HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.1st Aspen Company.1976
:::;('<jC~";..l'I'U.'\L 'p :i.O::<J;;At ';."OH "';[JB"0!',f!;':.l.Ql!
.2L:li
OW~~,R: ~B Tuk~y Cl~ve1and
~!)DR~.g::: 131 011 V" SitU Lao"
Santa Barbara, California 93108
; :',c';cC:.") ;':1, ~ Iuk"y Clpv"land "ubdiv1.31on
LCCAII::' ,'int AA,,"n COMpany
I"~ ;;' "'C"CJPTTC::: Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and parts of
Lota 10, 11 9nd adjoinig ~arc..1
zo~'Z:I): :::'-15
TCTAL
:'1C'jUAi{'::'". :':~?~T 0;-'
'7"T,~- ;- rro",..-qrv: 30,520
r:rrr,:NT: To or"'at.. a buUd1ng sit.. for
construction of a einglQ family
dwelling 00 15,000 squar<> f....t.
"NCLCCLJ;1.".-': "',ort-ion of' C 1 ty ,:Jap showing
gen...ral arna and proj"ct locntion
'.":k" tch plan of proroR(Hl d"v..lon"m",nt
*Iitl" IneuraoO..
'''''Q''-~'>_ '~"i'.,-;' -,..,,"_,~."" .........,.....-.'...r ~JOt-t"':.~,;;p'~:'I..,..,..d_~~.~'.-.,..' >,'.-""..-."
CONCEl'TUAL REVIEW it TUKEY CLEVELAND SUBDIVISION
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO SATISFY FROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR FLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
The purpos.. for seeking a Planned Unit Development
is to allow variations from certain zoning cod.. re-
quirements that would improve the character of the
new development.
Specifically, it would reduce the newly created lot
area to under the 15,000 sq. ft. that is required.
However, the average lot area of the total develop-
ment will be above the minimum established for this
zone. Another deviation from code that would be ex-
ercised under PUD would dispens~ with the required
15 ft. front lot width. In seeking the FUD approach
it is not intended to circumvent those requirements
(They can be accommodated as shown on the subdivision
plat prviously submitted), but to eliminate the awk-
ward and contrived lot division in order to meet
those crteria. .
The objective for subdivision is to provide for sep-
arate ownership of land and building into two parcelS.
It is the intention of the applicant to sell the ex-
isting house and lot and to build a modest home (max-
imum 1,200 sq. ft.) for herself on the undeveloped
paroel.
She has contacted her adjoining property owners and
they have no objections to her propos~d development.
She has owned this property approximately 25 years
and has demonstrated in time, her sensitivity toward
the land by maintaining the low profile, low impact
structure of her home. She has left the indigenous
vegetation and trees undisturbed on the sloping land
toward Hallam Lake and has landscaped and planted all
the stately trees that are in the front of her property.
The proposed house would have no adverse effect on
anyon~ in that area. The view is into the swamp and
toward Hallam Lake. Even the very few people visiting
the sanctuary would have the house screened by a dense
growth of cottonwoods.
The request for a PUD is both modest and reasonable
and is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial
. property right enjoyed by anyone in the R-15 zone.
Ramo Lav~gnino for Mrs. Tukey Cleveland
MEMORANDUM
,
TO: Aspen Pl"'''Lu'';'u5 Evuu....is....;.....n Cc~/7 C ()v,/;..Ltl
This is a request by Tukey Cleveland for a two lot subdivision (one
lot developed) located on the First Aspen Company Subdivision on
Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and parts of Lots 10, 11 and an adjoining parcel.
The property consists of 30,520 square feet and is zoned R-15.
J7U
~The comments of the Planning Office are as follows:
, l.
flit (J t "/ (.,;<~ ,.:>
OJ,) od~;~/
~(,. ~~ ~
~,.. 2.
~ t...! ~i!
ci..""O'U
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
/.
Planning Staff (HC)
s'{P/J,"V q... ~CONC.('~/",...I
Cleveland Subdivision - Conceptual PYBst?lltat;.....T). 1', tr,t).
September 17, 1976
requirement is 10,000 square
o units are below t . owed density
mum 15,000 square feet
I >i'XC.('J?ruwclA;. . J7r/~ H>/Ht 6 e
UJlU ~p<:t..,.~c"...w.,
be Vlocated at pre .
phys1 ons on
1ng Hallam Lake.
5 density
feet per un
for the site.
site is
~ t'd..cec!,
The building s
plat stage to prevent
wildlife areas su
tJ e {, er iYT!:!.
ot configuration
necessity
lot and
acks.
f'ki 'n";'
is irregula t e
1nimum 15,000 square foot
t the exist1 by appropriate
l
Dun rn t-1H::> J:lh....."1T~ ceR8iaeratig....99 ~e Planning Office
recommends requiring P.D.D. review of this proposaL.~
~ronmmpnrlco lllpp.........v!:ll ....of tR8 eSRBBFt.,<=11 C!"hrl.h,; ....iga aRd
C8R~Bptaal ~L...uul..d uL..":"l ae~:e1..:..flB.eBt..
!; 0 .,-s 'l7> ;.. e .l'-tee f7k
1h'?j <,-,,,,,,I" ttC(o..,ud"re
L "r s /2..e /0 ~ ()i'<' .~. i
0..- __ c /Le t? e(, ... t..H<.. 6: T
""....;e- CtA.v F,.6&.(A" ';--lc.t." ~l _" ~~c~.~)'e b"t'~L !!J //e
,..., r!H.I c( 6<>...l>...., 7. t=~#. 1,/4 J. /'e &;. t. {
/, e .dc-r'.vc c! rc l?e4.:.e I'.f. ~S'(q/ -e,... if.,.!?!>' .'''V S ,'~
;17hz., L'-' //d idee frlI <€,<rS .s y/Z/zo,,_J/;"(, ##<.(.,..... l~e
;..I'd-tee /:V/r'>-J=('/?,..-c<< (4,,7# €),(.>7;1'-" vt'6t'.,.~jt~lv.
/9TI d.
/i<. ~~ L--o ~J it r-<-L'~ P>-. p '(',0.
~~~~
"';f' / tr'. a~ c.~J~
~ c..l~0'l ~
S'~ ~A-~
~~ 7' /~~
~7~ J~ .:L
~ /Te,
j}Cn~eL,/ - n(
C'&~~ .L'~7J
/( / ~.<- IZ A~~ ~d~
~ J'~ /
"J ,.,.
c.~.--I:.' "2?
-- ~ ~~: ~~'
c:;?
5. JIe. ~L, Or:
~r~~ ~
'iC'~ ~~. ~< 0'~.
jlA.c,....~ ~, rt''t... #' " . ~
I, p,-S/.;.,t ck~IIlIG'( r1o.v
't;-
If ~. _
._--~.:'>-~
'.,._ :_,.,..,..f.,.;-,'-'.......,;..::__.......-'_',. ~~". ';~"-'
CONCEPTUAL REVIEW * TUKEY CLEVELAND SUBDIVISION
ADDITIONAL INFORN~TION TO SATISFY FROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
The purpos.. for seeking a Planned Unit Development
is to allow variations from certain zoning code re-
quirements that would improve the character of the
new development.
Specifically, it would reduce the newly created lot
area to under the 15,000 sq. ft. that is required.
However, the average lot area of the total develop-
ment will be above the minimum established for this
zone. Another deviation from code that would be ex-
ercised under PUD would dispense with the required
75 ft. front lot width. In seeking the FUD approach
it is not intended to circumvent those r~quirements
(They can be accommodated as shown on the subdivision
plat prviously submitted), but to eliminate the aWk-
ward and contrived lot division in order to meet
those crteria.
The objective for subdivision is to provide for sep-
arate ownership of land and building into two parcels.
It is the intention of the applicant to sell the ex-
isting house and lot and to build a modest home (max-
imum 1,200 sq. ft.) for herself on the undeveloped
parcel.
She has contacted her adjoining property owners and
they have no objections to her proposed development.
She has owned this property approximately 25 years
and has demonstrated in time, her sensitivity toward
the land by maintaining the low profile, low impact
structure of her home. She has left the indigenous
vegetation and trees undisturbed on the sloping land
toward Hallam Lake and has landscaped and planted all
the stately trees that are in the front of her property.
The proposed house would have no adverse effect on
anyone in that area. The vieW is into the swamp and
toward Hallam Lake. Even the very feW people visiting
the sanctuary would have the hOUSfl screened by a dense
growth of cottonwoods.
The request for a FUD is both modest and reasonable
and is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial
. property right enjoyed by anyone in the R-15 zone.
Remo Lav~gnino for Mrs. Tukey Cleveland
":-./'
\
'v/
\
\<,
~.~ '~\.'
,.,/'" .. ' \ '
//<\
?\\, ;-\ /. \
"-
. ( TUG(E~ CLE~tElDl\fi'Hm SejUmrmnIIS~ON,\"<\' "
.. ..---------'-/ ....----.. " ,\" ,\' .<('\\ \ . ~~
./-;,.. -_/, \ / \ ". \ V/. '\
~ l' ... _ _ /--- \ \ 00
'~f-- U~~OIV! ,t ,l~ ~'--- - \.. \ \<." \
" .' I ... i / ------'- ~ \ ~:....--\ \ \",
-,Jr-"x' ~ ~ ,":' ~
" /;r-~.-'\':-...." .'- --:=c- /
, ".....- (,~'v'oJCCl< \1
:~ /....~ ",,~, .-\- -'--...
! 7' -......:., /;-:./ '" '. '. -" -~- - ,:~ ....,.." ~-':'_---......
i: /" '....-.............. __..___~/ ~/~r2.-;';;_.. ,(' :.:~~ ---......,
, _""".._, -1..._--" // / / / ;-;-.:--- ': _..' -.2;- \" -\\--............... '.
I. - /,'~.// ~.. I ',," ---...
~-~ . / " '/ ,'~'
-,2~---- .----;O\W',,<l./ </S,/' ,: ;-"""\ "\
_____ 1<'0 - R~\V // /. .,/,-e. -' .,.,.\..;> \
" ________ 13'0 fit/. Of. ____---- /:'. ,_
\, r--~~--:::::Y'''--,~ ./;.;.. .
\, ' ----<>....~. ~ /0/ ' I
;, \'. d{~~2.=~:~~~<.";};:;::.::,'~:/ .i) Ji,/I / r,~ ~'
\\\, '. -/ /?/:_ "",,: "-., c;:'-- / /'/'3- 1";./ ", r
\\..,,--~<.://C,,: ' .'.' ----..:..:;'.,:, "c...,. ., ;'.... ..
;;":::?;,,:,;:..::;':-;'t- '.';.>>;"-- ,t' - _:",-,---,~", / '/ I ;>> I '
~S&0SS:>>/ ,./'. .." '/'~!(~< '((,;i',>?, ..
o( ",0 ,,~ ~ ' \ >'ZV~'<<X>~ ~
~t.. ~~, ~\ (- "'A0':'::~"":,"'::J:<'.~"~~:'~"'( HAll'\'"
,.," //'\, ,/ ""'"",'" \.:'f:>,j \:;;:/'>~A .',
,,,,, . / V ~ . _-0 "",~j/ 4\ '%XC~ "--.-/
1.~BO~~:~~~d of Specially / "j{(;>:>:\'{'/\<:f:/"\.
\. ".," / Area ~,,/ /7,';(<" \;"'\:" '-0..,/. '-
'., , '" .)0, / /.?" ./' . /." . "",- ~'~,
"\ /--:-:/ ~\\\ /' /.~ /\. \>(c>:" ')~o~\:, /j> '>
,,,)';~;y;;<..',\,'\'~( a);7;J./ ,A~\;~';/d:';}> ~''00s.J;
:'" \':"'7" e : '9-,,/'/)' :.:~ \ \~,' _ij'-'/ / \. v - . . ,..,~ ,;.'>- ~. '\. ~'::'-'/
/'11"01::: ".: :'<1-' -,.' ,I:~C~ \\\~'\ 0~<<'<'.'/ . "~ $\' :.::') x -,!.:.~,~':,~.:,-,-,~,;_:~, ~~~.,--~-
, i: : . . : : . .: -'., :'~~ \ \" /\0, <d. "" ", "').,<;;'6>-+:&:;. .
t,-~,. ::.' . : ."'." <" "_."1 _ _,--, <~\ / //'''', '-, .",\ \--.:,' ,:~::,~~:.:-~::>,,<:.:,:),:~," r ~:<.
..'~~. : : :.::' ,,^< c.;.\.\ //~:::~\.\>:>,." "'<'\':"'~"":"""~'.'~:,:")/':/,'_:; '- ~.,:::.~.~.:'.,'~7Ss_
~ ".. '."'. _..... ' , , / _/ '/.,' ___~___.' -~.... _ ~ ,,\,\-,_,,'-J.' ,-\"'\
e8~.,.:.. I\~... b .." . ; _ ~ <\ \, // .~;:-~:;...-:-;-~. '\",,_, '?:.:,.~,:.L~::\ \J-~..J':,.-:--:\ \i:_~:::>,:!_\\\',{~;
... .o..,.~~ ,t,\~:,:;,~ .,\',,\\: ~//,~'.' _,'.I~ \":'.:.:::' ..- ,{,;,\:\\.\\-,:.~
0; . . ... ~. ~~~~. " '; "\ " 'V\\J.~" '_~:"" /~ , . . ". ,..'.:.". \>- ,,' .r~' "\o..",',:~.~(.;~:.'.\,.',..,.'.:.:~.,.'.:.".~.',~v:.Y,-~.'.,;'.~'y..'\,......\ '-\j-,~_\.' t-_V'''- 4"
'... :.... "..~...o :.\\\' 5\';'~--:"'--'",. '\..\ .. ~.,...'.::..':::".:':---;-'::'\ '.~'"~.-:,, - __~\""'..,''''":~\,\,;\ "'-.' :. \.:--- ~..~,~~.':~~..-(\',.<\'~-,~.."
___\ . .........,........"..3:j:'/Y _. . ......i:\',~-.\ . . ~
... .... -', .... . _ ...-.,;- '.. e'.-')./- ',.:~::.;.:;::.::. _:,.:~'.' . ~ '. ,.', '.:_i-~, ".~" ",:,\:..--:.:\,~::'-'.-,..,
:!'::::. '.",. .,\ ... "/,.".:.:"" V,..;,......',\ 'jJ" .,,;.;, \'.'....,\.":0 \;;Y -f.' 'oy.\.'},.\"
?figf }~~l{jf!i~;~;r;,~:r;\~~;s'(~~!~!;!;~!!~fyf1~!~~;~~
\
\
.....
.....
..-'
,.
.
'.
r~.-\.rlJD. m" r;,.>r,"r7n(.~. f"'[J"[]
'! I;;""" '\I!' J '., . 1
'.::_~) -..' LE...- ~'-_) ~ \..:-1 ' -<:::'},) U "~U J' .
~lr:fJ[1<"/r-5'v1 !~r-'rl r~I\\J'!';cJ"! /.', nn1L""
Lf \.: _J \\I-,=, \f . !r;L!S~' L==L:cLi-L\..!-U
I
A~
@"~"~.
Afj. '.",
4.~ <;;.:.~
rQ .
<('-0 ')~)<p.
\,'
\t"C
\.~
'\:
~~ \
-.-,---- \
, o?s\'\ \
\~\
~'1-\4\,N~U\~ ....005>t
ot-l~ '7\o~'< ~ J'
i O\"""'t-l
~
-!-
'(0<.2-'
,,-\2-\1">6
f'.o. ' ,
"1"5,00
\
<.:>.13'
,
"
....
"
....
.... 9.
....'-
'~
50. FT. '....
.......
15,520
.>
"
~
.<".-
~'
9\""'&
,0
-,-
,
15.000 5Q. FT.
>>
h(ij'C::;'
16'2--(;::::;
SGl-LE I" ~40' (APPROx)
^t 1 A l O/\N POUt: Y AmclHlcd I (' ".~ 10
SCHEDULE A
Order No.: 6384
Date of Policy:
May 13, 1976 at 8:00 A.M.
Policy No.:
M 395717
Amount of Insurance: $ 43,000.00
Loan No.:
1. Name of Insured
THE BANK OF ASPEN
2. The estate or interest .in the land described in this Schedule and which is encumbered by the
insured mortgage is:
in fee simple
3. The estate or interest .referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in:
LYDIA L. T. JONAS and LYDIA T. JONAS
4. The mortgage, herein referred to as the insured mortgage, and the assignments thereof. if any, are
described as follows:
Deed of Trust from Lydia L. T. Jonas to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County
for the use of The Bank of Aspen to secure $43,000.00 dated April 23, 1976,
recorded April 29, 1976 in Book. 311 at page 322.
"
5. The land referred to in this policy is in the State of Colorado
County of Pitkin ,and is described as follows:
Please refer to Page 2-A
Page 2
H'I'E'\'AUT TI'I'LE
OUA.UAN1'Y CU"I"ANY
J>
~
I\llacl",d to and IlI,IlI" a pdrt of ~;t"w,lIl Titl" CiUd'dllty COlllp"")' 1'111 icy No. M 395717
Contilluatioll of ScI",dul" A
Parcel A:
All of Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, Block 4,
ASPEN CONPANY SUB-DIVISION and
that part of Lots 10 and 11, Block 4,
ASPEN COHPANY SUB-DIVISION lying Soutlmesterly of the following described
line:
Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly line of said Lot 11 whence the
most Northerly Corner of said Lot 11 bears North 36059' East 2.03 feet
and the most Northerly Corner of Lot 14, Block 4 of the Aspen Company Sub-
Division (which corner is described in document No. 111989 reeorded in
Book 195, page 106, of the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder,
bears North 27050'30" EiJst 55:67 feet;
thence South 26054'10" East 120.24 feet to the Southeasterly line of said
Lot 10.
Parcel B:
A tract of land situated in the North east Quarter, Section 12, Township
10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian and more fully
described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Southeasterly line of Block 90 of the Hallam's
Addition to the town of Aspen, Colorado whence Corner #11 of the Fowler
Placer, U.S. Hineral Survey 116786 bears South 22016' West 221.7 feet;
thence South 20057' East 63.0 feet;
thence North 80028' East 152.0 feet;
thence North 62048' East 45.50 feet;
thence North 41001' West 90.0 feet to the Southeast corner of
90 of said Hallam's Addition;
thence Southerly and Westerly along the Easterly line of said
to the point of beginning.
I
Lot, 21, Block
I
Block 90
EXCEPTING FROH Parcel B, any portion thereof lying within Block 4, ASPEN
CO}WANY SUB-DIVISION.
All in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
Page 2...-:A_
S'I'E\\'AH.T TI'I'LE
PART
Policy No.: M 395717
This policy docs not insure against loss or dall1ilrJe by reason of the following:
1. Rights or claims of pilrties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims or easements, not shown by the public records,
3. Discrepancies. conflicts in houndary lines, shortage in arCil. encroachments. and any facts which a
corrcct survey and inspection 01 the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the
public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services. labor, or matcrial theretofore or hereafter lurnished,
imposed by law and not shown by the public records.
5.Taxes for the year 1975 and thereafter, and any special assessment or charges not
yet certified to the office of the County Treasurer.
6.The right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore
therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises, as
reserved in United States Patent recorded June 8, 1888 in Book 55 at page 2.
7.Any tax, assessment, fees or charges by reason of the inclusion of
subject property in Aspen Fire Protection District, Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation
District, The City of Aspen and Aspen Valley Hospital District.
.'
Exceptions Numbered
are hereby omitted,
Page 3
H'rE'\'AU'1' 'l'I'I'LE
,
r
~
.\ \ \
;\
,-I-
f2 ~
s~ ~@
~~
~ftl
o ~ --
.~ & f-
j o~
G'
.
-.. ,...-",'~
,
~.;, ..,
, - ~ '" '
, ,".<'
,.,,('
,
;
,
.; !
,
, (
" :" I
~
, '- !
, " ,....
s
.
,
. ~.
.
, /."
I
I
I
!
,
"
-: " . I
I
"
.." j
.1
1
';;
,
';
.;:)
,
,
,
j
, "
. .. -.'
,'.- .\
" "A
. "
~."
.. ,
-.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE: Cleveland Subdivision - Conceptual Subdivision & Conceptual P.U.D.
DATE: October 6, 1976
This is a request by Tukey Cleveland for a two lot subdivision (one
lot developed) located on the First Aspen Company Subdivision on
Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and parts of Lots 10, 11 and an adjoining parcel.
The property consists of 30,520 square feet and is zoned R-15. The
Planning and 40ning Commission on October 5, 1976 recommended approval
of the request and encouraged the land exchange described below.
1. The Planning Office recommends requiring P.U.D. review
of this proposal, so as to reduce the lot size to
10,000 square feet. This would accommodate a more regular
lot line configuration and promote better site manage-
ment. Further the building site will be defined to
reduce physical encursions on the wildlife areas
surrounding Hallam Lake and reduce interference with
existing vegetation. The applicant has agreed to
process a P.U.D.
2. Slope reduction calculations show a reduction of
10,000 square feet of area which still allows a second
unit on the site.
3. The Planning Office is actively encouraging the
adjacent property owner, R.O. Anderson, to exchange
lands with Mrs. Cleveland to promote better housing
distribution in this residential area. Mr. Anderson
owns additional property to the south of his studio
and residence which is suitable for subdivision. It
should be noted that Mrs. Cleveland could place an
additional dwelling unit on the property without
subdivision approval and without P.U.D. site placement
considerations due to the large size of her land parcel.
4. The Planning Office recommends approval of the request
and emphasizes its encouragement of a land trade between
Mr. Anderson and Mrs. Cleveland.
/^. ",
""...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
'OlIN ~ C. F,-llnrCIUll, I. It l, co.
Regular Meeting
Aspen Planning and ~oning'
October 5,1976
Chairman Chic Collins called the meeting to order with members Hunt, Kienast,
Schuhmacher, and Hedstrom present. Also present were Bill Kane and Hal Clar
of the Planning Office.
Hunt moved to table the minutes of the August 31, 197
meeting. Hedstrom seconded. All in favor, motion c'
ried.
Cleveland Subdivision Request
Clark mentioned that a site inspection had been con-
ducted the previous week. The request was for a 1 Ie
SUbdivision, zoned R-15. The Planning Office had recr
mended that a PUD plan be required, which the applic~
has agreed to, and that the lot size be reduced to
10,000 sq. ft. for ease of management. The adjacent
owner had also been approached by the Planning Office
and asked to participate in a swap of the land which
would accommodate the subdivision, while maintaining
the integrity of the building site. The Planning
Office recommended approval of the conceptual PUD
primarily because the applicant is allowed to build
an additional unit on the property by right, and P&Z
should maintain control over where that unit is buil~
where the access is taken, how much landS::;1ping is pre
served on the property.
Remo Lavagnino was present to speak for the applican'c
Tukey Cleveland. He commented that the p&Z should co:'.
sider the control they have available with PUD, rath,
than if the applicant would be allowed to do whatev'
she desired. Clark pointed out that the PUD require
I,lent would prevent future development on the site, a:,
this would be a condition of the approval.
Hunt asked if the adjacent property owner had been
contacted recently in regard to the land swap. ClarL
said the owner had been contacted, but he could not
speak for the owner.
There were no other comments, at which point Hunt mm'
to recommend conceptual PUD approval for Lots 5,6,7,c
9, part of Lots 10 and II, conditimedonthe comments
the Planning Office dated September 17, 1976; and
conditioned on the non conversion of the existing
structure into a duplex, and that additional dwellinc
units shall not be allowed, other than the ones
shown on the plan submitted. Schuhmacher seconded.
All in favor, motion approved.
Aspen Athletic Club--Public Hearing-Conditional Use
Hal Clark introduced the request for expansion or
modification of the food facility use, depicted on tL
building plans at the time of the conditional use
approval of ;.the Athletic Club. The applicant is
now seeking approval to modify the area designated as
a food serivce area; extending the conditional use,
and increasing its impacts on the area. The buildinc
was currently over the allowed FAR: The Planning
Office did not recommend approval of the extension.
Dwight Shellman, representing the Aspen Athletic Club,
-1-
,
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
.-
--..r
HAL CLARK
PLANNING OFFICE
DAVE ELLIS ~
CITY ENGINEER \) z...
March 8, 1977
PROPOSED CLEVELAND-ANDERSON SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION
In looking at the engineering problems with this
proposal there are primarly two - service by utilities
and provision of emergency/service access. Although
the proposal creates a separate parcel at the end of
an existing dead-end right-of-way there is the legal
possibility, and definite probability, that a building
permit could be applied for under the existing owner_
ship pattern. Thus the same problems would exist.
Utilities would have to be extended approximately
300 feet at the expense of the developer. It appears
that there might be one other potential building site
which could absorb some of this cost.
In regard to the vacation of Castle Ave to facilitate
the land exchange, there appears to be only one
problem and that is the lack of frontage on a public
road. This would require a variance. However, the
utilities would need the same 30 foot width as an
easement.
Considering the overall benefits and disadvantages
the engineering department is disposed to favor the
proposal.
,
~ ,
I"""
\
. j
.,. )
--
, '..' ,';-l', ,(.~'::~" 1~,,' "
.. ......
,'Ie.',..-,,;,.
y'" -';r','
. \
\L\ (} V\
i~ ~
s,< (ll
~ (\ f
~~ --
. ~~ p- .
.,. ~.
- ,
j O:t
~
;'-; .
;.
. j';",
H
~, ;
.{
.. "I"
'i.,'
.
,
.\ \ \
j
OJ''',
,
,
.;,
, ' '~
. '\.
. ~!
.i~
. ,
, ,,"~
..~
1\1
~ "
.' '\
",;
. p:
~
1
'.~
)
..,<}}:~
".1
~ ; ~
i~
,....'
, ''':;
. .~
. 'J
':.,
' ,i' '_'_;
,';'::"'4
-' t~
'..'
.. \J
. ,~~
. ')
,;,\
'~
';';
.~
'i'~
.y
t
".~
">'
;~
, ~
'~..'."
~.