Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Butterbaugh/Rogers Subdivision Exemption April 15, 1975 Planning Commission Aspen Colorado Gentlemen: Donald R. Rogers and myself, Lois A. Butterbaugh, as holders of a purchase option contract on real estate and the ~xisting duplex structure situated on Lots 3 & 4, Block 5, Riverside Addition, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin ( known as 1019 East Hopkins ), request an exemption as provided in the City of Aspen Code, Section 20-10c from subdivision requirements in the case where land being divided into condominium interests has been platted into lots and blocks by plat recorded in the office of Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Yours truly c?{.~.;, t?d~~-.j, Lois A. Butterbaugh jr- 060 .t" b u ..-.LJI:::./::J -4 -/S- -7,:'- especially sin~~' tney wouldn't have to sp. ,d the money on grading. Schiffer said that he liked the Kravatsky plan the best since it had the best circulation pattern. Stanford reminded them that these were just interim plans. Schiffer thought that the shuttle wouldn't work unless they have more stops and make it convenient for people on all ends of the area to get on a bus as soon as they arrive at the parking lot. Hunt thought that if they were going ,to lock into a plan, he thought plan C was the best since no earthmoving would be needed therefore less expensive. Otte was in favor of plan A. Collins asked if the Planning Office had any cost figures and Stanford noted that he didn't have any figures but that it'wou1d probably be based on use of city crews. Jenkins questior.ed why they needed so much land for the Post Office and Cole explained that they required 25 employee stalls, plus areas for trucks and delivery areas. Mahoney noted that the P.O. was paying the City a good price for the land and that the City would be losing water rights unless they use the Glury Hole water. Dunaway questioned whether they have the right to change the road and Stanford thought that since its a city street, all it would take 'is some help from the Engineering Department. Schiffer questioned members on whether anyone was prepared to take action at this meeting. Jenkins thought that they should settle the P.O. purchase question first then consider interim plans. Stanford asked if they could recommend just having the optimum use of .the parking on the property. Otte questioned whether if they didn't state how they felt today, would they lose the option on the road being changed? Stanford thought that since the prop- erty came under SPA, both the City and P.O. property would have to come to them for consideration of the entire project so they would have the option at a later time. Jenkins questioned what the next move would be and Stanford thought that it would be thru City C~ncil. Jenkins also asked who would make the decision about the Rio Grande and Schiffer thought it would be the P & Z. Schiffer suggested that they move to have Council and the planning office take into consideration the maximum use of the property and try and use every possible use of the road. I-lotion Jenkins moved to recommend to City Council that in their negoti- ations with the Post Office, they take into consideration the optimum use of the entire Rio Grande property, with any possible realignment of Spring Stre.et and to consider the Kravatsky plan as well as the plan recommended by the Planning Office and further moved that Council. confer with the P & Z before entering into final plans. otte seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Change in Minutes Mojo wanted to adjust the minutes on the stream margin for Torn Wells to include any disruption of vegetation by construction. Motion Hunt moved to amend the minutes as recommended by Mojo. Otte seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Motion Mojo explained that this was a duplex with two lots at the easterr end of Hopkins. It is an existing duplex on platted lots and blocks. Mojo said that the Planning Office recommended approval conditional upon applicant's agreement to join the street improvement district,'sidewa1k district, and drainage district. He also noted that applicant had agreed to covenant to long term leasing restrictions. The City Engineer had noted that the bu~lding does meet the designing elements under section 20-10-c. Hunt moved to grant an exemption 'from subdivision for the Dtttter- baugh/R gers duplex under section 20-10-c of the code conditional upon' the applicant agreeing to join sidewalk, streets (curb and gutter) and drainage districts and that they restrict rentals to long term only or until Council decides about that restriction in the code. Collins seconded. All in favor, motion carried. Special Review:' Otte withdrew himself from the discussion. Sunn Park Sub. Exemption from Mojo noted that they may exempt abuilding if it conforms with thE P.U.D., intent and purpose of P.U.D. and they were not recommending IJ exemption from subdivision only pun. lIe said that they have a two car garag6, with storage space, the first floor has 1ivingroom . .. Subdivision: Butterbaugh/ ~oqers, 1.01:5 3 & 4, block 5 RiveJview . -4- f CIT PEN box v MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Yank Mojo Engineering Department~ Butterbaugh/Rogers Subdivision Exemption Request Apri 1 15, 1975 Under a request for subdivision exemption pursuant to Section 20-10 (cl, the design requirements of 20-17 are to have been met. The East Hopkins Street area meets few of these requirements, but I would concur with the exemption request subject to the applicants agreement to participate financially when the city makes, or creates improvement districts to accomplish any street, drainage, or electrical underground improvements.