Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Brownell I"'" ,-", Aspen, Colorado 81611 July 16, 1973 Aspen P & Z Box V Aspen, Colo. 81611 Re: Mountain Queen Subdivision South Monarch Gentlemen: I have spoken with Mr. Ellis in regard to the above captioned project a number of times, and have also voiced an opinion that I would have to have at least a 1500 gallon flow of water per minute in the So. Monarch area" In the past, I have asked for two hydrants, one at the beginning of the project, and one on the west side, of which Mountain Queen is to provide a twenty foot easement" There is some concern of mine, as to whom is to plow this easement and keep it to where we can get our vehicles in the area.. I would like to have it in writing in your final proposal stating the person responsible and who will do the policing to see that it is kept bladed off to the satisfacti~n of the fire department in order that we can reach the area" I feel there should be no more than four to six incgsof snow on it any one time so that we would be able ~o get our vehicles along the west side of the Mountain Queen Development. Also, I understand there is some question as to water, which, we are very mucg concerned with, but I understand Mr. Ellis is now in the process of making tests in the area and should be able to give you that informa- tion better than I. If there are any further .questions, please contact me. ~/f~ Willard C. Clapper Fire Chief Aspen Volunteer Fire Department WCC/ec cc: Dave Ellis City Engineer - - June 9, 1972 Mr. Ricbard BX'ClWnell P.O. BQX 1477 Aspen, ColulI1ado 31611 Re : Real Estate Appraisa.l - Brownell TX'act Dear Mr. Brownells punuant to your ~118st. the fol.lowi1l9 ismyappr~sal oftha subject property described as. See Exhibit "AU attached bereto. 1. Tract No.1, whicb is zoned R-G, COtlsisting of approx1mately 16, 945 sq. ft. ,is valued at $22,000, which is approximately $1. 30 per sq. ft. 2. Tract No.2, "hicb is zoned for multiple family dwellings, coneisti%i9 of approxil1\lil.tely 7,696 sq. ft., is valued at: $15,392, which is $2.00 per sq. f.t. 3. 'l'otal valuation - $37,392. Tbis appraisal is based upon a compUiltion of various considerations, whicb effect tneprope1:"ty, such as uses pe~ttedby zoning, income pX'~ucing factors, compar~la sal...s, typogx-apb.Y, location, condition of existing structures in tne area and utilities available. Should you need any furtbeX' service, please contact me. SinC$X'ely, ROY ViOOM RV/'Illp Att. 1 ,- ~ June 6, 1972 BROWNELL REZONING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, application was filed by Richard and Lois Brownell for rezoning of a tract of land from R-6 to R-6 (PUD) located in the north west quadrant of the intersection of King Street and Gibson Ave. in Section 7, Township 10 Sou h, Range 84 West of the 6th PM, City of Aspen, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning Commission has me and duly considered all statements and comments concerning s id rez,oning, and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning Commission has determined that the Planned Unit Development approach because of its open space provisions and building placement flexibi ity accrues to the City and the applicant the highest benefits, NOW THEREFORE BE ~T RESOLVED, that the Aspen Planning Commission recommends that the aforementioned trac of land be rezoned from R-6 to R-6 (PUD) in accordanceFWith Section 24-10.1 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the ity of Aspen. :::hairman Aspen Planning sion t I , \ , l f i 1 t 1 FORM l~ ,C. 1', 1l0ECK~l B, B, II: l. C,II. ,i ~ ,I""'-, 1""\ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meetiing Aspen Board of Adjustment May 4, 1972 1 , I Meeting was called to order by Chairman John Dukes at 3:30 p.m. with Robert I Cline and Remo Lavagnino.Also present were Building Inspector, Clayton ~/ Meyring and City/County Planner Herb Bartel. i I 1 I i I I CASE NO. 72 - 7 GENEVE PETT LARSON Chairman Dukes opened the public hearing. Request to reduce the street frontage from 60 feet to 50 feet for three building sites. Property location lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, Block 2, Okla- homa Flats. " f I f t Mr. Bartel pointed out before the a stream margin request they will buildings will be situated on the Applicant represented by Mr. Roy Vroom. Survey was submitted. Plat shows 6 lots, applicant wishes to make into three buildable sites with each site having only 50 foot frontage. It was pointed out all sH,eswould come~under the scrunity of the stream margin r~gulations. "- Planning and Zoning require a site plan sites. Commission can approve showing where the Mr. Lavagnino stated he would have to abstain from voting on this case since he is an adjoining property owner. Also made the request tha,t the following points be made a part of the record: . "Although I will abstain from voting, owning property adjoining this land, I would like to point out some observations for the Board'sconsideretion. The application, although no~ worded as such, is in fact a request for 3 variances. A 10 foot variance for each of three building sites. Cummulatively, this is a variance for 30 feet. That is more than the frontage of one of the lots on that property. Noticeably this will add to the feeling of congestion. Granting the variance would undermine the intent and purpose of zoning in that it would overcrowd the land and create an undue concentration 0= pop- ulation, deep in an enclave of a dead-end street. The existing road is narrow, and parked cars on it are a constant SO'.1rce of hindrance to adequate snow removal. This in turn creates a potential fire hazard by impeding access to fire fighting equipment. The increased congestion of traffic would merely add to the problems of safety and general welfare. ~". Although stream margin scrutiny will come before the eyes "of another Board, I think that it is well within the realm of consideration by this Board in initially allowing sucR,density so close to the river. Granting such a var- iance would encumber the Board reviewing stream margins to work within the framework of an imposed variance, and this would not, I feel, be in the best interests of the spi~it in which that ordinance was created. Even though this Board does not use precedent as a tool for arriving at a decision, no time has it ever granted a variance of this kine without first seeing plans showing building sites. We have never written a blank check, for example, on a building height variance without first seeing a plan of ' the proposed building. Historically, the zoning of this area was R-15 in the County before it was ,..,- .",,,~:,,;,,~;;., :~,:~~"""~~,;,."h;",.42:.'pi':>.<;.,~,;;2,\".,,.;. "."~",,.. "..,'""'.',"''''-,,, "., "~"~_"",.'"""""""~""-""..,,",~,,,,,,,,,_..."_,rw'" .' _._-"---,.._~,\. < .,,,..' ,.,..", ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FOIN50 C.l'.HOECKElll. 8.lI: ~,CO. Regular Meeting, Aspen Board of Zoning Adjustment, 514ft! changed to R-6 when it was included in the North Side Annexation. Prior to annexation, only one building would have been allowed and now with the in- creased density, allowing 2 duplexes, I don't feel that the applicant can claim any undue hardship." Chairman Dukes closed the public hearing and stated this case would be con- tinued until such time as a voting quorum was present. CASE NO. 72 - 8 RICHARD & LOIS BROWNELL Chairman Dukes opened the public hearing. Request for change in use from two duplexes to a four plex. Mr. Jim Reser was present representing the applicant and explained the background Iml terial relating to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Bartel explained the Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending the granting of this variance. Chairman Dukes closed the public hearing and stated the case would be con- tinued until such time as a voting quorum is present. Cline moved to adjourn at 4:10 p.m., seconded by Lavagnino. All in favor, meeting adjourned. ~~~ ~--v~ Lorraine Graves, Secretary - /" EXHIBIT nAil AU of Lots '1, 8 and 9, in BloSk 4, Hughes AdditionReplat, described as follows: at. Corner No. 10 of the plat of Entry by the Mayor of Aspen of East Aspen and Hughes Addition, Tracts Number 40 and 41 for Townsite Patent; thence. S. W. along the Westerly side line of the Henry Clay Lode 131. 0 feet,: thenoe , E. 90,0 feet to Corner No. 1 the place of true beginning; thence S. 66009' E. 328. T5 feet more or less, to Corner N0. 2,; thence S.' 37048' 15" w. 96.05 feet to Corner N. 3; thence N. 66')9' W. 303.72 feet, more or less, to Corner No, 4: thence N, 23051' E. 91.06 feet to Corner NJ.1, the place of true beginning. -,~",~'--_._'--~------'-~~-,~._--_...--'-----..----'-'~~-~~~' '-"-~,.,---'--_.-------' <'. ,~i:~,"~,~:,: ~~ ~ ~ 1RI~CO'Management,ln,c. Planning' Design' Surveying' ,Engineering' Construction and Manag€ment.of Land Box J 730 ,Aspen , Coloredo'B'l611 303 B25 '2688 Apr.il 21, 1972 TO: ,Richard and ,Lo,is Brownell ,Regional .Planning Office Arthur Daily 'Robin Molny City Clerk ':SUBJECT: ,':HISTORYnAND:'5CHEDULE;' BROWNELL 'P.U_D. ,.AND S1mDTVISION'AI>PI;;ICATIONS 1 'FEBRUARY , BROWNELL .SUBDIVISION ::Eirst''Presented! to P&Z, , for, discussion. '::.25 FRR'Rt1A'RY 'P&Z ':determined, s:ubdivisi= required with:'de&,;". icat:i:oE. OI, nO ft. rig'bt-,of-way a):ong Gibson. ' P.o:ssible 'spe'Cial~ 'consideration -tp',beg.i'Ven w.itfLrespect 't'O lot area requi:rementsbeca1:1Se 'oI, l:'o<id "d'€:di:cation. , ',4 AP.RIL ".'P&:Z]luba:i:c 'hearing..::he:l'd 'On, :p;r-eJ.:imimaryp:J:at~ , ,'.P.'):at 'disa:pprov-ed. l' .'U . D_ :csoli:rtlon, re'Oommenaea... " , " ," .:Hl AP1ITL ":',P&'Z .r~€WeG:::and ,-a=e:pl:edP .n.~D:.',n:u:J.:l..:wiIE :PLAN.. ,: P&.Z reviewed .,andaccepi:.ed 'PRELImlilARY ''!>UcH9.;l21'...lSION ,PLAT. .. - ':Not1-ce 'Of ',May "B '''C'OUTI'cil 'hearing,. on 1?,':;'U.l)..'OUl'rli'INE "PLAN 'gi'lTen to--Asp,ehT.imes :for -p,uh.'tieation ;':on. 4j'20n2. 'ASlJbsidiary ofTrico Corporation . Offices throughoulthe West, J v ~ Page 2 v ,/ .' i/ . '~ /"; 'SCHEULDE I '\ tF , Board o.f Adj.us:t:mentbe4rinq {rilquired 'tio change use ,'On "Lot 2 i'n 'R-$, zone from two :duplexes, 1:'0 one two s:t=yAourp:l.e:x;, a-mu:Lti;plce -family BwcelJi'Ug). . If .disapprov,ed" eStop here: and pro.ceed',with SCHEDULE II. G~~;;5)~ o~ CHy Countil public heari~g.on P.U.:D. OUTLINE \' /1 ~~J;).. .:PLAN. ti. approved', Counc~l i:~"'t~vely rez.ones, (Y ~Uf' "'P=perty, i:hen: . 4 HAY .' 9/oz:.;L6 MAY (p-MAy?l ' ~.:=-.-_:--"./ ,1\:spen Times - last day" no,ti1::e' p,fJune 6 1':&.Z Aspen 'T.oday' , ''Pnbl:i:c ,bearing :'On ;P~-U.'D_ 'P:mAL 'PLAN':c:an be given to:rl€Wspapers. .' ,~ '.:26 MAY . B ,:copies' .o.f 'FINAL. SIlBDTIlISTON 'PLA'T to~s.ecret:ary 01' P&'Z '_.,..~.f.'" -~,. ~ -"-~ , ,. 1'&'Z 'PnblYc ..hearing 'on:'P-:'U~l). :FiNAL :P..I.M. P:&Z reviEW :oE PI1SIAL SUBDTVISIONPU'T. II'approv-ed. then: "', 6,.JIlNE \.., ~ ..' .- .12 JUNE r .' Conn-cil CIRay ,rezone prop.erty. Co.unci:l'rE'ricew OI .nmu..:Su:BDTVI.SION'::P~..:::{acc.epts Dr xej'&::fs ,l'LA'T .and.area rl~ated to.prihli.c ,use). .13' 'J:Um: , . , l'LA'T mld lltat:enent .eI';ZO:ning. .::chang,e' fiJied .Iur .record ,cwith i:he.:Pi'tk:in~:unty e:Lerk~-andRecorde=,. ',d3uild:i:ng -permit '1\1.ay :,be ..isllUed. ,";; -' ~ -, ~ SCHEDULE II 4 :MAY 5~' ~ Page 3 r-, If .Board of, Adj,ustment denies '.change '.of use .en Lot 2, deci s icon ''1llllst :be 'lIlade "On huw ,te :proceed_ Options are: , J...stop 2. Ge to P,&Zcon May 5 Ier app=v.al '.of P.'U..D. 'OUTLINE :PLAN,-with two ':separate :'twe story ,:duplexes on ,Lot 2_ :'l'his 'Wonld ,pennit:going ahead::with SCHEDULE I. 3. Gete P'&Z,'on :.May 5 for 'approval of 'FIIDILSIlBDIVISION PLAT, i. 'e. :revert .back to:. :n:ormal" s'ribdi vision 'pr.ocEdm:..e. ''l'b::i.s "W'ouldentail: a.' :deletion:of existing,:and ':plannedbuilffi:ngs 'from , I'IA'T . .b .,.',c:imnge of: .:back lot line' of 'Lot 1.' to -co:nform' to ',set- backs. c..d;e-cisi-on :on wh:ether' t:o retain :common :area -or Eake ,:ita,.par:t of L-o't 1. Un:der this pro-cedurepreba:b1y onJ:yune i1nplexwDli1:d .:be :allowed .on.Lot '2., .one 'au."d.ilLdg",.of .reverti'Dg"'i:c normal.:snb- . 'i1iyision pro-c:edure .would 'he, that 1''&'Z , .,re::\7iew.woUld no longer bee reqnir.ed,.be- .' 'fore :a'.:building" 'P€rnlit .couJ.d'be.. issued on Lot 3~ " ...spe,ci:al 1'&Z meeting to review. oneo:x .:the . above options. Ir option' 2, tben obtain approval of .a 'REVISED P.U.D. OUTLINE PLAN and proceed .with SClIEDULE II.. Ir option 3, then obtain approval or a PRE- LIMINARY SUBDIVISION 'PLA'T and proceed with this SCHEDULE. -' "c - . -. ,;~... '. " ("'. i"""'\ Page 4 l06MAY p.&,z reviews FiNAL SUBDIVISION PLAT. If approved, then: 22 NAY 6 JUNE Council reviews 'FINAL SUBUIV.IS3:ON CP.l.AT {:acccep:ts or xeJects c PLAT and .area ih;dicatEd to::public use) PLAT .filed Ior record with Pitkin County Cl,erk and Recorder. " .Bui,lding ,:p€r:Illit maybe,.:i:s.suEd. "j r--. f'- L1:bAL ND] I ~~ , NO'''1JCE__1.5_1lEe'E.B_If____GJJ),-EJv _,J3:tEIT SH4LL 13JS_-^ ,____P1!€LLc::.._,JJ,12.ARthLG:>__b.'t~Llli~Q~T lJNff LA t-J J e,f2oWIVfd-L- _,__,__"",__,___.,__$U ypDLIL\~_Oli/_h-_RLAJ,1NED_,_Ll.t-JJr_____J2iSv:.~E1.\LlruLj---__~__-:-~ ~___~Effi.Qj\,L"'7_I'IQ:WtJ;58Le_.L O_~ ) /2.Mr5~ -"",--,--B",LtL!J.101,- OE,lli::tE_",G_ihe~LNnC_LeAk" 1Vt82-t PIAN , ___'_n"..___,___CJT~L_(Ql)~LmAcL.J.",,_H:6L.O_._THE,_,1+EA~_t-.,\__fL_,Q N._.. ____ e- ---'--"',..,-.-'---,,"'- ~_MA\I_~_I_"Jcp_1.'J...-f..AT___J4,tm_ell(L.__J"',,,C,ITL_.cOO~C.~j...,--"'------ +atAM~J2-S ,____ "'_______" "---." _ j,_.. _ ,,,,,--_.._,.._,,,_..,,-,,,,,,-,"',,,,- --,""'."....-..-, -...., ..-.., -.."".."..,."..,.-.,-- --"" "--,,-,_.._,, , _,___._______"__,_,I_J1H::_,Q\)l(,,.JJ-Lt=__EbA ~J."JS,,__oN.t= \ LE \ ~ 11:f~__"OJfICi2 OE:...IHE __-1 Cl TV _ Cl,;E:et..~"..A!JQ__MAYB!;___,EXAI\'\_LNEQ..__Ji\{'.AN'I J ~~..:IT....J2.....~~oJS....e.E_t?o.S9.1!_~~_!!)'~L rJ G. Off ICE. 1iJ~. I """_,._""_.."____"",,,,,,,"'_ '____'__ _,,__n.._____""__.____'..n'''___'_''__''_~-''"-''- ,.."_"",,,._, ,,,.....,..,_____,___,___ _____,__,,___o/:_~..geg&lr~L~_ 6RALl~ er. TY Qf: IGK' -~ _"'_"__".,_"'____,,e.()U-i$H Sf2_"JJL",JJifk__MfE:fY_ll,MfJ__ ,_8~,'=_LQ+L0.1.t- , '--=~~Yfj[rlit~~~ =___ ------~-- ~7 ~ -----=-- APlanned Unit Development ~~ril 18, 1972 BROWNELL SUBDIVISION ,....., ~ ~ ./~ f /<) ';:::> ~ OUTLINE PLAN 'STATEMENT 'OWNERSHIp. SCHEDULE Lot 2: Lot 3: IMPROVEMENTS ~ Lot 3: . All !land involved is owned by Richard and Lois Brownell, Box 1477, Aspen, Colorado 81611. At least two units of the proposed ,:four , units will be completed during the 1972 building season. The remaining ,two llIlits will be completed in 1973. \ . The present owners and subdividers have no immediate plans :for development on Lot 3. At such time when the owner or owners o:f Lot 3 contemplate deveJ.opment . on the Lot, application :for amendment o:f this planned unit deveJ.opment shall be filed with the planning commission and a public hearing he.ld in accordance with Article (7) of Section 24-1'0.1 of the Municipal Code o:f the City o:f Aspen. ' Sewer: Taps will be mad.e, to .the Aspen Metro 8 inch line. in King Street.' > ". . '" , - " - , , ,'--'~ Water: Lot 2: Tap will be made'to the . 6 inch City water line in King Street. "il'"o.". (". r"I Roads: The owners shall have no re- sponsibility for design, con- struction or maintenance of Gibson Avenue. " ..;,..: ';; '. SUBDIVISION PLAT The Commission is also requested to approve or disapprove the BROWNELL SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PIiAT 'at the Sall1e time as the P.U.D. OUTLINE PIAN. 'The1:ollowing three paragraphs 01: the on the preliminary plat as sUbmitted, :finalplat, unless the commission has Dedication do not appear but will appear on the objections or modifications: - .' , ' c. Do hereby dedicate the Commons Area and the lirivate access easement 'shown and noted hereon 1:or, the bene'Iit' and use 01: the owner or owners" -from tiJne to tiJne, 01: Lots 1, 2 and 30f the Brownell SUbdivision, and ' o:f the various units that may be constructed thereon. providpdthat the expenses of maintaining such Commons Area and private access easement shall be sharea.equalIy on a pro rata basis by such owners and the use thereo:f ' shall be detel;Illined by the unanimous consent of sUch owners. D. DO hereby dedicate parking spaces numbered 1. 2. 3 and 4 shown and noted hereon for the benei'it and use o-f the' occupants, -from tiJne to time. o-f the .:four uni t5 to be constructed on Lot 2 of the Brownell SUbdivision. nrn-" videa. that the expenses 01: maintaining such' parking , spaces shall be shared equally by the owner or owners' 01: such units. E. DO hereby dedicate the five remaining parking spaces shown and noted hereon :for the benefit and use of the occupants of the units which may hereafter be constructed on Lot ,3 of the Brownell Subdivision, proviilP(j,<that the' expenses of maintaining such parking spaces shall be' ' shared equally by the owner or owners of such units. - - .----.--'-...-"_'''''''''_.~_'"..~_=_<'=.,_,..'''''''''''''''~==__....~..........','',.'''','''',c"'''"~''''_'''__'~'''''''_.'''''~''''''''''~.''''-'~''''~''''''.'-'''''='_"'"'''''~."',~,~_""._____~_~_~~___'.~ ".. ,_... !""'\ ~. {;f-t...- ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDiNGS 10) Leaves _,~_c. ~. H~rC~H B. B. at l. 'co. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Ap:d:L 18, 1972 Meeting .yas called to order by Chairman, Robin Moiny, at 5 :00 p.m. A::'so present Jim Adams, Jim Breasted, Anthos Jordan, 'City County Planner, Herb Bartel and Assistant City/County Planner, Fred Wooden. Brownell Sub Brownell Subdivision - Mr" & Mrs. Brownell with their r~presentatives, Jim Resor of Tri-Co Management end Tom DalyofHol1a~ld & Hartwe.nl p~esent. Mr>Resor presented the'. prelimina);"y p~et:Pft.he Bx:own:e1l , Sub.. division to the Commission along with the Outline ~ De'<telopment?' Plan. Charles Collins arrived. Vie Goodhard arrived. Discussed the existing right-of-way, the planned widening of Gibson Avenue, land on west side of road having 1,052 square feet and the possibility of building 6 units, 5 units on east side of right-of-way, that the right-of- way was 27% of the total area. FourpleJl:es in R-6 zoning are not aJ~O\qed,. would be going to the Board of Zoning Ad.justment' tor a variance. . Daly informed the Commission that the Brownells would combe back in the future to the Commission with an amend- . ment procedure for PUD. Collins felt the language on Page 2 of the Outline Develop- ment Plan should be changed. Discussed the intent of the wording, whether it meant that if the monthly expenses of the open space and parking were not paid would it de- p);"~~erent9r~ Or.()~ersthe~s3, of sal11e. TheCommis s ion a$tte~4z'm.t;"tt:l:Les~':"'provicmd..that".. 'oestr.:Lcken. Future plans for Lot 3 were discussed. The Commission's feelings were that density and the heighth of the build- ings were of major importance. Discussed the fact that PUD was often not conside~ed by developers because of the red tape involved and t'le pro- cedures were so complex; Usually preferred to go sub- division. .Jri"lloAimms""lITO'V"e'a."thlI't" the E'!CoWlil'e'll5"'Jbdci"il'is:E01:l:' Outlinec,Plan De,"'a'p'pr~ecL,a's" presenteG"an&, thatatr exception is made, in miE:imclm:ll'l:t:area:,becausec eYE Commission's .r,e.qqest. that .o~V1;lers" deea.p8x-.tofthe:i:r property toward widening Gibson Av'e:nue' rrght---of...way .'Fhis exception should be brought: to the attention of the. Board, g&Adjustment. Seconded by Goodhard. All in favor, with the exception of Jim Breasted who abstained due to a conflict of interests. Adams,moved,'that:. the Cam."lliss.ion would like to recommend to the Board of Adjustment tha t they grant a Varic.llce for "....^.,.~".'.,~..:.ii"..'"- . r"\ .r"\ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1C0 Leaves FORM 10 'C.F.H(\tCKELB.B.!l' L. CO. Aspen P & Z, Regular Meeting, 4/18/72 8ifb,ttrp14!g;'it:!sltead of2'twop'~xesoni Let 2. Seco:J.ded by Goodhard. All in favor, with the execption of Breasted, who abstained. cAnth'os.Jord.mmo:ved tOiaccep.t the 'preli.minary~t.{J'division pla;t.. Seconded by Collins. All in favor, with the ex- ception of Breasted, who abstained. Hoab Subdivision Hoag Subdivision - Steve Crowley and Tom MCCauley were present to discuss this subdivision plat with the Commiss- ion, and the possibility of building on Lot 3. City/County Planner, Herb Bartel, told the Commission the problems of access to this area. Final plat on record shows the use of BLM land for access. Felt lot 3 was not a buildable site due to avalanche danger. Also, that Lot 3 was required as part of the access right-of-way. Referred back to minutes on Hoag Subdivision, which in- dicated that the intent of the Commission was that Lot 3 was to provide access, and was not a buildable site. . Blanning has widened the road, but does not show on the plat, only a 15' wide right-of-way. Commission agreed to hold a continued meeting on Tuesday, April 25th to view the site of Lot 3, Hoag Subdivision. J. R. Williams, Annexation J. R. Williams Annexation - Herb Bartel, City/County Planner presented the plat to the Commission. Explained a public hearing was necessary on this plat since Holy Cross had not signed the annexation petition. Felt RMF zoning should be a condition of annexatiJn. County not making any recomnlendations, waiting for the City Planning and Zoning's actions. Commission felt the road and bridge to this area was the ~~jor problem in annexing, whether to the City or if a subdivision in the County. The bridge is both in the City and the County. Bruce Kistler was present and discussed the possibility of forming an Impruvement District: which would be responsible for impro~ing the bridge. An estimate of $60,000 has been made on improving the bridge by the owners of the Silver King apartments. Estimate also included improvements on the intersection. Jim Breasted moved that' this property be annexed, seconded by Jordan. Discussed the location of the corridor as per the Master Plan. Traffic already a pt"ob:lem with the Smuggler Trailer -2- "~ 1"""\, ,-, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 103 Leaves FORM 10 ~. F. !lO~CK(l O. O. Il L. co. Regular Meeting, Aspen P & Z, 4/18/72 Court and the Silver King Apartments. County Zoning for this annexation would be AR2. Jefinite advantages if it were City RMF zoned, since this would restrict the building according to the Master Plan. 62 units are planned for thi.s annexation. Discussed the additional costs incurred by the City when annexing. Commission would like comments from the City Eng~neer and the City Manager on this annexation. Breasted withdrew his motion, Jordan withdrew his seco~d. Will make their decision at the continued meeting on April 25th. Commission agreed tha t the area from Gibson Avenue north be zoned Park. . Lot 1, Block 2, Pitkin Mesa Subidvision - Signature on petition from landowner asking for annexation. This lot was not brought in at the itme of the Golf Course annexation because the City did not have the signature of the land owner. Lot 1, Block 2 Pitkin Mesa Sub Jim Breasted moved to recommend to Council that Lot 1, Block 2, Pitkin Mesa Subdivision be annexed to the City. Seconded by Goodhard. All in favor, motion carried. Goodhard moved to adjourn to a continued meeting on Tuesday, April 25th at 5:00 p.m. Seconded by Jorcan. All in favor, meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. ,g/~fl--' ~~' Lorraine Graves, Secretary , , 1. , ~ ~ i,~ LJ,. f ' [./ l'-""'"""""~ I i f ~' I i " \ , 1 i , ,i I Continued Meeting .-.<e=:~ ,,,......, ~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning & Zoning April 6, 1972 Meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. by Chairman Robin Molny with James Breasted, Charles Collins, Victor Goodhard. Also present Assistant Planner Fred Wooden._,,-~-,-, J ~,OWNELL SUBD - Commission left City Hall for a ~ f~el trip to the site. Also in attendance Attorney "-Art Daily ,Surveyor and Applicants. Meeting resumed at City Hall at 5:35 p.m. I 1 I ! I I i ~ ,<<- James Breasted stated he had a conflict in this case. As instructed by the Commission, plats were reviewed., showing the addition of the placement of the buildings on the site" Mr. Daily reported the plats are be~ng submitted as a preliminary as well as a final plat. Surveyor stated he had made an incorrect statement at the last meeting in that the ditch does go into Lot 4 and that will be shown on the final plat. Ditch originates from the Mo~y Gibson mine. Mr. Wooden stated he felt he may have confused everyone at the last meeting in trying to bring in something that was felt applied which was the intent of a substandard lot under R-6 zone. The Commission is faced with two possibilities: (1) If the right-of-way is included for, calculating lot footage, the City would be in a positi.on where. Clayton Meyring<couldnotturn down a pertllit fora duplex; (2) If it is not included, the one , lot would be unbu;i.ldable, and would ha"e to go before the Board of Adjustment for a variance. Feel under the subdivision regulations the Commission does have t~e right to look,at the usable lot area to see if it is suitable for building on. Question was raised if using the right-of-way for calculations already set by precedent or would this set the precedent. Chairman Molny replied that when this request was reviewed, the pecularies of the area were considered and in doing so right-of-way was mentioned. But at that time the Commission had nothing to look at at that time. If the Commission had what is now being submitted, perhaps there would have been a different feeling as to including right-of-way. Mrs._ Brownell stated the lot lines were not drawn until the footage had been figured out. Chairman Molny pointed out the reason for requiring 60' along right-of~way was to get the width on the lets. Surveyor for Tio-Co Manag3ment submitted the following letter and request it be made a part of the minutes: '- - 1- c,J"...,.. ';";_~""""'<'~.',":_".;_''7'.''i'~.-i,' , .. "..-~.. ;"-,_, "-'''',,~'~'l'''' de'" "'" "~'-""- E0~::'-.~.r,::: "'....""",'~"."'~':,..4W"~ -- .._,,-_.,~ I"'>, ^ I j ,) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS . 00 Leaves 'ORIIJO e.,.. MOEClCEL 8. 9.& L. CO. Continued Meeting, P & Z, 4/6/72, continued. (See letter attached to minutes) y' Clayton Meyring, Building Inspector stated he had re- viewed the site and in looking at the site visually, the buildings would not look as bad as it was imagined, when you consider the shape of the road and wha~ will happen to the north. j I J. J.; Chairman Molny referred to the letter and stated there was no right-of-way agreement made, it was mere:'y an indication on the part of the Commission that they would look favorably at it. No decisions can be made unt~l the Commission has reviewed the preliminary plat. Charles Collins stated he objected to the one sub- standard lot in approving this plat. It was fe:'t when utilizing the right-of-way was considered that this would give them more flexibility in planning the area and not satisified with the way it shaped up. Questioned if _all alternatives had been checked into. Further stat- ed he felt they should consider PUD. i ,I Surveyor stated they had looked at the layout as many ways as could be thought of. All others would be worse than what is now being submitted. Could evenly divide the road frontage with the two lots and that would set the buildings closer than they are now. A line could be put between the garage and the other building. Mr. Brownell stated that if they went RMF, the old structure would have to be removed. Chairman Molny stated the distribution of build~ngs is bad, feel this property should be treated on a PUD basis so that the buildings could be closer together Mr Brownell stated they did not like the idea of bunching the buildings. ! ! Question was asked if the Brownell's buying additional property to '. meet Brownells stated they had and people had the not considered requirements. willing to sell. Chairman Molny stated he would rather see the area divided into two lots rather than three. i i ! i I ~ Collins moved to deny the applicaj;iot1 for subdivision I as plaftedonthe.<basisthattwo lots do not meet the 'I m~n~mum square footage requirements in the R-6 portion. j - 2 - :1:,:,;:':h~_'~.m~~l!1lm"E~~7,:.m,;;o.~~"",,,,,",',,,,,,,,;;;,~~~~,_y,,,,,,,,,,,"#< Collins stated that because of the tight area on the west side of Gibson, the Commission has some reason for considering the right-of-way but on the east sice do not feel there is any problem and do not feel right- of-way should be considered. Chairman Molny pointed out if all the area were zoned RMF could have a total of 16 units. h~'--'."'-.Jli'~~~~'~;8"'~'Ir,.":~\;:{tt<'.:{;=;!R:~{'$;!.,~~,:,Wl,:::~,~ ~ ,< ~. ^ ,) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves rOItM" C.Y.MOECKELI.S.. L.,.Co.. Continued Meeting, P & Z, 4/6/72, continued. Seconded by Goodhard. Mr Daily request clarificat~on on the motion, mocion to , mean that the right-of-way will not be included in the calculations for footage. Commission stated that was correct. Surveyor questioned the Commission if they took O'..lt one duplex, would the Commission go for that. Molny and Collins stated yes. Chairman Molny explained with PUD they could exceed the height and adjust the setbacks. Mr. Bartel, City/Cotmty Planner explained that with PUD would have zero lot lines, applicants could change their order fro~ a duplex to a four plex. Mrs. Brownell stated for the record that they felt they had been lead astray. They would have made it one lot if they had known they could not use the right-of-way, but as it is time, money and effort has been SPCLt in the wrong direction". I , ; I , , I I ~ ! "1 , ! Collins pointed out that he felt this was going to be a preliminary plat and wish they had had the pre- liminary plat to consider before final plat was submitted. ~olny stated the Commission would like to see th:...s on a PUD ,basis and under PUD would prefer not to include the , right-of-way. Roll call vote - Collins aye; Goodhard aye; Breasted abstain; Molny aye. Motion carried, plat denied. Collins moved to adjourn at 6:30 p.m., seconded JY Goodhard. All in favor, meeting adjourned, ~~.;:LJ ~~ine Graves, City Clerk - . fRI-CO MaCagement, Inc~' 1 Planning. Design' Surveying. Engineering. Construction and Management of Land Box 1730 Aspen ~Colorad081611 > 303-925.26B8 ,April :5, 1972 : ';comments on the ,Brownell 'Subdivision ./ , J:n,January, 1972, "the Brownells ,applied i:or a ,building permit to ,erect a duplex on ,the:portion of, their property zoned R-6. . It ,>was 'refused 'on.:the ,grounds' :that .the ,property wasunsubdivided. :.on February 1, 1972, ,the Brownells appeared at the City 'Planning "-Commissi:on meeting and asked the _commission, what ,was required. ~e' 'Commission asked the 'planningoff,iceto'determine whether or,.:not a.subiii~ision' was necessary. ,on.,.February 15, 1972,at.the, Planning Commission ~me,eting, ,the 'planning office expressed the:opinion'thatthesubdivision.reg- .ul.a:tions did apply , ,and the city" engineer' recommended that the ,:"Brownells be required to' dedicate 'a 60-i:oot right-:of-way for 'Gibson Avenue. The Brownellsasked ,the' Commission..whether ,they ,',-{lO:u1d use tile right-bf-wayfor density if they _dedicated .it. - U:ter:eonsiderablediscussion, which is not shown ,in the minutes, -:the ,Commission agreed that the :Brownells could - use' tb'e'-entire ,cright..of-way"for density purposes. . The"Brownells subsequently asked Tri-Co Management to design a subdivision of their property. Since the entire property was :now:involved.ratherthan one duplex, Tri-Co proceeded to -sub- ,,' c:divide the, property on the basis of the ,right-of-way agreement ,previously mentioned, and in accordance with the 'city 'subdivis:.on ::regulations. In the process of des'igning the Subdivision, "the '-city building insp.ector was consulted twice by :,Tri'":Co ,'and once bythe.Brownells as to:theacceptability of Lot 2. In all .three '.instances the building inspector had noobj,ection. He has s,tated .to,Tri-Co 'that he 'still has 'noobjectionii: the ,Planning Commission ..allows use of the -:right-of-way as' agreed.- ,.At the Planning, 'Commission, meeting on ..April, 4,- 1972 ,,:comments were!ll.adebymembers' of the. Commission. as, to the shape ',and size of the ,lots in this subdivision. ,We would like ,the, Commis'sion ,.tonotethat the Brownell 'land, like many, parcels ":in 'the Aspen ,area, has 'an'odd shape. When these ,parcels are 'split up according ,to:'specific requirements they must result in odd shaped lots. ' ,We believe that part of the flavor of Aspen ,is due to imaginative use of 'odd 'parc,els "and buildings. We ,see ,no' reason for square PI :rectangular development when such development will not log- ically.fit :.the surrounding te=ain, ownership or improvements. We also feel that an actual field inspection of the Brown 11 property should be made by the Commission before accepta e , t' f' h bd'" nce or reJec ~on 0_ t e su ~v~s~on plat and that such an ~ t' 'II 1 ~ .nspec ~on w~, . revea both the ~easons for and the suitability of th 1 des~gn. e ot """"':.-....".;._.,~ ,~:,:..:;,~,;2".:..,;.;;;':':;:..~.;.;.:'1;;;L;::-ii;,..:',','~.,;;:\',;;;;,'::::.::,~;;'::..<'~,:.1:L~'"'~.,~;;::.l."';.;;...:;::'~:...,,....:;:~,'~'.;.:;,'".,",.,....-,".'.,;;.,7"...,'. ';..';',,,>,'..,';'0"' ."... .. "..;,;;:,.."'.;:;;;;:;:::;':;;;;;:;~:1;n;:~,."'~~~;~;;:'~~"i.::;;;::;;',~'~;;"'.s..;,",,,,:,"*".::.:\~.",,"..,;o.:..,,~;.,.,;;:';;,,,;;,,,',ji/i;;:.'~.i,, J~ .~ _ f.~q~. ~(-9~'E_~:_~' ~:--__ Regular Meeting I'" .~ , , / RECORD OF PROCEEDH\lGS leo Lcr~'~'08 Aspen Planning and Zoning Apr:t1 Lt, 1972 Meeting ~as called to order by Chairman Robin Molny at 5:10 p.m. with James Breasted, James Adams, Victor Goodhard and Charles Collins. Minutes p(Brownell T Subdivision Collins moved to approve the minutes of March 21st as prepared and mailed by the Secretary. Seconded by Good- hard. All in favor, motion carried. Minutes of March 7th stand approved as approved. Brownell Subdivision - Mr. and Mrs. Brownell were present with their representatives, Attorney Art Daily and , . Surveyor from Tri-Co Management. ''E'inalplat was submit.ted containing four lot.s with ded- iLea ted 60' right of way on Gibson Avenue. Gentlerr,en' s agreement was previously reached with the Commission an exception would be made to allow the Brownell's to use the right of way square footage for density calcLlations was :reported by Mr. Daily. Attorney Daily reviewed the ,~ following with the Commission: (1) King Street is not a public street ana not ell lots front on public streets as require; (2) Owners will not bear responsibility for maintenance etc. of the public right of way as required under the regulations for sur- facing standards of public streets; (3) Borvmel~'s do not want to be responsible for the irrigation cu~vert that may be on the property a little bit; (4) Since all utilities are installed, do not feel an agreemnt will be necessary with the City that they will be instal~ed; Q~) The requirement of land or 4% of the valuation, the Brownells feel that there is not extra ground to dedicatee to the City. Suggest that the dedication of 60' ~ight of way take care of this requirement or would be willing at the time a building permit is issued to establis'l. the 4% at that time and pay same to the City. , Mr. Fred Wooden, Assistant Planner, stated the following comments were made by the City Engineer, Building In- spector, etc. : Engineer states there is a discrepancy in t.he description. Surveyor stated this "as bee:! taken care of on the final plat. Engineer further request the ditch mentioned be either shown on the final plat and if it does not exist that it be taken off. (D1,tch not shmm on final plat.) Rocky Mountain Natural Gas commented the gas line is not as sho_m on the preliminary plat. Sur- veyor stated this has been corrected. Master Plan calls for Gibson Avenue as a collector street. Mr. Wooden stated that there is no way of extending Gibson to an 80' street so have no objection to the 60' as platted. Building Inspector's comments states that under normal circumstances would have no objection to a duplex as allowed in the R-6 zone. Two lots would require variances or exceptions granted square footage wise. Further states ." .., ":..:,!;,:...,'Zj",,",,,',,",'~'" ;;;;:;;;':' ~:~~''''''>7'''''''~-=...;~,",,;.. ,-,., ^ HlIm '.0 C. F.l'lotC~EL B.~. 8: L. CO. -~ RECORD Of PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting Master Plan Review Committee Report " Commission Priorities Aspen Planning and Zoning April 4, 1972 that under the non-conforming lots of record refe~red to in the zoning ordinance does allow duplexes on less than 5,000 square feet. Feel the intent of this section of the ordinance should be maintained throughout even though this request does not specifically pertain to this section, One lot presently has a duplex on it. It was pointed out the average square footage o~ each lot is 5600 square feet, 'Commission suggested the applicants consider going PUD to alleviate the problem with setbacks. , Suggestion was made that rather than hire an appraiser, to review other land sa les tha tare comprable ane negoia te on that basis. v:fames Adams suggest that a single dwelling be a1J.owed on the sub-standard lot. Vie Goodhard stated he felt the Commission shoulc be con- sistent in this area, recently turned down a request for RMF zoning across the street from this subdivision and allowed only R-15. Mrs. Brownell stated she had talked to the Build:.ng In,. spector at the time a preliminary sketch was made of a duplex on the substandard lot and at that time the Building Inspector had no objections. Mr. Daily stated he would like to have the Building In- spector review this again since he has changed his mind. Commission agreed to continue this meeting to Thursday at 5:00 p.m. Master Plan Review Committee Report - Mr. Bartel, City! County Planner stated they had held one meeting and one person from the City and one from the County are working on outlining the implicit policies in the Plan and the other two are outlining changes that have occurred since the plan was adopted. Committee will be meeting every Friday at 3:00. Mr. Bartel further reported the City did rece~ve approval of the $20,000 for a trail system which will go towards easements and construction. Commission Priorities - Mr. Molny gave the following list as what he felt were priorities and items to be considered in reviewing the zoning regulations: Floor area measurement Attendant Parking (already eliminated) Limited and unlimited unit Open Space - cubic foot basis Stream margin guidelines Stream trail system Fences Method of measuring height -2- :""",;;;:;:.,,,,.;;;,;.;:;',;;;;.;;:.;',....",..'. ~ ...~.:;""". """''''''-"'''''f-.'"O:=-- ."..,.,',~"..i,.'"r"'.~"".".,"\.'~H'"Y.~-~".".. .',.,"'.;."",' 'e'''''''.'___'''''''''''i-''=i.;ty".., ..'"...~'.'''~> '.. ",....", r-., RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 . ..........^^ '-":;;<<'1110;';' FOq'< ,; C. f". ~()ECKF.l a. a. II: l. co. Regular Meeing, Aspen P & Z, 4/472 Intercourt Open space bonus 10% rear yard setback Food preparation Private vs public roads in subdivisions View controls Gasoline station locations Signs - supergraphics Mobile home subdivisions Lighting regulations Regulation governing remodeling of barns and shecs Trash storage requirements for new businesses . C-C requirement in C-l Breasted moved to adjourn this meeting to Thursday at 5:00, seconded by Goodhard. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting ended at 6:35 p.m. C--~~ ,I / ~/~.<.~~~' ~~-c.--/' ._______ Lorraine'Graves, Secretary '. , f"""'.. r-., SUBDIVISION PLAT CHECK FOHM Date APl<IL 4/ 107~ 'Gentlemen: According to the procedure set forth L"l the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into two or more lots must be divided in accordance with said Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen. This form, with attached copy of the, plat is provided so that each utility company may inspect the plat and the site, making comments, concerning the placement of ease- ments, etc., and where necessary sketching recommended alterations On a copy of the plat. This fonn and the accompanying copy of the plat must he retur.ned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Com- _ mission no la~E:Ethan seven J7) days from the above date. Remarks: No alterations are necessary for electric power. c:::~)jL_ ~/-_ - -A-~ /q;p Holy Cross Electric Associatio_n, InG. . System Engineer ~ I I'" ~ SUBDIVISION PLAT CHECK FOPJM Dat~ AP12IL.4) IOJ7'L Gentlemen: According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into two or more lots must be divided in accordance with said Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen. This form, with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company may inspect the plat and the site, making comments, concerning the placement of ease- ments, etc., and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy 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: El'IS,t:\'(\E\-J\S. AS. \\J.!)\t~ CllJ PL/fr A1<E QUI.,,,, 5u F1'IO"m Fa'R- TELEP!+OJ\fE CDm PAiJ'Y REQU,ffmEAfT:!. (Sa=:: purr'1 )- GR~~ 3/2'4 h2~_ N.OUNTAJN B~Lt.. ,-.,.. ~. SUBDIVISION PLAT CHECK FORH Date PPQ\L 4 /10)72 Gentlemen: According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, a:ay tract of land divided into two or more lots must be divided in accordance with said Subdivision Regulat:1.on for the City of Aspen. This form, ~'7ith attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company may inspect the plat and the site, making C01TIffients, concerning the placement of ease- ments, etc., and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy of the plat. This form and the accomp~nying 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: -/l1LJ.II.-I:..s:- C?-.'1 /; ~ st"-"'f/f'i d i7 e7~1 f/Ll1/ J2j1Jfr-....l Je.IN",Ir.r. L,d 2_ lv/II hz{/I"/ III _...(LL",--f::-A.u~ i.'.,~r e~ /J-?, e~~-1e...:/::Ju'~_eq,__ILI_.L rv I r h G Ie- (, Jj (l ~f.J' c;f Cp I'~ 1'1' e jJ..1 ?., 'l V'; J l1- C / tJ.l1.j- S e. 1/ f/ I C/ e-- Ii JtJ e, , ~/~~ 6~~~ /11;1' J 0 , ~ .-' SUBDIVISION PLAT CHECK FORM Dat~ A~\L 4) /972 Gentlemen: According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen Subdivision Regulations, any tract of land divided into two or more lots must be divided in accordance with said Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen. This form, with attached copy of the plat is provided so that each utility company may inspect the plat and the site, making comments, concerning the placement of ease- ments, etc., and where necessary sketching recommended alterations on a copy 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: JcI r-e.-..J (J--., 1,L4.",,;"':" ~,.,.tf' A1t (! (k-P~y- 4,..2:;;,., 7'?;d4<:. L>'<7 --Z~~ ~~. W", r:>r< aU 2 ..A,~-e ('~~ ---t:J!;;tC-2:2.tL.~~:%? ~/~~, \ ~/rAJJ~~ Jf)~ :1M~ 4 ~7: ?7c:J'!-A 6, ~.;". . ~i it frNI/~( ,~~ ' t '.JJ" , , / .-* (""'\ ;~: ' (""'\ ~RI"":CO "Mafllagamem;.:lrn.c. E'lahning . Qesign.'. Surveying 'Eng.i,need~~'~G();O$tr:uctiCin ~ , '," ''''',,;~,/ .-" anqManagementdf Land ~ :..,,;-<1'" ~S(f.~ Box 1730 Aspen ';GoJimlrlo .i31.611 ,S(}3:'925,2688 I 7:.!\.pr i1 .,""972 : ,:s.rma:EC~: TEN!,I':.!\.".NVE ,.s'CHEbULE, tBROWNEL0p.,'U_D.., :~ --:---S-J:JBI.l:IVTSION ,:M?PIiICA:T:IONS . ; .. . ".iil-lB'iApr..il epnj) C:-~, C:~"Mai) ctJ~ C:::J ~.._-,-..,-,-,- 7: 'P. &Zr-evi-ew..:e;f OUTLINE1'LAN. ,...Regnlar P ,& ,'Z. :meeting i''O.,Dn'''Tuesd:ay, ,1:8 --Apr.il. '-'" S.wdy '.sess.ion wi U',be .,s:ch-edul:eu ,':be:f'oxe ~then ,i.f';desiJ?-ed. ,If..cappr,mr.ed , . ,'then'; Last',-.aay .notiCE< o,f'l!lay '8 iCouneix."hearing "on'~:011TL7NE;'PLAN :canbeg.:tven .t:'Q "the .,news- :p:ap.er:for ,:p:ubJ,ic:ation 'on.4!;2D /72. ,OU'])L:nm:'1?~rev:i:e:Wed ;by-'Co;uncil ' ,(public hear::i:aJ,g) ,. ,iIf .approved, then; Last .'1iaY,":noti:c,euI June>6 ;P.& 'Zhearing onF.INAL, :PLAN" can ,!be. gi~,e;nto "the, news- paperJorpublication ,'On 5/~l/72. .~) :1' &Z're.view. X)fTFJ;!!JAL '::PLAN {pul:>lic o1!ear.ingJ.. I:f.approveu'T .then;' . . ) l'~' , oL Cpun:cil ,re'ZDnes. prope,rl:Y. ~~ / r A SubsIdiarY-of TricoCo.rpmation ," DHices througooutthe'West ~ ~ TRI,-CO Management, Inc. Planning' Design' Surveying' Engineering. Construction and Management of Land Box 1730 Aspen COlD ado 81611 30 .925.2688 MEMO March 27, 1972 TO: Herb Bartel, Regional Planner FROM: Tri-Co Management SUBJECT: BROWNELLSUBDIVISION With respect to the proposed Brownell Subdivision,it is our understanding that certain variances 'from the City Subdivisio Regulations will be accomplished by resolution in the' minutes of the Planning Commission hearing. The purpose of this memo is to draw .your attention to those variances which have come to light during, our design work on the subdivision. Page ref erencesare to Ordinance No.' 6, Series of 1969,as filed for record in the Pitkin County Courthouse in Book 244. p. B 6 B section. 4 : section. :12-11-'3. C:omp1lianoe (h) This section requires that all lots front on streets accepted by the Council as public streets. LotI of the subdivision fronts on King Street which has never been accepted by Council as a public street. The street is main- tained and plowed by the City. p. 874 SectionB: Section. 12-1-7.. . Des'ign. Requir:ements 1. Streets The right-of-way be.ing dedicated to the City along Gibson Avenue is 60 feet in width as recommended by the City Engineer. This is the width assigned "Minor Streets" as defined by, the regulations; how- ever, Gibson Avenue by this same definition must be considered a "Collector ,Street," with a required right-of-way of BOfeet. One of the two ,adjacent subdivisions, Sunny Park Subdivision, has a 60 foot right-of-way. A Subsidiary of Trico Corporation Offices throughout the West /--"" /~, " , " Memo to Herb Bartel page 2 March 27, 1972 p. 875 2. Surfacing Standards It is the understanding of the owners that they will have no responsihilityfor design, construction or maintenance of Gibson Avenue either in its present or future state. p. 876 5. Ldts (a) Minimum lot size' (6000 square feet) has been met only by crediting parts of the 60 foot right- of-way to three of the four lots in the subdivision. (b) No side lot lines are at right .angles to the street line as required . (d) Same remark as for p.868 above. p. 877 ('3') Part of an existing irrigation ditch culvert may be slightly within the subdivision. It is the understanding of the owners that they will have no responsibility for the design, construction, or maintenance of thisculver't, Le., it is to be under- stood that the City accepts all design, construction, and maintenance within theiright-of-way to be dedicate p. 879 S'eCtidn 10: S'ubdivis'ion Agreement It is the understanding of the owners that bec',ause there are no required subdivisionimproveIlients, other than the provis,ion of utili ties, there will be no need for a written agreement with the City for the provision of suchimprovenients. ~ ~ ..,~ . TRI-CO Management, Inc. Planning' Design' Surveying. Engineering" Construction and Management of Land Box 1730 Aspen Colorado 81611 303.925.2688 March 15, 1972 PROPERTY OWNERS ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED BROWNELL SUBDIVISION,' ASPEN,' COLORADO 1. The Congressional Corporation c/o Arthur C" Hyde 7979 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20014 2. Estate of P1avien Cerise c/o Martin Cerise Box 646 Aspen 3. Top of Aspen, Inc. c/o Tri-Co Management, Inc. Box 1730 Aspen 4. Luke W. Anthony Box 1271 Aspen A Subsidiary of Trico Corporation . Offices throughout the West , l""'--~""--"''''-'' "..........--~~ . ,t.., r-, ,~ \,_J RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ,ORMIG C. F.HOECKEI. B.ll. a L. co. SUBDIVISION REGULATION SCHEDULE 14 Days Prior to Public Hearing 2 copies of preliminary plat to City Adminis tra tor. 2 copies of preliminary plat to Secretary of Planning Commission. 7 Days Prior to Public Hearing ~;l "I ~~- 1 copy of preliminary plat to Superintend- ent of Schools, 1 copy of prelim~nary plat to all utilities companies involved. , Subdivider notified by registerec mail of time and place of hearing. Owners of adjacent land owners notified by registered mail of time and place of hearing. Written notices to City Administrator, public school administration and to all utilitie companies involved. Legal notice to newspaper. 5 Days Public Prior tOe H . "YY'''''''1. 0 ear~ng -Q - ~ I I j ,1 I I I ! -",-,,'.... t~f1-1 =-!~~'~.}~02S~~~ Regular Meeting 1"""'. I"""', RECORD OF PROGEED!!\!GS 1, [I Leaves Aspen Planning & Zoning February 1, 1972 Meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman James James Adams, Charles Collins and Charles Vidal. , .,~ Brownell Sub- T division Historic Zoning Master Plan Sub- Committee Breasted at 5:05 .m. with Brownell Subdivision - Preliminary Plat was subm'tted, Bro,vnell's were present. Application was made to the Building Inspector for a permit to build a duple Land was never subdivided which requires an applicati nand following of the subdivision regulations. Proper y is zonedR-6. Mr. Bartel, City/County Planner state King Street has never been dedicated nor has Gibson. ing Street cO,uld possibly serve as a private street ased on a 30' or 40' easement. Gibson Avenue should be d dicated as a public road, which requires a minimum of 60 Utilities to the property are now existing. Anthos Jordan arrived. Commission discussed the hardship for such a sma 1 tract of land .to meet, the subdivision requirements. To al area 34,000 square feet. Commission request the Plann r review this subdivision again and make recommendations to the ,Commission as relates to the owners subdividing of the property under the regulations and the 60' road width requirement. Historic Zoning - Mr. Bartel explained he had rew the section relating to the joint hearing. As rew the Historical Preservation Commi~~ makes thei termination which goes to the Planning and Zoning ion for preliminary approval and then a joint hea held. Planning and Zoning Commission then makes a ommendation to Council but attached is the recomm of'the Historical Preservation Commission. Will h City Council schedule a public hearing on the ord at their ne~t meeting. Master Plan Subcommittee - Mr. Charles Vidal and Adams volunteered to work with two members of the Planning and Zoning to review the Master Plan. itten itten de- Commiss- ing is re- ndation ve the nance r. James County County Zoning requests were reviewed by the Commission as follows: Zoline - Application before the County is for R-30, this does not provide for PUD as part of initial approv 1 but that option does e~ist. Williams Property containing approximately 3.7 acr s, request for AR-2 zoning. Mocklin Tract containing approximately 4 acres, re uest for AR-2 zoning. Discussed the Williams ~ll1d Mocklin properties. Mr. Barte 1. stated that in previous discussions of the County or zoning in this area, improvements to streets and a foot path prior to any more higher density being approvEd wero ~ " '" fORM \1 c. P. fl()~CKEI. s. S. & L. CO. " 1"""\ '-'. RECORD OF PROCEE.DiNGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting, Aspen P. & Z. , 2/1/72 discussed. The Plan recommends high density resi3ential. County does not have a multiple district that ex:ludes lodges, this would require a contract. County dQes not have a Park classification. Present zoning is R-30 and R-15 which allow only single family. McCullough Project - Offer has been made to the ~orest service of 1700 acres, Request is for AR-2 class~fication. Commission discussed the circulation in this area, also thE impact of the three requests which would be about 1;000 units. Commission agreed to submit formal recommendations to the County, Mr. Bartel to draft recommendations. Mr. Vidal stated he would rather the County table these .requests until Voorhees has made his report. Jordan moved to adjourn at ,6:30 p.m., seconded by Adams. All in favor, meeting adjourned. ?-' '~) ,/1' ( ___)~'~<';;:;~';L,/-,,-: AJt..a -i'.<..'&/ ~..--' Lorraine Graves, Secretary / ~9C,'.HOECKEtl.I;ltt.Co. ~. .~ " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting, Aspen P & Z, 1/15/72 Brownell Sub Sneaky Lane Sub Brownell Subdivision - Mr. and Mrs. Brownell were present with the preliminary plat of the area to be subdivided. Discussion on King Street not being a dedicated road, that adjacent roads had a 60 I right of way. . Chuck GiE<ey, City ,Engineer;f 'l'ef>orted tl>tata60~rig4tofway was mandatory for streets. King Street has established easemen;:: for utilities. Wondered if the square foot requirements would be a hard- ship, if the right of way to City could be included in the square footage. Suggested that the lots be sub-divid- ed now in the event of selling lots in the future. . Discussed whether the City would want the 4% subdivision cash fee or the 4% open space. Felt.in this case the 4% .Di;i;e";_1\:lI[,a~~e.;.,~.p1idi.ceah~e. ;Asked that the preliminary plat besubmttted to the Commission with the conditions dis- c.ussed.. Sneaky Lane Subdivision - Fred Wooden, Assistant City/ County Planner, plresented ;Ff,J,,,' ,,"~""'If',>11i Ltothe Commission~ .....!,o.:.B"t(,d"c'O.'-J.El!'r'~. >>'$r~ ' ,!~.-J!_ _....~g"Wm't-'lU";j,;m I!JWheft'''8''-''<<1.~l!1t'81.; ~l1't!l!i~~_ . . .'tl'it::r r~~""""Q'~;;JlIld,t:h.~i'il>".'f"~I}~~-Yi~cr:'U-P,lL,'fi':' J Ius...; ,_l'(Q,.V ""~l"11'ndi<lrl~~'L \)' n~~:."'~*t'i ~ .~. , , Discussed either requesting the 4% cash fee or tr.e poss- ibility of the subdividers beihg able to acquire an ease- ment along Castle Creek frc:n the surrounding pr~perty owners. Sneaky"Lane is a priva te road and would be main- tained by adjacent owners. ~~~~'l\a'~~~y<'~I,e".'.6"f"-'ea~l~ ~~~~~t:;':;~~=~~~~~~jf:~t;::=~ \$~-a:~uei;l;i;t:)Ca.nd.,pedestr'i!ltt~-:"'-; that said " '" '" '.' ;l'M"'''\fIl&i~ite(h;~''t'd:1'ue~'o~~lik>"",__ ,i that present or subsl1(lue~v<u_._ l~ """i;u~~~~,_ .. .. IKMl: 'tjtt__hltt:t~~. Seconded 1)y Chu::k Vidal. All in favor, motion carried. '....- A motion mad,e by Breasted, seconded by Vidal to continue the meeting until 5:00 p.m. TueSday, February 22nd. 0\11. in,favorv.mof"inn (,:'lrTIPd.