HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Lots16-22,Blk103.1978
.
11-
EX-
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office
RE: WPW Subdivision Exemption
~
DATE: November 22, 1978
This is an application for subdivision exemption to permit a lot line
amendment between lots 19 and 20, Block 103, Hallam's Addition The
Commission will recall the previous consideration of the subdivision
exemption for WPW - Shaw which was approved by the P&Z and Council some
months ago. That created four separate lots along Lake Avenue. This
new request for exemption is merely to permit the boundary adjustment
described in the attached letter. The adjustment is intended to increase
the front lot line of lot 19 from 55 feet to 65 feet in orrlp.r to meet the
minimum area standards of the Aspen ~1uncipal Code. The ,parties hat! previously
attempted to obtain approval of the lot as a building site through variance
procedures, however, these efforts failed. We support this approach as
it is the best means toward properly amending subdivision plats and re-
taining accurate land records in the City. We note that lot 20 will re-
main conforming in all respects and that all stipulations and conditions
of approval of the original WPW subdivision exemption are intended by the
owners to be met.
We refered the exemption plat to Dave Ellis, Engineering, who by letter
dated November nth recommended granti ng the exempti on subject to fil i ng
for record the amended sheet 3 with the appropriate language as submitted.
City Attorney, Ron Stock, reviewed the language that Mr. McGrath repre-
senting the applicants proposed to attach to sheet 3 (Book 5, Page 93)
and also recommended approval. The Planning Office joins with them in
their recommendations.
The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended the exemption
at their November 21st meeting.
-,
'"
". ...,/
,"
J
LAW OFnCES
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & .JORDAN
600 feAST HOPKINS AVr:NUE
LEONAFln M. OATES
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RO"'AL~ [J. AUSTIN
.J. NICHOLA!; MC;;GRAT..... .JR.
WILLIAM R. ,JORDAN m
AREA cone 303
TELEPHONE 92:5-,6:::>0
ROElERT W. HuGHES
BARRY O. EDWARDS
DAVIe G. EISENSTeIN
October 24, 1978
1-1.s. Karen Smi th
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: \1PW Subdivision Exemption Application
(to permit lot line amendment)
Dear Karen:
WPW wishes to revise or amend its previously
approved subdivision exemptions plat by increasing the
front lot. line of Lot 19 from 55 feet to 65 feet, to
conform to the City Code, which requires a 60-foot front
lot width. '
It is our understanding that the City Code
apparently does not permit this technical change by any
method simpler than a subdivision exemption application.
A proposed amended subdivision exemptions plat
sheet is provided with this letter. \VPW and Shaw propose
to amend the lot line between Lot 19 and Lot 20, Block 103,
Hallam's Addition, according to the WPW-Shaw Subdivision
Exemptions Plat (Plat Book 5, Pages 91-93) by Shaw's con-
veying 10 feet from Lot 20 to L~t 19. After this contem-
plated change, both lots will comply in all respects with
the Code, e.g. as to area, front lot line width, etc.
As you may recall, after the lengthy process in
which WPW obtained exemption approval from City Council,
the Board of Adjustment denied a variance for Lot 19 with
a 55-foot front lot line. That denial created an uncer-
tainty as to whether a building permit would issue to re-
model the dwelling on the lot, and hence it resulted in
a lawsuit between WPW and the Board of Adjustment, which
l'
OF ~
(.,..
.":"',,-
...~-,....
,~~.
nr
II i
.1 i
:11
I: ,
, ,
Ii
.r
.
" ,
.1
1
I
I
,
"
OATES, AUSTIN, f'vICGRATH tl JORDAN
Ms. Karen smith
October 24, 1978
Page two
is a waste of energy for both \1PW and the City--and which
.can be completely settled by the granting of this applica-
tion. We had thought that once City council had approved
the exemptions plat with Lot 19's having a 55-foot lot
width (an increase over the 25-foot width as platted in the
1890's) that a variance would be routine, but that did not
turn out to be the case.
The ten foot addition to Lot 19 will also have
aesthetic benefits for the area, by glv1ng additional side
yard to the lot. I should add that moving the lot line
10 feet into existing Lot 20 does not affect Lot 20 as
being fully conforming in area, width, etc.
While it may not be relevant to this applica-
tion, we do wish to point out that WPW has removed the old
yellow house as Council requested and it does intend com-
plying with all other council conditions, such as seeking
historic designation of the houses to be preserved. WPW
had hoped to accomplish the latter somewhat sooner, but
wa& delayed by unfortunate litigation that was only con-
cluded this past month.
We would appreciate an early hearing. Thank
you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
COPY =- 1 NICHOlAS MC GRATH, JR,
By
J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr.
JNMjr/jeb ..
Enclosure' ./
cc: Ronald W. Stock, Esq~
Mr. John B. wogan, Jr.
James T. Moran, Esq.
Arthur B. Ferguson, Jr., Esq.
I
,
I
I
I
/
!-,.
-'
.,
>;:"T'"
'I
r
,
, .
.
~' ,
"
"
I
j!
;1
"
~
~
November 28, 1978
Mr. Stacy Standley
Mayor, City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Stacy:
While there are remaining issues between the
Hallam Lake Preserve (ACES) and WPW, we are satisfied that the
present application does not affect any issues between those
parties and any claims that may exist will not be waived or
compromised by City action upon the application. The attorney
for WPW has advised us his clients will continue to work
amicably with ACES to resolve these issues.
Sincerely,
GARFIELD & HECHT
~
BY:::::::--':.::;::;"-"7
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH/pa
~~~
~
~~1
.
. ' ,
,I,
December 12, 1977
HAND DELIVERED
Mr. Frank Baranko
c/o Properties West, Inc.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Frank:
As a result of the conversations on Sunday,
December 11, 1977 among you, Jack Wogan and me, we
would like to make a record of certain things.
As you recognize, you do not now represent
and have never represented the WPW partnership or any
member of WPW. You specifically are not authorized to
pursue variances before the Board of Adjustment.
After the lawsuit against the Shaws and WPW
was decided in favor of the Shaws and WPW, you indicated
to Jack Wogan that you would like to buy your house.
Wogan told you the property was on the market and discussed
with you the conditions of the replatting with which you
were already familiar; namely, the .3 FA~historical
review, removal of the yellow house, and the fact that new
Lot 19 was not now conforming.
After the lawsuit--and with some reluctance--WPW
allowed you to remain in the house on a month-to-month basis.
We have experienced some difficulty in rent collection and
did not extend the month-to-month condition past November 30th,
partiqularly since you agreed to leave on December 1, which
you have not done.
You will recall that Jack stated in a letter to
you that any offer from you would be preconditioned upon
several things, two of which are:
1. A release of any and all claims by
Mr. Andrews, and
2. A release of any and all claims
arising from your action, appeals and
anything else concerning you and Mr.
Nutzhorn.
Mr. Frank Baranko
December 12, 1977
Page -2-
You told Jack that you could only obtain
a release from Nutzhorn by payment of his bill at a
certain figure and that, lacking the cash, he would
remain in the position of a lawyer on a contingency
fee--i.e., no release, practically from Nutzhorn. I
have a letter from Andrews to you indicating the basis
on which he would release.
We discussed your ideas on a partial re-
platting. WPW cannot accept these ideas for the
many reasons we discussed Sunday.
please do not initiate any action on behalf
of WPW with any governmental body. We reconfirm, in that
connection, that we are represented by J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr.
We reconfirm that Lot 19 is on the market. You
can still buy it--just like anyone else. While we regret
you have been unable to finalize your offer on the property
over the past 2 or 3 months, we feel we must now proceed
with such actions as may be required to cause you to vacate
the property. We were pleased to learn of your alternate
house in Basalt and the possibility of a condominium in
Snowmass. We feel you have had more than adequate time in
the past months--especially since Judge Lohr held on
october 3 that you had no contract to buy from Shaw--in
which to obtain alternate housing. We regret you have forced
us to pursue litigation to remove you.
I am forwarding your letters and that of Bill
Kane to Nick McGrath for his review.
Sincerely,
WPW JOINT VENTURE
By,~~l74!'1fl'> oJI?4J,
~ cc: Mr. William G. Kane
. . Jr~~11
~w ~~
rY1 ij o.'!)
'VO.\\1b
~~
,...'....
/I~/
-'- .-'
1",-
C
s'rATEHENT OF' EXEHPTION
FROM THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION
,
.
MfEREAS, Applicants, Robert P. Winch~ster, Cooley
Investment Company and Richard R. Grimes, are the owners
of a parcel of land located in Pitkin County, Colorado,
more particularly described as:
Lot 12, Eitkin Mesa Subdivision
City of Aspen
WHEREAS, Applicants have an existing duplex located
on said parcel of land; and
WHEREAS, Applicants have requested an exemption from
the definition of subdivision for the purpose of subdivid-
ing the existing duplex through condominiumization; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Co~mission, at
its meeting held December 15, 1977, determined that an ex-
emption from that definition of subdivision would not re-
duce the supply of low and moderate income housing and would
be appropriate, and recon~ended that the same be granted;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, at its
meeting held JanuarY 9, 1978, determined that Applicants
met the requirements of Paragraph (c) of Section 20-22 of
the Aspen Municipal Code and that the subdivision of the
existing duplex through condominiu@ization is not within
the intent and purpose of subdivision ordinance set forth
in Chapter 20 of the Aspen Municipal Code,
THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, does
----he1:'Bby--det€rmin€~'t_ha t' -the proposed subdivision of the duplex
located on Lot 12, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision, City of Aspen,
by its condominiumization is not within the intents and pur-
pose of the subdivision ordinance and does, for such reason,
grant an exemption from the definition of subdivision for
such action, and
PROVIDED, HOl'i1EVER, that the grant of the foregoing
exemption shall be subject to and conditioned upon compli-
ance with the provisions of Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sec-
tion 20-22 of the Aspen Hunicipal Code./--
Dated: Harch /3 , 1978. A. /-~//;-~;-
---- / "---"'--
.' -
/' ... ~.
STACY NDLEY III,
I Kathryn S. Hauter, do hereby cer~~hat
going Statement of Exemption from the Definition of Sub-
division was considered and approved by the Aspen City
Council at its regular meeting held January 9, 1978, at
which time the Mayor, Stacy Standley III, was authorized
to execute the same on behalf of the City of Aspen.
// /- fl.l!.
^ (( (/Vc</I', ) 4 r\ (((,-_b:V-
KNrHRYN Sf. II.'\UTER
Ci ty Clerk
.
.
/'--.
,,,
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this /3~~
day of March, 1978, by STACY STANDLEY III, and KATHRYN
S. HAUTER, personally known to me to be the Mayor and City
'Clerk, respectively, of the City of Aspen.
WITNESS my hand and seal. .
(L/I-.
Notary liP
My COmffibssion Expires.
o ~~.] -3/ /96.J-
(J . ( /
V .
.
.
- 2 -
1-
....~ :\0. 193CA. Rev. '77 8L\I:\IONS IN CIV;. -ACTION. -Hradford Publi::shing Co., 1824.46 s10ut Strf>et, tJener, Colorado (571.!)Oll,-.t.,j
Court Filing Stamp
IN THEuuu[)I.?':r~!c::r'uuCOURT
IN AND FOR
,.umCOUNTY OFu",,P.,I.:r.I<.I.t{umu.....u,.
AND STATE OF COLORADO
/
Civil Action No.
uu"uuu,uu Div. u..uum'umu.
THE WPW JOINT VENTURE, JOHN B.
WOGAN, JR., JAQUELIHE T. WOGAN,
and HENRY J. PEDERSEN,
PlaintifLf;,m."
SUMMONS
vs.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN and THE CITY OF ASPEN
Defendantm"um.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANL1>'m" GREETINGS:
You are hereby summoned and required to file with the clerk an answer to the complaint within
20 days after service of this summons upon you. If you fail so to do, judgment by default will be taken
against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
If service upon you is made outside the State of Colorado, or by publication, or if a copy of the
complaint be not served upon you with this summons, you are requited to file your answer to the com-
plaint within 30 days after service of this summons upon you.
Warning: If this summons does not contain the docket number of the civil action, then the
complaint may not now be on file with the clerk of the court. The complaint must be filed within ten
days after the summons is served, or the court will be without jurisdiction to proceed further and the
action will be deemed dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. Information from the
court concerning this civil action may not be available until ten days after the summons is served.
This is an action' for the Rule 106 review of denial of a variance in
Case No. 77-11 on May 19, 1977, which hearing was oontinued from
May 5, 1977.
Datedu,u. , ,uumuu.um'J..1uu'um'u' 19,.7.?____muu
OATES
Clerk of said. Court
B
By..u".",u,u" _,u .'u.
Deputy Clerk
I:.....h..........._.
Atto ey for Plaintiff 5
6 0 E. Hopkins, Rm. 204
}\SPE!':l ~ u ,<::(),~()J:'a.~(),.. ,8, ~.6.;t-. ~.u. .........
Address l)f Attorney
925-2600
( 303)
(Seal of Court)
'Thi~ >lummon:J is i~Hlued pursuant to Rule 4, C.R.C.P., as amended. H the summons i::s published or servt"ll without a copy of th.. complaint.
after the word "action" >ltate the relief demanded. If body execution j" Suught the sUmmon~ must state, '"This is an action fO\lndl!d upon t.:H"t."
iL
.J'
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PITKIN
AND STATE OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN and THE CITY
I ASPEN,
THE WPW JOINT VENTURE, JOHN B. )
WOGAN, JR., JAQUELINE T. WOGAN, )
and HENRY J. PEDERSEN, )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
v.
ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE
OF
Defendants.
II
I;
! ~
I'
Ii
!i
il Adjustment of the City of Aspen and The City of Aspen (\vithout
Ii
d
"
Ii
Ii
I!
I,
Kathryn S. Hauter, City Clerk, on behalf of Board of
conceding The City of Aspen is a proper party), hereby accepts
a copy of the Summons in this action in lieu of service of
ii process pursuant to Rule 4, Colo. Rules Civ. Pro.
II
Ii DATED:
"
Ii
I'
I'
Kathryn S. Hauter
City Clerk, City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-6723
it
'I
I
Ii
! ~
"
Ii
Ii
Ii
ii STATE OF COLORADO )
Ii )
ii COUNTY OF PITKIN )
I
ss
this
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
day of , 1977, by KATHRYN S. HAUTER.
'I
!I
'I
'I
II
I'
i'
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My Commission Expires:
Ii
.j
iI
Ii
ii
I
II
Ii
iI
I;
Notary Public
,I
"
1---
.
i
"
~ :
:1
it
II
II
II
l!
Ii
ii
H
i:
i.
II
i:
I:
;
,
ii
Ii THE WPW JOINT VENTURE, JOHN B. )
': WOGAN, JR., JAQUELINE T. WOGAN, )
I, and HENRY J. PEDERSEN, )
~ l
~ )
I, )
!i v.
!I )
Ii )
~ )
I )
I )
I, )
II
II
'I
i
I
I
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PITKIN
AND STATE OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.
Plaintiffs,
ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN and THE CITY
ASPEN,
OF
Defendants.
Dorothy Nuttall, City Attorney, on behalf of Board
of Adjustment of the City of Aspen and The City of Aspen (with-
out conceding The City of Aspen is a proper party), hereby
accepts a copy of the Summons in this action in lieu of service
of process pursuant to Rule 4, Colo. Rules Civ. Pro.
DATED:
Dorothy Nuttall, No.
City Attorney, City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-6723
Ii
.i
;1
II
,I
I
I
I
II
:1
,
Ii
Ii
II
Ii
I'
;1
ii
"
~
CITY,
SPEN
130 so
aspen,
s t re e t
81611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 8, 1977
TO: Stacy Standley
FROM: Dorothy Nuttall
RE: WPW Variance
I would recommend that you sign this. If we do not
sign it, Nick will be forced to institute suit. If we sign it,
it may be possible to avoid suit altogether. Please return
the attached to me so that I can circulate it to the others.
Thanks.
DN:mc
LAW OFFICES
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS STREET
I..EONARD M. OATI;.5
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RONAI..D D. AUSTIN
,J N'CHOI..A$ MCGRATH, ,JR.
WILLIAM R..JORDAN ill
June 6, 1977
AREA CODi': 303
ROBERT W. HUGH E$
TELEPHONE 9Z5-2600
BARRY D. EDWARDS
Ms. Dorothy Nuttall
City Attorney, City of Aspen
City Hall, 130 So. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: WPW--Board of Adjustment--variance
Dear Dorothy:
As you and I have discussed, there is an unsettled
question as to whether the denial of a variance to WPW with
regard to the five foot line variance on Lot 19, Block 103,
Hallam's Addition, according to the revised plat recorded in
Plat Book 5 at Page 91-93 requires a variance in order to
restore or expand the existing Victorian house upon that site.
As you know, The WPW Joint Venture takes the position that no
such varianoe is needed for a building permit, because it was
a condition of the subdivision exemption approval by P&Z and
the City Council that the dwelling remain, and be restored,
allowing us a .3 to 1 FAR, thus envisioning an expansion.
Nonetheless, since the City is not prepared at this point in
time to give us such a ruling, and since we do not control
that dwelling nor Lot 19, as we are enjoined for a period of
three months from affecting the resident's rights (Mr. and Mrs.
Baranko's) in that dwelling, in a lawsuit pending in the
District Court here, namely Baranko, et al. v. Shaw, et al.,
Civil Action No. 6313, we are not in a-position~test the
issue by the filing of the building permit since Mr. Baranko
controls the dwelling.
We believe the decision of the Board of Adjustment
on May 19, 1977, in Case No. 77-11 is incorrect, but whether
we are correct, we of course do have the right to seek court
review of it. As we discussed, the court review of the decision
of an administrative body is required to be done within thirty
days, see Rule 106, Colo. Rules Civ. Pro.
It is entirely possible that the lawsuit that might
be necessary to protect my client's rights under the Board's
decision of May 19, will be totally moot depending upon the
outcome of the Baranko suit, further negotiations with the City,
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN
June 6, 1977
Page -2-
and the like. Therefore, it would seem in the interest
of the City, the Board of Adjustment, and of WPW that the
City and the Board of Adjustment waive the 30-day time
period for Court review of the May 19 decision, until
thirty days after final disposition in the District Court
of the Baranko v. Shaw case.
If such a waiver is acceptable and would be
recommended by you, would you please have the appropriate
officials endorse the letter below. Would you also please
see that the clerks and secretaries involved retain the tape
recordings of the Board of Adjustment's Case No. 77-11, for
May 19, 1977, and for May 5, 1977, which was the prior hear-
ing in the matter that had been tabled.
In the event you are unable to obtain a waiver for
the time period or cannot obtain it by approximately June 17
(the 3D-day period expires on June 18, a Saturday; since it
is part of the Civil Rules, the period would normally be
carried forward to June 20), and please consider this a
claims and demand letter directed to the City and the Board
of Adjustment pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.3 of
the City Charter. In that event we would be forced to file
a complaint in the District Court on June 17 seeking review
of the Board's decision, but I would rather save both of us
that bother.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
^noV '"~;';;:' J. NIC!'OLAS Me GRATH. JR,
By
J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr.
\\JNMjr/gc
cc: Ms. Kathryn Hauter,
City Clerk
(continued)
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & .JORDAN
June 6, 1977
Page -3-
Waiver of 30-day time period
as outlined above approved:
ATTEST:
CITY OF ASPEN,
By
Clerk
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
By
Seoretary
By
Chairman
, ..' ,-""'. ---..--.-----1 ~--,---_.
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 Planning 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 dwell ing.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office (HC)
RE: WPW Subdivision Exemption
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
applicants 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
destruction or major remodeling.
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 subdivision 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
dwe 11 i ng .
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.
I - --
peggy clifford
march 1, 1977
To: Aspen Planning Commission
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
Lake Avenue resident, I have a big stake in its
fate and naturally want, above all, for its serenity
and character 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 the WPW principals
for many years and I know that they care deeply about
Aspen and the West End. Second, this is not a commer-
cial venture. They plan to live on Lake themselves
and will therefore take great pains to preserve its
serene character and Victorian ambiance. Third, I
would welcome them as neighbors. Fourth, their plan
demonstrates their commitment to the preservation
of that character and ambiance.
I have read the Planning Office recommendations to
you. Historic~.designation has been suggested for my
house and the other Victorian houses on the block.
I have no objections to historic designation for
these houses, though I would hope that one day the
historic designation concept would be made more
comprehensive.
Nor do I object in fact to the recommendation that
duplexes not be permitted on my lots and the lots
east of me. As my lots are more than large enough
for a duplex, I object in principle. I have no
plans for a duplex now or in the forseeable future,
but, as a matter of principle, I would prefer
the option to remain open. In fact and in principle,
I have no objections to a:.,duplex being permitted
on the vacant land west of my house.
The fate of Lake Avenue has been up in the air for
four months. The Shaw family, its advisors and some
of us who live here have made every effort to insure
that the integrity of the block will be preserved.
In that spirit, I urge you to approve the WPW joint
venture acquisition. ~
230 lake avenue aspen, colorado 81611 r't\\ l
~\\rJ
_._,,,~,"~-,-,.......~..-.~-_.,.._~^.~..,..-
Aspen/Pit
130 s
ning Office
treet
1611
~1EtlORANDUM
TO: WPW Subdivision File
Historic District General File
FROM: Planning Office (JS)
RE: Oifferences between individual historic structures
and district designations
DATE: March 10, 1977
Planning Office concerns regarding the "historic" designation of vacant
lots 16 and 17 along with the three existing structures in the WPW sub-
division exemption request centers on the rationale of district designations.
District designation implies that there exists a unique historic character
and/or significance within the boundaries of the district. In other words
any construction on the two lots should relate to the three adjacent struc-
tures within the district boundary.
There are historic structures in the immediate neighborhood that could have
equal, if not greater, significance for establishing an historic district,
and justification for the presently proposed district boundary appears to
be related more to the boundaries of the WPW subdivision than to the limits
of a unique historic character.
Development on the vacant lots should, of course, be visually compatible
with the three Victorian houses and the neighborhood. The boundaries of
an historic district, however, are less arbitrary when based on historic,
visual, and physical factors or even political, economic or social factors
rather than surveyed lines of a proposed land subdivision.
One technique for control over future development on the two lots would be
to grant conditional approval of the subdivision exe~ption by restricting
issuance of a building perMit for lots 16 and 17 until resolution of the
proposal to designate the original townsite (or parts thereof) as an historic
district. The Planning Office is preparing a preliminary city inventory of
historic structures for further documentation and study. No schedule has been
established for the designation process, but a district proposal could be forth-
coming by mid-summer or early fall.
mc
\
130 so
aspen,
SPEN
street
81611
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Stacy Standley
Mick Mahoney ~~vV'
TO:
DATE:
March 10, 1977
Recent developments on Lake Avenue pertaining to treShaw property
have become complicated. Part of the complication arises from the
fact that initially, when the property was offered for the first
time, Mr. Frank Baranko contacted me to see if I would be interested
in purchasing one of the lots. frwas his intention to put together
a group of people to raise the $500,000 which was the price of the
six or seven lots owned by the Shaws on Lake Avenue. At the time,
I was interested in purchasing a lot to build a home to live in town
and said that I would join his group. I made an offer to Mr. Branko
for one of these properties for $140,000. Mr. Branko's offer was
rejected by the Shaws in favor of some other group, and he returned
my offer which was a part of his group. Since this time I have had
no interest in the property and have only followed in a periphery
manner as it is developing in the planning and zoning process.
I have now placed ernest money on a lot in Mountain Valley with the
intention of building a house there.
PSM/pm
March 12, 1977
Aspen City Council
Aspen, Colorado
As a longtime Lake Avenue resident and property owner,
I urge you to approve the WPW Joint Venture subdivision
exemption application as amended and approved by the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on March 8.
Historic designation, the .3 to 1 Floor Area Ratio
and existing R-6 controls are sufficient to insure
that the street will remain quiet and pleasant
and in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood.
As I understand it, if you delay or fail to approve
this application, the Shaws may be forced to accept
a less desirable plan that might result in ~he removal
of the Victorian houses and/or a commercial develop-
ment. That would be terrible. I therefore urge you
to act promptly and positively on the WPW application.
Sincerely yours,
I
~(J
~
March 14, 1977
Aspen, Colo.
Aspen City Council
City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Members of the Council.
I am writing this letter in regard to the proposal
coming before you for the four Shaw houses and lots on
Lake Avenue in the West End of town. I happen to know the
street quite well. I've owned a house a block away on Lake
Avenue for sixteen years and have been a full-time resident
for the past eight.
The Shaw houses are part sf a small and very agreeable
enclave which has always been quietly residential and
should remain so. The heuses are handsome though quite
modest and the triangular park, almost on the pattern of
a European green, enhances all the dwellings around it.
There exists tremendous speculative pressure in Aspen
witness the sale of the lots along the road to the
Institute, a sale that I think should never have been
permitted -- and an1 practical solution that will preserve
desirable portions of the city should be welcomed.
I have no personal interest in this whatsoever ether than
the interest we all share in the quality of Aspen. As I
understand it, the purchasers are willing t@ accept historic
designation for three of the four existing houses and their
owners would be, in at least three cases ( Jackie Wogan,
Peggy Clifford, and Henry Pedersen ) long-time Aspen
residents and the worthiest people possible. The construction
of one or even two new houses, in accordance with existing
zoning, would be in no way detrimental.
There is every reason, I believe, for the Council to look
closely at any proposal of this nature, especially in
such an unspoiled neighborhood. In this case a reasonable
and conscientious program is being put forth by very
responsible people who will own and occupy the houses
themselves. This would be a better situation than four
existing tenant houses, and I hope you will give it your
approval.
Sincerely,
~~A (~
James Salter
500 North Street
Aspen. Colorado
,
" ,;
"
LAW OFFICES
OATES. AUSTIN. MCGRATH & .JORDAN
1500 EAST HOPKINS STREET
LEONARD M. OATES
RONALD O. AUSTIN
..J. NICHOL.AS MCGRATH, ..JR.
WIL.l.IAM R. ..JORDAN m
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
Harch 9, 1977
ROElERT W. HUGHES
BARRY O. EDWARDS
AREA CODE 303-
TELEPHONE 92~-2eoo
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 17; 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
I ----
"
.'
OATES, AUSTIN & 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
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. 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:
(1) 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, and
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 an~vhere
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 ~d th 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
/'~,
'<.i
-.
OATES, AUSTIN & MCGRATH
City Council, City of Aspen
March 9, 1977
Page Three
.
materials, you will not judge the application prior to a full
presentation on Monday.
Thank you.
JNMjr/gc
Sincerely,
OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
By
J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr.
'"'
-
,,/
MEMO
TO:
HAL CLARK
PLANNING DEPT.
DAVE ELLIS ~
CITY ENGINEER 'l?~
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 also understand
that the Shaw Estate is making a concurrent application
for exemption to parcel the larger group of Lots 16-24
into Lots 16-22 and Lots 23 & 24.
1-
~~
I .
-
,-""
rI'3".;j':/.1 ,31.:J2 l~.....-.i.'?C 70~-2:,'~' .ii,3.)'O,:)L-:......'I0~i
?OI ~ .o.a.1.:~' :':":'-:-'Tl.I JJ .;'::.~~~J~,~t:...7
..:j"..)'PJJ:.' J v"'O. ,__I .JI I
",arch I,I977
Plannin,;.J and 'zoJting eO??zi,;issi.,n
"'../- :" 'I
(... Z V Y oJ ,n.spen
ASj:;en,lJ'tolorado ,_IGII
G-en tl ei';en,
.i.ll~e ire's t ~ l ae
O.f;/ices' recoliziizenciat ion
by ;VPW Joint Venture.
I//Zpro'.)ement hSSOC i:.:.;. t i on SLtP~~orts r.i~e
as re~!aJ"ds the i.)'ubdiuision ~".;cemption
PlanuinCl
re"~"P_C,'f:""
J::....".....'--'....
;re l.:}ould 1 i}---;e to see the j)rescnt ,;~ouses ;,;zaintained C3 sin;.)le
j'a"ldl~.' d:_.Jel1 in:.,,-s, "L,)i ch the e:.;ce-L;tion oj" G/W jel1o;)frai;;e jucl1in,.,' :JnlCi~
is _ c'r ccn,("ition.
tie uould also .llr:;e to Si..t:J::../est tii.Q!; "CrLe architect!..~re of any
futi.-tre c2f.1~i)le;;,: on lots I,j dJ' 17 sho:,,~l(.~' be com.patible VJith tf!.-e il;'!Jnedic.te
neiJh).;orhood.
Respec t.;idl y,
;Joard oj' :Jirectors
~"'"rJL-::O ti
C)'w. i ri'iZan
/'"--
'" ,)
A:lpen p:l'lchiatric A:l:lociate:l
BOX 3238
832 EAST HOPKINS STREET
(303) 925-3837
ASPEN. COLORADO B 161 1
SAMUEL B. SCHIFF. M.D.
ROSS E, GOLDSTEIN. PH.D.
ESTHER M. SCHIFF, R.N" M.S.N.
WALTER E. DIPPY. M.D.
March 1, 1977
Chairman
Aspen Planning Commission
city Hall
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sir
As a recent purchaser of a house in the West End,
I would like to comment upon the plans by the
WPW Joint Venture for the Hallam Addition, Block 103.
Basically, I would very much agree with the comments
(February 25) of your planning staff. One of the
main reasons we bought our house where we did was
because of the historical character of the neighbor-
hood. Extensive changes such as the removal of the
old houses, etc., would certainly cause a drastic
change in the area. Any of those four houses that
could be restored/renovated should be retained.
Tha~ you
\;~l (( (1;&/1
s~uel B. schiff, M.D.
SBS:rkb
cc: West Side Improvement Association
~I
if
E
l!
f
-
~
~'I
'il
E
l!
~...
,
;
VMGA PLS
IN U ASPEN
v
1M U ASPEN
431P DVA272(1824)(2-053168E060)PD 03/01/77 1824
ICS IPMBNGZ CSP
5132816188 TDBN CINCINNATI OH 58 03-01 0624P EST
FON 3039252089 OR 3039253183
CHARLES COLLINS
531 WEST GILLESPIE {J. II-n...\-
ASPEN CO 81611 ~ ,q
WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ON RECORD AS IN FAVOR OF PRESERVING THEi,.,;-;-
HISTORICAL FLAVOR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH WE BELIEVE TDBEA..:'.
BENEFIT TO THE ENTIRE ASPEN COMMUNITY. WE NEED ZONING THAT INSURES
THAT OLDE~ BUILDINGS ARE NOT REMOVED UNNECESSARILY UNDER THE GUISE
OF PROGRESS. HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE ESSENTIAL FOR NEW BUILDINGS.
MR AND MRS WARREN BENNIS 240 NORTH LAKE STREET
NNNN
_, ~, " ; t~
_4,3S
G
'/l;~ ~ w fJ4) S ~4 ,,6-/ - S~~Lv ,hzop
v;;
.
0: ~:23 - 2,7' S:-y;, ~
/~~~~S~~~
C-J a.-~
.1'", /1-tLv'41~ 3' ~ 0>.. ~~ /6-22~/ ~
7' ~.
v'y:. 4/~~ r-- ~ ~ ~ ~~Cle.
s-: /?1--U~M-1
6..S~ /~ ~"J~. 72~d~/'~~
, r./ ~_,)
~~-- .
~..-'7~ ~~&e"-P/ ?~-C L~.
i:'~4 ~~r-~~
, ct.. .tP~)a .
/, ' ;2cr~-11'~~{^<'~
'.
,
{<'De
/, t 0721-21' /j /~c/
2, s.04- J..! tf-<< -110.";'6
S. Dry <'S s/_,;te
Before the Planning Commission ,-/, U ltU.:...e
~,~~
Board of Adjustment, and City Council,
',/nsT Df'j', 0041 >
City of Aspen
7, T~ r~~(./t o~e1f
l\, r;~:>1I.;' 6...clo.....T.........."
~ iJ<<-,...;(;j ,
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 Applicant
WPW Joint Venture
'.
LAW OFFICES
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & .JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS STREET
LeONARD M.OAT!::S
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RONALD D. AUSTIN
..I. NICHOLAS McGRATH, JR.
WILLIAM R. .JORDAN ill
February 10, 1977
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 925w2600
ROBERT W. HUGHES
BARRY D. EOWARDS
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 th~ rhr~~ 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
since (1) 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).
"0
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.
The Victorian dwellings that exist on three of the
proposed new lots will be restorpH 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
re~ide also in Denver) who will build a single familv resi-
~e'nce on it. One of the new lots 1vill 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
ei ther the lot and house subject to fir. Baranko I 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
CiS 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. .
~
"
r/
./. I\'
r >'
~~ 'f,tJI
~l ,;,0'"
..J
\!;
~-....
.....
,.,J>
OATES, AUSTIN & 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 & 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
COPY
ORIGINAL
I,GNED
J. NICI:OLAS MC GRATH, JR
By
J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr.
JNMjr/gc
I
~
_ I. !-~ f!!/J7b
2,UJ~ ~ ~ 0'-' ~
~ W.P-~.
..::~~~:::(4d~4~
) u }
C0~,!':.i!e ~ ~.
k >1f (j,D a>e,
.~. 5/)./;1 f~. ~
3. ~ ~f~~
. 'I- fJ1tClt, ~ ~ r L o-t; />0
7/~7~ 4
~;~ ;rA6pec72;~
/Jq/~ S(cJO /sr~.
~~:oo ~T~. ~?e )A;~
. *;:7 ~~T -;> tfJ~ ~
WPW Subdivision Exemption
Application - March 1977
Caretaker's Apartment - Proposed Language
Each of the three single family dwelling units
encompassed by this subdivision application shall be
permitted a caretaker's apartment, which may include a
kitchen, in addition to living quarters, and which may have
a separate entrance; provided however, such apartment may
not be larger than one-third the size of the principal
dwelling unit; and provided further the total size limitation
imposed as a condition of this subdivision exemption shall
include that apartment together with the dwelling unit to
which it is appurtenant.
/"'"
,
,
MEMORANDUM
T':
Aspen Planning Commission
FROM:
Planning Staff (HC)
RE:
Subdivision Exemption - WPW Joint Venture (Shaw Property)
DATE:
February 25, 1977
This is a request by WPW Joint Venture for subdivision exemption
to change the existing lot lines for Lots 16-22, Block 103, Hallam's
Addition. The change would consolidate the existing seven '.lotsinto four lots
all in excess of 9,000 square feet. The property is presently owned
by the Shaw Estate and Dorothy Shaw. The property consists of 43,220
square feet plus or minus; and is zoned R-6. Five dwelling units now
occupy the property. Four duplex units would be allowed by right
under existing zoning. The applicants propose to remove one of the
dwellings which is in poor condition and crowds the more substantial
brick dwelling.
The comments of the Planning Office are as follows:
1. The City of Aspen has recently purchased the triangle of land
across from this property at a cost of $100,000 in part to
preserve the historic character and atmosphere of this neighborhood.
Removal of these houses and replacement with duplex structures
would not be consistent with these efforts. We recommend designation
of three of these dwellings as historic. Due to the dilapidated
condition of the wood frame structure and its proximity to the brick
dwelling, we agree with the applicants that it should be removed.
2. In order to preserve the character of the existing buildings and the
neighborhood, we recommend deed restricting lots 18-19, 20-21,
and 22-23, to be used by a single-family dwelling only. Lot 16-17
could be developed with a duplex.
3. We cannot agree with the applicants' request for waiver of the
subdivision dedication fee. We have suggested contact with the
Hallam Lake Preserve for possible land dedication needs which
could satisfy this requirement.
4. The proposed lot configuration does not meet the city requirement
for 60 foot minimum street frontage. A variance will be required
from the Aspen Board of Adjustment.
5. The replat of these lots should be recorded in the Office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Upon satisfaction of the above concerns the Planning Office recommends
approval of the exemption request.
.
.jJ .jJ .jJ
~ ~ ~
. .
..-l tJ' tJ' tJ'
III III III III
.jJ
0 .... \D '"
E-< \D '" ....
l/) l/) co
~
'" '" N
p:;
~
I:: '0 Ii<
0 QJ
.rl 1Il\D
.jJ 0 I
'0 III o,p:; '" '" '"
QJI--I 0
III 0 1--1
0.jJ 11<.jJ
0. III -rl
OQJ tJ
I--IP:;
11<'0
.<:: 1::'
.jJ1ll 1--1
'rl QJ QJ :>,~ .
;::1Il III '0 .jJ..-l III .jJ .jJ .jJ
I:: :3 I::'rl :3 .jJ ~ ~ ~
III 0 0:3 U.Q I:: . .
I::'rl .<:: QJ tJ' tJ' tJ'
1ll.jJ '0 b>'O S III III III
'rl'rl ~QJI::I::QJ
1--1'0 o .jJ'rl III 1--1 \D \D CO
0'0 .jJ.jJ 'rl l/) l/) \D
.jJ~ QJ'rl III 1ll:3 N .... l/)
U N S'rl QJ ~ ~ ~
'rll--l -rl 1--1 X 1--1 QJ \D .... 0
:>0 00 QJQJ III 1--1 ..-l ..-l ..-l
~ 0.
;::
III III
'<::1::
000 III .
.rl .jJ .jJ .jJ .jJ
b>.jJ 0 ~ ~ ~
I:: III ~..-l .
'rl .jJ 0 tJ' tJ' tJ'
.jJ'rl '0 III III III
illS QJ QJ
-rl'rl N III N .... '"
XH .rl 0 CO CO ....
fiI 000. CO '" ....
QJ 0 ~ ~ ~
N 1--1 ..-l ..-l '"
.rl 0. ..-l ..-l
00
. .
QJ .jJ .jJ .jJ
b>N ~ ~ ~
I:: I::'rl . . .
0.... 'rllll tJ' tJ' tJ'
.rl.... .jJ III III III
.jJ", III QJ
o,..-l .rllll 0 0 0
S X :3 0 l/) l/)
QJ'<:: fiI 0 CO l/) N
XU .<:: ~ ~
fill--I ..-l ..-l
III
1::::;::
0 QJ
.rl I III QJ
III :3 III
.rl I:: 0 QJ :3
:> 0 :r: III 0
'rl.rl :3 :r:
'O.jJ '0 0
.Q1ll 1--1 :r: 0
:3 U 0 ~
CIl.rl ~ ~ I::
..-l ~ U III
:3:0. -rl -rl 1--1
11<0. ..-l 1--1 III
:S:~ tJ ~ ~
) )
""..~
Mrs. Walter Paepcke called from Chicago on Tuesday March 1, 1977.
She lives at 414 North 1st Street in Aspen. She called about the
P & Z meeting reo property west of Dorothy Shaw's house.
Mrs. Paepcke is against any re-zoning of the property west of
Dorothy Shaw's house on the north side of Lake Street. (She
agrees with the P & Z.)
~
--
""'"
HOLLAND & HART
ATTORN EYS AT LAW
TELEPHONE 292-9200
AREA CODE 303
500 EQUITABLE BUILDING
730 SEVENTEENTH STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80202
P. O. BOX 8749
OENYER,CDLORADO 80201
CABLE ADDRESS
HaL HART, DENVER
PLEASE REPLY TO:
MOUNTAIN PLAZA BUILDING
434 E. COOPER STREET, ASPEN, COLORADO BI611
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 \VPW 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,
.'t1ic!?a&<<Y ~
Michael D. Martin
for Holland & Hart
MDM:bb
,.-.;,.",
'lo.,/
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 Applicant
WPW Joint Venture
'''''''~''.
\"j
LAW OFFICES
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & .JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS STREET
LEONARD M. OATES
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RONALD D. AUSTIN
..J. NICHOLAS McGRATH, ,JR.
WILLIAM R. ..JORDAN ill
February 10, 1977
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 925-2600
ROBERT W. HUGHES
BARRY D. EDWARDS
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
since (1) 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.
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 1vill 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 Hr. 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 & 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, \VPW 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 & 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
topy ..~~~::l J. NICliOLAS MC GRATH, JR.
By
J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr.
JNMjr/gc
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
Kettering house - modern duplex
Janss house
Colen house
Wogan house
Kelly house
unit
6. Farrish house - large single family Victorian
Block 34
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
- modern single family
- modern single family
- large modern with caretaker's apartment
large remodeled victorian with live-in
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
1'''-
(
(
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
I ---'-,
(
(
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.]
~
-y
. /
--
~
<"
o
..
~
.
...
...
----:.;>
, ,
, ~~
:. c '
"
....'.;1-".'. :
o
:",:
"
'. ;",
,~{, .i,~,' '.
:.i:,~~:;
" .".-
, ---'\ '-
\ 0, ' \ , '~
'.,\t ,.";;;/
~~\
, /;/ ,
//// \.
/' "
, \,
. /
1;
I
1
", "
lilA P ~. '00",' i
PI'< ~II BIT I
E:lt-.1NG UNI~ I
A \< EA' '> T YP ~ S
VEo' f\.l( IGHBoR rlo \
\ /' ('
\vf". ~:o,
oS'~. ~,.
Co tl
'1-0'
/
. ", ~'.f~.~' .
{ol.,
.~-:.,,:
..
", ~.
1:,':'-
~
"
~
"'"
0\
~~
..
.
"
'"
.
'(.
,'"
"
,....
,
""
.
'.
<
.
...
o
~
/
4S~
~oj,'
:jI.' ..
~ '
/
/) ,
("
ROPERty!' ..
\:...~
II' i i
I :'
..
.J
\
I
Y~/
/
// .
'v.,'\ \ \',
,.\.) I --;.
,
( ,
.~ ..//.
'/ ,,' ~/ \
.. '
, '
..."" ",'
\ \
"
((,];
/
l-
1/" ,
I-
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
;
l-
LAW OFFiCeS
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & .JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
LEO"lAR:-J M. OATES
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RO"lALD U. AUSTIN
J. NICHOLAS MCGRAT>-1, JR.
WI!...LIAM R. JORDAN m
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 925-2600
ROBERT w. HUGHES
BARRY D. EDWARDS
October 24, 1978
DAVID G. EISENsTetN
Hs. Karen Smith
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: WPW Subdivision Exemption Application
(to permit lot line amendment)
Dear Karen:
WPW wishes tc revise or amend its previously
approved subdivision exemptions plat by increasing the
front lot line of Lot 19 from 55 feet to 65 feet, to
conform to the City Code, which requires a 60-foot front
lot width. .
It is our understanding that the City Code
apparently does not permit this technical change by any
method simpler than a subdivision exemption application.
A proposed amended subdivision exemptions plat
sheet is provided with this letter. WPW and Shaw propose
to amend the lot line between Lot 19 and Lot 20, Block 103,
Hallam's Addition, according to the WPW-Shaw Subdivision
Exemptions Plat (Plat Book 5, Pages 91-93) by Shaw's con-
veying 10 feet from Lot 20 to L~t 19. After this contem-
plated change, both lots will comply in all respects with
the Code, e.g. as to area, front lot line width, etc.
As you may recall, after the lengthy process in
which WPW obtained exemption approval from City Council,
the Board of Adjustment denied a variance for Lot 19 with
a 55-foot front lot line. That denial created an uncer-
tainty as to whether a building permit would issue to re-
model the dwelling on the lot, and hence it resulted in
a lawsuit between WPW and the Board of Adjustment, which
I
I
I
~
~
il
~'5>
',;'
~~
~i
W'
i
t
,
.
t
~
f
r
"
i
r'
,
~,
I
,
l
r
.
!
,
:>
.... .~
''0,- ,#
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH tl JORDAN
Ms. Karen smith
October 24, 1978
Page two
is a waste of energy for both WPW and the City--and which
'can be completely settled by the granting of this applica-
tion. Ive had thought that once City Council had approved
the exemptions plat with Lot 19's having a 55-foot lot
width (an increase over the 25-foot width as platted in the
1890's) that a variance would be routine, but that did not
turn out to be the case.
The ten foot addition to Lot 19 will also have
aesthetic benefits for the area, by giving additional side
yard to the lot. I should add that moving the lot line
10 feet into existing Lot 20 does not affect Lot 20 as
being fully conforming in area, width, etc.
While it may not be relevant to this applica-
tion, we do wish to point out that WPW has removed the old
yellow house as council requested and it does intend com-
plying with all other council conditions, such as seeking
historic designation of the houses to be preserved. WPW
had hoped to accomplish the latter somewhat sooner, but
was delayed by unfortunate litigation that was only con-
cluded this past month.
We would appreciate an early hearing. Thank
you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
.., _ J. NICHOlAS MC GRATH, JR.
By
J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr.
JNMjr/jeb
Enclosure. ./
cc: Ronald W. Stock, Esq~
Mr. John B. Wogan, Jr.
James T. Moran, Esq.
Arthur B. Ferguson, Jr.,
..
Esq.
'________'~"_"__-nj"
M E M 0 RAN DUM
RE:
Aspen City Council
Karen Smith, Planning Office
WPW Subdivision Exemption
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
November 22, 1978
This is an application for subdivision exemption to permit a lot line
amendment between lots 19 and 20, Block 103, Hallam's Addition The
Commission will recall the previous consideration of the subdivision
exemption for WPW - Shaw which was approved by the P&Z and Council some
months ago. That created four separate lots along Lake Avenue. This
new request for exemption is merely to permit the boundary adjustment
described in the attached letter. The adjustment is intended to increase
the front lot line of lot 19 from 55 feet to 55 feet in orrler to meet the
minimum area standards of the Aspen Muncipal Code. The ,parties hat! previously
attempted to obtain approval of the lot as a building site through variance
procedures, however, these efforts failed. We support this approach as
it is the best means toward properly amending subdivision plats and re-
taining accurate land records in the City. We note that lot 20 will re-
main conforming in all respects and that all stipulations and conditions
of approval of the original WPW subdivision exemption are intended by the
owners to be met.
We refered the exemption plat to Dave Ellis, Engineering, who by letter
dated November 13th recommended granting the exemption subject to filing
for record the amended sheet 3 with the appropriate language as submitted.
City Attorney, Ron Stock, reviewed the language that Mr. McGrath repre-
senting the applicants proposed to attach to sheet 3 (Book 5, Page 93)
and also recommended approval. The Planning Office joins with them in
their recommendations.
The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended the exemption
at their November 21st meeting.
I -'-'"--~-
-
j"
BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ORDINANCE NO. ~
(Series of 1978)
I
I
I
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 24-3.2 BY
THE ADDITION OF "BUS DEPOT" AS A CONDITIONAL
USE IN THE L-2 DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Section 24-3.2
of the Aspen Municipal Code by the addition of "bus depot"
as a conditional use in the L-2 district for the benefit of
the City of Aspen,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That Section 24-3.2 of the Aspen Municipal Code be
amended by the addition of "bus depot" as a conditional use
in the Lodge-Two (L-2) Mstrict.
Section 2
If any provision of this ordinance or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications
of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application, and to this end the provisions of
this ordinance are declared to be severable.
Section 3
That a public hearing be held on this ordinance on
, 1978, at 5:00 P.M. in the
City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, 15
days prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be
published once in a newspaper of general circulation within
the City of Aspen.
Stacy Standley III
Mayor
ATTEST:
Ka thryn S. ,-Coch
City Clerk
--(:~
-~
, --'--
r--.
o
-..."'
-<-I,~
:..c-.'-.
'y,
.
}j.Ia1::l '\:)'~::l
qoo,I 0 S UA.Iq~:e)!
:J.S:3:J.J.V
.IOA'llW
III Aa1PU'll+S AO'll+S
081.61
JO
A'llp
aq+ uo paAo.Idd'll PU'll pass'lld 'pa+dop'll A~~VNld
S~NI<133:>0~d :10 O'll0:>3'l1
1:l~^N"O '.00 DNIHsnllnd 01:l0.::l0't'l::IB
~ /'.'
'.."
LAW 0 ......ICES
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & .JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
LEONARO M. OA.TES
ASPEN, CoLORADO 81611
RONALO C. A.U STrN
.J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, .JR.
WILLIAM R. ..JOROAN m
AREA COOE 303
TELEPHONE 925-2600
ROBERT W. HUGHES
RICHARO A. KNEZEVICH
November 7, 1978
Ms. Karen Smith
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: WPW Lot Line Adjustment--Exemption Application
Dear Karen:
I enclose drafts of the language we would propose
for the plat for the Lot 19-Lot 20 lot line change, assuming
approval by P & Z and City Council. The language is relatively
simple and is based on the language used on the Shaw-WPW
plat previously approved. The proposed paragraph concerning
City Council action is on page four of the enclosed draft.
Sincerely,
OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDN,
By J.kJa., u, CvwJL....
J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr.
JNMjr/jeb
Enclosures
cc: Ronald W. Stock, Esq. (w/encl.)
Mr. David Ellis (w/encl.)
A1"1ENDHENT TO SHEET 3 (BOOK 5, PAGE 93)
OF THE SHAW AND THE WPW JOINT VENTURE
SUBDIVISION EXENPTIONS PLAT
City of Aspen
Block 103, Hal1dm's Addition
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
This amended sheet applies to Lots 19 and 20,
Block 103, Hallam's Addition to the City of Aspen, according
to the Shaw and the WPW Joint Venture Subdivision Exemptions
Plat, recorded in Book 5 at Pages 91-93 of the records of
the Clerk and Recorder of pitkin County.
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I, HAROLD W. JOHNSON (JOHNSON-LONGFELLOW & ASSOC.),
licensed surveyor, do hereby certify that this amended sheet
3 to the SHAW AND 'l'HE I'IPW J'OINT VEN'l'URE SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS
PLAT was prepared under my supervision and thco.-t the boundaries,
lots, roads and other features are correctly shown hereon,
that the same are based on actual field surveys performed on
b
the described property under my direct control and supervision
during the months of November and December, 1976, and during
the month of October, 1978, all in accordance with generally
accepted surveying practices and section 38-51-101,
et seq..,
J -.-
C.R.S. 1973.
,
,
'-~.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and seal
day of
, 1978.
on this
JOHNSON-LONGFELLOW & ASSOC., INC.
By
HAROLD W. JOHNSON, PresIdent
STATE OF COLORADO)
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument "as acknowledged before
me this
day of
, 1978, by HAROLD W.
,JOHNSON, for himself and as President of JOHNSON-LONGFELLOW
& ASSOC., INC.
HITNESS my hand and official sea'!.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Dorothy Koch Shaw, owner of Lot 20, and The WPW
Joint Venture, owner of Lot 19, each in Block 103, Hallam's
Addition to the City of Aspen, according to the Shaw and
the WPW Joint Venture Subdivision Exemptions Plat recorded
in Book 5 at Pages 91-93 of the records of the Clerk and
Recorder of pitkin County, hereby certify that they are
the owners of those two lots.
Dated:
, 1978
Dorothy Koch Shaw
By
Harry Shaw
By
Ramona Markalunas
Her attorneys in fact
The HPW Joint Venture
By
John B. Wogan, Jr.
By
Henry Pedersen
By
Jacqueline '1'. Wogan
STATE OF COLO~.DO)
\
I
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
Sf:..
The foregoing instruffi2nt was acknowledged before me
this
da.y of
, 1978, by HARRY SHAW and
illV10NA MARKALUNAS, as attorneys in fact for DOROTHY KOCH
SHAW.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
STATE OF COLO~~DO)
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before
me this
day of
, 1978, by
JOHN B. WOGAN, JR., HENRY PEDERSEN, and JACQUELINE T.
WOGfu'\), for themselves and for The ,\TPW Joint Venture.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
RECORDING CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the within Amended Sheet 3 to
I ca.!?"> '
Shaw and The WPW Subdivision Exemptions Plat was accepted
the
for filing in my office at
o'clock .m. on the
day of
, 1978, and was duly filed in
Plat Book
at Page
, under Reception No.
PITKIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER
By
Clerk
CITY OF l\SPEN
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION APPROVAL
AIm PLAT Al^'!ENDi-lEN1' APPROVl'.L
This shall evidence the approval by action of the
City Council of the 'City of Aspen, taken i;l a duly constituted
meeting held on
, 1978, of the application for
subdivision exemption approval for the conveyance by Dorothy
Koch Shaw, owner of Lot 20, to The WPW Joint Venture, owner
of Lot 19, of a portion of Lot 20 of approximately 10 feet
in width as shown on this sheet and of the application of The
WPW Joint Venture for plat amendment to move the lot line
between Lot 19 and Lot 20 approximately 10 feet to the
southeast as shown hereon.
Dated:
, 1978
Stacy Standley, Mayor
P.TTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
i~
l'
"
~
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: KAREN SMITH
PLANNING
FROM:
DAVE ELLIS
ENGINEERING
d)L
DATE: November 15, 1978
RE: WPW - Shaw Subdivision Exemptions Plat Amendment
After reviewing the proposed lot line adjustment between Lots 19
and 20, the engineering department recommends granting the exemp-
tion amendment subject to filing for record the amended sheet 3
with the language as submitted.
jk
.' .....
- ""
~" c
, "
... .,
"-
M E M 0 RAN DUM
l' l
- /\( [,.
TO: Dave Ellis, City Engineer
FROM: Karen Smith, Planning Office
RE: WPW Subdivision Exemption
DATE: October 31, 1978
I have tentatively scheduled this for the November 21st P&Z Meeting.
May I have your comments.
eIT
PEN
MEMORANDUM
DATE: ~lovember 3, 1978
TO:
FROM: non
RE: WPW Subdivision Exemption Application
I have reviewed the letter from Nick McGrath concerning the
above subdivision exemption application and recommend
approval of his proposal.
RWS:mc
LAW OFFICES
\
!i Cl '-
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
LEONARD M, OATES
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
RONAl..D D. AUSTIN
.J. NICHOl..AS McGRATH, .JR.
WIL.LlAM R. .JORDAN m
ROBERT W. HUGHES
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 925-2600
BARRY D. EDWARDS
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
October 24, 1978
Hs. Karen Smith
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: WPW Subdivision Exemption Application
(to permit lot line amendment)
Dear Karen:
WPW wishes to revise or amend its previously
approved subdivision exemptions plat by increasing the
front lot line of Lot 19 from 55 feet to 65 feet, to
conform to the City Code, which requires a 60-foot front
lot width.
It is our understanding that the City Code
apparently does not permit this technical change by any
method simpler than a subdivision exemption application.
A proposed amended subdivision exemptions plat
sheet is provided with this letter. WPW and Shaw propose
to amend the lot line between Lot 19 and Lot 20, Block 103,
Hallam's Addition, according to the WPW-Shaw Subdivision
Exemptions Plat (Plat Book 5, Pages 91-93) by Shaw's con-
veying 10 feet from Lot 20 to Lot 19. After this contem-
plated change, both lots will comply in all respects with
the Code, ~ as to area, front lot line width, etc.
As you may recall, after the lengthy process in
which WPW obtained exemption approval from City Council,
the Board of Adjustment denied a variance for Lot 19 with
a 55-foot front lot line. That denial created an uncer-
tainty as to whether a building permit would issue to re-
model the dwelling on the lot, and hence it resulted in
a lawsuit between WPW and the Board of Adjustment, which
r /.'
. I I'
/'. I I
,.- I f
'c-
/i--
,<C"""
,...."'
L.t.W OFF"ICES
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS "'VENUE
LEONARD M. OATES
RONALD D. AU 5TlN
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH. ..JR.
WILLIAM R. .JORDAN 1.1
July 7, 1978
.t..REA CODE 3~3
ROnE':RT W. HUOHES
TELEPHONE 925-2600
BA<i:RY D. EDWARDS
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
115. Dorothy F. Nuttall
City Attorney, City of Aspen
City Hall
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: WPW City Variance Case
Dear Dorothy:
Now that Baranko-Nutzhorn have been denied intervention,
denied reconsideration of the Motion to Intervene, and the time
for appeal having expired, I wonder if you and I could consider
a settlement of the case satisfactory to the City and WPW.
By suggestion is that we stipulate that the City agrees
Lot 19, the lot with a 55-foot front lot line, is a building
site entitled to a building permit as is. It would not overturn
the denial of a variance by the Board of Adjustment, and in any
event as you know individual Board of Adjustment decisions aren't
precedential anyway. My strong feeling, as I'm sure you knmoJ,
is that a variance was denied solely because of the irrelevant
objections of ~tr. Andrews, Mr. Baranko and Mr. Nutzhorn on
behalf of them, as well as because of the Board of Adjustment's
independent animosity towards City Council, given the many
comments at the hearing about the City Council having approved
the subdivision so "let them handle the problem."":.)
You may recall that I attempted to negotiate a simple change
of the one lot line between Lots 19-20, rotating it around its center
point so that Lot 19 would have a 60-foot front lot line, or obtain-
ing an easement so that it would similarly be 60-foot in length, but
we have been unable to reach an agreement with the Shaw interests
without giving up very substantial indemnity rights relating to fees
and further protection against Baranko and Andrews, both of whom have
claims still pending.
*/ You may recall we lost the variance by the narrowest of margins,
a 3-2 vote in its favor.
.".,.",
,"",,'
OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & JORDAN
Ms. Dorothy F. Nuttall
July 7, 1978
Page n,o
It seems to me obvious that there is no substantial In-
dependent interest in the circumstances in the 55-foot lot line
per se especially since it could be overcome with the very highly
technical rotation of the lot line. This lot is far larger in
size than is required in the zone district; it is only the front
lot line that does not meet the technioal code requirement; and
it already has a dwelling on it that WPW or its successors are
bound to restore. We could have rotated that lot line initially
had we anticipated any problem prior to much-discussed application,
but felt from a planning standpoint it was much more sound not to
change a lot line that had existed since the 1890's when the lot
was so oversized anyway. In short, I fail to see any significant
interest in this matter on the part of the City. Whoever obtains
a building permit will have to comply with the requirement in the
plat about restoration of the existing dwelling and about seeking
historic designation, and thus there is still more review if that
is the City's desire. On the other hand, from the standpoint of
WP\v, the uncertain status of the availability of that permit renders
the land virtually unmarketable. Won't you please consider this
practical solution?
I am asking that you review this
feel it appropriate given its history_
stipulation.
matter personally if you
I also enclose a proposed
Very truly yours,
OATES, AUSTIN, McGRP.TH & JORDAN
By COPY =- J. NICHOLAS Me GRATH, JR.
J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr.
JN~\j r /mc
Enclosure
cc: Ms. Karen Smith~
Mr. John B. Wogan, Jr.
Mr. Henry Pedersen