HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.Aspen Alps 600 Building.1973-SU-1
.. ,~""''',b
/f ~~:-
"'zJ~
~~,
~~
~~
J~ G?..Lt. '~.-I
~~~
~~~
,...,
~'
'LEGAL N"OTICE
N8tice is hereby given, t the A.spen !!l.0HD.l.:Lng and Zoni..n.g
Commission shBll hold a publ hC~l1:,ing on Fo\,rember 6, 1973~
5:00 p~m~, City Council Cht?ro.bers to cons the Aspen Alps
600 Subdivision Preliminary PICJt descri.bed as f0110,\Q8: A
troc'" or" l"na'; ~-r{-U"'~'1-E'a' l'n t",['"'l(':> I\TI.l'1- ,d:: (.::e'..--.+..7c....,"'1 18 'l'o~"nch;p
a... '. a." '~""'''A'C:_'~ .J.., .J-_J.'~h4,-,....."",-,l,'..n'1..~., n,LCl~A.
10 South Range 8il- "Jest of the 6th PoN, Aspen, Colorado and
being partof the Cameron Lode US:r"lS No. 38'73 and part of the
Chance Load DSMS No, 1830,
Propos;]1 is on file in the office if the City/County Planner,
City Hall and maybe examined by any interested person or persons
during office hours.
Is! Lorra ine Graves
City Cle:ck
Published in the Aspen Times November 1, 1973
Notices mailed October 26, 1973
!-'\
I""'""
~
, "
/
,:~,~,.
October 24, 1973
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Engineering Dept.
RE:
Aspen Alps 600
After reviewing the above mentioned proposed subdivision in
regard to Engineering aspects, I submitt the comments following:
The plans submitted lack the following information necessary
for adequate review:
Location Map.
Existing or proposed fire hydrant location.
Location of new sewer line.
Easement description for all utilities.
Open space or agreement and possible trail.
Total number of units.
Proposed zoning change ( elev. 8040 ).
Proposed finished topographic design including details of
proposed storm drainage facilities.
Proposed floor elevation.
Delineate area to remain "undisturbed" from area to be seeded.
Show ownership, existing topo, and proposed topo of parking
area.
Continuous curb cut undesirable, expecially on curve.
Show 10 foot easement on both sides of existing creek.
If there are any questions about the above matters, please feel
to contact me.
These Comments Respectfully Submitted,
./' ./ ~" ./ #"'"') - . , t:
~~~j-
Ed Del Duca
Assistant City Engineer
jgm
cc: Tri-Co Management Co.
~~~ ".
/.;- -*'7 ~UBDIV::;~- ~<T
~
~.
cnECK FORN
,
Date /~~/'9- 73
Gentlemen:
According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen
Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into
tHO or more lots must be 'divided in accord~mce ,'7ith said
Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen.
. ,
This form, uith attached copy of the plat is provided so
that each utility comp2,ny Il1GY inspect the plat and the
S'te ' . .l... w 4-1 1 ~.c
~. ) mC1.tc~ng CO~9nL.S, concernlng ...11-8 p acerr:.2nL. o.c ease_
ments, etc., and "here necessary sketching reconmlended
alterations on a cop~ of the plat,
This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must he
returned to the City of Aspen Plcrrning end Zoning Com-
mission no la.ter than seven (7) days from the above date,
11:-1-73
Remarks: _Enc'losed please find a cqpyof our map showing the location
of both overhead 'and underground electric power lines in
the" area of Aspen Alps Building 600. Some provision should
be made for the granting of utility easement from our existin~
line location to a transformer location near 'the building.
.Sincerely,
HOLY CROSS LECTRIC ASSOCIATION,
,,4?V::2 ~'
Clemons M. Kepf, System Engin
'cc: Jim Reser, Tri Co.
,
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
:
~
--
~~
f/ ~ 7-" ~'
~rJJ-O '~(
/1- t ~73
SUBDIVISIm~ PLAT CBECK FOm,1
~,,~
,
Date /t:>-1'1-7,3
Gentlemen:
According to th~ procedure set forth in the City of Aspen
Subdivision Regulations, any tract of la"nd divided into
two or more lots must be 'divided inaccordence with said
Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen.
. '
This form, with ettachec1 copy of the plat j"s provided so
that each utility comp2,ny may iuspect the plat and the
site, making co=:mts, concerning the pl<\cement of ease_
ments, etc., and 'I'7here necessary sketching recommended
alterations on a cop~ of the plat.
This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must he
retuD1ed to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com-
mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date.
Remarks: _ 2Jp ~'oUv'~ '0 ~'4- L~e 'c>-n~
~ '--n~ I~ ----f~~~ i-e<1/Jo.<,.!.
, ~ ..-r~Z~~_____
, ' .
. .
~
-"
~ f /cM
Ii-J- ~
~-
f
hA~
~
/1- ~ - 7.3
SUBDIVISION PLAT
CHECK FOml
,
Date /1)- (f'- 75
Gentlemen:
According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen
Subdivision Regulations, any tr3,ct of land divided into
two or more lots must be 'divided in accordance 'with said
Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen.
This form, ,'lith attached copy of the plat is provided so
that each utility comln~ny may inspect the plat and the
S . t ' . ..... . t' 1 ' ~ r:
~ e, Ina!~lng cOiIITl!.~nl.,;s, concernlng 118 p. acemenL 01: ease-
ments, etc., 2nd where necesse.ry sketching recom:m.ended
alterations on a cop~ of the plat.
This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be
retuTI1ed to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com-
mission no later than seven (7) de.ys from the above date.
Remarks: No school transportatiot:! required.
Safe walkways for any resident school children should be
provided.
~
-"
.~, t ~,..(M/_t~r>~
, '~ SUBDIVISION PLAT CHECK FORl:l
&C5L
, Zen.:
Dat~ /a~ ['9-?::J
.
According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen
Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into
tvlO or more lots must be 'divided in accordance 'lith said
Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen.
. '
This form, with attached copy of the plat is provided so
that each utility comp2,ny msy insp,ct the plat and the
S . t ' . ~ . th l' ~ r:
~ e, mat~:Lng co~~nl..s, concernJ..ng J. e p acemenL. o..!... ease-
ments, etc., and where necessary sketching recommended
alterations on a cop~ of the plat.
This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be
returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com-
mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date.
Remarks:
. .
"\ tic ~~
\/r - 1 ' tJ ~ ,
'"
~~~cJ ~.
- If /" t (1-;; SUBDIV;~;O~ ;L:T3CHECK
~
~ A-J-
PORN
,
Date /?J-{'l-73
Gentlemen:
.
According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen
Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into
two or nlore lots must be divided in accordance ~'7ith said
Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen.
This form, \'lith attached copy of the plat j"s provided so
that each utility company may inspect the plat and the
site,) rnaking cO;:rrrji.~nts, concerning the plctcement. of ease-
ments, etc., and uhere neces[;ary sl:etching recommended
alterations on a cop~ of the plat.
This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must he
returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com-
mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date.
Remarks:
This area is with~n the
Metropolitan Sanitation
aCleq,ua te 1'1omL omU L.i.ut::
the req,uirements of this
boundries of the Aspen
District. There is
~~~~~i~~ to accomodatc
project.
---,-------
~
-"
SUBDIVISIO!:J PLAT
CIIECK
FOllil
.L-4. ~
I
!
I
1
i
, j
Date /(j-I'9-7.s ,I
I
I
I
h
,~
~ /1- ~ - '7.s
!1-
Gentlemen:
.
According to th~ procedure set forth in the City of Aspen
Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into
t'i70 or more lots must be 'divided in accordance uith said
Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen.
\
. '
This form, '(-lith attached copy of the plat is provided so
that each utility company may inspect the plat and the
site, m.Clking CO~2nts ,concerning the pla:cereent of ease-
ments, etc., ~ndtqhere necGssary sketching recommended
alterations on a cop~ of the plat.
This form and the accompanying copy of: the plat must he
returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com-
mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date
Remarks:
fA. t' 1fe8 S
~ ..jJ... S;~_
oL-,
-~~~~~
. .
/~,
---
~"
.
,~
-
~
FROM:
City Clerk
Planning Off!.ee
TO:
SUBJECT: Aspen Alps liOO Subdivision
DATE:
October 19, 1973
Please schedule and advertise Aspen Alps 600 Subdivision
preliminary plat for Planning and zoning pubHc headng on
November 6, 1973.
LEGA~ DESCIUPTION AS FOLLOWS:
';:A tract of land s:U:uated in the NW-k of section 18,
i TOWnship 1,0 South 1\ange 84 West of the 6th P ,M.
,Aspen, Colorado and being part of the Cameron Lode
. P$MS No. 3873 and part of the Cbence Load USMS
/J
. No. 1830.
AJ')JACENT LANDOWNERS:
1. Spar.CollSo1!dated M:bdng and Development Company
P.O BOx 4298
Aspen, Colorado 81611
2. Christian Allison Trustee
Amer:l..can Natl.10nal Bank Building
Denver, Colorado 80202
3. Pitkin County
4. Jim B lanning
P.O. Bc:>>t 43
Aspen, Colorado
.5. H.S. Bornefeld. Jr.
4022 One Shell Plaza
f:1()ust:on, Tens 17002
-
,.;
...-
,
Beptember 13, 1973
Leonard Oates, Esq.
Clark, Oates, Austin and McGrath
AttorneY$ at Law
P. O. Box 3707
Aspen, Colorado
Re: Aspen Alps 600
Proposed project
Dear Lennie:
Thank you for your letter of September 11th indicating your
direction to process the above subdivision legislation.
I hOpe the letter did not mislead, hOwe-rer, It is not my
pos1tlon that I feel that subdivision approval .C~.. be granted
wi thout regard to zon1l1g 11mi tat ions . When th(! present/il.tion is
made to the Planning and Zoning Comm1ssionor City Co\1.n<,lil I am
sure they are going to request an opinion as to whether thEi-Y can
give preliminary or final a.pproval in the face of the presellt
zoning. On the basis of the followingauthor1.ty I am gOing to
advise that they ca.linot: Anderson, American Law o;f Zoning, Sec.
19.21; Slawson v Zonl~Board of Review, 217 A2d 92 (RI 1966);
~31.11ett v Cook Countf' 158NE 2d 805 (Ill. 1958); Doliner v
P.lil~nnin~ Board of Nt 11is, 1975 WE 20. 919 (Mass. 19tH) ,p.eople 'II:
~~~<Rldge, 166 NE 2d 635 (Ill. 1960); McEnroe v P.l~~~ng Board
~,.~,.':tlton, 307 NYS 2nd 302 (1969) and Imperato v BQ~ro. of
Tetrm.tily. 221 4J2d 751 (NJ 1966).
80nsequently my earlieX' letiter merely impl1ed to the contrary.
I'i..lIl$rely :tndica'1;ed tliat I do not feel that we can 4et~r you from
reqaestingprocessing by the administration at this ti~e. The
risk of disapproval will then be your~land your cl1entf!g$.
Very truly yours,
Sandra M. Stuller
City Attorney
8MS : lllW
co; Donna Baal'
~~..;,...,
,~
-,
#.
.S'.
September 12, 1973
Leonard M. Oates
Clark. Oat,es. Austin6:~cGrath
P.O. Box 3107 '
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Lennie:
I received a copy of you.i' letter to Sandy Stuller. dated
September 11, 1973. stating your clients' position that
Aspen Alps 600 Subdivision should be processed regardless
oithe Planning Office's contention that the use antic:lpated
by the subdivisionappl.ication assllbmitted is in violation
of zoning now in .effe.ct. Sandy has~irected me to be-
gin processlngthe subdivision application with the under-
standing that the Planning and Zoning COttlmission and the
City Council may deny iinalapproval based ()n inappro-
priate zoning.
I contacted J1m Reser today and will begin preliminary
plat review and scheduling before Planning and Zoning.
Yours truly,
/ ;} // '7 4/
,,'..f <Y'~/ Wle', _
~ ' >i..(...A_
Donna Baer
Planning Office
DB/bk
cc: Sandy Stuller. City At.torney
.7
r-.
,.--.,.
LAW OF" F"ICe:.S
CLARK, OATES, AUSTIN S. MCGRATH
THE PROF"e:SSIONAL aUIl.DINQ
SOX 3707
WIL.L.IAM E. Cl.ARK
LEONARO M. OATES
RONAL.D O. AUSTIN
.J. NICHOLAS McGRATH,';R.
ASPEN, COL.ORAOO 81811
September 11, 1973
AREA CODE 303
, Tf!L.EPHOHE ~2!5.2eoo
Ms. Sandra M. Stuller
City Attorney
City of Aspen
P. O. Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen Alps 600 - Proposed Project
Dear Sandy:
I have just returned from vacation and am in
receipt of your letter of August 31, 1973. I read with
particular interest paragraph 2, as cited therein, which
I must admit has ~ somewhat familiar ring to it. Perhaps
I am being somewhat facetious, but I am sure this is not
the first time recently which you have,written a letter
of this nature containing the standby cited. However,
it is the position of the property owners that their
subdivision application be processed regardless of future
zoning legislation anticipated and present legislation
which mayor may not ultimately be sustained.
You will note that I have copied Jim Reser of
Trico Management ,in on this letter, as well as Donna
Baer, and this letter will serve as his instruction to
proceed with the project.
Very truly yours,
CLARK, OATES, AUSTIN & McGRATH
COpy Os'1:,"':~~L LEONARD M. OATES
By ,
,Leonard M. Oates
LMO:dlw
cc:. Mr. Jim Reser
Ms. Donna Baer ~
"'
~
~,
September 4, 1973
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DONNA BAER
SANDRA STULLER
ASPEN ALPS SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
Dear Donna:
As indicated in my letter to Lennie Oates, at this time I
there is nothing to stop the Alps from submitting an application
for subdivision approval; and, further, nothing to allow you I
to refuse to process it. The law, however, does allow the P & :
Z or City Council to refuse to give final approval if the plat I
does not comply with existent zoning regulations:
1. "While the Zoning power and authority to review plats
are separate, it seems clear that plats should not be
approved which violate existing zoning regulations."
Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Sec. 19.21 p 431.
to approve a plat Whi~h
within the zoning regu-
Zoning Board of Revie~,
\
3. An Illinois court held the plat approving authority d4.'d
not possess the power to grant variances or exceptions fr m
the zoning restrictions. Bluett v Cook County 19 III App :
2d 172, 153 NE 2d 305 (1958).
4. In Massachussetts disapproval on the basis of failure I
to comply with a zoning ordinance which had not yet taken,
effect was sustained but a New York Court reached a contr ry
result. Doliner v Planning Board of Millis 343 Mass. 1,
175 NE 2d 919 (1961) and Walton v Brookhaven, 41 MIsc. 2d.
798, 246 NYS 2d 985 (1964).
2. A refusal of a reviewing agency
would have created substandard lots
lations has been upheld. Slawson v
217 A2d 92 (RI 1966).
a unit of mandamus
plat which violated
Park Ridge 25 Ill.!
I
6. Finally, a planning board is without authority to apprpve
a plat for a subdivision where most of the lots are substah-
dard. McEnroe v Planning Board of Clinton, 61 Misc. 2nd 9~7,
307 NYS 2d 302 (1969); Weinstein v Planning Board of Greatl
Ne0k, 21 NY 2d 1001, 290 NYS 2d 922, 238 NE 2d 825 (1968)'1
I
5. An Illinois court declined to issue
which would have required approval of a
existing zoning restrictions. People v
App. 2d 424, 166 NE2d 635 (1960).
.
""..-.
~,
~
Memorandum to Donna Baer
September 4, 1973
Page 2
As is apparent, while I cannot direct you to refuse to prbcess
a subdivision application, if Lennie insists on going ahead I c~n
advise the P & Z and City Council that they can deny final appr$val
unless in accordance with zoning laws. Consequently, we can only
wait for a response to my Friday letter and go from there. I
I
SMS:mw
,~
~
,;......-,
"'.
r"-
,
Auguat 31, 1973
Lennie Oates, Esq.
Clark, Oates, Austin and McGrath
Attorneys at Law
P. O. Box 3707
Aspen, Colol'a.do
He: Aspen Alps 600
Dear Lennie:
Donna Bael' has asked that r respond to your letter of
August 17 concerning her refusal to accept your subdivision
application for the Alps project.
Without going into the ramifications of the effect of
Ordinances 9 and 19 on sub<iiv1sion procedure, I must advise
that
1. The Citt Council on !<!onday when reV'iewing the Les
Rocheuses Subdivision (condominium) Agreement and plat refused
approval until Art Daily and myself could agree on the deletion
of all langua.ge in the Agreement or notes on the plat that would
seem to indicate council approliJa1 of the improvements.
2. The law is more than adequate to substantiate the pro-
position that approval of a subdivision does not estopp a
governmental agency frOlll affecting the zoning of an area. The
mere fact that subdivision was approved prior to enactment of
a zoning ordinance does not create a vested right to subdivide as
approved: Rathkopf, Law of zon!n~ andPlanning;;York TownShip
Z.onin~ Board v Brown, 182>A.lild 7l)6(Penn 1~62); City and County of
Denver v Duffy, 450 P2d 339 (Colo. 1969). Only at various stages
of actual development has an owner sometimes been held to have
acquired a. vested right to proceed with a development: Murrell
v Wolff 408 S. W. 2nd 842 (Miss. 1962); ~own of Lebanon vlVoods
215 ~d 112 (Conn. Sup. Ct. Err. 19(5); Wood v North Salt Lake,
390 P2d858 (Utah 1963); Gruber v Mayor and Township Committee
of Raritan Township, 3lil N.J.l;Virgil1ia ConstrueUonCor~ra.ti()n
v Fairman 39 NJ1, 187 _d 1 (Va. 19(2) a.ndTra.ns....Roblee cor-'
poration v City of CherryHi.ll,sVUla~e >497 P2d335 (cclo.CA
1972). Aga.in, platting itself does 11<>t give immunity, Anderson,
American Law Of Zoni:ng sectionl~. 23.'
-
,-.
--
Lennie Oates, Esq.
August 31, 1973
Pa.ge 2
With this in mind, and witb",the city preserving its objections
to the development in terms of all present and future zoning ligis-
lation, I will direct Donna. to accept and process your subd1vl$ion
applica.tion if this is in fact pour pleasure. .
Very truly yours,
Sandra M. Stuller
City Attorney
3.M8:mw
G<1 : Donna Baer
.
~.
",..-..
LAW OF"FleE.S
CLARK, OATES, AUSTIN & MCGRATH
THE PROFESSIONAL BUIL.DING
SOX 3707
WIL.L.tAM E:. CLARK
LEONARD M. OATES
RONALD D. AUSTIN
,J. NICHOLAS McGRATf"l,..JR.
ASF'EN1 COLORADO 81611
August 17, 1973
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE
City of Aspen
P.O. Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Attention: Ms. Donna Baer
Planning Assistant
Re: Aspen Alps 600
Dear Donna:
This firm represents the proposed developers of
the Aspen Alps 600 Building, Aspen Construction Corpora-
tion. I am in receipt of a copy of your letter to Aspen
Construction Corporation of July 25, 1973, in which you
indicate that you cannot accept the application for
subdivision for the proposed development because it is
in violation of Ordinance 9, Series of 1973, suspending
for one year the issuance of permits which would be
prohibited under a proposed amendment to Chapter 4 of
the Municipal Code or to the Zoning District Map for the
City of Aspen.
At this juncture, we would take the position
that no prohibition whatsoever is contained in the said
Ordinance 9 respecting the acceptance and processing of
an application for subdivision. In fact, there is no
reference whatsoever to any prohibition respecting
subdivision at all contained in Ordinance 9. Ordinance
9 clearly goes strictly to building permits and has no
affect whatsoever upon subdivision procedure.
While I am willing to admit that the property
may be under review under recently adopted Ordinance 19,
this is no reason for refusing acceptance of our applica-
tion for subdivision.
t
. ~ ,0-
~
~
City of Aspen
Page Two
August 17, 1973
It would seem to me, by a clear reading of
Section 24-12(c), that the statute contemplates that
building permits applied for during the period are
entitled to have building permits issued in the event
that any ordinance is not adopted modifying the Zoning
District Map or Zoning Rules and Regulations applicable
thereto. I would suggest that you review the last
sentence of that provision for clarification.
With this in mind, I would urge that you accept
the application for subdivision that was made by Aspen
Construction Corporation and continue the processing of
this to a determinative point. It would be our intention
to work closely with the Aspen Planing & Zoning Commis-
sion with respect to this matter and with respect to
the ultimate issuance of building permit for the Aspen
Alps 600 Building project.
Very truly yours,
CLARK, OATES, AUSTIN & McGRATH
By ~~ eb~
eonard M. ates
LMO:dlw
cc: Mr. Mannie Hebert
Mr. H. A. Bornefeld, Jr.
-,
,--
July 25, 1973
Aspen Construction Corporation
P.o. Box ZZ
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Gentlemen:
Your application for subdivision of the nine (9) unit
condominium. Alps 600. can not be accepted for processing
because it is in violation of Ordinance #9. Series of
1973 suspending for one year the issuance of permits which
would be prohibited under a proposed amendment to Chapter
24 of the municipal code or to the Zoning District Map.
The proposed amendment which applies to your development
is the Planning and Zoning Commission's Recommendation for
Greenline Rezoning, June 19, 1973. This proposal recommends
rezoning from AR-l Accommodations/Recreation to AF-Agricultural/
Forestry for lands contained within the South Annexation
and which are above 8040 mean sea level.
It should be noted that any submission for development
of the subject property would be reviewed under recently
adopted Ordinance #19. Building Permit Review.
I am enclosing copies of the Planning and Zoning Commission
resolution and of Ordinance #9 for clarification.
Very truly yours.
"// V??
tX-f.;#-7t/~ ~'-
Donna Baer
Planning Assistant
DB/bk
enclosure