HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Redwood Condos
liJij",
1"""0,
~.
,Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council.._._____
December 23, 1974
. _..___._ .~'..__.,_._.._~.,.__...____,._,._~_._n_".._.__..________~__.._._~__~__...' ,. _.,.__.,... ". -_ ..-". .n._
DAY CARE CENTER PROPOSAL
City Manager Mahoney reported that the Day Care Center people were not ready to proceed.
Councilwoman Pedersen moved for a 'postponement to another Council meeting; seconded by
Councilman Walls. All in favor, motion carri~d.
Aspen Alps ,
Subdivision,
Exemption
ASPEN ALPS SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION
Ii
I,
.;
I.
Ii.
,
V
Yank Mojo' of th~ Planning Department presented. this exemption to 'Council. The land is
II located right along Little Nell above the 8040 line. On 12/17/74 the P & Z recommended
I! approval from subd~vision with the conditions (1) no development will occur on the .tract,
II (2) no unit density will be transferred to a lower piece of ground; in effect this will
;: be a buffer zone to prevent it from being closed off, (3) the area will remain open for
'I skiing.
II Mojo told the Council the Planning Office and the
11 Mojo 'said the Alps just want to acquire the land;
I:
n
P & Z supported the exemption application.
it will always be open. .
Attorney Leonard Oates said they could incorporate the deed restrictions as covenants
running with the land.
Councilwoman Pedersen made a motion to approve the sUbdivi&onexemption; seconded by
Councilman Walls. All in favor, motion carried.
REDWOOD CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
,J
Attorney Dwight Shellman presented the subdivision to Council. He said Redwood was an
existing apartme~thouseto be subdivided into five units for purchase by local residents.
He also 'mentioned that the Planning Office had been able to work out every problem to
satisfaction. The only decision left, does the Council wish to accept 4 per ~entcash
or 4 per cent land dedication. The owners wished to go with the 4 per cent cash because
the land de~ication would result in a loss of privacy.
Yank Mojo, of the planning Department, pointed out the Redwoods, had given a 12 foot ease-
ment along the bank of the Roaring Fork to be put into the trail system along the river.
Redwood had also given a 4Qfoot right-of-way of the easterly section of the, property until
the Riverside Avenue situation could be cleared up. Redwood had also given a temporary
10 foot easement on the north boundary of the property to be used as temporary access
to the trail easement until it could be connected to the trail system.
City Attorney Stuller pointed out some items were missing from'the agreement, suCh as the
street easement, the rental restrictions against short-term, and trail easement. These
will all be rectified.
The P & Z Commission approved both p~eliminary and final subdivision plans.
Councilwoman Markalunas moved to accept the subdivision plan with the 4 per cent cash
dedication and to authorize City-Attorney Stuller to execute the subdivision exemption;
'I seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in 'favor, motion carried.
Elbert
Tacker
Mayor's Deed
MAYOR'S DEED - Eb Tacker's property.
Leonard Oates, representing Eb Tacker, explained to Council the need for a Mayor' s deed. The
original survey had been made in error.. Tacker's wish to bring the description from
the center of Neal street back to the side of Neal street and give the City $ufficient
property for a right-af-way and road alignment and not interfere with the Tacker's
previously built improvements. The Tackers 'are willing to give a perpetual easement of
20 feet on the west boundary to fit in with the trail policy of the City of Aspen,.
The difference between the new description and the previous conveyance is the boundary
between the T.~,-::ker prc;~'cr:ty a.nd Herron Park. ~his property has been utilized by the
Tackcr::;~n accordance '.'~;:'~ theoriqinal understanding but' h.:l.S been finished by the City
of Aspen. Tackers. are rt2~iuestiD(J t.h0 Ci ty accept a reconveyance as the pro"pertywa.:,
originally convcyC'd in term:,: of a new May-uris deed.
Councilman Ore.'lsted asked Dave Ellis, the City Engineer, if he had made an examination
of all the problems in the area. Ellis said the engineering department had. There was
nothing that caused them to question the proposal; in fact; it cleared up three'dis-
crepancies in that area.
councilman Behrendt moved to authorize Mayor Standley to execute the Mayor's deed; seconded
by Councilwoman Markalunas. All in favor, motion carried.
Att,orncy Oates brought up one minor request. The frunt yard setback is inadequate. Oates
stated they w'ould like to ask Counei] for an ordinanc\~ .declaring th.1.t under the circum'-
stances, the '["1ck(~rresid,:'nc,~ is not " non-conforminq. ~;;tructure. Council,man Ih'llt"cndt
qu,;:',st i.ofl..d th i,~~ . 0<'1 tcs '..J. ted theywou Id 1 ike it ,on r(~cord to protect them in. the f'uture
from Wh~ltC.\'(' ..p~; '\,lPF-",'n. i.lJ.tcs s<J.id the building i:; a conforming structure until they
pull the west :_n<J,.' feet over.
City Attorney :;tullcr pointed out the many practical problems in this type of situation.
Every time ;] permit i,S:;UI'S for a non-conforminlj .sti:ucturc, the Board of I\d iu,;tmv~1t must
rcvieH. it. i'-tclYOt' t;l,indlcy ~';ilidthe City ,m.:~dc a mistJke; the house w.:!s built andWdS
existing as a cont:onning ~,t.ructurQ.
';occial Review, cont' d
.'.tion
-"'NDITIONAL USE:
.ip 'N' Kurl
Motion
SUBDIVISION:
~edwood Condominiums
pinal
_.,~-_.::;:::=--==--- ...."~..,.
Motion
Notion
.~EMPTION-sunDIVISION
sagewood Condominiums
~,
P & Z mi~s 12-17-7'4
Barnard' moved to grant the remodeling of the house on the
condition that they provide 4 off-street parking places.
Landry seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
Public hearing was opened by the Chairman. Mojo stated
that this was a request for a day-care center on RG land.
He said that they had complied with Sec. 2-22 and the
fees had been paid. Applicant Mary Gustafson said that
they would be securing the fence that surrounds the house
so that there would be no children running out onto the
Highway. Mojo said that they were giving the vacant lane
east of the property to be used as outdoor area for the
children and Planning Office thought this a good use for
the area. A letter from Marion Stewart was read into.
the minutes ,in favor of the use and Mary Johnston,
representing the property owner, said that this use woulc'
be meeting the needs of the community. Public hearing was
closed.
Collins moved to grant the conditional use of a day-care
center for the Klip 'N' Kurl.Barnard seconded. All in
favor, motion carried.
Attorney Jon Mulford, representing applicants, said that
he had agreed to all the Planning Office's considerations,
Mojo enumerated those conditions: Dedication of the roac.
easement and trail easement, the City would like to have
the easement granted instead of a dedication; that there c<
clause in the Subdivision Agreement to, if they get the
problems with Riverside Avenue straightened out at a later
date, dedicate the road to the City who will then take
responsibility for upkeep of the road; the 4% dedication
of the Subdivision should be left up to Council vlhether it
will be in land or cash; A Covenant in the Subdivision
Agreement against multiple short-term rentals; Sidewalks
included in improvements districts numerated in the
Subdivision Agreement; Like a word added in paragraph 2
of the Subdivision Agreement, 3 lines from the bottom,
"will pay), of actual costs of any such improvements
abutting or \vithin the tract described".
Schiffer thought that they should rescind the Exemption
granted last week and Barnard moved to Rescind the
Exemption from Subdivision and Collins seconded. All in
favor, motion carried.
Mulford noted that the Engineer had taken all the names
off the plat except for Kastelic. He also wanted to know
the difference between grant and dedication and Mojo
explained that dedication meant giving the land for fee
simple and maintenance would be the City's concern.
Mulford asked if it \....ould be allright to have the Subdivi..
sion Agreement contain the provision that the owners will
dedicate the land when possible and that was agreeilble
with members. Schiffer asked if all the perequisites had
been satisfied and Mojo said that he and Dave Ellis had
worked everything out to their satisfcation.
Landry moved to give final plat approval to the Redwood
Condominiums subject to the conditions previously specifie,
by the Planning Office and Collins seconded. All in favor
motion carried.
Located next to Dorothy Rutherford and across from the
Villas of Aspen, Sagewood had already received exemption
conditional upon the alley being paved with asphillt and
applicant wanted to change that condition to allow for
chip 'n' seal instcild. City Engineer Ellis said that
all the concH tions had been complied with and th(~re was
still money in escrow to cover this.
-2-
.,-"'~-
, ~,.
.'
,....,
OF (;.O,t_CFL.V"i(! ;',<::i!
Mr. Jon K. Mu I ford
Dwight Shellman & Associates
Aspen, Colorado
December 16, 1974
Re: opinion of market value
Redwoods Subdivision (land only)
Dear Jon:
Regarding your request for my opinion of market value of the land of
the Redwoods Subdivision, I have researched the fol lowing:
The subject property contai ns .658 acres with approximately 33% being
within the streamline of the Roaring Fork River. The existing use of
the property is a 5 unit apartment (1 bedroom) building, although this
use is non-conforming to present zoning which is R-15. The property
slopes to the south and west and is sparcely covered with Aspen trees.
I bell eve that a determi nati on of the I and va I ue of the subject prop-
erty is best determined by either a land residual or market value ap-
prai sa I approach. Under the former, the improvement va I ue may be est-
imated at $101,400.00 by:
$35/sf replacement cost
$20/sf repl acement cost
x
x
( 5 apartments @ 520sf/apt.) =
520sf of unfinished common =
Improvement cost replacement =
$91,000
10 ,400
101,400
Land residual = $115,000 - $101,400 = $13,600 indicated land value
l)ti Ii zi ng the market approach, one good comparab Ie sa Ie was recorded
8/8/73 in the conveyance of 3.212 acres between Riverside Placer lots
8 and 9 and the Roaring Fork River. Grantors were Popish, Condon. Vedic,
and Loushin and the grantees were Jack and Jane Van Horn. Since a survey
of th i s comparab lei s not at my d i sposa I, I do not know the extent to
which the river renders this property unusable. Consideration was $57,500.
Assuming equal river encroachment for both comparable and subject prop-
erties, however the value indicated for the subject property is:
$11,779 = $57;500/ 3.212 acres = $17,901.62 per acre
$17,901.62 per acre x .658 acres = $11,779.22. indicated land value
It is imperative that the land value be estimated on the basis of a sin-
gle-fami Iy dwel ling being the highest and best use for the site. Any
other analysis would be incompatible with current zoning and disregard-
i;QX3D,;,.? ,'/\)~,F>,!,'..p;..,!>,z;"
3C3i'n5.25\O
,:"'S?::\i, COLORADO 8,i;~:
so:, 2:'..' !HE DSPGT
80:< .'!'F', ":"2 PI"...", .';;,.:S'O
303i'32'5.2f<n
f;;F!,.,,-, ':::Oc.O"A00 ::;~().;:,~:
::;1):;8:27.,;;::,,\
B/..S,\lT, SOL08.AC',~ 3;f;2!
Colorado West's only computerized .property selection
.
, I,4l
"
("<
,....."
(J~D
h,;;, \". ;:;~T::;'(~ ;"/: ~~'C
"
':-'.1(:::.:.:' ~
',,;.-.,.,
Page 2
ing the non-conforming use status of the current structure on the prop-
erty.
One mitigating factor to the value indication given by the market app-
roach is the possible non-linearity of price wi.th respect to acreage.
This factor could imply an increased value indication.
On the basis of the above valuation, the market value is approximately:
t,
$15,000.00
----------
----------
Very tru Iy yours,
i~~::fjZL-
Brian L. Goodheim
Broker
* This is not a fee appraisal as there has been no consideration for
the above service.
sox 30...7
,.'iJ..2.'\
',',] TH!~ .~'i:;?~"-"
f:UZ: -';,;~,H2 '"";,_,, '~":::'.J:;::
:_~'-) >:
3:)::~:nJ~,';11
'J:'_1.',J2C ;?SG2
ASP;::;., COV:JR.\C<' ;~~,:;1;
P;,.,\S,.l.~ ,', CC~.'>; -..0 s:sr
,1Ii''-.;;;,. f,:C:...CRAC.C '~,~,3{)
C,.,' ,';',.,;.,,>';
Colorado West's only computerized property selection
HEMORANDUM
TO:
Dave Ellis.../"".,^
Yank Mojo
DATE:
December 12, 1974
From:
Sandra Stuller
Re:
Redwood Condominiums
Attached is the proposed subdivision agreement
for Redwood CondominiUms. I understand JOn will be before
the P & Z on Tuesday, and Council on Monday the 23rd.
Please let me know relatively quickly, if you have any
opinion.
Note: Why is there no commitment to join a sidewai~
improvement district?
SS!pk
Attachment
.
1"".
/""'>.
SUEDIVISlcm PLAT
Cl.-r;;-rv 'I;'O~.<~I'l'
.:.":":'~.v_'\. _
,
Date./J-/s' -771'
Gentle.!llerr:
According to the proccch.li:'c set forth irr the City of Aspcm
Subdivision Resul~tions> any tr~ct of land divided into
t'\.ro or nlore lots nust be "divided in eccorde.nce "lith s8.id
Subdivision Reg~lationfor the City of Aspen.
This forro. ,.;ith attached copy of the plat is provided so
that each utility compzo.ny may inspect the plat and the
site) making C022~nts) concerning theplacerez:'lt: of case_
ments) etc.) end \.;here necessary sketching recorrm:ended
alterations on a cop~ of the plat.
This form and the acc02panying copy of the plat must he '
returned to the City of Aspen Plenning end Zoning C02-
mission no la~er than seven (7) days from the above date.
Remarks:
~0(J
.
(~~~
.'
. .
We acknowledge receipt of the preliminary Plat of Redwood Condominiums.
This property is prese~tly within our service aprea, and the approval
of a condominium for 'the existing five-unit apartment house will in
no way affect existing or roposed service which we provide:
Dated this IS- day of
By
-::-..
.
.
/""""<,
"""
, ,
SUBDIVISIG::{ I'LliT CEECI( F031i
Dat;II.~JS' JL(
Gentlen:en:
According to the procedure ~ct forth in the City of Aspen
Subdj.vi~ion Regulations> any tn,.ct of la',1.d divided into
two ,.or more lots must be 'divided in accordance ~'lith said
Subdivision Regulation for the City of Aspen.
. . .
mho.c . h h' . r, l' ., d
1 ~s ,,-orm, ,.nt :?ttac eu copy or tne p_at ),S provloe so
that each utility company mo.y insj)8ct the plat and the
site, making co~:;nts" ccncei:-ning the placerr:.2:lt of case-
ments, etc _, and "\,;he:ce ne.ccsr.ary sketching reCOt.:J.:.:ended
alterations on a cop~ of the plat.
This form and the accom~anying copy of the plat must he
returned to the City of Aspen Plcnning and Zoning Com-
mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date.
Remarks:
.
.
~. ~~
~~~..~.~
"
. .
We acknowledge, receipt of the preliminary Plat of Redwood Condominiums.
This property is prese~tly within our service aprea, and the approval
of a condominium for 'the existing five-unit apartment house will in.
no way affect existing or proposed service which,we provide."
Dated this /J day of
By
~ oT6 ~
'AUGSS Ta
Ow~~f.S W/l-L blVG
PROfeltrY .' LY/Nt;
lfi> FOOl (ZoAI)
'Tn S6U1fl
-:--.
.
~
,,,,,,,,
SUBDIVISIOi1 PL!-iT C}2CI~ FO?J.j'
Dat; /1- /g~7..j.
Gentlemen:
According to the proccch.1Tc set forth in the City of Aspen
Subdivision R8gul~tions> any tr2ct of land divided into
t\'lO orn10re lots must be "divided in eccordence \'lith se.id
Subdivision Regul~tion for the City o~ ~spcn.
.
.
This form, with 2ttached copy of the plat is provided so
tl .. 1 . ., . 1 ?.
'lat eacn utl_lty cOillp~ny mny lllspect tile p at an~ tile
site, mal~ing cOJ:':i::;nts, concerning the placeR2:ll:of caSG_
1l1ents, etc., and \,;her~ neCGssary sl'::Gtching recQIT:n1ende.d
alterations on a cop~ of the plat.
Thi.s form and the accoEl;nmying copy of the plat must he
returned to the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning COEl-
mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date.
Remarks: _iJ~ . ~~~ ..tul!a1,~-G:,/~
;A( ~f' "ahu-. . .
.---------
. .
We acknowledge receipt of the preliminary Plat of Redwood Condominiums.
This property .is prese'!tly within our service aprea, and the approval
of a condominium for 'the existing five-unit apartment house will in
no way affect existing or proposed service which we provide:
Dated this I g day of -AI~. , 1974. ..
j!;/t{::;J~. ,
I
...:-.-
.
,
,-"
.,.....,
SUEDIVISICm PLAT CEECl~ FWli
Dat~ II /; t/llf
.
Gentle.mzn:
According to th~ proccch.1Tc set forth in the City of. Aspen
Subdivision Re.8ul~tioDs> any tr~ct. of land divided into
tvlO or nlore lots must be "divided in eccord2nce 'with s~id
Subdivision Regulation for the City o~ .~sp2n.
This form, .'lith ettechec1 copy of the plat is provided so
1 ,. 1 . . . 1" 1 r!'
t lat eacn utl_:l.ty comp<.:ny mo.y :l.l1Sp2ct tn2 p at anu tne
S1.. ~e m~".;n" co~~n~s ccn~~'-~"n~ ~'.,,, pla'c~~"n- oJ:: c~ <'~
l.. , . c.;.h.J..l. '-=>. ~~:..;.!..-;.. '" l.) .....-.,;.L1.r.Lt 6. l.Lc. . G c;u__.. '- .!..,. clu<'::-
ments) etc.) end \"lhere ne.c(3s~ary sketchi:i.'1g recoffillle.nc1ed
alterations on a cop;,: of the plat.
..
This fOl1m and the accom~anying copy of the plat must be '
returned to the City of Aspen Plcl1uing and Zoning Com-
mission no later than seven (7) days from the above date.
,Remarks:
"~."~
.'
. .
We acknowledge receipt of the preliminary Plat of Redwood Condominiums.
This property is prese~tly within our service aprea, and the approval
of a condominium for 'the existing five-unit apartment house will in
no way affect existing or proposed service which we provide:
Dated thisf~ . day of ~
, 1974.
.BY~. ...... 0..\s~
~.-.....~
-,:"-.
.
I"'"
f"""\
SUBDIVISIW PLAT C::ECI~ F01ri
,
Date
Gentlemen:
According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen
Subdivision Re8ul~tions. any tr~ct of land divided into
t;;.;ro or nlore lots must ba -divided in 2ccorc12nce ~'lith said
Subdivision Regulation for the City o~Aspen.
This form, "lith attached copy of the plat is provided so
that each utility company may inspect the plat and the
site) making c02!i!~nts; concerIl:Lng the plc:icere2~t: of eaSG_
ments) etc_., and "\.;here necc88ary ske.tching recorrrrr:ended
alterations on a cop~ of the plat.
..
This form and the accompanying copy of the plat must be
returned to the City of Aspen Planning end Zoning C02-
mission no la~er than seven (7) deys from the above date.
Remarks:
-.
.
.
"
At.I:!-~ c (t/d.. .44-.. ~_.~ ~
~ ~ cJ S~'::.:;>--' . ,\j . .
,. v
. .
We acknowledge, receipt of .the preliminary Plat of Redwood Condominiums.
This property is prese~tly within our service aprea, and the approval
of a condominium for 'the existing five-unit. apartment house will in
no way affect existing or proposed service which we provide:
Dated this'/, -i,.-()ay of V-W , 1974.
By
. ;<;i1
--:--.
~
1""'\
.
>
SUBDIVISIOi:,{ PLAT CEE:CI( FO;:J.f
,
Date
Gentlemen:
According to the procedure set forth in the City of Aspen
Subdivision Regul~tions, any tract of land divided into
two or more J.ots must be 'divided in c:ccordence ~'7ith ss.id
Subdivision Regulc:tion for the City of f.spen.
. .
This form, '-lith atteched copy of the plat is provided so
that each utility company may inspect the plat and the
site, making co~znts, concerning theplacerr:.znt of ease_
ments, etc.) e.nd '\.;here neccsBary sketching reco"i.Im:endecl
alterations on a cop~ of the plat.
This fOlln and the accoTIl?anying 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:
.
.
t-\.1O
0%
~\Yf~ tL~\. Y ~_'F'=' ~ .-r-
s..c'__\.-)-DoL \),<,.~~.L__
. .
We acknowledge receipt of the preliminary Plat. of Redwood Condominiums.
This property is pres6'1.t1y within our service aprea,.al'ldthe approval
of a condominium for 'the existing five-unit apartment. house will in
no way affect existing or proposed servicewhichweprovide'-
Dated this . J S-' day of
~-l
, 1974.
,~..
"
'"
\1"""1
h
NOV 1,5 1974
r
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held by the Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission on November 19., 1974, 4: 00 p.m., City
Council Chambers, to consider the Redwood Subdivision, more particularly
described as follows:
A tract of land being part of property described in Book 281 at page 163
pitkin County records in Riverside Placer MS 3905 AM and tract B of
East Aspen Addition as shown on Bureau of Land Management plat approved
May 21, 1957, described as follows: .
Beginning at a point being 83.58 feet S 00014'Won line 6-7 Riverside
Placer MS 3905 AM from corner 6 Riverside Placer; thence on a curve to
the right with a radius of 793.53 feet a distance of B2.00 feet to the
East bank of the Roaring FOrk River (chord bears S 81 24'20"W 81.96 feet);
thence N OSoll'30"W 7.29 feet along the east bank of the Roaring Fork River;
thence on a curve to the right with a radius of 794.02 feet a distance
of 17.44 feet (chord bears S85025'30"W17.43 feet); thence South 66.31
feet to the Northerly line of abandoned RR right of way; thence S75055'\\'
76.63 feet to the West bank of the Roaring Fork River; thence S19046'
E 55.53 feet along the West bank of the Roaring Fork River to the Southerly
line of abandoned RR right of. way; thence N76ol0'E 158.74 feet along the
Southerly line of abandoned RR right of way; thence N 00014'E 5.15 feet along
the Southerly line of abandoned RR right of way; thence N760l0'E 62.94
feet along the Southerly line of abandoned RR right of way; thence on a
curve to the left with a radius of 920.25 feet a distance of 80.46 feet
along Southerly line of abandoned RR right of way (chord bears N73040'E
80.44 feet); thence N 00014'E 104.53 feet; thence along a curve to the
right with a radius of 793.53 feet a distance of 144.64 feet (chord
bears S730l3'20"W 144.48 feet) to the point of beginning, containing
0.658 acres more or less.
Subject to a 30 foot access and utility easement on the Easterly 30 feet
of above described property.
/s/ Lorraine Graves
City Clerk
Published in the Aspen Times November 7, 1974
t,ion
i
'0tion
Brinkman Duplex
('
L,:) t.ion
"~c'\~ood Condominiums
I
. .,:ion
tion
,
r-,";od~/9t1 ~ .~.,
surveyors found several discrepancies.
Barnard moved that the Benedict exemption be granted on
the grounds that they are not within the intents and
purposes of subdivision. Johnson seconded. All in favor,
motion carried.
~laddalones, located next to the Benedicts, were also in
need of an exemption to correct the deed.
Johnson moved that the Maddalone exemption be granted on
'the grounds that they are without the purpose of the
definition of subdivision. Jenkins seconded. All in favor~
motion carried.
Request was made to condominimize an existing duplex on
Lot 1, Block 23, West Aspen Subidivision. Mojo felt that
it should be exempt from the definition of subdivision
because of platted lots and blocks.
Barnard mov~d to grant an exemption from subidivision and
Jenkins seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
Attorney Jon Mulford represented the Redwood Condominiums
and Anthony Castellack who "lould like to be exempted
from.Subdivision regulations because the building has
existed for years and has utility and water hookups. The~c
would be two potential owners, John Prosser and Dwight
Shellman, who would use it for employee housing. Barnard
questioned whether it was on platted lots and blocks and
~1r. t1ulford explained that the portion Castellack m'IDS
he purchased from the Railroad years ago. Barnard stated
tha the law was clear that if it is not on lots and bloc}:s"
then it comes under Subdivision. Mulford argued that the
definition refers to concerns over access and utilities
and they have.taken care of both of those problems.
Mojo said that the Planning Office didn't really understand
,about the access of the road. Johnson asked if there was
an easement to the road and Mulford said that there "lasn I t
one. '",'..
Mojo said that the Planning Office couldn't recommend
approval since it is without the intents and purposes of
Subdivision and Stanford said that the purpose of those
regulations is to mqke. sure any devlopment that happens
happens according to certain standards. .
Schiffer suggested tabling the actioh until the road ease-
ment problem is worked out with the Planning Office.
Barnard moved to table the motion until the Planning Office
has a chance to research the road access problem. Jenkins
seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
Barnard moved that they have a study session
problems for after the next regula!.' meeting.
seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
on the parking
Johnson '
StnnCord said that anothel: subject the Commission should
discuss would be the hOllsing problem.
,lcnkins moved to adjourn ,land Johnson. seconded. . All in
Lwor, meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
,../
I
/'
\,/; r ,t" .." I.
--~_.... -._....~.
Deputy City Clerk
. IlL
-4..
"I'.
'!It
.\;;
~J
f"
~ DENVER OFFICE:
j,: WESTERN FEDERAL SAVrNaS BUrLD!~G
_' 718. 17th STREET
DENVER. COLORADO 80202 (303) 266.3373
..
LAW OFFICES
DWIGHT K. SHELLMAN, JR,
AND ASSOCIATES
A PROFESSIONAL COR""ORATION
THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE, P.O. BOX G'3
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925.2710
November 14, 1974
Ms. Sandra Stuller
City l\.ttorney
P.O. Box V
l\.spen, Colorado 81611
~1r . David Ellis
City Engineer
P. O. Box V
l\.spen, Colorado
8161/
Mr. Yank ll!ojo
City Planner
P. O. Box V
Aspen, Colorado
81611
RE: Redwood Condominiums
Gentlemen and Sandy:
I enclose a draft of a Subdivision Agreement covering the
items which I discussed with Dave and Yank on Wednesday,
November 13, 1974. Please review this document together
and advise me if it will suffice.
I am going ahead with arrangements for an additional access
easement from Mr. and Mrs. Wi11ia~ Anderson, who own the
property to the north of the'Redwood Condominiums, for a
wider access off Riverside Drive to the Redwood property.
It is my understanding with Dave that the City .is not
particularly interested in a dedication of this access,
and that all is required is an easement for the use of
owners of the Redwood property and their invitees.
It is my understanding that minor technical requirements
found in Sec-tion 20-7 of the Municipal Code will be waived.
These items are as follows:
\
,.
:;;;
,-
,
,""'"
!~
, ,
.
Ms. Sandra Stuller
Mr. David Ellis
Mr. Yank Mojo
November 14, 1974
Page 2.
1. Except a 40 foot street and utility easement
rather than 60 feet;
2. Deadend street may exceed 400 feet in length;
3. No curb, gutter, or sidewalk is presently needed;
4. Side lot lines of the tract will not be at an angle
of 900 to the street;
S. Utility easements will not be required on side lot
lines;
6. Electric utilities need not be buried at the present
time.
In view of the open space and greenway easement along the river,
I assume the City will not require the payment equal to 4% of
the land value.
I have previously sent a list of the adjoining owners to Yank
for the mailing of hearing notices. The County Assessor provided
me with this list of names, but some question has now corne up
as to whether or not a Condominium complex across the river also
adjoins the property. The Assessor's office did not think that
was the case; but if it is, apparently we will have a,defect in
the notice requirement.
I await your further advices.
Sincer
~31K.
DWIGHT K. SHELLMAN, JR.
AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
JKM:rld
Enc.
cc: Lennie Oates
".....,
l~ DENVER OFFICE:
WESTERN FEDERAL SAVINGS BUILDING
...< 718. 17th STREET
DENVER, COL-ORADO 80202 (303) 266-3373
LAW o.FFICES
DWIGHT K. SHELLMAN, JR,
AND ASSo.CIATES
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
THE WHEELER o.PERA HaUSE, P.o. Bo.X G'3
ASPEN, Co.LORADo. 8]611 (303) 925-2710
November 13, 1974
City Planning Departme;nt
City of Aspen
P. O. Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Redwood Condominiums
Gentlemen:
The fOllowing are the names of property owners adjoining
the Redwood Condominiums, according to the records of the
County Assessor:
Jane Elizabeth Poschman, Box 2046, Aspen, Colorado
Fonda Deline Paterson, Box 253, Aspen, C910rado
Anthony and Nora Ka~telic, Box 512, Aspen, Colorado
Edgar and Helen Richard, 737 Gordon Terrace, Chicago, Illinois
Louis J. and Edward Gregorich, Box 142, Aspen, Colorado
Bette J. Kallstrom, Box 2094, Aspen, Colorado
Dorothy Kelleher, Box I, Aspen, Colorado
William and Hildur Anderson, Box 554, Aspen, Colorado
J
GHT K. SHELL~~, JR.
AN!) ASSOCIATES, P.C.
JKM:rld
Enc.
..
,.'
.
~
,~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
YANK MOJO, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM:
SANDRA M. STULLER
DATE:
NOVEMBER 8, 1974
RE:
REDWOOD SUBDIVISION
Yank
I have been unable to locate the memo I did earlier
on the question of whether a reviewing agency can grant
subdivision approval without compliance with the zoning
ordinances in effect. Consequently, I am submitting (for
your file) just an off-the-cuff review of some of the
authorities readily available that support the duty to
deny in the even there is a variance between the plat as
submitted and the zoning code:
1. While the zoning power and authority to
review plats are separate, it seems clear
that plats should not be approved which
violate existing zoning regulations,
Anderson, American Law of Zoning, ~19.21.
.-
2. A Rhode Island Court has approved a refusal
to approve a plat which would have created
substandard lots, Slawson v Zoning Board,
217 A2d 92 (1966 R.I.).
3. An Illinois Court has held the plat-approving
authority does not possess the power to grant
variances or exceptions from the zoning
restriction, Bluett v Cook County, 19 III App
2d 172 NE2d 305 (1958)
4. In Massachusetts, the Court sustained a dis-
approval On the basis of the failure to comply
with a zoning ordinance which had not yet taken
effect, DOlinger v Planning Board, 343 Mass 1,
175 NE2d 219 (1961).
,.
~,
r-,
..
Memorandum to Yank Mojo
November 8, 1974
Page Two
s. An Illinois Court declined to issue a writ
of mandamus which would have required approval
of a plat which violated existing zoning regula-
tions, People v Park Ridge, 25 III App 2nd 424.
6. A state administrative officer has ruled in New
York that in approving a plat, a planning board
is not authorized to waiving zoning restrictions,
1959 N.Y. Ops. st. Compt. p. 96.
7. In McEnroe v Planning Board, 61 Misc. 2nd 937,
307 NYS 2d 302 (1969) the Court held that absent
statutory authority to waive area restrictions
of a zoning ordinance, a planning board is without
authority to approve a plat for subdivision where
most of the lots are substandard. It is inadequate
justification for such approval to demonstrate
that the subdivider relied upon a more permissive
ordinance when he acquired the land and that he
will suffer some economic loss if the plan is
disapproved.
8. A landowner who caused to be recorded a plat which
he presumably knew did not conform to the effective
zoning restrictions acquired no vested right to
develop the parcel in question, Union Trust Co v
Williamson County Board of Appeals, 500 SW 2d 608
(Tenn 1973)
9. A planning board is justified in declining to
approve a plat which includes lots with substandard
frontage, Weinstein v Planning Board, 290 NYS 2d
922,238 NE2d 825 (1968); Board of County Commiss-
ioners v Soto, 259 So 2nd 196 (1972 Fla).
10. Approval of a subdivision plat may be withheld for
failure of the developer to comply with the zoning
ordinances, Diamond v Specter, 332 NYS 2d 990 (1972).
11. Where there is an absolute statutory prohibition
on all developments not conforming to the zoning
regulations, the planning commission may not, as
a matter of law, allow the development, Wright v
Presault, 306 A2nd 673 (Vt. 1973).
As you can see the general principle is pretty well established
that compliance with the zoning code is necessary. However,
the applicant may well argue that (1) there is conformity
.
r,
;~\
.
Memorandum to Yank Mojo
November 8, 1974
Page Three
because the structure is a non-conforming use or (2) the
policy of the above cases does not apply to condominiumization
and (3) the objectives and purposes of subdivision regulation
are not defeated by this approval. These arguments should
be made and supported by the applicant (I refuse to do Mulford's
homework) but let me note just one precedent of record:
The subdivision authority of the planning board was held,
in Beers v Board of Adjustment of Wayne Township, 183 A2d
130 (N.Y. 1962), not to extend tbprevent the owner of five
dwellings (which were in a single tract and which constituted
valid non-conforming uses under the zoning ordinance) from
making separate conveyances to the tenant-vendees of such
dwellings with suitable surrounding land area, although such
land area did not comply with the minimum residential lot
size and frontage' requirements of the zoning ordinance~The
Court relied both upon the fact that the tract was, and prior
to the subdivision'act had been, fully improved, and that
denial of thesubdivison could not practically or legally
prevent the continued use of the structures for dwelling
purposes, or obviously could not affect salutary control over
undesirable future development of the property so long as the
existing buildings stood. It also held that if the sub-
division act were to be given effect in this situation it
would impair the statutory immunity of the non-conforming
use of the property in question. Followed in Mac Lean v
Planning Board of Township of Brick, (N.J. Super. App. Div.
1967),228 A2d 85.
SMS:ksh
"'~'. ....-..:" "'"
1""",
..~
APPLICATION FOR EXE~~TIO~ OF A DIVISION OF LAND FROM
THE DEFINITION OF A SUBDIVISION PURSUANT TO SECTION
20-10 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE
TO:
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
ANTHONY KASTELIC, NORA KASTELIC, ANN HOFFMAN, BONITA
MERTES,' JOAN LEATHERBURY, DWIGHT K. SHELLMAN, JR. AND'
JOHN H. PROSSER, JR., as the Owners and Contract
Purchasers of that property to be known as "RedwoOd
Condominiums".
The applicants are the owners and prospective purchasers of the
Redwood Apartments, also known as the Redwood Condominiums,
in the City of Aspen. The legal description and preliminary
plat of a proposed division into condominium units is attached
to and submitted with this application for exemption.
The applicants submit this written application for exemption
pursuant to Section 20-1.0 of the Aspen Municipal Code on the
Following Grounds:
1. The land being divided into condominium interests has,
prior to the effective date of Section 20-10, as amended in 1973,
been platted into lots and blocks by plat recorded in the office
of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. The subject,property
was originally platted as part of the Riverside Addition to
Aspen, as shown on the willits Map recorded in the office of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, although the present descrip-
tion substantially follows portions of a railroad right of way
subsequently established across portions of Riverside Addition.
2. The platted land substantially fulfills all the
pertinent design requirements contained in Section 20-7 of the
Municipal Code, in that the land is presently served bya pUblic
street established by prescriptive use and substantially shown
on the Willits Map; the property is Served by public water and
sewer; the lot size exceeds the minimum requirements; the
property fronts on a public street; appropriate monuments have
been set by a registered land surveyor; the applicants will
dedicate access and trail easements on the easterly 40 feet of
the subject property; and adequate drainage for storm water
'exists. .
3. Applicants'further state that an exemption for the
particular division of land from the definition of a subdivision
set forth in Section 20-2(a) should be granted because such
division of land .is not within the intent and purpose of Chapter
20 of the Municipal Code, in that an adequate and efficient stree
and road system already exists; no additional congestion on
streets will be caused by the proposed division; no traffic
safety hazards will be created; desirable public open space will
.be continued or created; no change in population destribution wil
occur; adequate utilities and public improvements exist to serve
the property; and there will be no detriment to the health, safet
and general welfare of the people of the City of Aspen.
l.AW Of:FlCL~
DWIGHT K SHEU.\IAL\:, JR.
A0:D r\:-;SOClr\TES
THE WHEELER O!'F~AHOt ::-;E
I~U HOX G- 3
ASf'E0.'. t:OLORAOO :,Hill
(303) <)23-27jO
('"',
A
WHEREFORE, applicants request that the Planning Commission
consider this application, grant the same, recommend approval
to the City Council, enter in the minutes of the Planning
Commission the grounds as set forth above for granting said
exemption, and certify a copy of the same to the City Council.
DATED this 5th day of November, 1974.
LEONARD M. OATES, Attorney for
Owners
-2-