HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.LotsC-I,Blk77.1974
/ . .)1\/ ,... City of Aspen, Cok~ 'ado
o / . ~ U" .0/ "-
00~ )'0;P' BULb-DING PERMIT
ESTIMATED COST $.1!.7.f;OfJ.. - n. NO. ...71t;............
~ {f- -b
- -/ '}- -rl DA]E...._..........n4.........~..........
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED...I. ./..... .'.... (_..-kv.;1".//dd;. ."01....... ............... .;;;5;.7.....
AS .... Vd-(/!/.. Y.:'k-:'.\............ TO . .~i~J... A .:[;jjJ!i).. STORY /..'/. /d .t..k'/.........
ON LOT f,."..!\. j~d}LobK .... :':.7.................. ADDITION IJ/t..7/.-.!.:-:. .I.~~.~t!.-::~-4
ZONE . V J.~y~M;& .'!". ~)~.. .lFIRE DIST.~........... rCUPANCY ,{ (10. iff1..r. ~(. .a(;. ~~
\.l '1 0 '. U
ADDRESS.... ,C !n~~:,{. .\....... .n. )'-1.~. . .A.-?f[~.. .~..........................
:7o'oo~'~r~s1~:;g~~'f?.i~"'*~;;......................
~_R ~G U""'rI.....7p~................. NO. ROOMS ....2. ..-.::;......JIV}C1...:.......:.:...
STYLE OF ROOF. . ."';)4 .A~~. ... .. . . .. ... ... . ROOFING MATERIAL. )r.t-:n1./.Y./. ~~~..... ...
ARCHITECT .. .t1~.. ~ !zt:WL .vJut?f...... ADDRESlA~1. ).-~~.. (,...... .'t! .r........
CONTRACTOR .1.7.. ,'''v~1AA<"{+J..744....... ADDRESS ...v)tV'?L~./LC&.~......
REMARKS,! I v' '" J V
/] ,
~ 1&7. ll_.... -J-
... ..t!.....L. .11/1. /... ..7.. :.7J//-.;P~....
- erI aLERK
,
-
APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT
TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
Aspen, Colorado
The undersigned hereby requests permiSSion to perform and do the work, repairs, construction
alteration or developement hereinafter described and further agrees to do said work in accordance with
this application and in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted herewith. This application is
made with the specific understanding that it is subject to suspension or revocation for failure to comply with
the terms or conditions upon which it is approved.
':~~::C'~=:~~1llf-?--;l~~~:.
Tfi~:;:!Jf!/l!;;fff:~'i!l~'";~~~iz~ f~
~~:::::_~~~:::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Estimated Cost of Construction, _______________u___________nn____n________________________
Distance from lot lines, N-- I j I ; S- ~ I ; E-- I 6 I
Name of Contractor, or Builde" ---------------n7f':-
Name and Address of Owner, ____________________ __ __~---n------------- __n_n______
1---
- - - - -------------------------------------------------- ------ ------- ------- ---- --- - - - - ----
Additiona I Rema rks, _ ___ n _ _______ ____n______ _ _ _ ___n___nn_n_____ ____ ______ ___ _ _ _______
CStt ~ ~
-1 ~ of"-f--S'
/ q ---.:--~ '" .
I ~ -/'... "'L-co { "" '-1e.
________~__~~--L-------------- _____________
Applicant '/ j
By ______________________________________
APPLICATION (Approved) (n<j ~ .-l)ThiLn__.2:____day of --dJy--' 19....L'-, subject to the
following conditions.
(?~ ~~~/
~ rrB,Y,
~-"'~"'--:-r---''''''''
,7>
c
DY!? ~
f&~~(P
i
1'j'''''__
/~--
/ ' ~
I
!. D
'-f:A-, (
r-. \-\ ,
; r:
-(
. ('v -
~
int:,c-1'1<-~_
r2S"
-,.
~
0(':;"-
, . v > ~
,
September 26, 1974
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
c/o City Planning Office
P.O. Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sirs:
\
)
The concept of the proposed addition to the Limelite Lodge is
a separate two story structure housing thirteen (13) units,
three (3) saunas, a laundry room, a pool equipment room, a
tool room, and storage facilities for the entire Limelite Lodge.
The plan calls for five (5) existing rental units to be utilized
as employee housing. The net result of the addition will be an
increase of eight (8) rental units and five (5) units for
employee housing.
The existing parking will remain and be modified to meet the
9' x 18' specifications established by the City of Aspen. The
existing parking of 1876 sq. ft. as determined by the Planning
Office, has been modified to 1944 sq. ft. in order to make
twelve (12) legal stalls. One new stall per new rental unit
has been added, for a total of twenty (20) parking stalls. A
policy to encourage the use of the Rio Grande property for
employee parking will be adopted.
The "Floor Area Ratio" for the new "Lodge" designation is as
follows:
21,000 sq. ft. of Property
21,000 sq. ft. of Building allowed (1:1)
Allowed
Proposed
62.5 % Rooms
12.5 % Employee Housing
25 % Amenities
13,125 sq. ft.
2,625
5,250
13,116 sq. ft.
2,673
5,181
Totals
21,000 sq. ft.
20,970 sq. ft.
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
September 26, 1974
Page 2
The proposed addition will be connected to the existing two (2)
story structure by two (2) bridges, the floor elevations will
be the same as the existing building. An elevator will be
installed for vertical transportation to the basement and
second floors.
;&:::, f2'2 _fl/1
Glenn Paas - ~;t=y
President, Lime1ite Lodge
cam
August 13, 1974
Mr. Glen Pass, Jr.
P. O. Box 1089
.Aspen, Colorado
Re: Limelight Lodge Addition
Dear Glen,
This letter is to confirm our discussion of last week
following receipt of the City Attorney's opinion that
the Lime light Lodge, orginally the Ski Vu located on
Lots C-J, Block 77, must maintain parking spaces pre-
sently existing and needed to support its present den-
sity.
Yank Mojo and I made an on site inspection of existtigg
parking at the Limelight Lodge with you and Don Ball.
Because the existing parking is undesignated and some
spaces currently in use do not meet the requirements of
standard parking spaces, this office suggested that the
following formula be adopted to determine existing
parking: the percentage of area of the total siee used
for parking must be maintained, and must become con-
forming parking spaces on the revised site plan being
prepared for an addition to the lodge. We measured the
area now be used for parking and agreed that it con-
1o~ sists of 2.54 (1876)sq. ft.) of the site.
i ;.Yo ..-./
i~~l ~cause of the Limelight's location near the center of
. '_Nt) town and mass transportation,ceheellanning Office takes
~ yH~ ,;.t the position that a ratio of'2 spaces for 3 units is a
I ~ ~.~ ~ !reasonable one for the proposed additional units.
I r ~~~ours truly,
p {;L>> V Jr~
rV1 );~I
~. c-.I'1-" tJ"'} /' yY Donna Baer
!J-' / .~/N . Planning Office
p'~J l( If' W DB/bk
V ;~) cc: Don Ball
~~.~~/~1:'\~
"
~lEMORANDUM
TO: Members of Planning and Zoning commission
FROM: Sandy Stuller
RE: Application of Limelight Lodge;
Elimination of Off-street Parking Spaces
DATE: August 5, 1974
Members of the Commission:
It is my understanding that the Limelight Lodge
has processed an application for extension of the
lodge in such a manner as would require elimination
of their present off-street parking area and creation
of only such addition spaces as are required by
the new, additional units. Hore specifically,
it is their contention that inasmuch as the original
structure was built before the off-street parking
requirements were established, they may eliminate
any spaces they voluntarily supplied subsequent to
the effective date of the off-street parking ordinance,
dedicate that area to open space, rely on this
dedication for increased density, and replace only
as many spaces as are attributable to the increased
density. This proposal is in contradiction to the
doctrine of abandonment of nonconforming use and cannot
be accepted.
.
General Principles
Zoning ordinances are prospective only, i.e.,
no retroactive application of them is made.
Consequently, all uses contradictory to a zoning
ordinance are permitted to remain as "nonconforming"
uses with restrictions imposed against their
enlargement, expansion, restoration, etc., all
designed to eventually eliminate them. There is
an additional concept in the law designed to
eliminate nonconformities, that is, the theory
of abandonment. This doctrine provides that when an
owner has a nonconforming use, and discontinues
that use in such a manner so as to indicate he is
Page Two
Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
abandoning it, this serves to terminate a right to
a nonconforming use. If the cessation of use is
involuntary, i.e., caused by external conditions
(e.g. unable to procure a tenant, insufficient
funds to do needed repairs, etc.) or if the
cessation is due to governmental intervention
(e.g. condemnation of the property) courts will
very often find no abandonment of a nonconforming
use because an owner will be found to not have
intended to discontinue the nonconforming use,
"Zoning: Right to resume nonconforming use of
premises after involuntary break in the continuity
of nonconforming use caused by difficulties unrelated
to governmental activity", 56 ALR 3rd 14, "Zoning:
Right to resume nonconforming use of premises after
involuntary break in the continuity of nonconforming
use caused by governmental activity", 56 ALR 3rd 138."
However, when an owner voluntarily makes his use
conforming (here, by providing off-street parking)
or decreases its nonconformity, the courts will
not allow him to revert to the nonconforming
use, holding he has abandoned the same, "Zoning:
Right to resume nonconforming use of premises after
voluntary or unexplained break in the continuity
of nonconforming use, 57 ALR 3rd 279."
Voluntary Abandonment
The author in the last noted cite states
in the annotation:
"Zoning ordinances, which are ordinarily
said to have no retroactive effect
and to work no disturbance of existing
uses of property, often provide, in effect,
that where a lawful use of property
is in existence on the date at which
such ordinance comes into effect such
use may be continued, even though
the continued use does not conform to
the mandates of the ordinance (i.e.
ordinances are not given retroactive
effect) Zoning ordinances also
often go on to proclaim that, if such a
nonconforming use is discontinued
(abandoned), and resumption of activity
with regard to the property shall be in
.
Page Three
Members of the Planning and Zoning commission
confcrmity with the provisions of the
ordinance ... (T)he courts have generally
held that the word 'discontinuance' is the
equivalent of 'abandoned', hence, it has
uniformly been stated that the dis-
continuance of a nonconforming use results
from the occurrence of two factors (1)
the intent to abandon (2) and voluntary
conduct, whether affirmative or
negative, which carries the implication
of abandonment".
And further:
"(I)t would appear to be a widely
accepted fundamental of zoning law that
a right to exercise a nonconforming use
will continue to exist until there
is an abandonment of such, i.e., that
such right will not survive the
abandonment of such use. THUS IT
WOULD APPEAR TO BE WELL SETTLED on
the basis of the following zoning
cases involving the right to resume
nonconforming use of premises after
an alleged voluntary or unexplained break
in the continuity of nonconforming
use - that the actual legal
abandonment of nonconforming uses is fatal
to its resumption."
Courts will find an abandonment of a
nonconforming use on evidence of (1) a definite and
regular conforming use of property over a period
of time (2) a voluntary compliance with a
zoning ordinance subsequent to the establishment
of a permissible nonconforming use or, (3) intervention
of a conforming use for a sufficient period of
time to justify a conclusion of abandonment of
the former use.
It is submitted that the Limelight Lodge,
in voluntarily supplying off-street parking (overt
act) over an extended period of time has, under the
common law principles described above, abandoned
a corresponding degree of nonconformity and lost
its immunity against application of the off-street
parking requirements for the existing structure.
,
Page Four
Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
A voluntary period of actual conforming use will
break the chain of continuity in the exercise of
nonconforming uses.
Colorado Case law
In Service oil v. Rhodus, 500 P2d 807
(1972) the Colorado Supreme Court overturned the
Denver Buick case's earlier holding that nonconforming
uses could not be terminated, in Rhodus the Court
stated a ruling in harmony with most jurisdictions
to the effect that (1) nonconforming uses may be
terminated by abandonment (2) if an intent to
abandon is shown. See also Beszecles v. Board of
Commissioners of Arapahoe County, 178 P2d 950 (Colo.
1947), Fishman v. Tupps, 257 P2d 579 (Colo. 1953)
and Board of Adjustment of the City and County of
Denver v. Abe Perlmutter Construction, 280 P2d
1107 (1955).
General policies
Generally, one enjoying a nonconforming use
cannot substitute it for one of a less restrictive
nature, cannot increase its intensity of use,
nor extend nor enlarge the same. The policies
behind the doctrines concerning nonconforming
uses are:
1.
nonconforming uses are to
looked upon with disfavor
from the effectiveness of
zoning plan;
be
because the detract
a comprehensive
.
2. nonconforming uses are to be gradually
eliminated, if possible, because they,
in addition to detracting from a zoning
plan, give their owners hidden advantages
or monopolies not enjoyed by the
balance of the community.
The concept of nonconforming uses was adopted
to eliminate manifest injustices or hardships that
may result from forced compliance by a landowner,
of all new zoning ordinances. But if an owner voluntarily
complies he defeats any argument that any new
ordinance creates as economic hardship beyond his
Page Five
Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission
ability to sustain and waives any immunity against
compliance.
Conclusion
I can only conclude that the Limelight
must, for a permit to issue, l~aintain those parking
spaces presently existing needed to support its
present density, and, in addition, supply
any new spaces correlating to the new units to be
constructed.
.
i"'"''''''
,/
.........
P.G. Anderson
P.O. Box 2916
Aspen, Colorado
July 26, 1974
81611
Mr. Spencer Schiffer
Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
P.O. Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Schiffer:
I understand that the agenda for the Commission's meeting
planned for August 6, 1974, includes both preliminary and final
stage consideration of the Limelite Inc. request for a third story
addition to their lodge.
As a concerned adjacent property owner, I have checked the pro-
posed plans and find there are several things which need clarification
before any plans can be submitted for approval. For these reasons,
the Board of Adjustment, in their meeting on July 25th tabled
consideration of the variance requested on number of permitted units.
In view of this, may I request that only the preliminary approval
stage be considered at the August 6th meeting.
Very truly yours,
71'...;./1 ;
~~ ~ c.eoi;~,.~
P.G. Anderson
PA:sj
MAIN MOTIONS
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting
June 11, 1974
LIMELITE LODGE -- Conceptual
Jenkins made a motion to give conceptual approval under
Ordinance 19 to the Limelite Lodge, conditioned upon the
following: that the parking problem be resolved; that
the applicant obtain a variance for the height, and that
the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Board
of Adjustment that they grant the variance; that the Com-
mission take another look at the building bulk and lot
coverage at the preliminary stage; that the Commission give
further consideration to the employee housing at the next
stage. Robert Barnard seconded the motion.
All in favor, motion carried.
r-"
,,"' ",
'....-./
...."J
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Office
SUBJECT: Lime1ite Lodge Addition - Ord. 19 Conceptual Review
DATE: June 4, 1974
Request is for a 3rd story, 14 unit addition to an existing
lodge. Addition will result in a total F.A. of approximately
15,000 sq. ft.
Located on 21,000 sq. ft. of lot in the fringe of the central
area. Lodges are a use by review in the central area, however
the site is designated for lodge use on the updated land use
map.
Existing and additional units bring density up to maximum
under existing code. P. O. is now considering FAR as a
possible criterion for density determination.
28'4" height to accommodate view plane; 2 lots are in AR
zone which permits 28'. A variance will be required.
Additionally detailed elevations should be submitted to
determine bulk/height/lot coverage considerations of IlIA. 2.
Existing code would require 27 spaces. Lodge is well
located for public tr~nsportation and pedestrian modes.
No employee housing is provided.
MEMO
TO: Planning and zoning Commission
FROM: Engineering Department
DATE: July 10, 1974
RE: Limelite Lodge Addition
After reviewing the proposed plans for the construction
of an addition of a third floor on the Limelite Lodge,
I have the following comments:
1. All roof drainage should be run into drywells
or grassed areas.
2. Six foot wide sidewalk should be installed
between the property line and curb. However,
due to the large blue spruce trees between the
curb and property line along Cooper Street, the
sidewalk should be installed between the building
and the trees, partially on the property of the
Limelite. This sidewalk will replace the existing
sidewalk which will be removed during construction.
3. Vertical curb should be installed in an existing
abandoned driveway along Cooper Street.
4. The Owner should agree to participate in
both paving of the adjacent alley and undergrounding
of electric utilities when the City undertakes
such projects.
5. A concrete driveway should be installed between
the curb and the North edge of the proposed side-
walk should the OWner or designer decide that this
driveway is necessary. This driveway presently
goes through to the alley, however, should parking
be installed as shown on the plans, it would no
longer exist at the alley. Should this driveway
be deemed unnecessary, vertical curb should be
installed to close it.
6. Excavation adjacent to the large spruce trees
most certainly will damage the roots of these trees.
The trees are in the public right-of-way and as
such are public property. A qualified nurseryman
should be consulted as to what precautions or
remedial treatment should be used to insure the
best chances for these trees to survive. This advice
should be in written form and submitted to the Building
Department for follow-up.
.
7. The decision of the Board of Appeals and Examiners
(July 11, 1974) to encroach into the "Wheeler Opera
House View Plane" should be considered.
~ ~/02~
Ed Del Duca
Asst. City Engineer
cc: Don Ball, Architect
'I"
May 29, 1974
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
c/o City Planning Office
Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Sirs:
The objectives and purposes of the proposed addition to the
Limelite Lodge include fourteen (14) new limited motel units
to be added in the form of a third story. The present two story
structure contains twenty-five (25) limited units, and one (1)
unlimited unit. The remodeling includes taking one (1) existing
limited unit and adding it to the existing unlimited unit,
therefore increasing the size of the present unlimited unit.
The additional limited units are geared at increasing quality and
quanity of the number of accommodations available to those
tourists wishing to stay close-in while visiting in Aspen.
The location being Cooper and Monarch, should reduce the need
for vehicular transportation thus reducing expenses incurred
by the city for services needed to support that vehicle,
i.e.: snow removal, paving, street signs, and law enforcement.
Additional motel units should assist in increasing the econom-
ic base of Aspen's tourist oriented economy. The present Lime-
lite Lodge zoning designation is a combination of C-l and AR-l.
The information available at this time seems to indicate a
possible rezoning to "Lodge", making the structure an
appropriate land use. Any future transportation system would
more than likely be located in close proximity to the Lime-
lite, therefore establishing a logical location for visitors
to utilize such a service, should such a system materialize.
Since:r..€ly, . //~.
". /~,.y )
" ./ ./' 'I/,': ,/
./ ,/.' - --'
/;:; / r / .:V4rJ7
./ G~~ .
President, Limelite Lodge
pm
x CITY OF N"EN - COUNTY OF PITKIN , COLi>RADO, ' ~ "-:: : 7';1!1 (, It *** 7?1
ADDRESS GENERAL TI
OF JOB CONSTRUCTION
- 233 E. Cooner PERMIT
WHlN SIGNED AND VALIDATED BY t1UllDING INSPECTION DEPARTM[NT THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES THE WORK DESCRIBED BEl.OW.
CLASS OF WORK: NEW 0 ADDITION XJ ALTERATION 0 REPAIR 0 MOVE 0 WRECK 0
OWNER NAMEXIlii~\Fi~U' Box 1089 3025
p.c
XI!JNX ADDRESS PHONE
CI: LICENSE LICENSE
0 NAME (AS LICENSED) Dick Wright CLASS B NUM8ER5045
l-
v INSURANCE
..(
CI: ADDRESS PHONE 0
I-
Z
0 SUPERVISOR
v FOR THIS JOB NAME DATE CERTIFIED
-
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION LOT NO. BLOCK NO. ADDITION
SURVEY ATTACHED 0 DESIGN A LIe.
BY BY PE NO.
AREA (S.F.) I HEIGHT NO. TOTAl. OCCUPANCY
^ T GRADl (FEET) STORIES UNITS GROUP ~ DIV.
BASEMENT FIN 81 GARAGE SINGLE o ATTACHEDO TOTAl. TYPE J_ fiRE
UNFIN. DOUBLE o DETACHED 0 ROOMS CONSTR. tONE
DEPTH FIRST SIZE SPACING SPAN AUTHORIZED
BEl ow AGENCY BY DA TE
Z GRADE FLOOR
0 on BUilDING
I- REVIEW
~ EXTERIOR on
FOOTING 0 CEILING
SIZE ZONING
0 ...
Z EXTERIOR CONC. 0
:;) FDN WALL ROOF PARKING
0 THICKNESS MAS'V 0
"- PUBLIC HEALTH
THICK 0 CAISSONS 0 ROOFING
SLAB & GR. BEAMS MATERIAL
MASONRY ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE ENGINEERING
EXTERIOD THICKNESS 1ST FlR 2ND FLR. 3R(l FLR.
WALL STUD SIZE ABOVE ABOVE ABOVE
& SPACE I$T FLR. 2ND FLR 3RD FLR.
REMARKS Addina 14 motel units and service
area
""~~",,..~.. n_'''~
NOTES TO APPLICANT:
FOR INSPECTIONS OR INFORMATION CAll 'nS-7:J.36
FOR All WORK DONE UNDER THIS PERMIT THE PERMITTEE ACCEPTS FULL RESPONSIBILITY fOR VALUATION
COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION OR CITY OF WORK $ 200 I 000
ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ALL OTHER COUNTY RESOLUTIONS OR CITY ORDINANCES WHICHEVER
APPLIES.
SEPARATE PERMITS MUST BE OBTAINED FOR ElECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND HEATING, SIGNS, PLAN TOTAL FEE
SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES. P -0
PERMIT EXPIRfS 60 DAYS FROM DATE ISSUED UNLESS WORK IS STARHD. FILED T
CHECK 0 437.00
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUESTED ONE WORKING DAY IN ADVANCE. DOU8LE $ 284.05 pl
ALL fiNAL INSPECTIONS SHAll BE MADE ON ALL ITEMS Of WORK BEFORE OCCUPANCY IS PERMITTED. FEE D CASH 0
THIS BUILDING SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED. 0 BUILDING DEPARTMENT
PERMIT SUBJECT TO REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION fOR VIOLATION OF ANY lAWS GOVERNING SAME.
SIGNATURE
OF
APPLICANT: APPROVAL BY DATE
THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY DATE PERMIT NO. LICENSE tI RECEIPTS ClA55 AMOUNT
WHEN VALIDATED HERE )
5-31-7~ 224-74
o
BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
o
5
(4/&5) 2 8.1.
k.
1t..lcnr.rTr'\nl(" r_nv
-,-'-~I--<------~--'
SPEED LETTER@
TO _Il.f?ppn Fi ..nmllg--ancL <.oning. ('OllJlJ.lJ.5SJ.on
FROM i.spen ~tation ~et-------
B ox.-ll--
Box-!:i~----- .-----
!iSPIOllrGol-Gr-ado 01611
-----AB-Ilenr-G-G-l-Grade---B l6-H
SU~!ECUAmel.:i-te--Lodge
~-No_ 9 & \0 [-OLl>
MESSAGE
DATE June 18
19'1-4-
-------'rho .^.opel'l--i'ianitati-on-lh-str~fia&- boon nakod to comment on all aJJi Lion 1;0 --
--th€-bHlel-i-'t; ~e-. - - There---i-s-suf;f-ieien-t--J.i-ne---and plant capaci L;Y to---
-- -seT"q-ee--'this--a4di-t-ion, however until the- Aspen---6ani~ion dis LL i-ci; -plant
--- eBffiplew-s--the
_<eo,"" repam_ ad<fi4aonol~_---- -
----- - - __m - ~'G~- '__. cP . ~
REPLY
DATE
_~_19___ _
---UNo. 9 FOLD
.~No. 10 FOLD
SIGNED---...------.-----.-
I GravtiDe I "SNAf.A-WAY" IoU: 44.902 31'ARTS
WILSON JONES COMPANY ~ i& 196\ . PRINTED IN U.S.A.
RETAIN WHITE COPY, RETURN PINK COPY
973
::
, ~ i
,
i:
,
I;
"
:i
!l
I,
'.
..
i:
!]
"
..
,I
,I
II
II
,I
'I
"
il
I
i ,i
! j
i
" I
I
i
I i
I I
,
I
I
I
I
'I
i
I
,1
"'-"""
---
.
'"
:,:i:
:...
ROCKY MOUNTAIN NA TURAl GAS COMPANY. INC.
P.O. 110)( ROaD . A8Pl!!.... COLO"AOO .'$'1 . (303) .2D.'323
To Whom It May Concern:
ordinai~^ ~t
CLime~ight Addition
Lot -1., blk 'R-
Monarch & Cooper
Aspen, Colo.
I,.,
i~
I
I.
I
ocky Mountain Natural Gas Company
time and will be unable to serve a
However, when this moratorium is
of a 11 be happy to se
(3rd floor>)
as a moratorium in effect at this
new services until it is lifted.
fted we will have an ..pIe supply
your project.
J)~~,
,/
~~,.e&~
District Manager
l
~~fl). ,k~ eL<~
v{~~
.'
- ..~~. -'~'~-""'_._' -----,' .
....T__...,',.{;,....,_.
I'
II
I
I
I
!
;:PC'J. ~/r- 7;j
/
{~ o--k.
r, '. ,~ ~ ~
,;-">
.
t,
" "
,....
-..'
CITY OF ASPEN
aspen ,colorado, 81611 hox V
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
The City of Aspen hereby 1- . selectric
service for the project under Ordinance 19
review listed below.
Thomas Maddalone
Electric Department Di}?ector
~bjitfM;r
TCO/crnc
,-.. e.,-..,,~!.[~=.t~._
Regular Meeting
Limelite - C..",. :'::-tual
/
Motion
Outline Development Plan'
Mountainedge
~.
",. .".
'"'".f
.:J OF P'-iOC::':':",::;CS
~ CO Leaves
ASDC~ P:2nning & Zon~n~
September .L.
Geri Vagneur leaves.
Applicant '~l< ~~:......--:s a:--,c: his archit7::C-- .~ ..,
submitted rC'/L"___ c:.:'1S allowing for ,: ':Ccc::"'c_it
addi tion to the S:. :,': c, 0.1 Lodge. In the proposcQ plan,
three stories would be ~tilised with the bottcill as
parking and the top t.",o floors for u;-,i': 3 ,.'i '.:, no
fireplaces or kitch~ns. It was note~ t~-- -~---~
would he no he:.ight problems involved. The Li...c' it",
~l'1;; 27 units no":':.
Hr. Paul ,.,,- ~:-50n, representing the 210 Cooper Buildin(
stated t"..: c ::is group \vas opposed to the proposal
because of the parking problems already existing in
that area. He sited that the the 210 Gooper building
supplied 19 parking spaces for their residents and
that during the winter and even the summer, the
parking spaces were filled with the Limeli te' s over-'.
flow of cars. He presented pictures taken the weekend
before and was asked if he could positively identify
the cars in his parking lot with customers of the
Limelite. Mr. Anderson answered in the affirmative as
he had seen the people unloading their cars and walkinc
into the Lodge.
Paas stated that he hadn't used the open land for
parking before but could in future since it had
been covered with gravel.
Barnard moved that conceptual approval be granted cu._
Jenkins seconded. Collins, Schiffer and Johnson were
opposed so the motion did not carry.
Chuck Vidal came before the Commission to ask for thei:
recommendations so that Council would have some idea
how the P & Z felt about the tr~ee proposed alterna-
tives offered by Mountainedge developers. .
It was noted that there was no guarantee thatClarendol
or Ute Village might not be tied up in lawsuits for
a long time. .
Jenkins questioned the time-share concept which basi-
cally means purchasing the right to live in the unit
for a certain amount of time but not purchasing it
entirely, in this way taxes and costs arc shared. The
members thought that this idea was not in keeping with
long term housing policy.
Pollution was also mentioned since design plans fea-
tured fireplaces in the units. A survey showed that
one unit had an average use of 4 cords of wood per
season which created much of the pollution but this
survey had been question with the result of lowering
the amount of wood consumed in the new survey and
naming the rc~l problem as being the automobile.
eot.~
Barnard r'~--":'[]"cd a study session with Council to find
out their feelings. ScLiffer did not feel that any
thing was accomplished when they had study sessions
with Council.
.
Schiffer
sals b:.c..
that he didn't li~ . '~v of the propo-
~ t:::,cmed to confori:: ','. t..hf~ proposed
.,
, ,............
,/"""0".
. - .,
.......,
,.,.,.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
,~~.. 11 t.', flCf(KlL I. ~. I!o l. 'J.
Regular Heeting
Aspen Planning and Zoning
August 6, 1974
P.U.D. :
Mountainedge
The City Attorney informed the Commission that
negotiations for annexation before the City Council
would be on next week's Council Agenda but she advisee
them not to take official action at this time due to
uncertain validity.
Chuck Vidal advised the members that their decision
would be at his own risk. At that time he went over
the memorandum put out by the Planning Office in an
attempt to convince the members of his good intentionE
Ms. Baer sited sections d and f under Intentions as
the major objections. She stated that the density
and resulting congestion were not in harmony with the
rest of the neighborhood and that under proposed
rezoning the area of Garmisch and Juan streets would
be used as boundaries for high density tourist devel-
opment.
Jenkins moved that they deny Mountainedge PUD for the
same reasons as under Ordinance 19 and Barnard seconde
All in favor, motion carried.
Ordinance 19 Review:
K.S.N.O
KSNO asked for an exemption for a building permit so
that they could move to the white house on 600 E.
Hopkins and make some external changes to the buildinS
such as moving the door from one side to the other.
Under the parking memorandum sent out by Yank Mojo,
three parking spaces would have to be provided for the
eleven employees.
Collins moved that exemption be gran red on the provisc
that three parking spaces be provided and Barnard
seconded. All ill favor, motion carried.
Tom Merrill
This was a one level duplex in which applicant would
like to build a bedroom and bath in a proposed second
level.
Members only objection was that it could at some time
in the future be made into a triplex simply by adding
external stairs but Merrill assured them that his
sale contract would have a stipulation against that.
Vagneur moved that they grant exemption under the
condition that final plans be made available to them
and Landry seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
Christiania
preliminary and final plans were submitted for a
proposed duplex.
A discrepancy was noted between the plans and the
official survey in which a cabin was supposed to be
ten feet away from the duplex is in reality only
three feet away.
h
",
Barnard moved to table until stakes were put in the
ground and an on-site inspection could be made and
also accurate plans were submitted. Jenkins seconded,
motion carried.
Lime11
Conceptual approval had been granted to add fourteen
units to the Skiview Lodge but a height variance had
already been turned down by the Board of Adjustments.
-2-
.
'OR"''' C-', "'F~fl ~_~,... l_ C~.
Regular Meeting
Limelite,
continued
620 Hyman
, ,.......
',.,
/ >
,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Aspen Planning and Zoning
August- 6, 1974
Ms. "Baer reiterated the concern over the parking
situation and said that since the building had gone
up in 1955 before any parking requirements, the
Planning Office had originally believed that no spaceE
had to be provided. Since then the City Attorney
had ruled that it was to be considered abandonment
of a non-conforming use and that not only would they
have to maintain the present lot as a parking area
but also provide additional space for the new units.
Johnson stated that the Commission would have to see
new plans because they couldn't accept the old ones
based on Ms. Stuller's legal opinion.
Architect Don Ball attempted to point out to the
Commission that the parking area was not legally
considered a parking area but rather open space and
that the owner could use it as he chose.
Johnson advised the applicant that he could either
wi thdraw his plans or they would ,.,.have to turn them
down officially.
The applicant withdrew his plan for resubmission as
modified.
Applicant did not show for his presentation.
Jenkins moved to adjourn the meeting and Barnard
seconded.
Meeting was adjourned at 5:41 p.m,
R6i~~etary
~
,
-3-
/,-,-.,~
"- ,#
REC."'. .F PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
1'011"50 C.F.rtOECKEL8.0.&L,CO.
Aspen Board of Zoning Adjustment
July 25, 1974
Meeting was called to order by Chairman John DUkes at 3:20 p.m. with
Charles Paterson, Remo Lavagnino, Gilbert Colestock and Fred Smith
present. Also in attendance was Building Inspector Meyring.
CASE NO. 74-24, LIMELITE, INC.
Chairman Dukes opened the public hearing on the above case by askin
Mr. Glenn Paas if he had anything further to state as justification
for granting the two variance requests. The Board had had the
opportunity to make an on-site inspection of the Wheeler Opera House
view plane prior to the public hearing. It was also verified that
the figures for open space had been checked by Building Inspector
Meyring; he and Don Ball of Caudill & Associates had reached an
agreement as to the method of figuring and the figures. It was for
these two reasons that this case had been tabled previously.
The figures had been amended because the proposed addition was
discovered to be on a short block, that is less than the usual 210
foot block. The original plans had been for 14 additional units,
these plans were no'" altered to l2l.j units. In the new figures, the
existing parking on Lots E, F, G, and H would be eliminatec with 8
parking stalls to be located on AR-l zoned land.
Smith asked City Attorney Stuller if, even though the original
structure was' build prior to the 1956 parking requirements and the
mere fact that they do have parking; it was not acceptable now
to tear up that parking for an open space credit in the C-l district.
City Attorney Stuller was in agreement with Mr. Smith. That unless
they maintain their parking and offer additional parking for the
additional units, they would allow it to become more non-conforming
over a long period of time.
Lavagnino suggested that the variance requests be tabled until a
decision had been reached by P & Z as to density, he did not feel
that a blanket variance could be granted until the Board knew what
P & Z planned to do.
Mr. Paas stated that, at this point, a decision would have to be made
by either P & Z or the Board of Adjustment so that he could work with
the other.
Mr. Paas asked if a decision could be reached on
and eliminate the density problem at this time.
agreement to settling the view plane request.
the view plane variance
The Boar- was in
t
I
I
Mr. Smith stated that he was not ready to vote on a variance until
density had been determined.
Chairman Dukes invited questions and comments from the floor.
Sandy Johnston only asked that the Board realize that a positive
decision on this case would set precedence on view plane variances~-
she felt that a foot would make a difference.
The Board informed her that precedence was not a determinant in Board
of Adjustment decisions. Each case is handled individually.
Britt Tita explained that the proposed addition would affect her
view of Wagner Park. She hadn't realized how much worse it would
be until the red flags had gone up.
Nina Johnston felt that the City would continue establishing view
J. "
.
planes and this proposed structure would destroy any plans for a
view from Wagner to the west.
Chairman Dukes closed the public hearing.
Colestock moved to deny application for variance to have addition
to Limelite project into the view plane starting from the Wheeler
Opera House; in addition, the building can be erected without
variance approval. No hardship nor unusual circumstances are shown
and granting a variance will not serve best needs or interests of
surrounding property owners. Smith seconded. Roll call vote -
Smith aye; Colestock aye; Lavagnino nay; Paterson aye; Dukes aye.
Motion carried.
CASE NO. 74-27, CARLSON HOUSE APPEAL
Chairman Dukes opened the public hearing. A stop order was issued
by the Building Inspection Department because although the west
wall of the building was set back 5 feet, the. mansard encroached
2 feet on the 5 foot set back. Former Inspector Bill Ward had
approved the rough-in on May 9, 1974 and had issued the building
permit.
The mansard is considered a wall in the building code as per Building
Inspector Meyring. There is an 18" allowance for roof overhangings
but a mansard is not considered a roof-overhanging.
Architect Fischer explained that he and the contractor had honestly
tried to do the right thing. He felt there would be a definite
hardship if the mansard had to be cut back to the 5 foot set back
because it would create a flat sided abortion, an eyesore to the
neighborhood.
The following letter was received by the Board from Paul Seymour, Jr. ,.
Kurt Oppens, Herman Bidel, Loyal Durand.
"We have received notice from the Board and a photo of
the almost completed project. We have no objection to the
new roof of the Carlson residence."
In addition, Mr. Loyal reiterated the neighbors original concern that
the present remodeling of the Carlson house not result in an apartment
arrangement that could be used in the future as a triplex.
Mrs. Anna Salter, who resides at 4th and North was present to state
that she was not opposed to granting the variance just to get the
contractors out of the neighborhood. She feels that broken down trucks,
trailers, and litter of nails and scrapes should come to an end soon.
Chairman Dukes closed the public hearing.
Paterson moved that approval be granted this variance since special
conditions and circumstances in this case do not result from the
actions of the applicant since the Building Inspector's office had
approved the rough-in drawings according to our official inspection
records. Colestock seconded. Roll call vote - Smith aye; Colestock
aye; Lavagnino aye; Paterson aye; Dukes aye. Motion carried.
CASE NO. 74-28, RBH BUILDING
Chairman Dukes opened the public hearing. Mr. Lavagnino read the
following letter submitted by County Attorney J. Nicholas McGrath
to the Board and the audience.
-2-
'-
-...I
.
.
r"'....
\..~
,,~.....,~
',.."
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
FORM!! C.F.HQECKELB.8.&l.CO.
Board of Adjustment, July 25, 1974, Continued
Dear Mr. Dukes:
The above-numbered case, involving an application for
a variance by Messrs. Walls and Sterling on behalf of the
RBH Joint Venture will be heard today at 3:00 p.m.
Notice of the variance hearing was mailed to the
County by letter postmarked July 19. It was not received
by the County and forwarded to me until Tuesday, July 23.
Under Section 2-22 of the Aspen Municipal Code, that is
almost the minimum possible notice. More importantly,
the notice arrived so that there is no intervening meeting
of the Pitkin County Commissioners, who meet, as you know,
on Mondays. Therefore, I must formally ask on behalf
of Pitkin County that the hearing be continued, on the
ground that the County has no sufficient opportunity to
assess the application and its possible effects upon
Pitkin County's interests. I gather from talking with
Sandra Stuller that the application could affect traffic
flow in the vicinity of the pitkin County Courthouse.
Therefore, I would like the opportunity to review the
application in detail and to raise the matter with the
Commissioners on Monday, July 29...
Clark, Oates, Austin & McGrath
County Attorneys
By /s/ J. Nicholas McGrath
Jack Walls of the architectural firm of Walls & Sterling, representing
RBH Joint Venture suggested that based on the above letter that approval
be contingent with County approval. All of.the Board members agreed that
a courtesy could be extended the County in this case.
Bob Sterling pointed that proceedings of obtaining approval had started
in January. The County Commissions had had an opportunity to reach
a decision since that time, in fact, they had suggested that no parking
be provided at that time.
Mr. Walls proceeded to present his case. Their variance request was
with regard to the off-street parking ordinance. Two options were
suggested to RBH Joint Venture by the P & Z Commission on July 16, 1974.
These options were (1) to supply on site off-street parking based
on existing code and (2) to apply for a variance so that existing
required parking could be leased from the City. Theirs is a low
density office space building. 45,000 square feet will be available
for rental after the owners have been established in their respective
offices.
Smith suggested that it should go on record that parking variances
are based on current parking regulations until such time as they change.
Previous approvals (Coates, Dags, Shellman & Eubanks as well as the
Vroom Building) should be interpreted as to current parking requirements.
C~irman Dukes closed the public hearing.
Smith moved to grant the requested variance to permit the applicant
to lease his off-street parking requirement (based on current code)
from the City because the granting of a variance is essential to
the enjoyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by other
properties in the same vicinity and zone but denied the subject property
because of the special conditions and extraordinary circumstances.
Lavagnino further added, a condition for granting this variance, as
a courtesy to the County, is to allow them the opportunity to voice
any objections, at their July 29 meeting. At the end of such
-3-
r
]
meeting, if no objections are recorded, the variance will become
effective. Paterson seconded. Roll call vote - Smith aye;
Colestock aye; Lavagnino aye; Paterson aye; Dukes aye. Motion carried.
Paterson moved that the meeting be adjourned. Lavagnino seconded;
all in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
R~tk~dt~01
-'
....,.
.
,"" ...
/"""'\
"...J"
'-....,.,,-
HECOHO OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
C' "
__ __.m
u...','o__,_.____
. ____ __ __ - ,_, _..~ . _u _ . _
._.._---_._---~.._.
..'-----_.... ...--- _._---~._~~_..,.._--~---_._---..------- ..'- ..------ _.---,-----
_._.....,____,..__._ . ._.____~__... _____.___'__'___ .-__u.____ ~__..U .,~__.,._
Aspen Board of Zoning Adjustment
July 18, 1974
Meeting "as called to order by Chairman John Dukes at 3 :25 p.m. with Charles
Paterson, Remo Lav:'gnino, Gilbert Colestock and Fred Smith present.
CASE NO. 74-22, RALPH MELVILLE
This case had previously been presented at the prior meeting, July 11, 1974.
Mr. Melville I s request for a variance is to extend the present center section
of an existing lodge 10 feet west and 2~ stories high. The space is needed
for a more usable manager's quarters.
Chairman Dukes asked if there was anything further that Mr. Melville might
like to present or discuss. ~lr. ~lelville felt that his case had been
presented completely. Chairman Dukes then asked the floor if there were
any questions from the floor, particularly from the County representative.
There were no further questions or discussion.
Chairman Dukes closed the public hearing.
Lavagnino moved to grant the request to build an addition to a non-conforming
building and to build wi thin 4' 6" of the front lot line. This variance wi 11
not increase occupant density, is minimal and will not adversely affect the
general purpose of the comprehensive general plan. Smith seconded.
Roll call vote - Paterson aye; Lavagnino aye; Colestock aye; Smith aye; Dukes
aye. Motion carried.
CASE NO. 74-24, LIMELITE, INC.
Chairman Dukes reopened the public hearing. This case as the Melville case
had been tabled until the County could be given proper notice of the public
hearing. There were two variance requests to be considered: (1) view
plane exception. The proposed third story would project 1 foot into the
view plane. The variance Ivould be needed for the first 38 feet of the 172
foot north elevation and the first 28 feet of the 85 foot east elevation.
(2) An exception to the density/zoned area.
Correction was made on the appellant's appeal form on the description of
the property. There is no Lot I as stated on the form--it should read Lot J.
Mr Glenn Paas, owner and Don Ball of Caudill Associates presented the appellant's
case. Mr. Paas stated that the building can be built only 4 inches into the
view plane as opposed to the original request of 1 foot by eliminating the
cants on the roof.
The board asked how the 1 foot into the view plane was calculated. Mr. Paas
said that the figures were estimated by Tri-Co in a professional survey.
Smith pointed out that in the Bergman Building when it was determined that
the proposed building was projecting out into the view plane that the plans
were altered. He felt that the Board should consider what kind of precedence
was being set.
Lavagnino questioned the effect on the view plane, he suggesting tabling the
. case until such time as a temporary facade for estimation purposes could be
erected.
Dukes would also like to see what type of obstruction is presented.
Paterson sllggest<'d 2" x .1" pl<lced to the proposed height I,ith a red flag
at the tip "hereby the visual effect could be detenuined. The Board could
for an on-site inspection prior to the next regular meeting, July 25.
r"
"""
"
Don Ball explained the request for variance for densi ty/ zoning. This
lodge is presently divided by AR-l and C-l zoning in the middle of Room 3
of the proposed thil'd floor addition. The lodge is unique in that usually
zoning is by street boulld"ries \,her"as the ZOlllllg is in the middle of the
block; this disrupts the ). ,JlHling [or the neh floor--they hould like to
vertically align the plumbi 109.
Smith questioned their calculation of open space. Paterson felt that
after .the BOClrd figured a ro::gh estinwtion of open space tlll're \,as a big
discrepancy between the Board's figures and those on the plans.
Chairman Dukes questioned Building Inspector Meyring on the Limelite's figures
and whether he had checked them. Mr. Meyring had not and Iwuld do so the
coming week.
Smith stated that the present parking area should definitely not be considered
in their calculations.
Mr. Paas stated that these were preliminary plans and at the time they were
prepared there was no idea of the parking requirement. He stated that the
requirement was now determined--lO spaces.
Smith questioned whether they were to have no parking for the existing
building.
Verbatim:
Paterson: Was this what P & 2 requires?
"
Lavagnino: Who gave you the figure of 10, P & 2?
Paas: If we were before the ordinance, we were.
Paterson: I don't understand how they could go back to 1956 for the parking
requirement when they were proposing a new structure, don't the
present rules have to be applied.
Paas: We are providing parking for the new building--not for the existing
building.
Anderson: Where do the people go that have been parking there now?
Paas: I don't want to get into what the P & 2 wants to do or anything else.
It was suggested to us that we have no parking and we're just going
along with whatever they ask us to do. If you have any probl('ms on that,
talk to P & 2. They are telling us 10 spaces, we are not going to fight
with them about that.
Smith: We have alot of problems on that Glenn because unless adequate parking
is provided, we are not prepared to grant any variances.
End of verbatim.
Smith felt that the 10 spaces are in addition to the existing parking. Mr.
Paas stated that they were planning to cut down what they have now to 10 spaces.
It was determined that the figure of 10 was from an article in the Aspen Times
dated July 1, 1956. Mr. Ball handed Chairman Dukes the minutes for the June 11,
1974 P & 2 meeting in which conceptual approval was given the Limelite Lodge.
He read the motion made by Mr. Jenkins and approved by all.
.Mr. Paterson read other portions of the June 11th
minutes handed to him by someone in the audience.
he thought would be of interest to the Board.
meeting from a copy of the
There were several items
-2-
I
,
.
c
..-.,
-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
_:~."!,_':' : F~~(~fL a. e~_~.:..::C}~.:::=,.....:
--_. _.._~-------_. .'.----
- ~-----,_._---~---
.',.--------- - --~._-_.._...,"-
"_.._-----~--~---
--~--~._----~~-_._----~_....._- -- --_.._--~-
- -~---_..._.._..-
Bd. of .""";1:::t::lcnt, 7/18/7'1, continued
The board asked Meyring to check the figures. They would again look at
the case when this was accomplished.
Chaiman Dukes asked those present in the audience for their comments.
Paul Anderson who resides at 210 Cooper and also President of the Condominium
Association explained the breakdown of residents at the 210 Cooper Condominiums
10 of these units are used by pemananent residents of Aspen. He explained
how much money was paid in taxes by these condominiums. He felt that
this variance request would be a landmark in that it was the first decision
on a vieK plane. He explained the density problem in the area. 210 Cooper
provides 24 parking spaces but alot of the lodges do not. He mentioned
that once in tahng to '~he Fire Marshall that a fire truck could not possibly
get thru because of the parking problem. He also stated that the appellant
had not had the list of condominium owners on his original list of adjacent
property owners.
It was requested that correspondence on this case be entered into the minutes.
Letters from Joseph Tita and James Scull were read--they were against granting
the variance.
"
County representative Johnson stated that the County would not like to take
a position. She did present her personal opinion. As a resident of 210 Cooper,
she felt that Ordinance 17 established the view plane for the tourists and
residents and that no variance be granted into that view plane.
Louis Raphael, who lives on the east side but uses Wagner, Michael Ohnmacht,
Britt Tita were against granting the variance.
Sandy Johnston stated that a parking problem in already generated by the
Chart House, Blue Spruce, Crystal Palace and the Mother Lode.
Marion Ingle who resides at 210 Cooper would be worried about the safety
of her children by adding density to an already over density area.
Susan Trueman felt that if no recourse could be gotten thru City Boards that
she felt the condominum owners would continue to express their dissension
thru legal action, if necessary.
Paas stated that they were not there to discuss the desirability of the
third floor. They were there as stated on the appeal form.
Lavagnino told the audience that the jurisdiction of the Board was limited
in the interpretation of a variance request, he suggested that these people
present their ideas to the P & Z Commission.
Paterson further clarified the Boards jurisdiction by reading the reasons
for granting a variance.
It was the Boards request that the minutes of this meeting be forwarded to
the P & Z Commission and also a letter sent to them asking that their wishes
be made known to the Board of Adjustment when they refer cases to them.
The case was tabled until an on-site inspection could be made and when
new figures could be furnished to the Board by the Building Inspector.
-3-
I'"
-
~
"
CASE NO. 74 - 26, EM! L Y STEVENS
Chairman Dukes opened Case No. 74-26. No one was present to present the
appellants request to rebuild a shed where the old one stood, an exception
to the new set-back requirements.
Fred Braum of the ~loutain Rescue was against granting the variance because
it hampered the access of emergency vehicles used by the rescue team, especially
in the ..inter months when they would have to clear SIlO.. before vehicles
could get out.
Hr. Paterson, who was familiar with the property stated that there was no
hardship--there was sufficient land for another site for the shed as well
as anothC'r shed on the property. He thought the case could be heard because
it was clear cut.
Building Inspector Meyring stated that the present foundation was 7 to 8 incr.es
into City right-of-way.
Chairman Dukes closed the public hearing.
Smith moved to deny the variance because no hardship or practical difficult~es
were demonstrated and because the existing encroachment impedes plowing and access
of emergency vehicles turning in the alley. Also the best interest of the
property would not be met by granting this variance. Colestock seconded.
Roll call vote - Paterson aye; Lavagnino aye; Colestock aye; Smith aye;
Dukes aye. Motion carried.
CORRESPONDENCE
<
Building Inspector Meyring submitted a letter addressed to the Board by Ms.
Margaret Cantrup. She requested reconsideration on a single family dwelling
only on her newly established non-conforming lot.
The Board would like to address a letter to Ms. Cantrup explaining that
financial considerations cannot be deliberated by this Board for any further
variance requests.
Gilbert Colestock leaves.
MINUTES
In approving the minutes for the June 6 and June 13, 1974 minutes, Remo
Lavagnino questioned the action t~ken by the City Attorney in drawing up
a resolution on Chateau Blanc, he was informed by Smith that the City
Attorney was waiting on legal papers to be furnished by him. Lavagnino
felt that action should be taken on the resolution without submittals by the
applicant at this time.
Fred Smith would like to refrain from further discussion because of a
conflict of interest.
Lavagnino moved that a seventh item be added to the resolution on Case No.
74-17, Chateau Blanc--waive two parking spaces. He then moved that the
June 6 and 13 minutes be approved as amended. Paterson seconded. All in
favor except Smith, who abstained.
Paterson moved that the meeting be adjourned; Smith seconded. All in favor.
The meeting was adjoumed at 6:00 p.m.
~ ~
U
/J.-?,I,V
.' fi:liit;Yecre ary
'.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Re"ul"F_~!,eting
'0..... (,F."""""9....l.q.
Vroom Building -
Preliminary, continued
Limelite Lodge Addition -
conceptuay
. '
.
ASPo:.,,-Pl,,:~ning ~nd z_oning
June 4, 1974
.AIl in favor, motion carried.
Johnson made u motion to give preliminary approval
to the Vroom Building, under Ordinance 19, upon
the following conditions: that the lower floor and
corruncrcial use should be restricted to pcd(~strian,
tourist oriented uses and these should be designated
by the applicant; that the applicant agree to comply
with all the Engineering Department recomccndations
which the Corrunission had on a memo dated May 6, 1974:
that the applicant submit brick samples to the
Historic Preservation Committee pursuant to their
request; and that the applicant agree to comply with
whatever parking requirements may be established.
Jenkins seconded the motion.
All in favor, motion carried.
Ms. Baer stated that this was a third story addition
to the existing Lirnelite Lodge. Existing zoning
was C-l and AR. The loqge was also restricted in
height by the Wheeler Opera House view plane. A
variance for about four' inches would be required.
The request was for fourteen additional units. This
would be maximum density for current zoning.
Ms. Baer further informed the Commission that if the
building was built after 1956, it would need to
provide on site parking, which would require 27
spaces.
Ms. Baer stated that height and bulk should be ad-
dressed. Including the new addition, there would
be approxi~ately 15,000 sq. ft. of floor area on
a 21,000 sq. ft. lot.
Landry made a motion that the project be tabled
until the Commission has the Planning Office's
recommendations on the square footage and parking
recommendation presented to the Planning and Zoning
Commission, not necessarily acted upon. Johnson
seconded the motion.
Jenkins stated that the lodge community needed en-
couragement to upgrade this type of facility.
Condominiums have really been a problem to these
businesses. He further stated that at the concep-
tual presentation, the Commission could consider
this further, and not ,table for t~iese reasons'
but consider them at another stage.
Schiffer stated that if density was to be considered,
it must be considered at the conceptual stage.
Mr. paas stated that no motel had been built in this
town for the last six or seven years, as this type
of project was not economically feasible. He
further stated that during the past few years, there
had been criticism of the qualit~Of the motel units
in town. '-... ~..
. ~
A vote was taken on the motion to table. Commission
members Collins, Lunc1ry, and Johnson, yes, Schiffer.,
Barnard, and Jenkins, no. Motion NOT carried.
-7-
,
.
"
RECORD OF Pf10CEED:r;G~.
1 00 Lc~vcs
Regu!_~~~:2.~tin9
:.:...~'~.:~;._.;.;-'-~. ";-'~~"-~'_~=~..:..;.=----====..==_-=-====--=---=.:=-_--=--=-====~:'_-'_=-'C ;:.-...;;....:::=-==~----:.==-..===-----,-.:.-c-:_
Aspen Planning and Z~ni nq
June 4, 197_:~
Limelite Lodge Addition
COllccptuul, continued
CDES Building -
Preliminary Reevaluation
620 Hyman Building
---- -~_._.__._..-
--- ~-_. - - -- -"--
Jenkins noted that this wns n much less dense usa of
the land than ot.her builJinq::::, ilnd W<J.S less inten~;e
use of the l~nd. He further stated that u lodge
could not be sUJ)portcd with muel. less d: nsity.
Schiffer noted that another co"nsideration was the
height and the bulk. He stated that he was unsure
whether consideration of this should be donG at tIlis
stage.
Johnson noted tha.t this was the re:1son for his vote to
table. He felt he \-las unsure of vhat they \-lere talk-
ing about in respect. to this prolr-:ct. Barnard sug-
gested going out and taking a look at this project.
Ms. Baer also asked what the Commission would want to
consider in regard to the number of parking spaces
for the lodge. She stated that 27 spaces would be
required, with the 2 to 3 ratio nOW required by the
code. Schiffer stated that this could be considered
at another stage.
Johnson made a motion that the Commission table the
Limelite Lodge conceptual presentation until June 11,
1974. Seconded by Barnard.
Jenkins asked what was being considered in the motion
to table. It was stated that the only consideration
was to go see the site of the project.
All in ~avor, motion carried.
Tabled at request of applicant.
.;.'.
Ms. Baer stated that she had informed Kit Mason that
the board was not interested in hearing the same
building plans again. However, Mr. Mason had under-
stood that the board was requesting some figures and
comparisons with the adjacent buildings, which had
been established. Mr. Mason stated that they wished
to present this information to the board for their
direction.
Schiffer stated that under Ordinance 19, if a project
was denied, the Conunission could not reconsider the
disapproval now. The only way it could have been re-
considered would be if one of t;1e members on the pre-
vailing side of the motion, had .:1qde a motion to
reconsider at that meeting or at the next regular
meeting. It was already past the point where the
original building could be reconsidered.
Schiffer further mentioned that he felt I1r. Mason
was asking the Commission what they would approve or
disapprove. lIe suggested that he turn to the Planning
Office for direction.
Mason stated that he \';.:15 willing to mokG some con-
cessions for a building that may bQ approved.
'.. ~~....
. -
Barnurd stated thut this waD the job of the I'lunning
Office.
-8-
w
.
>
"
.
-'
o
o
c
'"
<.:J
Z
o
"'
"'
"
o
c::
0-
...
o
o
c::
o
"
"'
"
(I
~ I! ~I
3 !i ~~
Q II ~I
o II ~.
(I
(
'"
<.:J
Z
o '"
~ c
'-' r:ll
g ~j
Co '~i
~ ~j
~ !..'I ill
~ Ii ~
"
II
"
1 I
II
Ii
:1;
II
~
~
~
~
,
.
.
'"
~
....
.
o
o
..,
.
..,-
o
.
"''''
.~ '8
..~
....
~"
...
" .
.
"
. "
.. 0
"..
0'"
. .
~"
. .
'"
"'~
. w
" .
. 0
"0
.
.
..0
..
'" .
.
..
."
'"
."
".
.0
"'.
..... c
. ...
0" 0.
O-..! III
0.0<
.
0<
'll
o
.
~
'"
.
. . 0
..... 0'10
j Ii
.0
.... ""
III ....0.
.... .....ru
o .0
. ..
~o
'" "u
o
.-
o
o
N
.
...
""-
..........loi
..... .
o~
"U~
o 0
..""
.. . '"
,- ....
.."..
o . .
"'...
U"
. 0
o ."
c"'"
0"0<
0..
"'...
""
C <C'r!
."'u
.
""'"
..-1 I-l C
. . .
".0
U 0 "
~ .
. .
o .",
.....\1)
> . .
,_ c
..'" C
.::J C 0
c;::::
...,
~ "
. ~ ~
;:.. II C
o C
!"- t') m
~ ~
.. .c..
,.-, c
0"
.oJ,"-!:;
.';l C It'
.<.::...'
" 0 .
;:)1"':).....
'" .
" 0 .
Olll<t
:-.
Ol-l.!:
""'''
..
~ ~~ '"
el'....
.I:...
,;,\1.'"
u <I' ~;
" "
. "
" .
'" 0 ./..'
.'~' el'
:', 10 ~ ~
':;\11'1'
..........J
>Jf'
~, I ~ '{'1
':' (' C
:.~ U III
..
~,'
"I
"0:1
..
~I
u:
~;j
.
.
.
.
..
..
. '.
.
.0
..0
.
c..
'.0
.0
0'"
.0
.
0''''
'" .
00
.... c
o
.0
.. .'"
" C
. .
".0.
.0..
....
"0<
o
"'."
...
""'"
o .
"..'"
. 0 0
"
""0
. c 0
..cQJ'.)
" . .
" 0'.
o.
.. . .
.0
. .
c "''''
....I-l.....
~ 1Il:J
c.... 0
. ..
..,..
"
. ..
. . "
...0
,-
0."
"0.
~ .
. "
"'~o
-...!.....'ll
.... "
. .
"'0.
....."
00
o C 0
...
"'..
C " 0
.20.:
II: E 0
lI:l 0....
.,..jlo.lll'l
~~ g;.
oc~c
U 0 x.....
.....4)'0
." ~
.ca."::l'.-l
.j.J E 0 :;:l
o~'"
""' X-.-l
.... C r: '1J
... c
1:~ ~
'"
Wl/l.j,.J
It' ~ ~ QJ
v.c
""'c'.".....
C' III 0
O\lllll-o'tl
co tl ~5
QI:'.!:
1Il.c.c11>
;...:...........a
"
.
"
"
'"'
..r:m ':'
1\l......P;;
..
o . C
(I) II ~...
c....
QJ't'+'
cr:n.
.........n
:--'tlC'
.....""'"
OQloJ
:'2 ~
o6-l 0> 0 III
.r-
e III 1Il e
o.r: ~
0"'''
'" 0"
""'..
.. k
.c.r:>'1lI
"'..
C C ::l.....
;,o.....w
0.... lI) :J
"'. ..
.0
G,)...........c
~ ~ 15 g
u 0 C E
uo
~ Ok
.-IQ.flZllll
.. ~
Q).....cu.....
o .. 0
":........'0
o.
c.c""'/C
..... U III
'" "0
"".,........
00 .
.0.....
..... '.-l:;:l
o 0
.c c .. lot
.j.J1Iltl'....
0..0
'OtIl.... .
QJ<~tIlE
.j.J C li.I ::l
0""'..... I;;"...-l
ca.c'Cc
+.I 0,""
>,rn .....5
1-0 W 1-0 0
'00\''''''''0
C'Olli<:1:
l'llO.C:J:O
...:!.....+.I...u
'"
c .
~".
". .
... ....
..... CII C I
ceo>.
o ......0
....~
,u1tlC.41
1ll....CII.c
..c U u +.I
"..
0..0
,. "
. .
\l..lCll.c:+.I
.... .
.",+.1 IV
.. .e
O\l..l 11)'"
Uloer.::
'. .
c IV" e
.0 .
. ~.
1-0+.1.....1:
....O.cl'll
.."
.. .
UCIl+.lIol
..clll.....
." 0
o '" ""
.... r.:: CJ w
> 0 J.< lO
"
>''0 't" ':;l
.0 Qj.~-+
+i<f.::l
'tl III C ,:>
Ill..... C ~
.j..i.....v
o "
s::: VI Q! e
1Il,D.....
o. "
..'"
;J..........1Il
1Il=='.....
.i.l;:J 0":::
H.DU+i
>
/
. '" '"
,.C I'l 111 C
....;:+.1....
o
'OCIlCIIl
.0 .
......... III 0'1
;:~.~'8
IoIO.l(....
~ C
rno\41>'
CI.II:I")+.I
loI.ool '004
C ~
o.c: 010
'll",rn:;J
E..... III 0'
0..
. C..
IIlCJ....O'I
=',.CIIl....
...0.<:
'" ..0
. ..
III 0 <Ii 0
~.... '"
0"'.
CI.I_ 0 0'1
.c.........1ll
". "
o . "
+I'O.c: 0
Ill.........c:
... .
".'"
.. . 0
'" '"
CJ'OlOl.Il
.jJCJI-oIll
'll X ;:J ;J
+I..... 0
III e u CI)
. "
101.... III III
.e ..
o . ~
ro III >. C
I'll ~ .... w
oW ;J III 0.
l/)I-oo-l..clll
::E:llllO+I"::
'"
.
>
..
"
"
o
"
o
.
c
'"
o
>
.
" ,
"''''
......
e.'" 0
,j.,I1oI::I'004
00,c.-4
... 0
00.
....
lll'ool,j.,lC/\
... ~
"'"
. c.
o r:::.... 0
'004''''' 101 C
.. .00
'"" .
"00'0 .....
.....'"
0>'1"'I:;Jl-l
r:::ooocr.
.ool 101 ~ .....
co. c w
ceo:<: >
III III C III
.....c.ool .-4
0.""
....:-....J:
w""''O -'.oJ
..c 0'0..... :J
..., IllLflO
.... C"
+lr:llllOJ\:1I
1ll>.J:'O
..c 0.... Q,I
..., l.< 6 U
;J...oJ::l::l
C'_ III e '"
l1l.J:.....G!
.' +I X 1-0
1'll0' r:l
<-> C <-> F. 0
Ill..... U .....
"'r:l0
1-0 r:.... ..... C
C!C' CJ
~ ~ ,,' g'~
o~
u "''''
III (l) 0 C r:l
:l':....j.I.rl.c
.
.,
.
"
.
,.
'"
o
"....
o
. 0
..~
_ "-
....0
. 0
~ C
" 0
"U
--,.
,
.
..
"
c
.."
" 0
'. "
. .
o
"'0
w :.~
o
" .
. .
00.
c.
00<
o
..
.00
" "
0.. .
.~
~
000>
00.
) n.'ool
0"
.0"
.. .
00.
~..
.,,'"
.. 0
'" 0
"'.'
0".
"00
I'll......",
.j,Jr,j....
1I'l.....1ll
0."
" "
..... 0
..~o.
"0.
.... H C
....
0> "
",o~
,..
...
k.. .
Ill.j.l 'W
0. Ok
"0"
W.ool..... .....
.. ~
.j.Il/).,.,j 0
.'" "
.o~
III III III 0
:- 0.. s
.""
C ..
00>1: W
'ool C ;:J..c
+1.004 +>
0" .
I-ololilJ..c
QI I'tI w....
'00........,
.... 1-o;J
.~ 0
.N 0
o ....1111'"0
U'O "'HD
W CJ..... C/\
IoIW.J:lIlo-l
.."
.. 0"
....'O'tl..co
O...........j.I
r.:: ;:J..... +I
1C0;:JC.r.::
;J..::J;:J1l1
" .
ItllUO,",W
.J:o->.oJl:lH
....'0 C/.....
O'tl.... ;:I
'0..... Q lJ'
ll) :J'01ll
.. CI.I 0..... H
I'll.c.....::!
~ 8';; ~ g'
..
l-o 0 U 1Il.l<:
W 0>1-0.... \.,
III C ~.c 11:I
ro."") 8 Po
.
. ,
. ~ 0
"'.~
CI.Il;'l'OQ.I....
UC'll>,l':I
.ool..... 0101
'l-l I:: 1::"'"
\l.l 0 I'll C. r:l
ON eo
"'...
ty,'O C I'll
CCI'll'<--l
'r-\l':I ....1-0
. 0
C lJ' 0 '00
I'll c.'" (J.-4
.....,..;..)li--l
0.. C I'll 0
cJ:!:.....o.I
Q.I <:l .... C
.c.....llllllliJ
+lo.lll ""
k . "
+lQI..::;.o;:J
." 0
.c..""o
+I c....~
00 .l:rl
'0........ 08
(ll r...,.,j 0
+1'0 .j..i +>
I'll Crl III
-lo.llll 101'0....
IIlgB!';'~or.
101 0 C!
(JUlf'lI-<>
:5 ~ m 2 ~
I. '" l-o 2.. is
::I C C N
..... :.,aB.:io::
~.~.(;;.... t"<
IlI..,Vl.......Il.
!tl ~J..... III ... .c
~ ~ (5 ~.j..i
~t8.j2.S
"
" .
1lI'O:>......
....I'll"".c
..,,~
o
..::J1lI'C..c.
.::::.....1'
'0 Vl;:J''''
.... o.
o~o
O. .
u.c :=~
.... CJ.oo4
e .......-1
III '0 III
.....(jjVl.l<:
.CJ ..,.... 0
~2~~
0..0
u""
t;'.w ..-I
I::IVC.I::I
..... ~.c 0
.>Ctn+'~
"
. ".
0, or';'"
C.l:....
tl 0.... III
.. '.
"+l01ll
....
"" "
..0.
.I:'O::S"tr>
..,... r(I C
ll'J...::::......
'0 c.....;J~
00 ..
.... 0" Q.lr(I
o .c N c.
c \.l 0'>....
Q.I::;I..-Ili--l
l-o.c 0100
(J<->...::;I
....."".ow....
"'::1 .... ~
....... >.. > ;:J
.::; ,.., 0
U 0 I: 0 F.
tIl..o..",
'" .
.... 0
,
rlOCI'< ....
1O.cI'll'l-olll
+> Ul u.... 0
o ll-<O\:l
.;.l.J.l,j,J '"'Ill
C C . 'l-l >
,t!::lC' 'ool
CEO Ul 101 '"'
C o.e C.I 101
..... 0 rtlo.c III
-lo.l... 00'>
ItI iJ UlO'r-\ C
'0 >'ool ...c CJ
C Il).c.... 1lI
G;'Or< Ill.o
~Ill ~)O+l
o.c 00.00
tl +l +' .... C
<!l C tIl.-!
101 >"0.1'0 III '0
.0 e..... III
O,r,:,o.c
O't;' 0 e-lo.l
.,.-4111.... 0.1
+'...W>..W""
Ill.... > Crl ::l
101::1 1lI r.l'.otro
C"'O e.,.,......
1lIc) 1Il\j.l
l;Ji-o Ql)o III
I-< .l:OOVl
t:t:".oJ.cc.....
" ..
...._ c " ~....
o ~ ':l..:J
C ~ CJ
....o""!:!:
....c ....... Ul 0
'-' .:: 5 ~ -S.:,
..: ~. -+ ,,' t:l
...., :-, o.u >. ""
(' C 'I I';!
.c~''''''O E; III
...,,,_ ID-lo.l
EO IV C +' l-o C!
~C.Q.>:l.....It!;o...
'"
. ,
11-4:'" l-<."Cl
00 III III U
... 0 ~ ,......
'0 O,;.J 'lI"~
1lI o.r.. ~.1 '" ...
H III ..~-,..j 0 C
.... fo.j..illl
::l Ul u C 0'0....
0'" l-o..., 0 C ":
0.1 :-... J::: u..... l-o
" . 0
...... HIVe IJ
Ql u.,.,j 0'.0 It! C
.0'1) ........
''''''''''''''00. V.
't'100.r...... ;:J
..... l-o E 0) ::l Ql 0
~ ~. CJ ~ O.c.c
o :-:..' $: o-J
$: III (;.J III (;
.:: ::l1ll'O"
!I)" 0...... 0> C >-
U -lo.l'C",",O
C... ..::; l--i
1'll"''C ::.1..0.
.,..j C1'l-l:;' fo1 E
"" CI 0 0 C> (j,r
III 0 C U.,
>1Il '0 o-Jll!
C!'Ol--i"IIl-C
P:l.c...tllO ....
o ::l 0..... ;>.
.oJ=:OIIl ""s::
r'j..... 3: '::l /:::I....
.c;: llIce
+' l-! S::.I: re.,.,j "t:
::! 0'" e"
'00.... .>C.......
W....U;............Ul
.. ~~ <Il ::! CJ Co
o c.... W c:: l-l \..
r.:: 2 ~ 5. 0.1;
Ill..... 0 W . (!.I I::
m U H Q.c.....
);1Il t.;+I
tr, W'O c V:
..Q,I.l:CI'll-l-'ot
~.-! +' I'll.... Ill:r
. '"
.. ....
'0 41>.'0 ::I
ltI '0 III 0 Q C-l.l
..c C I'll..-l.l: >':l C
III U;:" U III
.oJ e tV.... >.6
C 01.1: (J.I:'-+ c; 111
IiIC" III 0-= 1>1
6.........:..1 0.....,.,
+lCE;/:::I.;.l ::l
III C In.l: 10 '0 IT
::Ire ...ce III
......0-1'0 +l1ll"::ll-l
'00. 0.1 C c..
0:::: l--i 0'0'-+ l.o III
o r...... I1l Ill,,,;,,,;
......c III +I C ;:J.c
o +> Ql 1Il r(I \:1I:;:-O+'
.l:t.I.... C)
't10"$.lUlIllIol+.l
l-o+l 0. III
/:::I OEIoII1l.....c
o CI.I ...,.,.-4 CI.I III 0""
1Il.... ltI):::
III '0 CJ ro c
I:l U 1oI.J: (II t.': 0
.c..... Ill" o.,-f <;:I....
..;.l C t1> 1Il.l: 3:..;.l
::!Q,lI-l:l::+I ;:J
~gl-l.g +,~6
.c 0 c: c 0 1ll.Q III
.. O'rl :;l 'O.c I:l
ill';'> ~ 101
'tl Gl ~ l:: I-l C'\
(;.c: c w..-l E.... I'll
C tI) 0 u ::l U; :-..
o .....Q 0".1: 0.1 j.,
......utl) ill"" l.o"
~2~~l.;c R:;
~, .oJ F, .:::. III .u _ .:J";J
E _ ~ I-l ~
1o'28:-'~~::O'~
;;;...' lJ' C:.:- 0
r;1 III 0>.... .::.... .. ~
ro Q) ~ ltI l.; E
::'I .... oJ "'.... ~ II! c-
. L'!' C "';:J C"':l.l<: l'
or. ill 0..-:: 0 :-: ;:;..... ~'
:;;:I.oN......r:Q,I;:I......,J
"
,
c .
0'" ..
1II l.I lVU....
.... C 0 I .... W 01 >
nl 0 Cl.... r. "'.\0: Ill.......
;.... ~ o.c ltI l-l t7'1lI
U.... O)u+'.... CJ
1-0.... l:: U > e t1>
n..., U! c to.... COO C
s:..c.....IllCCOO.....ool
rtI 0 ,{..,.,j.,., 1:).... III 11\
U (, 101 C I: VI .oJ III ;:J
..... l-o I'll 0" III 0..... 0 C
10 .. 0.:.- N "'.........!';.c 0
Z ~tl'IO'O.;!,~'tl 6 Ql'Z
0.-:1 C l:"(I 0 r:: U Q! 0
1II o.,.,j ~ ltI': U III >. E
u....~.... I1l 0
C 1-011:I 0'..... llIX.c.-+ 1lI
o -:.l r-:.... r. o.c........ o..c
u.... (...0.... -lo.l:;l E-lo.l
..... 0 c'O ,c +.I ll)
0.1..... tJ C 1>1 <-I ltI "tl
> tI.I:.... <C ,., III t:J'l.c Gl QI
.r-\ E ... ~.... 0.1: C".I:"tl
O'.,..j III Po Cl,j,J..... +I C
.... ... u "tl.~ 0
o ,.,.,.,j (; Gl .~rl Q,I 0 u
..lII.I:.....::;.J:CJ.....tr>,j.,IQj
..::::.... 0.-'.0.1 U :;l" III
r.::.... c. c.Cl.... e
o Il;-lo.lO" 1ll0'tl
''; 0 I'll .....,., III .,., 101
........C"Ill.r.: ""..c:'-'<-I1ll
o C.c"'Crtl-lo.lHltIC
E C'>...,,,, =:;. r.l k '"'
.....) '0"-' -I.ICIVIll
IllQ.e;;;~~~ltI'e:Sl11
o u......I: 0 -1.1 x.,-f II'l
'C=O+l'U o.....~
<:I.,..... "C)+lOtlOQl
e::: '..1: 1-0 1:.... I-< U \:11
....tl'OOI I'll 0. IIJ
<Il~.c ilI.r-\ C k 101 I-< +I
1::1-l+,:>Q.lO\:1lQ,lQ)llltll
.....::> ......1:..... .c.c.c
.l<: co tIl;>.-I.I.... -1.1.0.1
r.:: \.l 0 III Ql tIl 1lI 0 $.l X
ill C) Q, ilI.c......I: 1:.0.1 =' 0
~"';lI-<" e.... IllIOII-l c
0'
. 0
~"
"'.-
" .
.
0.0
..
.~
..
" .
o
.
O~
. .
'"
0..
o .
.0
. "
..0.
" .
..0
..
~'"
o~
co
.0
u
"
00
.<:: (.)
~ ~
-~
, Co
~; 2"
. ~
"
"
.,
~'0
C' .)
" 0
~
< 0
~, ,,-'
..
~, ~
o 0
ro~
'".J
~ c
...-;1
'"
"
,-
"
.
.
~
~
.
o
'.
.
.
.
.
:-.
- ,
~~
- .
- "
. ).1 g
~'"
\\J
'"
.
,-
"
"
.
o
.
o
~
"
o
.
:-.
'"
o
"
.
o
"
.
'.
"
o
.
o
..
.
'.
"
c
. .
.'"
.0.
.
"0
"0
.~
o
'. ~
" .
.
'. '"
~ ~
0"
'-'g
.~
..'"
....
....
....
0<
.
"0
~'.
"
".
0"
"
.
.. .
\j.l-lo.ll:,c
co ~
o "tl III 0
.till 11l.;.J III
-lo.lO+.lC..-l
1lI.t<<l::lCl
u E: -lo.l 0
00 to e;....
..... "
o Ll 0 ;:J
III 0 ClI'4./' Ii
.,.,jWltl
.c /Dill e
..Ql .o.IU
.1: ..rl....
c....IIlCCIJ
'ool :(::1
" .
>.10 Q,l .
...c ~ t:J'l Ii
.~.;.JaJ'8 :
l:'tllol..-llll
III C ClI >.
"tllll'O'l-110
,_ 0
l.Il .. III C
.,. C I: 101 0
.c.o 0 C1J.t
........ u~"
. .
.0.1..... W ....
r.lo..or.::$.l
~o 0
.... .j..i(!)C.
1Il1ll,cl!
T~~..J~
.... -olo
1'lll:J.!Q-I.I
+'.... U
III n' Q
:-,.,...,...:--
l~ .';l C -' ...
C~ l-o I'll....
.-; 0 c- l.o l'
.>:: r,"
I::IIlWIlli::.
~, /:::I .c..~ ...
~::<......... l'
.
~
,
" "
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
'CllfIl\l C.'.I'fOECKEl8....l.CO.
RmULAR I-lEETIOO OF THE CITY OF ASPEN P~OO AND ZONIIll- COI-lMISSION
August 24, 1965
Meeting was oalled to order at 8:30 P.M.
Present Were: w: ails, Benton, Woodward, Whitaker
Building Review:
Ullr:Apartnents, Blook 30, Lots K,L,M,N and t o. I-loved by Woodward
seoonded by Benton that plans be approved. Motion oarried.
~i Vu Lodge _ Request opinion from City Attorney on land use. A '
permit was issued in 19.56 for construction overlapping from "B" to
aT" with no parking requirements. New construo tion is proposed in T
Zone without parking. Does overlapping ownership exempt new oonstruo-
tion from parking. Dofine "ooverage", as it applies to B. Zone. Hoved
by Walls, seoonded by Woodward. Hotion carriet!-.
It was moved by Benton that plans ba retl1l'Ded,to Building Inspector,
reco:!lDlendation that parking requirements 'tor T zone are not met,
seoonded by Woodward. l-lotion oarried.
Vagabond Lodge Blook 118, lots P, Q, R, S.
by Benton that existing sign proposed bo be
sign regulations. Motion Carried.
Moved by Whitaker; seoonded
replac;:ed must conform to
Sta.irway on City Property for Hotel Jerome. ~loved by Benton that
stairs and awnL~g be approved, and reo~~end to City Counoi1 that
approval be granted, with a further reoommendation that the City require
insurance exempting City iirom liability. Seconded by 'Whitaker. ~lotion
carried.
Flagpole for Bank of Aspen. ~1oved by Whitaker, Seconded by Benton,
reoorm!lsnded to City Council that flagpole be approved. and that the City
require insuranoe exempting City from liability.
Parkin" Committee Report submitted. Much discussion and returned to
co~~ttee for further study.
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M.
Respeotfully submitted,
Franois Whitaker.
\.J
t'
!)
(''''''
) (
"
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
'ORflIlt C.F.HOECI(Ele..." l. CO.
REnULAR HEETINJ OF THE CITI OF ASPEN P~NJ AND ZONIl{l- COHMISSION
August 24, 1965
Meeting was called to order at 8:)0 P.M.
Present Were: Wi ails, Benton, Woodward, Whitaker
Building Review:
Ullr:ApartI:lents, Block 30, Lots K,L,H,N and t O. !iI.oved by Woodward
seconded by Benton that plans be approved. Motion carried.
Ski Vu lodge _ Request opinion from City Attorney on land use. A
pel'lll:i.t ....s issued in 1956 for construction overlapping from "B" to
"T" with no parking requirements. New construc tion is proposed in T
Zone without parking. Does overlapping ownership exempt new construc-
tion from parking. Define "coverage", as it applies to B. Zone. l-loved
by Walls, seconded by Woodward. Notion carried.
It was moved by Benton that plans be returned to Building Inspector,
recollllllendation that parking requirements for T zone are not met,
seconded by Woodward.' }btion carried.
Vagabond Lodp;e Block 118. Lots P, Q, R. S.
by Benton that existing sign proposed bo be
sign regulations. l1otion Carried.
YJOved by Whitaker; seconded
replaced II1Ust conform to
Stairway on City Prooerty for Hotel Jerome. ~loved by Benton that
stairs and aWIll.'lg be approved. and recClll1l1lend to City Council that
approval be granted, with a further recOll1l1lendation that the City require
insurance exempting City 6rom liability. Seconded bJ' Hhitaker. ~lotion
carried.
Flagpole for Bank of Aspen.
recolillllended to City Council
require insurance exempting
Hoved by Whitaker, Seconded by Benton,
that flagpole be approved, and that the
City from liability.
City
Parking Committee Report submitted. Much discussion and returned to
committee for further study.
Francis Whitaker.
/f/t ,~;,~
~~-u-~ tf, - .f
~~~-
if r~' 0'
~h
Meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
,
~~4
~
G7