HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Aspenview
oY1- ,,--- -
/ rlJ~'t)6
\-."'~~./t~~D~'iJY'?-
y-.. -~~~.
Notice is hereby given that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
shall hold a public hearing on July 29, 1975, 5:00 P.M., City Council
Chambers to discuss the fo11owing'rezoning requests:
.~
...-,
LEGAL NOTICE
Aspen View Annexation~
A parcel of land being situated in Section 18, Township lO South,
Range 84 Hest of the 6th Principal Heridian. Said parcel is more
fully described as follo\>s: Beginning at a point from :.Thence Corner 3
of the 99 Lode Claim, (llrass cap in place), bears S89046'E, 255.59 feet;
thence S06023E, 31.01, feet; thence N85050'1" 2l7.24 feet; thence
N06023'H, 110.55 feet; thence N850I,4'33"E, 78.26 feet; thcnce SOI,ol5'27"E,
. 3.42 feet; thence N85044'33'.'E, 7.77 feet; thence NOL,ol5'27"\'I, 3.1.2 feet;
th(>nce NS50I,4'33"E, 38.63 feet; thence S04015'27"E, 3.42 f(>et; thence
N85~44' 31rlE.,.. 7...]7 Eeet;thence __NOl:.o15,'2_J11H_,___J.42_feet.;.thcnce N8So-4lr'-33--I-E,
20.87 fc(>t; thence NOI,oI5'27"H, 1.84 feet; th<?nce N850I,4'33"E, 2.l4 fee:;
thence N040l5'27"1{, 6~73 f(>et; thence N85044'33"E, 6.35 feet; thence
N04015'27"H, 11,.45 feet; thence N850.4/,'33"E, 9..03 feet; thence N040l5'27"H,
29.87 feet; thence S85044'33"lv, 17.53 feet; thence N040l5'27"W,45.l5 feet:
thence S89046'E, 57.12 feet; thence S06023'E, 205.00 feet to.the point
of beginning. Said parcel contains 0.732 acres, more or less.
"
700 Wes.t Hopkins: : A tract of land situated in the SE 1/4 of
Section l2,TlO S, R 85 W. of the 6th P.M. pitkin County,
Colorado and being part of the Mary B. No. 2 Lode Hining
Claim, survey No. 19640. Said tract is more fully described
as follows:
~'
Beginning at a point on Line 7-8 Aspen Townsite,
being also on the Westerly line of sixth S~reet whence
the Northeast corner of Lot S, Block 19, C~ty of Aspen
bears N 140 50' 49" E 91.00 ~eet;
'fhence N550 18' 18" W 95.68 feet along' said
line 7-8 to a point on the Westerly line of Lot Q, said
block 19;
"
.'
';f
J,;
,
'.
Thence S 140 50' 49" W. 41.49 feet'along the
Southerly extension of the westerly line of said Lot Q,
to a point on the extension of the Northerly line of Hest:
Hopkins Avenue;
Thence S 750 09' 11" E 90.00 feet along said
extension of the Northerly line of West Hopkins Avenue
to a point on the extension of the Westerly line of Sixth
Street;
Thence N 140 50'49" E 9.00 feet along said ex-
tension of sixth Street t.O the point of beginning containing
2272 square feet more or less.
LEGAL NOTICE, CONTINUED
~.
r-.. .__
A parcel of land in the SW", 5ec;. 12, TlOS, R85W
of the 6th P.M., .Pitkin County, colorado, compris-
ing parts of Lots 8, 9, 10 and the SW"SW" more
fully described as follows:. .
T.homa.s Property:
','
Beginning at a point on the Line 6-7 of the
Original Aspen Townsite., said point being
5.07053'16" W. 989.20 feet from the Origina,1 Aspen
Townsite Corner No.6, said. point also known as
North Annexation Point No.1; thence along the pre-
sent city limits N.75~09'll" :7. 627.10 feet to
North Annexation Corner No.3; thence 533.18 feet
along the city limits and northerly right-of-way
line of State Highway 82 around the arc of a curve
to the left with a radius of 1005.00 feet and whose
chord bears S.89038'55" H. 326.95 feet; thence
5.74027' W. 272.30 feet along the city limits anc
northerly right-of-~;ay line;. thence 842.66 feet
along. city limits and the. northerly right-of-way
line around the arc of a curve to the right with
a radius of 1096.00 feet and whose chord bears
N.83031' N. 822.05 feet to a point bearing 5.140
16'10" E. 247.04 feet from the west one-quarter
corner of Sec.12, TIOS, R85Wof the 6th P.M. (a
1954 brass cap in place); thence S.28G30'06" N.
100.00 feet to a point of intersection with the
southerly right-of-way line of State Highway 82,
also being the easterly right-of-way line of
Castle Creek Road, said point bears 5.10032'20"
E. 332.91 feet from the west one-quarter corner of.
Sec.12; thence S.16036' E. 135.87 feet along the
easterly right-of-way line of Castle Creek Road;
thence S.20054' B.2006.31 feet along the easterly
right-of-way line of Castle Creek Road; thence
5.32010' E. 67.10 feet along the easterly right-
of-way line of Castle Creek Road; thence N. 180
14' E. 1107.77 feet; thence N.25028' E. 71S.d3
feet; thence N.21047' E. 282.37 feet; thence
N.Ioo51' E. 90.71 feet to the southerly right-of-
way line of.State Highway 82; thence 63.25 feet
along the southerly right-of-way line of State
Highway 82 around the arc of a curve to the right
with a radius of 905.00 feet and whose chord bears
5.77008'52" E. 63.23 feet; t6ence N.14050'49" s.
20.00 feet along the southerly right-of--way line
of State Highway 82; thence S.75009'll" E.636.86
feet along the southerly right-of-way line
. of State Highway 82 to a point on the westerly
line of the Original Aspen Townsite, said
point being S.07053'16" W. 1069.79 feet from
the Original Aspen Townsite Corner No.6;
thence N.07053'16" E. 80.59 feet along the
Line 6-7. of the original Aspen Townsite to the
point of beginning, containing 39.203 acres more
or less,
,
,
.I
.j
J
.
LEGAL NOTICE, CONTINUED
1""".
.-,
??arcel. A
The. "Enclave.s":
Lots 4 and 5, pitkin Mesa Subdivision, Block 1,
containing 0.739 acres~ more or less.
Parcel B
Lot 7, WesLAspen Subdivision, Filing 1, contain-
ing 0.348 acres, more or less.
,
Parcel C
A tract of land in the NW~, Sec; 12, TIOS, R85W
of the 6th P.M., Dore. fully described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence the one-quarter corner
~etween Section 11 and.-Section. 12, TIOS, ~851'1of
the 6th P.M. bears S.46G08'15" W. 1394.64 feet;
.thence S.13034' E. 200. 00 feet; thence N. 76026' 'E.
122.30 feet;t.hence N.250l4' W. 204.22 feet; th'ence
S.76026' W. 81.00 feet to the point of beginning,
containing 0.47 acres, more or less.
Notification also to all adjacent.property owners within 300 feet of
each named property by letter at least 15 days before published heari
date.
Notice in compliance with Article 11 of the Aspen Zoning Code under s ction
24-11.3.
/s/ Kathryn S. Hauter
City Clerk
published in the Aspen Times July 10, 1975.
,-
-.
f\Lf .~ \\\~iJ'j
f'z.S~'f;X'\ \J
MEMORANDUM
DA'l'E: OaCober 27, 1915
TO: Mtel\: Maboney
BillXane
FROM: Sandra M. Stuller.
RE: Appropd!lte Dedication Pee
- A8p{!U1 View oon~inium$nbd:l.vlslon
At:.t:.acbedts a cOJ,?:!1' of a stat.8\lI.ents\1blnit:t::ed by Lenn~.e
Oates on. ~half of his cl1ent,John qinQ. With respect: to hb
c~nts let me note:
1. Lennie is ao:rrect that 1n June the Marqaret
Me4dows Subdivision was approved and enjoyed :the appl1e-
ation of the previous subd.i.vieion dedication requirement.,
even thoug'h the subdivlllion requlat10ns had ~en complete-
ly revised effective April 23rd of this year.
2. 'l'he COloJtal!o supreme Court., in the only case
t am aware of on this question, has held that in the.
event of an amendment to a procedural ordinance, pendinq
application. continue tzheir review under tzhe prooedures
exist.ent at une time of application.
3. Even thou'1h the subdivision rG9ulat.lon was
repealed and reenaot;ed in its entirely, we impose/! the
enqineerinq and procedural criteria of &he old ordinance
on Aspen View and it seems appropriate that the previous
dedication requirements should a11110 be appl1ed.
4. Tbere 'are no other plats "in the mill" that
were subm1t:ted under the 014 re9U1a1:101\ such that ~
need ~ concerned with t.he adverse preeedent that may
--
"~
Mick Mll.lton~y
Bill Kane.
Getober 27, 1975
-page 2-
follow by rea.son of agreeing with Lennie.
I would re"omme~d that we accept the dedication offered.
Bot.h t.he law, basic fairness and our actions to date su.pport.this
approach.
SS/pk
~~
.-,.
-,
L.AW OFFICES
"
OATl':S, AUSTIN & MCGRATH
aoo EAST HOF"KIN9 STREET
eox 3707
L.EONARD M. OATES
RONALD D. AUSTIN
,J, NICHOL.AS McGFlATH, ,JR.
WILLIAIvl R. ..JORDAN m
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
October 16, 1975
AREA CODe: 303
TELEF"HONE 925-2600
,JOHN THOMAS KELLY
Ms. Sandra M. Stuller
Aspen City Attorney
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Aspen View Condominiums Subdivision
Dear Sandy:
Following through with our telephone conversa-
.tion of October 15, 1975, I am writing you this letter
to explain the position of Countryside Associates,
developer of the Aspen View Condominiums, regarding
payments required to be made to the City under the
subdivision laws.
When I received the original draft of the
subdivision agreement from you, frankly I did not
research the cited section of the subdivision law to
make a determination as to the amount which Countryside
Associates would be required to pay. I had assumed the
provision as set forth therein would provide for a
straight payment of four percent of the appraised value
of the raw land upon which the proje~t is situate as
though unimproved. This assumption was based upon my
understandings from Countryside's Aspen representative,
John C. Ginn, and from Andrew V. Hecht, formerly qf this
office, the attorney who had handled all work up until
the final plat approval for the Aspen View Condominiums
Subdivision.
After the City Council meeting of October 13,
1975, I discussed the basis of his understandings with
Mr. Hecht and Mr. Ginn and, without question, they
assured me that at all times they were lead to believe
that the four percent raw land value would be the fee
t,....,.
"'"
OATES, AUSTIN So MCGRATH
Ms. Sandra M. Stuller
Page Two
October 16, 1975
applied. They indicated this original understanding
had come from Yank Mojo, formerly of the Aspen Planning
Department, and subsequently from. Hal Clark who took
his place, and additionally from David Ellis, the City
Engineer.
If you will recall, this project was proposed
for subdivision originally in February and was to be
processed under the old subdivision regulations. Certain
complications arose which delayed the finalization of the
subdivision process beyond the adoption of the new City
of Aspen zoning regulations adopted sometime in April,
1975. However, it was understood by everyone that the
"matter would be processed under the old regulations and,
therefore, not only the procedures but also the substance
of the old subdivision regulations would apply. Appar-
ently that is where the difficulty came in inasmuch as
you may have intended to convey to the staff representa-
tives of the Planning Office and City Engineering
Department that only procedures would apply but as far
as specific staff discussions between the developer,
the developer's attorney and city staff members, it was
understood that both procedure and substance of the old
regulation would apply. The developer proceeded with
the subdivision plans in reliance upon this representation
and perhaps would not" have gone forwaid with the subdivi-
sion had it known that the cost would be sUbstantially
increased.
The statements which I have made can be verified
with all involved. I have discussed the understandings
with both Mr. Ellis and Mr. Clark, and they have the same
understanding as to the application of law which I and my
clients have and had.
I have researched the Planning & Zoning Commission
minutes and minutes of the City Council for the period .
during which the Aspen View Condominiums Subdivision was
in process and find nothing directly on point. Mr. Hecht
"""
"""
OATES, AUSTIN a MCGRATH
Ms. Sandra M. Stuller
Page Three
October 16, 1975
indicates that YOl,l did make a statemen.t to the Planning
& Zoning Commission that the old subdivision regulations
w~re to apply, but he does not recall any elaboration
upon this statement as made by you with respect to a
differentiation between procedures and substance.
I would .point out to you however that our case
is not without precedence. .I find that on. June 9,1975,
some two months after the adoption of the new subdivision
regulations, a final plat of Margaret Meadows Subdivision
was approved by the City Council.with the requirement that
the subdivider, Margaret Cantrupt pay to the City four
percent of the land value, as unimproved. The Margaret
Meadows Subdivision is similar to the Aspen View Condo-
miniums Subdivision inasmuch as both deal with the .
subdivision of property improved long prior to the
adoption of the new subdivision regulation. In the case
of Aspen View, the apartment building was built in 1969.
I would further point out that the Aspen View was pur-
chased, as developed, by Countryside Associates after all
improvements had been substantially completed thereon.
I was involved in the development of that project from
the outset.and can represent unequivocally that it was
at all times intended to be a condominium. However,
Countryside, after acquisition, determined it would hold
onto the property as an investment for a period of time
prior to subdivision. Unfortunately, it was caught in
the web of much stronger legislation by virtue of land
use policies developed in the 1970's. While I am not
complaining about the current land use policies, I merely
point out that the developer could have, had it wished,
totally avoided regulations by earlier filing a declara-
tion and plat without any required approval whatsoever.
With the foregoing information in mind, I would
request that the Cit.y of Aspen accept the sum of $3,680~.
in full payment of the fee required by the subdivision
agreement as drawn by you and accepted by Aspen View. To
."'t
.
,.-.. .
.r--.
OATES, AUSTIN B. MCGRATH
Ms. Sandra M. Stuller
Page Four
October 16, 1975
this end, I tender herewith a check in that amount upon
the condition that its negotiation be deemed in such full
satisfaction.
I would take this opportunity to thank you and
the City Council for consideration of this matter. I
shall make the developer available to execute whatever
documents are necessary to effect the final approval and
effectiveness of the subdivision agreement.
Very truly yours,
OATES, AUSTIN & McGRATH
By
Leonard M. Oates
LMO:dlw
Enclosure
.
,....."'..
.
,
,,-..,
.
..
.
,
...
,-,.
i
i
'.I
;1-
\
.'
,
~;
~ ;;
C f''lY
1.1 ,
130
, ...-.,
r. -"..... .'ASPE ~
. }~i.-H !... . 1
UJi
s t re e t:
81611
"""."
""
October 6, 1975
DELIVERED BY HAND
Leonard M. Oates, Esq.
Oates, Austin & McGrath
Attorneys-at-Law
. 600 East Hopkins
Aspen, Co. 81611
Re: Aspen View Condominium
Dear Lennie:
Dave advises 'that the draft Agreement I submitted
last week needs amendment as follows:
1. The phrase "as Parcel 2" should be
deleted as the roadway constitutes both Parcel 2
and a strip within ParcelL
2. There must be inserted a six (6) months
leasing provision.
A copy of the Agreement as amended is enclosed.
Very truly yours,
A~
Sandra M. Stuller
city Attorney
SS/pk
Enc.
::
\'.,
.\
-(,
.
~.
CIr;1Yc.
/~
r:{o s01.uh
a spell ,:...('0 M(} i' ad o,.~
,.:n'",v
'''''''\:J .....,..,.;,"'.,;,.;.;,)
4
C'Tn
,.. "...l
\ .ij ,,~r-t
....,iY,A
/""",.
;ASPEr~
!l. ,"",'
1:1 ! {~ !l '~
street
81611
October 6, 1975
DELIVERED BY HAND
Leonard M. Oates, Esq.
Oates, Austin & McGrath
Attorneys-at-Law
. 600 East Hopkins
Aspen, Co. 81611
Re: Aspen View Condominium
Dear Lennie:
. . .
Dave advises 'that the dra~t Agreement I submitted
.last week needs amendment as follows: .
1. The phrase "as Parcel 2" should be
deleted as the roadway constitutes both Parcel 2
and a strip wi thin Parcel l.
2. There must be inserted a six (6) months
leasing provision.
A copy of the Agreement as amended is enclosed.
Very truly yours,
A~
Sandra M. Stuller
City Attorney
SS/pk
Enc.
:'1
,
:\
,/.
-:,'..
^
I
~ \ :1 I ~ ,.. ,
. ,.
I \, ~" I , ;-
\, \ . I'.
, , ~
'" . . -
"-,: .
C'- ) ~~ -""
,.-...
ASPEN/PITK
130 so
aspen,
ing Department
street
81611
~EMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE: Aspen View Preliminary and Final Plat Re-approval
DATE: January 15, 1976
This is a request by John Ginn for the Aspen View Subdivision
for reconsideration of the Preliminary and Final Plat of the
Subdivision. Section 20-14, "Final Plat Procedure", of the
City of Aspen, Section (e), States:
(e) Failure on the part of the subdivider to
record the final plat within a period of ninety
(90) days following approval by the City Council
shall render the plat invalid. Reconsideration
and approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat
by the Planning Commission and City Council
respectively will be required before its accep-
tance and recording.
The Planning Office recommends that the Preliminary and Final
Plats be given re-approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
We understand such re-approval will grant an additional 90 days
to the Subdivider in which to record his final plat.
1,_
I
OCtober 2, 1975
Leonard M. Oates, Esq.
oates, Austin & McGrath
Attorneys-at-Law
600 East Hopkins
Aspen, Co. 81611
Rat Aspen View condominium Subdivision Approval
near Lennie:
nav& :Ellis advises me that you would like to have
agenda time on the 14th for final approval of the Aspen View
Plat. In anticipation of that hearing, I am enclosin9 a
carbon copy of a subdivision agreement which is substantially
the draft earlier submitted by Andy, but incorporating' Dave's
requested changes.
With respect to the agreement, please note:
1. He need a copy of the referred. to
"Exhibit A", which is the property description.
2. We need an appraisal of the value of
(or evidence of a. recent sale price of) the tract
for purpoeel!l of caluclating the dedication fee.
Please contact Mick Mahoney who will represent
the City in det:ermininqland value.
.v'Vry truly yours,
Sandra M. Stuller
city Attorney
8Sjpk
Ene. >
OCt i:rec~;;i~/
~/ /IL~
- /
~~ .~~ a/..e=A'" -5--0=-V
j//c-e <':C~ fr CL 6~~
:.-&-;-2'" ....... . ~~ ~~_-4-_/ /
~~ c:-n ~ ~~
~/
;\'
1 .
r-..
.--,
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Couneil
February 24, 1975
Councilman Breasted moved to approve the request to ~e~d~sign the building; scco1ded by
11 Councilman Behrendt.
I'
!, Fleisher and Wells will brin,g in two models; one with only.b1o floors and one wi-:h a
parapet under the April 15 qeadline and the Council will vote on which building -:hey
want. Councilman Walls asked if the Council would offer the sarneopportunity to the
other three buildings that are also under Ordinance SO. Mayor Standley answered if they
would go to the same amount of'work as did Fleisher.
j
'1: Councilmcmbers Breasted, Behrendt, De Gregorio, Mayor Standley in favor, Councilncmber
Ii Markalunas, Pedersen, \Valls opposed; m'otio!\- carried.
!
I)
Ii
i:
!i
Ii
ii
i!
ASPENVIEW ANNEXATION
Yank Mojo of the Planning Depa~tment explained to Council that this was a petition for
annexation to the City for the A.spenview apartment building.. The owners have applied
for a preliminary subdivision of these apartments, but until all the land is annExed
they cannot subdivide. It is in the best interests of the City to annex approxinatcly
5,000 square feet of property and to s~art to deal with the problems on Midland avenue.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Resolution #5; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio.
All in favor, mot.ion carried.
ORDINANCE #5
(Series of 1975)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 13-35 AND 13-51 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE
AND ESTABLISHING A NEW SECTION 13-68 OF CHApTER 13; WHICH AMENDMENTS PROnDE.
FOR THE PUNISHMENT OF DISCHARGING BOWS, BLOWGUNS., SLINGSHOTS, GUNS OR
OTHER DEVICES AT ANY BUIW ING, VEHICLE OR PERSON OR IN ANY PUBLIC PLACE;
WHICH ALSO PUNISHES THE BRANDISHHENT OPANYTHING APPEARING TO BE .~ DEADLY
WEAPON WHEN CALCULATED TO ALAilll; AND PROHIBITING THE DISBURSING OR PLACE-
MENT OF HANDBILLS IN OR ON VEHICLES OR IN PUBLIC PLACES, BUT PROVIDING FOR
DISTRIBUTING NON-CO~~ERCIAL HANDBILLS IF RECEIVED BY A RECIPIENT; AND
IMPOSING PENALTIES OF NOT MORE THAN THREE HUNDRED ($300.00) DOLLARS OR
NINETY (90) DAYS IMPRISONMENT ON VIOLATION or' ANY OF THE ABOVE
was read by the City Clerk.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Resolution #5; Series of 1975, seconded by
i: Councilman De Gregorio. Roll call vote; Cauncilmembers Breasted, aye; Behrendt, dye;
" De Gregorio, aye; Pedersen, aye; Markalunas, aye; Walls, aye; Mayor Standley, <'I.ye.
All in favor, motion carried.
AIR QUALITY REPORT
Jim Roark the County Sanitarian recommended that we use the weather equipment put out by
Climate, California. The project is to collect surface data and it will include (1)
wind-speed, wind. direction, temperature, these records would be k~pt on an hourly basis
over a 24 hour period. (2) The second cOllection of air pollutant data would be a
carbon monoxide analyzer_which is already in operation. (3) Th~n an emissions inventory
that would include fireolace emissions, and cownercial emissions. (4) Then an
evaluation of that collective data"
Jim Roark mentioned that the State Air Pollution Control people have assured him
that they will assist in every way they can; both technically in the installation of
the equipment., replacement of the equipment and in the collcctiC'n of the data from
thcpollutant monitoring data in correlation with the weather data.
It is the advice of the State Air Pollution Control Division of Personnel that tho
equipment be placed within the City li.mits.and when a meeting was held with the Historical
Preservation Conunittee it was suggested that it be put up on the roof of the City Hall.
Mayor Standley told Council: he had cant.acted. Region 12 of C0.G and there is money available
for such a system. There is $100,000,000 uncommitted funds from BPA that has to tc
allocated by June 30. COG feels sure that they can get the entire program funded 'for
~ Region l2~ Mayor Standley strongly suggested tha~Council let COG get the prograrr
together if they have the money located and ,the manpO\v'cr to go after this program.
COG should be doing this for the City. They will be the granting agency and we will
be the receiVing agency. Mayor Standley told Council he felt itmorited waiting three
or four months for the money to have COG handle this program. Mayor Standley also told
Council he would be taking all this information to Lee \'V'oolsey, Region 12 director of
COG on Friday, February 28.
RAIL TRANSIT
Planner John Stanford told Council this subject would be covered in the Clty:"'County
Clearinghouse on Thursday February 27, 1975.
CITY MANAGER
1) City Hanager Mahoney addressed the subject Of Council salaries. He and Finance
Director Loi.s DuttcrL<1uqh hud investigated salaries both for other Councils and
corporate directors. Mahoney pointed out to Council t.hc l<Jrgc amount of time spent and
the. consequence of the dec islon[; they h;ld h.::td-to make in the last yC.J.r such <J.!; publ i.c
uti.1.ith>s, ratc5, owncr.ship, tr<J.nsportation, :z'oqing.. parking problem;,.!' post officc,a
four million dollar budget tZlxation, etc. '1'he consequences of the Council's de0isi?ns
'!.;.-:~.~
Trail Plan
J
Motion
Subdivision -
Aspen View Condos.
Preliminary
j
i"""
P & Z, 2-l8-75
Stanford came before members to present a timetable for work on the trai"
plans. He asked that the P & Z's adopted trail pIan designate paved and '.
unpaved trails. He showed them a map with all revised trails in brown.
Collins moved to adopt a Resolution that the adopted Trail Plan designate
paved or unpaved trails and Johnson seconded. All in favor, except for Dr.
Barnard, who abstained. Motion carried.
Stanford noted that at this time .they didn't have a clear definition of
City and County responsibilities and s.aid that the County plans to build
a trail. from the Institute to the Music School and from Ute Ave~ue to
Highway 82. Schiffer asked what kind of trails these would be and Stanford
noted that both would be paved. .
Stan.ford said he saw two City trails that were the most signifi:ant and
recommended that these two trails be worked on first. One would be from
Main at Galena through the Rio Grande property to the Roariug Fork to Gibso
Avenue. The other would be a demonstration of how they could put a bike
trail On a public right of way such as from the bridge at Hopkins to Park
Avenue. Johnson questioned what Stanford was asking them for and the City!
County Planner asked that the P & Z recommend these two trails ::0 be worked
on first. Schiffer asked.why there would have to be a delay of tpe others
and Stanford said that it was mainly financial since there wasn't enough
money in the budget. Johnson said he couldn't recommend those ::wo until he
knew all that were planned. Stanford noted that there was one planned for.
Galena Street, a link along the Midland coming from Dean to Midland Avenue,
and one from Castle Creek to the Midland right of way. All done in summer.
Schiffer said he was hesitant about recommending the Rio Grande trail beca~
of the uncertainty surrounding what it would be used for. Johnson thought
that they should put safety first and ke~p pedestrians from being on the
Castle Creek bridge. Schiffer noted that N. Mill Street was just as much
a hazard for pedestrians. Jenkins questioned why they were talking about a
trail through the Rio Grande property since no plans have been made yet.
Schiffer proposed to table it until they have something to look at on that
property. Barnard agreed and thought it premature. Schiffer said that the
Planning Office had fulfilled their obligations to the Commission and they
should table the problem until something concrete is worked out for the
Rio Grande property.
The Chairman opened up the public hearing.
Mojo explained that these were the apartments east of Midland and north of
the panabodes. He said that currently the City has annexed to a line runn~
through the property and the P & Z can't give approval until the annexatic.
process has gone through Council. Their petition will be going through
Council at their next meeting. Schiffer asked how much total land waS
involved and Mojo said it was .73 acres. Mojo noted that a big part of
the land is within the City through the East Side Annexation. The other
problem was that there wasn't enough frontage on the public street. They
only had l6'. lie also mentioned that they were over the density according
to the new code but it was an already existing building. Attorneys Andrew
Hecht and Leonard Oates.have been in the process of negoiating for the extr
land for frontage but the owner, Mr. Randall, had been asking a substantiaL
price for the land. Attorney Hecht said that they had gotten an easement
for the property but they wanted to give the land to the City. Barnard
felt strongly that they should have to comply with the design requirements
since the property abuts the public street. Oates said that they were wilL;
to table until the Resolution for annexation passes Council. B<.rnard said
that the City had to keep control of the street and .it was notec that the C
plows that street. Oates said that Mr. Randall. was. asking that, in additic
to the purchase price, they come up the road and make it into a cul-de-sac
and. gravel it.
There. being no public comment, Schiffer closed the public hearir.g.
-2-
j
i
l
I
~
l
I
I
I
Barnard moved to table the preliminary subdivision approval for Aspen Vie~ I
Condominiums, ~ho waived their 30 days right, until such time when annexation !
and street problems are worked out. Hunt seconded. All in favor, motion ~
carried.
A
1""\
..,.>...........;;)1.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
"M" 111 c.~. l't<'lHl((l ~. 8. & -l. C~.
~ular Heeting
Aspen Planning &.Zoning Commission
February 18, 1975
spen View, cont'd
i
\j
Art Daily noted that Council had approved their preliminary for 32 units
but since that time, they had been held to the new zoning code which says
they couldn't use .vacated streets towards density so they were back to 26
units and down to two stories from three. Schiffer questioned whether they
still had the same easements and trails and Daily assured him they did.
Mojo explained that all that had been done was they had shrunk the project,
moving the buildings and pool& reducing it to 26 units. Johnson questioned
if there was any loss in parking places and Rich Wilde said they had stayed
the same at 40 parking spaces.
r
,
i
!
I
.D.P - final
illas
For PUD/ODP final, Mojo said that all recommendations, etc. had been
satisfied, that the people had been cooperative and that this was the best
plan they had come.up with yet.
fi
~
U
\;;
Lotion
Barnard moved to approve
'All in favor, except for
the final ODP/PUD for the Villas and Jenkins
Collins who voted nay. Motion carried.
t
r,
~
;ubdivision - final
TU1as
Schiffer opened the public hearing and asked if all subdivision requirements
had been met. Mojo said that all. had been satisfied except for some
engineering problems that had to be worked out.
,
,
~
,
!
Ellis explained that these were engineering details which could be Forked
and it wouldn't affect the site plan. Schiffer asked Mojo if he was
recommending approval conditional upon certain engineering problems being
worked out and Mojo was affirmative.
out
/
'I
Schiffer asked Mojo to review the conditions of prior approval and }~ojo
listed a detailed drain. plan, domestic water supply, new fire hydrar.t and
trash pick up areas for a front loading truck to manuever.
Schiffer closed the public hearing.
\
I
,
i
I
I
!;
~!otion
Johnson moved to approve the final subdivision for the Villas conditional
upon resolution .of the engineering problems to the satisfaction of the
Engineering Department and working out a satisfactory subdivision agreemerit.
Barnard seconded. All in.favor, except for Collins who voted nay. ~Iotion
carried.
Collins moved to adjourn and Barnard.seconded. All in favor, meeting
adJourned at 6:l5 p.m.
~,6~
Susan B. Smith, Deput City Clerk
-3-
"
"
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
.'
,
,!~
1""\
"-
Clrry ()F ASIlEN
aspt~n ,CnIOriHio, 816ft hox V
MEtl0RANDur.l
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
Planning Office (HC) :/1tY;l.
Aspen View Rezoning
July 24, 1975.
This si a request to rezone the area to be annexed as part of the
condominiul1lization of Aspen View Subdivision. The contiguous pro-
perty in the City is zoned.R/MF. Residential/Multi-family, and the
property to be. annexed in the County is zoned R-15.
Since no additional developrrent is involved, the reconmendation of
the' Pl anni ng Offi ce is to zone the property. R/~IF .
~.
~
l
i
;
!
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
!
(
"
/
(
,
,
B~:.,Lt.:tl~~E.J~~l:~ c t ~~,!'~_
Aspen View
,. S\lbdivision
~
j
Motion
,,-...
.~
f.
;') 0 (" i: ,CC~~: ;":U i i",~ G~:~,
10n Leaves
.... ........---.--".-..-... .~._--
,"...-,-._...._...,----,..
...-..,---...,.-----,.,.---. -..._-- .--............
, -.-.-----..-..,..-.---.-.-..-.-.---.,.,
A';1)('n 1'1Clnninq & Zoninq June 3, 197!i
----'____--1..._,..-....----..-.---.,..-.......,.,..-.--..__..._.....,..._,....__..____.___..._.____.__.....,..__..._ ___..._.._.
No:jo c'xplilin"d t.h<Jt the al1licxClt.ion process hac1 been
cO:.~!lplct.c~d p Thc~p(,,'i...ition for subdivison \,yas. given t~o
ca,i;h nlc~mb~~.l:., Hoj 9 ~,xJ.)lci inc:d "Lha t on -the plaE'j r; I'D.reel
II which ,;t"<1.('" road right of Vlay dedi cat.ion; \,iliicll is
. t:hc piece of propert.y being bOll~illt f:com Rc:.ndall in order
to give to the City so .that Nidland l\venue becomes 4.
The petition for exemption from the definit~on of sub-
division under theo~d code is to petition part to be able
to subdivide Parcel II off of Randall's property without
having to go through subdiviGion so they can give i:.. to
the Ci t:y for right. of way. ~'here are two rea,;ons for
presenLi.ncI thi[; those being l) exemption from definition
of subdivision of Parcel II so they can give the City the
road and 2) final.subdivision approval for the conclomin-
imization of the building. Schiffer questioned if this
exemp1:ion or an exception has to be approved by the Ci-ty
Council. Mojo replied yes. Mojo explained that the
Commission vlOuldn' t be granting an exemption but a
reconunendation for exception from the definition of
subdivision. The Engineering Department report.ed that thE
plat has been corrected to satisfaction. The Planning
Office and Engineering Department recommend appl'oval of
the final subdivision plat as submitted condit:ionecl upon
five items: 1) 6 month covering on leasing 2) number of
parking E;paces be maintained in its current level 3.)
eommitme;.jt to join a waive right of protest any future
irnprovE.;lnent. distri.cts tha.t are compo:-:.;ed for thc'l area
4) cOlTanitn:ent to pay for construction or to reimburse the
City for construction of street paving curb and gutter an,
sidewalk when the City deems these improvements necessary
in the case the improvement_ district should not be create(
or proposed for the area and 5) agreelnent too improve the
ne\vly dedicated portion parcel to of l:11e Hidland right
.of way with seal and chip firiish. Schiffer mentioned thai
the petition contains all the conditions precedent ~or
recommending approval for which the Commission \-1Ould have
to find each one of these conditions before recommending
approval such that there were special circumstances
affecting the property, that the exceptions necessary for
the preservation and joint:ment of substantion property
rig]yt, and the granting of the acception might be detri-
mental to the public welfar~ to other properties in the
area which the subject property is situated. It's not
intended to be a separate subdivision but is necessary fOe
approval of this subdivision.
J.ohnson moved to recommend to City Council. app:r:oval of
the petition for the exception from the definition of a
SUbdivision, seconded by Otte. All in favor, motion
carried.
1'0 cleur for the records Schiffer mentioned that-. this is
a petition for exemption and and what was granted was an
exception. He meritioned that under section 20-SA the
request is for an aeception. Johrison ~ntertained amotio
to recommend to City Council approval of the final pJ .::It
condtition upon the City Council granting the exception
from the definition of subdivision requested and further
conditional upon the 5 conditions listed by the Planning
Offic:e, Otte scconC\ed. All in favor I motion Cillrr ied.
-3-
I
f
-B-~ul~2-! j'lectj,-r::J_~
'Hio GrdlH]C
Gent'd
'7
Correction on
A,;pcn Vie'"
conu.onU,DJ..ums
Motion
.-
;~,
~
[;:,'~~:~O;';i:; p~:-
;"',
[.1-'-,\(",...
~_.... t , ~ '_:~;
100 Lr.,;; v(.c'
....,-... - "...
- -' ~ ^. -~... .,...,..-.
.-. -'"--_..-- '---- ..-~
......."........,,----..--.
P 1 a n~!!j:_~~:,L_!:.__ f, 0 nj:~l__.~~o1E~~1:L ~_~:),g_l_~..__..__.___..__,~_____~_~_~~.L ~}~L.....~: 2'ZS.._
I t .-' ,-, (" 1:..,.'~' ,-. ,"1 _I...) C" ~ J-~ ,._,(1 '-1 ~ . - -' .: t.. c-.. t (1 r ~'~ C' '--~ . '"
. ' \;l..J.) C CClu.,., 1..,C -,C h_...~t.... l. u. JOJ.n, ~.' .u,,) ...>c,--,...J.~~n
t Ci'(1Y f":ci.J.nciJ.. Dnd P &-' Z Comm.i..~.:;f)i.()n aft:e.r. the 11e\lJ
s,,}orn in.
~:
Lc t\':(~cn
(ii~\lJ~'~x E:; ,Jr,
Schiffer hroughtup the Aspen View Condemihium ~ d asked
m(":ml')(':'r~) tq 1()ok .at: "c.llc pc:t.j t:ion v71'iich v\~a8 l'li.lnuc-::d out~
Scll:d'fcr cxpJa.i ncdthat t.h.:, l"';pml Viev] asked fur an
exen:ption, bllt U,ey ba":cd tbeir J:C;'1uest on all t 1e criteJ:~_
for an cxcE.'.ption so I t,ook those and thought the they
'\,,Tcr(~ aSking for an e>:ccpt:)on.. But :jlJSt. i,lft~cr c.l1) ufter
t:hought. I'm th-inking bac}: on t:he, re']ulaLions and thee
exccptjon lc'"nq1luSjc-, is thC:l'L .the P:idnning Conluli~~~r:;i n may
grant tin e:-::ccpt.iC)ll 'in tb(~ E.trict".aP1JJ.j..C,:1,.t:l-Ol":l of nu ():c
more of the st.aneJra,d rc~q1J irCffiQJTt..s ;]nd otJlcr prov'_sionG of
this Che.pt~e:r 20 \'lhen in t~he ~)Ud~r(~niC'nt the Pla.nnin Comll1:i_.s.-
siol1 ur)du(~ h.211.'dship w,'y rC:;'_;1."!lt fr'o!\1 ~~t:ric"\: c:olnpliar.\.ce
tJlen we have to filld that they have satisfi.ed tIle
fOllowing criteria which they've listed. The other part
of the exception in thE' exemption provision is .ho.1: the
folliwng the receipt of recommendat:ion frcm thc Planning
Co:nrnissi.on the City Cm:l11eil may exempt a pi:l):ticl1ar
division of laJld from the definition of a subdi~isj.on se1
forth :Ln section 221\; when tbe judgement of the City
Council such division of: land is not: within the in'ce.nt
and purpoEe of this Chap.tc:r 20. SchiffeJ.::' thin1,_' vlhBJC
happened \':as t:hQ ..' person \\Tho prE..'_parcd the c;ppli _<:1.t~ion or
the petj.tj,onprobab].y J.oo]ted at this quj.ckly ancprobubly
missC";:d -the 'po.i.nt. and I comp()nnd.E~d tIle pt7cblcE't b 7 poiili::ing
out thi<.t th(~y t:ce <.l.sking rQr an cxcr,?ption when i fact
they asked for an ey,empU.on. So I think 'ce elu'ify for
the record is to agree UH t. t.hey asked foy an e 'emption
that, the proj ect is vitbo\1i: intent and purpose f t.he
s1J.bdivision regula.tion a.nd therefore v]e recornn1(~ 1ded
City Council (p:ant an exerntpion as opposed t.O e ccption 0
one or more of: the requirement:". The problem is they v.'il
have to go back and POh1t out everyone of t.he r .quix:e-
rnents t.hey Y,'on.-t an except.ion from. That VlClsn 1t. their
intent and was my mistake.
Johnson moved that the worde;{emption is insert cd in plac
of the \<,ord exccption and continue from thi'lt bi sis.
Jenkins seconded the motion. All in favor, moion carrie
Jenkins movec1to adjourn and Hunt
meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
seconded. AJ 1 in favoJ
///
Klym, . Deputy i toy Clerk
./' t' ,,}I "
, . \ -' "_ ,.' I
ElIzabetb '~1:.
-7-
~-~. ......-.
I""'\c-'
..-,~~;o- ~
" ~ff<'
~
...
,;:...-
RECORD 'UF5~~iltmGS
100 leaves
ra~"'~ C, r. w'rf.l(rl"~.~. '" l. Co,.
RESOLUTION NO. ~-
(Series of 1975)
.,
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council
for its consideration a Petition for Annexation by John C. Gi n,
concerning the following described tract located in pitkin
County, Colorado, to wit:
A parcel of land being part of the Riverside
Pl<l~er, U.S.M.S. 3905 amended, Section 18, TIOS,
R8~W of the. 6th P.M. Said parcel is more fully
described as follows: Beginning at a point from
whence Corner *3, 99 Lode Claim, (brass cap in
place), bears S.89046'E. 255.59 ft.1 thence S.060
23' E. 31.04 ft.1 thence N.850 50' W. 217.24 ft.1
thence N.06023' W. 16.03 ft.; thence S. 89046' E.
215.00 ft. to the point of beginning, said parcel
containing .115 acres more or less, and
WHEREAS, said petition signed by the applicants dated
February 5, 1975, has been determined by City Council to
satisfy the requirements of Section 31-8-107 of the Colorado
Revised Statutes, 1973, and
WHEREAS, it is required by the Colorado Municipal
Annexation Act that the City Councifs determination of the
substantial compliance of an annexation petition be by
Resolution and therefore of recorp.,
~-------=
,-~"
~
~~eTJ A+TJ '~e+n~ U.AA~~qq++E~
~r(~?
oS L 6 T ' Ie=' f:- Y7{.n-rv7::t:;1 PTeq
oUT+eem s+T +E TTounoJ A+TJ eq+ Aq pe+dopE uOT+nTose~ E JO
Adoo e+E~nOOE pUE en~+ E ST oUTOoe~OJ eq+ +Eq+ AJT+~eO '~~eT~
A+TJ OUT+OE pUE pe+UToddE ATnp '~e+nEH UA~q+E~ 'I
f;O'~]?.' )'0"'8. ,,#
~. r _~&bl 51:' ~,p""a
'p~ooe~ JO epEm AqCl~eq sT OUTPUTJ +Eq+ pUE '+OV UOT+l?XClUU\i
TEdTOTunW OPE~OTOJ eq+ 'EL6T 'sCl+n+l?+S pClsTAe~ OPE~OTOJ JO
LOT-B-TE uOT+oes JO s+UClme~TnbCl~ eq+ q+T~ eouE1Tdmoo TET+UB+sqns
U1 eq 0+ pCluTm~e+ep 'S1 Aqe~eq PUl? 'Clq A+~Cldo~d peq1~osep
eAoqE eq+ JO U01+EXeUUl? ~OJ UUT::l OJ uqOI' Aq PCl++1mqns pUB
'SL6T 's ^~En~qed pCl+Bp u01+l?XeUUV ~OJ UOT+T+Cld Clq+ +Eq~
:oaVllO~OJ 'N~dSV dO XiliIJ ~Hili dO
~IJNnOJ XiliIJ ~Hili XU a~~~os~ ~I ~g '~~Od~~~Hili 'MOK
:---~
~ ',j 'J .. ~I>O~
..'~tJ,n 00i.
SnNIa33::l0l:ld .:10 Ol:lO03l:l
Stream Margin
. ,
Motion
Rezoning:
~spen View
"
: 'Motion
l.
~
t"""\
p & Z 7-2S 15.
..
were shown the new alignment for Red Mountain Roadwhioh::'elimir\'5'tes
Mill Street and the bridge as access up to Red Mountain. Goodheirn
asked how the trails were to be interfaced with the transit with
Stanford noting that they had a shuttle bus from the Rio Grande.
It was questioned whether the City or County was in litigation
over the Shaw property with Jenkins noting that he didn't think
that the tip of the land was the Shaw's. . Russell said that it
would be probably done through a land swap.
Goodheim moved to approve the request. Abbott seconded. Dobie
questioned whether the bikes could take the new trail over .the
winter with Stanford noting that with the bridge, it would be
easier to take this trail then go by way of Mill Street.
All in favor, motion carried.
Jenkins opened the public hearing for the Aspen View Subdivision
rezoning. Clark said that this would be a filling out of the
existing property. The. City has it zoned R/MF and the County had
it as R-l5. Kane noted that there is an Ordinance requirlng land
to be part of the City for subdivision thus a part had been
annexed. They had annexed the land as R-15. Clark noted that
they have 90 days to reaone. Goodheim asked why the land was
annexed with Kane stating that they own the land but it was in
the county and was needed as. a fire lane. .
Hunt moved to .zone Aspen Vi;ew as shO\~n on the plat to R/MF.
Collins seconded. All in favor, mOtion carried. Jenkins closed
the public hearing.
Hopkins Clark pointed out that this was Madsen's at the base of Shadow
mountain. They were in preliminary and final plat stage and
they were asking to rezone the county designation of R-15 to
. City R-6. .
700 W.
"
f1otion
.Motion
Election of
Officers
Hunt moved to rezone the 700 W. Hopkins as indicated on the plat
from R-15 to R-6 on the annexation area. Collins seconde~.
Goodheim questioned whether he should bring this up but he was
apprehensive about the large rash of condominizations since all
the rental areas are becoming owner units. He noted that even
thought the renters are given the right of first refusal, many of
them can not afford to purchase the unit and the City is losing
much of its rental units this way. Jenkins noted that he had
not been aware of the problem until Goodheim brought it uF but
thought it something that the P & Z should be aware of in the
future. Goodheim quqstioned whether they wanted to address them-
selves to who is benefitting. Kane felt it was appropriate for
the P & Z to discuss and question the history of each request.
~enkins felt that some units are particularly stable and had a
history of good ownership. Clark said that it was a false
assUl'lption that the new ownershir.> precludes rentals since they
could be absentee owners. Goodheim said that many of the owners
of the development were speculating by making them into.condos.
Clark noted that several.were suffering from the dedication fee
to whi~h Jenkins faIt that it was punitive. Jenkins asked that
thi'Y ~~chC'duli-' .1 di~cus:-;ion with C;oodhC'im (d~ .:1 priV"-lt:,.' c'it.izC'n)
and the 1l0usinqTask Force. Clarl<.noted that Bruce Kistler would
be coming to their meeting next week to ask for an exemption from
the dedication fees.
All in favor., motion carried.
Jenkins readi statement from Otte, who was out of town, in. favor
Chick Collins as Chairman. Collins moved to open the nominations
for Chairman. Collins nominated Jenkins. Goodheim nominated .
ColI ins. Jenkins closed the nominations. Collins said th3t he
didn't have the time to put into being chairman. Jenkins said
toCollins th<"lt, pC'cau,,,, of the all the nl'W members, only "Ie or
Jenkins hac! the backqround to .b" cl1.linn.J;l. l'ap,'r ballots '..ere
C')f;t witt; J-:':lnc notinq that ,Jenkin!;' h.ld tU'(_~J1 el(.'ctC'd'~
-2-
/
,
f
.
,
I
f
L
~,. Determination,
'!otion
Subdivision:
;,spen View Condos,
.~r
MY~
'\'~
':'1otion
620 Hyman Building
,
J
j C:i.
I
\''\~
~f
cont1d Dunawav asJ:ed whv t~2V l)ad such' a stiglna ag2i~st
electric As ;ince Andr~ has' them.~hnson said th:lt: un
electric g2unes .area is .differnet from c' hillard .parlor.
Baraby noted that they had 11 pool tables with small ':James
on the side. Jenkins thought that it should be a conditional
use because othonvise it is limiting the applicant's economic
feasibility and Hojo said that .he didn't think the noise of
electric games was.copdusive tobackgarunon or a good game of
pool. . ... ...;~::':
Hunt moved to put a. billard parlqr in the CC zone as a
conditional use. Otte seconded. AII'in favor, motion carried.
~lojo exolained thilt .sJnc~ th~? I< Zhad t~ed t:h~AspeIl
View CQLl.!lQ..;'i_Jc1.t:ter. t0~_ public hC,llring in F<i:Q.ruar:t....Q~s.~,!-lse 9.!
~.!lnexation probl~n:"s needing to be solved first, Counc:-l haa
acceptea.-fhe petition -r-6r-arrn.....e....-Xri"e-1:l.J1l' n-;:d .'J-L \'Jct-~now '..l:' t1r~
the P I< z's-iurisdictio~. since the tine the~n~~R~ts
had gone out, the Fire Narshall had withdrawn his requirement
for another fire pluq since it was determined that the building
was within the legal limits of a broken plug which was being
replaced now. Jenkins. asked whther the road problems had been
taken care of and Andy Hecht, attorney for Aspen View, noted
that the owner of Aspen View had agreed to purchase the
recommended road footage and will dedicate that part from
their prope~ty to the City.
Mojo said that the Planning Office recommended approv~l. with
the following stipulations: dedication of Midlana Ay~. to
the city; the owners show the current zoning on the final plat;
tne area be monumented (as required by the State); utility
sizes on pass~ng and a~cess easements must be shown; ~nd the
o~r's surveyor must contact the City Engineer to work out
arrangements for the street improvements prior to the
preparation of the final pJ.at.
Hunt moved to approve the preliminary subdivision for the
Aspen View C~dos subject to the conditions listed abcve.
Seconded by Otte. All in favor, motion carried.
Don Fleisher explained to the P & Z that he had not had contro]
over the first design of the building and when he finally
looked at it, he discovered he didn't like. the design. He
then went to Council to ask for an extension of time to
resdesign the building under the old density. Council gave
him approval under an Ordinance and granted him an extension
of time. Since then he has been back to Council several
times and has given them the opportunity to piCk from the
designs he had come up with. He noted that Council had asked
him to come before the P & Z to get their approval on the
building design but that it was not mandatory that he come.
He presented a model of the. block where the proposed building
will be buitl and also compared the old design to the new
one.
Jenkins thought that they were out of their purview when the)'
get into architectural designs. Fleisher said that it was
an increasingly important function and that other city boards
such as the HPC were deciding along design criteria. Schiffer.
said that this wasn't one of the criteria under Ordinance 19
and until it was, they didn't hnve any control over the
archit_ecture bu't that they could qivethei"r unoffici.al ClpE?rO~J~l.
to Council to go ~hcad and give tl1c extension to the bJilding
to complete the redesigning. Johnson thought it was a~
j.mrrov0~~~nt over the ol,d dl~sL0n ~rld was in fnvor of F].~isl)2r':;
nc",'.' (L','~':l.(;n.
I.JC\ 1': ti,:~ (~T:.
() C/) 1,; ::1 I . t h,11":
i.: h('\' (i r:!::"l ~,'
t 0 1~.(:CC:~,:;>
rC:<i1.'-:
:-:"':Jin,::t;'lC
, ~. .,'" L ~
':' >; ; ," :.~ i l~' n
Or-ditLlt'ii":'C SO the 6:',;(J:; n ill..:i.ldinq pt"Ovj,(!JL'J ;.':i:,"lt
dcnsil.;,' _,'F",I: ll:'~ --:, of the: i; nc\;/ b;Ji.1.\ling i.E. not C;1::1:1.:lC.,d
the 01- il:J .i.ILl.l.""--:Tt.:-nk in~::-; ~;(',:c(jndC'd,.
f:?::'OLi
. '
!
~\
,.-,
,;.,...'
LAw OF'F"ICe:S
OATES, AUSTIN a MCGRATH
aoo EAST HOPKINS STR~e:.T
eox 3707
LEONARD M. OATES
RONALD C: AU$TI N
.J. NICHOLAS McGF'l.ATH., .JR.
WILLIAM Fl. ..JORDAN 1II
ANDREW Y. HECHT
ASPE:N, GOL-ORACO Slell
June 3, 1975
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE 925-2600
Ms. Sandra Stuller
City Attorney
P. O. Box V
Aspen, Colorado
81611
Dear Sandy:
Enclosed are the copies of letters and releases
I have sent to the Aspen Hills condominium owners.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
OATES, AUSTIN & McGRATH
By(2/~:~$4
Andrew V. Hecht
AVH/nwt
Enclosures
"'"
^
~ ."
LAW OPF"ICES
OATES, .AUSTIN a MCGRATH
500 EAST HOPKINS STRE:ET
eox 3707
L.t~ONAl'tO M. OATEs
RONALO O. AUSTIN
-J,.NICHOL.AS MeGRATI-t,.,JR.
WILL.IAM R. .JOROAN. m
ANDREW v. HECI-lT
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
June. 2, 1975
AREA CODE 303
TItI..EP....ONe: 92!5~260Q
Mr. James M. Jenkins
c/o Continental Bank & Trust Co.
7910 Clayton Road
St. Louis, Missouri 63116
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
Aspen View Apartments is in the process of condominium-
izing its apartments and as a part of that process the City has
required Aspen View to dedicate to the pUblic the property known
as the extension of Midland Avenue.
Before Aspen View can do that it must obtain a release
from you concerning any exclusive easement you have if any, in
favor of dedication of that Midland Avenue extension to the public.
If you have no objection to the Midland Avenue extension being a
public road, please sign the release which accompanies this letter
and return it to me immediately.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
OATES, AUSTIN & McGRATH
.., .~~. ...... HECIff
,'r,' .,
By
AVH/ges
Enclosure
Andrew V. Hecht
cc: Ms. Sandra Stuller 1./'
1"""..
"'"
:' ~...
\.
RELEASE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that I, being
one of the owners of a condominium known as Aspen Hills
,1 Condominiums lying adjacent to Midland Avenue extension i
,
,I
I
City of Aspen, State of Colorado, for good and valuable
consideration do hereby acknowledge that I waive any
rights that I might have to easement filed in Book 212
at Page 322 of the records of Pitkin County and waive any
right to protest the construction, improvement, and opera
tion of a public road on the following described property.
!!
A parcel of land being part of Mascotte Lode
U.S.M.S. 5867 and being situated in Section
18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the
6th Principal Meridian. Said parcel is more
fully described as follows:
I
'I
,
I
I
II
I fact that that road shall be used, operated and maintained
Beginning at a point from whence corner 3 of
the 99 lode claim U.S.M.S. 6899 (brass cap
in place), bears S 89" 46' E, 470.59 feet;
thence N 89" 46' W, 41.10 feet; thence N 04"
54' W, 91.24 feet; thence N 85" 44' 33" E,
38.49 feet; thence S 06" 23' E, 95.42 feet
to the point of beginning. Said parcel
contains .084 acres more or less.
This Agreement is further conditioned upon the
as a public road and that Countryside Associates dedicate
their interest in said strip of land to public use for suc
purposes. I expressly limit the waiver for the purposes
.I and considerations hereinabove contained and expressed and
II
II
I
I
I
,
I
I
~
,
I
I
I
i
1
I
!
I
as such make this waiver.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party hereto has
executed this Release the
day of
, 1975.
James M. Jenkins
"
"
"'"
1""".
LAW OF'Flees
OATES, AUSTIN a MCGRATH
laOO EAST 1-I0~K'NS STREET
BOX 3707
LEONA~D M. OATES
RONALO .0. AUSTIN
.,I. NiCHOLAS MCGAATH,..JR;
WIL.L.IAM R, .JORDAN m
ANDREW v. HECHT
ASPEN, COL.ORAOO 81611
June 2, 1975
AREA coos: 30:::
TELEPI-lONE 9<!'5~2600
Ms. Margaret McGauock
P. O. Box 533
AspeIl, Colorado 81611.
Dear Ms. McGauock:
Aspen View Apartments is in the process of condominium~
izing its apartments and as a part of that process the City has
required AspeIl View to dedicate to the public the property known
as the extension of Midland Avenue.
Before Aspen View can do that it must obtain a release
from you concerning any exclusive easement you, have if any, in
favor of dedication of that Midland Avenue extension to the public.
If you have no objection to the Midland Avenue extension being a
public road, please sign the release which accompanies this letter
and return it to me immediately.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
OATES, AUSTIN & McGRATH
COPY D:':::ANDREWV..Hf:CHT
By
AVH/ges
Enclosure
Andrew V. Hecht
cc: Ms. Sandra Stullerv/
"
."'
Ii
i
I
11
II
I
I
I
I
! one of the owners of a condominium known as Aspen Hills
'\
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"'"
.........
RELEASE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that I, being
Condominiums lying adjacent to Midland Avenue extension in
City of Aspen, State of Colorado, for good and valuable
consideration do hereby acknowledge. that I waive any ,
rights that I might have to easement filed in Book 212
at Page 322 of the records of Pitkin County and waive any
right to protest the construction, improvement, and opera-
tion of a public road on the following described property:
A parcel of land being part of Mascotte Lode
U.S.M.S. 5867 and being situated in Section
18, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the
6th Principal Meridian. Said parcel is more
fully described as follows:
II
II
,
I
Beginning at a point from whence corner 3 of
the 99 lode claim U.S.M.S. 6899 (brass cap
in place), bears S 890 46' E,470.59 feet;
thenceN 890 46' W, 41.10 feet; thence N 040
54' W, 91.24 ~eet; thence N 850 44' 33" E,
38.49 feet; thence S 060 23' E, 95.42 feet
to the point of beginning. Said parcel
contains.084 acres more or less.
This Agreement is further conditioned upon the
fact that that road shall be used, operated and maintained
,
as a public road and that Countryside Associates dedicate
their interest in said strip of land to public use for SUC:l
purposes. I expressly limit the waiver for the purposes
and considerations hereinabove contained and expressed and
! as such make this waiver.
II
jl
I
I.
II
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I'
II
I,
,.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the party hereto has
executed this Release the
day of
, 1975.
Margaret McGauock
~-'
"'"
t".
LAw OFFICES
l
OATES, AUSTIN So MCGRATH
600 EAST l-lOf'l'KINS STREET
BOX 3707
LEONARD M. OAT!!!:S
RONALD O. AUS,JN
.... NICHOLAS M<;;GRATl-l,..JR.
WILLIAM R....ORCAN l:I:J
ANDREW V. HI!;CI-lT
ASPEN, COL.ORAOO 61611
A~EA -coot:: 30:::
TELEPl-lONE92S.2600
June 2, .1975
Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Heninger
3535 Dale View Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Heninger:
Aspen View Apartments is in the process of condominium-
izing its apartments and as a part of that process the City has
required Aspen View to dedicate to the public the property known
as the extension of Midland Avenue.
l'
Before Aspen View can do that it must obtain a release
from you concerning any exclusive easement you have if any, in
favor of dedication of.that Midland AVenue extension to the public.
If you have no objection to the Midland Avenue extension being a
publiG road, please sign the release which accompanies this letter
and return it to me immediately.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
OATES, AUSTIN & McGRATH
COpy ":,::~~~cANOREWV.HECHr
AVH/ges
Enclosure
By
Andrew V. Hecht
cc: Ms. Sandra Stuller V
l'
I
I
I
"'"
""""
I.
RELEASE
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that we, being
one of the owners of a condominium known as Aspen Hills
Condominiums lying adjacent to Midland Avenue extension in
City of Aspen~ State of Colorado, for good and valuable
consideration do hereby acknowledge that we waive any
rights that we might have. to easement filed in Book 212
at page 322 of the records of Pitkin County and waive any
right to protest the construction, improvement, and opera-
, tion of a public road on the following described property:
A parcel of land being part of Mascotte Lode
D.S.M.S. 5867 and being situated in Section
18~ Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the
6th Principal Meridian. Said parcel is more
fully described as follows:
.I
I
I
I fact that that road shall be used, operated and maintained
I
I
Beginning at a point from whence corner 3 of
the 99 lode claim D.S.M.S. 6899 (brass cap
in place), bears S 890 46' E, 470.59 feet;
thence N 890 46' W, 41.10 feet; thence N 040
54' W, 91.24 feet; thence N 850 44' 33" E,
38.49 feet; thence S 060 23' E, 95.42 feet
to the point of beginning. Said parcel
contains .084 acres more or less.
This Agreement is further conditioned upon the
as a public road and that Countryside Associates dedicate
,
!
their interest in said strip of .land to public use for such
purposes. We expressly limit the waiver for the purposes
I and considerations hereinabove contained and expressed and
I
I as such make this waiver.
i
I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the.. parties hereto have
,
I executed this Release the day of , 1975,
I
I
J
Ii Kenneth Heninger
Ii
II
,II
1.1
II Jeane Heninger
I'
II
II
Ii
,.
n
;oj
,.
11
Ii
iI
"
n
-,
/""'..
..""'"
CITY OF ASPEN
aspen ,coloFado, 81611 box: v
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
.Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Planning Staff
Aspen View Condo - Final Subdivision
May 29, 1975
The City Engineer has
to his satisfaction.
and recorded.
reported that .the final plat has been corrected
The annexation process has been completed
The Planning Office and Engineering Department recommend approval
of the Final Subdivision Plat conditioned upon:
1. Long Term (6 month) covenents on leasing
the units.
2. The number parking spaces be maintained at
its current 1 eve 1 .
3. Commitment to join and to waive right of pro-
test for any future improvement districts in-
cluding the subject property formed for the
. purpose of constructing street improvements,
drainage improvements, or buried electrical
improvements.
.4. Commitment to pay for the construction, or to
reimburse the city for construction, of street
paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk when the city
deems these improvements necessary should an
improvement district not be .created.
5. Agreement to improve the newly dedicated portion
of Midland Ave. with a seal & chip surfacing.
"~"."'" ','
,',,,...;;
",,-.,
" f
I
I
.
,
..
.
I
I
I
i
i
Ii
il
.. II
.""
II
II
II
II
'I
11
j)
!l
II
,I
II
I
!!
II
I
,
ft, I
,rY .1
,
;;D' Ii
I
I
I
1""\
"'"
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE
DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION of the
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
The undersigned hereby respectfully petition the
Planning Commission for the City of Aspen to exempt from. the
definition of subdivision the property shown on Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
In support of this petition, petitioners state and
represent as follows:
1. The property being subdivided is the extent ion
of Midland Avenue as it exists on the ground, which simulta-
I
I!
II
!i
, .~
r
neously with the conveyance to Countryside Associates will be
dedicated to the City of Aspen.
affecting t~1el
strict application!
i
2. There are special circumstances
property described in Exhibit A such that the
j,
11
i ~
P
of the provisions of the subdivision code from which exce?tion
is sought would deprive the applicant and Countryside
,
. I
AssocJ.atesi
I
I
!
i
j
1\
II
j!
II
.I
II
II
H
,
,
i
i
I
j!
ii
,.
'I
Ii
!i
Ii
II
,.
n
U
I
fj
i;
H
.j
I:
d
II
Ii
II
\.
n
,.
1;
i'
of the reasonable use of their land.
'f.-
4.
I
I
I
Granting of the exception will not be detrimental I
x
3.
The exception is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant
and Countryside Associates.
to the public welfare or to other pro~erty in the area which.
the subject property is situated.
COUNTRYSIDE ASSOCIATES
~~-I
Donald T. Randall I
by: Charles T. Brandt
t
I
I
I
I
I
1
,
i
!
II
iI
~ II
" I
Ii
II
II
II
II
I
Ii
Ii
I
,
I
I
,
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
Ii
(
r
i,
I:
I;
11
'I
1;
Ji
n
ti
I'
!j
I
I
I
,
II
it
Ij
I,
,I
1I
,.
.
n
(I
:j
Ii
"
d
l'
n
i'
ii
!I
,.
"
!l
ii
"
I,
"
i ~
11
n
,.
I'
Jl
r
'.,
;.'
;<
H
\,
"'"
1""\
EXHIBIT A
Parcel 2
A parcel of land being part of Mascotte Lode
U.S.M.S. 5867 and being situated in Section 18, Township 10
South, Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. Said
parcel is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at
a point from whence corner 3 of the 99 Lode claim U.S.M.S
6899, (brass cap in place), bears South 89046' East 470.5
feet; thence North 89046' West 41.10 feet; thence North 0 0
54' West 91.24 feet; thence North 85044'33" East, 38.49 f et;
thence South 06023' East, 95.42 feet to the point of BEGI NING.
Said parcel contains .084 acres, more or less.
I
I
1
1
!
!
I
1
I
I
I
1"""'\
.~
CITY,....QF,.,:AS PEN
aspen .c(j,!;9~:.:l'J.:~:~,t611 box v
,r;
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Planning Staff
Aspen View Condo - Final Subdivision
May 29, 1975
The City Engineer has reported that the final plat has been corrected
to his satisfaction. The annexation process has been completed
and recorded.
The Planning Office and Engineering Department recommend approval
of the Final Subdivision Plat conditioned upon:
1. Long Term (6 month) covenents on leasing
the units.
2. The number parking spaces be maintained at
its current level.
3. Commitment to join and to waive right of pro-
test for any future improvement districts in-
cluding the subject property formed for the
'purpose of cons tructi ng street improvements,
drainage improvements, or buried electrical
improvements.
4. Commitment to pay for the construction, or to
reimburse the city for construction, of street
paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk when the city
deems these improvements necessary should an
improvement district not be created.
5. Agreement to improve the newly dedicated portion
of Midland Ave. with a seal & chip surfacing.
f""'\
,-.
MEMO
YANK MOJO
Planning Department
DAVE ELLIS
City Engineer ~~
DATE: May 29, 1975
TO:
FROM:
RE: Aspen View Condominiums Subdivision - Final Plat
The final plat as corrected is satisfactory except
for some changes in the wording of the recording
certificate and the title certificate and the additio
of some survey ties. These items are currently bein
corrected by Harold Johnson. Terms which should be
included in the subdivision agreement presented to
council are
1) cash dedication at 4%
2) commitment to join and to waive right of prote t
for any future improvement districts including
the subject property formed for the purpose of
constructing street improvements, drainage
improvements, drainage improvements, or buried
electrical improvements.
3) commitment to pay for the construction, or to
reimburse the city for construction, of street
paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk when the cit
deems these improvements necessary should an
improvement district not be created.
4) agreement to improve the newly dedicated portio
of Midland Ave. with a seal & chip surfacing.
I"
~
MEMO
TO: YANK MOJO
FROM: LOUIS BUETTN~~
DATE: MARCH 28, 1975
RE: Aspen View Condominiums Subdivision
Preliminary Plat - Second Review
The major problems of access and annexation have
been resolved satisfactorily since the first
review. The following items will be required
on a final plat for this subdivision:
1. Dedication of Midland Avenue to the City
across westerly end of property (approx. 48.5'
width) .
2. The current zoning is to be shown.
3. The property must be monumented.
4. The utility sizes are required.
5. Adjoining utility and access easement on
south side of property must be shown.
Arrangements for street improvements and commitments
for future improvement districts will be included
in the subdivision agreement.
The owner's surveyor should contact the Engineering
Department prior to preparing the final plat.
1""-.
"'"
..~~, .t'.
CITY
!
aspen,colt
()F .A~SPEN
ado,8Hifl box v
. . MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Office
SUBJECT: Aspen View Annexation
DATE: February 24, 1975
The owners of the Aspen View Apartment Building, Countryside
Associates, have applied for subdivision and condominization of
the building. In order to initiate proper subdivision proceedings,
it is first necessary to have all of ..he land on which the building
sits annexed into the City. On January 20, 1963 the majority of
site was annexed to the City. On april 26, 1971 a small triangle
of land to the east was annexed so that the entire building was
within the City boundaries. This later annexation is referred to
as the Aspen Hills Annexation. Both of these annexations used
the southern boundary line of the Mascotte and "99" mining claims.
The subject .property extends approximately 31 feet to the south of
this line on the eastern boundary, and 16 feet to the south on
the western boundary, containing .115 acres or 5,009 square feet.
There will be no additional density allowed by this annexation.
An attendant problem with this subdivision proposal is that currently
this is no frontage by the property on a public road. This annexation
will begin to resolve this problem by giving approximately 16 feet
f""".
r-\
~ .-
MEMORANDUM
Aspen City Council
Aspen View Annexation
February 24, 1975
Page Two
of frontage on Midland. While this is certainly not enough frontage
to satisfy the design requirements of the subdivision regulations,
it is a step towards resolving some of the problems in this area.
The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled the Preliminary Plat
Application at the applicants request until.the City Council acted
on the annexation petition.
The Planning Office recommends acceptance of the petition and approval
of the annexation.
,-.
!"""\
MEMO
TO: YANK MOJO
FROM: DAVE ELLIS 9L
DATE: February 14, 1975
RE: Aspen View Condominiums Subdivision -
preliminary Plat Review
At present the entire project is not within the
City and no formal action should be taken until
the developer's petition for annexation has been
accepted by the City Council. The following
required items do not appear on the submitted
preliminary plat:
1) general location map
2) existing utility locations and sizes
3) location and dimensions of adjacent streets
and utility and access easements
4) current zoning
5) contours and landscaping
The proposed subdivision does not have adequate
access into a public right-of-way. Midland Avenue
should be extended by dedication to provide this
access and the roadway should be improved to an
all-weather surface.
..
.""'.
"'"
Legal Notice
Notice is hereby Biven that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
shall hold a public hearing .on February 18, 1975, 5:00cP.M., -City
Council Champers to consider the Aspen View Condominiums subdivision
preliminary plat located specifical1y as follows:
A parcel of land being situated in Section l8, Township lO South,
Range 84 Hest of the 6th Princil,,"l Heridian. Said parcel is more
fully described as follo"s: Beginning at a point from Hhence Corner 3
of the 99 Lode Claim, (Brass cap in place), bears S39046'E, 255.59 feet;
thence S06023E, 31.04 fcet; thonce N85050'H, 217.24 feet; thence
N06023'H, 110.55 feet; thence N35044'33"E, 78.26 feet; thence S040l5'27"E,
3.42 feet; thence N850/,4'33"E, 7.77 feet; thence N04015'27"H, 3.42 feet;
thence N85044'33"E, 38.63 feet; thcnce S0401S'27"E, 3.42 feet; thence
N8So4l,'33"E, 7.77 feet; thence N040IS'27"H, 3.42 feet; thence N8So44'33"E,
20.87 feet; thence NO/,olS'27"H, .1.84 feet; thence N8So44'33"E, 2.14 feet.;
thence. NOI,oI5'27"h', 6~73 feet; thence NS5044'33"E, 6.35 feet; thence
N04015'27"H, l4.45 feet; thence NS5044'33"E, 9.03 feet; thence N04015'27"H,
29.87 feet; thence S85044'33"H, l7.53 feet; thence N040l5'27"W, 45.15 feet;
thence S89046'E, 57.12 feet; thence S06023'E, 205.00 feet t6 the point
of beginning. Said parcel contains 0.732 acres, more or less.
Plat is on file in the office of the City/County Planner, City Hall,
and may be examined by any interested person or persons during office
hours.
Is/ Kathryn S. Hauter.
City Clerk
Published in the Aspen times January -'30, 1975
;.;.
,.
.
r
y
"'"
t""'\
.,
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION
To the City Council of the. City of Aspen, Colorado:
The undersigned hereby respectfully petitions the City
.Council of the City of Aspen to annex to the City of Aspen the
territory shown on the map attached hereto and described as
follows, to wit:
(See Exhibit A attached hereto)
In support of this petition, the petitioner states,
represents and alleges, as follows:
1. That it is desirable and necessary that the above
described territory be annexed to the City of Aspen.
2. That the petitioner isa landowner of 100% of the
territory, herein proposed for annexation to the City of Aspen.
3. That not less than one-sixth of the aggregate ex-
ternal boundaries of the above described territory hereby
petitioned to be annexed to the City .of Aspen is contiguous to
the city limits of the City of Aspen.
4. That a community of interest exists between the above
described territory and that the same is urban, or will be urban-
ized in the near future, and further that the said territory is
integrated or is capable of being integrated into the City of
Aspen.
5. In establishing the boundaries of the above described
territory, no land held in identical ownership, whether consisting
of one tract or parcel of real estate of two or more contiguous
tracts or parcels of real estate, has been divided into separate
parts or parcels.
6. That the above described territory does not include.
any area which is the same or substantially. the same area in
which an election for an annexation to the City of Aspen waE held
within twelve months preceding the filing of this petition.
7. That the above described territory does not include
any area included in <lllother annexation proceeding involving a
city other than the City of Aspen or the City of Aspen.
.'
-'
-
<
1""\
"'"
8. That 4 copies of an annexation map setting orth
with reasonaple certainty a written legal description of t e
boundaries of the area proposed to be annexed, delineation of
the o.uter boundaries of the above described territory, the
portion of the boundary contiguous with the existing city l'mits
of th~ City of Aspen, and the dimensions of said contiguous
boundary, have been attached hereto and hereby constitute a part
of this petition.
9. The above described territory is not presently a
part of any incorporated city, city and county, or town.
WHEREFORE, the undersigned respectfully petitions 0
the City Council of the City of Aspen to ann~the above de cribed
territory to the City of Aspen in accordance with and pursu nt to
the statutes of the State of Colorado.
Dated: February 5, 1975
Respectfu1ly submitted,
..
d
Petitioner,
Countryside Associates
"
By
. .u
i' '",' ",,' f. '
" ..
-~..te, ~
(/1
John. C. Ginn
Attorn.ey in Fact
Post Office Box 256
ASpeP, Colorado 816 1
.
;.. 2 -
-1
,
,
i
!
?,
'~L
l
I
f
If:
~
k
~\
::ir.
- .....---..-.,...
. ..~~
~\l
~~z
~~~ H~/N9 ~./(..t/7S
~P":'-:-~\-tT-.~r:.'lr~.,,; TJr /-r.'> C'T.Y.7('V "I~(f":}.;'
......,.J..w.j.".....~,./.--J~'l ....;':_1.1 .;..~...J"""',:"" \.~~l . .
,
Date
Gentleltl2n:
.
According to the proccc1uT8 S0t forth in the City of Aspen
Subdivision Regul~tions, any trQct of land divided into
two or mo:ce lots must be divided in e.ccord<:nce Hith s~id
Subdivision rregulation fOT th~ City of A$p~n.
. .
This form, Hith attached copy afthe plat is provided so
that each utility company mny i11Sp3C<: t113plat and the
site, Inaking cOi'!'ZIT!.~nts, concern:Lngtha placem2nt>."of ea.se-
ments, etc., and "here necesf;ary sl~etching recomn:.ended
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.
r
r/R/[;
Remarks:
RE~(/lkl'C
/lfl/l?lIr'F
p/l.>r
,
/li/,lJI1"It/P OF;?
l1t.c;p ~ /'11 Pi 4;/ -P IIY 1[;,
.,
,of
,
.....
'.
r
ASPEN VIEW CONDOt4INIUM Slf""'lVISION - Preliminary Plat P &^rublic Hearing
~-.:t,:DD:L\7~";~~:C:',; .."-iT C,!::~;~CI~ F()='~.l'I
,
Date -1L'l/75 ___
Gen t len:211:
.
According to the proccc1wcB 8c:t forth in the City of Aspen
Subdivision ~8gul~tioDS, any tr~ct of lund divided into
t~'lO or mO:C8 lots rnust be "divid8d in :;:ccord2nce ""lith s&.id
Subdivision Regu12tioD for the City of Asp2n. .
. "
This form, ,lith attached copy of the plat is provided so
that each utility company mny illSp8ct the plat and the
site, InClking CO?ITm2nts, concci:""ning theplacercentof eaSG-
ments,etc., and lJ'here neCG~8ary sketching recomInend~d
alterations on a copy: of the plat.
,
This'fo~~ and the accompanying copy of the plat must he
returned to the City of Aspen Planni.ng 1lnd Zoning. Com-
mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date.
_ark" '~/hI"'"?;4d:& ~
~>~~ ~ rh1
~ ~ ~~-'------
",_ ..~. U~-r:~.'
ft~~~CZ~~
cUJ~"~.(!)~~A
CVKcL 't-"p~ c:;c74~/~%
k ~~
~~~., "
~~f-.
~~~t
-.
r
\jJ'
ASPEN VIEW CONDOMI~1 SUBDIVISION - Preliminary Pl~ & c Public Hearin
,
SUBDIVISION pua CHECK FORH
,
Date 2/4/75
Gentlemen:
.
According to th~ procedure set forth in the City of Aspen
Subdivision Regulations, any trG.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, withettachecl copy of the plat is provided so
that each utility comp2.ny may insp3ct th3 plat and the
site ,mClkingco~~nts, concerning the pla.'cement of ease_
D1ents, etc., and uhere necessary 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 la.ter than seven (7) days from the above date.
Remarks: Since these are exis~ing buildings and on the City
- ,
of Aspen's .Wat.er System, we have no Objections or
comments to make.
James Markalunas/Director, Water Department
. .
v
....'':"-.
~
1'.
/',
Legal Notice
Notice is hereby given that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
shall hold a public hea~ing on February 4, 1975, 5:00 p.m., City
Council Champers to consider the Aspen View Condominiums subdivision
preliminary plat located specifically as follows:
A parcel of land being situated in Section l8, Township 10 South,
Range 84 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. Said parcel is more
fully described as follows: Beginning at a point from Whence Corner 3
of the 99 Lode Claim, (Brass cap in place), bears S89046'E, 255.59 feet;
thence S06023E, 3l.04 feet; thence N85050'W, 2l7.24 feet; thence
N06023'W, llO.55 feet; thence N85044'33"E, 78.26 feet; thence S04015'27"E,
3.42 feet; thence N85044'33"E, 7.77 feet; thence N040l5'27"W, 3.42 feet;
thence N85044'33"E, 38.63 feet; thence S040l5'27"E, 3.42 feet; thence
N85044'33"E, 7.77 feet; thence N04015'27"W, 3.42 feet; thence N85044'33"3,
20.87 feet; thence N040l5'27"W, 1.84 feet; thence N85044'33"E, 2.l4 feet;
thence N040l5'27"W, 6.73 feet; thence N85044'33"E, 6.35 feet; thence
N040l5'27"W, 14.45 feet; thence N85044'33"E,9..03 feet; thence N04015'27 'w,
29.87 feet; thence S85044'33"W, l7.53 feet; thence N040l5'27"W, 45.l5 feet;
thence S89046'E, 57.l2 feet; thence S06023'E, 205.00 feet to the point
of beginning. Said parcel contains 0.732 acres, more or less.
Plat is on file in the office of the City/County Planner, City Hall,
and may be examined by any interested person or persons during office
hours.
/s/ Kathryn S. Hauter
City Clerk
Published in the Aspen times January l6, 1975
i
,
/
i
;
,
,
.-..
EXHIBIT A
TO,
SUBDIVISION ~GREEMENT
ASPEN VIEW CONDOMINIUMS
I:
Ii
I,
! PARCEL 1
.r;'
A parcel of land being part of Mascotte Lode D.S.M.S. 58 7,
the 99 lode U.S.M.S. 6899 and the Riverside placer U.S.M S.
3905 A11 and being situated in Section 18, Township 10 So th,
Range 84 ...Iest of the 6th principal meridian. Said parce
is more fully described as follows: Beginning at a poin
from whence corner 3 of the 99 lode claim, (brass cap in
place) bears S 890 46' E, 255.59 feet; thence S 060 23' ,
31.04 feet; thence N 850 50' 1'1, 209.84 ft; thence N 040 4'
, W, 16.51 ft; thence 1'1 850 46' W, 7.76 ft; theJ:1ce N 060 23'
.i W, 94.52 ft, thence 1'1 850 44' 33" E, 78.26 ft; thence S 040
i 15' 27" E, 3.42 ft; thence.N.850 44' 33" E, 7.77 ft; th nce
, 1'1 040 15' 27" W, 3.42 ft, thence 1'1 850 44' 33" E,38.63 it;
I thence S 040 15' 27" E, 3.42 ft, thence N 850 44' 33" E,
! 7.77 ft; thence 1'1 040 15' 27" W, 3.42 ft, thence 1'1 850 4'
: 33" E, 20.87 ft; thence N 040 15' 27" W, 1.84 it; thenc N
. ,850 44' 33" E, 2.14 ft; thence 1'1 040 15' 27" tv, 6.73 ft
.1 thence 1'1 850 44' 33" E, 6.35 ft; thence 1'1 040 15' 27" H
I 14.45 ft, thence N 85044' 33" E 9.03 ft; thence 1'1040 5'
! 27" H, 29.87 ft; thence S 850 44' 33" W, 17.53 ft; ,then eN
I 040 15' 27" tv, 45.15 ft, thence S 890 46' E, 57.12 ft; hence
I S 060 23' E, 205.00 feet to the point of beginning. Sa'd
,
I parcel contains 0.732 acres more or less.
I
I
,
I
I
!
; .
fi
;
i
,
j-
r
! .
I
!
I
.i-
f
.,
PARCEL 2
.
.
i
i
1
1
i
!
:
I
!
!
A parcel of land being part of Mascotte lode D.S.M.S. 5867
and being situated in Section 18, Township 10 South, R nge
84 West of the 6th principal meridian~ Said parcel is more
fully described as follows: Beginning at a point from whence
corner '3 of the 99 lode claim U.S.M.S. 6899, (brass ca in
place), bearsS 890 46'E, 470.59 ft; thence N 890 46' \'1,
41.10 ft; thence 1'1 040 54' W, 91.24 ft; thence 1'1 850 4 I 33"
E, 38.49 ft; thence S 060 23' E, 94.52 feet to the poi t of
beginning. Said parcel contains .084 acres more or Ie s.
Subject to the portion of the above-described property
dedicated to the City of Aspen on the Condominium Map
Aspen View Condominiums. (Said Condominium Map is als
as the final Plat o.f Aspen View Condominiums Subdivisi
or
known
n. )
.,
i
i
,
I'