HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Molny/Eubank, Lots R-S,Blk 33
r
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I"
\..
,.....
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Building Inspector
FROM:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Ordinance
19 Review, Subject:
~/~~ ~
On
L/-J -74
the planning commission reviewed
the above building permit and it was
~ approved
denied
Conditions:
P~~;:k~~~
;) ?~ 4-~:..J -4--- ~~~ U '
(~{ ~ :I<-~ ~'-- i"J') ~r'. f-. 'r A~
.v tf~-X t, I ~ ~-,Jc~~~ ~
~().~ ~ _ jd!.t..<-e M t'~ #&.O~J.-'
;:) ~~-~~) ~ -I-(~
c/)cn/l-eJ ~-"
Planning Office
Dated this I{ J;L day of r:..6
, 1971f
....-..... .. ..~.....-.-...............~------ - .
.. /tlltuJ 'h~1
tJ~J. ~~l4V (.') (JJcJ
)d lraJd,,-- of.. AJ0)V--~~.' .
U I) '}/i#-d LM-R___44/ (X L ')
d.)~~~"~~ .
!="!~~
~ ~) ~'~ j-4Yt'J ~
. /YlV<-~.) ~ 6 ~ ~
~ ~~u~O
. f~ ~u ~ .t:f, <1 ~/.
r t'~ cLP.6' IJ
,,-..,.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
'OIl". e.'.Mu"."'...ll.to.
Regular Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
April 16, 1974
Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Spencer Schiffer at 5:10 p.m.
with members Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Geri VD.gn8ur and Janet Lundry.
Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel, Assi.st.ant Planners Donna Baer
and John Stanford and City Attorney Sandra Stuller.
OLD BUSINESS I Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that the Molny/Eubanks
MOb1y/Eubanks A project was given final approval under Ordinunce #19
Final Approval subject to certain conditions. Stated that those con-
ditions have been fulfilled, consequently, final approva
is complete.
Bartel pointed out that Molny has acquired an additional
7' easement which Wi.18 part of of the Card property an-d
can move those struct.ures an additional 7' away from
the river, which is even that much bett-er than what he
had sho\'.'n on the plan. Stated that does not require any
action of the COJTunission.
Landry made a motion that final approval be granted for
the MOlny/Eubanks project under Ordinance ~19 since all
the conditions had been met. Motion failed for lack of
a second.
Rio Grande
Subdivision
Vice Chairman Schiffer suggested this discussion be
placed at the end of the agenda. Conccnsus of t:he Com-
mission was to place this item at the end of the Clgenda.
Resolutions for
Exen:ptions to
Condominiumize
Duplexes
Bartel submitted the resolutions for exemptions to con-
dominiumize duplexes "\7hich the CorJ.."TIission acted on at
the last regular meeting.
:/)
Schiffer pointed out that this ;?as only two: Jordan/
Hecht and Chestnut/I,eiman. Stated that have complied
with the requirements and regulations.
Concensus of Commission was to have Vice Chairman Schif-
fer sign the two resolutions.
Set Public
Hearing Dat.e
Vice Chairm~r. Schiffer stated that it \\7as necessary for
the Commission to set a date for the public hcariny of
the historic designation of the City Hall, Lift #1 (old)
and the Community Church.
Johnson made a motion to set the public hearing for the
historic designation of City Hall, the old Lift #1 and
the Conununity Church for 5:00 p.m. May 21, 1974. Motion
seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, motion carried.
Public Hearing ,
Rubey Park View v
Planes
Vice Chairman Schiffer opened the public hearing on the
Rubey Park View Planes.
Schiffer pointed out that this hearing included the In-
dependence Pass corridor and the Aspen Mountain View
corridor.
.
Bartel submitted a map showing the two proposed view
planes. Stated that they had decreased the angle of
the Aspen Mountain View Corridor and retained the In-
dependence Pass Plane. Stated that the reason for this
was first, wanted to, where possible, limit the ViC\'l
plane to one for the undeveloped portion of the block
directly across from Rubey Park and that with both Rubey
Park and Wagoner Park being public land and the use of
Rubey Park for transportation center, in the loner rUn
there is going to b(~ oJ shift from t.he pJucc' wll\.:'rt' vi:;i-
I '
.i '. 1"..-.... . '
.\C/~~ ~;C0 L~. . f ~~
6-d-7~. . ~~( ~ :t
~d~ /d 7'- 4' !, L/~ ~J
JUCU j..11..-., .. )2, _r~t
/2fJ ~~ A~ ~~J
c#40 /~ d~~< ;L~
t2~"^-- j1J~ ~ ,~ ~!
U k?;j ~u<L<j .P1/ZAA--" I cL~
J,u.<J flu.v //,hU & AA4L/-tf,~
fi>' ~ 7~J P>> ~~. .
lJi.I;;k-q ;,.l ~ <I v ,a.;!./..,hoJ
S-37</ '~~ J < r<0J
~ . ~ ),Lp-/ ff <I-
ivJe ~I /W,'
J hvr-t'- ff,
---,_._-~-'~--'
(
,.-...
.-...,
?/
,
~
GR~~:T OF TP^]L r:^>F\!F'JT
KNOW ALl. ~1i:'<I;Y TllliSE 1'I:l':SL~nS 'illi\'!', I;:,],. 1:\lI>'"1k, tll,'
Ct";lllLql' lH'l'\-'ill, ill cllu:-:idt,t'atioJ) (ll ;ljJ!lt'OV;l! hy th(~ City 01'
I'lSj)(ln PlaJ]llin;_~' ._!l1d Zonill~'; COIHUlit-;;--.;i()\l Ulid('l' Ot'(}'jnanc'p J~), Sc'ries
of' 1~'7:;, doc,; ll<'rcby gl'ant, dcmi,;e and convey to tile City of
Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal Corporation, its successors and
assigns forever, a perpetual eas,~ment over, across and through
the following described real estate for the use and purpose of
a trail easement (motorized vehicles excepted) for the benefit
of the public, said easement being ten (10) feet in width from
the natural waterline of the westerly bank of the Poaring Fork
River sItuate within the herein described real property:
A parcel of land beiug part of Lots Rand S, Block 33,
East .~~;p"n Addition and part of Lots 6 and 'I, Block 5,
Riverside Addition. Said parcel is more fully described
as follows: Beginning at a point (being the Nortllwest
corner of said Lot R); thenee South 75009' 11" East
104.00 feet along the Northerly line of said Lots R, S,
6 and 7 to the center line of the Roaring Fork River; thence
South SO 15' 57" East 70.53 feet along the center line
of the Roaring Forl, Hi vel'; thence Nortb 830 49' OS" West
73.]] feet; thence North 750 09' 11" west 60.00 feet to
the Westerly line of said Lot R; thence North 140 50'
49" East 50,50 feet along the Westerly line of said Lot
H to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains 6267
square feet more or less,
i
.I
PHOVIDED HOWEVER, that In the event the City shall establish
a trail system of which the above easement shall eonstitute a
part, the grantor agrees to provide, as a substitute for this
jns(~l'llment and at. t.he City's elcclIon, a tl'a1J e~lsemcnt with
boundaries defided with particularity equal to that of the adjoining
landowners.
It is the intention of this provision to guaranty
the continuity of an implement.ed trail system, and to this end
this paragraph shall be construed,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor herein has hcreunto set
h i~ b:1nd 1h i ~~ 1 r,~._.',_,. '\ () r l' I
.-.hl1...._._ d:,' '...____'\,p:r.i--
1 ~)71 .
~ II: ~C--~ i
_ ~ .. x:XY.., V.,{,V('A/IA JK7_ ______
Dall' j':ui>:lllk'-""''',
I
"....,
,....."
'". .~_.
.,)"1' i: (Jr.' ('I.)L' 1);/1,/ H) )
) ~:;:-;
,v (; I ] ': J : i,;~ )
//
"""~ __ ____~ day () r __"'.
TrIP !orc\gqing in.'.1.i'UUlc'IlL \Vas acknq\\'-'(~dgC'd b(~forc me this
.
..---
, 1971, by DALE EU8ANK.
..
My commission expi res: "" y-~:;.r:'<':-=-L4-/L?'d~'
Witness my hand and official seal,
~
.//.11 /' /~-. -~ ~
~::'7L.::~~ff~-,F--"'- "/-<~:/__7
Notary Public
GRANT OF TRi\ IL EflSI':MENT
"~i
c
:j' '1':': .," i
T[iNf, H{)h:in
~1(\ I tlV, tl1,'
(;1'
\ t i)]' ie,']"';:I.
i 1\ ('1.1]' i :I( I', ' loll
"
C' J
"1'!,l'ov,i1 by tlH' City oj'
i\~-;~" '1 Pl;i!1tlil.:~': ,tIlll 1>):J1n:~' ('{Il~i,jj~.;;-;i(}l( tlll(!/~t. O]'dinancp 10, Sc>ri(.s
(Ii" .l~17:~, c1()(:~; hell'l'lly grant. (~cJlli.:-;c :Jncl cunvey to the CIty of
Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal Corporation, its successors and
assigns forever, a pcrpetua:J casement over, across and through
the Jollowing d",'cr tbed l'l~"l e,~tate Jar the use and purpose of
a trail easement (motorized vehicles excepted) for the benefit
of the public, said easement bAing ten (10) feet in width from
the n"tural water:! in" oJ tile westerly bClnk oJ the Roaring Forl,
River c;itu,-,_tc' wit hi n thl 11,>j'('i n de,;cri hed ren] proporty:
A pureel oJ land being purt of Lots Rand S, Block 33,
East Aspen i\dd:Ltion and part of Lots 6 and 7, B:!ock 5,
Riverside Addition. Said parcel is more fully described
as Joll U\VS: Beginning at a pojnt (being the SoutJ1'Ne:3t
corner of said Lot R); thence North ]1{) 50' 1()" East
10.50 feet along tl1e Westerly line of said Lot R; thence
South 750 00' ]1" East CO.OO feet; thence South G30 ,19' 08"
East 73,]1 feet to tile center line of the Roaring Fork
fliver; thence South SO 15' 57" East 38,20 feet alotir, tlJe
center line of tl1e Roaring Fork River; thence North 75' 00'
11" West 146.68 feet along the southerly line of said Lots
7, G, Sand R to the point of beginning. Said parcel
contains 6267 square Jeet more or less,
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that in the event the City shall
.
.i
i
I
i
I
,
I
I
establish a trail system of which the above easement shall
constitute a part, the grantor agrees to provide, as a sub-
stitute for this instrument and at the City's election, a trail
easement ',vi.th bonndaries defined with particularity equal to that
of the adjoining landowners.
It is the intention of this
provision to guaranty the continuity of an implemented trail
s~'st(~IIl, and to thi 0 end this paragraph shall be construc'o.
IN WITNESS Wm:flEOF, the Grantor herein has her pun to set
his !LInd tbis _)(d:b (hy or
l\pri]
I D7'1.
(,
f \ i,(f 'i< ", /', ,,- --.'\
r,- ,J ,.,j:.~\!Lt:,'''\..\ )//
):.,:, i II' \;" 11l\-,l----LVI--nn-n-n
(
,
,-.
\",,,..f
"'""
C:'i'Y: I: (W ('0 l,()j:\I)O )
) S,c,:
Cl;\ .\'i")' ()j jJ j lh j ,J )
'1'J1(' f(JJ'(:!';O i ;1<'; i nst l'tIIilt'n L W~U:~ nCki'l~l\Vl ('dg'(~d be {'ure' IllP th is
/ ~
,.
day of'
] 971 by HOBIN ~lOLNY.
,
My commission cxpjrcs:-';'-"~_~_",,-,-_"-..:--L7 '2";",';):
/' #~ -
Witness my hand and official seal,
/
:'A,'Z
. '~~
PlIb'1-1c' U"~,
/- -"J
',~
.. . -//;'
Notary
"
~..'....
-
"h,.,..
GRANT OF EXEMPTION
Granting Exemption from Subdivision
Regulation Pursuant to Section 20-10 (b)
WHEREAS, Section 20-10 (b) of the Aspen Municipal Code
provides that, following receipt of a recommendation from the
planning commission, the city council may exempt a particular
division of land from the definition of a subdivision, when, in
the judgment of the city council, such division of land is not
within the intent and purpose of said Chapter 20, and
WHEREAS, the owner of the following described property,
Patricia W, Card, by and through her agent, Robin Molny, has
made application under the provisions of Section 20-10 (b)
for the parceling of the following described property located
in Pitkin County, Colorado, to wit:
All of Lots Rand S of Block 33, the East Aspen Addition
to the City of Aspen and Lots 6 and 7 of Block 5, Riverside
Addition to the City of Aspen, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, although the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
did not recommend grant of an exemption, the City Council at
its meeting held~~~ ~ ,~~~~ ' 1974, having discussed
the impact of the proposed use of the land and the satisfaction
of the design requirements of Section 20-7 of the Code, concluded
that the intended division of the land is not within the intents
and purposes of Chapter 20 of the municipal code;
THEREFORE, in conformity with the request of the applicant
and the action of the Aspen City Council as hereinabove described,
THERE IS HEREBY GRANTED an exemption from the City of Aspen
Subdivision Regulation division (and conveyance) of the above
described property into the following described tracts:
Tract A.
A parcel of land being part of Lots Rand S, Block 33,
East Aspen Addition and part of Lots 6 and 7, Block 5,
Riverside Addition. Said parcel is more fully described
as follows: beginning at a point ~being the Southwest
corner of said Lot H); thence N 14 50' 49" East 49.50
feet along the Westerly line of said Lot R; thence South
750 09' 1]" East 60.00 feet; thence South 630 49' 08" East
73.11 feet to the center line of the Roaring Fork River;
thence South 80 15' 57" East 38.20 feet along the center
line of the Hoarinr:; Fork River; thence North'75o 09' II"
West ]46,68 feet along the southerly line of said Lots
7, 6, Sand H to the point of beginninr:;. Said parcel
contains 6,267 r;quare feet more or lesr;,
~_....-.,..,-_.._-~..------"" ' --,~,--,,,,,""~='
......
'...-..
Together with non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress
over and across the easterly seven (7) feet of Lot Q, Block
33, East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen. Upkeep, maintenance
and snow removal shall be the joint and mutual responsibility
of the Seller and Purchasers, their heirs and assigns. Such
easement shall be accessible and open at all times. The
above requirement shall be a covenant running with the land.
Tract B
A parcel of land being part of Lots Rand S, Block 33,
East Aspen Addition and part of Lots 6 and 7, Block 5,
Riverside Addition. Said parcel is more fully described
as follows: Beginning at a point (being the Northwest corner
of said Lot R); thence South 750 09' 11" east 104,00 feet
along the Northerly line of said Lot R, S, 6 and 7 to the
center line of the Roaring Fork River; thence South SO 15'
57" East 70,53 feet along the center line of the Roaring
Fork River; thence North 630 49' OS" West 73.11 feet;
thence North 750 09' II" West 60.00 feet to the Westerly
line of said Lot R; thence North 140 50,' 49" East 50.50
feet along the Westerly line of said Lot R to the point of
beginning. Said parcel contains 6,267 square feet more or
less.
Together with non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress
over and across the easterly seven (7) feet of Lot Q,
Block 33, East Aspen Addition, City of Aspen, Upkeep,
maintenance and snow removal shall be the joint and mutual
responsibility of the Seller and Purchasers, their heirs and
assigns. Such easement shall be accessible and open at
all times. The above requirement shall be a covenant running
with the land.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the mayor of the City of Aspen has set
his hand and seal on the day and year noted.,/
)
~
')
Date .t/;h/~
~ ','
~i~~'~~~ I-f 7'
J{A
C
1/''---
C
,.--'
~~'.;/
//
..
City Clerk
.
,
---7--
I
~
--:~
STATE OF COLORADO
)
)
)
ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN
The foregoing Grant of Exemption was acknowledged before
me by Stacy Standley III, as mayor of the City of Aspen, and
Lorraine Graves, as City Clerk of said city, on this jfc
day of ~v-:
,1974. Witness my hand and official seal.
_4~~~/A.;)
Notary Pub {
My commission
/ ---
expires~ _{.~#~/~A ) /? /9;7,)
. ./' .
""
F',,"
-...,_.~..
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office
SUBJECT: Mo1ny/Eubanks Residences and Office
DATE: April 2, 1974
Conforms with conceptual approval given 3/7/74.
II ~ieC>"""
Parking layout appears improved.
s~~.
City Attorney was requested to interpret "office
use" in Mixed Residential District. . .
1) Home occupation ?
2) Ord 19 give Commission authority to make
that interpretation.
Referral letters are positive.
Considerations:
Vegetation on site (especially between house &
trail) was to have been considered at time of
subdivision.
Trail dedication agreement should be submitted.
Mo1ny should make a record to waive non conforming
status at the time he abandons office use.
1"'"
-
-.........-
--
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office
SUBJECT: Mo1ny/Eubanks Residences and Office
DATE: April 2, 1974
Conforms with conceptual approval given 3/7/74.
Parking layout appears improved.
City Attorney was requested to interpret "office
use" in Mixed Residential District. . .
11 Home occupation ?
2) Ord 19 give Commission authority to make
that interpretation.
Referral letters are positive.
Considerations:
Vegetation on site (especially between house &
trail) was to have been considered at time of
subdivision.
Trail dedication agreement should be submitted.
Mo1ny should make a record to waive non conforming
status at the time he abandons office use.
Quaint olde victorian hoC, - for Dale Eubank
""""
-
,
SUE(p-VI.SIO:-J PLAT CEECI( FO~~N
,
Date
1t-Pt2-1 L.. ?1
Gentlemen:
Accc,-'cli11U '.0 ".)-", ~--oc"c1'1.or, "-,,. .L'~c""')' lOn t'h~ c)' 'c.-y or: t "n"n
. L _~ I..:) L l.. 1 ~ 1-),l. ......... )........ "-' l,; L. J....... J. 1 1~...... _ .1. -.\. ,-, r ''''
SubdivisiO:l T:.8~;ul~ltiol1S, any tre-.ct of lund divided irl'LO
t~'70 OJ~ mOl'(~ J.ot[) ::1ust b,'!. c1iv:Ld8d in 2cco1.-d2ilCC "lith 8&id
cub, )V) s' cn ''''l~'''f1'l'l ",....:0..... .!":r-- ~-l...,~ C)- f-\.T or: ~,'''1)~..
o .n..1", "_ :;1 I.. l.\l;,:'bL._C.~.l...:...'.1 l.dJ. LU,~ _'-~ J.;, ~.;:j. \::lL.
This form, '\-/ith ~ttc:.ch(~d COtJ)' of tb2 pl;tt is provided so
that c8ch u;;ility CacH?"ny n:-,y inspect the pInt nnd the
S-~ Loe li"'.l....-C:' o=-o~n~ C 1^C:-~ '.~c~ ~.'. 'JI )1- c~T":"'1-=-......- of: c - "C
..L.L', llc..i.l" de> C ,_.:.11.:.. ,-S, 01,- "Li1LLJ.,J .....1.1....- 1- d \:Ll._al- .!.. .(1..>,-
rn(::nts, etc., e.nd lihere neccs[;o.ry sl~ctching recorr~a:endcd
alterations on a cop~ of th8 plat.
This form and th2 nccorlpanyinr; copy of th8 plat Ie:list be
retunlec1 to the City of ASp811 Plc,nni.ng and Zoning C02-
mission no later than seV2n (7) c12YS from the above date.
Remarks: This proposed sub-divii!,ion would have no effect on school
transportation and because of its size would have littLe effect
on school enrollment.
" IJZ~---~
/tl?? :
. .
/1. / . . d
-,
[L.ID DEL DUCA
ASPEN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Dear Mr. Del Duca:
Please review the plans which are presently being circulated in
the engineering department for the relocation of two Victorian
houses which Dale Eubank and I are moving to 1020 and 1022 East
Hyman Street and are remodeling.
Please make your comments below. If the requirements of access,
circulation, streets, utility easements, drainage and other
engineering considerations are satisfied, please so indicate.
If you have any questions or reservations about any of the above
considerations, please call me and I will be happy to meet with
you. Our presentation to the planning commission is April 2
under ordinance 19 for preliminary and final approval.
"N"'''U As N.".~.
c;"L ~ O..Je.c<
D_.lJ B_1 .__~
THOMAS MADDALONE
Aspen Electric Department
Dear Mr. Maddalone:
Please review the plans which are presently being circulated
in the engineering department for the relocation of two Victorian
houses which Dale Eubank and I are moving to 1020 and 1022 East
Hyman Street and are restoring.
~~~~Ao<1
Please make your comments below. If el~ricity is available to
the site kindly so indicate. Please return this letter to Donna
Baer. Our presentation to the planning commission is April 2,
under Ordinance 19 for preliminary and final approval. ~~
y~
vy
y/.
(
--------
Thomas Maddalone
JAMES MARKALUNAS
Aspen Water Department
Dear Mr. Markalunas:
Please review the plans which are presently being circulated
in the engineering department for the relocation of the two Victorian
houses which Dale Eubank and I are moving to 1020 and 1022 East
Hyman Street and are restoring.
Please make your comments below. If water is available to the
site kindly so indicate. Please return this letter to Donna
Baer. Our presentation to the Planning Commission is April 2,
under Ordinance 19 for preliminary and final approval.
Sincerely,
~~~{~
A{~
r"
/Go
-$," ~"'C-'"
~
A4
a..~~~
. ,,-,",''-' .- .' ",..,.. "-~
GrayLine "Snap-A-Wa:;" GrayLine "Snap-A-Way" GrayLine "Snap-A-Way" GrECyLine "Snap-A-Way"
SNAP~A~WAY AND' iN '{CLlQW ,COPY. SEND WHITE AND PINK .CO?I~ WITH CARSON INTACT
SPEED LETTER@
TO Aspen Planning and zonmng Commission FROM Aspen Metro ~anitation Disrtict
Box V
Box 2810
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Aspen, Colorado 81611
SUBJEC,A t t: jgR>ffi~ !?~~ r 1<1] h'ln k
-t.o. 90. 10 FOl-D
MESSAGE
DATE 1\i"rch ;:>9
1944-
'l:ll';; Ilspen lI:l~tro SSJ"i 1;"1;1 f'l1;) TIi "'tri "1; h"" hPAn ""lc~O "rlder Ordinllnce 19
to COllllJlent on tne a"aiisbJ..l1;y Of' S'E',/"pr ..~r"ice
Ser"J..C8 is available
ana GollectJ..on lin8s ar8 in place,
----------.---
"G,~.~-4~
..L...L.1lL Ciry
REPLY
DATE
19_
-NO. 9 FOLD
_NO. 10 FOLD
SIGNED
I GJ:OYLine I SNAP-A-WAY Je,'..', 44-90Z 3 f'ARTS
WILSON JONES COMPANY. (& 19~1 . I'H1NIED II-< U.S.A.
.73
RETAIN WHITE COPY, RETURN PI:,jK COPY
""'""
,ft'....,
I
L
CITY,
.
t,
M
f,'!I,,1J
.... .f
, "1 Ira
, ./~:,,~-)")
, 0\
JA~SPEN
aspellt,co'>,~",;Hi0.GiSi1 box v
\'... -'. ....... ~'
'.... ....... .,' ')~ -.~ ~:<.;;.;..
,..' ",~..,/,....,j.,.<;i"
~
,.'
I'
.::1.
.1"'...." ~r""\
:,_,;.;[1
DATE:
March 27,1974
.
Mro Robin Molny
& Dale Eubank
PO 96
Aspen, Coloo 81611
RE: Blk 33, Lots R & 5
1020 & 1022 Eo Hyman
This is to say that in the context of the
existing system this area hRs adequate access
and water supply for FIRE PROTECTIONo
Yours truly,
~2//f~
William Fo Cai Ie
Fire Marshall
(
"
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NA TURAL GAS COMPANY, INC,
P.O. BOX 2059 . ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . (303) 925_2323
March 25, 1974
To Whom It May Concern:
Re: Robin Molny
Blk. IF33
1022 E. Hyman
Aspen
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas Company has a moratorium in effect at this
time and will be unable to serve any new services until it is lifted.
However, when this moratorium is lifted we will have an ample supply
of gas and will be happy to serve your project.
l1:1tJ C (!i1~
Willard C. Clapper
District Manager
wcc/ec
. ....-....
...
~-S-1r/ ., 7r~, ~/I0.-J.
~
~, ~ --L
I. ~ .v ~
~.~} ,
J.~
Lj ~
6.~
f)/ ~ ~ .
~ ~~ ~~~
,
,
:1
/
f)/!~ ~~
y nJ ~
e:2 ~
~ il
.......
/
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Box V
Aspen, Colorado
81611
Gentlemen:
) t>r :;::;
) ;) / tHJ-O if '1-
This is a request in conformance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 19
for conceptual approval for a development which I propose to undertake on
Lots Rand S, Block 33 and Lots 6 and 7 in the Riverside Addition.
It is my intention to acquire the above-mentioned lots and move onto them two
existing Victorian houses which are presently located at the northeast corner
of Durant and Original. The larger of the two houses would continue in its
present use which is employee housing, and the smaller would be enlarged from
its present use, which is my office, to provide living quarters for myself
as well as one apartment for rental purposes.
Herb Bartel has discussed this project with me and has recommended that I
leave the lot abutting the river vacant and seek from you a density transfer
of that lot onto the adjacent two lots.
The property is located in the designated mixed residential land use category,
and the project complies with the use recommendations of the 1973 Aspen General
Land Use Plan by providing "for a mix of residential uses interspersed with
limited amounts of professional office.....uses. New professional offices
should be of the type that do not generate frequent client visits." (My
practice at the present time never generates as many as twenty visits per week.)
There would be no visitor accommodation uses on the property.
Sincerely yours,
~
February 14, 1974
RM/sc
/
ROBIN MOLNY
architect
box 96
Aspen, Colorado
81611
I""'"
:)
'\
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Box V
Aspen, Colorado
81611
Gent 1 emen: / ,/. ./-
"tYT :=: /2/ ~ '/' -
This is a request in conformance with the requireffients of Ordinance No. 19
for conceptual approval for a development which I prooose to undertake on
Lots Rand S, Block 33 and Lots 6 and 7 in the Riverside Addition.
It is my intention to acquire the above-mentioned lots and mov~ onto them two
existing Victorian houses ~Ihich are presently located at the northeast cerner
of Durant and Original. The larger of the two houses would continue in its
present use which is employee housing, and the smaller would be enlarged from
its present use, which is my office, to provide living quarters for m self
as well as 0 ar m or ren a . how / d Q:;:
Herb Bartel has discussed this project with me and has recommended that I
leave the lot abutting the river vacant and seek from you a density transfer
of that lot onto the adjacent two lots.
The property is located in the designated mixed residential la'ld use category,
and the project complies with the use recommendations of the 1973 Aspen General
Land Use Plan by providing "for a mix of residential uses interspersed with
limited amounts of rrofessional office.....uses. New professional offices
should be of the type that do not generate frequent cl ient vi sits." Uly
practice at the present time never generates as many as twenty visits per week.)
There would be no visitor accommodation uses on the property.
Sincerely yours'j
~UlfL4La~
Robin Molny ~
February 14, 1974
RM/sc
cr O,K Jt#ij,~/~
()((!Ctj~ -/or f(?stZftJo/;OJ1S C)J1;uj.,
;;<:lJJOV1 d / rUNic, / 1)0 "hn (j H-Is.
cJ.}ould :tN/fr /10 od'cI;J;C)'?r7/
;Y'J('7flm~ b('j/ WOUld f?ol
{JolcL ()yO' f~l s-/-,
~(> ~hcJ/~ tl7'vcJ
;; ~. /5 CJ0!Uclto
on OJ1f b(fcheJOif/ ,'1ddc.,jl.
.= .- fl,v tY1() f-~ .
rMc)S0J15 :
, BOI/dilllS C;/N cvcly
(jX IS/- d/1J SrzruEOJ U5(iju/ I
rNcl/oJ?' O;lf{:}f;uJ .f#/cYr!nl(ir;!-
.no!- . " /_ 1'/1 /.
(oocJ(cf (lc/d fQ j;)(jP U (YIfO/t../
d(jJ15/~/oO 111<101./.
IIoweo({v-tf fh~f'(; is a /11ajor eHa/u1rc
ti1 +/u's f'Of05C1 IJ rRobr'i'V 3~tl()Jlcl _ olaf'/-.
OU~V 0/ J7K:fi"'-/- (1O(/Vl.v-vd 5'S/O/,v (.(httt a.-
lII/.": I) /'lVA w.Jc.::::.1 . (., Ii':, ,fJ,,'/A.. oLfl,(f'Cb//lkd fx~ VVlh ;u/(i)
ROBIN MOLNY
architect
box 96
Aspen, Colorado
81611
.
"
-
-
....r.;e.... :..~~~~s<>.!:2~:::
,"
.
14/651 2 1.1.
BUILDINC INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
~CITY OF ASPEN - COUNTY OF PITKIND, COLORADO '!, ~) ,,", n ._~, ,,..., ~ k:. ~ -i,c;-' 0
' ',:...'.'
ADDRESS GENERAL TI
OF J08 CONSTRUCTION
1 n?? F;",t- Hum"" PERMIT
WHEN SIGNED AND VALIDATED BY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT THIS PERMIT ,",UTHORIZE5 THE WORK DESCRIBED BELOW.
CLASS OF WORK: NEW 0 ADDITION 0 ALTERATION ~ REPAIR 0 MOVW WRECK 0
OWNER
NAME o~""4 ~ M~"_" < Th 1 ~"'~ ,1ADDRESS 01"1 0<: PHONE "An"
K LICENSE LICENSE
0 NAME (AS LICENSED) CLASS NUMBER
l-
V INSURANCE
~
"" ADDRESS PHONE 0
I-
Z
0 SUPERVISOR
V FOR THIS JOB NAME DATE CERTIFIED
LEGAL North J, half and 6 & 7 Riverside Addition
DESCRIPTION LOT HO. of R & S BLOCK NO. 33 I ADDITION
SURVEY ATTACHED 01 DESIGN A lie.
BY "'-, -~~ BY PE NO,
AREA ($.F.) !I"UIGHT NO. TOTAL OCCUPANCY
AT GRADE e:.n 11," (FEET) ,,,. STORIES ., UNITS ? GROUP DIY,
BASEMENT FIN, ~ I GARAGE SINGLE 0 ATTACHED 0 TOTAL TYPE I FIRE
ve'S"FlN,O no ~OUBlE 0 DETACHED 0 ROOMS 10 CONSTR. lONE
DEPTH FIRS.T SIZE SPACING SPAN AUTHORIZED
BelOW AGENCY BY DATE
Z GRADE FLOOR
0 '" BUiLDING
I- REVIEW
,j: EXTERIOR '"
FOOTING <5 CEIUNG
~ SIZE ZONING
0 ....
Z EXTERIOR CONe. 0
:;) FDN. WALL ROO' PARKING
0 THICKNESS MAS'Y 0
II.
~~~K 0 CAISSONS 0 ROOF=!NG PUBLIC HEALTH
& GR.. BEAMS MA TER!Al
MASONRY ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE ENGINEERING
~TERIOC THICKNESS 1ST FlR. 2ND FlR. 3R[l FLR.
ALL STUD SIZE ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE
& SPACE 1ST FlR. 2ND F=LR 3RD FLR.
REMARKS Movina house from 750 E. Durant
for 2 family dwelling
NOTES TO APPLICANT:
FOR INSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CALL 925- 73j6
fOR ALL WORK DONE UNDER THIS PERMIT THE 'ERMIna ACCEPTS FUll RESPONSIBILITY FOR VALUATION $
COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE. THE COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION OR C~":"'f
lONING ORDINANCE. AND All OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS OR CITY ORDINANCES WHICHEVER OF WORK 8000.
APPLIES.
SEPARATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ElECTRICAL. PLUMBING AND HEATING, SIGNS, PLAN </ TOTAL FEE
SWIMMING POOLS AND fENCES. FILED T P
PERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK IS HARTED. 32,"0 ^<f
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE. DOuelE I CHECK 0 /?t;""V pPc:. ..
ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE MADE ON ALL ITEMS OF WORK BEFORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED. FEE 0 CASH ~ $ 'j 7CrV
THIS BUILDING SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED. 0 BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PERMIT SUBJECT TO REV1ATlON OR SU~~LATlON OF ANY lAWS GOVERNING SAME.
SIGNA TURE I\.!R~ ( ,
APPL?lANT: . ,~-<?. ~~ ~ ~~V^ APPROVAL IY DATE
THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY DATE PERMIT NO. LICENSE II RECEIPTS CLASS AMOUNT
WHEN VALIDATED HERE ~
2-19- 4 59-74
J
INSPECTOR'S COpy
,...,
''\
"',~'
"'I'iE'" :..'f..~:.~~~.,!~=
(
t::),~, _c (~.-
:~]~O"l..~ ."""~:r:~,-'::=;:_:~(:;::-;.
o
.
14/bSl 2 B.1.
BUILDINC INSP~CTION DEPARTMENT
~ CITY OF ASPEN - COUNTY OF PITKINO, COLORADO, -0; O~C:)8 ">~***57.00
ADDRESS GENERAL TI
OF JOB CONSTRUCTION
1020 East Hvman PERMIT
WHEN SIGNED AND VAlID....TED BY eUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES THE WORK DESCRIBED BELOW.
CLASS OF WORK: NEW 0 ADDITION 0 AL TERA T10~ REPAIR 0 MOVE}Q! WRECK 0
OWNER Dale
NAME Rohin Molnfv & Eubank ADDRESS PO 96 PHONE 7405
01: LICENSE LICENSE
0 NAME (AS LICENSED) CLASS NUMBER
~
u INSURANCE
<C
01: ADDRESS 0
~ PHONE
Z
0 SUPERVISOR
u FOR THIS JOB NAME DATE CERTIFIED
LEGAL South ~ and 6 & 7 Riverside Addition
DESCRIPTION LOT NO. ,,~a / SLOCK NO, 33 ADDITION
SURVEY ATTACHED 0 DESIGN A LIe.
BY Tri-C'n BY PE NO
AREA (S.f.) 6000 plus IlHEIGHT NO. TOTAL OCCUPANCY
AT GRADE i2 (FEETJ 25' STDRI ES 2 UNlTS 3 GROUP DIV.
BASEMENT FIN, 0 I GARAGE SINGLE o ATTACHED 0 TOTAL TYPE I FIRE
n0'FlN 0 DOUBLE o DETACHED 0 ROOMS 10 CON$TR. lONE
DEPTH FI'~5T SIZE SPACING SPAN AUTHORIZED
BElOW AGENCY BY DATE
Z GRACe: FLOOR
0 '" BUILDING
~ REVIEW
j:: EXTERIOR ~
FOOTING CEILING
<C SIZE 0 ZONING
a ....
z EXTERIOR CONe. 0
::I FON. WALL ROOF PARKlhG
0 THICkNESS MAS'Y 0
II.
THICK 0 CAISSONS 0 ROOFING PUBLIC HEALTH
SLAB &GR.BEAMS MATERiAL
MASONR.Y ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE ENGINEERING
~XTERIO~ THICKNESS 1ST FLR. 2ND FlR. 3R['I FLR.
~AlL STUD SIZE ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE
& SPACE 1ST FlR. 2ND FlR 3RD FlR.
REMARKS Movinq house from 724 E. Durant for
3 family dwelling.
(2 living units & lOffice)
NOTES TO APPLICANT:
fOR INSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CALL 'nS-7336
FOR ALL WORK DONE UNDER TIi]S PERMIT THE PERMITHE ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR VALUATION $
COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION OR Clit
ZONING ORDINANCE, AND All OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS OR CITY ORDINANCES WHICHEVER OF WORK 8000.
APPLIES.
SEPARATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ElECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND HEAWlG, SIGNS, PLAN TOTAL FEE
SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES. T P Q
PERMIT EXPIRfS 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK IS STARTED. FILED 3?,oo t
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE. DOU~lE CHECK 0 $ 1'1. ()up/c.
ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE MADE ON ALL ITEMS OF WORK BEFORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED. FEE 0 CASH 0 !J7.~
THIS BUILDING SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED. 0 BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PERMIT SUBJECT TO REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION FOR VIOLATION OF ANY LAWS GOVERNING SAME.
SIGNATURE 11JA~ Uul a UA
OF
APPLICANT: r' / APPROVAL BY DATE
THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY DA TE)1 " PERMIT NO. LICENSE II RICEIPTS CLASS AMOUNT
WHEN VALIDATED HERE ) 2-1'1-7' 58-74
INSPECTOR'S COpy
c
/,,\
.........,'
aspen ,e
PEN
box v
ROBIN MOLNY
OFFICE/RESIDENCE
(Final Approval)
BRUCE GILLIS
I'll entertain a motion that we approve this project
with a total of nine bedrooms; with additional con-
sideration that the vegetation on-site, especially
that between the house and the trail, be considered
and left in place; the trail dedication agreement
should be submitted that would be to the effect of
ten foot easement at the high water mark, at any
level of the water mark; that Molny should make a
record to waive non-conforming status at the time
that he abandons office use if the Zoning Code, if
it is in fact, a non-conforming status. Any additional
things you'd like to add?
GERI VAGNEUR
We would like the nine bedrooms to be five and four.
BRUCE GILLIS
Mr. Eubanks half will be fi~e. Mr. Molny's will be
four.
Do I hear a motion?
JANET LANDRY
I'll move.
Janet Landry moves.
BRUCE GILLIS
Do I hear a second? Then we'll have discussion.
GERI VAGNEUR
I second.
BRUCE GILLIS
Geri seconds. Discussion.
BRYAN JOHNSON
Well, this is for preliminary and final and you're sup-
posed to have a finished set of plans before you can
give preliminary and final approval. Based on what we've
said and based on what the plans show, I just don't see
how we can give approval until the plans reflect what
we've asked for.
BRUCE GILLIS
That's a very good point.
ROBIN MOLNY
Can I comment to that?
1"'"
-
..-....,
",.#
We could revise the plan. This is what you're doing is
giving conditional approval, is that not true? We could
revise the plans and satisfy your requirements merely by
dropping one bedroom in each case, satisfying the other
stipulations, because I'm sure that the Planning Com-
mission doesn't want to get into the business of doing
floor plans on residences. Would that satisfy Bryan?
BRUCE GILLIS
We don't, but it is required that we do have all develop-
ment plans and drawings, and I would assume that means
working drawings, and it's just not right if we don't
approve the actual drawings, which we would make that a
condition - approval upon working drawings.
ROBIN MOLNY
All right, if we gave you the revised drawings on Thurs-
day and they satisfied your conditional approval, would
that satisfy you?
What we're talking about is compliance.
BRYAN JOHNSON
Are we going to have a continued meeting on Thursday
or is this going to be a study session?
BRUCE GILLIS
If it's conditional upon that, I think we could approve
it and not have a continued meeting as long as we did
see it.
BRYAN JOHNSON
I don't have any hangups with it other than the fact
that I want it to be in accordance with the procedure.
BRUCE GILLIS
And I agree. Sandy, isn't that right?
SANDRA STULLER
Fine.
BRUCE GILLIS
Okay, you can show it Thursday and it does not have to
be a continued meeting.
withdraw of second?
GERI VAGNEUR
Yes.
BRUCE GILLIS
Withdraw motion?
JANET LANDRY
Yes.
BRUCE GILLIS
Okay. I'll entertain the same motion as presented earlier
conditioned to the applicant bringing us final development
plans and working drawings this coming Thursday, April 4th,
reflecting the changes we have so put into the motion.
JANET LANDRY
So moved.
BRUCE GILLIS
Janet so moved.
GERI VAGNEUR
Second.
( 2)
r"
........
J
BRUCE GILLIS
Geri seconds. Any discussion?
JACK JENKINS
The only statement that I would make is that the changes
don't significantly alter it at all as far as I'm con-
cerned. They don't change it, it just makes it less
viable economically and it doesn't make it a better
parking or density situation.
BRUCE GILLIS
All in favor?
(Bruce Gillis, Geri Vagneur, Bryan Johnson, Janet Landry)
BRUCE GILLIS
Opposed?
(Jack Jenkins)
MOTION CARRIED.
A7p0n Cit~f Cocnc~l
pc;Sular l-lectinq'
~!,3rch 11, 1974
(~
')
'c,'#
Meeting was called to order by Hayor Stacy St3,ndley at 5:00 p.m. with
Co~ncilme~bers Jenifer Pedersen, James Breast~d, Ramona Markal~nas,
Jack Walls, Michael Behrendt, City Attorney Sandra Stuller and Ci~y
M:mager ";.lick" Mahoney.
lUNU7ES
Council request to amend the minutes of February 25, 1974 motion as
follo~ls: "councilman Walls moved to instruct the City Nanager to pro-
ceed with the investigation for the sale of the vacant lct:s. Seconded
by Councilwoman Markalunas. Councilmembers Walls, l-larkalunas and
DeGregorio aye; Pedersen, Breasted, Behrendt and Mayor Standley nay.
Motion NOT carried.
Councilman Breasted moved
February 25th as amended.
in favor, motion carried.
to approve the minutes of March 1st and of
Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the accounts payable as submitt~d,
Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
a. Correspondence from the Pitkin County Park Association was read
by Mayor Standley indicating their support for doubli~g the acreage
of City parks to bring Aspen up to the national recognized standards.
b. Mayor Standley read correspondence from Barbara McLoughlin
outlining her dissatisfaction and concerns with the control of dogs
and the pound operation.
c. Mayor Standley read letter of resignation from Charles Vidal
(P & Z). Resigning due to future conflicts of interest.
d. Mayor Standley showed Council the plaque awarded to the City for
first place in the community awards for Environmental Excellence
from Keep Colorado Beautiful, Inc. This was based on Aspen's malls
and a scrapbook kept by Pat Dasko. Also won a national award from
Keep America Beautiful.
e. Mr. 'Raymond Auger request endorsement from Council relating to
a request for clarification on BLM land trading poliS[. Suggest
perhaps trades can be made of lands that have no commercial or y
recreational value for lands in or near the City, thus would be in a
position to gain additional park lands. Council request Mr. Auger
further clarify his request in writing and submit to Council.
f. Michael Kinsley informed Council the Environmental Task Force
supports the endangered species ordinance. Further pointed out the
ordinance as it exists, would not cover the present situation at
the Mountain Shop.
~BDIVISION EXEMPTION
I
'J
Mr. Robin Molny representing himself and Dale Eubank submitted his
written request and blue print of the site plan. Mr. Molny stated
he has purchased a victorian house and desires to move same cn Lot
7 as shown on the plan. Presently negotiating for the purchase of
the property. The Planning office felt that by just using Lot 7
there would not be ccnformance with the river and it was suggested
additional property be purchased \lhich has been done. Since the
property lines had to be re-drawn, was informed would have to go
through subdivision regulations. Met with the P & Z for conceptual
approval, stream ffidLgin approval and exemption from subdivision
regulations. P & Z approved the first. t'.,.o requests and denied tbe,
exemption request.
Mr. Schiffer of the P & Z stated they were denied as it ~!as felt the
- 1 -
I
Page 2, Co:.:.ncil, J/IC74, continued. ':)
req'..lest did nOt: raIl v:ithin th.-: C:.~t:~~:tj.c;:; :::~:c~.:..cn of 7.:1':' (:-C~:'2.
Plan~er E~rb Bartel poirltsd out t~e rla!,~ing office r~ca~~~2~~cd
denial because #1 it is neCCS3aTY to ::e'"0 ~ecard3 that ~lre so~ethi~g
other than a page and book nU;7,\).cr shc,..:;n'e ,y,mership pattel:ns - o~'f_~cial
maps to show how tne land is being divided; ~2 easements dedicated
should be platted; .3 subdivision regulations require that co lot
lines shall be changed without going t~r0~gh the regulations; '4 the
4% dedication would apply; #5 lots should front upon a street.
'-
Mr. Molny informed Council he has to have the present old houses o=f
the site by April 15th. This project ,,,culd have no impact \lhich is
the intent of the subdivision ~eg11Iations, the whole premise is to
get two houses off the river bank. Density of this project will be
half of what is allowed. As relates to proper platting and reccrding
there are many properties that are similarly divided and not platted.
Stream margin easements are not recorded on the plan and have agreed
to the granting of a trail easement that is in excess of the required
4% dedication. Access will be provided to the back lot. It was
pointed out, a variance would have to be approved by the Board of
Adjustment as relates to the requirement of fronting upon a street.
City Attorney Stuller pointed out 2 reasons for considering exemptions
or exceptions. Number I the impact of the development and i2 the
design requirements are such that the subdivision requirements can be
satisfied.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to grant the exemption conditioned upon
the easement being dedicated. Seconded by Councilman Breasted. All
in favor with exception of Councilman Walls who voted nay. Motion
carried.
UTE AREA DOWN-ZONING PROPOSAL
I Mayor Standley pointed out there are three ways the City can go, #1-
down-zone at all, i2 - follow P & Z recommendation and amend Ordinance
119 or i3 - down zone the area now.
Mr. Bartel reviewed with Council the map showing the area in question
which was published prior to the P & Z public hearing. Area under
consideration contains 32 acres including approximately 40 plus
ownerships. Majority of the ownerships are in the R-15 zone. Mr.
Bartel pointed out the reasons for proposing the down zoning are as
follows: design considerations are such that the Planning office
felt were important in that area at this time and limiting population
which is a Council goal. Mr. Bartel enlar;ed upon those reasons by
stating that until the Gant there were no tourist accommodations in
this area. As relates to density were concerned about heavy traffic
in the neighborhood, the impacts upon the City in general, pressures
upon City facilities with existing zoning, environmental concerns and
planning with existing zoning around an unsafe area. 'The proposed
density will be consistent with the efforts of the County in this
area.
Question was raised on the s'tatement in the P & Z resolution, "As
soon as possible, similar designations be applied to the balance of
the mixed residential districts:. Mr. Bartel assured Council the
planning office would not be recorrmending the same proposal of today
to all of the remaining mixed residential areas. Criteria used in
examination of each area are: existing land use patterns, ownerships,
and influences on the neighborhood.
Mr. Bartel explained the square footage in the R-6 zone was changed
from 6,000 sq. ft. to 9,000 sq. ft. because of the unsightliness of
12 to 14 duplexes on an acre of land. Mr. Bartel stated there is
justification for down zoning at this time if Council desires to
follow that route. Mr. Schiffer stated the recommendation from P & Z
to amend Ordinance i19 by emergency ordinance rather than permanent
down zoning at this time was so the P & Z could look at 'the total
picture following future re-zonings and considerations under Ordinance
U9.
Councilwoman Markalunas stated her strong concerns for the old timers
in this neighborhood who will be sacrificing value of their property
by making this a residential area.
~,'"
-'.......
"._" C. '.",.'CK[ll.I.~ l. ~o.
Continued Meeting
. "
....'"
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Aspen Planning & Zoning
March 7, 1974
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:10 p.m. with Com-
mission members Bryan Johnson, Spence Schi:fer, Geri Vagneur and Janet Landry.
Also present Assistant City/County Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford and
City Economist Yank Mojo.
OLD BUSINESS
Agenda Items
..
I
L
I-
f]
I; Council Meetings
I
i'
I
I;
Ii
II
!
/
v1
Molny -
Exemption &
Stream Margin
Ordinance #19
Conceptual
Jack Jenkins arrived.
Vagneur questioned when the Commission made the deter-
mination that they were going to cut off all new ap-
plications coming forward as of March 19th, whether
or not new applications means new applications for
approval of buildings or whether it means all new
business.
Chairman Gillis stated that his interpretation of that
was that it would include anything which takes the
time of the Commission which has not been discussed
before.
Vagneur questioned if that meant that anything that
would be an exception to a subdivison request or any-
thing of that nature would be out until after this
period of time.
Johnson stated that that was not his feeling. Felt
that it just affected buildings coming in for concep-
tual approval.
Schiffer stated that he felt exemptions were small
items and the Commission could handle them in a
short time,
Landry made a motion that under the new policy where
any new projects would not be admitted to the agenda,
that exemptions be made an exception. Motion seconded
by Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried.
Landry stated that the Commission needed to appoint
one of its members to attend the City Council mtet~ng
on Monday officially to be there as a resource per-
son.
Chairman Gillis stated that he did not feel this shoul
be on a permanent basis, but only for two or three
meetings.
Landry suggested that it be a member who knew the en-
tire process that the proposed rezoning went through.
Schiffer stated that he would attend the meeting on
Monday, but could not commit to do it for more than
that. Johnson stated that he, too, could attend the
meeting.
Molny read the letter which is required under appli-
cation for exemption:
"Gentlemen:
This letter represents our request to
you for exemption from subdivision under the
provisions of ChClpter 20-10 of the Aspen
Municipal Code for Lots R & S, Block 33,
East Aspen Addition, and Lots 6 & 7, Block
1M_ ,., t. '.~~frHC a. e.,.. Co?
,#""......
:)
'-'
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
March 7, 1974
Continued Meeting
,'j
Aspen Planning & Zoning
5, Riverside Addition.
Our general reason for making this
request is that the subject property does
not fall within the intents and purposes
of Chapter 20 - Subdivisions - of the
Code.
More specifically, our reasons for
this request are as follows:
(1) The property is already platted and
recorded.
(2) All utilities are in place and are a-
vailable to the lots.
(3) The alley is permanently unusable for
access and its isolation from the southerly
lot is of no importance.
Providing the northerly lot with access
to the street has been satisfied by a 14'
.driveway easement. A variance would be sought
to satisfy the technical requirement of a lot
fronting on a street.
The lots border on the Roaring Fork River.
Dividing them in half in an east-west direc-
tion enables the improvements to be placed in
such a manner as to increase the area of river
frontage left undisturbed and, in so doing,
would greatly increase the degree of compliance
with the intent of the stream margin ordinance.
It should be noted here that a build-
ing could be constructed solely on Lot 7 in
strict compliance which would be located a
minimum of 30' closer to the Roaring Fork
River from the buildings as proposed.
A suggestion has been made by the Plan-
ning Office that we apply for a sUbdivisiofi.
We respectfully submit that as a matter of
timing necessity, there is nothing to be
gained by requiring that the property be sub-
divided and it should not be made a condition
of approval. Such a requirement would only
place an increased burden on us and On the
time of the Planning Conunission, the Engineer-
ing Department and the City Council.
What is being proposed is the division of
already subdivided lots in variance with exis-
ting lot lines. There are many such divisions
in the City of Aspen which are not platted and
recorded. They create no inordinate problems.
We feel a personal comment is in order.
Obviously, the best use of the piece of land
would be to leave it as it is. It is unlikely
to so remain. Our project is modest in scope
and impact and it attempts to minimize the dis-
ruption of natural features of the site.
At the direct request of the Planning Of-
fice, we accepted the approach evidenced on
our site plan, even though it was immediately
apparent that increased cost and greatly in-
crease difficulties in executing this project
Were inevitable.
The requirement to subdivide, how~\Ter,
would create an undue hardship and yi.eld, uS
I have suggested, no benefits. Unfortunately,
we arc now almost out of the time necessary
,
/' .'.~
,""""...'
"'..
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
''''lI''' c. ,_..ot<~n.. B.a c. ell.
continued Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
March 7, 1974
to execute this project. The moving of the
buildings must be completed by 5 p.m., April
15th. We ask for your decision at this time
or we will be forced to abandon the project.
There is a very distant possibility that the
house proposed for the southerly lot would be
demolished to make room for the Stevens-Ginn
project, which is scheduled to begin on April
16th. This is a fact."
Chairman Gillis stated that the Commission would han-
dle one request at a time. Stated that the Commissior
would begin with the exemptions.
..
Schiffer stated that he had no problems with the rea-
sons stated, but was not certain whether or not it
falls within the perview of the exemption that is
being discussed. Stated he was not clear which one
Molny is requesting.
Molny stated that according to Chapter 20-10, there
are exceptions and exemptions, Felt that they would
like to avoid going to City council by using the
word "exception II would like to. Stated that the
strict reading of it would be under 20-l0(b) , which
was the City Attorney's note to him.
I.:
I
i
I
I
Ms. Baer stated that the item Molny was referring to
as exemption is when it is the intent and purpose,
like in an exchange to satisfy a boundary-dispute.
Stated that she would recommend that they apply under
an exception, and that does not go to the Council.
Stated that there is a change and there is a division,
and the design requirements are involved.
Molny read the three items under "Exceptions". Felt
that they would qualify under 20-l0(a) or 20-l0(b).
Stated that as far as the design requirements, there
is no language which he is aware of which would apply.
Ms. Baer stated that that would be contained in 20-7.
Molny stated that he had met with the City Attorney
on the 26th of February to see if this would be a
good candidate for exemption or exception. Stated
that Ms. Stuller agreed that it was. Stated that
Stuller had said that the application was within the
intents and purposes of the subdivision regulations
and that the design requirements in 20-7 are satis-
fied, and believe the reason she said that is because
it has already been platted with streets, etc.., that
Molny should review the design criteria and that the
subdivison regulation deals with impact and that the
impact of what they are proposing is reduced rather
than increased. Stated these were his notes on her
comments.
Schiffer stated that he felt Ms. Baer could address
the design requirements, but do not agree that they
have been met. Also, have a problem with whether or
not items 1, 2 and 3 of Subsection (a) are read to-
gether or as lIor".
Ms. Daer stated that they are separate, that it would
-.
-..../
~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
'ro>~ '. t.'. ,"'!'Kl~ .. .. . .. C:l.
continued Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
March 7, 1974
be any of the three. Stated that that is the way it
has been interpreted in the past.
Ms. Baer stated that if the Commission approves the
conceptual presentation under Ordinance #19, the Plan-
ning Office has no desire to hold up the project and
recognize that he has a hardship. Stated that she
has discussed the matter with Bartel, and the Plan-
ning Office has felt from the beginning it is suit-
able for subdivision application. Bartel stated that
it would satisfy him and the Department if Molny coule
submit a preliminary plat, and then move his building
before the final plat is approved. Stated that the
timing is the element which is involved here. Stated
that although they do not want to foul up the project,
feel that there is an impact, there is a change in
lot line, there are drainage considerations, it shoulc
be reviewed in depth by the Engineering Department,
and feel it meets all the criteria for subdivision.
Ms. Baer stated that the Engineering Department had
looked at it briefly this afternoon and for example,
the applicant will have to move the houses approxi-
mately 4' over because it would be impossible to
open a car door.
Molny stated that in actuality you could because that
is a standard 9' drive. Stated that if the lefthand
side of the car were against the righthand side of
the roadbed, you could open the door. Stated that
cars are generally 6 or 7 feet wide. Stated they were
trying to keep as far from the river as possible.
Further pointed out that they were using 2 feet of thE
14' easement for parking. Stated that they had dis-
cussed with Ms. Baer moving 2' so they would be com-
pletely off the easement.
Vagneur questioned if the studies are not done prior
to subdivision approval, how could you put foundation,
down and put the houses on them.
Ms. Baer questioned the applicants as to whether or
not they could get financing with the conditions rec-
ommended by the Planning Office.
Eubanks stated that if they had the first step of ap-
proval and some reasonable assurance that they would
get subsequent approvals, felt they could get finan-
cing.
Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office d;,d not anti
cipate anything in the course of subdivision which
would require denial.
Eubanks stated that ultimately they will have to sub-
divide - in order to get financing must have separate
title to the property.
Ms. Baer stated that since there were lot line change
since one lot does not front on the road, the fact
that they have some drain.J.gc considerations, etc.. is
the reason that they Eire recommending subdivision.
I'elt it typicillly lends itself to subdivision.
-4-
.' .,
:>
....,,>'
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
,0JItI.. c.'_ "n(ruc 1.1. & L. C~.
Continued Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
March 7, 1974
Schiffer stated he felt the Commission must apply the
statute the way it is written, and questioned if the
design requirements had been fulfilled.
Jenkins stated that if the Commission gave preliminar,
subdivision approval, and the applicants went ahead
and placed the houses, there would be no way the Com-
mission could deny at a later stage. Would be the
same as giving final approval. Would be committing
the Building Inspector to a four,dation.
Vagneur questioned what the timing would be for the
drainage approval before the founQations went in.
.;
Del Duca stated that he did not feel there would be a
major drainage problem, but feels the location of the
foundations are very important.
Schiffer stated that he felt the Commission could not
grant an exception or and exemption. Stated that un-
der (a), could only grant if the strict application
would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of
his land - the applicant does not own the land at
this point. Could grant if the exception was necessar
for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial
property right of the applicant - do not own i~, so
where is their property right. Stated that under
(c) the applicant would have to fulfill the design
requirements first.
I
I
1
Schiffer made a motion to deny the exemptlon or ex-
ception. Motion seconded by Johnson.
Jenkins stated that the uses, as far as he was con-
cerned, are no problem, but felt the density was a
step' in the wrong direction,
t
I
I
,I
i
,
Molny reminded the Commission that the applicant was
following a direction of the Planning Office. Took
this approach because the Planning Office rEquested
them to do so, in the interest of preservin~ ~s m~ch
as possible the stream. Felt that when an applicant
is asked to cooperate, you can reasonably expect some
cooperation in turn to make what is sort of an unusual
project possible.
Landry request that Schiffer justify his reasoning
that it would not deprive the applicant of the reason-
able use of his land - does not say owner.
Schiffer stated that although he may not agree with
the criteria in the ordinance, that is the way it is
written. Stated that it is not the applic:l1t's land.
Molny reminded the Commission that they are attempting
to save two old houses and ~hat they are coming in
with a density which is much less than the density
which is currently allowecl.
Main Motion
All in favor, with the exception of Landry who was
opposed. Motion carried.
Molny -
Stream Margin
Request
Chairman Gillis stated that the considerations are
whether removal of trees, slope or grade changes pro-
,~... '. C,. ~~trUll. I. I L. Co.
I'"
'-'
""""
-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
March 7, 1974
Continued Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
duce erosion.
Chairman Gillis stated that he felt it would be an
engineering consideration and questioned if Del Duca
had reviewed the site.
Del Duca stated that he had just looked at the pro-
perty that afternoon and did not really have time to
make a decision.
Johnson questioned how much the setback was.
Ms. Baer pointed out the high water mark on the plans.
Pointed out that anything within 100' of the river
is subject to review.
Chairman Gillis questioned how close the high water
mark was to the building,
Molny 3tated that in the case of the Eubank building,
it is 11' from one corner of the house.
Gillis questioned if the 10' trail would be in the
flood plain.
Ms. Baer stated that it would be.
Schiffer stated that his only concern was that the
ordinance states that vegetation should not be re-
moved or any slope and grade changes made that will
produce erosion of the stream bank or area adjacent
to the stream, Stated that Molny had mentioned that
he had to remove some trees and there would probably
be some slope and grade changes, and wanted to know
if that would have any deleterious affect on the
stream.
Ms. Baer pointed out that there would be considerable
removal of trees and vegetation, and stated that the
Planning Office is not equipped to evaluate ,that con-
clusively. Felt that for structures of this si.ze,
to the best that they can evaluate, will not cause
any deleterious affects.
Chairman Gillis stated that if the Engineering Depart-
ment is not prepared to give an opinion on the stream
margin request, did not feel the Commission should
vote on it.
Johnson stated that he felt it would be difficult for
the Engineering Department to review this site until
after some of the snow has melted.
Del Duca stated that he did not foresee any big pro-
blems, and felt the removal of the trees which Molny
proposed would not cause any erosion problems.
Molny pointed out on the plans where the trees were
located that they plan to remove.
Johnson made a motion to gr<<nt the stream margin re-
quest, seconded by Jenkins.
Del Duca stated that he felt there should be some type
."""..,j t_ r. ~:[C~(L I. 1.1 L. ,<I.
Continued Meeting
Main Motion
Molny -
Ordinance #19 -
Conceptual
..
"'"
-
..."'\
,,";
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Aspen Planning & Zoning
March 7, 1974
of provision to maintain the trees between the trail
and the house for the purposes of erosion and esthe-
tics.
Chairman Gillis stated that this could come under sub
division~
All in favor, motion carried.
Molny stated that the original application for con-
ceptual review was for a total of five units and an
office. Stated that at that meeting, the Commission
said that they would feel better if it was a total
of four rather than six.
Molny stated that in the Eubanks project, the exist-
ing upper two levels would remain basically as the
house is now, making one unit. The basement would
be Eubanks' apartment. In the basement there would
be a living room, kitchen, 2 bedrooms and 2 baths.
Upstairs it would be kitchen, living room, 2 bedrooms
and a bath, and the top floor would have two addition,
bedrooms and a bath.
Molny stated that his house would be to have a living
area for himself with a kitchen and a bathroom in
what is now the attic space, with the office the same
way it is now. On first level, would be a 2 bedroom,
1 bath apartment. This would be Phase I.
Molny stated that Phase II, were he to sell the build
ing, would give up the use of the building as an of-
fice. The top floor would be living room, dining
room, kitchen, bathroom. First floor would have 3
bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. Basement would have 2 bed-
rooms and a bathroom. This would be two apartments.
Schiffer asked Molny if he had discussed with the Cit
Attorney the professional office use in the area.
Molny stated that he had not discussed that matter
with the City Attorney.
Schiffer stated that he was concerned about the pro-
fessional office use in that area.
Jenkins pointed out that there would be 4 units, 7
baths, 11 bedrooms on substantially less tha~ 12,600
square feet of land, with only five parking spaces.
Molny pointed out that currently, the right that goes
with the land is 8 unlimited units, and the applicant
is cutting that in half.
Johnson made a motion to deny the conceptual presen-
tation under Ordinance #19, seconded by Jenkins.
Landry stated that she questioned requiring the cove-
nant of the chang(~over from commercial use to resi-
dential use beciluse it appears that residential use
has more impact than the professional use which is
being discussed.
Vagneur statcd that she did not feel comfortable with
f""',
......
,',
,.,.I
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
'''''''', :.'_ ~,,':'n' ... l. ~O,
Continued Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
March 7, 1974
totally denying the project since the Commission did
encourage Molny to return with a cutback on the den-
sity, which he did.
Chairman Gillis stated that he liked the idea of sav-
ing the houses, and he did cut the density. Feel it
complies with what the Commission is looking for.
Schiffer again expressed his concern on the interpre-
tation of the mixed-residential and the use of the
professional office in that area where it docs not
already exist. IVould like the opinion of the City
Attorney.
Johnson stated that he felt if the Commission allows
this project, are effectively allowing two duplexes
on 6300 square feet each.
Schiffer stated that although he agreed with Jenkins
and Johnson, did not feel the Commission should act
in an arbitrary fashion and feel they should set some
definite criteria. Feels that it is too dense, but
not certain what is the right amount.
Vagneur pointed out that presently, can build a duple:
on 6,000 square feet in the west residential area.
Main Motion
(Motion to deny conceptual approval). Johnson and
Jenkins in favor, Landry, Schiffer, Vagneur and Gilli~
opposed. Motion NOT carried.
Schiffer made a motion to approve the conceptual pre-
senation under Ordinance #19 conjitioned on a~ opin-
ion from the City Attorney that this is a use that
would be justified in that area within the purview
of the mixed-residential definition. Motion seconded
by Vagneur. All in favor, \Ii th the exceptious of
Johnson and Jenkins. Motion carried.
SUBDIVISIONS
Aspen Commercial
I Condominium _
Exemption
."
Dr. Robert Barnard was present to make this presenta-
tion.
Location of property: 307 South Mill, City of Aspen,
premises presently known as Aspen r-1~~dical Center f
situated on Lots II & I, Block 82, including said
real property and improvements thereon as the same
now exist.
Barnard stated that he was asking for exemption on
the basis of Chapter 20-10 (c) of the Asp"n ~lunjcipal
Code, namely, if a piece of property was platted into
lots and blocks before the subdivision 1",'1 "as passed
it is entitled to an exemption. Pointed out that it
must, however, meet the building design requirements.
Barnard stated that his plan is to sell the building
in three parts to the telliOnts who presently occupy
the building, so t:he project would have no impact.
Barnard pointed out thnt the first rcconuncndation of
the Engineering Deportment was that no provision has
been provid(~d to control the storm drainugl' run-off
from the site. Submitted a bill for storm drainage
c 0
RECORD OF PROCt:ED!i'JGS lea Leavrs
-cr;~ __.::.:~' ;:.~.l~ -' ~-
--~---_._--,------ -.----..----- ----..---.-- -. ----- ----..---.--.-.
_._._-----~-_._-----_._-_._-~---_._---_._.- _._,
R2Cfular Heeting
"--"
Aspen Planning & Zuni~g
March 5, 1974
M~eting was called to oeder by C~air~~n Bruce Gillis at 5:20 p.m. wit~ Bryan
Johrl3on, Jack Je~kins, Spence Schiffer, Ge~i Vagnu~r and Janet LandrY4 Also
present City/County Planner Herb Bartel, Assistant Planners Donna Baer and Jc"n
Stanford, City Engineer David Ellis, Economists Yank Mojo and Larry Sin~ons,
and City Manager Mick Mahoney.
MINUTES
1/29, 2/5, 2/7,
2/19
Vagnuer made a motion to approve the minutes of Janu-
ary 29th, February 5th, February 7th and February
19th. Motion seconded by Johnson. All in favor,
motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
Memo to City Council
Chairman Gillis submitted a letter from the Commission
to the City Council. Stated that it had been dis-
cussed that day at th~ luncheon study session.
Stated that to the memo had been added thai: the Com-
mission hoped the Council does go ahead and form a
Regional Planning Commission for the County.
Concensus of the Commission was for Chairman Gillis
to sign the letter and have it forwarded to the City
Council.
Molny Offic~~
Residence
Chairman Gillis stated that the Commission had dis-
cussed the matter and decided that this project would
be continued until Thursday.
Bartel explained that City Engineer David Ellis had
a study session with the City Council concerning the
water service plan, rate studies, plant investment
fees, all as part of the water program. Stated that
in September of 1972, the Commission recommended to
the Council that they not extend the water line to
the Woody Creek area. Stated that as part 0= that
resolution, asked that the Council not make any major
water extensions into the unincorporated area of the
County until there was an official water plan.
WATER UTILITY
SERVICE PLAN
.' . . ~
Bartel stated that as part of the work that~llis has
been doing with Briscoe Management, has prepared the
map with the Planning Office input for the water
service area of the City.
Ellis stated that basically, they want to present the
proposed service area to the Commission and get com-
ments and hopefully their appro'il'al on it. Stated that
it has been presented to Council at a study session.
Ellis explained the location of the proposed service
area and submitted a map. Stated that the ;nost im-
portant reason for choosing this area is that it con-
forms to the current proposed zoning in the County.
Stated that the over~ll water utility an~lysis, de-
mandes and so forth, the study was made o~ a projec-
tion of population within the area bounded by the
solid line on the map.
Ellis briefly went through what the boundary for the
propsec1 ......ater utility service plan Hould be.
Ellis explained that basically there is no area within
the prcposed 3(::rvice urea tha.t would have lC~83 Uf:f'-
sity than one dwelling unit per acre, which is b~sic-
r"
,-....
'~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
f{)~'" ,- C. T. >lJ,:KrL 5. a & t, C~.
._uu ____._____ ____ _
---"-----., -------
Continued Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
February 21, 197~_
more than one car. Further pointed out that he had
two accesses to his parking.
Vidal made a motion to exempt this addition since it.
is not probably that it would be made into a separate
unit. Motion seconded by Johnson.
Schiffer stated that he felt this project comes within
the scope of the exemption section of Ordinance #19.
Main Motion
All in favor, motion carried.
Molny Office/, ~
Residence - V
Conceptual
Presentation
Robin Molny was present to represent the project.
Molny explained that he was proposing doing the pro-
ject with Dale Eubanks. Stated that there had been
some changes since writing the letter to the Commis-
sion.
Molny stated that the land in question, at the end of
East Hyman Avenue, will fall within the stream margL1
regulations. Stated it contains 13,045.7 square feet.
Submitted map of land and located proposed project.
Molny stated that they were proposing to move bJO vi c-
torians onto the site. Houses are currently located
on the corner of Original and Durant. Stated that one
of the houses gets moved for another project regard-
less.
Molny stated that his original intent was to take the
small Victorian which he now owns and place it on the
property. Stated that Bartel had reviewed the site
and had very serious reservations that the proposed
area should be left open, and Molny agreed. Stated
that at that point, tried to put a package t.ogetl1er,
as per his description in the letter. Bartel also
suggested transferring density.
Molny stated that Eubanks' use would be residential
and his own use would be office and residential.
Molny showed houses as they are now on the site. State,
that the configuration of the land dicates this pro-
posal.
Molny stated that in his house, would have a rental
unit on the first floor, his own residence and office
downstairs.
Stated that Eubanks proposal was that he W(Juld live
downstairs, possibly, and convert the house into two
apartments from ground up and one apartment in the
basement. Stated that Bartel had reservations about
this. Stated that another item which is of sed.ous
concern to the applicants is the fact that if they
put parking on the site, will probably take a great
deal of land fill to create a level space. Feel this
would be detrimental.
Chairman Gillis questioned how many units, not in-
cluding offices, arc they proposing.
Molny stated that there would be five. Stated that
his office could easily be converted into another ren-
-~-
"."',
........,...i>.....
,.....,.,
....."
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1 GO Leaves
r",~" . C_!. "",(':Ul~. s. 1< ~_
--
________n._._____._
-.--~_._--_.-
continued Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
February 21, 1974
tal unit. Stated that presently the property under
Chapter 24 is capable of supporting 8 unlimited and
one limited unit.
Vagneur questioned how this project would fit in with
the proposed downzoning of the entire mixed residential
area.
Vagneur further questioned if Mr. Eubanks would be in-
tending to use this as part of the housing on the com-
mercial building which he is proposing.
Molny stated that there was no connection.
vidal stated that he felt they could not get away with
having no parking, feel that it would not be practical.
Molny stated that they recognize parking as a problem
and fe~t the contour survey would reveal more. Stated
that if it was the feeling of the Commission that the
applicant should attempt to provide on site parking,
they will. Would rather do all or nothing.
Molny stated that there were some other problems which
he would like to raise. Stated that the applicants
would be dividing the property equally as follows:
Down the middle of the two lots and then on an angle
to the center line of the river. Stated that lots are
required to front on the street, and would assume that
that is from the standpoint of fire protection.
Ms. Baer stated that she would assume that was requirec
due to circulation and fire protection.
Vidal questioned how the applicant planned on getting
access to the back lot.
Molny stated that if the applicant had no parking,
would walk. Stated he could not do preliminary plans
on the project until he has received the contonr sur-
vey. Felt that fires could be fought on the back lot.
Stated that in order for Mrs. Carr to sell the appli-
cant to sell us the easement, technically she needs
an exemption from subdivision regulations.
Molny stated that the applicant would like an exemp-
tion from subdivision regulations because they~e
drawing a line down the middle.
Vidal stated that he would require more research done
in terms of building permits, etc... Wanted to know
if the Commission could create a site without access.
Molny stated that it was his intention to discuss the
matter with the City Attorney.
Ms. Baer asked the applicants if they could hold it
in common.
Molny stated that would not be possible because it com-
plicates the mortgage. Stated it would make finilTlcin(j
difficult.
Chairman Gillis stated that he felt the Co~nission
",,",
--
/~\
.....,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
,'''''., C.f.H'cCH',-8.a,!ll.'o.
continued Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
February 21, 197~
should make a site inspection. Stated he was con-
cerned about doing the filling by the river.
Molny stated that he had not necessarily said that
parking would have to go in the center.
Jenkins stated that he felt another consideration was
density. Felt that six units on that area was too
great.
Molny stated that it was slightly more than half of
present zoning. Questioned what the Commission would
be comfortable with.
Vidal questioned how many square feet were contained
in the houses.
Molny stated that under Mixed Residential in the Aspen
Land Use Plan, feel that this project falls in that
categol:Y.
Schiffer pointed out that the applicant was required
to explain and describe how it applies to those con-
ditions.
Molny pointed out that in the Aspen Land Use Recom-
mendations it says, "Properties located in the desig-
nated mixed residential land use category and the pro-
j ect complies with the use recommendations of the 19,73
Aspen General Land Use Plan by providing for a mix
of residential uses interspersed with limited amounts
of professional office uses."
Schiffer added that it also requires that it be in
areas where these conditions presently exist. Ques-
tioned if there were otter offices in that area.
Molny stated that there were none to his knowledge.
Vagneur stated that she felt the project vla~' too dense.
I,andry stated that she too felt the project was too
intense. Stated that she did not object to the use.
Stated that she would rather see three living u~its ane
an office.
Vagneur stated that there was a doctors office within
two blocks.
Schiffer stated that he did not have any personal pro-
blems with the office, but has problem with broaden-
ing the statute that the Commission has to work with.
Vagneur questioned Schiffer on what distance another
office should be to be considered in the area. Stated
that there was a business office within 4 blocks.
Vidal stated that he felt the Commission could approve
anything that was acceptable in the old zone. Was
zoned AR.
Schiffer stated that that was not his interpretation.
Feel the Commission does not have that discretion.
-6-
<"""'-"
""'\
-'
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
lon Leaves
P)"'" '1
---.
:. F', ~,'(TKn J. O.,~ ,. C?
, ,
continued Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
February 21, 1974
Molny stated that another unit in this proposal turned
into another professional office would be illegal.
Jenkins stated that he did not feel there was any pro-
blem with putting an office in that area.
Chairman Gillis pointed out that he enco:.Iraged doing
something with the old Victorian houses, but felt the
applicant should cut down on the density.
Molny stated that as far as uses were concerned, ques-
tioned the Commission on what "arE-a" actually meant.
Further questioned if they could get approval con-
ditioned upon an interpretation from the City Attorney
on whether or not that would be an acceptable use in
that area.
Vidal stated that he would like to see the applicant
return with alternatives as to how many spaces that
they could get access to, etc...
Molny stated that Eubanks is willing to drop from
three units to two, and stated that he (Molny) would
still like to do what he is proposing because it is
a house and would like to put his office and living
unit in the basement oriented toward the river, with
the house remaining basically the way it is now.
Molny submitted pictures of the houses. Stated that
in order to be converted into the proposed dwelling
units, would have to be re-arranged. Stated that the
house is QOOO square feet,
Jenkins stated that when you start talking about any-
thing in the area of 20 units per acre, feel that is
entirely too dense for that are3-.
Jenkins stated that at the modified R-6 would give
8 units or four duplexes per acre.
Molny questioned if this was an area which t.he C:::>m-
mission is actively considering rezoning R-6.
Vidal pointed out that it was an area which would be
amended in the Ordinance #19 map. Pointed out that in
a mixed residential zone, the Planning Office has rec-
ommended a downzoning.
vidal stated that he would like to see what the park-
ing would look like before evaluating the site. Felt
that there was no argument against use at this point
and that the Commission was concerned with density.
Chairman Gillis stated that the Commission would not
vote on this project at this meeting, but would ask
the applicant to return with more information on con-
ceptual.
.Tohnson stated that he felt the Commission should not
ignore the fact that this project is saving two Vic-
torian houses in Aspen.
Molny stated that he did not wish to deceive the Crnn-
mission, but there is a possibility that they would
-7-
~ r, "'-'E~~l~. e_" I. 0
1"'''>..
......,-
,
"
\
-,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Aspen Planning & Zoning
February 21, 1974
continued Meeting
Aspen Cooperative
Housing Partnership -
Conceptual Presen-
tation
not be as they are now.
Schiffer reminded the Commission that they have 30
days to act on this project unless the applicant wishc
to waive the 30 day limit.
Vagneur stated that she would like to see the build-
ings go two and two, without putting a protective COVE
nant on the use of Molny's office.
Landry stated that she agreed.
Johnson stated he would like to review the site be-
fore making any decision.
Jenkins stated that he had no problem with the use or
the transfer of density.
Rick Farrell, Baryard Hovdesven, Dr. Bill Wesson and
Monte Hughes \-lere present to represent the project.
Farrell stated that the applicants have optioned the
property located on South Monarch Street, down hill
from the Caribou Condominiums. Stated that they were
proposing to build a fourplex for their own use.
Stated that each one of them would end up owning one
of the units that results.
Farrell submitted memo to the Commission showing con--
ceptual site plan. Stated that the architecture sug-
gested in the memo was very preliminary. Hoped the
Commission would consider density and use rather than
the exact building layout. Stated that the general
idea was a towhouse type unit with two bedrooms, two
baths, living room, kitchen and dining room and pos-
sibly a small basement ~rea for storage.
Chairman Gillis question~d if the applicant felt that
circulation would be a problem.
Farrell stated that it could be because any time you
have a dead-end street, not an attractive planning
situation. Stated that there is a street below what
is known as the Hirst Apartments, which provides some
circulation.
Chairman Gillis questioned if one parking place per
unit would satisfy their needs.
Farrell stated that it would.
Vagnuer questioned if the proposal was to limit these
units to the owners use and not to be used as rental
units.
Farrell stated that they would prefer not to put some
covenant on it over an indefinite period. Stated that
he would not live in this unit forever, and since it
is in a tourist zone, at some time he would probably
sell it. Feel that putting a covenant on it would
restrict future marketability. Felt that if it does
revert to a tourist use, that would be appropriate.
Farrell further stated that he would probably rent.
-8-