HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Block 8 Riverside addition.1971 j 1 . $ \ •
i
. , '1
C i. V
.L, 14, .,:_, s _.,
January 28, 1971
The Dorelous/Flelither Company
Y. 0 . Box 364
Aspen, Colorado
Gentlemen:
At the Council meeting held on January 25 , 1971, the Councils
decision on your request was denial .
The Council indicated they concur with the Planning and Zoning
Commissions reasons for denial .
Sincerely,
...--
) .)--' - , :/ -,
/,
___.------ ' 7 - -
, -
Lorraine Graves
,
—
_ 7 ,
. : ( _-0
We the undersigned object to the proposed change of zoning
of Lots 1 through 8, Block 8 , Riverside Subdivision from
RPC-15 to RMF for the following reasons :
This area was developed in the 1950 's and became congested
due to the lack of a density law. When the present zoning
was enacted a considerable number of dwellings then became
"non-conforming. " If these non-conforming cases are per-
mitted to be used as arguments for new requests for changes ,
we believe that the very purpose and protection of the law
would be cancelled out .
To add to this already congested condition by rezoning the
area to an even higher "intensive use" of RMF would be
contradictatory to the "intent and purpose" of our planning.
and zoning concept , . . : "density and scale to create the
feeling of separation, open spaces, livability of the
community , etc . "
To rezone this area to RMF because of contigious RMF owner-
ship would set a precedent and encourage similar requests .
The , proposed 14 unit apartment complex would greatly increase
an existing population density, create an intense building
complex in a primarily residential area, worsen congestion
to the adjacent R-6 zone, create an impossible parking
problem and add to the traffic hazards at Highway 82 inter-
section. , p
. a.c m ,
Ck =elf e2t r v Cf- L�`/.._� (<7, i/�
i.,,,,,::- . .1i 41 -...-....,■ ;--4/.-4;- '2%,„-ezei.754 --/,,,,"-67re--
ye:5
'' '--) /.•- ■AMII r,.. __, 4240 4e,
I ' ' ‘/ / 1(../61(AA/1
..;" ....V /(9 11 _.9 04 A-Ve- '
r
V �
ii . .rl/, . /_' ' ,//) i. / '
i
Oi -.411 1 ' 1
2(44,--72er r/,-4. Ze--' A:7,Zo 4----:-: 6,62/0e--,---)
`9?...ArOv .--,)::) , i ,f(kk_k_Ahr / 0 6Z 0 E. . coorvy- ,
,.,,,,�- ,, , 9 .308 / -"?..e ,saw-.
� �ea. a4 4 4 . 4'
I9 e. /P-a--a-4-2i?
,dot .S" - &la" '
,.---. ,er,24A) 4 4' .." ;
�'
r ► - ce: ir• , f.,
,� . c_. v� L
l I :i
T.
Ilini irl'Y -)C... -- ICt-i C-2 Ce,-epl- .1-.C2-A.'
Lik.ir ArVar
m:11.4. ,a,,,
C 9
•
We the undersigned object to the proposed change of zoning
of Lots 1 through 8, Block 8, Riverside Subdivision from
RPC-15 to RMF for the following reasons :
This area was developed in the 1950 's and became congested
due to the lack of a density law. When the present zoning
was enacted a considerable number of dwellings then became
"non-conforming. " If these non-conforming cases are per-
mitted to be used as arguments for new requests for changes ,
we believe that the very purpose and protection of the law
would be cancelled out.
To add to this already congested condition by rezoning the
area to an even hig erher "intensive use" of RMF would be
coiitradictatory to the "intent and purpose" of our planning
and zoning concept. . . . "density and scale to create the
feeling of separation, open spaces, livability of the
community, etc. "
To rezone this area to RMF because of contigious RMF owner-
ship would set a precedent and encourage similar requests .
The proposed 14 unit apartment complex would greatly increase
an existing population density, create an intense building
complex in a primarily residential area, worsen congestion
to the adjacent R-6 zone, create an impossible
problem and add to the traffic hazards at Highway r82ninter-
section.
) L'alr'L'k-( /24
Pritt,i r cA; i
/ of
„3(iL, ,II ! 11 �� ` dar'
.' e .- . e i
,4P1,ri ti/AarA.i
LP
We the undersigned object to the proposed change of zoning
of Lots 1 through 8, Block 8, Riverside Subdivision from
RPC-15 to RMF for the following reasons :
This area was developed in the 1950 's and became congested
due to the lack of a density law. When the present zoning
was enacted a considerable number of dwellings then became
"non-conforming. " If these non-conforming cases are per-
mitted to be used as arguments for new requests for changes ,
we believe that the very purpose and protection of the law
would be cancelled out .
To add to this already congested condition by rezoning the
area to an even higher "intensive use" of RMF would be
contradictatory to the "intent and purpose" of our planning
and zoning concept. . . . "density and scale to create the
feeling of separation, open spaces, livability of the
community, etc . "
•
To rezone this area to RMF because of contigious RMF owner-
ship would set a precedent and encourage similar requests .
The proposed 14 unit apartment complex would greatly increase
an existing population density, create an intense building
complex in a primarily residential area, worsen congestion
to the adjacent R-6 zone, create an impossible parking
problem and add to the traffic hazards at Highway 82 inter-
sectio�n� !
V���1�1`� `\ y.' ti_ .,,� E `fit) r's k `J+ jks 32.�J
t -4Zifi" ". r 4 / , ;� ' ; x /
)� ' .. 6.C( . ii... / ' ,/ J
2z,� 'ice / e e _ '/
/,,,F_/ ,
' liwy , ' '
7(.) / E,. •_ 4f r>0.A.9
01' . immireitiini IiirrztAir
'In _ _....dlicjahiiiihn- / 1 il tili/ ' 6.44 4 -
' '' ad MIIIPPrir
fl (S 1\ 04(t" s,scraii,
ARZINW114 4.-•_4A1 :' :'; c3 }QttiV) 14_4.‘k. Odjk''-'
L ,mot . .,1-) -.I A %A 0 r �(
/r /,,,--,. .-c=i- -, -&_ (/(b<71--
z
) J %��
i'.z/,/_.-,=, /'2,..)e.,:,%=-J1.---z-- -
G a./ r
i�' u / ; V e,,-- �: d L. , a v Q
,\f i .c
'7 ----;vW1- 44:_. '-441.N:3 AL____--
t
. 1
Ai/ .,...//e.ii"r"--tile Air--1-
L3
We the undersigned object to the proposed change of zoning
of Lots 1 through 8, Block 8 , Riverside Subdivision from
RPC-15 to RMF for the following reasons :
This area was developed in the 1950 's and became congested
due to the lack of a density law. When the present zoning
was enacted a considerable number of dwellings then became
"non-conforming. " If these non-conforming cases are per-
mitted to be used as arguments for new requests for changes ,
we believe that the very purpose and protection of the law
would be cancelled out .
To add to this already congested condition by rezoning the
area to an even h g "intensive use" of RMF would be
contradictatory to the "intent and purpose" of our planning
and zoning concept. . . . "density and scale to create the
feeling of separation, open spaces, livability of the
community, etc. "
To rezone this area to RMF because of contigious RMF owner-
ship would set a precedent and encourage similar requests .
The proposed 14 unit apartment complex would greatly increase
an existing population density, create an intense building
complex in a primarily residential area, worsen congestion
to the adjacent R-6 zone, create an impossible
problem and add to the traffic hazards at Highway r82ninter-
section.
`V2/c/t,( y , -_
■
We the undersigned object to the proposed change of zoning
of Lots 1 through 8, Block 8 , Riverside Subdivision from
RPC-15 to RMF for the following reasons :
This area was developed in the 1950 ' s and became congested
due to the lack of a density law. When the present zoning
was enacted a considerable number of dwellings then became
"non-conforming. " If these non-conforming cases are per-
mitted to be used as arguments for new requests for changes ,
we believe that the very purpose and protection of the law
would be cancelled out .
To add to this already congested condition by rezoning the
area to an even higher "intensive use" of RMF would be
contradictatory to the "intent and purpose" of our planning
and zoning concept. . . . "density and scale to create the
feeling of separation, open spaces, livability of the
community , etc. "
To rezone this area to RMF because of contigious RMF owner-
ship would set a precedent and encourage similar requests .
The proposed 14 unit apartment complex would greatly increase
an existing population density, create an intense building
complex in a primarily residential area, worsen congestion
to the adjacent R-6 zone, create an impossible parking
problem and add to the traffic hazards at Highway 82 inter-
section.
s .
_L.,�,, . .//�. ; / /A 11) JC �v�r..5io `
... AO � . I-/,y 2 - Ea. & 1
. Allir
-' a ,
/ ��� C" / . /CY
pro, ' ( OF /
ee57- /C.,07 ,. .,74,/,-„-
-1111,141117-
OL,„...... ape, e,e,
/,r� "& c
r 7. 7 / C `"ter .0_e .
i
4V. AU �.��OL/ & /o 1 r m om _ 4z :
�G/y , „ ,
� d4k� �
/6t
- 0/4 --P>t-)c 660 45--60( 4-, .
-� A--(i 4&c- // �1 i✓��,C�/r _-1 ',.
ivz,z,,,,
//_.--- /,7*--7=.--2 ( -sZ-/-e---zat--_ (Ct,e' ._
'-' 4 Ci!6//------ Aft
ew,i J
, ,
_ ...., ,,,,,„,,,, /' 6��' � _,,,5:do.Li 'Z -Y
alrialfr‘i .
We the undersigned object to the proposed change of zoning
of Lots 1 through 8, Block 8 , Riverside Subdivision from
RPC-15 to RMF for the followwng reasons :
This area was developed in the 1950 's and became congested
due to the lack of a density law. When the present zoning
was enacted a considerable number of dwellings then became
"non-conforming. " If these non-conforming cases are per-
mitted to be used as arguments for new requests for changes ,
we believe that the very purpose and protection of the law
would be cancelled out.
To add to this already congested condition by rezoning the
area to an ever higher "intensive use" of RMF would be
contradictatory to the "intent and
purpose"
and zoning concept. . . . "densi,ty and scales c planning
to create the
feeling of separation, open 'spaces, livability of the
community, etc . "
To rezone this area to RMF because of contigious RMF owner-
ship would set a precedent and encourage similar requests .
The proposed 14 unit apartment complex would greatly increase
an existing population density, create an intense building
complex in a primarily residential area, worsen congestion
to the adjacent R-6 zone, create an impossible parking
problem and add to the traffic hazards at Highway 82 inter-
section.
,� , _ \. .)4 t 1
I rAll5illiiiRtio •
_ _
itil
i a, _ I , , %.1 a 4 s 01 ,
,,.
.002,-...- , -,
__ref �'
A. ..Z.ir.......I .. 7° 7 &##J-dge-g" ,
j
%.
41 '.-
Idir 1 l . fel 4 6?,44,444.
7 i I (21/04,A. St
11. IIP; ' . if 4.04 -.ii„:„...._
jor 9 e....4... 4
..IIA 1.. X �"'" 4 , ( a k
dir
girl/'�. _ice
IP-areP1131111 /111,2211,7
yY
/:is. se" , ''
J d
P.
(._ (.1),"//j
•
We the undersigned object to the proposed change of zoning
of Lots 1 through 8, Block 8 , Riverside Subdivision from
RPC-15 to RMF for the following reasons :
This area was developed in the 1950 ' s and became congested
due to the lack of a density law. When the present zoning
was enacted a considerable number of dwellings then became
"non-conforming. " If these non-conforming cases are per-
mitted to be used as arguments for new requests for changes ,
we believe that the very purpose and protection of the law
would be cancelled out .
To add to this already congested condition by rezoning the
area to an even higher "intensive use" of RMF would be
contradictatory to the "intent and purpose" of our planning
and zoning concept. . . . "density and scale to create the
feeling of separation, open spaces, livability of the
community, etc . "
To rezone this area to RMF because of contigious RMF owner-
ship would set a precedent and encourage similar requests .
The proposed 14 unit apartment complex would greatly increase
an existing population density, create an intense building
complex in a primarily residential area, worsen congestion
to the adjacent R-6 zone, create an impossible parking
problem and add to the traffic hazards at Highway 82 inter-
section.
. AWL( arLiGardejjf - e_.)24J-z
it./1/L/ /I & ,AA_C_ i'Vilf-eR 0 ft 'AL-
4tikk oecO o
�,ayy ;.,c.-F s �..; ,, -, ua.: o_. ^;Y:85I1.'.Xa:[::.'Sec- •-.:2'7GwC3s.. ... ,: �- '`G",.9.::ruwi�..';s.,.a., w
TO : City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Herb Bartel , Regional Planner
SUBJECT : Rezoning application : Lots 1 thru 8 , Block 3
Riverside Addition.
East of Cooper Street Bridge , Right
Side of Highway 82 across from Park
Avenue.
Size of Property : Approximately 21,000 square feet
Present Use : Storage yard for masonry materials
Present Zoning: R-PC - 15
Proposed Zoning : R-MF
Proposed Use : Apartment house for long term rentals
Plans for Area : 1966 Aspen Area General Plan recommends R15/40
residential/Planned Unit , Page 4.
The Plan makes the following comments on Page 7 for
Residential - Planned Unit designation :
"Application of this designated use is recommended
on an individual project basis following review of
precise development plans . Principal uses include
single family dwellings plus the associated uses
allowed in the rural residential category. "
Zoning History : Present zoning of R-PC-15 was applied in the spring
of 1967 .
1969. - A request for AR--1 Zoning of Guido Meyer ' s
property in the vicinity was denied by the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Comments : Any zone change application proposed to make a contribution
towards the employee housing problem should be considered within the
limits of the regulations , specifically, the regulations do not insure
that the zone change requested if approved would in fact be used for
employee housing and do not provide for design considerations . Therefore ,
written agreements committing the uses and design should be considered.
Such agreements could include :
1. Understanding that the units will , in fact , be used
by resident:, employed in the area ;
2. Contracts with major employers reserving units ;
3 . Agreements to keep necessary records for enforcemecic ;
Recommendations of R-MF zoning would require an amendment to the Master
Plan and any amendment to the Plan should not be considered on an
individual parcel basis but rather on a neighborhood basis . In that redar=
the extent and future boundaries of R--4F which is correct for the area
should be considered.
It should be noted that R-6 residential does allow two-family dwellings
with a minimum of 3 ,000 square feet per dwelling. Escablishment of R-6
in area , would impact on the solution to the
Lo�lz��.g a..n the �.rt_� , ���oulc. have a smaller s p�
housing problem, but with proper design criteria could be very co'npatihi
with the neLghhorhoed,
NOTICE OF REZONING HEARING
APPLICANT : The Doremus/Fleisher Company
P. 0 . Box N-3
Aspen, Colorado
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Lots I through 8, Block 8, Riverside Subdivision
City of Aspen
HEARING DATE: December 8, 1970
TIME & PLACE: 5 :00 p.m. , City Council Chambers, City Hall
REQUEST: To rezone the property from R-PC-15 to R-MF zoning.
You may be present to state your views at the hearing, or you may submit
your views in writing prior to the hearing to the City Clerk, City Hall.
Lorraine Graves, Secretary
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 30, 1970
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
c/o The City Clerk
P.O . Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gentlemen,
This letter is our formal application for the re-classification of zoning
for Lots 1 through 8, Block 8, Riverside Subdivision . We would like
to request that its present classification of R-PC-15 be changed to
R-MF . We request that this application be considered at your next
regular meeting, November 10, 1970 .
There are four basic considerations in this request. First, the property
is contiguous to a present R-MF zone. Secondly, the property lies
between non-conforming uses and the R-MF zone to which it is contiguous
(see attached reference map). The non-conforming use is an eight
unit apartment building located directly east of and adjacent to the
property to be re-zoned. There are, additionally, two apartment
buildings in the very near vicinity of the property . One lies north of
Highway 82 and east of the Roaring Fork River and is known as the
Cantrup Apartment. The other also lies east of the Roaring Fork, but
south of Highway 82 and south of this property. It is known as the
Kastelic Apartments .
Thirdly, re-zoning of this property would not contribute to spot zoning
in the area . The purpose of zoning is to meet the needs of the community .
The need for permanent housing, long term apartment rentals included, is
understood and agreed by all . The final consideration then is that if
re-zoned the property would be used for the development of an apartment
house for long term rentals . We are willing to make a commitment to the
occupancy of a proposed building on this property to that use.
We would like to bring to your attention that the R-MF zone, to which the
subject property is adjacent, is approximately two acres and in one
post office box n-3 aspen,colorado 81611 303 925-2122
page two
ownership. It is the only R-MF zone existing in the entire City of Aspen .
If you need any further information we will provide it immediately .
Yours truly,
onald J J . eish r
DJF/sl
Enclosure
cc: Saint John's Episcopal Church
/ A 6 '
_ } a ti J .".c•
.w ..�.I. _....
•
: v �v �.... 2 3 l
AR-
1t BLK 8 ._
,4•,... o \'.• ,
( , ..L , { } � ■ '� am ' i j .4 1
. . , t
. A n .._,
.1 i I ",-,..S"--,_ '-‘_,, ‘ f .
5.
•
; J11
:i?Nc'.,Lid,: - .
Nfo
�`� �
—1\...- •.
R_ �. 1
•
`��� ,�,n
.. '.�/o
\ - � `ti �` °S �.� 1 `.mot^.. .
\ ,..,... „,......„____.---,•-,.......-.., t
., .
1 ,
, .. : •
(i, ., ,
...,
, :, ,
, ,....
J•
..,,
. ) ,
,/ .
,' ‘• ,
. ,_,
,4 �'q ....,./1....1��, \ leis. ` , . S/ge 07 - � . .y : ,
),,I _ = PROPOSED CHANGE
OF ZONING
7140:9 %t.,5 FOR : '°
� i ; r= RIVERSIDE ADD N
12 ■
ep
BL K. 8
�` . / S - . P
NOTICE OF REZONING HEARING
APPLICANT: The Doremus/Fleisher Company
P. 0 . Box N-3
Aspen, Colorado
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Lots I through 8, Block 8, Riverside Subdivision
City of Aspen
HEARING DATE: December 8, 1970
TIME & PLACE: 5 :00 p.m. , City Council Chambers, City Hall
REQUEST: To rezone the property from R-PC-15 to R-MF zoning.
You may be present to state your views at the hearing, or you may submit
your views in writing prior to the hearing to the City Clerk, City Hall.
Lorraine Graves, Secretary
Planning and Zoning Commission
a
December 17, 19 70
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sirs:
John and I have given consideration to some ideas for covenants to be placed
on the "St. John's Property" in the event that it becomes rezoned. The following
is a list of four of our suggestions:
1 . that not more than 12 units be constructed on the property
2 . that the units would be rented to permanently-employed residents
of Aspen only
3 . that there be 12 parking spaces provided for each unit
constructed
4. that completed building would not cover more than 40% of
the available land excluding a cover for the parking area -
if one were built
John and I would like to cooperate with you in every way possible. If you have
some suggestions for ideas that we have overlooked, please let us know. We
would be willing to discuss them with you; and if they seem feasible, we would
be willing to incorporate them also .
Sincerely,
•onald J . Fl-isher
DJF:ha
post office box n-3, aspen,colorado 81611 1 303 925-2122
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM•.0 C.F.HOECKEL B.B.&L.CO.
R E S O L U T I O N
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
WHEREAS , a request was made to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for rezoning of Lots 1 thru 8, Block 8, Riverside
Addition from R-PC-15 to R-MF zoning by the Doremus/Fleisher
Company; and
WHEREAS , the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public
hearing on the request December 8, 1970.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission recommends denial of this request based on the following points :
(1) No changes in the character of the area have occured;
(2) Existing zoning is correct and in compliance with the
adopted plan for the area;
(3) Zoning is available that could be developed for multi-
family dwellings ;
(4) The increase in density in this location would have an
undesirable affect on the neighborhood.
NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Planning and Zoning Commission
is committed to the study and recommendation for means of encouraging
inclusion of R-MF type zoning into the existing AR-1 zone, the AR-1
zone presently being too extensive and a combination with R-MF as a
conditional use subject to the approval of the Planning Commission is
contemplated.
DATED THIS 8th DAY OF January , 1971
•
Robin Molny, Chai man
....
To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Cormission
Date: December 3, 1970
The undersigned are against the proposed change of Lot 8, South of
Highway 82, between Anderson's Stables and the Buckwheat, presently zoned
R-15 to Multiple Dwelling for the purpose of low cost housing.
A previous request by Guido Meyer was rejected at a public hearing for
property located one block East cf said property.
Property Owner Address
/ I 1 361).' efkl,A,Qicv„siz,
-1'd . 6ttl:IY\' t Z.5 Ait,o,vizAzea.
e (----7,-
„---, _ , 7,) ,,,_ 1 7
,4.?/--e
--,7/- a / , --it ,..,..e._
„ co
' / „
7)146 2i? i .v,,, /
,- Ltryl,yuit (2z-v- c„,,,r 02 ,,,,9Q,,,,,_,,t ,....A_A„L„.
-----
c---),P /
../".- ' e,-,-, Ar
--- /-....-7
V" 4 e-44 4 /4_,,J z e,( C_ .-
,---,
i', ,_ ---k.. . -k , '
7 \ -N„ -\,, ir , .__A. ': ' (-
.
c--
/ /
/, /0 V
I
, ,, ,. it
' --7 ' ' 71 D04)
( c) y
//
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, a request was made to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
rezoning of Lors 1 thru 8, Block 8, Riverside Addition from R-PC-15 to
R-MF zoning; and
WHEREAS , the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the
request December 8, 1970.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
denial of this request based on the following points :
(1) No changes in the character of the area have occured.
(2) Existing zoning is correct and in compliance with the
adopted plan for the area;
(3) Zoning is available that could be developed for multi-family
dwellings ;
(4) The increase in density in this location would have an undesirable
affect on the neighborhood.
BX NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Planning and Zoning Commissioh is
committed to the study and recommendation for the inclusionuofOR-14F type
zoning into the existing AR-1 zone, the AR-1 zone presently being too
extensive and a combination with R-MF as a conditional use subject to the
approval of the Planning Commission is comtemplated.
tho
leann %-3 1 7171 C,"
ce of zonin-
of
zon .-L', to . iiy.
3,..7!: t .21'1 fli-,"!°WIly ocIe
_ 2 &ion
protection e i t cuch
, orr.!ff.. .enco in tlo
zonj..r. • -c, ofit in corrwlion enri
to a i--- if '
;,_ w111
P t t e l• 5 in
f`ul. y
REZONING RECOMMENDATION
1. - No changes in the character of the area have occurred.
2. - Existing zoning is correct and in compliance with the adopted
plan for the area.
3 . - Zoning is available that could be developed for multi-family
dwellings .
4. - The increase in density in this location would have an
undesirable affect on the neighborhood.
,r. d
'2 ((1
''' -
P---- . ' ‘4—: / )1
lii„7', .:_ ,,,,,/:
........-----
ri •; - 4 '''i ....,
?.r,, ..,.. .—r .,w:., - fir..'
,...
t\l-.2 , , __.,.....
.,,..,„,,,,
" 2‘ ' I--- . ./...* j''' -..-„,.;2t,-7 / ).-.1:.,... ' if—r 1.- —
.,..... .
Li....,,- c,,, (,),4. --)Lx.--t) —Lit---L,
,
,
,....,...
/NZ' ' '''''!:'' Lt '''''t' (, ": ' ''' i V,L.,... r. .,,,.,... f■„..,A ,,,,,,,,s,„, aorr
. . . ,
... ., ,...I (.,,,. ./-1,..4, .....„,,,..:„....,/ ,....,,c..4%.,„ja.,..
z ...0
:, , /, f I 1
cX' ,"4'-''
1 ■ IC-"1/-4 i
(
i - / ' 'i -Vc.-.../C,' '47-• (....:-7)"-).C. 1.°-Q„,, -4::e,.;..4' - ' v/),
-- f''
._.„,....
/ ,.. 1 ' ;' - , i' "--7—/t"
., ,„,,`,,,, i.,,:'
. - -.3
,—
/ • i
k----)—a(' j if*:3 O ) *-
---
, ,...._.
,-
7 ,./ . ' , ' (.. ',‘
,
( ( ' , ,/,'0. , / ,..; -, i
- /
.. , _ ,....„... . ... , .-,......A
. .
) i .',,, „.„)4": ■. ,L.,,,,,,i7:"( i'-'itA--„,4;°d‘,,,ii,,,,/: ', ',, ,,--'
( . f.
, ..
c TV FE
' . 1
1 1-74it. j .,'-''
r A.
I— (,
t..."-„, r.V.,'
1 • ,A.
' 7
,1
0,
t''i ,-' 'I's r\i'''-`1,;_.,
,,., i. L\
,...
„. .
IL.....„._,......-
-,,i
•_:i. I
''. '
.._ A. / L
1, (...;,,,,, f• '':. P.61.:I r,)/..",,..,:,/ ".:75° 'I.--
in 44410,' *441100'
4
i[
( I il
("1 (1, A': '.1 '4 '"'''t*.„, ti•-:' f., 7..)
,
it'\C(1,( : ''' /te',` :- 0-24A,Ce„,:( C
1 .., e• '
I
'..., ',-
I--.") . \
..---F( k 'C..A
r
-,-----
,,... 1 cc P-M,,, , —ccIele) 2-c)/
.
, .., .
..t-c-c.... 4 ! - --,
. f', * 1 ( ),, 1::..,.:,; 4, /
( C i 1 s‘ i
1 ,,, .
. r
. i 2)/ .)
\ , i i
'''' :,...7...1, / : I 3
. .
-
. ,
" -
.1 \' _ := - • -
„..._ ,
( 4--
f '
i
:
4 .4
it
i \
•
' ' ' '
, .'' , ... , ‘ , . . .,. f-'„,4,,.?„,, , ',..,..
I 1
-----r---, / ' ,i' . ' ",, ". /
) ''‘..-.-.'.1 ' ::' f`.---, i
,”_
.._ ,. ' , .1' e, '',.■
,-f
' . " t.,,,. • "' (1... ‘iii. ' 'i '., .) ^ , ; ... .
!■
li
1'
,
11'
1,
T L is / '
64
l /
_
`
i '
If
2 r. t, ,
C 17 f � "t i 'fG
•
- -- --- - � / > „.
l -
/S /
•
5�
e i
L?IVE/ ,{J
. 0 , y /
. 1- -
‘—ors be ;
- ,2 i
..
1 1 v. 4, I) t 0 <. f1
.. te _ , .
/c
J-.....) `� .
t l
'---e_ -
i - 1-- - -
as-c.,
c--) .„._ 7
' / (,...,A,,z-,:„_,.7
No 303A. RECEIPT AND OPTIO\.—Bradford Publishing Co.,1824-46 Stout Street,Denver,Colorado
Aspen Colorado, October 15 , lg 70
RECEIVED or The Doremus/Fleisher Company
the sum of Ten and no/100-�` "�,`,'', -` ' E,', Dollars,
deposit on account of the purchase price of the following described real estate, situate in the
City of Aspen County of Pitkin and State of Colorado
to wit:
Lots 1 through 8, Block 8,
Riverside Addition, City of
Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado .
CONDITIONS: This purchase is contingent upon the re-classification of the above
described property from its present classification of R-15 P/C to M/F\(multi-family) .-
as it presently exists in the City of Aspen Zoning Code on or before T =. days from ..� 4,1,
October 15, 1970 . �'`'� --- I' '
price p Thirt Five Thousand and no 00fA % ''�'- x ,
The entire rice to be aid is y"" �� Dollars,
of which the amount of this receipt is a part, and the balance is to be paid as follows: Within
10 days following the re-classification of zoning an earnest money payment in the i
amount of $3,500; on January 15, 1971 the sum of $6,640 .00; on January 15 ,
1972 the sum of $12,250 .00; on January 15 , 1973 the sum of $12,250, with
interest at'the rate of 8% per annum on all unpaid balances .
Insurance, rent, interest and water to be adjusted to date of transfer. Taxes for the year; 1970
are to be paid by the seller. Taxes for the year 1971 are to be paid by the buyer .
Price to include:
An abstract of title certified to elate, or a title insurance policy as evidenced by a title commitment
in an 9monennal to the 1 r se n i',e a seller's option and expense, shall be furnished within..3.O.... I,
Yece,l,7 or earnest Hone! kiiineil
days fi•oln r Xi Xe. A good and Suillelent a�nera! aearl'anty Deed is to be delivered 35:•YCX
On_1715/7.NX conveying said real estate to the said.._DOre ltUS/Fiei.sh.er._Co.mpany
K__itS heirs or assigns, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances `<X,*X
•
provided payment is made or tendered as hereinabove set forth. If a merchantable title be not shown
by said abstract or title commitment, except as aforesaid and cannot be shown within 90 days, the
. amount received as evidenced by this receipt is to be refunded, but if a clear title be shown, and if pay-
ment is not made or tendered as above mentioned, then the money hereby receipted for is to be held as
liquidated damages, and in either case both purchaser and seller are released from all further obligations
hereunder. This receipt is made in duplicate.
The Terms Hereof Are Hereby Accepted.
•
THE DOREMUS/F ESHER CO
/719 4
(:/// ' / /f
u ,oty ,_ 1›,,,,,,„2..,,, . _,-, ,--<__,,,Z,...., ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-.'d,:
A4,4.04/ (I!f om%/1 I'r9 cV,,, //, / . . / „f;w,,,,,7 /, /— i, ,
._ , +
:(6,r,,(m-^ 11
Regular No V C Ti lb 2 r 10 1970
AGENDA
Minutes - 10/27/70
Pre-hearing - Rezoning Request
City Manager Communication
Alley Setbacks
Leased Parking Locations
Planner 's Report
Rezoning Criteria
Transportation Planning
Commission Member Reports
2
?‘s
CITY OF ASPEN NOV m
aspen,colorado,amn box v .0 6 .
•
Rnel
Saint Jr ' s Episcopal Church
ATT: Father McKeown
Pine Street
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Insufficient address: