The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.1020 E Hopkins Ave.1973-SU-1 - .~, '" ,.., Richard Meeker I KWeber Fi"t ~.tion'" Sank atJiklinS . Box 2.l29 . ASpen, Colo. 31611 . ro3/92:'.4493 Of rol/n.\.2JJ1 A C Nicholson December 11, 1973 Ms. Donna Baer PlarYling Office City of Aspen BO' V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Donna, In response to your letter of December 6, 1973 ard pursuant to OUr telecon Of this date, we are requesting voluntary withdrawal without prejwice of OUr Rlvervlew South condominium project under the provisions of Or"dinNlce 19. Very t",,1.y yours, RVIEW ASSOCIATES - ard.), Meeker rei Par-tner RJM,hc \ ~ / l-- \ \ \ ~ ------~- I I I I I I I I I I December 6, 1973 I i I Mr. Richard Meekerl Riverview Associatrs P. O. Box 2329 I Aspen, ColDrado I , I I I Pursuant to the re uest of the Aspen Planning and Zoning CommisSion, The As n City Council at its November 26th meeting autb.odzed the il.lllll.edi.ate employment of an urban ec<<tOlltist to analy e the econOlltic impact of yours and similar projects a d to test the validity of and impact of the master plan (updated) land use recommendations. ~, --{ Dear Dick, These developments result in procedural dilemmas under the provisi.ons of rdinance 19, most particularly section 1. D. which requir s action within 30 days of an applicant's presentation. We re planning to request all tabled applicants to make their presentations at the 12.11.73 meeting for the be fit of the anticipated economic study, However, it is ap rent that any well reasoned and cOlllplete analysis cannot be returned withii the 30 day period. Con. sequently, we are questing voluntary withdrawal without prejudice or tabU of your project pending the outcome of the city sponso edeconomic: impact repOrt. please advise us *YOU will be prepared to make your presentation 1m De ember 11th and how you would like to proceed at that t . I Yours truly, I I Donna Baer Planning Office ,... RI,veRY!QWassociates '"" RkhardM"..ker I KWeber Fir.. N~H<>n41 Baok 8uildi"R . 8m 2J29 . "-.pen. Co+<>. 61611 . 3031925-.493 fir )03/92,_2>31 A C Nichol.o" November- 27. 1973 Ms. Donna Bae.. Planning Office City of Aspen Box V Aspen, Colorado 81511 Dear Donna: Confirming our conversation of thLil date, we, hereby request you withdraw Riverview South from the agenda for the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for December 4th. It Is recognized this withdl"8.wal \., no way shall prejt..ldice our position in any future appearance before the Planning & Zoning Commission wtth regard to this project. Thank you. V~ '~'Y you~. 2! ERVlEW~SOCIATES , /cut' L RI haM. eeker General ar r . RJM,hc ~ ~ \3. ~ LEGAL NOTICE Notice is hereby given, that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission shall hold a public hearing on December 4, 1973, .5:00 p.m., City Council Chambers to consider the preliminary plat for Riverview South described as follows: Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 Block 5 Riverside Addition and Lots F, G, H, P, Q, R & S, Block 33 East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin. , Proposed plat is on file in the Planner's Office and maybe examined by any interested person or persons during office hours. /s/ Lorraine Graves City Clerk Published in the Aspen Times November 22, 1973 -.._~._--_.__..._._-- + . _<"c_ ,. ~,<^- ,-,c-,." HS:_<JJ::J. a~!:1e ~,~0_~_~ SJ / ,! OHDINI-iNCE HEVIE\'JS iil9/ ~ 1""'. ^ FtECOnD OJ:' PF:OGr::L",UI1\'GS "j 00 Lf;H VGS; l\:' A~~J2~:2~~~'=.521Ei.~~-!~_oninSL_.___~.__ -,,' '.-~ -,~t. "",,- 2'" ) 0'/" !,O v Ql:~~~_~!"_-.:_::,-,"_:::, Bill Caille, City Fire Harshall, stated that t,hc,y would like t.o be able t.O g-et behind the buildings due to Jche steep grade ,<<Further, would like to see sprinkling wall 'structures" Ed DelDuca, Assistant City Engineer, stated that they would like an ag-l~eernent on an improver0ent. district fox: that public road. Hs. Baer stated that the Planning Office felt the circu- laLlon problem is solved. Developer is providing 24 parking spaces. Chairman Adams stated he vlouldlike to table the considcn-.- at, ion of this proj ect unti'J, some of the problems, had been cleared up. Jim Reser {from 'l'ri-.Co Management Company f stated t.hat Hillard Clapper had given approvai to the proposed access. Coneensus of the projecL public road, ar~;:!a.. the Commission was to table consideratiO'l of Expressed concern on the access from a wid,th of turnaround, and access ont of the Chairman Adams st:.at.ed that the Conunission had discvssed the problems facing t:hem with Ordinanceiil9 reviews. Stated that the concensus of the CODMission was to table all the projects under the conceptual presentation of Ordinance #19, based on the following reasons: (1) would like cost-benefit considerations on a project-to-project basis; '\1ant: t.o be~Jin the economic impact eVc-~luat:i()D c::.= lal1d-use concepts represented by the map and the mixed residential category in particular; Att:o:cney Jim Horan was present and questioned 'che Com- mission to explilin exactly what additional information they are requiring - need 'co knOlv exactly \<lhat t:he re-' quirenK~n.ts on 11 economic impact Il includes. Bartel stated ,that in 'the near future, the Commission would be able to give the specific requirements as to what type of information they will require, Stated that t,he Second phase of the requirement is a cost,-benefit comparison for the Commission to revievl for the long run economic impact evaluation. Chairman Adams stated the Corrunission would try to make a determination within thirty days! but didn't want to be pushed into any fast decisions. Further stated t:ha.t the coneenSU$ of the Commission was that tourist:--accom-- modations should not be in mixed-residential. Moran qUf,stioned the Conm1ission on just exactly const,i.- tnted a t,ourist accommodation or resident accommodation, Bart:el' :stab3d that the Planninq Office \ and the, Commi:ssion w'ant to be E:pecific in \'lriting ~ on wha.l: use :i nfol:'nvltion will be rcquirQc1. hrould hope t.o be: <:lble to 0ivc spc:ci fie eXCtmp1(~s in l\r;pcn a!.:; i.:.O what \'laS l:lCtJ,]"lt by -tl1e: c1if:f"crent. ca.tc9ories. 1:1oran questioned the Commissi,on on when Uw pubJ.j c could expect the~,;c an~;\vCrB, <lnd Bdrtel n:pliecl that t.his \'IOU}'] " .~ ;.; ,'-'U". PCsnd.a.1:." 1-lec:Ling -_._-,._-~------- f ^ ,-, nECOF;D Oi~'rJF;OCL:ED!;'i!C~S 1 GU Lcav{;s 1<,1<, }.\spen. PJan!:l..L~2..'L..~on~nL....._ Novembe~ 20, 1973 be an immediate work item for the Conunission. "When questioned as 'co whe'ther or not the Commission was seeking the same information on single-family dwellings, Chairman Adams stated that the impacts connected with single-family dwellings was not as great, so problably "vould not be t;abled by the Commission, Vidal stat:ed that; the evoluU,on of t,he Ordina,ncej!19 map \.,ras a. compromise and that the att::L-'cuc1e has been that it was still an open-'type thing and represented a compro-- mise. Chairman Adams stated tha't the additional information was needed in order to c1etc,rrnilie the impact on public facili- ties, the environment, and natural resources. Bartel stated that during the budget considerations, the Planning Office didn't feel it needed earmarked funds for environmental studies. Concensus of Cmmnission was to 'cable all Ordinance #19 Conceptual presentations at this time. Gillis made a motion -'co adjourn the meeting { seconded by Johnson. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. :; -/-- 1- II ---- (/';1/0.., (;'/,/,,4/1" --,-...., r'" I /..~) "'.- r' .../ '- /z 7'(-:-'-~'=;-""p-'--'- -".----. ~ .~ ,-, MEMORANDtIM TO: City Clerk PlanniQg Office FROM: SUBJECT: Riverview South Subdivision. Preliminary plat DATE: November 9, 1973 Pl~s!e schedule and advertise Riverview Soutl1 preHmh\Ary plat/for public l1earing at. PlannlQg and Zoning's meeting on No'l(ember 20, 1973. Le~a.: description as foll()WIS: , ,/ " J Lots ~f4,S,6 & 7, Block 5, Riverside ! Addi,tlon and Lots F ,G.,H,P,Q,R & s, Block 33 East Aspen Addltion, City :' of Aspen, County of Pitkin. of adjacent land owners Is attached. .~ --. ,.... '1 RLYel\YleWassociates Ricl1ardMeeker I KWebe, Fin' ~.,ion.lllank Building. 110,2319 . ^>P"n, Colo. 81611 . .1031925.44>1] or 103/9H.2ll1 A C Nicholson November a, 1973 Ms. Donna Sae... PI annt ng Office City of Aspen Box V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Donna: The purpose of thi s latter is to present to you our preliminary pi at as provided In Ordinance No. 4 (Series of 1973), Section 6, Section 20-4, Paragraph 1 ane! 51 mul taneou51 y compl y with City of Aspen Or-dinance No. 19 (Serl as of 1973), Sectlon:2, I, A, Subparagraph 1, concerning tha presentation of a conceptual plan. The request Is for a building permit we wish to obtain In order to begin construction of;!it project In the Sprln!;j of 1974. Please find attached hereto ;!it prel imlnary pi at indicating we are proposing to buil d fifteen unlimited condominium unl ts in five separate bull dings plus ampl ayee housing and offlce space. The approxlrruote 35,000 square feet of land on whiCh we plan to constl"Uct our pl"Oject Is zoned AR-l allowing for 23 unlimited units 01'" 46 limited ...nlts. Under the 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan th~s land Is categol"'ized as Residential/Mixed. Pel"'the definitiOl1 of Residential/Mixed we pLan to comply with this new categol"y by doing the following, 1. Allocating 8 unIts for pel"'maner1t residential housing 2. Allocating 7 units for visitor accomodation housing 3. Allocating 1000 square feet for professIonal office space of the type that does not dl"'aw tralTic 4. Allocating 600 sq\.IaN'l feet for employee housing In addition to the foregOing there are several other important things we propose to do: 1. In conjunction with the City of .Aspen, lY'd pl"'<:lbably through the creation of a street Improvement dldtrlct, widen and Improve .....' ,.., " Ms. Clorvla Baar 2 11/8/73 East Hopkins Street from OI,Jr West boundary Una to the river with a cul-de-sac at the end of the street cOlTlparable to the one at the end of East Hyman Street. 2. Deed a ten (10) foot wide strip of land along the river to the City of />.spen for a pedestrian trail slmtlar to the one We constructed at Rivervlew. This will amount to considerably more than the fOl,Jr percent land gift or equivalent requl.....d under the Subdivision RegulaUons. This trail will connect with the trai.\ we have constructed and will connect to tt1e proposed trail across the Mver. 3. Set back all buildings an average of 50 feet from the river (well beyond the flood plain) in order to create a pari<. like effect on all riverfront property and at the same time preserve most of the natural vegetation. We Invite and strongly urge all members of the Planning OffIce and the Planning 8< Zoning Commission to visit the Rivervlew site and get a feeling for the pari<. atmosphere we have c~ated. Please call us with your comments and questions. truly yours, R RVIEW ASSOCIATES J..Ao<,t~~0-6J hard . eeker General ar ner RJM,hc enol. cc, Jim Adams Chairman, P 8< Z ~- - f"'\ ,.., IUvel\YlQWassociates RkhardMeeker I KWeb<>r fi"t Ndti01l.1 BaAk 8"ildin~ . Bo, 2J29 ' ""pen, Colo.1l1611 . J(lli925_4493 or 30V92;_2Ul A C Nicholson September 26, 1973 Aspen PI anning & Zoning Comml ssi on Clt y of Aspen B= V Aspen, Colorado 81611 Subj ect: Subdivision Exemption Reque>>t Gentlemen: Per the terms and conclitions of Ordinance No.4 (Series of 1973), Section 20-10, paragraph C, we request an exemption from the strict application of the subdivision regulations as set forth in the definition Section 20-2 (a) on lot s and blOCks of land wlthi n the 01 ty of Aspen described as follow>>: Lots F,G,H,P,Q,R,S, Block 33, East A.5pen Addition and Lots 3,4,5,6,7, Block 5, Riverside .A.ddttion, City of Aspen. Our grounds for requesting an exemption are based on the fact that prior to the effect!ve date of Ordinance No.4 the subject land had been platted into lots and blocks by plat recorded in the office of the Pltkln County Cieri< and Rflcorder. The land Is being divided into condominium Interests. Any provisions of Section 20-7 the app! (cant does not now comply With can be effective I y handled by the Planning & Zoning CommiSsion as conditions of approval when the applicant Initiates action for b\JiI ding permit review procedure under Ordinance 19 (Series of 1973), Section 2, I. (A) 2, Preliminary Design Presentation. Action of this nature would closely follow the pro- ce<fure used by the Commission when it gave the applicant conditional ap- proval for their Rivervlew Condominium project now under construction di.....ctly north across Hopkins Street from the subject land. 9-.75-75 RJM:hc -__.._______m__..__