HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Molny/Eubank, Lots R-S,Blk 33\� o
Molny/Eubanks, 1974
�� El
E
ALLEY BLOCK 33
t
----- --- --- -- - -HYMAN AVENUE
37.40'F
3740'
TOPOGRAPHY MAP
LOTS R a S - BLOCK 33 - ASPEN
-- - LOTS 6 &7- BLOCK 5- RIVERSIDE ADD.
✓OHNSON - LONSFELLOW 9 ASSOC., INC-
BOX 5547 WEST VILLAGE COLORADO 811515
FEBRUARY 28, 1974 SCALE: I" = 10-
1-1
0
k
•
EC
----�Q_i._L�LY�� lJ BANK PROD -/-;x4-
41-
oi
on
NORTH
FLOOK, FLA H
'A r: 4, ,, i
SOUTH
ELEVATION
MOKTH ELEVATION
A,
V/EbT ELEVATI(Orl
EA 5T ELf-VAT ION,
A
r
10
0
10
_- --;��j
Y �
.�.«>y�._ v,i
.� �.
SY�/�<
.�� �.__,
�. �
t
1 � ��
y...
_ ' V4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Building Inspector
FROM: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Ordinance
19 Review, Subject:
On 41-,1 - 7 the planning commission reviewed
the above building permit and it was
approved
denied
Conditions:
J�.Lr c..cy1 � ..G s✓ % �� � .1Q�--i
Ile
Planning Office
Dated this ' ,A� day of 197�L
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Building Inspector
FROM: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Ordinance
19 Review, Subject:
0
On 41- ,7 the planning commission reviewed
the above building permit and it was
approved
denied
Conditions:3)
/) � �/ � ems✓ � � J p/ �.0 .-�1.G
b l�-{-c-d-e�Al
Planning Office
Dated this day of 197�L
0 RECORD OF PROGFEDI GS
100 Leaves
Fm • 0.,. MOEEKIl.... A L. C0.--
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 Vagneur and Janet Landry.
Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel, Assistant Planners Donna Baer
and John Stanford and City Attorney Sandra Stuller.
OLD BUSINESS Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that the Molny/Eubanks
Molny/Eubanks project was given final approval under Ordinance #19
Final Approval subject to certain conditions. Stated that those con-
ditions have been fulfilled, consequently, final approval
is complete.
Bartel pointed out that Molny has acquired an additional
7' easement which was part of of the Card property and
can move those structures an additional 7' away from
the river, which is even that much better than what he
had shown on the plan. Stated that does not require any
action of the Commission.
Landry made a motion that final approval be granted for
the Molny/Eubanks project under Ordinance 919 since all
the conditions had been met. Motion failed for lack, of
a second.
Rio Grande Vice Chairman Schiffer suggested this discussion be
Subdivision placed at the end of the agenda. Concensus of the Com-
mission was to place this item at the end of the agenda.
Resolutions for Bartel submitted the resolutions for exemptions to con -
Exemptions to dominiumize duplexes wh-i_ch the Corvi►ission acted on at
Condominiumize the last regular meeting.
Duplexes
Schiffer. pointed out that this was only two: Jordan/
Hecht and Chestnut/Weiman. 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
Vice Chairman Schiffer stated that it was necessary for
Hearing Date
the Commission to set a date for the public hearing of
the historic designation of the City Ball, Lift #1 (old)
and the Community Church.
Johnson made a motion to set the public hearing for the
historic designation of City Ball, the old Lift #1 and
the Community Church for 5:00 p.m. May 21, 1974. Motion
seconded by Vagneur. All in favor, motion carried.
Public Hearing
Vice Chairman Schiffer opened the public hearing on the
Rubey Park View v
Rubey Park View Planes.
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 view
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 long run
there is going to be z shift from the p] ace wl«: 1-0 v i :, i-
r
iI
GRANT OF TRAiI
KNOW AM, MEN 'I;Y TIJESI. I'1-?+,S1%N'1'S 111AT , D i 1 o Eiih .n k , tho
Gr,rn tut he r� i ii , in curt:; idorat i on cif approval by the City of'
Aspen P1 ann i n f; and Zoning Conimis�a i.ou under Ordi.nanco 1.9, Series
of 1.97:3, does; hereby grant, demise and convey to the City of
Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal Corporation, its successors and
assigns forever, a perpetual easement 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 Roaring Fork
River situate within the herein described real property:
A parcel of land being part of Lets 1I and S, Block 33,
East A:,pen 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 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 80 15' 57" East 70.53 feet along the center line
of the Roaring Fork River; thence North 630 49' 08" West
73.11 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
R to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains 6267
square feet more or less.
PROVIDED HOWEVER, that in the event the City shall establish
a trail system of which the above easement shall constitute a
part, the grantor agrees to provide, ac: a substitute for this
instrument and at the Ci.ty's election, a trail easement with
boundaries 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 system, and to this end
this paragraph shall be construed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor herein has hereunto set
his r:, n d t ll i if t.; '.:; 5' or
r
41
o i,
The forcgoing inatrume"t was acknowjudged before me this
day of
1974, by DALE EUBANK.
My commission expires: I/ - -
Witness my hand and Official seal.
Notary�yprubljc
0
GRANT OF TRAIL EASPAIENT
1'I1'1'f , Robin PIo t ny tho
Gt :.�► ! �r I►c r • :t , i n c ;n , i :i� :.:, ► o►► O I' ;►pproval by the City of'
;l nii i n,,, an(I Zon i n -: nr doi- Ordinance 19, Series
of' 197.1), does hot-eby grant, dolili.se ;anal convey to the City of
Aspen, Colorado, a Municipal Corporation, its successors and
assigns forever, a perpetual easement 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 Roaring Fork
River situate within thr- horei.n described real property:
A Marcel of land being part of Lots R and 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 R); thence North 140 50' 49" East
49.50 feet along the Westerly line of said Lot R; thence
South 750 09' 11" 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 Roaring Fork River; thence North 75 09'
11" West 146.68 feet along the southerly line of said Lots
7, 6, S and R to the point of beginning. Said parcel
contains 6267 square feet more or less.
PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that in the event the City shal'1
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 with boundaries 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
system, and to this end this paragraph shall be construed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor herein has hereunto set.
hi<-; hand this l.6th day of
1974.
i
1tc,E� i u t!, I ny
•
STATE OF c0J,Oj,Aj)0
COUNTY Of. PJTIII�ANI
TfIQ fore;,( ig . instrIlIlIcnL w;i�, ,cj�jj,)wjc,(j this
(lay of
197/1 by ROBIN I-IOLNY.
MY commission expires:
Witness my hand and official seal.
Notary Public
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 R and 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/fG?�� /��y� 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 R and 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 I1); thence N 14 50' 49" East 49.50
feet along the Westerly line of said Lot R; thence South
750 09' 11" East 60.00 feet; thence South 630 49' 08" East
73.11 feet to the center line of the Roaring; Fork River;
thence South V 15' 57" East 38.20 feet along; the center
line of the Roaring* Fork River; thence North 75o 09' 1.1"
West 146.65 feat along the southerly line of said Lots
7, 6, S and R to the point of beginning. Said parcel
contains 6,267 square feat: 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.
Tract B
A parcel of land being part of Lots R and 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 80 15'
57" East 70.53 feet along the center line of the Roaring
Fork River; thence North 630 49' 08" West 73.11 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 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 Racy Stapd1ky III /
Mayor `
ATTEST:
Zorraine Graves, City Clerk
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
ss
STATE OF COLORADO )
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 0r
day of �z 1974. Witness my hand and official seal.
L'
Notary Putaie
My commission expires: / / / 97,E �
•
•
TO: Planning & Toning Commission
FROM: Planning Office
SUBJECT: Molny/Eubanks Residences and Office
DATE: April 2, 1974
Conforms with conceptual approval given 3/7/74.
Parking layout appears improved. 5-4fat"
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.
Molny should make a record to waive non conforming
status at the time he abandons office use.
0
•
TO: Planning & Toning Commission
FROM: Planning Office
SUBJECT: Molny/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. . .
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.
Molny should make a record to waive non conforming
status at the time he abandons office use.
Quaint olde victorian hos - for Dale Eubank 9
SU17.?.'� L V7C-,ril 11J.,/,rf Ci7.,V1\ FOMI v
• 71 �- n
Gentlemen; -
According to the proccoure set forth in the City of Aspon
SL'bd-ivi.slo_1 T'--sulatJ_O:1S) any tract OE l'-dad divided into
t".:o or more lots ;:Ius-L be div.7.6ed in 1 ccordGnce with said
Subdivision U.ula io.Z or the City of r:sp--n.
This i orr1, with ettaclhccl copy of the plan is provided sa'
that eacii utility compaizy 'Mfly insipect the plat and tha
S1tE', 1Tic".i:iil CO'�+' ntS coilCGi:il:li -t-ha placerant of caso-
ments, etc. , and where- necos:;any shctchi-LAS, recommanded
alterations on a copy of tine plat.
This fo--m and the acco7.pnnying copy of the plat roust be
returned to the. City of A01pen plc i?riLng and %oninv Coal -
mission no la.-Ler than seven (7) days frog: the above date.
R4iilatkS This proposed sub -division would have no effect on school
transportation and because of its size would have -little effect
on school enrollment.
a
•
E
@""I" 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.
No
y,
lny
0*00,06#cp ,4s ove rep.
•
•
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.
Please make your comments below. If elektricity 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.
'ncerely,
Robin M ny �%
Thomas Maddalone
•
J
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,
R-1)6 Kal L/-
Robin Molny
SPEED LETTERO
To Aspen Planning and Zommng Commission FROrA Aspen Metro Sanitation Disrtict
Box V Box 2810
Aspen, Colorado 61611
SUa1ECA- . RKS'F.ubank
Aspen, Colorado 81611
-No. 9 & 10 FOLD
MESSAGE DATE NIrrCh 29 1944-_
' `Ordinance 19
-- -- -- -- SIGN
REPLY
DATE 19 '
-No. 8 FOLD
-No. 10 FOLD
SIGNE
i'iMTUje: "SNAF'-A-WAY" IC, 1, 44-902 3 PARTS
WILSON JONES COMPANY • L 1961 • PRINTED IN U.S.A. RETAIN WHITE COPY, RETURN PINK COPY
973
SPEED LETTER®
Aspen Planning and Zonnng Commission To Aspen Metro Sanitation Disrtict
Box V BOY 2810
Aspen, Colorado 61611 Aspen, Colorado 81611
At t :j8M-_rgubank
NO. 9 8 10 FOLD
P+1ESSAGE DATE l -ch 29 ' 19 74
Yi asked under Qrdinance
to comment on the availabilty__Q_fsService is available __
in
F
--- SIGNERn
REPLY DATE 19
rNo.9 FOLD
-NO. 10 FOLD
P
SIGNED
® "SNAP -A -WAY" FORM 44.902 S PARTS RETAIN WHITE COPY, RETURN PINK COPY. TURN OVER FOR USE WITH WINDOW ENVELOPE, 973
WILSON JONES COMPANY • C 1961 • FRINTED IN U.S.A.
I
FILL IN NAME AND ADDRESS HERE
FOR RETURN IN WINDOW ENVELOPE
-FOLD
�v
C r , v
rALA P E N
1)Ox v
v
DATE: March 27,1974
Mr. Robin Molny
& Dale Eubank
PO 96
Aspen, Colo. 81611
RE: Blk 33, Lots R & S
1020 & 1022 E. Hyman
This is to say that in the context of the
existing system this area has adequate access
and water supply for FIRE PROTECTION.
Yours truly,
G
William F. Cai le
Fire Marshall
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATURAL 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. #33
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.
Sincerely,
Willard C. Clapper
District Manager
WCC/ec
a
-s- Y4
v2. a 1-
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Box V
Aspen, Colorado
81611
Gentlemen:
This is a request in conformance with the requirements of Ordinance N'o. 19
for conceptual approval for a development which I propose to undertake on
Lots P, and 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,
Robin lny
February 14, 1974
RM/sc
ROBIN MOLNY
architcct
box 96
Aspen, Colorado
81611
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Box V
Aspen, Colorado
81611
Gentlemen:
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 R and 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 on ar m, or ren a • haw
Herb Bartel has discussed this project with me and has recommenaea tnat 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 laid 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,
n;, Ie
Robin t of ny
February 14, 1974
RM/sc
f �v
a,
cXC�CrTt �J� Q5�`v�1`iohs a dc��
s7L.
ROBIN MOLNY J
architect /S d '�TvcYld
box 96
Aspen, Colorado Of 2 one lj0ce4O0,V1 9dc&-JP
81611 = &0 `yto �c ,
D
LDS(/5 7 gp w sok u F a L)5 /
V w a7� �G� eh71-
nod— Y
y
C'► UE (� �' FE �� � (_70 i vw nS 1 U �v ccl
�1.rG%cJ r� a5 � (• ��frt��- � ���� f0
(4/65) 2 B.I. BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
rITY nF ASPFN _ rnuNTY OF PITKINF-. COLORADO
ADDRESS
GENERAL
CONSTRUCTION
OF JOB
1022 East Hyman
PERMIT
WHEN SIGNED AND VALIDATED BY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES THE WORK DESCRIBED BELOW.
CLASS OF WORK: NEW ❑ ADDITION ❑ ALTERATION �k REPAIR❑ MOVEEQ WRECK ❑
OWNER
NAME nv�A l e F�k�DDRESS pn 96 PHONE
LICENSE LICENSE
NAME (AS LICENSED) CLASS NUMBER
FO
V
INSURANCE
II`_
ADDRESS PHONE
❑
Z
O
SUPERVISOR
V
FOR THIS JOB NAME DATE CERTIFIED
LEGAL North Z half and 6 & 7 Riverside Addition
DESCRIPTION LOT NO. of R & S BLOCK NO. 33 / ADDITION
SURVEY ATTACHEDED ❑GN
A LIC.
BY
BY PE NO.
AREA (S.F.)
HEIGHT
NO.
TOTAL
OCCUPANCY
AT GRADE nnnnliiq
(FEET) 1
STORIES
UNITS 2
GROUP DIV.
FIN. ®
BASEMENT
SINGLE ❑ ATTACHED ❑
GARAGE
TOTAL
10
TYPE
FIRE
e1�JFIN. ❑
no DOUBLE ❑ DETACHED ❑
ROOMS
CONSTR.
ZONE
DEPTH
FIRST SIZE SPACING SPAN
AGENCY
AUTHORIZED
DATE
BELOW
BY
Z
O
GRADE
H
FLOOR
BUILDING
L.
REb lE W
I AEXTERIOR
N
CEILING
ZONING
SOOTING IZE
O
EXTERIOR CONC. ❑
FDN. WALL
ROOF
PARKING
Z
I
O
THICKNESS MAS'Y ❑
PUBLIC HEALTH
THICK CAISSONS
❑ ❑
ROOFING
SLAB d GR. BEAMS
MATERIAL
ENGINEERING
MASONRY ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE
EXTERIOR
THICKNESS IST FLR 2ND FLR. 3RD FLR.
ALL
STUD SIZE ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE
3 SPACE IST FLR. 2ND FLR 3RD FLR.
REMARKS Moving house from 750 E. Durant
for 2 family dwelling
NOTES TO APPLICANT:
FOR INSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CALL 925 - 7336
VALUATION
FOR ALL WORK DONE UNDER THIS PERMIT THE PERMITTEE ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION OR C!'.Y
OF WORK 8000.
ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ALL OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS OR CITY ORDINANCES WHICHEVER
APPLIES.
SEPARATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND HEATING, SIGNS,
PLAN
TOTAL FEE
SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES.
PERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK IS STARTED.
FILED T P
UO
DOUBLE
CHECK ❑
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE.
I_---`�-:�FG
ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE MADE ON ALL ITEMS OF WORK BEFORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED.
FEE ❑
CASH
$ `> 7 CrZ)
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
THIS BUILDING SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED. ❑
PERMIT SUBJECT TO REVOoC�ATION OR SUS/PE N'SION FOR VIOLATION OF ANY LAWS GOVERNING SAME.
�t1
SIGNATURE ti �G:✓r��t '
OF ��-'
APPLICANT: �"f�'�.� =�•' ��
APPROVAL BY DATE
THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY DATE PERMIT NO.
WHEN VALIDATED HERE
2-19- 4 59-74
INSPECTOR'S COPY
LICENSE 9 1 RECEIPTS CLASS I AMOUNT
I
(4/65) 2 11.1. BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
CITY OF ASPEN - COUNTY OF PITKIND, COLORADO
ADDRESS
GENERAL
)
OF JOB
CONSTRUCTION
1020 East Hyman
PERMIT
WHEN SIGNED AND VALIDATED BY BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES THE WORK DESCRIBED BELOW.
CLASS OF WORK: NEW 0 ADDITION 0 ALTERATIONX-N REPAIR ❑ MOVES WRECK 0
OWNER Dale
NAME Robin Molnjy & Eubank ADDRESS PO 96 PHONE 74
oc
LICENSE LICENSE
h
NAME (AS LICENSED) CLASS NUMBER
-
U
INSURANCE
H
ADDRESS PHONE
❑
Z
O
SUPERVISOR
U
FOR THIS JOB NAME DATE CERTIFIED
LEGAL South and 6 & 7 Riverside Addition
DESCRIPTION LOT NO. R & S BLOCK NO. 33 ADDITION
SURVEY ATTACHED ❑
DESIGN A Llc.
BY Tr ' _
BY PE NO.
AREA (S.F.) 6000 Plus
HEIGHT
NO.
TOTAL
OCCUPANCY
AT GRADE 2$
(FEET) 2 I
STORIES
UNITS
GROUP DIV.
BASEMENT FIN 0
GARAGE SINGLE ATTACHED
TOTAL
TYPE
FIRE
nVFIN.
DOUBLE ❑ DETACHED ❑
ROOMS
CONSTR.
ZONE
DEPTH
BELOW
F12ST SIZE SPACING SPAN
AGENCY
AUTHORIZED
DATE
Z
GRADE
FLOOR
BY
BUILDING
RE`/IE W
--
O
VI
EXTERIOR
FOOTING
!2
CEILING
�(
SIZE
O
ZONING
EXTERIOR CONC. ❑
Z
O
FDN. WALL
THICKNESS MAS'Y ❑
ROOF
PARKING
PUBLIC HEALTH
THICK 0 CAISSONS 0
ROOFING
SLAB BGR. BEAMS
MATERIAL
ENGINEERING
MASONRY ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE
EXTERIOR
THICKNESS IST FLR. 2ND FLR. 3RO FLR.
ALL
STUD SIZE ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE
3 SPACE 1ST FLR. 2ND FLR. 3RD FLR.
REMARKS Moving house from 724 E. Durant for
3 family dwelling.
(2 living units & loffice)
NOTES TO APPLICANT:
FOR INSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CALL 925- 7336
VALUATION
FOR ALL WORK DONE UNDER THIS PERMIT THE PERMITTEE ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION OR CITY
$
ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ALL OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS OR CITY ORDINANCES WHICHEVER
OF WORK BOOO.
APPLIES.
PLAN
TOTAL FEE
SEPARATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND HEATI''G, SIGNS,
SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES.
PERMIT EXPIRES 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK IS STARTED.
FILED T P
3 f U 0
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE.
% L� L G
DOUBLE
FEE
CHECK ❑
CASH
ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE MADE ON ALL ITEMS OF WORK BEFORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED.
❑
❑
y�
THIS BUILDING SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PERMIT SUBJECT TO REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION FOR VIOLATION OF ANY LAWS GOVERNING SAME.
SIGNATURE'�� OF
bl v
APPLICANT: �
APPROVAL BY DATE
THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY DATES' PERMIT NO. LICENSE # RECEIPTS CLASS AMOUNT
WHEN VALIDATED HERE 24 -7 58-74
op -
INSPECTOR'S COPY
BRUCE GILLIS
GERI VAGNEUR
BRUCE GILLIS
JANET LANDRY
BRUCE GILLIS
GERI VAGNEUR
BRUCE GILLIS
•
CITIi
aspen ,c
OFFICE/RESIDENCE
(Final Approval)
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?
We would like the nine bedrooms to be five and four.
Mr. Eubanks half will be five.
four.
Do I hear a motion?
I'll move.
Janet Landry moves.
Mr. Molny's will be
Do I hear a second? Then we'll have discussion.
I second.
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?
BRUCE GILLIS
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?
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)
BRUCE GILLIS
JACK JENKINS
BRUCE GILLIS
BRUCE GILLIS
Geri seconds. Any discussion?
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.
All in favor?
(Bruce Gillis, Geri Vagneur, Bryan Johnson, Janet Landry)
Opposed?
(Jack Jenkins)
MOTION CARRIED.
-, • i
P.ul.: r ^.cc tlrg
,'larch 11, 1974
Meeting was called to order by Mayor Stacy Staandley at 5:00 p.:n. with
Councilmembers Jenifer Pedersen, James Pr=?cisted, Ramona M3rka11wnc s,
Jack Walls, Michael Behrendt, City f,.t -orrey Sandra Stuller and City
Manager ",dick" Mahoney.
MIr1UTES
Council request to ar.:end the minutes of February 25, 1974 motion as
follows: "Councilman Walls moved to instruct the City Manager to pro-
ceed with the investicration for the sale of the vacant lots. Seconded
by Councilwoman Markalunas. Councilmembe.rs Falls, Markalunas and
DeGregorio ave; Pedersen, Breasted, Behrendt and Mayor Standley nay.
Motion NOT carried.
Councilman Breasted moved to approve the minutes of March lst and of
February 25th as amended. Seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All
in favor, motion carried.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the accounts payable as submitted:
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 doubling 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 polio. Suggest
perhaps trades can be made of lands that have no commercial or
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, wo7A d not cover the present situation at
the Mountain Shop.
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION
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 conformance with the river and it was suggested
additional property be purchased which has been done. Since the
property lines had to be re -drawn, was informed would have to qo
through subdivision regulations. Met with the P & Z for conceptual
approval, stream iaaigin approval and exemption from subdivision
regulations. P & Z approved the first t'.�o requests and denied thy,
exemption request.
Mr. Schiffer of the P & Z stated they were denied as it ;•iris felt the
- 1 -
Page 2, Council, 3; 1i74, continued. •
• request did-1 -cc f all within th:-
Planner• Ferb Bartel poi;lted Tut t''ne c'
\/ denial because #1 it is neces_.a. ,,- to records that are somethi-?g
other than a page and book r wner:;t:4p patterns oifi_cial
maps to show how the lard is dividkrd; -2 easements dedicated
should be platted; 43 subdivision rey .latioris require that no lot
lines shall be char, led without ceing tr.ro:, h the regulation:,; #4 the
4% dedication would apply; lats should front upon a street.
Mr. Molny informed Council he has to have the present old houses off
the site by April i5th. This project would have no impact which is
the intent of the subdivision reglilations, 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 recording
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 1 the impact of the development and #2 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
Mayor Standley pointed out there are three ways the City can go, #1-
down-zorle at all, #2 - follow P & Z recommendation and amend Ordinance
#19 or #3 - 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 enlared 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 statement 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 recommending 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 #19 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
#19.
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.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
,� •. c. r. ..rcKn e. e. a �. o• ____ __ _- __
i
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974
i
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:10 p.m. with Com-
mission members Bryan Johnson, Spence Schiffer, Geri Vagneur and Janet Landry.
Also present Assistant City/County Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford and
City Economist Yank Mojo.
OLD BUSINESS Jack Jenkins arrived.
Agenda Items
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.
1�
t 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
4 by Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried.
Council Meetings Landry stated that the Commission needed to appoint
one of its members to attend the City Council meeting
on Monday officially to be there as a resource per-
son.
Chairman Gillis stated that he did not feel this shoulc
{;
be on a permanent basis, but only for two or three
if
meetings.
Landry suggested that it be a member who knew the en-
1
tire process that the proposed rezoning went through.
Schiffer stated that he would attend the meeting on
i
Monday, but could not commit to do it for more than
that. Johnson stated that he, too, could attend the
meeting.
Molny -
Molny read the letter which is required under appli-
Exemption &
cation for exemption:
Stream Margin
Ordinance #1.9
"Gentlemen:
Conceptual
This letter represents our request to
you for exemption from subdivision under the
provisions of Chapter 20-10 of the Aspen
i
Municipal Codo for Lots R & S, Block 33,
East Aspen Addition, and Lots 6 & 7, Block
•
•
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 600 Leaves
ro++ •, c. r. warcu� e. a. a c n.
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974
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 301 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 subdivision.
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, however,
would create an undue hardship and yield, as
I have suggested, no benefits. Unfortunately,
we are now almost out of the time necessary
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
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 Commission
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" would like to. Stated that the
strict reading of it would be under 20-10(b), which
was the City Attorney's note to him.
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 20-10(a) or 20-10(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 "or".
Ms. Baer stated that they are separate, that it would
• •
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 leaves
r C.. , C. r. -FIKEL !. r.. L. C9.
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 could
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 should
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 sire 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 foundations
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 di.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 changes
since one lot does not front on the road, the fact
that they have some drainage considerations, etc.. is
the reason that they are recommending subdivision.
Felt it typically lends itself to subdivision.
-4-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
roRY V C. I. NDff.Cl r. ! S 1. 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 preliminary
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 fou:-idation.
Vagneur questioned what the timing would be for the
drainage approval before the foundations 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 it, so
where is their property right. Stated that under
(c) the applicant would have to fulfill the design
requirements first.
Schiffer made a motion to deny the exemption 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.
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 preserving as much
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 applicant's land.
Molny reminded the Commission that they are attempting
to save two old houses and that they are coming in
with a density which is much less than the density
which is currently allowed.
} Main Motion All in favor, with the exception of Landry who was
opposed. Motion carried.
Molny - Chairman Gillis stated that the considerations are
Stream Margin whether removal of trees, slope or grade changes pro -
Request
- 5-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
rC.Y •• C r. 1.. 1. C.
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974
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 stated 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. Slated 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 size,
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 grant the stream margin re-
quest, seconded by Jenkins.
Del Duca stated that he felt there should be some type
-6-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning March 7, 1974
i of provision to maintain the trees between the trail
and the house for the purposes of erosion and esthe-
tics.
I
Chairman Gillis stated that this could come under sub-
division.
1
Main Motion All in favor, motion carried.
Molny - Molny stated that the original application for con -
Ordinance #19 - ceptual review was for a total of five units and an
Conceptual 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 additiona
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 than 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 changeover from commercial use to resi-
dential use because it appears that residential use
has more impact than the professional use which is
being discussed.
Vagneur stated that she did not feel comfortable with
-7-
Continued Meeting
0
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
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 does not
already exist. Would 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 duplex
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 Gillis
opposed. Motion NOT carried.
Schiffer made a motion to approve the conceptual pre-
senation under Ordinance #19 conditioned on an 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, with the exceptions of
I
Johnson and Jenkins. Motion carried.
SUBDIVISIONS
Aspen Commercial
Dr. Robert Barnard was present to make this pzesenta-
Condominium -
tion.
Exemption
Location of property: 307 South Mill, City of Aspen,
premises presently known as Aspen Medical Center,
situated on Lots I1 & I, Block 62, 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 Aspen municipal
Code, namely, if a piece of property was platted into
lots and blocks before the subdivision law was 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 tenants who presently occupy
the building, so the project would have no impact.
Barnard pointed out that the first recommendation of
the Engineering Department was that no provision has
been provided to control the storm drainage run-off
from the site. Submitted a bill for storm drainage
-8-
RECORD OF PROLE DINGS 100 L.eaw's
�c�Qlilai i'r=L' ing Aspen Piann.Lng i Zoaing "larch 5, i )74
M`etir.g was called .o order by Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:20 p.m. ;:Tith E?ryan
.;orr.son, Jack Jerkins, Scer_ce Schiffer, Geri 7,lagn der an-3 Janet I,andr_,. .lso
present City/County Planner Herb Bartel, Assistant Planners Donna Baer and Jo:.:;
Stanford, City Engineer David Ellis, Economists Yank Mojo and Larry SiaLmons,
and City Manager Mick Mahoney.
MINUTES
1.29, 2/5, 2/7, Vagnuer made a motion to approve the minutes cf Janu-
2/19 ary 29th, February 5th, February 7th and February
19th. Motion seconded by Johnson. All in favor,
motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS
Memo to City Council
Molry Off ice
Residence
WATER UTILITY
SERtiICE PLAN
Chairman Gillis submitted a letter from the Commission:
to the City Council. Stated that it had been dis-
cussed that day at the luncheon study session.
Stated that to the memo had been added that the Com-
mission hoped the Council does go ahead and form a
Regional Planning Commission for the County.
Consensus of the Commission was for Chairman Gillis
to sign the letter and have it forwarded to the City
Council.
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. States: 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 of 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.
Bartel stated that as part of the work that Ellis 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 approval 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 most im-
portant reason for choosing this area is that it con-
forms to the current proposed zoning in the County.
Stated that the overall water utility analysis, de-
mandes and so forth, the study was made on 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
proposd water utility service plan F*ould be.
Ellis explained that basically thorn is no nr,�a wtthLn
�::I'�'1^� area that would have 1e3s si,-r--
the prCpU3E'd
sity than one d,,;i-.11inq unit ps:r a,_ -re, which is
y • •
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21, 1974_
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/' / Robin Molny was present to represent the project.
Residence
Conceptual Molny explained that he was proposing doing the pro -
Presentation 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 margin
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 two Vic-
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 together,
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 lie would 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 serious
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, are they proposing.
Molny stated that there would be five. Stated that
his office could easily be converted into another ren-
-4-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leavcs
B. ! L. C3.
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning_& Zoning February 21, 1974
tal unit. Stated that presently the property under
Chapter 24 is capable of supporting 8 uniimited 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 felt 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 ratherido 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 contour 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 are
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 crnp-
plicates the mortgage. Stated it would ritake financing
difficult.
Chairman Gillis stated that he felt the Commission
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
�'lv •o C. f. Ian ECKEI 8. B. G 1. CJ. _ _ __ _____ _ � _____ __
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21, 1974
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.
Molnv :stated that under Mixed Residential in the Aspen
LandUsePlan, feel that this project falls in that
category.
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-
ject 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 other offices in that area.
Molny stated that there were none to his knowledge.
Vagneur stated that she felt the project was two dense.
Landry 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 units anc
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 lie 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.
MC
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FO`•M `1 C. F, MIrCKEI J. B. A L. CO.
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 encouraged 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 "area" 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,.1000 square feet,
Jenkins stated that when you start talking about any-
thing in the area of 20 units per acre, feel t.:tiat is
entirely too dense for that area.
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 the Com-
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.
Johnson 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 Com-
mission, but there is a possibility that they would
- 7 -
•
RECORD OF PROCEEDING'S
100 Leaves
•V C. F. NIECKCL P.-R. 4 1. C:1.
Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning February 21, 1974
not be as they are now.
Schiffer reminded the Commission that they have 30
days to act on this project unless the applicant wishe
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
pant 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.
Aspen Cooperative Rick Farrell, Baryard Hovdesven, Dr. Bill Wesson and
Housing Partnership - Monte Hughes were present to represent the project.
Conceptual Presen-
tation 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 area 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, riot 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 renL-al
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-.
WE