not matter; what matters is hO\.; many people go onto the tract. In a single family d...'elling, you will get a dedicatIon predicated on four people on the tract. Under the new regulations. 870 square feet or cash equivalent \oJOuld be Uie dcdicntion t.o t.he City for single family~ The proposed recommendations \o,'oulc1 be. <135. squilre feet, or exactly half o[ the new regulations. P & 7. also felt t:hat. thcr:eshould he a floor on the dedication requirement Ci'llClll,ll'l'cl on u pt'rc('nlaqc b<l.sj~. '1'lw J"C'comnK'ndtltion is () pf~r ('('nt. of the lrtl.ct or the amount: q<'lh'l"<lh',l by tlH~ p('0ph.' mult.iplil'r, '..:hil:ll\'\'('r is qrl'.lh,t.. Under the t1,('W reqllli1tion.s"jn H-() lhl' p~'o!lh' qeIH.'Lltor for ~l sillq]{' f;lI11ily (h,,<,"llin<j is H70 HqU;ll"I' f('I'!.: fOt. J>~H.k dedication; () pt'r c('nl L; 3GOsC111<I.l~C r('t~t t:o th.lt tlw people qcnerilt.or is OVer twice iH; mtJch d~; t1w per ('('ilL floOl" [or <1 fd,nqlc L)lHiJy dWI.'llin<J in thc.~ H-6 zone, or about. 14.5 per GI..'nt. In R-15 exactly the S;'llle <:lmonnt. of ground or c'a.sh equivalent i5 dedicated but the pcrccntaryc of t.Iw tr<1ct if; mnch different:.. If 'you apply Uw G per cent hnse to the n(~\... n'l..Ju]"l.ti()tl~: in [{-l'i, hp(,r cr'llt, of' l~I,()O() ~,i(I1.1<1n' f('i'l i~, gOO nqu,.lr0 feQl. In t.h(~ R-G zone, you n,..'.:lch Llw people 'Jl~nf~rilt:.orfirst; in H-l~, you will run into Uw G P{'l' ~.~gf~l)f~,~lf~;l~'~-<:,~~_ - "",,'~- ~ ~~~>> _~.~ -"~"--~~ft'''''''~___',"""",~ ~_ ~~ ~~,lZ.1IC\'j.,;.."" ,~,>J."t1!>IiI'!*,~" .. 1""'\ ""'"' MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Aspen City Council , I" P} ann i~g Staff .. .. SUBJECT: Margaret Meadows - Final Subdivision and Exception DATE: June 6, 1975 On March 19, 1974 the Planning and Zoning Commission granted conditional preliminary subdivision for a' two lot division of .235 acres or ~ 10,276 square feet. One lot containing a duplex on 6,000 square feet and one lot containing a triplex on about 4,300 square feet would be created. As a condition of approval, the P & Z required the subdivider to go to the Baord of Adjustment for a variance to create a lot of less than 6,000 square feet. The Board of Adjustment granted a variance to create a "small" lot on the condition that the tri-plex be turned into a single-family residence. The Board of Adjustment hearing was held on July 11, 1974. On May 6, 1975 the Planning and Zoning Commission granted an exception from strict compliance of Section 20-5 as it relates to the time between preliminary plat approval and final plat submission, and granted an extension for final plat submission until July 11, 1975.' On June 3, 1975 the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the Final Plat submission, and gave final 'approval subject to the conditions specificed by the Planning and Engineering Departments. Final subdivision review by the Planning Office indicates that all referral letters are positive and that there are no significant problems associated with this subdivision. The engineering department has requested that five (5) feet of right-of-way be dedicated on the east side of Park Avenue, and that the subdivider commit to join and waive rights of protest for any improvement districts proposed for the area. The Planning Office concurs with these requests and rec- ommends final subdivision approval condi~ioned on: 1) compliance with these requests, 2) compliance with any Board of Adjustment decisions relating to this subdivision, 3) that Lot #2 shall hook up to the sewer system, and 4) that all leases be restricted to 6 months or more. S) ~% '~A ~c,wJ(/~ (P,) C6ft1M ~ rlH61J[ VO. f~ fOl0m~ C(JrJ~{ftR/orzdJ.J olZ- ro rarlJJ1.8()rc:SGJ~ . ;::c, te.. Ce;u~)') f)~ ~ %~~~/JJ:s~~~;;~ ~~ikff~&Vr " ~ ~ F;[:.c.onn or: PF:OGFED~h~GS' 100 Leaves !. '~:,_-fl,c:. ~":;~';:":,:::::;c;.:~':::::";:;'_':;C,::_::';:';::""':-":;::;~':;,:;'=~;;';.::'::"'::'.'c.:::":"-",,=:~:",;,~::': :';._:';;';~ ; ~..-.-,_._.-.". "~_. _,,_."-=.::::~::;;:~'';;:::~:7.:'':';':,.":_ -. - "--- -;:;::c_-= -= ~ -.:...;:;;.- =-== ~ ..;;...=.~=-;: ,:_ __;:-:=.=:= ~_....;.. RC:_SI}~~.~~Eul;s:(~t.~,.!}S __,__.__!'] n nn i j.~~I_f.._..~<:?!2}. 1'1 ~L,_~S.:1~E~~~!2E:..:.~~?Jl . June ~-L-!.27S _ MeetinCf. v!as.called to ordC'r at 5:00 p.m. with mcmbers Spencer Shiffer Bry<m Johnso.n., HeSTer llur~t/fJacJ~ lTenkiris, Chic];. COl1:i:ru;, Hike Ot.t,e, and I'lltrick Dobie p,rcscnt. Also prosedt wch:'c Yank Mojo, (;ity/Coun\:y Planner ],anc" and ;John Stanford of the Planning Office. Approval of Minutes There were n.o minutes submitted from the Spt~cial Mceting of Nay 14, J,975. Change of Agenda Schiffer moved that the projects be completed first" seconded by !Junt. All in favor, motion carrieq. Centennial Palo"k Concominiums/Concep- tua1 Subdivision / Mojo cxplaincd to members that: a Conceptual Subdivision Presentation is similar to the Old Ordinance 19, Conceptual Presentations where just a rough sketCh plan gives a develop8r an idea leihether he should go ahead. This conceptual subdivision is a reques't for subdivision on 4 lots of lot 27, zoning is H.i1'"r which would allow 9 one bedroom condominiums. Bayard Baverstein explained that t,h8 project will be beside the Larkspur Condominiums on East hopkins. There will be 9 on8 bedrooms, 3 stories high, three apart,ments in a row, the apartmen'ts will be back on the river, and is4 lots, l2,OO sq. ft. The population will be based on the Ci,ty Code which read 1. 3 people times 9 units, OJ~ 11. 7 people. Mojo 8xplain8Cl that the prupose of Conceptu, Subdivision is to address the ir;sU8s of 0.8nS1. ty impact in the area suitabili'cy of the land for development; pret,i basic preliminary issues.. HaveJ~stein mentioned that thei1 objective is to have long range permanent residents such as himself and the other pEwp18 who are involvE!d in the planning process of the proj 8Ct. Schiffer question8cJ the suitability of land for.subdivision. Bojo explained that the land is flat and it is already plotted lots and blocb wi thin t:he City. Schiff8r ask8d if Haverstein had compliE with all the new requirements as far as the scale, sketch plan, etc. Hojo replied t,hat the sublllission had been complet8d as far as. the new r8gulations. Thenext step will be the pr81iminary public h8aring. The Commission d08sn I t concern t.hemselves with the final plat the Planning Department and the Engineering Department concerns themselves with th8 final plat; they concern themselves with the conceptual stage and aft8r this conceptual state it g08S to Council for conceptual approve befor8.it continues on into preliminary. Schiffer questioned that because there wer8 no plans submi.tt8d and ,:mnted to knol-l if a one bedroom turned into a two bedroom what l-lould happen. Mojo explained that in the Regulations there is no clausc stat,ing that no point in time approval of one stage is a guarantee of approval of any other ~;tuges. l\t t:-I-1e preliminury Subdivision there will b8 a complete set of drawings. , Notion Johnson moved to make a r8conunendation for' approvla to City Council, seconded by Otte. All in favor, Jllotion carried. ). J1.1argaret Headows- ~nal Subdivision J Hojo explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission granted them an extension for submission of t,h(= firw1 pIal around early l\priJ.. 1?he location of Margaret NendOl-IS is - Hi.,Hand Park and lliglllmy 82 in th8 east scction of east.er! part of town . ~'he propoflal is to apli t Meadows propurty into two lot,f:; one con tid,nin<] a duple)): ,1n<1 ono conti! inin,) at: tbir; poin L a tr ip1(',;. Ol)() of the PJ."c,l:i.minilry pL..I L apprqvals Vias too <]0 to the Doan1 of Adju31'1llt'nt concood.nq ! . MeadO\,!s Cont 1 d " / Motion ,-.. ~ P & Z 6-3~,75 the number of units in the triplex and the Board of l\djustmcni: 'lave iJpprov<\J. for the prelirninaJ:Y plat on t.he condi~iol) t]l~t tlle numl)cr e)f Ullits be r(!duced to a sjn~Tle family 'tJwellillcf. LTenkin:,; ment.iOlW(! that the triplex isn' gOjlli;{ to b(~: a tl:j.r1CX c.lnyrnorn. \.T.lm NOri1,l1r reprC',.s('nt~~in~J Milr~.FH('t Medc]O'.'iL; Final Sul)(Hvic:i.on, replied that not unlc the Board ()f .l\dj\.1stlilentsis' to (~l.i.mi.Ei1.tc l.hnt cond.i.t-.i0Il and that, is what they arc goin9' to ask i:hC'In t,9. do. :';01:"1"1 cxdlt::..i..ncd tlFl t. un~h.:;.r. l:hc. pj:.escn'~-" zOlling code: a. f.oud ly CZ"in C011Sist of any 6 people and thore have never becm any H1OJ:( "than 6 people. Moran explained the problem with the smaL lot is that variance came up and it was their position, aftcl: t..he fact that the higher problem of subdivision should have been a matter for this CODmission to determinE The City Attorney, Sandra Stuller, took a contrary vie,.; \\'i ich J:"('spect t9 the fact that where the zaning code is involved their concurrence On the small lat was necessary beforc this Commi~;si.an could grant subdivision approval which is why it got to. aboard, which I think, is basicall on tl](;;;City st.ructurc on t.he sam8 st.rata that:. this crnnmissiorl sits. The varj.ance for the small lot has been grant.ed by the -Board af: Adjustments subject to that condition and t,hat condition will be imposed unless I can get them to madify it. Mojo explained that. all the referral let.ters were positive. The Engineering Depaxtmen indicates that there is no problem with t.he subdivision. 'l'hey have requested that 1) 5 ft. af right, of way be dedicated on the eas'c side of Park lWenue so somEl of the Park Avenue problems can start being corrected, 2) a cornmitbnent: t.o join waive rights of pra1:est: far any improvement. district. t:ha.twould be proposed for t.he area, 3) that. lot two should hook up to. the City sewer system which is currently on a separatG field. Moran explained that the City Attorney has said that in oonnEcc:tio.n wit.h the prelimin,n:y plat appraval m01:8 than a year ago th2l.t that .is t:he concern of the Board of Adjustm2nt; and thaught that ])("fore I discussed it witch them, that after t.he prelbninary approval had been granted and after the Baard . of J..djustment had granted the variance and had imposccd this conditian tha'c the entire problem of sub- divisian should have been before i:his Cornmission; hOl-leVer Stuller disagreed vIi th me and I accepted her interpreta tiOl of the City Cade. Moran vlent on to explain that they are asking the commision to. give final approval of the drawing of the line between lot 1 and lot 2 and that P & Z has permission from the Board of l\cJjustmen'c to do that. This wilJ.create a small lot, lot 1, and then in turn increase the size of that by about 500 sq. ft. This will create a small lat af 4500 sq. ft. Condit..ion imposed by the Board of Ad:iustment is that the use an the house an lat 1 be changed to single family residence. !<laran men,tioned 'that P & Z need nat be really that cancerned with his success or failure. Johnsan entertained a motian to approve the final sub-, division af the. Margaret. Meadows praj ect. No. second. Johnson enterti1ined a motian deny5.11g the Margaret Meadows project. No second. . . Collins moved to apl)raVc that th(~ final approval to. the subdivisian i.s presented an a plat subject to the conditiO! stipulated by the Engi.neering Department. Otte sE~candcd the motion. All in favar, motian carried. -" ',- ! ,; ,,..,,'" .0:..'-' JOSfAl-l Cl.fIOUAND SfE:;P"ENfl,,",IIIH "OltN ~,J l-l"'~T W:U'AM a.EMeRtt..!"'. J"',MF.;S l.WI-I1T.[ "'ATRICK M.WC$r~tl'Cl' CLAVDE "',MAtl>.JI'I. ROflVH p, 0"'''''50'1 JOH.... rl,"MINe; otl';UY "RANK ".MOR,';oN WllllA'" C, "kCLEAAN JAY W.TRJiCtY.JR .JOMN A.l..I.tN MOORE S<':N E.CI110lAW JAMtS [,HEGMny .'(\,O C, <;ENTON CAVIO aUTU:'" J. ""CMAF.l ~ A>llEY W"'l'lI'l[N l TOMLINSON BINCtT.8UELL DON !;I,lnTER "'. HOLLAND 8:. BAHT :~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW JAMtS t, ",ORM. HMHIY l 110aso... IIE'NNi:H~ 0, HU98...RO Aom:IH l,VtRSCHUR[ GOROON (;,(,1'1["<1:'" 'lOeO::AT l-I, OUR""'''',JR. WILLIAM (,MIJ",..Nt l,WILU"M SCH"'I!)T,JR. J....r.SP,LINOS",Y r.CWIN S'.I\AHN SAM(JE:l P,GI)YTON ..10101"1 SCASttUANO on~NIS Iol,JACKSON AOBtRr t. ei:NSON RIC"^~O ,", 110,0"1 <:""''11...<;; T,IHlANOl ROOOlT T,C'ONNEflT HA"',",OON 9E,'ITY ARTHVRC,O...,\.y JUFR(YC,POND JOHN UNO[MC,I"RlSON 500 EOUITABLE: BUILOING 730 SEVENTEENTH STREET R.vlOYl,t'AI'I<":CI. CA,VICG, PALMER IoI1C>IA[L 0 M""HI"l B'l\JC[ W,SIl.rTL[R R.....iL Jol. ROOr-IOU!:':l J^CK 1.,$MIHl JOHN O. COOlo'lElE [UOCN[ F'. "'~GUIRe: SOLOMON N. 9MlON T!lO"''''S ....rAvLIINER 1lI0flt<n J, MOIR MARII 1'1, LeVY R, enoo",[ JACKSON PAUL T.RUTTUM 9'llnON WmTE.JI'I WlltY [', M"'YNE,..I<;1, ql<;"'JIlHl r,CII.SSON GRlC;OR,Y"',tURIC'" OENVER,COLORADO BOc02 TELEPHONE ARE.... COOE. 303 292-9COO CABLE AODRESS HOLHART. DENVER MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDIN~ P.O BOX 112l..~, ASPEN, COL.ORADO OIlSI! TEL~:PMONE 9Z5.3476 ARE:A COOE: 303 June 3, 1975 The Board of Adjustment City of Aspen P.O. Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: (:>InISTOPI-lEI'I N SOMt>ltR EDW'''''IO lot,(lll.ES ~HlITT C:'AROt "'NOCI'I50N "'LAN C, BOI.CS...IR. GERIILD w. GR"'NDEr STEP>lCNl.I'CPPER THERES", W. DORSt 'I' KEllo"'n T; SIINFORO TI<0""'5 [,GESOW JMIEM'CI<"'C,ST"'ltS";IC;o; 5 WV"'TT"'eCAI.LI[ I.,TYRON[ HOLT WILLI"'" M, BURKE JU[I'I[T/\" SMITH "'''T...url ,8, rCI'lGl.ISON...IR ..IA'M(SI:.HII<l1LtV ..lAMES t 130lCOURT Margaret Cantrup - Application for Modification of Conditions to Small Lot Var.iance Ladies and Gentlemen: " On July 11, 1974 in Case No. 74-19, the Board of Adjustment of the City of Aspen (Board) granted to Margaret Cantrup a small lot variance authorizing her to subdivide her property at Park and Midland Avenues into two lots. The Zone, District for the property is R-6. The total property area, exclusive of the \vesterly 5 feet dedicated for future widening of Park Avenue, is 10,724 square feet. There are two previously existing buildings on the site. The proposed subdivision would give each building its own lot, Lot 1 contains 4,656 square feet, Lot 2 contains 6,068 square feet. In granting the variance the Board imposed the condition that the future use of Lot 1 be restricted to a single-family residence. On behalf of Mrs. Cantrup we request the Board to eliminate or modify the above condition on the grounds that: 1. ,The existing structure cannot be modified to a single-family structure without undue hardship, 2. Other properties in the same vicinity and zone enjoy duplex or multi-family use, and sub- stantial property right which will be denied the '" ....~,' ~. HOI.LAND &HART t'...., The Board of Adjustment City of Aspen Ju.oe 3, 1975 Page Two subject property unless the single-family condition is eliminated or modified; 3. The elimination of the single-family con- dition will not adversely affect the general pur- pose of the comprehensive general plan. Respectfully submitted James T. Moran JTM:mm MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: RE: r ,,-., YANK MOJO Planning Department DAVE ELLIS Ci ty Engineer k) ~ May 29,1975 Margaret Meadow Subdivision - Final Plat The final plat as corrected is satisfactory. Terms which should be included in the sub- division agreement presented to council are 1) cash dedication of 4% 2) commitment to jOin and to waive right of protest for any future improvement districts including the subject property formed for the purpose of constructing street improvements, drainage improvements, or buried electrical improvements. 3) commitment to pay for the construction, or to reimburse the city for construction, of street paving, curb, gutter and side- walk when the city deems these improve- ments necessary should an improvement district not be created. Corral, cont'd j .'. ,; Motion ~Margaret Meadows j Motion , Wedum-Hyman PUD j 1"""\, P & Z s~6-7s ~ project 'and Clarke thought that: it .would be only 'the expense of the building. Jenkins thought it would not be free from a maintenance standpoint and suggested that they charge 3. fee whenever one of the Humane Officers brings in a stray horse. Otte asked if members wanted to table until they got some imput from adjacent owners. Jenkins said that on the surface it looks ok but was concerned over maintenance. Collins asked if it would conflict with the trail and Mojo noted it was compatible with the proposed trail. Collins questioned what they 'would do about flies and Mojo agreed that they needed .- more information, Jenkins moved totable until they received more informatio from the surrounding residents and answers to the questions they had brought up at this meeting. Hunt seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Attorney Jim Moran asked that the Commission consider the date of July 11th instead of March 74 as the time between. preliminary plat and final. We explained that his client, Margaret Cantrup, had gotten conditional approval from the P & Z based on creation of a substandard lot. Jenkins recalled"that the lot was too small - only 5,000 sq ft. They were sent to the Board of Adjustment to get a variance or permission to create an undersized lot. The Board of Adjustments as part of their approval said that the triplex must be made a single-family dwelling and that h~d prevented it from final subdivision plat because a sale fell through. There were also deficiencies in the plat. He was asking for relief from the strict application of one year from the March date. Jenkins asked if they would be coming back again with the final plat. Hunt questioned if they shouldn't just give a straigh~ six months extension and avoid a precedent but Mojo thought that would create a worse precedent. Mojo thought that the July 11 date was a good basis to start from. Collins moved to except from the strict compliance with section 20-5 as it relates to the time between preliminary plat and final plat submission with the time of one year beginning July 11, 1974: Hunt seconded. All in favor, motion carried. ' Mojo noted that this was the first PUD and conceputal undE the new code and as proposed ';Tould be a ,,111sr.er developmer of 9 units with 2 & 3 bedrooms in the Oklahoma Flats area. The buildings would be" located in three struc.tures. He pointed out that Randy Wedum was at the meeting to give a presentation and members might want to consider a site inspection tonight since he felt it was the kind of projec that should be looked at. The zoning is R-15 PUD. Mr. lVedum noted that the owners of the property are the Hyman! and the William Loughrans. The buildings would be utilizing solar energy 'and they have structured them on top of the hill & using the slope for the tilt. He note( that they have a waterline easement that also breaks up the land. parking'would be accessible at the top and they would utilize the existing terraces. The solar collectors would camp. under the houses and unc1er the terraces. They had a 25' setback from the road, they would provide a sidewalk and they ,.ould be using low wall, around the parking area. There would be steps down to th, road and.the water casement would be-cut and exposed. The buildings would be thermal insulated and it wuuld be hot air heat through rock storage. Collins questioned the two shades of green on the sketch and ,-Ie dum noted these designated the two ownerships. He said that they might have a mud and rock problem which they hope to solv, by graveling the terraces. Hunt asked Stanford how this ~2- ,.... ,~\ RECORD OF PBOCEEDINl., . 100 Leaves r""~,, e.r.~",~~(".",&,,~~. Aspen Board of Zoning Adjustment July 11, 1974 Meeting was called to order by Chairman John Dukes at 3:10 p.m. with Charles Paterson, Remo Lavagnino, Gilbert Colestock and Fred Smith present. Chairman Dukes read a letter 'from County Attorney HcGrath stating that the County had not been given proper notice of the public hearing on Case No. 74-24,Limelite, Inc. The public hearing was then set over to the following Thursday, July 18 and new notice would be given for the re-set meeting. Those present for the Limelite Case were asked to return for public hearing at the next meeting. Lavagnino moved that the minutes for the Hay 30 meeting be approved vi as is. Colestock seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. CONTINUED CASE NO. 74-19, I1ARGARET CANTRUP The case had been previously schedUled for the June 6, 1974 public hearing but there was a dispute between Ms. Cantrup and Ms. Hobgood as to the property line. The case was tabled at that time until a settlement could be reach. A copy of the deed dated July 9, 1974 had been received by the board as proof of se~tlement. Variance request to subdivide two existing houses 'into two separate lots. One lot will be undersized for the zone 'district. Adjacent property owner, Geri Hobgood was present and explained that the area was extremely dense and presented traffic and parking problems. She asked that if a non-conforming lot were to be created that some restriction be placed on the number of families in the dwelling on the non-conforming lot. Another.. neighbor, Tom Merrill was present to ask consideration to the density of the area. Smith felt that dwelling on the a stipulation should be made smaller non-conforming lot. of a single family Chairman Dukes closed the public hearing. Smith moved to grant variance to create a non-conforming lot of approximately 4,030 square feet and to permit its use as a small lot in accordance with existing code. As a condition to granting this variance, the use of the lot should be restricted to a single family residence. The granting of the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone but denied .the subject property because of special consideration and extraordinary circumstances. Colestock seconded. Roll call vote - Paterson aye; Lavagnino ,,'ye; Colestock aye; Smith aye; Dukes aye. Motion carried. CASE NO. 74-21, TaROS OF ASPEN Public hearing was opened on an application for variance by Toro's of Aspen. Their request is to remodel and build an addition to an existing restaurant. The addition would reduce the required open space from approximately 15% to approximately 8% per present Building Inspector's calculations. . Designer Norman Burns explained that he could see no reason why allowable area should not be computed on areas which Occur on two different levels. Both levels (deck area at street level and terrace area below street level) are within the allowable range. , · Robert Sproull of Jakes Rest;aurant expressed concern of additions or .extensions of present restaurants. He sited'several examples of .,-., ^ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Planning Staff Margaret Meadows - Final Subdivision and Exception May 1, 1975 On March 19, 1974 the Planning and Zoning Commission granted conditional preliminary subdivision for a two lot division of .235 acres or ~ 10,276 square feet. One lot containing a duplex on 6,000 square feet and one lot containing a triplex on about 4,300 square feet would be created. As a condition of approval, the P & Z required the subdivider to go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance to create a lot of less than 6,000 square feet. The Board of Adjustment granted a variance to create a "small" lot on the condition that the tri-plex be turned into a single-family residence. The Board of Adjustment hearing was held on July 11, 1974. The instant request is to be excepted from the strict application of Section 20-5 of the Subdivision Code (Ord. 6, Series of 1969). That section states "The approval of preliminary plat shall lapse unless a final plat based thereon is submitted within one (1) year from the date of such approval." The planning office feels that undue hardship may result from strict compliance with this provision, and further feels that the public good would not be furthered by forcing a re-initiation of subdivision procedures. We therefore recommend that the exception from the strict compliance of Section 20-5 as it relates to the time between preliminary plat approval and final plat submission be granted. , /" ~ ..-" ~' CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF ASPEN STATE OF COLORADO In Re the Application of ) ) MARGARET CANTRUP ) ) for ) ) MARGARET MEADOWS SUBDIVISION ) APPLICATION FOR EXCEPTIONS Pursuant to S20-10, Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado (Code), which, under Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1975, will be renumbered to S20-19 (Amended Code), Margaret Cantrup applies for an exception from the strict application of Code S20-5 (Amended Code S20-13b) concerning lapse of Preliminary Plat Approval unless a Final Plat based thereon is submitted within one year (6 months under the Amended Code). The underlying facts and the grounds on which this exception is sought are as follows: 1. On March 19, 1974, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) granted conditional Preliminary Plat Approval to Mrs. Cantrup for a two lot subdivision of her property at the junction of Midland Avenue and Park Avenue. The property is triangular in shape, contains about 11,000 square feet and has two houses on it. The house on the corner where Park and Midland inter- sect Cooper (Highway 82) has a two bedroom unit on the ground floor where Mrs. Cantrup lives and two studios above which are reached by an outside stairway. The other house is a duplex. Both were built in the early 1960's and Mrs. Cantrup has been the sole owner since .~ ,-. June 15, 1965. The subdivision application was filed solely for the purpose of dividing the property into two lots so the duplex could be sold. The necessity for a sale was and is forced by Mrs. Cantrup's precarious financial position. No new construction is involved. 2. One of the conditions that P&Z imposed was the obtaining of a variance from the Board of Adjustment to permit the lot being retained by Mrs. Cantrup to contain less than 6,000 square feet. The lot and duplex to be sold will contain at least 6,000 square feet. On July 11, 1974, the Board of Adjustment granted the variance but conditioned it upon res- tricting the use of the corner lot to a single family dwelling. Mrs. Cantrup was not represented by counsel at the hearing and did not fully comprehend until some time later the disastrous efrect of this condition to-wit: deprivation of modest rentals on which she is dependent~ and substantial conversion costs. In the meantime, the proposed sale of the duplex fell through. 3. In December of 1974, Mrs. Cantrup's financial problems worsened as mortgagees began demanding payment. Since then she has made diligent efforts to arrange a sale of the duplex and it now appears that such a sale will be consummated if final subdivision approval is obtained on or before May 13, 1975. Although she is COnfident that this date can be extended somewhat, the nature of the purchaser's loan commitment will not permit a sufficient extension for the initiation and completion of the three stage subdivision procedure -2- .0 ~ /......,,,\ prescribed by the Amended Code. To further complicate the matter, two mortgagees have conunenced foreclosure proceedings which similarly can be staved off for only a limited period. 4. Under the strict application of Code ~20-l0, the Preliminary Subdivision Approval lapsed on March 19, 1975. Because the application is a simple two lot subdivision which does not involve new construction, the applicant requests an exception which will permit her to submit a Final Plat based on the previous Pre- liminary Plat Approval. The Final Plat is being pre- pared and the other conditions imposed by P&Z are being fulfilled. The applicant requests that the exception allow her to submit the Final Plat on or before July 11, 1975, which is one year from the date on which the Board of Adjustment granted her the required small lot variance. 5. On the basis of the foregoing, applicant requests P&Z to place this application on the agenda for con- sideration at its next regular meeting. Applicant submits that the facts above set forth, together with such supplemental information as may be presented to P&Z at its meeting, establish: (1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the subject property such that the strict application of the pro- visions of Code Chapter 20 would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of her land; (2) That the exception herein requested is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment -3- ,. ,-.., ~, . of a substantial property right of the applicant; and (3) That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the subject property is situated. Respectfully submitted, HOLLAND & HART BY~'/~/J/JA "' es T. Moran P.O. Box 1128 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-3476 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT -4- .... "'.'", "" '.'~'''''',-:'.' "".,. ~,"',~ ',._~ .'~"-"""-~'~"..".., , . ",', ,''';'.....'.K'. ~"~ '"'i;t;-l~.,..~.~.,;,.;~~:,.";;;..___,...~:..;,.~~.....~~~..i~..,.;'-~~,,p,.""-,.:.....::....~"'...~..c..-..:~,~,~,..;;J......;.;...,,;..;';$.:..:.;....:...~.....-..,'..;;..'''-"?i:6;,~l,.~'I'"''.........~.:x.\~,+;;..;,;i..:...:...:.;.&.-:..:,~....;;..~~"".;.'.....;..~. .-" ~ ~ C c -l C> :;l .. " z Q '" '" <> o c: Q. .. o o a: o <> '" c: '" . . . "" .., . o o '" ..,.'" ...., '" ." .;.l.;JE;iC CtI1- 0 .. . ..-Ie >.~ .'" . "'" .., C""'tIl\:l ""::lQ,l~ !ig''g- IUJorOQ) 0" CQ)Q)l\:l .00> . 0 .., Q. . o lI'l 0'" . . ." ~CIU'" .;.lQ).-jl'lJ 1l2Q,c.> .0 . o ......:1 0.. .c::"loI" O,j,J Q.Hll' .;.l C>' ..,.. .0", o. '" J:lI-IClO lU_lI-I > 0 ..-I ca.".;J '" lI'llfl 1ll>.C:lU :>f"'iQ)...-l'tl <v.c:: 0 o:l 01flQ,lt)-t .... ~ _101 Iol .c::llIa...loI .j,l->S<Uta 'tl 0 >OU +I<<IO__n:l . . lll.;.l o.c:: 0 I;j o.c::+I." tl'l C .j,j.",jJ eo O'tlll-ltl)::&: ..," 0 . , "0. 1lI-).0'lQ>Q) > O-iJ >. 041 0.0 lQ eOI-l> C:::J lI'l o III o....-l 1;1 C:,"" .-t~ ....-~.-t n:l::l C:1lIrc:-oc "'." 'Ill <V..... > <V C:.-l-Q} rc:.c:: 1;10 >. ~.jJt7IQ::j rc: ~ <- ~ ~ :i! ... o .. .. " '" " " z " " " ~ " '-' " ;! " o. f,llll'lJ.c:: ,Q.Q.Q.... . 0)....1.... e ".0 0." III 1-1 .jJ): 11-I " +I oIJ O. lQOll-lll'l ." :s 'I:H:: 0'1ll4l-n:l Q,lCI-I.&:: 101-0'"+1 . . "'c o . 1lI11l C:lIllol1;1 ..., " ~ 0 0 ~..-I Will . "~ :>1lIrc: .., . 1ll<U_1Il o lol o:::s trllll-C:O co.l'll.c: '"Cl..-! kClllol41 <tl ta.c: UolO:>,j,J -". .., ~... o .j.l0 ..-f00 ... .j..I'"loI ..CIClolo:l ::::I.",jJ .c " 00 lI'l..-tO <U' (l)''!:I 0 "'. .j,j-:::S_411l1 o . . 'tI.t:oo . N cO" Q),.c4l,_o O'....,CoIJ 0...-' 0 o ~ (I).... 101 Q> X 0 '" IV ~ WlI-I-Q,l c: ::J 0'1.... QO"Cllol..-l . . . C.., N..... >. . ~ .., e (l)'--lI'lo:llol loI'QI.!.t:Q) ." ....-Ill "'" Q. 1lI:>'O 0 .c.....cClol (J'!:I:lOo. ~ ~ , ~ ~ o z " ~ " " ~ 'E ~ . .. "0" 0 Cl.,Q '" c: Ul III >'>,j.J (l)'." n:l,jJ... III fIJ >. 41 I.!.c:: loI' 0 Ul al... W.clll Q);/l ~ .coV_<tloU Cd!) Q) otlQ" ,j.J Ul tIl 0 l-I.c: C:tallJ 0 Q,lk ,j.J c: 0'\-601':1 0.0 o lI'l'l:l s:: Ol 0' oU .. Q.,.,j <ll.... c..xw oIJ III oV'O::l 1oIC:41_1ll . Q"oV...! lol V.-I." tIl ::1."" > -' 'lI'l 0.0-601 ~ loI e...! =......! ~ ~ ~ ,jJ..Q '!:I lU.~ ,,..., iii C:::J U>41'!:lCa. . ra !,Q ClO 0 lG~ '!:IO C. 1-1 C aJ 0 10I Ill.... 1ll.0.111..c:.Q. ~ ~ ..<tl""" loi 0..''''',j.J -' o Q'l.c ::E: ra lol..,.j-6ol =101 4.1 1Ii.~ 0 III :E: iV.t:.,j.J '!:I. > =.::: III .c&-o =c: .oJ -' J:'!:ItQ <llQ)ll)=Cl .j./~(!) .cn~:d~~g >'0 e C Ul O.,lJ w.c Cl .Q,C:l..-lOlllO Q ~ .j./.....clll"-!.lolll).,j.J 'Q 4l rn k 0 l;l'>V 41 <ll.r::-6oIIIl~ f(I....'O 3:.'" C'ool 0.0) Ctl.., '~o~~.a"Cl.tti:c;.~~ >,j.J 4.10 PO '0 Q" 0.0 CJ 10I (J C 'Cl loI-' a. lU'!:I c.c::.'tI ;;l to:!..c:: otl+l Cl 'Cl01Il ~.,j.J.o 0..1<: .c:: .c <0:1 C 0 0(1).0 l.I ~'OoV ........ Cll-t -0 III c...... (l)0.r::~ 'tl,j.J.;J ... kt,; IIlC III 4l """.... llllol..... (t) trl 4.>.... .c:otllll.t:Q.I.c:loIC: .j..I.O'tl,j,).O E"" 3: lll.... ~a.,~ 0 -; (I) -' t"'i;l ~ e .Q.,j.J ....O.k;;l>O~O :I.c::c """001ol0C.... CIlItlO.,j.J .... :1 ~otl C ,j.J.... Itlltl .~ 1Il.o,...jo 1lI1:l O'l.-l 111 Cl 0 0 lG....!.,.j o..O'lJJ-'.e:="-! I ~!!l > .... c:.c:: 0 0 c:: Ill'" >. <tI...! l-I)o, 0 o.<'tllolll)." 0....... W c: m ..CI III V t.!o.. 1.<'0 eO'l:::lCIllIO 'tlCllQlU C Ul.... :::I > W W'" loI.Q )0,.... eo Cl.,j.J ... (l) C 1O.....c: lll..c..-l l-I 'tl :> C... ,j.J ::J OJ 00.... 101m J.l W 0 ,k 1.!1Ile ::1 :l;-!0 loI3: 0:::1 Q.I):"-!0 tl)c..... 0.+1........ Jot OI-l;3 ".,,,, ~ ~ . . .., o . c . o . '" . .., . '" .., c ." .. .... ..,.., .... ..., .~ . .. 0.. c. "'. .o~ 00 . =>0.. . . .." k . .., % "C . . . 0" 0..., .. . " . ~-e~ .0 """ o . '. . . 0"" :E:ClO .0 C W 0\ 4.I::1.Q ..0 . " .,j.J,,", 41:>'. "'0. 0," ..., 0.. .~ . ~" . " . ..., ..1<:':::0 0"'.0 o "'0" ... . . '. 0"," ~. lI'l'"'" .... . :lr.:l> 0","",0 .. ~". .. .., ". O">.loIQ. e otl.Ul o O...! 04.ltIflJ 0' ..,c ." " ." .., 0 0... . .on): .00 O~ ~ . . " " ,,~ .. .., 0 .. .., ... .., ..," .~ ." 00 "'0 ." .. "'" ..,.., .'" the o~ 0" O~ .. ." .e .. o "... "'0 " . .0 c c' . . 0," o ..... ..,>.., " ~ . . 0.. 'C o . . l-IO"C ". .. ..,~~ .0 ,Ql<U4l 0>. . . ~. . 'tl.clol o(.,j.JU -. c o ~ ... +I ....cn-6ol otl +lloIO .... C.:E =+1 o . 0 ..c: ....'!:Ill)'Q(,Qtrl :> W.q) IV'''''" C:): >.iE III .,.jo.c.w Cl..c: .... 0 {) >.......u.... C 1lI .-t<tl....c:fIl.c: -601 e.....".,j.J eM.=' l-I <ll<ll I.! III III O1>:mV>1ll VCllt:..c: "'''''''0-'..1<:41 0..,0.. w.tJ e =' 0 ::Jill.... CIl'!:l...c:.....Q.oJ .... -601 .j.I >. '!:Iv.c: 01""" (I) l-Illl 0 c: C iii <tI ::J ..-10 O<tl(l) .. ..,.. .-j ",ra ..... .,.jlV...c: (D.,.j ""'-601 ..j.IoV .Q.::J :<Ole -601 >.i <<I.... "'0 lUOCl....:< III C::J C Q"a./ Viol: 01013:'::1- '" CJ ,j.J O'tl >i::l > lI'lUl ....-'0 - >.lG 01-' () 0 c,Q;l.j.l C::l :l.C 1-1 0 Illk III .... 0 !lI.,j.JUl.,j.J..-I .,j.J c.. a./1l1 ~'1!e~~<tl':: (J-6oIo.tIl lIJ'lj--6oI'" o C 01-' <:l s:: 00 =.... C 'I.i It! C "'. lUO..-l :E:-6oIOC !,Q\D (I) Ill.... <ll.... -6oI.,.j...... ..c: 4l ::l X '!:I 1ll-6ol Cl > Oalltl.Q 00 c." '!:IltI'OC:ltllUlG Q1-4J..lIlotl .... .j.I.....k 0-601 'Cl c:ce <tlltl~ .,.j:::O-6ol,c tIl o ..........j.l "11:I C.dl C '0 III 11l.,.j "C,WJ.l Vll.l 1Il::llol0 1Il.c:"O +J.lol.... = 3:-'kVl.j.l::l..-l II:I-..!!;t:l" .j.lcnox 'llW en I'-llll.tQl1lUlol.... . ;',::,~::~2;'<~:::::,r:~~2.=,::S:~~ ... " . . . ~ ..~ o c.. "'.., "'" o. "" o . 0 . " "'0 ..., . '" .. S." .,.,j-' ..,. " ". 00 . .e . ~" ." .0 .., 0 C" ,,0. .0 .~ . . 0" .., . ~.., ". "'0 ~'" " 0 .00 .. .., c o. "'0 .." . . ." k-' "'. . . " .. k . . o k tQ:t ~ '" .., "0 ..,. ."~ . C '" "'. ..,> ~. ~'" ".. ..0 . .. ~. ~.. . "0 ~o o. 0.'" " 0> " " '" z ~ '" ... ON .., .." .c ..,. '0 .0 ~.. . e .. ..,. .II) k...! .r::='l.! ~"o . . . 0 .S 0.. o . 0 " ~ $l.dl.;.l 1lIJ:: 0 ,j.J;:l o ..,... . 00 " 0 ..> .0. o~... .~ o C J:::.~.... ..," ....loI.-I eo.-.! 0>0" '" o o .., . . ~ o " .. .0 .. ... ". . c 0" o. .0 ..~ ". .. i", . .. 0.'" .., :n-:l o. ..e ~ ..,.. .. ~ . " 00 . . 00 :Oc .0 ." 0'" .., 0 s " o . . " 00 e. . .... o . c "." . ..,~ .~ "" ; i '" "" .i Q :0 , '\ ,.. ,'" . " "'{ ': c ~ . .... 4t:) ~ g I".~ , . " " o '" r , I \ ,J -,. I .1 ., ... ..,. .> ~~ >:0 dl.tIJ ". ." " ". . ". o e .. ,,~ .0 00 . " "0. -60141 ,'" o . " ".., . ..,~ .~ ~.., o c ". ".. ..., "" ..,. .0. .0 "0 " . . "'" .::;:.;U .:..>-., ----e r-, _...!.C!:.~~~~=.!~,~~'. ~'. Regular Meeting j Main Motion SUBDIVISIONS PUbllc-HearTng - Margaret Meadows -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ._----- .. Aspen Planning & Zoning March 19, 1974 would like to handle the parking. Ms. Baer stated that th(~ problem i.s, should the Commission adopt the kind of policy which lw s been dis cussed, this applicant will still have to go to the Board of Adjustment because of the regulati.on as it is now'. Stated that the alternative is that the applicant can agree by contract to buyout his parking, depending upon the outcome of the Stroud case. Suggested that if the Commission dec.ided that the applicant buyout parking it should be whatever the Building Code requires at this time. Stated that the Building Inspector could not issue a per- mit until some action had been taken. Vagneur made a ll.lotion to amend the main motion to include the following: that the applicant will agree to purchase lIX" number of parking spaces conditional on the Stroud case decision or change in the Code. Motion seconded by Jenkins. All in favor with the exception of Landry who abstained. Motion carried. Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing. Ms. Baer pointed out that the applj.cEtnt nm..;' Qt.'ms two exis- ting houses, and point:E.~d out the loca.ti.on on map. Stated that the applicant \'lould like to divide this into t.,..;o separate properties in order to sell off one house. Ms. Baer submit1:8d the following recommendations and con-. cerns of the Planning Office': (1) Ownersllip problem must be entirely resolved; (2) If preliminary plat is approved, a variance must be requested from the Bd. of Adjustm<mt to permit one of the lots to contain less t,han 6,000 square feeti (3) Deq..icat:-e 51 on Park Avenue; (4) Lo' 2 should hook up to sewer; (5) Utility easement should be dedicated per telephone 'Company request; (6) Ninor plat corrections as requested by Enginoering Department shoulc. appear on final plat; (7) Both houses should be restrictce, re: number of dwelling units. Ms. Bae:r pointed out that there was somewhat Jess than 12,000 square feet. Located most desirable lot line for the divisioll. Stated that it is prcscJltly ZOllCd R-6. Stated that one of the houses is a duplex and the other has three uni ts. Ms. Vagneur stilted thnt she did not Object to the subdi- vision, but would like the record to show tl1nt this defi- nitely is well over the present zoning. Ms. Baer stated that the applicant has offerred too dedi- cate an additional 5' along Park Avenue. Stated that the par}~ing is probably marginal. Landry nltl.c1c a motion t.o approve the preliminRry plat for Margarett-1c3do\vs ,nubdiv.i.sion conditional on th(~ ownorship problem l.Jcinq rcsolv(~c1 and a variance from the Board' of Ac1ju~;tmcn'l t.o pcrmi t otH~ of the lols to contain le~s t.l1D.n 6,000 square feet, that. Nargarct Nc.adowsd0djc~1l:e 5' on Park l\vcnue, i.hat Lot 2 hoof;. up to the sewer, tho utility easement should be dedi.cated per the: tclQphol'w comp':lllY re- quest that minor plat corr(~ct:.iolW<lS requested by tho En- gi.neering D(~partment Ghould .:l.ppe,lr: in t.hc fin"l plat and -6- ~.._...-'! r-- ~ ~';'"S:L.'!::.~~~4~~.~!!:...,"_______--:-_,-;:-___ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves -_._--,..,--,-- Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 19, 1974 ; that both houses should be restricted in regard to the number of dwelling units. Motion seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, motion carried. SUBDIVISIONS ,I Aspen Center _ Final Plat Chairman Gillis closed the public hearing. ,Chairman Gillis questioned Del Duca on whether or not the :Engineering Department had prepared recommendations on the Aspen Center. Del Duca stated that the Engineering Department was not prepared to give the recommendations today, but that they woqld be ready within 10 days. Schott land stated that he had spent three hours ;7i th the City Attorney and City Engineer the previous Friday and understood that all the c01Tections h2ld been made. DelDuca stated that they had found three items on the pIa whi.ch needed correction. Jim 'Reser, fro.~;l Tri-co Management, stated that' there were a number of corrections that needed to be made on the plat based on previous submission. Stated that. he and the City Engineer had gone over the plat that afternoon and thought there were only two problems they still have: (1) th~ extension of the 6' sidewalk which was an error of ommission on his part; and (2) a technical problem re- gardi.ng storm scwor easement in the vicinity of the Middle Schoo 1. Schott land stated that it was his understanding that a ful: study was done on the plat by Dave :Ellis up to this point. Friday he spent time going over and making all thes0 cor- rections and the Ci ty Attoc':('~y had done somc,; ,.,ork with attorn8Y Art Daily in r(;fGrcncc to that. Stated that they have a very critical time problem and money problem. Stated that he understood they \vcre to have this in ten days prior, but have gotten tremendous static from the City Engineer and ;70uld like to ask and see if in the next 48 hours, si.nce the Engineering Department has done 95% of the work already, they could finish it up and al- low the applicant to come in on Thursday's meeting. Chairman Gillis stated that the City has cooperated by getting the appli.cant on the agenda because tho'y said t.hey would be ready and it was rushed and there would be no way th,' Commission would rush through this. Schott land questioned the Commission as to when the next possible date would be to get on the agenda. Chairman Gillis stated that would be April 2nd. Bartel questioned Schott land as to what. date he had planne( to be on the agenda for the City Council final plat con- sideration. Schott.land stated it would be either the follO\ving Monday or, the next meeting, as soon as possible. Bartel stated that they were not on the next Monday's ag(mda, but would be On tho agenda of the 8th of l\pril, consequently tho final plat could bo considered by the -7- ("'"<\ ~ TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office SUBJECT: Margaret Meadows Subdivision DATE: 3/19/74 Applicant owns 2 housed on 1l,000+sq. ft. in Promontory Subdivision and wishes to sell one. Considerations: 1. Ownership problem must be entirely resolved. 2. If preliminary plat is approved, a variance must be requested from the Bd. of Adjustment to permit one of the lots to contain less than 6000 sq. ft. 3. Dedicate 5' on Park Avenue 4. Lot 2 should hook up to sewer. 5. Utility easement should be dedicated per telephone company request. 6. Minor plat corrections as requested by Eng. Dept. should appear on final plat. 7. Both hOUSeS shouldbe restricted reo nuinber of' dwelling units. . . ____,._m~_" A, ^ APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZONING ADJUST}ffiNT CITY OF ASPEN DATE 3/15/74 CASE NO. APPELLANT Margaret Cantrup ADDRESS P. O. Box 852 Aspen, Co. OWNER Same ADDRESS LOCATION OF PROPERTY Park Avenue - Part of Lots 1,2,3 & 4, B1k. 7, Riverside Addition &,Lots 7 & 8, B1k. 1, Promintory Subd. (Street & Number of Subdivision Blk. & Lot No.) Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be made a part of CASE NO. The Board will return this application if it does not contain all the facts in question. Description of proposed exception showing justifications: SIGNED , Appellant provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to forward this application to the for not granting permit: requ~r~ng the Building Inspector Board of Adjustment and reason Status Signed PERMIT REJECTED, DATE DECISION DATE APPLICATION FILED DATE OF HEARING MAILED Secretary ~ _:?!,~~"~~ 9.~. & L. CJ. f""', I"" ' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 00 Leaves ----,--'-_. ---- ~gular Heeting March 5, 1974 Agenda Items SUBDIVISIONS Margaret Meadows . preliminary Plat , l?ublic Hearing ASpen Center - " Preliminary Plat Public Hearing ,.............. Aspen Planning & Zoning Jenkins made a motion to adopt the proposed water ser- vice area with the condition that the Co~~ission has a closer look at the area within the City of Aspen and the direction it is going in. I-lotion seconded by Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried. Chairman Gillis stated that the Commission had decided at the luncheon study session that day that for the next possibly 6 or 7 meetings, will not accept any new projects for the agenda. Sta'.:ed that there are too many items which the Commission needs to consider in order to revise the Land Use Plan and the Master Plan. Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing on Margaret Meadows - Preliminary Plat. Gillis stated that the applicant was not prepared for the presentation at this point. Chairman Gillis closed the public hearing on Margaret Headows - Preliminary Plat. Johnson made a motion to continue the public hearing on Margaret Meadows to March 19, 1974, seconded by Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried. Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing on Aspen Center - Preliminary Plat. Ed Del Duca, Assistant City Engineer submitted com- j ments to the Commission. Del Duca stated that basically, most of the problems have been resolved. Del Duca stated that he felt there was an error on the dedication, in that the entire right-of-way;- intent, was tha.t entir.e right-of-way be- dedicated, 'but felt that it was an erro'r on the plat that it was not shown. Stated that must be corrected. Del Duca further stated that easements for the exist- ing sewer lines and propsed storm drainage facilities in lot 3 should be granted. Stated that they have had a drainage study by Wright-McLaughlin and they conform witch the intent of the study. . Further pointed out that an easement for the water lin~ in Lot 2 should be granted upon relocatic::. Also, a dedicated 40 foot right-of-'f,ay for access from Mill Street to the existing accesS easement sho1.:.1d be pro- vided. Del Duca stated that thl'! 10 foot trail eas~rnent shown wi thin the proposed roadway should be remo'l'ed frOIn the roadway and a separate easement should be provideci for the following reasons: (1). Presently proposed 1,8 a 40' right-of-way which is to be used for a 10' trail easement and a 30' roadway. The subdivision r,"qul;:,- tions r~quire a minimum of 42' roadway, exclud.ing curb and gutte.rs, within a 60' right-at-way, so th.e "propOSedr0adway doe.s not meet the regulations ever. if -5- ~~~ ~'1 r.. f, 1<<l~CK~l 6. 6. 'll l. CO. continued Meel:ing PUBLIC HEARINGS -~ Margaret Meadows & Aspen Center ~, ."-' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21, 197~ for permanent resident use. Stated that if it were, that site is too inconvenient. Stated that for a woman to maintain a household would be difficult and would maximize the use of a car for a woman living there. Farrell stated that he felt that was a personal value judgment and felt it more convenient than Red Mountain or Starwood. Stated that would be their other alter- native. Vagneur questioned if the applicants could live with one bedroom. Applicants expressed desire for the extra bedroom for guests, etc... Jenkins stated that he felt the biggest problem was access and was not sure that this was a suitable site for more development. Vagneur questioned if there were problems concerning fire protection. Ms. Baer pointed out that the procedure for making the street at the top of Monarch has not begun yet. Chairman Gillis stated that until the Commission gets more information from the economist, etc.., does not feel that Commission should get into more condominium use.. Farrell requested that the Commission disapprove the project since the applicants had entered into a con- tract that requires approval or disapproval to es- tablish their legal position in terms of the contract. ~elt that by the Commission not saying anything, does not help the applicants. Jenkins made a motion to deny this project on the basi that there are more appropriate places to put permanen resident, townhouse type units. Motion seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Chairman Gillis stated that the public hearings on sut division for Margaret Meadows and Aspen Center will be continued to March 5, 1974 at 5:00 p.m. Johnson made by Jenkins. adjourned at a motion to adjourn the meeting, secondec All in favor , motion carried. Meeting, 7:30 p.m. ~ '''-"")--. . I!!..' tI ~'fr::. III 1 If"',r.. ,"', ."" , }it" "~ >:7.lli-':,# ':",:\0" I;i',.' ,i,,;'''':.~ ,'II ~ ~~,,<.b"",.J caseY/,rmst'fong, secri~Y"'Y ~ \; February 17, 1974 Box 836 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Aspen Planning and Zoning CODunission Asnen Colorado Gentlemen: Pursuant to the reaues ted hearing regarding the MAR.C ,~RI.<'TMEADOWS pt!"~p6silJl for Subdi.vision: Margaret Cantrup and I have adjacent property. In 1970 Ms. Cantrup sold some property to me, however (unfortunately~ the description of said property is not correct. We are in the process of correcting this description and at this point, our surveyors are trying to reconcile their differences. Hopefully, this will be determined wi thir. the next week, Ms. Cantrup and I will have exchanged recorded Deeds, and clear Title determined regarding said property. Until, the above points are clarifiyed between Ms. Cantrup and myself, the actual and total square footage of the proposed Sub-division cannot be determined. Also, (if you are ready for this)... because on., the mis-description of property, as recorded.....I own a strip under her house and she still owns the property adjacent to my house~ At this point, there is doubt that she has clear title to the property adjacent to mine, and this must be determined by her or my lawyer. So again, it is my request that the NJl~GARET MEADOWS sub-division be post-phoned until these first problems are resolved, and the total square footage envolved III this sue-division can be legally free and definitely determined. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ~'"..~-\~-., .~\ Geraldine T. Hobgood ( ~, ,....,., RECQlW OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting ;;-:.;:;~~~~~~=~;,E.:...~~::::~~..:.'::',.! I., C2:-_=_._____._===--====.--=,~====:=.::;;:.==.._:::.-=:_:.::.;::;;:.;:=-.-.--- Aspen Planning & Zonin5L February__5, 197 i " ~ PUBLIC HEARING ~ Margaret Meadows Sub- division - Preliminary Plat RIO Grande - Pre- liminary Plat .._m.... _....., ,__ '_._..__.,,__,~__,_ ." ..__,_,___..__, __,.'._._'"'____.__... '-"._--'_._----_.----_._--,..--~-_.,-_._--- Moran further pointed out that they were to come back on August 9, 1973, which they did, and talked about this particular view plane again. Si:ai:ed that he had brought in Jim Reser's cross-section showing the af- fect that these combined view planes had on this pro- perty, and a discussion ensued as to whether or not there were any compromises which would guarantee con- cessions so that development could take place under whatever the then-existing zoning was, without being penalized by the view planes. Stated that otherwise, they would have no choice but to take the matter to Court. Moran pointed out that Bartel had stated that his con- cern was what would. happen after Ordinance #19 runs out. Stated that basically, what happened on August 9th was that the matter was tabled by the Commission. Feels that t:his matter is still with the Commission awaiting action. Bartel pointed out that there is a signed Resolution, and stated that he interprets this as the action of the Commission. Stated that the date of the signed resolution was June 21st. Feel the only way the Com- mission can change their action is to hold another public hearing. Moran stated that the Commission had essentially re- versed that action on July 10th, 1973, when they said they withdrew their reco=endation. Bartel stated that in the Council meeting of July 23, 1973, it was moved to table the public hearing on the Rubey Park corridors until the August 27th Council meeting. Stated that there have been no Council hear- ings on it at all. Schiffer made a motion to reconsider the Rubey Park view planes and to reschedule the public hearing for March 19th, 1974. Motion seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, with the exception of Vidal who was opposed. Motion carried. Chairman Gillis opened the public hearing on Margaret Meadows Subdivision, Preliminary Plat. Chairman Gillis stated that the applicant had nothing to present and it was the recommendation that the Com-' mission extend the public hearing to another aate, preferrable February 19th. Public hearing on Margaret Meadows Subdivision, Pre- liminary Plat was rescheduled for February 19, 1974. Dick Schottland was present and stated that they had tabled the subdivision. Bartel request that it be rescheduled at this meeting in order that it not have to be re-published. Public hearing on Rio Grande, Preliminary Plat was rescheduled for February 19, 1974. Bartel suggest that the applicant handcarry those ro- -3- i~ ~...., LEGAL NOTICE Notice is hereby given, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission shall hold a public hearing on 'ruesday, February 5, 1974, at 5:00 p.m., City Council Chambers to consider the preliminary plat for Margaret Meadow Subdivision more fully described as follows: "A part of lots 1, 2, 3 & 4, Block 7, Riverside Addition and lots 7 & 8, Block 1 of Promontory Subdivision, City of Aspen." Proposal.is on file in the office of the City/County Planner and may be examined by any interested person or persons during office hours. /s/ Lorraine Graves City Clerk Publiahed in the Aspen Times January 24, 1974 ~-~~.~. ~ SUBDIVISIO~ PLAT G}2CK FORti ~~ , /-d 1- 7Lj- Date Gentlemen: According to the proceduTe set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into two or more lots must be 'divided in accord8nce with s8id Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen. . , This form, 1,;ith attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility comp2.ny mo.y inspect the plat and the site, making CO~2nts, concerning theplacerc.ent: of ease- ments, etc., end i-lhere necesf;ary sl:etching reco=ended alterations on a cop~ of the plat. This form and .the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com- mission no la~er than seven (7) days from the above date. Remarks: S'4/.1'oIi/".s/~...-v Bqq_.o~y /JOgS ,"/vt:> 7" ~/V;.::;l.-'G;rt.. 'W/TH tP/-A 7'TcP SU&-%? ..<,0/-05. .<OT 7. d:1,zc:>c,,'..t P,;ee>~~_,/,7~x.f"' .51.;~~~ /s ;vCJ;;::. Sh.:::>.:-'"""" 0"-"/ ".,o-:::'A7" _!Jht!-./~~.2~~~a AS /"A/Cr or Sk,() p. . . . /fe-c.o.-r?P?C....--o 77 7.c.t5 S<:5"4/<CJ-/ ,66 ',n?~L?E A/.--fl ovv-,rl/~/C.S#I'/'..s '-ec:- c~4/<.EbJ 4'oP. .A'~" /'A'cv/""<-<s. S:'46V ,..r #,0.14".0 1..//i'IC/,/< .-..?'.-<!,v 8,-9//6 LJ ,;;F/Z/. ..-?.---?.!?E d 4"'" ,p'::A7C7E,o_ A"-"','--O::- "\,or W"/r# C>/..t.. ~/(/o/io?. "T.o ,/#/...5 .s~..a..o/t/.Is/.b~ o::::::.:;;y ~ tO~ fi-;- . ....":--, ~ ~~. /J 1""'\ ~ .;:1,5-'/ ,.L SUBDIVISICm PLAT CEECK Fomi &..d- Dat~ l-cJ/-7~ , Gentlemen: . According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into two or more lots must be 'divided in accordance "lith said Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen. . , This form, with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility comp2ny DGY inspect the plat and the site, making co~~nts) concerning the plCl'cement of ease_ me.nts, etc., end t-;here ne.cessary sl:etching recom.1L.enc1ed alterations on a cop~ of the plat. This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com- mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date. Remarks: This area is w~thin~he boundries. of the Aspen 111etropolitan SEmi tation District. There is adequate Plant and Trunk Line capacity to properly service any development in that area. L~~~~ Cli" Sam'pon Ex", tiV' S,mtary v ~. ....~. ~~. At ~ ~ ~/ c2-S--7~ i (1-1. . . , surmIvI8tm1 PLAT CEECIC Fomi Dat~ /-;2/- 71/ Gentlen:en: According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into two or more lots must be 'divided il1 accord,mce with said Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen. . This form, uith attached copy of the plat j_s provided so that each utility company may inspect the plat and the SOt ' . ~ . ~h 1 ~ J:: , 1 e, mch~lng CO:rrrI;2nLS, concern:.LTIg t...le p_ acerr~enL. o..c ease- me.nts, etc. > and ",here necessary sl~etching reco=snded alterations on a cop~ of the plat. This fOlln and the accompanyj~g copy of the plat must he returned to the City of Aspen Plcuning cnd Zoning Com- mission no la~er than seven (7) days from the above date. Remarks :1-25-:.~ ./ 'I _ ./ / ~ -~=-~ ~~*~ .,4l'.~~---/'+ -~/-~?---~ -&..- ~'<: . - U.tf ~Y~7~ I JOHN R. SPANGLER, ENGINEE '. HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. Of ~ -':;-- ~ ~--z;(. r"'V, ,;1-,5-7,' SUBDIVISION PLAT CHECK p.~'.' "...... . .' - ~ FOilll Dat~ 1-",.2/~7Y Gentlemen: According to th~ procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into two or more lots must be 'divided in accorch:nce ~'7ith said Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen. This form, with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility comp2,ny msy inspect the plat and the site, making CO:rrii:2nts, conceLning theplacerr~2nt of ease_ ments, etc., and where necesf;ary sl:etching recommended alterations on a cop~ of the plat. This fOlln and the accompanying copy of the plat must be returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com- mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date. Remarks: . . a(~ v 7rJ~c~ . - ~ q/~./Q '7fL ~cJo-Ir~- ~/ J /f0~~, .,',..:.",; :~:r~:A~~:t~~ I SUBDIVISION PLAT Cell t l('m~:n: AcC(l,~c1j,ng to tb:' pl~oc:c:dLl:rC sctfq1:t11;i.nth5 Subdivisio:l };.L'[\ul<"'tions, any trc,ctof lll"11d tl'70 01: more J.o'(s lilUSt be 'divided j.nt;cc~:n:c1<::ncc ~t!be.ltviILltJfl n~~\llt1tiem reii' j;l-1gCj,t:{Q~}\.i'Jpefl, , . This form, "7ith attc:ched copy of tl1eplat Is p!:,oyided that each u~iEty compcny mny'insp8ctth3 plat and the site, In~king co~~::;nts) concerJ.1ing' tha,pl~cere2n:t~,of,c,c:tst;:~ rn0TI t s,e tc .) cnd '\'lhe:ce necc s;;ary 'sl~et~lling recor:m:r:ende~ alterations on a cop~ of the plat. This form end the accoDpanyin[; copy 01:th8 pIa rrn1:o:t be retuTIled to the City of l,-~p-elLPlc.nning !::11.d.'Zoning_,GO;;):-- _. -,----- " .. ~-:~...-~'--- . . . mission nOla:ter than seven (7) days from the a.boveda - -~--- R --1. ...,..~/ - . //1 ? ....;J ..... ~d' ,"eroa!. {s. ~ ~ 7/~:. ....,..~..r;/(?_>" 1.__ -;C.. ~7~,.r,A..-('.-1 . >/v'/; :4-~ l~' ~ .-1 II 7J ' / " .,~ / (.I, _./0-: II) I J - ~ c....-_.-"'" 1/ '.... i / <j /( f1 .4 '-~ >, y" {/ I" J I --r1':-, ~61' .---;t:.1 "'":;' f (, , '--"""" '/l(~ (2 -,;'/, , ' '-Zt --[. v: ~ i? ~<';'.~ ~ /. ~ ....//1 / ,r >/<>C d.Q..... r . "'..-1"' ..,-, ;~ P' . ~r~ ~ ~ ~- ;Pi ~ '?:2 '.~j ~~ rv - ~-S-- 7L/ ' J-. SUBDIVISI N PLAT CEEC~ FOllii Dat~ 1- 21-71/ Gentlemen: . According to th~ procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into two or more lots must be 'divided in accordance ~'lith said Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen. . , This form, 1-lith attached copy of the plat 5,s provided so that each utility company mGY inspect th::: plat and the site, IDC1king CO~2nts, concerning the placement of ease_ ments,etc., end 't:lhere necessary s1~etching recoIillllended alterations on a cop~ of the plat. This fOlln and the accompanying copy of the plat must he returned to the Cit of As~en Planu'11o and m_ mission 110 ater than seven (7) days from the above date. - ~'~r' ~ ....'..>. Gentlemen: . According to the proccd"\.lTe set fOJ:th in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into two or more lots must be 'divided in accordcnce "7ith said Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen. . ' This form, 1-lith attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility compe.ny mny inspect the plat and the S't ' . ~ . ~\ 1 . ~ J:: ~ e, mal~J..ng co~~nL...s) conce-:cnlng t..il8 ,p~ acere.enL. o..c ease- ments, etc., and where necessary sl~etching recommended alterations on a cop~ of the plat. This fOlln and the accompanyin8 copy of the plat must be returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning COlD- mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date. Remarks: //.7~ I , $.<./ ./ p.f: /L4'/~~--;-#;"'.4~A.A~~~~ d "'..# -( A~a.-,.~/ '.7" C-:/~-t '<V ,;.:L.tI-( ._.GU. 4if f?~QA~+/-'M(~ '. --------- -~fi~~/ .. . ..~ ,.- , .' '/ r:;F .~~ " v ~ -~~ L.:,;;' "...-" ~ ;;;r: C-;Zy/cY 28 August 1959 Dear Mr. stewart: A little background on this problem, As you know 20 June was supposed to be comp:e tion \ date, 1 had. a renter moving in on my side the 28th of June and Ruth Miller into the sf -..",1' rental unit L July. Hans knew about .~ both of these events. On the 28th I mwed in, ',~; K and on the same day Lynn Lane came from Roswell to be here with her office for two ,yc~"" ~);.->-months. At that time, the tile on the loft floor was not done, the fireplace not ~;5-"'~ and finishing wood in the living room not completed, both sides. At this time, ~ HaniS told me the benches drawn into plans was not included! Envolved with just moving in, I didn't preiSs that issue. He did make two very inadequate benches for the other side, but I have paid iSomeone eliSe to build mine. I aloo bought old wood from 11artin Misbmashfor $42 to be installed in my aide with no compensation. The ladde.r for my side has been inadequately instaleed because Hans says the "mode of conveyence" up was not placed in contract! Therefore, I will have to have some- tr,ing built suitable for my needs. In the plans, a book case was drawn in, (plan he dr"w for me before photostat plans thd is) wbich have not been put in my side, again whig!> I will have to hage built. if he won't. Also, such poor wood was used for cabines, I will either'have to.cover with paper of some sort or have others built. The workers left the front deck so messy with paint, I will have to have it redone. He told 'be verbally there would be bathroom vents, there are none. Heaters on both sides, I have one. He used just some kind of pressed cardboard for sl,ssst closets and in geneJ:'aldid sloppy inside work. A glass pane on rental unit was borken F.r carpenter, which he hasn't replaced. One of his workmen, while finishing close t, after I moved in, not only messed up sheets etc., Cl4t a hole with his electrrc saw in two of my good blank:ets!u. ~ When I boughtproperl! etc., Hans told me that my property went up to two large 'boulders on knoll. ~hen I agreed to build, he then told me it is where it presently is, that is, after contract was signed and I came back to Aspen, 3 June and saw where the house was constructed. I questioned him about who owned knoll property. First he told me it was Fritz Benedict, then when I was told by (i,as men he was planning to build there he said, "no, I ca.'"l't build there, the property belongs to Dr. Barnard. " He has told me several times, and assured me that he will never build there. Just two weeksago, he was showing the property to two men, I'm wondering if WORD has a:JJ.Y legal support. I found out from Fritz recently that he sold the property to Hans about the same time or before the building of my duplex. If he were to build, of course, it would mean destruction to my entire front view. If he does, and there is w..y w:ay to prevent him legally, I would ihtend to. :I . j -" Also, I was to have a loan for $9,500. When Mr. Moore brought papers to SJ.gIl it was for $9,000. I questioned it and Mr. 14. said that Hans could have had it for that much, but that he said I was to take a $500 note to him personally. Hans never and to this date has never mentioned it. In view.of his "incompletion date" .,.a. I feel no moral responsibility for the $500 besides which, I can't pay anymore large debts at this time. He has avoided this house completion and in the meantime build; two more! I've tried cajoling, patience, e:l:c., but evidently he doesn't intend to accept hie responsibility toward me. A last item, the water is still coming from a hose over the knoll from someplace. Does it freeze during winter? Really, I'm at my last resort. Can you do eometci.ng to help unjumble this ~ese? ~ "" (j) R-i' i~~ ::J E (L...l ' I'1S-'1 '^. 5 December 1959 Dear Clint, Last week you were tied up in c0urt and 1 was and am very busy preparing.. for the opening of my espresso shoppe, the 15th of tiiis month. Therefore, the letter. Hans has obviously not corrected the electricity proble~ and has not even approached me to discuss or attempt co~ection of other requested items. Ruth's D4cember bill was some- thing like $2.0. and mine almost seven. , 1 am thoroughly disgusted with his indifference and have exhausted :patience, and therefore request that you file a damage scli t against Hans. The suit forfieting the $500 he did not request in the initial loan and did not; mention to me, also costs to coverall repairs a.~d compJo tion in the house, (the electrical wiring to be done by someone else at his expense), and at least $2,000 damages. (1 would also request payment of a surveyow~ since he has built a drive way over the area he verbally told me :included my property J If you are too envolved at this time to care for this matter, please let me know. I will be available at the basement of the Opera House or per phone WA 5-3659. Sincerely ~_ '(,,,- ~-"".\. H' ~\~ ~ . "- c::::::::::::::.:..:.:-......_~_.... "'...~ .. . Geraldine T.Hobgood ~ '\ -' " ."" L ,-,... "" -. )"'\ ~u i...\ r 28 Sept. 1961 Box 836 Dear Hr. Delaney, ~C! wrote a letter last week to you asking about possible October hearing but before mailing/the enclosed clipping was read in the Aspen Times. Tom Sardy and variou.s individuals strongly suggested that Betty Strou.d (Walt is in Bou.1der) and I "see a la'ryer" after determining from Puck whether this property mort~aged affected our property. Mr. BUchannan very obligingly marked off this plat for us and determined that our poperties are not IIfor sale" .(}le did measure the le ngth of my lot however, and said that I have approximately 61' in length, can you imagine??I believed that after I agreed to give Hans the 15 southerly feet, I would have a lot 85' long. It w~s interesting to note that Clint Stewart as a signee was well aware of the dimensions and cutting up of this property in Oct. 1957 and therefore knew when dimensions were discussed in his office with Hans, that this situation prevailed: He and of course, Hans knew that the plat in Stewart's office was outdated and not true. I might have done some stupid and nr,ieve things concerning this entire thing, but no one in their right mind would buy a lot 61' long for a house 44' long. I would !lever have agreed to thatDSc> Hans is n()T being sued for $157,000. And here I am still holding the bag. He has .to1d his wife (another idiot-type woman) that the two houses she lives in and rents, cannot be sold because they are in her name, she l~as nothing to worry about".....she is not divorced from him tho. She asked A1by Kern to fHe for divorce 3 mos. ago, and when she inquired just recently if she had the dii'orce, he said "no, I want to talk with Hans first and be sure I get myfee." J\h, sweet life, and the individ- uals with integrity in it2l And so dear Roberto, what is our next move? Nled1e S5 to say, I am very an:dous to know, si nce I do want to get away from this 1i ttle drama for awhile and hope to after the middle of Oct., even if I only " 1 { ./ . . . . ... \ ~ ,~ '" ,,{ --, r " listen. This is just a brief resume of what has been accomplished concerning the opinion of Jack and a constructor. As stated before, I have lost complete trust in Hans and wouldn't want him to touch the bhuse, but am concerned about a few things, besides those already mentioned, the ladder sulOPort, dangerously on the verge of breaking on renter's side and seemingly unsafe fireplaces. \ \ I do hope that something can be legally accomplished to prevent the further malpractices, unethical, unprincipled, actions of Hans. It was very difficult for me to expend and acce~t responsibility of house p~ents, but to find that I have less than half the value expended is really a discouragement. To say the least! Soon as I know definitely from gas people will forwars their ~stilllate. (Think you said you would talk with a surveyor. Hans and Clint both said. while I was in thetr office, the 'oroperty was60x100 and with giving 15 ft. would be 6Ox85;] I thought there was something on paper cOllcerning tha'!land :W50 I was to pay for water rights, but can't find it in files I tii>ihk from Clint's. I agriledto pay a max. of $50, but they told me the people who had the rights had not decided yet wa4 what each house OW,1er should have to pay and it would probably be much less than $50.00. At any rate, let me hear from you ab"ut the next steps. Thank you so much, and I sincerely am trusting something can be done. Yours truly, P.S. I have always been rather nUilv., intru;-;ting people and their basic sense of honesty and il).t!'gl."i ty and must say that in the same way trusted lawyers and doctors as I ~priests, but must say, personally, I think Clint Stewart has taught a lessonl Purely a personal opinion. ,\ ; ,,-., ^. f: .. . i , ?' , ' , s~~ ~~~,~.- );-", -S-.-'",= :~7\\ t ~<a)..~("S{~ - ~ ~,,~ ~ ~ ~ \'-.." ....,.,.~ \,.~ --~:- ~~ ~ ~.J-'~ ~ ~~. Q'3-'5.o} \.~~ .N'.).~ ~ l.oI::>O~. ~ ~\..:.~~',-~ ~ ~b'-~~..~ -~ -S-""-:'~~. \...~. ~O"""""'" . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~)~ ~)\, ~(k~ C~~~ \~ ~~~ ~ ~ Rc>~ ~,,~~~' ~J ~ccJ~' ~\. . . ~,,-\ '-~~~~- '=:":,~it~ ~~.~ ~ ,~. ~~. ~ -\~ :~'- y l, - Y,,_. -~ -\ ~ ~ . -a--~.Ju\.. O~ 1962 I I I II . I , i 1> .', \ LCJ~>on :~::.rch 12. 1:r:7l~ ,^, ,.,-.. '.20 ! ~- t..... . ,;le:::on . . In uno;10!'inl; your c.'elephone Call I ,'!ould l:iJ:o to mention 11{;ain my riGh~ in Property :;ottler:lcnt rcc;ardinQ: Jcry l'abeGod nreloQ ~~ . ( 20 feet en the Front, 11 feet on the bacl, (Patio c',all) 41.47 lNl.e;.) These Heo,surer.:lento \IOI'e uo.de in 1970 throuch re;;istcrll Surveyers Scarro\'J emd Jalker, in absolute Ac;rec:.leut \C:Lth Jerry Hobcood and I. Ho both ,lCre standing outside \111i10 the ;;urvey ( above lJOaSorocnts ) t]aS done. Jerry Hobgood said to I'rank (L;urv. ::lcurro,: c,na ',;o,:U~er) trod to ne ,she t-louJ.d 1il:o to l:ocp her ':"rces([;rrucc) on tho.,'ront, t;hich I D.[;reed. The IJinc isr.:ade c~il"octly ~rterHC':.rd. On the EG.ck ( Pa.tio (,Tall) Frn!~I:.'.-'.u.rv. Sc. (111<1 :'.r. r1cnt:ioned the Line ho.s to be ri"de 5 feet i'rO!1 ny Patio ':0.21. (uh:',ch lecnlly cho\lld be done) It uas i>urvoyd bya little Tree which I kept in t;i.1y mindfLud the Survey t^lao done there.. (jC'!,X'l"Y :-rol;r;ood 11,,-(] no ob,iccti.on. I can mienI' the Hilole surveyinc and mesoerment uas doue'5,n full agrecoent\';:1.th Jerry Hob.sood. I hod no oxp.~riC'nca and did not kll0\'i hot! to h'1.ve t!fe ."l~O~}(;r.ty-'., ra~::'':)D.Gt;1.021 done (tndholll to mol;:c out the Deeuts of :2rll::~t. Jerry Hobcoocl took udvuutuGe of thE1.t nutI said Sh6 Hill suve r.1C !mTj"ol's -ree D,l1U Hill Gettle the I:1ClttCl' for l:.e t tilat she ;";;:noHB i.l.ovr. ib turc..11y since I ct,peciL'.11y lLi.rcd ~:cnrrol:1 nnc1 '.-ialJwr and everytl1:i,nc HOB done ,-lith of :rust were mnde out truthsfully. Deed,s uaich she h'Jd !!lade out ,lith her st?udinc by and p,sreement, I thoUf~ht the Deed,s In full lj1:rust ?nd. ~<'lievin.s in her r s:!..t;:ned the -------_.~..._~ ~l02. Property r"1ensc!'rlents 2nd accidently fo.lDcJ..y DescribinG thG lets. I uou1d also like to l1ent:!.oned that!ee,rs beforo the,t Jerry !!obcood put d01:m Steps , from h()r honse on '1Y property. 2,>0 planted 'i::::>ees 0,1J. over on_.!2Y_Proper-t:r too. ~t.hout f;01:::inr; 82..!- Ii'~antcd to be a good ~;e13hhor and dit not cor1~:1n.in 0"" file a U),\"l$U:i.t aGainst her. Also I (,w..n.t to mentioned tJ~is piece of Fropcl'"'ty- C:.~bovo) 20 feet by 11 fect by 11,1.47 ) Has e",tinutcd fr08 Real Fstate " C;oy ':roor:! ll' ,'oy Rood" for ~~ 2.000.....- . I told Jerr-:." nOiJ~ood thin and she s~i.d that ohe could not afford it. It wouJ.d have been my leGal ri~hts to roceove her Steps and her Trees. Again to 8hm'1 r:~y to have kindness and understanding her sold this Property for I exceptet orJ.;z only 500.-- but S 500.--. ! do not feel sorry I feel very very bitter "",)",,,1 ~-~'......... disuppointed Qbout her behavior as it now hac cont me I second surveying vas dcne on ~cbrun~J 18~ 1974, just nrc OOGBCl'"racntD c:.:=~ctly tho aome :tron tho Gurvc;rinr; done ~uite a bit of money. to proove r.1Y ri{;hts land the in 1970. Iuoteod of ShOt-ling any consideration c:-: n:;}11"Gcic.tion she has acted very inb.';.l!.m.ne and unjust. It is imnonsiblc to ncc(1)1; he:" 1:~cht1vi(:r. . nut I 2..,. "iJ.ling to con:cromine anll ~Jill give her? feet uooro en tho b:;.cL: (Patio ~-~:all) . Tho r.1c.::ccrmcnt t:onld be 20 foet. on the front and 0':1 the' back 11 feet e:'.tendet to :1.3 lOcet. In th:1.s Co,se it is ncccc:">~::'J:Y'J I llC'U ;}urveyin.r:; frem ,Scarl~Oll a.nd :.:ulkcr Hould.. hDve toba Oi"ldc Hl1ich Jcrx.y :k1b;'>!)od l:.r~.$ to i'n.,y, hex-nolf. It Hill cost about .~ loo.~- . ~, r ,~, w'lOuld Jerry HobGood ~eoGerments 2c feot, back (l'::ltio ;10.11) on not~rco \lith bY' .:..... feet t b:r cur n:Grcc~c~t n~dq~ 1970 ( " 1.,1.4'7 ) or the extL ion of (~Jith the (13 :teet) 2 foet 6n tr;.o .. lIeI' exnense . than it is the best solution to call of the - . uhole 00.10 ("md I Hill g:Lve her bacll: G 500.-- and she h:13 to Give buck the ",-'Olll! Deed,s. Tile third and lant atternativo is to go;l; to court at Jerry "~bcood e:rpeunc.It ..ill cost her D. lot of :;onoy. Sincerely " I I I l~ I~~' \INJ~ " ~t ~jU ,P I ---------- II ~e---~ --rt--....,..,.~':J' li.,l~-:t -,-' ""'v ,--' R. "'~7 . /----, ".'--- , "'-...- ,,/,.. . ,- I ' ;', "--',,' ....... . I' ------. . . i, _............... ~---,.-- jf'l ~ ii , (' ,I Ji ,I __ 11 ,:1 II I I I . J '- , I~, r""'\ .. - / --~ Qi I L....." - ---- -'----....._- /;;/ 0 -----------.. ,.= /t / /V Q' ____________ 4Y-e ~ \~ ~\ ~~\ ~~\ ~ ~ ,\., ~o ~ ~ \ ~ ~ .~ ' ..,,,,, , ~ ~ , , 47 , ~ <::' " '" IJ. "~ ~l)N ~!fj . ~ ~ ~, ~~ , " ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~. "'" s, - .-\j .. " ~~ . ~ " < . , i , I / I , " , I I \ ,,:' I I I I I I I ", .. ci~ ~" :3 ~s-. 57 I , , , --....__ i -.1_ t--_ I -:---_:<: , ~ , ,~ ~.. , " '" o ~ '~ , '. , .-:::-:' ~ "- " " " o '" '" ,. ....... '0:.. ........... ~ ~ <: c::: flt -:" ....,,','~ \': " , . . I riD hl..,..J,.r <~..htr .j.~,:,1- 41 :s/tc'!-f='- or r~/s Df' <s./t' /dCfticd wi/hi" r~c",o,,"Itn""r $ub. 'VII/(s/on q,s. hCf'"c".tfl In ~o"fltdul,/I,~f"#I';"$ h,,,.ehy "/Q7/ed u.!r!'r<,. v4c..qftt-d . dftcl4~J ctba.,cJ()f1a.d ,i:;r t'cs<e./U';'If!::VI ~ /he $o.u.d Qr.-<' Cornm/~S/~nr.z.r:s. o~ /ilia" <_:ol.ln/-Y)"'Tttl~ fl/Eol,..."".;,n 1tt:E.TIN', Oe.7~/Ji.(a 7- 191>7'. p~/cJ:o(.".L?p.v ..lj;!- .1'9S7 122".:;;6-(2. #Ul-//~;t, <:.11-1I'f'771'''1 OFlh~ Mard <Dr Co""/y c:."cml~IC;I7'(U"-. '). L;: ~ .~~l --------- <: "'> / -. /."}.,, '/ ' 1.-< /.~';;~ "