HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Aspen Medical Center Building 1974
----~
,
JUNE, 1974
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER BUILDING
EXEMPTION FROM DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, Robert Barnard has requested an
exemption from the definition of subdivision to permit
the condominiumization and sale of units in an existing
building on Lots H & I, Block 82, City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, the land being divided into condo-
minium interests had been platted into lots and blocks
prior to Ordinance 4, Series of 1973, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sec. 20-10 (c) of the
Aspen Subdivision Regulation, such property may be
exempted from the definition of subdivision by the
Planning and Zoning Commission, and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission
finds that design requirements have been met with the
exception of the following deficiencies:
1. Encroachments are located in the city
ROW;
2. Utilities are not underground;
3. Sidewalk is not in place north of property,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission grants an exemption from the
definition of subdivision for said property located on
Lots H & I, Block 82, City of Aspen conditioned on
correction of the above enumerated deficiencies in the
following manner:
1. Agreement by owner or future owners to
join any future sidewalk improvement
district;
..
ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER BUILDING
EXEMPTION FROM DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION
2. Remove encroaching benches from the city
R.O.W. ;
3. Covenant by owner to future buyer or
buyers to participate in a future program
to place utilities underground; and
4. The additional condition that existing
commercial signs are brought into conformity
with the Aspen Sign Regulations.
COMMISSI
DATED THIS ~ DAY OF
, 1974,
-2-
_-':':::.'~5:-~;'_:_'" '...,"'-':)
,
Reqular H,,-,etinq
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
.-- - .._---~~_. .~-_._._---------_._~
--~~--~~----" . -,----
Plallninq & Z~ninq July 2, 197<'1
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Spencer
Schiffer at 5: 07 p.m. \oli th Janet Landry, Robert Barnard,
Jack Jenkins, Geri Vagneur in attendonce. Donna Baer
and John Stanford of the Planning Office were also in
attendance.
Minutes
Tree Ordinance
j
Parking
J
Meeting Tim8
J
R8~01ution for
exemption of the
Aspen Medic"l
Center B1c19.
from ell..' f ini tion
of s,:l.>d:~:j-..:-.:~
Page 2 of the May 30 minutes, fourth paragraph from the
bottom. Paragraph b8ginning Schiffer stated that this
still implied to him should be changed to "Schi.ff8r
stated that this still did not imply to him..."
Correction moved by Jack Jenkins, seconded by
Geri Vagneur and approved by all.
Discussion was opened regarding the possibility of
proposing that tr8es of all types be prevented from
removal from the downtown area.
Barnard suggested that mayb8 some provision could be
made in which the trees could be moved instead of
being cut down. It was also suggested that in moving
that it was the responsibility of the person doing
the moving to insure survival.
Bryan Johnson and Chick Collins arrive.
Motion was made that steps be taken to consult with
a tree expert, :then get tog8thcr with the City
Attorney to draw up an ordinance by Jenkins, seconded
by Vagneur. All approved.
Bryan Johnson made the motion that a committe be
formed to consolidate the information that P & Z
now had on parking alternatives and return so
that conclusive action could be taking in forming
zoning requirements. Motion seconded by Vag~eur,
All assented.
Bryan Johnson was appointed Chairman by Schiffer.
Con@ittce members will be Jenkins and Vagneur.
They will present their report at Lh8 July 16 meeting.
Schiffer opened for discussjon the pos~iblity of
having meetings early in the morning.'- 4:00 to 6:30
was more agreeable to all concerned. .vagneur suggested
that the me8tings be limited to two to two and a half
hours. On site inspections would be a part of the
meeting and would follow r8gular business.
Motion was made by Jenkins that th8 P & Z meet
from 4:00 to 6:30 maximum and with on site inspections
following regular business. Seconded by Barnard,
all approved.
'-..s
Johnson moved that t.he Aspen Medical C(~nter Bnilding be
exempted for the definition of subdivision by resolution.
Seconded by Vagncur. All ilssentcd \"ith the exception
of Uurnard und Schiffer who abstained.
.'-"
f
\.....
.-,
~, ""
SCHIFFER & GARFIELD
."TTORNEYS AT LAW
ASPEN PROFESSIONAL BUILDINQ
POST OFFICE BOX 8237
ASPEK. COLORADO 8161 1
SPENCER P. SCHIFf"ER
RONALD GARFIELD
AREA CODE: 303
TELEPHONE: 925-1936
June 14, 1974
Ms. Donna Baer
Planning Department
City of Aspen
P. O. Box V
Aspen, Colorado 8l61l
Re: Aspen Medical Center, 307 South Mill Street,
a/k/a Aspen Commercial Condominium
Dear Donna:
I would appreciate your placing as soon as possible two
matters of our client, Robert Barnard, on the agenda of
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The first matter is a request for a Resolution setting
forth the exemption of the Aspen Commercial Condominium
from Subdivision Regulations according to the action taken
by the Planning and Zoning Commission on its March 7,
1974, meeting.
The second matter relates to the Agreement made between
Robert Barnard and the City of Aspen relative to the
issuance of a building permit for Goomba Inc. A copy
of the Agreement is enclosed herewith. The concern of my
client is paragraph 4 of said Agreement requiring the
commencement of construction of two off-street parking
spaces on or before August 1, 1974. Since it is not now
possible to know whether the City of Aspen will either require
or prohibit off-street parking on this property, it seems
appropriate to extend Barnard's requirement to perform hereunder
for a period of one year.
Needless to say, I will not appear before Planning and Zoning
on this and my partner, Spence Schiffer, will disqualify
himself from any participation therein and further Mr. Barnard
will also disqualify himself and present the matter personally.
Please advise when these matters can be placed on the agenda.
RG:js
. -.
ASPEN PLANN I NG & ZON I NG Cor1~1I SS I ON RESOLUTI ON
ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER BUILDING
EXEMPTION FROM DEFINiTION OF SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, Robert Barnard has requested an
exemption from the definition of subdivision to permit.
the condominiumization and sale of units in an existing
building on Lots H & I, Block 82, City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, the land being divided into condo-
minium interests had been platted into lots and blocks
prior to Ordinance 4, Series of 1973, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sec. 20-10 (c) of the
Aspen Subdivision Regulation, such property may be
exempted from the definition of subdivision by the
Planning and Zoning Commission, and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission
finds that design requirements have been met with the
exception of the following deficiencies:
1. Encroachments are located in the city
ROW;
2. Utilities are not underground;
3. Sidewalk is not in place north of property,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission grants an exemption from the
definition of subdivision for said property located on
Lots H & I, Block 82, City of Aspen conditioned on
correction of the above enumerated deficiencies in the
following manner:
1. Agreement by owner or future owners to
join any future sidewalk improvement
district;
,
ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER BUILDING
EXEMPT'" FROM DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISIO'
2. Remove encroaching benches from the city
R.O.W. ;
3. Covenant by owner to future buyer or
buyers to participate in a future progr?ffi
to place utilities underground; and
4. The additional condition that existing
commercial signs are brought into conformity
with the Aspen Sign Regulations.
DATED THIS ~ DAY OF
,
, 1974.
,
AGREEMENT Re: Robert Barnard, Owner (hereinafter
referred to as "Owner") of premises known as Aspen
Medical Center, 307 South Mill Street, Aspen,
(hereinafter referred to as "Property"), City of
Aspen, Aspen, Colorado, (hereinafter referred to as
City) and Goomba Inc., lessee of a portion of
property so owned by owner (hereinafter referred
to as lessor).
Relative to 19-10l of the Aspen Code and in furtherance
of agreements made between City, owner and lessor abovementioned.
IT IS HEREBY agreed by and between Owner, lessor and the
City that in consideration for a waiver by the City relative
to certain requirements of 19-101 of the Code abovementioned
that Onwer and lessor make certain promises relative to the
above-mentioned property as follows:
1. Owner agrees that on or before August l, 1974, he
shall commence the construction of a sidewalk relative to
property adjacent to Hyman Street pursuant to plans and speci-
fications to be approved by the City Engineer.
In the event
Owner fails to perform as provided herein, he shall forthwith
deposit with City in escrow the sum of Four Hundred Eighty
Dollars ($480.00) as provided in 19-101 above.
2. Owner at his option may in lieu of any performance under
paragraph 1 above join a sidewalk improvment district if the
same is duly formed and organized relative to owner's property prior
to above-mentioned August 1, 1974, date or at some later date
with the approval of City.
In the event Owner exercises his
option hereunder or City approves a later date for the joining
of the said sidewalk improvement district by owner, then the
provisions of paragraph 1 shall become null and void.
3. Lessor agrees to omit from plans approved October 3l,
1973, (submitted by Goomba Inc.) said driveway as more fully
set forth in said plans and further agrees not to construct the
same unless there is a resubmission of further plans relative there-
to and approval thereof by City.
- 1 -
. .__" n._h."!~L_.
4. Owner agrees that on or before August 1, 1974,
he shall commence the construction of two off-street parking
spaces relative to property adjacent to Hyman Street as more
fully set forth in 19-103 and 104 of the Aspen Code.
5. Upon execution of this agreement, City agrees to
forthwith issue a certificate of occupancy to Goomba Inc.
Dated this
day of December, 1973.
City of Aspen
Iacono
- 2 -
~
TO: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF ASPEN
APPLICATION: For Exemption from Subdivision Regulations of Aspen Code
APPLICANT: Robert Barnard, owner of subject property
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 307 South Mill, City of Aspen, premises presently
known as Aspen Medical Center, situated on Lots H & I,
Block 82, including said real property and improvments
thereon as the same now exist.
OUTLINE OF CONDOMINIUM
PROPOSED NAME: ASPEN COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM
My proposed subdivision will be a purely commercial condominium,
with no residential use to be made thereof. I intend to sell the
existing structure and land to the present tenants. No construction,
improvements or additions will be made. My proposed subdivision
consists of the creation of only three commercial condominium units.
My property lies at the intersection of Mill and Hyman Streets,
across from the Wheeler Opera House, and is in part located on the now
existing Mall. Existing zoning is C-l and the subject property under
the Aspen Land Use Plan is in the central area.
GROUNDS FOR EXEMPTION:
20-l0(c) Aspen Code. Prior to the effective date Ordinance
No. 4 series of 1973 (amending subdivision regulations) the land
being divided into condominium interests had been platted into
lots and blocks by plat recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder. The plat including Lots H & I, Block 82, was recorded
in 1947, Book 2 Town Plats, page 37. The subject property either
conforms to design requirements or said requirements would not
apply as no construction, improvement or addition will be made.
I seek the exemption as requested above; however,
alternatively if the Planning & Zoning Commission determines
that it is not available to me, then a recommendation to City
Council is sought under 20-l0(b) exempting the subject property
from the definition of a subdivision since it further appears
that this proposed division of land is not within the intent and
purposes of Chapter 20.
Very truly yours,
~~
Robert Barnard, Applicant
.""-... --.
TO: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF ASPEN
APPLICATION: For Exemption from Subdivision Regulations of Aspen Code
APPLICANT: Robert Barnard, owner of subject property
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 307 South Mill, City of Aspen, premises presently
known as Aspen Medical Center, situated on Lots H & I,
Block 82, including said real property and improvments
thereon as the same now exist.
OUTLINE OF CONDOMINIUM
PROPOSED NAME: ASPEN COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM
My proposed subdivision will be a purely commercial condominium,
with no residential use to be made thereof. I intend to sell the
existing structure and land to the present tenants. No construction,
improvements or additions will be made. My proposed subdivision
consists of the creation of only three commercial condominium units.
My property lies at the intersection of Mill and Hyman Streets,
across from the Wheeler Opera House, and is in part located on the now
existing Mall. Existing zoning is C-l and the subject property under
the Aspen Land Use Plan is in the central area.
GROUNDS FOR EXEMPTION:
20-10(c) Aspen Code. Prior to the effective date Ordinance
No. 4 series of 1973 (amending subdivision regulations) the land
being divided into condominium interests had been platted into
lots and blocks by plat recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder. The plat including Lots H & I, Block 82, was recorded
in 1947, Book 2 Town Plats, page 37. The subject property either
conforms to design requirements or said requirements would not
apply as no construction, improvement or addition will be made.
I seek the exemption as requested above; however,
alternatively if the Planning & Zoning Commission determines
that it is not available to me, then a recommendation to City
Council is sought under 20-10(b) exempting the subject property
from the definition of a subdivision since it further appears
that this proposed division of land is not within the intent and
purposes of Chapter 20.
Very truly yours,
;e
Robert Barnard, Applicant
o-1-7#'
--
~tTD
.~.d ~~~
t~-f;;~;/f ~h." I .
'- ~-drx' /tdd<~..
~. .~~..
~-AfY~ ~ '
.- ~ '~62~ A~~-#'
~ _ ~~~ r ~
tUu-c/ j ,flu ,:tJ tl'J (r> 7'A~Y)9 -
~
.
RECORD OF PBOCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
,""w', e.', ~",,,.n!. e. ~ ,. ~O.
Continued Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
March 7, 1974
totally denying the project since the Commission did
encourage Molny to return with a cutback on the den-
sity, which he did.
Chairman Gillis stat8d that he liked the idea of sav-
ing the houses, and he did cut the density. F8el it
complies with what the Commission is looking for.
Schiffer again expressed his concern on the interpre-
tation of the mixed-residential and the use of the
professional office in that area where it does not
already exist. Would like the opinion of the City
Attorney.
Johnson stated that he felt if the Commission allows
this project, ar8 effectively allowing two duplexes
on 6300 square feet each.
Schiffer stat8d that although he agreed with Jenkins
and Johnson, did not feel the Commission should act
in an arbitrary fashion and feel they should set some
definite criteria. Feels that it is too dense, but
not certain what is the right amount.
Vagneur point8d out that presently, can build a duplex
on 6,000 square feet in the \"est residential area.
Main ~Iotion
(Motion to deny conceptual approval). Johnson and
Jenkins in favor, Landry, Schiffer, Vagneur and Gillis
opposed. Motion NOT carried.
,
"
,
Schiffer made a motion to approve the conceptual pre-
senation under Ordinance #19 conjitioned on a~ opin-
ion from the City Attorney that. this is a use that
would be justified in that area within the purview
of the mixed-residential definition. Motion seconded
by Vagneur. All in favor, with the exceptions of
Johnson and Jenkins. Motion carried.
/
.0
SUBDIVISIONS
Aspen Commercial
T Condomini urn -
Exemption
Dr. Robert Barnard was present to make this presenta-
tion.
Location of property: 307 South Mill, City of Asren,
premises presently known as Aspen Medical Center,
situat8d on Lots II & I, Block 82, including said
real property and improvements thereon as the same
now exist.
Barnard stated that he was asking for 8xemption on
the basis of Chapter 20-10(c} of the A~pRn Municipal
Code, namely, if a piece of property was pla.tted into
lots and blocks before the subdivision latv \.,a5 passep
it is entitled to an exemption. Pointed ODe that it
must, however, meet the building design rcquiraments-.
Barnard stated that his plan is to sell the building
in three parts to the tcnnnts who presently_ occupy
the building, so t.he project would h~vc no impuct.
Barnard pointed out thut the first rcconuncndation of
the Enginccrillg Depnrtmcnt was that no provision has
been providpd \:0 cen't.rol the storm drainugL" run-off
from the site. Submitted a bill for storm drainage
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
~~.... '.' C. f, '"O(nfL ~..' .. l. co.
continued Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
March 7, 1974
service which is paid to the Aspen Sanitation District
and has been paying for 10-12 years.
Del Duca stated that he had inspected the building and
saw a downspout which drains onto the ground.
Barnard stated that the storm drains were on the roof,
central drains which drain into the storm sewer.
..
Barnard pointed out that the Engineering Department's
second concern was that some of the sidewalk is in
poor repair and creates puddles in the walk as deep
as 3 - 4" and no walk exists on the Hyman side of the
property, however this walk is promised by Dr. Barnard
in an agr8ement dated 12/18 which will be built later
this year.
Barnard submitted the agreement for the construction
of the sidewalk. Stated that the poor repair which
was referred to by the Engineering Department, takes
the position that the sidewalk is in as good a repair
as the average sidewalk in the City of Aspen. Stat8d
that it is not true that there are puddles 3 and 4
inches deep. Stated that if there is any water on
the sidewalk it is because of the ice and snow ac-
cumulation which is a common problem.
Del Duca pointed out that the sidewalk is cracked.
Pointed out that the Municipal Code requi:es that th8
sidewalk be replaced.
Barnard stated that it did not mean that to him.
Next consideration of the Engineering Department -
there are no garbage facilities on the property. Pre-
sently the adjacent alley is being used for the dump-
sters. This has not caused a problem since the al18Y
has been blocked for quite some time by two trees,
however, use of the alley for storing dumpsters is a
violation of the Code and should be remedied.
Barnard presented for the examination of the Commis-
sion a letter which was acted on in 1961 by th8 City
Council, signed by Mayor Garrish, in which the alley
was closed. Stated that putting a dumpster in a closel
alley is insignificant. pointed out that there are
dumptsters in many alleys downtown.
Del Duca stated that the alley was closed for a spe-
cific reason by Resolution in 1961, and was supposed
to be landscaped. Do not landscape with dumpsters.
Pointed out that it is on the al18Y, rath8r than to
the side.
Barnard pointed out that it is not an alley in the
common senS8 of the word.
Del Duca stated it is not a vacant alley, although
it is closed, it is to be opened for emergency ve-
hicles.
Barnard stated that if an emergency v8hicle nced0d
to use the illlcy, could drive out into Wagner Park.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
lOll Leaves
,""..<, (_,_,<t"nl.',ll,C'.
Continued Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
March 7, 1974
Next consideration of the Engineering Department -
Section 24-96 (a) and (b) - In that there are sev8ral
signs which are hazards hanging less than 8' above
the walkway. Could not find any records of sign per-
mits ever being issued for these signs.
Barnard stated that in the first place, signs are not
a design requir8ment of the building, and secondly,
if there is a sign violation, the people who own the
shops are th8 on8S who should be contacted. Stated tha-
there are provisions in the law and in the ordinances
to control this. Stated he would be willing to speak
to the shop owners, but will not take the responsibi-
lity for the moving of the signs. Felt this was a
matter of policing and not his concern.
Next consideration of the Engineering Department -
The Popcorn Wagon has several encroachments on public
right-of-way. The City should be exempted from any
damages or injuries due to or involving these en-
..croachments.
Barnard stated that the Popcorn Wagon was sitting en-
tirely on his property. Understands that the problem
is that there are two bench8s between the sidewalk
and the curb that p80ple sit on and stated he would
have those moved.
Next consideration of the Engineering Department -
Electric utilities are not underground.
Del Duca stated that usually what is done in a case
like this is that they agree that if the City ever
goes underground, will agree to participat8 in the
cost.
Barnard stated that he would agree to something like
that.
Barnard stated that he agreed to participatE- in-a
Hyman Street Sidewalk District, if there ever is one,
and if there should be one on Mill Street I \oTould par-
ticipate in that, but will not tear the sidewalk up
and replace it.
D81 Duca stated that )01ning an improvement district
is all that they would ask.
Landry asked if the building is condominiurdzed, what
would happen to the prop8rty that th8 Popccrn Wagon
is on.
Barnard stated that the property would be held in com-
mon interest by the people who ..:)wn shares of the con-
dominiums.
Del Duca stated that if a sidewalk is i.n need of re-
pair, the City Manager can order the owner to replace
it, or replace it at the owner's expense.
Vagncur m.-tde a motion to approve the exemption from
subdivision for l~spen Commercial Condominium basc'd
on the fact that Or. BarIlard and that locutioll will
be part of any future sjdcwalk di~trict, that the
. ,
-.J
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
'^.." (.f."OHUll.9.IC.O.
continued Meeting
i
,
I
I
,
I
,
I
ORDINANCE #19 REVIEWS
Bergman Building -
Preliminary & Final
.;
. I
Aspen Planning & Zoning
March 7, 1974
signs are put in a safer manner, that the benches on
the City property are removed and that the electrical
utilities in that area, when put underground, that
they will covenant to buyer or buyers to participate
in that program. Motion seconded by Johnson. All
in favor, motion carried.
Ken Hubbard, attorney representing Bergman, was pre-
sent along with ll8rgman and Russ pielstik, architect.
Pielstik pointed out that the Engineering Department
had 8xpressed concern with the problem of drainage.
Stated that they had proposed putting a flow meter
on the drainage from the building into the storm sewer
and tell the applicant how much that flow should be.
Hubbard questioned what they should do about the Strou
decision. Felt that, at the very least, the applicant
would be entitled to an off-street parking contract
which ,.,ould be contingent on that case being reversed.
Felt that even if that case is reversed, there is a
question whether or not the Commission would still
want an off-street parking arrangement.
Hubbard ~tated that if they do have a contract, how
many spaces. Stated that there were 20 in the pro-
posed agreement, but on Pielstik's calculations should
be 18.
Hubbard questioned how to handle the use covenant ques
tion. Stat8d that h8 had included the use covenant in
the proposed off-street parking agreement.
Chairman Gillis questioned Ms. Baer as to whether or
not all the required referral letters were in.
Ms. Baer stated that they were. Stated that now that
trash has become a major issu8, would like to hear how
applicant would handle their storage and r8moval. Fur-
ther stated that after the subcommittee looked at this
felt there may be a problem with access from alley.
Pielstik stated that this would not be a problem since
they are talking about auto-size vehicles. Stated
the truck would stop in the alley, unload, and th8n
proceed.
Ms. Baer expressed concern with deliveries tying up
the alley.
Bergman stated that he felt this was his concern more
than a concern of the City. Stated that they could
work that problem out.
Chairman Gilli~ qU8stioned if this would interf8re wit
the Bank of Aspen's drive-up window.
Bergman stated that it would not. Stated that 118 f81t
everyone would ilgrce to making that a OnC-\vClY alley.
Pointed out that the Bank of l\spen had reqa8st8d that
the City make that a one-way alley.
Bergman pointed out that he handles his own trC'lsh re-
moval, and stated that he would remove it as often as
-11-
TO:
FROM:
PLANNING & ZONING
ED DEL DUCA
ASST. CITY ENGINEER
11~
tfJCJ .
tt Yx~
7
MEMO
DATE: 3/4/74
RE: APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
by Robert Barnard, owner Aspen Medical Center, 307 S. Mill
Street, for the condominiumizing into Aspen Commerical
Condominium.
Upon reviewing the site above mentioned I have found
that it does not conform to the following:
Sec. 20-7 5(j) of the Subdivision Regulations in
that no provisions have been provided to control
the storm drainage runoff from the site.
Sec. 20-7 (k) of the Subdivision Regulations in
that some of the sidewalk is in poor repair and
creates puddles in the walkway as deep as three
and four inches. No walk exists on the Hyman Street
side of the property, however, this walk is promised
by Dr. Barnard in an agreement dated Dec. 18th,1973
and should be installed prior to August 1st, 1974.
There are no garbage facilities on the property.
Presently the adjacent alley is being used for
the dumpsters. This has not caused a problem
since the alley has been blocked for quite some
time by two trees, however, use of the alley for
storing dumpsters is a violation of the code, and
should be remedied.
'Sec. 24-9 6(a & (b) of the Municipal Code in that
there 'are several signs which are hazards, hanging
less than eight feet above the walkway. I could
not find any record of sign permits ever being issued
for these signs.
v
(VU
iJ-
The Popcorn Wagon has several encronchments on public
right-of-way. The City should be exempted from any
damages or injuries due to or involving these en-
croaclur.ents.
.~Ac. 20-7(1)
, /' rvY underground.
,~ After these problems are remedied, then the applicant should
U v J reapply for an exemption. I am very much opposed to issuing
the exemption conditionally since such procedure turns the
staff into a policing service.
In that electric utilities are not
C-' /.?n ,? "
c:..-><' 2" ".{:' ,t7 #.,,-<
~~
~.
~~~
~
~
,.AM-
~/
,JUNE, 1974
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER BUILDING
EXEMPTION FROM DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, Robert Barnard has requested an
exemption from the definition of subdivision to permit
the condominiumization and sale of units in an existing
building on Lots H & I, Block 82, City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, the land being divided into condo-
minium interests had been platted into lots and blocks
prior to Ordinance 4, Series of 1973, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sec. 20-10 (c) of the
Aspen Subdivision Regulation, such property may be
exempted from the definition of subdivision by the
Planning and Zoning Commission, and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission
finds that design requirements have been met with the
exception of the following deficiencies:
1. Encroachments are located in the city'
ROW;
2. Utilities are not underground;
3. Sidewalk is not in place north of property,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission grants an exemption from the
definition of subdivision for said property located on
Lots H & I, Block 82, City of Aspen conditioned on
correction of the above enumerated deficiencies in the
following manner:
1. Agreement by owner or future owners, to
join any future sidewalk improvement
district;
ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER BUILDING
EXEMPTION FROM DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION
2. Remove encroaching benches from the city
R.O.W. ;
3. Covenant by owner to future buyer or
buyers to participate in a future progr~
to place utilities underground; and
4. The additional condition that existing
commercial signs are brought into conformity
with the Aspen Sign Regulations.
COMMISSI
DATED THIS ~ DAY OF
, 1974.
-2-
~ss IG
c,\>
G4~
"'~
~
.Q;'
=.-::::I
G'~
4-;);.
~
80X II . ASPEN, COlORADO 81611 . TELEPHONE 303/925.3233/ RIFLE 303/625.2890
March 8, 1971J.
Mr. Mahoney
City Manager
Aspen City Hall
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Mahoney:
I am writing you in regard to a matter I took up with the city P & Z
Corrnnission at their 3/7/7lJ. meeting. I am in the process of making a
corrnnercial condominium of what used to be the Aspen Medical Center and
to do so, I had to ask for an exemption to the City subdivision ordi-
nances. I had checked with the planning office three weeks previous to
this meeting to find out what would be required of me. I thought all
was in order until I received the enclosed report from Mr. Del Duca, the
assistant city engineer. To say that I was both surprised and enraged is
to put it mildly. I will consider the six points made in the order which
they appear in the report (with my corrnnents in the margin).
1) My building has interior drains -- has had them since it was built in
1953 and I have been paying storm sewer rent to ASD for many years.
2) My sidewalk on Mill Street is in every bit as good repair as the
average sidewalk in Aspen and I have agreed to put in a sidewalk on Hyman Street
this summer where none exists now.
3) The alley was closed by the city council under Mayor Make Garrish in 1951
and is no longer used as an alley. Therefore I see no objection to a dump-
ster in its present location.
lJ.) Signs are not a consideration in building design requirements and there-
fore need not even be considered in regard to this application for exemp-
tion.
5) The popcorn wagon does not encroach on the public right-of-way. There
are two benches between the sidewalk and curb that can easily be moved if
so desired.
6) Del Duca's corrnnent on the utilities is patent nonsense and does not
even warrant corrnnent by me.
Page Two
To sum up, of Mr. Del DucaTs six points, it turns out that #1, 2, 3,
and 5 are not correct, #~ need not even be considered, and #6 is prepos-
terous.
In conclusion, I would like to take the following position -- if
there is ever a sidewalk improvement district formed on Mill Street, I
will participate in it, if there is ever an underground utility improve-
ment district formed to bury all wires in my block, I will participate
in it, I will remove the two benches from the parkway by the popcorn
wagon, and I will notify my tenants that their signs must be moved.
I understand that Mr. Del Duca is paid a salary of $972 per month
by the city. I do not think you should tolerate such incompetence in
an employee drawing down a salary of this magnitude.
Respectfully submitted,
~?h/~#JJ
Robert Barnard, M.D.
RB:sy
cc: Mayor Stacy Standley
Encl.
HEMO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
~,
~.
PLANNING & ZONING
ED DEL DUCA
ASST. CITY ENGINEER
3/4/74
APPLICATION FOR EXEY,PTION FROM SUBDIVISION REGULJiTIONS
by Robert Barnard. owner Aspen Medical Center, 307 S. Mill
Street, for the condominiumizing into Aspen COm~erical
Condominium.
Upon reviewing the site above mentioned I have found
that it does not conform to the follovling:
Sec. 20-7 5(j) of the Subdivision Regulations in
that no provisions have been provided to control
the storm drainage runoff from the site.
Sec. 20-7 (k) of the Subdivision Regulations in
that some of the sidewalk is in poor repair and
creates puddles in the walkway as deep as three
and four inches. No walk exists on the Hyman Street
side of the property, however, this walk is promised
by Dr. Barnard in an agreement dated Dec. l8th,1973
and should be installed prior to August 1st, 1974.
There are no garbage facilities on the property.
Presently the adjacent alley is being used for
the d~~psters. This has not caused a problem
since the alley has been blocked for quite some
time by two trees, however, use of the alley for
storing dumpsters is a violation of the code, and
should be remedied.
Sec. 24-9 6(a & (b) of the Municipal Code in that
there'are several signs which are hazards, hanging
less than eight feet above the walkWay. I could
not find any record of sign permits ever being issued
for these signs.
The Popcorn Wagon has several encroachments on public
right-of-way. The City should be exempted from any
damages or injuries due to or involving these en-
croachments.
Sec. 20-7(1) In that electric utilities are not
-underground.
After these problems are remedied, then the applicant should
reapply for an exemption. I am very much opposed to issuing
the exemption conditionally since such procedure turns the
staff into a policing service.
,E,:p .[)?r?' P~N<
.
.
~.
.
I
,
~
!
,
!
I
t
!
I
I
t
!
i
i
!
I
,
.~
/
March 15, 1974
Dr. Robert Barnard
P. O. Box II
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Bugsy:
On reading the Planning and Zoning minites of
the March 7th meeting, I find your subdivision exemp-
tion was unanimously passed. I therefore don't under-
stand your concern.
The conditions imposed are things you had previously
agreed to and again agreed to in your March 8th letter.
I feel Del Duca's comments were merely answers to
questions asked by the planning department as required
by the subdivision regulations under Section 2Q-7,
Design Reguirements, of the Municipa~ Code of the City
of Aspen.
We will take your comments relating to the engi-
neering department under advisement.
Sincerely yours,
(Mrs.) Mary Wenzel
Administrative Assistant