HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.ShawSeparationLots23&24from16-22 HOLLAND HAi 'I'
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
•
TELEPHONE 292-9200 500 E-OU:TABLE BUILDING CABLE ADDRESS
730 SEVENTEENTH STREET HOLHART, DENVER
AREA CODE 303
DENVER,COLORADO
P.0.BOX 8749 •
DENVER,COLORADO 80201
PLEASE REPLY TO: MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING
434 E.COOPER STREET,ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 E C ¢.
TELEPHONE 925-3476 AREA CODE 303
March 3 , 1978 / 4:
'•
7 fn
William G. Kane, Planning Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office C'Ct
130 South Galena Street CMDO
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Shaw Subdivision Exemption - Block 25
Dear Bill :
Enclosed with this letter is a xerox copy of the proposed
Statement of Exemption from the Definition of Subdivision
which I have prepared relating to the recent grant of subdivi-
sion exemption by the City Council. The original of the State-
ment has been transmitted to Dorothy Nuttall for her review and
a xerox copy also has been sent to City Engineer David Ellis.
I would greatly appreciate it if the three of you could review
the proposed Statement of Exemption and, if satisfactory, obtain
Mayor: Standley' s .and City Clerk Hauter ' s signature and have
their signatures notarized. Once done, please let me know and
I will record the Statement of Exemption so that it will appear
in the real property records of Pitkin County as you have
requested.
Please do not hesitate to give me a call if you have any
questions or suggested changes to the Statement of Exemption.
Very truly yours ,
Charles T. Brandt
for HOLLAND & HART
ICCV
ef)CTB/kk'
Itrit Enclosure
cc: Harry E. Shaw
C. A. Vidal
Michael D. Martin, Esq.
Dorothy Nuttall, City Attorney
David Ellis, City Engineer
J iV
4f51
.,7_ Cn
STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION a
/;)
•FROM THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION JCS `<
`O ADO/
WHEREAS, Section 20-19 of the Municipal Code of the.
City of Aspen provides that following receipt of a recommenda-
tion from the Planning Commission, the City Council may exempt
a particular division of land from the definition of a sub-
division set forth in Section 20-3 (s) when, in the judgment of
the City Council, such division of land is not within the
intent and purpose of the Aspen, Colorado, Subdivision Regula-
tions; and
WHEREAS, W. HARRY E. SHAW (hereinafter "Shaw") made
application for such exemption under the above referenced
provisions for the parceling into five (5) separate subdivision
lots the following described original Aspen Townsite lots .
located within the City and Towsite of Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado, to wit:
Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H
and I of Block 25 , and •
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has approved such
application and recommended the grant of exemption to the Aspen
City Council; and
WHEREAS, on review, the City Council. has determined
that the proposed. division of land is without the intent and
purpose of the Aspen, Colorado, Subdivision Resolutions,
• Section 20-1 et seq. , of the Aspen n -Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to grant an exemption
from the definition of subdivision and excuse the applicant from
compliance with said Aspen, Colorado, Subdivision Regulations,
subject to certain conditions as hereinafter set forth and the
payment of a park dedication fee on Lots H and I, as required
by Section 20-18 of said Regulations; and
WHEREAS, Shaw is agreeable to the conditions as ,
contained herein.
•
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council , pursuant to action
taken at its regular meeting held Monday, February 13 , 1978 ,
does hereby grant an exemption from the definition of subdi-
vision to the parceling of Lots A through I of Block 25 ,
City of Aspen, by Shaw into the following five (5) subdivi-
sion lots :
Lot A;
Lot B;
Lots C & D;
Lots E, F, & G; and
Lots H & I .
PROVIDED, however, that such grant of exemption is
subject to the following:
v/1. Payment to the City of Aspen of the
appropriate park dedication fee
attributable to Lots H & I, pursuant
to Section 20-18 ; provided, however,
that the payment of such dedication fee
may be deferred until such time as a
building permit application is filed
with the City of Aspen for development
of- said Lots H & I;
2. Waiver of the right of protest to the
formation of an improvement district for
purpose of constructing sidewalks, curbs
Al
and gutters along Main and Fifth Streets;
3. Waiver of the right of protest to the
formation of an improvement district for
the purpose of improving the alley located
in Block 25; and
4.. Removal of any and all encroachments extend-
ing from the above described lots onto the
alley located in Block 25 when requested
to do so to permit the improvement of same ``
pursuant to paragraph 3 , above.
- -2-
PROVIDED, further, that the foregoing provisions
shall be binding upon. Shaw, his heirs, successors and assigns,
and shall be deemed a covenant running with the land, shall
burden the premises hereinabove described, and shall bind,
and be enforceable in law or in equity against Shaw and all
subsequent owners of the real property described herein.
Dated: March , 1978
STACY' STANDLEY III, MAYOR
I, KATHRYN S . HAUTER, duly appointed City Clerk of
the City of Aspen, do hereby certify that the foregoing grant
of exemption from the definition of subdivision was granted by
the Aspen City Council by motion duly made, seconded and
approved at its regular meeting held Monday, February 13 , 1978 .
KATHRYN S. HAUTER, CITY CLERK
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this
day of March, 1978, by STACY STANDLEY III and KATHRYN S.
HAUTER, Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
_3_:
0
`
F��
MEMORANDUM O
FEJ
-17 )
TO: Dave Ellis td 1
p
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE: Subdivision Exemption - Shaw Separation; Lots 23 & 24 from
Lots. 16 - 22
DATE: February 22, 1977
This is a request by Dorothy Shaw for Subdivision Exemption to separate
lots 23 and 24 from lots 16-22, Block 103, Hallam's Addition. A
separate subdivision exemption is in process for the division of lots
16-22 by WPW Venture. No separate survey was submitted for this
application.
Technically, this exemption will be processed prior to WPW, but will be
considered simultaneously.
We have set a preliminary date of March 1, 1977, for Planning and Zoning
Commission review.
‘;49.te'li 1-jc-t4(/"
-5/ -77
'741-7177-
HOLLA\ D & /TARP
ATTOR.' r AT L_AW
F
500 EQUITABLE BUILDING - CABLE AODRES�
TELEPHONE 292-9200
730 SEVENTEENTH STREET _ -AREA CODE 303 .HOLHAP.T,DENVER
DENVER,COi ORADO 80202 - '(�• �pj��j yh�
P.0.BOX 8749 ° � 2.5 ®q9 977
DENVER,COLORADO 80201 1 :-
‘90 ENGINEER
PLEASE REPLY TO MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING Q i
- - .434 E.COOPER STPF_ET;ASPEN;COLORADO 81511 '1, C®L
- -
TELEPHONE 925-3476 AREA CODE 303
February 11, 1977
Mr. Bill Kane
Planning Office
Planning & Zoning Commission
City of Aspen
Ladies and Gentlemen:
This firm represents Mrs. Dorothy Koch Shaw. We
request a subdivision exemption to permit the separation
of Lots 23 and 24 , Block 103 , Hallam' s Addition from - a
parcel of land designated: as Lot 16 through Lot 22 of
Block 103 . Lots 23 and 24 consist of the Shaw residence
and said lots are in compliance in all respects with the
current zoning regulations for that property.:
A subdivision exemption is requested to permit the
sale of Lot 16 through 22 of Block 103 to a third party
while retaining Lots 23 and 24 as Mrs . Shaw' s residence.
' We are aware that the proposed purchaser of Lot .`16 though
Lot 22 , WPW Joint Venture; has filed a request for sub-
division exemption. We ask that this exemption request
be considered separately from WPW' s request. We have no
objection to the WPW submittal, (in fact we agree with
the intent of the submittal) , however, we wish to estab-
lish the right of Mrs. Shaw to separate her reside ce and
lot from the remainder of the property independently. from .
any particular proposal submitted for the remainder of the
property.
Very truly yours ,
i7eze.g)/11116C/2,rr:
Michael D. Martin
for Holland & Hart
MDM:bb
_ r
Before the Planning Commission
Board of Adjustment, and City Council,
City of Aspen
February 1977
Application of WPW JOINT VENTURE for
Exemption from the Definition of a
Subdivision or, in the alternative,
for Conceptual Subdivision Approval,
and for a Variance, in order to Change
the Existing Seven Lots 16-22, Block 103 ,
Hallam' s Addition into Four Lots
OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr.
600 E. Hopkins, Suite 204
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-2600
Attorneys for Applic51 C C®�....-.
WPW Joint Venture f 14
yO zl is
t, t '
LAW OFFICES ,all t E C OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH a JORDAN / �4
600 EAST HOPKINS STREET � 1
LEONARD M. OATES ASPEN,COLORADO 81611 9q
k^'R Off
f
RONALD D.AUSTIN T B,i'
J. NICHOLAS McGRATH,JR. '�8
W
VO
ILLIAM R.JORDAN February 10 1977 � ' % .
•._� AREA OD,E13I4
ROBERT W. HUGHES :_ P I `t6P:E-4"-2600
BARRY D. ED WARDS
Mr. William G. Kane
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Planning & Zoning Commission
City Hall, 130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
City Council, City of Aspen
City Hall, 130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We represent WPW Joint Venture, which has an option
to purchase from the Shaw Estate and Dorothy Shaw Lots 16
through 22, Block 103, Hallam' s Addition, which are seven
city lots on Lake Avenue abutting Hallam' s Lake. Presently.
existing on that property are four houses: three Victorians
and one frame dwelling.
Lots 16 through 22 , together with Lots 23 and 24
(on which the large green Shaw house is located) are
presently owned by the Shaw Estate and Dorothy Koch Shaw.
Lots 23 and 24 and the Shaw house are not included in the
sale to WPW. We understand the Shaw Estate will separately
apply for an exemption in order to avoid any question as to
a subdivision violation in selling Lots 16 through 22 .
WPW Joint Venture wishes to change the existing
seven City lots (Lots 16 through 22) into four lots, pre-
serve the three historic Victorian dwellings, remove the frame
house (it is on too small a portion of a lot and, violates
set-back requirements) , all of which we believe will contri-
bute substantially to the improvement of this historic area. .
To accomplish that, it is necessary to seek a subdivision
exemption, since two lot lines are to be changed and lot
sizes increased. It may also be necessary to seek a variance
wince (I) by reason of the curve in Lake Avenue the lots are
necessarily somewhat trapezoidal or pie-shaped, and (2) the
lot lines have to be drawn to enhance the three existing
Victorians; and hence the front lot lines in one instance
will not meet the 60-foot, minimum presently required by the
City (all seven existing lots do not meet that standard) .
OATES, AUSTIN &. MCGRATH
Page Two
The changing of the existing seven lots (Lots 16 through 22)
into four lots will result in lot sizes in excess of 9 , 000
square feet each; existing zoning requires a size of 6, 000
square feet, and three of the seven lots are substandard in
size. ( 16 , 17 +2.2-)
The Victorian dwellings that exist on three of the
proposed new lots will be restored and preserved, the timing
of such restoration depending upon the owner. That will
leave one additional building site, which is the fourth lot
and which consists of existing Lots 16 and 17; it is to be
owned by a long term local family (some 25 years , but who
reside also in Denver) who will build a single family resi-
dence on it. One of the new lots will be purchased by another
long-term local (25 years or so) who will enter into a
long-term lease with option to purchase with Peggy Clifford,
so that Ms . Clifford can continue to reside in the house
that she has rented from the Shaws for some 21 years; and her
option price will be less than that given to her by Ms . Shaw
and the Shaw Estate . A second Victorian dwelling and the lot
supporting it is subject to a right of first refusal for
Mr. Frank Baranko, who I gather has resided in it for several
years. Another long term local (25 years or so) will choose
either the lot and house subject to Mr. Baranko' s right of
first refusal, if he does not exercise it, or the adjacent
lot and house.
In short, if my three clients who comprised the WPW
Joint Venture obtain the subdivision exemption and thus buy
the property, and if Mr. Baranko exercises his right of first
refusal, then the four new lots created out of the old seven
lots will have long term local people residing in the three
existing Victorian dwellings , and a long term local building
a single family residence on the one additional lot. This is
in contrast to what could be possible if a developer were
permitted to build on all seven lots , possibly destroying the
Victorian homes there, as they have not been subjected to
historic designation. That is, the maximum density permissible
is either seven single family dwellings or perhaps a total of
eight units (four duplexes) depending upon how the buildings
would be constructed upon the lots.
OATES, AUSTIN 8c MCGRATH
Page Three
My three clients who comprised the WPW Joint Venture
do not desire the publicity perhaps attendant upon the public
nature of a land use application. Similarly, the friend and
benefactor of Peggy Clifford does not desire public exposure,
and hence we ask your indulgence in the vague references to
them contained herein. We believe that the plan of WPW Joint
Venture for this land is meritorious and capable of being
considered solely on its merits apart from the people involved.
We hope that you agree their desire for anonymity does not
reflect upon their plan.
In conjunction with this subdivision exemption
application, WPW Joint Venture seeks a waiver of any require-
ment for park dedication fees . We understand that while
payment of park dedication fees under Ordinance 63 , Series
of 1976 , is not specified as a condition in the City code for
subdivision exemption, that the City has often required such
payment as a condition of exemption. We would urge you to
consider that with regard to the normal subdivision
exemption -- for example, condominiumization of an existing,
apartment house -- there is a rationale and justification
for exacting such fees : the condominiumization increases
the value at least on paper of the existing building and hence
some payment of a fee for the general public benefit may be
warranted. In this plan, however, a developer' s profit and
increase in value is not involved nor created by the subdivision
exemption or approval process . While the market price of the
property to the joint venture is high, all of the four lots
to be created out of the seven old lots are to be for the primary
residence of a local family, and no real increase in value of
the property on paper or otherwise is accomplished by making
four out of seven lots. Rather, giving each of the existing
three dwellings more land area on which to exist justifies
the substantial expenditures that might be involved in the
restoration of the Victorians . In addition, no new density is
created, nor any new building sites , since the fourth lot
that will be a building site could be built upon presently as
two existing lots.
OATES, AUSTIN S& MCGRATH
Page Four
WPW Joint Venture must exercise its option by
March 16 . We ask therefore that this matter be heard by
the Planning Commission on March 1, so that, in the event of
favorable action, the application would be heard by City
Council at its March 14th meeting.
This letter perhaps states the matter in more
detail than it need be stated. The accompanying map will
show more accurately the area and what we seek to accomplish.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
By J k)tcla a 4cGueock.
J. Nicholas McGrath, JF.
•
JNMjr/gc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE: Subdivision Exemption - Shaw Separation; Lots 23 & 24 from
Lots 16 - 22
DATE: March 10, 1977
This is a request by Dorothy Shaw for Subdivision Exemption to separate
Lots 23 and 24 from Lots 16-22, Block 103, Hallam's Addition. A
separate subdivision exemption is in process for the division of lots
16-22 by WPW Venture.
The P'lanning and Zoning Commission extensivelY reviewed this 'request on
March 1, March 8 and conducted a site inspection on March 3, 1977. The
joint recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Planning Office is to approve the request subject to two conditions:
1) Payment of the park dedication fee
2) That the applicant request historic designation for the
Shaw dwe 11 i ng.
.----
/
J l
lIoLLAXD & lIAH'l'
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TELEPHONE 292-9200
ARE:A, CODE .303
500 E.QUITABLE BUlL-DING
730 SF:Vf:NTEENTH STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80202
P. O. BOX 8749
DENVER,COLORADO 80201
CABLE ADDRESS
HOLHART,DENVER
PLEASE REPLY TO:
MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUIL.DING
043-4 E. COOPER STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE 925-3476 AREA CODE 303
February 11, 1977
Mr. Bill
Planning
Kane
Office
Planning & Zoning
City of Aspen
Commission
./
Ladies and Gentlemen:
,.
This firm represents Mrs. Dorothy Koch Shaw: We
request a subdivision exemption to permit the separation
of Lots 23 and 24, Block 103, Hallam's Addition from a
parcel of land designated as Lot 16 through Lot 22 of
Block 103. Lots 23 and 24 consist of the Shaw residence
and said lots are in compliance in all respects with the
current zoning regulations for that property.
,;
A subdivision exemption is requested to permit the
sale of Lot 16 through 22 of Block 103 to a third party
while retaining Lots 23 and 24 as l1rs. Shaw's residence.
We are aware that the proposed purchaser of Lot 16 though
Lot 22, WPW Joint Venture, has filed a request for sub-
division exemption. We ask that this exemption request
be considered separately from WPW's request. We have no
objection to the WPW submittal, (in fact we agree with
the intent of the submittal), however, we wish to estab-
lish the right of Mrs. Shaw to separate her residence and
lot from the remainder of the property independently from
any particular proposal submitted for the remainder of the
property.
Very truly yours,
')1clr'a/!/@!l2VL't-
Michael D. Martin
for Holland & Hart
MDM:bb
"/'"-
",
11
,
+> +> +>
'l-I 'l-I 'l-I
.
,-l tJ' tJ' tJ'
III Ul Ul Ul
+>
0 ... \Ll C'"l
E-t \Ll '" ...
ll) ll) <Xl
.
C'"l C'"l N
~
.0:
s:: '0'"'
0 Q)
-,-l Ul\Ll
+> 0 I
'0 III o.~ C'"l C'"l C'"l
Q) H 0
UlO H
O+> p.,+>
o.Ul -,-l
OQ) ()
H~
p.,
'0
.c: S::'
+>Ill H
-.-I Q) Q) :>.~ .
~Ul Ul'O+>,-lUl +> +> +>
s:: ::l s:: -,-l ::l +> 'l-I 'l-I 'l-I
UlO o ::l U,Q s::
s::.,-l .c: Q) tJ' tJ' tJ'
Ill+> '0 tn'O = Ul Ul Ul
-,-l ',-l 'l-IQ)S::S::Q)
H'O O+>-,-lIllH \Ll \Ll <Xl
0'0 +>+> -,-l ll) ll) \Ll
+>.0: Q)',-l Ul Ill::l N ... ll)
U N =-,-l Q) . .
-,-l H -,-l H X \.< Q) \Ll ... 0
:>0 CJlQ)Q)IllH ,-l ,-l ,-l
'l-I 0.
~
III Ul
.c:s::
CJlO Ul .
-,-l +> +> +> +>
tn+> 0 'H 'l-I 'l-I
S::1ll 'l-I,-l . .
-,-l +> 0 tJ' tJ' tJ'
+>-,-l '0 Ul Ul Ul
Ul= Q) Q)
-,-l -,-l NUl N .... '"
XH -,-l0 <Xl <Xl ....
rLI CJlo. <Xl '" ...
Q) 0 . . .
N H ,-l ,-l '"
-,-l 0. H H
CJl
. . .
Q) +> +> +>
tnN 'l-I 'l-I 'l-I
s:: S::-,-l . .
0.... -,-l Ul tJ' tJ' tJ'
-,-l .... +> Ul Ul Ul
+>'" Ul Q)
o.H -,-l Ul 0 0 0
= X ::l 0 ll) ll)
Q).c: rLlO <Xl ll) N
XU .c: .
rLI\.< H ,-l
III
s:::;:
0 Q)
-,-l I Ul Q)
Ul ::l Ul
-,-l s:: 0 Q) ::l
> 0 ~ Ul 0
-,-l-,-l ::l ~
'O+> '0 0
,Q1ll \.< ~ 0
::l U 0 ~
(IJ-,-l 'l-I ~ s::
H 'l-I U III
:5:0. -,-l ",-l H
p.,o. H H III
:5:.0: () ~ ~
) )
(
-.......
ASPEN CITY CODE
"Requirement
AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
R-6
(I) Minimum lot area
(square feet unless
designated in "acres)
6,000
(2) Minimwn lot" area 4,500
per dwelling unit
(square feet unless
designated in acres)
.... <'
(3) Minimwn lot width
(feet)
60
(4) Minimwn
yard (feet)
front
(5) Minimwn side yard
(feet)
"-
Supp. No. 14
Principal build-"
ing-l0
Accessory build-
ing-15
5
Requirement
J I
(-
R-6
(6) Minim wn rear yard
(feet)
Principal build-
ing-15 "
Accessory build-
ing-5
(7) Maximum height
(feet)
Principal build.
ings-2l?
Acce880ry build-
ings-21 on front
2/3 oflot, 12
on rear 1/3 of
lot
i
I"
"".'.
-."J
(8) Minimum distance
between principal
and accessory build-
ing (feet)
10
i
I
.f
I
I
I
I.
(9) Per cent of" open
epace required ,for
building site (per-
" centage)
"
No
requirement
I
I
l
"I
(10) Extemal floor area
ratio
No
requirement
(11) Internal floor area
r~tio
'"'
No
requirement
-------..-'
I
I
!
"-
(
(
WPW Subdivision Exemption
Application - March 1977
ANALYSIS OF DWELLING UNIT TYPES
IN 10 BLOCK NEIGHBORHOOD OF LAKE AVENUE
Conclusion: Of a total of 55
houses in the neighboring
10-block area, approximately 30
are duplexes, or have caretaker's
apartments. The survey follows:
Block 55
1. Large new victorian house (assume single family)
2. Sullivan house - remodeled victorian with separate
caretaker's house
3. Forbes house - victorian single family
4. Paepcke house - remodeled victorian with two bedroom
caretaker's apartment
Block 48
1. Swearingen house - remodeled victorian duplex
2. Pan abode house - modest single family
3. Old frame house - modest single family
4. Anderson house - victorian with separate caretaker's
apartment
5. Frishman - large victorian duplex
Block 41
1. Kettering house - modern duplex
2. Janss house - modern single family
3. Colen house - modern single family
4. Wogan house - large modern with caretaker's apartment
5. Kelly house - large remodeled victorian with live-in
unit
6. Farrish house - large single family Victorian
Block 34
1. Coors house - large modern with caretaker's apartment
2. Chamberlain - older large house with separate care-
taker's house
3. Stranahan - remodeled victorian with separate care-
taker's house
'I
(
(
4. Small modern duplex
5. Poppell - remodeled victorian single family
Block 33
1. Kienast family house - remodeled victorian with
caretaker's apartment
2. Kienast house - victorian single family
3. Thalberg house - victorian with "separate caretaker's
house
4. Behind Thalberg house - modern large house; appears
to be a duplex
5. 415 North Avenue (next to Vagneur remodel house) -
large duplex
6. Vagneur remodel house - single family
7. Vagneur victorian house - single family now
Block 40
1. Welborn house - remodeled victorian with separate
caretaker's house
2. Ball house - small contemporary with separate unit
3. Gates house - large modern house with caretaker's
apartment
4. Ickes house - large victorian, was single family,
presently being remodeled
5. Lundy house - large modern with basement apartment
6. Between Lundy and Welborn houses - small modern
single family
Block 101
1. Seymore house - large modern duplex
2. Edel house - large modern single family
3. Carlson house - large duplex
4. Durand house - modern single family
5. Pan abode house (next to Durand house) - believed
to have two kitchens
6. Corner Pan Abode house - not certain, but believed
to be single family
Block between Pearl and Gillespie - Block 100
1. Bargsten house - modern single family
2. Hartmeister house - large duplex
3. Schwinn house - remodeled victorian single family
4. williams house - remodeled victorian single family
5. Gronner house - large modern single family
JI
(
~
(
Block 102
1. Martin house - large victorian with separate guest
or caretaker's house
2. Irwin house - victorian with caretaker's apartment
3. Salter house - remodeled victorian with caretaker's
apartment
4. Freeman house - remodeled victorian duplex
5. Copley house - modern single family
6. Trentaz house - modern single family
Block 103
1. Marquand house - remodeled victorian with separate
rental house and caretaker's apartment
2. Hume house - remodeled victorian with caretaker's unit
3. Mitchell house - remodeled victorian single family
4. Barnard house - modern single family
5. Shaw house - large victorian single family
[Note: Applicant believes the above survey, based on
two individual's familiarity with the area, is fairly
accurate. Applicant did not believe it appropriate to
check by means of a field survey, and hence acknowledges
there may be some error herein. Similarly, applicant
cannot state with assurance that all caretaker's apart-
ments have kitchens, etc. Certain names used above are
prior, not current, owners.]
~
'"
o
-,
~
"'..
"'~
'"
",
, '
" ~~
o~.
~
'"
... J':,
~ ~; . .i.' -.
-;....
{'....
\
\
;,';
" I
1;
Q /
1
:ll
'\ " t
0, ~
\ ~ I
' .
YlA P E: >\!"J I BIT I
UNI~ TYP~S .
AVE.- I\.I(.E IG H BOR 1-10 "\
" / "Po
\" :. '\:?... ...,
,,~~~C' "~13'
04 I "
o
,/ .
-.....,:-.~
.,
~~
~
....
0\
o~
1-.1',...
'~
~
,
..
..~
..
~..
'~~
'(0
"',
",
/
4.s~
("oj,.
"<
//
/
//
>:;' '" ) <<'"
///~,
". / ,.-
'/,' ~ 0>.-4
'" -
-4 ... . . .
,;-' " . " \ f f /"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Aspen City Council
Planning Office (HC)
WPW Subdivision Exemption
RE:
DATE:
March 10, 1977
This is a request by WPW Joint Venture for subdivision exemption to create
four subdivided lots by combining seven existing Lots numbered 16-22,
and located on Block 103, Hallam's Addition. The Lot lines are proposed
to be altered to accommodate additional side yard setbacks for the
existing buildings. The seven Lots under option by WPW (excluding the
Shaw House and Lots 23-24) consist of 43,220 sq.ft. and are:zoned R-6.
Dorothy Shaw and the Shaw Estate are the present property owners.
Four single-family dwellings presently occupy the seven Lots. The
app.1icants propose to remove one of the buildings which is in poor
condition and crowds the more substantial brick dwelling.
It is important to note that the present R-6 zoning would allow four
duplex units to be constructed by right on this property (9,000 sq.ft.
required for duplex). Also, the existing houses are not currently
subject to historic zoning protection and as such are vulnerable to
des truc t i on or maj or remode 1 i ng.
Extensive discussion of this exemption has occurred at the Planning and
Zoning Meetings with primary topics being the unanimity of the desire
to require Historic Designation on the existing units; a desire to limit
the size of the allowed expansion of the existing buildings; and con-
sideration of requiring the vacant Lots 16 and 17 to be included in a
new Historic District and/or restrict building size on the site, His-
toric Designation of the existing buildings can be accomplished simply
by application to the Historic Preservation Committee, receiving the
approval of the H.P.C. and action by Council to affirm the designation.
To require Historic Designation of vacant property such as lots 16 and 17
will entail the formation of an Historic District for these lots_ In-
clusion of these vacant lots in an Historic District implies that any
,
.-------
/
"
,
Aspen City Council
Page Two
March 10, 1977
construction should relate to the unique historic character established
by the three adjacent historic structures, and that the neighboring
property excluded from the district has no similar historic character.
It would appear that the justification for the district would only
be the boundaries of the subdivi~ion application rather then the unique
historic character of the area.
The Planning Office is in process of reviewing the merits of establishing
an Historic District for the entire original Aspen townsite area. We
do not recommend establishing an isolated district in this area without
proper justification nor standards for review of residential development.
The joint recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Planning Office is to approve the W.P.W. Subdivision Exemption request
subject to the following conditions:
1) The applicant request Historic Designation of the existing
three houses on the proposed Lots 17, 18 and 19. It is
agreed that the yellow frame house may be removed due to
its dilapidated condition; its encroachment on the property
line; and its crowding of the more substantial brick
dwell ing.
2) Limits to total size of the building area for proposed Lots
17, 18 and 19 to conform to the proposed .3 floor area
ratio "(F.A.R.) or the F.A.R. as finally adopted by City
Council. A representation of the allowed expansion is shown
on" the attached F.A.R. exhibit submitted by the applicant.
3) The revisions to the property lines be drawn or a plat to
be recorded of record in the Office of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder.
,--
II
MEMO
TO:
HAL CLARK
PLANNING DEPT.
DAVE ELLIS ~
CITY ENGINEER 'flz-.
FROM:
DATE: March 8, 1977
RE: SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Lots 16-22, Block 103,
Hallam's Addition (WPW Joint Venture)
Having reviewed the improvement survey and made a site
inspection of this project, ~he engineering department
concurs with the recommendations for approval in your
2/25 memo to the P&Z. We would like to review the
replat survey before it is recorded. We al~o understand
tnat the Shaw Estate is making a concurrent application
for exemption to parcel the larger group of Lots l6-24
into Lots l6-22 and Lots 23 & 24.
"----
. -
LAW OFFICES
OATES. AUSTIN, MCGRATH a JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS STREET
LEONARO M. OATES
RONALD O. AUSTIN
..J. NICHOLAS McGRATH. ..JR.
WILLtAM R. ..JORDAN m
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
Harch 9, 1977
ROBERT W. HUGHES
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 925-2600
BARRY O. EDWARDS
City Council, City of Aspen
City Hall, 130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We represent WPW Joint Venture, which is composed of
Henry Pedersen, and Jack and Jackie Wogan. WPW has an option
to purchase from the Shaw Estate and Dorothy Shaw Lots 16 through
22, Block 103, Hallam's Addition, which are seven city lots on
Lake Avenue abutting Hallam's Lake. Presently existing on that
property are four houses: three Victorians and one frame dwelling.
Lots 16 through 22, together with Lots 23 and 24 (on
which the large green Shaw house is located) are presently owned
by the Shaw Estate and Dorothy Koch Shaw. Lots 23 and 24 and the
Shaw house are not included in the sale to WPW. The Shaw Estate
has separately applied for an exemption in order to avoid any
question as to a subdivision violation in selling Lots 16 through
22.
WPW Joint Venture wishes to change the existing seven
City lots (Lots 16 through 22) into four lots, preserve the
three historic Victorian dwellings, remove the frame house (it
is on too small a portion of a lot and violates set-back require-
ments), all of which we believe will contribute substantially to
the improvement of this historic area. To accomplish that, it
is necessary to seek a subdivision exemption, since two lot lines
are to be changed and lot sizes increased. The changing of the
existing seven lots (Lots 16 through 22) into four lots will
result in lot sizes in excess of 9,000 square feet each; existing
zoning requires a size of 6,000 square feet, and three of the
seven lots are substandard in size.
The Victorian dwellings that exist on three of the
proposed new lots will be restored and preserved. The timing of
such restoration depending upon the owner. That will leave one
additional building site, which is the fourth lot and which con-
sists of existing Lots 16 and l7; it is to be owned by the Wogans.
One of the new lots will be purchased by another long term local
(25 years or so) who will enter into a long-term lease with option
to purchase with Peggy Clifford, so that Ms. Clifford can continue
II
OATES. AUSTIN a MCGRATH
City Council, City of Aspen
March 9, 1977
Page Two
to reside in the house that she has rented from the Shaws for some
2l years; and her option price will be less than that given to
her by Ms. Shaw and the Shaw Estate. A second Victorian dwelling
and the lot supporting it is subject to a right of first refusal
for Mr. Frank Baranko, who I gather has resided in it for several
years. Henry Pedersen will choose either the lot and house
subject to Mr. Baranko's right of first refusal, if he does not
exercise it, or the adjacent lot and house.
The Planning and Zoning Commission has approved our
application after much discussion subject to certain restrictions:
(l) recording a replat of the area showing the change in two
lot lines; (2) removal of the small yellow frame house that
presently crowds the Victorians; (3) submission of the three
Victorians for Historic Designation; (4) imposition of the
proposed R-6 FAR of.3 (or whatever it is the City adopts) for
the three lots (as modified) on which the three Victorians are
situated, thus to limit size.
It is important when assessing this application, md
the p&Z recommendations, to have an understanding of the under-
lying possibilities and existing City restrictions: the area
is zoned R-6, which permits duplexes on 9,000 square feet;
under existing City area and bulk requirements dwellings could
be built on the four proposed lots of between 10,568 and 16,256
square feet. Of course, no one in his right mind would do so;
and my clients are sensitive to the needs of the area. For
example, the .3 FAR would allow an increase in the size of the
three Victorians only to 2,843, 3,596, and 3,564 square feet.
Also, under WPW's proposal, the property would house four local
families (unless Mr. Baranko did not exercise his option, in which
event his house and lot would be sold).
Thus, this is not a developer's proposal for anywhere
near maximum density. Rather, it is a sensitive proposal by local
people to help preserve the area. Perhaps it should not be
necessary to state that, but given some of the ill-founded rumors
we've heard, WPW wishes its feelings in that regard to be stated.
WPW must exercise its option with the Shaw Estate by
March 16, and thus it needs a conclusion from you at your March 14
meeting. To help you, besides the materials in your package,
we have posted some photographs, maps, and the like on the
bulletin board in Council Chambers for your review prior to the
meeting. We naturally assume by earlier review of some of our
,
OATES, AUSTIN a MCGRATH
City Council, City of Aspen
March 9, 1977
Page Three
J I
materials, you will not judge the application prior to a full
presentation on Monday.
Thank you.
JNMjrjgc
Sincerely,
OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
By
J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr.
"~,__,_..__._.._._.'M".
'I
-
--..
peggy clifford
march 10, 1977
TO: Aspen City Council
RE: Subdivision Exemption -- WPW Joint Venture
I have lived in one of Mrs. Dorothy Shaw's houses on Lake
Avenue for nearly 21 years. I plan to buy the house and
to continue to live here. I know the street and care
deeply about it. As a present and future resident of
Lake Avenue, I have a big stake in its fate and natu-
rally want, above all, for its serenity and character
and integrity to be preserved. It is a matter I have
thought about for years, a matter of utmost importance
and great seriousness.
Since the property was put up for sale, I have seen
and heard of a variety of plans for the street. For
several reasons, I favor the WPW Joint Venture acquisi-
tion and plan. First, I have known Henry Pedersen and
Jackie Wogan for more than twenty years. Both of them
have demonstrated in numerous ways that they care deep-
ly about Aspen and the West End. I would welcome them
as neighbors. Second, their plan does not suggest the
addition of anything -- in terms of size and form --
that is not already present in the neighborhood, does
call for the preservation of the three Victorian houses
and the preservation of the serenity, character and
integrity of the street. Third, this is not a commercial
venture. Henry Pedersen and the Wogans plan to live
on Lake and will therefore ;take great pains now and
in the future to maintain the unique character of
the area.
The WPW Joint Venture plan as amended and approved by
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission is, I believe,
sensible, functional and effective and will insure
the preservation of the character, serenity and inte-
grity of the neighborhood -- which is what all of us
want. Further restrictions are, in my opinion, neither
desirable nor necessary. Historic designation and
Floor Area Ratio are reasonable controls as they re-
flect, I think, the community will. Other controls
would deny options to us that our neighbors have al-
ways enjoyed and enjoy now.
Preservation of the character, serenity and integrity
of the neighborhood -- that has always been the goal
of the Shaw family and those of us who have lived
on the street, has been the goal of the Shaw family
advisors for four months, has been the goal of Henry
230 lake avenue aspen, colorado 81611
II
page two
Pedersen and the Wqgans for two months. In that same
spirit, I urge the Aspen City Council to approve
the WPW Joint Venture plan as amended and approved
by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on March
8.
SinuBrely yours,
7~~~
Peggy Clifford