HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Villas #2
{,
.l'ecCU:'ded at 3:47P.M,,'"'"j.l..l'.~'.' ~.\A<t@ct, 8 1-975
R . N . .1.. I or-'-i9 ,
eceptJ..on o. ..IF- Ja1ie Ha.ne, Recorder
JM.... .
<':'c .;.~,~'
"03 -A'> Pt)
BOOhki i'AC[}JOv
"
-
~,..
SUPPLEMENTAL EASEMENT
NHEREAS, pursuant to ,the Final SUbdivision Plat. - Final
Development Plan - ASPEtj VILLAS SUBDIVISION, recorded in Book"II'ci't
Pages519 and 520, Pitkin County Records, the Villa of Aspen, Inc.,
granted to the City of Aspen for the use of the public for all trail
uses except motor vehicles a ten (10) foot wide trail easement along
the Westerly boundary of the premises described in and shown on said
Plat; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Subdivision Agreement for Aspen
Villas Subdivision, recorded in Book 299 at Pages 185 through 192, in-
elusive, the Villa of Aspen, Inc. agreed to construct an asphalt con-
crete trail eight (8) feet in width within the trail easement des- I.
cribed in said Final Subdivision Plat-Final Development Plan - ,'~SPEN
VILLAS SUBDIVISION; and
WHEREAS, because of the topography of said ten (10) foot
wide trail easement a.rea and the location of large trees thereon,
'che Villas of Aspen, Inc. ,\dththe consent and approval of the City
of Aspen, >.as constructed tl1.e eight (8) foot wide asphalt concrete
trail required under the aforesaid Subdivision agreement in such a
manner that the same meanders in certain places outside and easterly
of said ten (10) foot wide trail easement area; and
WHEREAS, the Villa of Aspen, Inc., \..Jishes to confirm to
the City of Aspencthe further grant of a trail easement over those
lands occupied by the eight (8) foot wide asphalt concrete trail as
now in place, to the extent that said eight (8) foot \<lide asphalt
concrete trail extends outside of the boundaries of said ten (10)
foot wide trail easement area previously granted to the City of Aspen;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Villa of Aspen, Inc.,. a Michigan corpor-
ation, does hereby grant and convey to the City of Aspen, Aspen,
Colorado, an easement for the use of the pUblic for all trail uses ex-
cept motor vehicles, over and across an area t.en (10) feet in width,
being five (5) feet on each side of the centerline of the asphalt
concrete trail as now in place along the westerly boundary of that
~"",,'-~ ~. "~,I."",""""""""",.,..;,,,,,,,,,:~.,,,~' .~
~, L:\;:.2'~LB~~ .'. ~,,~o,: "~
I',
I
Ai
,
,
,-.
;.0.....
..
'....ft'3 n ,: -
800KJU. PAGlo04
certain parcel of land described in the Firtal Subdivision Plat -
Final Development Plan - ASPEN VILLAS .SUBDIVISION, recorded in Book
4 at Pages 519 and 520, Pitkin County Records, Pitkin County,
Colorado, to the extent that. said area as above described lies
outside and Easterly of the ten (10) foot wide trail easement area
previously granted by the Villa of Aspen, Inc., to the City of Aspen
in the aforesaid.Final Subdivision Plat - Final Development Plan -
ASPEN VILLAS SUBDIVISION, together with the right to enter upon the
easement area hereinabove granted for the purposes of maintaining
and repairing said asphalt concrete trail, subject, however, to the
liens of any Deeds of Trust of record in J?itkirt County, Colorado,
as of date of subdivision, May 29, 1975.
Dated:
(f)c#~ 3
THE VILLA OF ASPEN, INC.
, 1975
~
B1{Y::pre," en . . ~
ATTEST:
STATE OF COLORADO )
) sS.:
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
~day of ~/\)' 1975, by RONALD H. WINDEMULLER and
ARTHUR DAILY, as President and Assistant Secretary, respectively,
of the Villa of Aspen, Inc.
Witness my hand and official seal.
:': ('"
My commission expires: l?-t? --7,5Y
~
.
,-.
^
'0
'{
BOOK 303 PAGtU85
ACCEPTANCE OF DEDICATION
inst;rument is hereby accepted on behalf of the
....,.,
;:.l.,':,
The Supplemental Easementdeqicated by. the foregoin<;J'
City of Aspen by
/.------,
~~// "
/-"-~.
"",,-'~i . ~_'~___.
/)
,/
the .~~;()r thereof, STACY STANDLEY III.
" " ':,:;:-t:/!':'i~)2
'-.:i',,'
><;:':':<F,;;q", , .
.. oat-ea,.: rY~, /1....
.!;(';f~~~~~. o' \./,\.:;:~~r7'". .
~:'W,,',,;,)\'.:;l .:'~ .:\ 1.1; I t' ";:,. .
',,' "::~
, 1975
/'
/
III
..~,
~t{j
-----..
,
,
.~T!{Il;Yil\-lr "
.'- ,.'>'<!i.o';'J''1I'\~
';<.' ,- ," "'~ ,;:-'
, ',,' ~.i;;,"'\rj)~. ,_",;\f,.>t
.:t,t :-,'~:<tr~'.'
CITY CLERK
../
ST~TEOF COLORADO
)
) sS.:
)
COUNTY OF PITKIN
ACknowledged before me this
r)
/
day' of &_.~./
'\/.it.'l;~.i::+;';' "
~;'1,~f.'/":)' ",\\ \~ UI! l.! ~ If,,~,>;'
J~;'Y""'\\\'~\I.' ~. "til/' "l~(1
,~:~_. . ". ,', v.- V, J;.;:. I '
.fI~f' y.'~\. ""'-',"'-'~"'~"~,,,f"'" '/;
i~'l~~~> .'~"';'~'\. \,~) ';!i~<~~i'~i;\. .i~6i:.'
"""': 'c,,\;,IP-,'l' ./i{-.';' '" ,',"{",
'. ~,,,,!'1:' ~..:,-4~~~~r;..MY Commission
~ '. t>Utl'\> Ie,}
7\.,; \1;:,.... ..::;; hi~?t:<~~...'-' 'i/,<~
.~.. ..;,/.... .......~.... \ 'C) "
.... .. f: ') ~ ,,cl './,
').'::: ~;'.:~frr{"';'_t~,;.jT;~;': '
"':>,::;:;.'f'~:;? ,"/:";
by STACY STANDLEY III and KATHRYN S. HAUTER, Mayor and City
.~espectively, of the City of Aspen, Colorado. Witness my
kd~"it~~p~~ /
expires:m~~ / /7/.:5-
/
/.
,
,REcorded At 3:30 PM~ay 29, 1975
REception no
1752~ Julie Hat~/'v",,,J
/(V'v:j)(AlfJ~,fOO PAGE 185,
,:""""~~{, fl., ,(1;,
r. Jf'
'~~~tA.~"
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
FOR
ASPEN VILLAS SUBDIVISION
tz(
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ~9 day
M~
, 1975, by and between THE VILLA OF
of
ASPEN, INC., a Michigan corporation (hereinafter referred
to as "Subdivider"), and the CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a
municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City").
WIT N E SSE T H :
---------
WHEREAS, Subdivider has submitted to -the City for
approval, execution and recording a Final Subdivision
Plat of a tract of land situated in the Southwest one-
quarter of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 84 West
of the 6th Principal Meridian, City of Aspen, Pitkin
County, Colorado, being Block 11 of the City and Townsite
of Aspen, the vacated alley within said Block 11, and
part of vacated Eighth Street northerly of the northerly
line of Bleeker Street, which tract is shown and designated
on said Plat as Lot 1, Aspen Villas Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within an
area of the City presently zoned AR-l Accommodations
Recreation - Urban, and recommended for rezoning to
R/MF - PUD Residential/Multi-Family - Planned Unit
Development; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered said subdi-
vision plat, the proposed development and improvement of
Lot 1 thereon, and the requirements to be imposed upon
the subject property by reason of the subdividing thereof
and the proposed development and improvement of Lot 1;
\
\!
'/
~\
,
,
~.
1""'\
... .1\.
Bo6K200: PAc€186
and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute
and accept said subdivision plat for recording upon the
agreement of Subdivider to the matters hereinafter des-
cribed, which matters are deemed necessary to protect,
promote and enhance the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 20-9 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, the City
is entitled to assurances that the matters hereinafter
agreed to will be faithfully performed by Subdivider; and
WHEREAS, Subdivider is willing to enter into such
agreement with, and to provide such assurances to, the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises,
the mutual covenants herein contained, and the approval,
execution and acceptance of the Final Subdivision Plat
of Aspen Villas Subdivision by the City for recording,
the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:
1. Hallam and Bleeker Streets. Subdivider shall
remove the existing curb cuts on the portion of Hallam
Street which abuts on Aspen Villas Subdivision, and
replace the same with standard curb and gutter. With
respect to Bleeker Street, Subdivider shall improve
the entire length thereof which abuts on Aspen Villas
Subdivision with an all weather seal and chip surface,
and with curb and gutter along the northerly edge of
said street, according to normal City specifications.
The agreed estimated cost of construction of these
improvements is $6,911.00.
City agrees to assume snow removal and all other
road surface maintenance responsibilities on Bleeker
-2-
,,-..,
1""'\
.... ...f"
BOOK299 PAGE 187 .
Street upon completion of the foregoing road improve-
ments by Subdivider, subject to the required one-year
warranty period on new construction.
2. Sidewalk. Subdivider shall construct a side-
walk five (5') feet in width within the meandering
sidewalk easement shown and noted on the Final Plat
of Aspen Villas Subdivision generally along the northerly,
easterly and southerly boundaries of the subject property,
according to normal City specifications. The agreed
estimated cost of construction of this improvement is
$8,715.00.
3. Landscaping, Subdivider shall landscape Lot
1., Aspen Villas Subdivision, in accordance with the land-
scaping plan attached to said Final Plat. The agreed
estimated cost of such landscaping is $ 35,090.00
4. Public Trail. Subdivider shall construct an
asphalt concrete trail eight (8') feet in width within
the trail easement shown and noted on the Final Plat of
Aspen Villas Subdivision along the westerly edge of the
subject property, according to normal City specifications.
The agreed estimated cost of construction of this improve-
ment is $1,345.00.
5. Fire Protection. Subdivider shall install two
new fire hydrants and connecting lines as shown on said
Final Plat. These improvements shall be completed prior
to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
project to be constructed on said Lot 1. The agreed
estimated cost of such fire hydrants and lines is $3,550.00.
6. Drainage. Subdivider shall construct the
drywells as shown on said Final Plat. These improve-
-3-
"
"
.-1"
.~
^
BOOK 299 PAGE t8.B
,. ,.,., .
ments shall be completed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the project to be con-
structed on said Lot 1. The agreed estimated cost of
the drywells is $1,645.00.
7. Escrow Arrangement. It is estimated that the
aggregate cost of constructing and installing all of
the improvements hereinabove described will not exceed
$ 67,256.00
In order to secure the performance of
the construction and installation of the improvements
herein agreed to by the Subdivider and the City, the
Lender,
E. V. Chi]snn & Comn~ny
,
shall guarantee, by acceptance of this Agreement, that
funds in the amount of the aforesaid estimated costs of
construction are held by it for the account of the Sub-
divider for construction and installation of the improve-
ments herein described. By signing this Agreement,
Lender agrees that SO long as any of the improvements
herein described have not been completed or the con-
ditions have not been met as hereinabove provided, it
shall withhold from disbursement and withdrawal SO much
of said funds as is estimated, from time to time, to
be necessary to complete the construction and installa-
tion of said improvements. In the event, however, that
any portion of the work and improvements have not been
installed according to the conditions contained herein,
then, and in that event, the City may have such remaining
work and improvements completed by such means and in
such manner, by contract with or without public letting,
I
or otherwise, as it may deem advisable, and the Lender,
by signing this Agreement, agrees to reimburse the
-4-
"-
; ,.. .~.
"""'"
t""\
BOOK299 PAcE1S9
City out of the funds held by it for the account of
Subdivider for City's costs incurred in completing
said work and improvements; provided, however, that
in no event shall Lender be obligated to pay to the
City more than the aggregate sum of $ 67,256.00
less those amounts previously paid and approved by
City, by reason of the default of Subdivider in per-
formance of the terms, conditions and covenants herein
contained. From time to time as work to be performed
and improvements to be constructed hereunder progresses,
Subdivider may request the City Engineer to inspect
such work and improvements as are completed and may
submit to City the cost of such completed work and
improvements. When the City Engineer is satisfied
that such work and improvements as are required by
Subdivider to be completed,'have in fact been completed
in accordance with the terms hereof, the City Engineer
will submit to the Lender his statement that he has
no objection to the release by Lender of so much of
the above specified funds as is necessary to pay the
cost of work performed and improvements installed
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The procedures
for completion of improvements and work by City and re-
imbursement of City therefor by Lender shall apply
whether there be one or more defaults, or a succession
of defaults on the part of subdivider in performing
the terms, conditions and covenants contained in this
,
Agreement.
By reason of the above created escrow arrangement,
Subdivider is in no way relieved of any obligations to
-5-
.. ~,r'
"""'"
~
I,';";
BOOK 299 PAGE 190
,make the improvements above provided for, nor is the
City obligated to assume the responsibility for these
improvements by acceptance of this escrow arrangement.
8. Engineering and Inspection of Improvements.
Subdivider shall prepare and be responsible for the
preparation of engineering plans, specifications, and
construction drawings for all improvemements included
in Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. These plans and spe-
cifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer
and shall be approved prior to the commencement of any
construction by the Subdivider. Subdivider shall also
be responsible for providing all necessary engineering
and/or surveying services in conjunction with the con-
struction of improvements. The City Engineering De-
partment shall be notified prior to the commencement
of construction so that the work may be inspected
during construction.
9. Time of Completion. The improvements included
in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall be completed no later
than one (1) year from the date a Certificate of Occu-
pancy is issued for the project to be constructed on
said Lot 1.
10. Obligation to Conform to Laws. Notwithstanding
anything contained herein to the contrary, subdivider,
in developing the property contained within the Plat,
and the other improvements as herein described, shall
fully comply with all applicable rules, regulations,
standards and laws of the City and other gover~ental
-6-
, '
.. ....,.;
,-,.
^
a....)..'..,
BOOK 299 PAGE 191
agencies and bodies having jurisdiction.
11. Dedication Payments. Subdivider and City
mutually agree that the sum of $10,000.00 represents
four (4%) per cent of the current fair market value
of Lot 1, Aspen Villas Subdivision, and that such
amount shall be paid by Subdivider to City upon re-
cordation of the Aspen Villas Subdivision Final Plat.
Subdivider and City further agree that the aforesaid
sum constitutes the sole and only cash (or land in
lieu thereof) dedication which will be required in
connection with the subdividing and condominiumizing
of Lot 1, Aspen Villas Subdivision.
12. Acceptance of Plat. Upon execution of this
Agreement by all parties hereto, including Lender,
City agrees to approve and execute the Final Plat
of Aspen Villas Subdivision and accept the same for
recording in the real property records of Pitkin
County, Colorado, upon payment of recording fees and
costs by Subdivider.
THIS AGREEMENT shall be binding upon the parties
hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
SUBDIVIDER:
THE VILLA OF ASPEN, INC.,
aM~
;./"
:.<-
B /--:z...... ..y. ~
U Pres~dent
-7-
.. :. ..
'. <>
."""'"
t""\
BOOK299 PAGl192
CITY:
CITY OF ASPEN,
a municipal corporation
-~ ~..'
BY~~~ "'~~
_ u",or
//1.:[
"".J,
.4.~~;.~>;,,"
\"'.1;,-;;.
. .
Where applicable to the undersigned, the terms,
conditions and covenants hereinabove set forth are
hereby read, consented to and approved b~ E.V.
Chilson & Companv (Lenaer) this ~ day of
~~ ' 1975.
By
~t::!a~/,~
-8-
Francis Plache 0
117 N. 8th Street l ~
\ Ed" 4.; IG
,~ \ :}J
" \., .... u
\ 0'
\ O~ 'A0
~ 1'('
\:::~ /l
" j!
;!
'-
.-
//
/
I
I
l
t
.'
,
\
\
"
'\
.~~
-~.
'"..r '
'if.".
or'
February 6, 1974
To: Aspen P & Z
Re: Villa of Aspen II
Gen tIe men:
erstan . inary approval has been given to the Villas II project
Castle Creek
I be . . s project may further complica te the parking problem at
the existing Villas. Parked cars line Eighth Street between Main and
Bleeker overflowing the parking lot. A pedestrian must climb a snow
bank or stand between the parked cars in order for a car to pass. I
am concerned overflow from the Villas II would further congest this
area. How does one stop people from parking at Villas I and walking
down the existing path to Villas II? Visitors with inadequate tires
for the access road would have no alternative.
I hope this matter will be considered before further action is taken on
the project. Thank you.
rely,
,{
.. O))&: '.
~~ ..r.j
..\,
\~'.'...' '1/
.'./ . /'
/
l
'iI"
i'
/1"1"
<
,-,,\'
~,j
;{~
;
.~'
.~
o/c~
CITIY
1:~OSOl
aspen,
~ S~~E NO'
1\, . ~,' 1 J
to'\. "1'; j1 O.
,1 street
81611
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 2, '1975
TO: Members of City Council
FROM~~andra M. Stuller
RE: Notices from 'District COurt
of Dismissal of Actions
The District Court has notified us that two pending
actions against the City have been dismissed by the Court for
failure of the landowner to prosecute with diligence.
Villa of Aspen v. City
This case arose from our cOntention that Ron
Windemiller, when conveying a part of the Villa site to the
condominium association after the development of the first
Villa complex, subdivided the property and failed, prior to
such conveyance, to comply with the City's subdivision regula-
tions. The essence of the controversy is described in my memo
to the Board of Adjustment dated November 5, 1973. The Board
had been asked by Villa to overturn Clayton's denial of a build-
ing permit which they refused to do (see copy of their resolution)
leading to the litigation. Obviously, the approval of the sub-
division plat for the second phase of the villas has made the 0
issue moot and I am sure the Villas did not contemplate pur-
suing the matter after receiving their building permit for
the second phase.
Benedict v. City of Aspen
The Benedict case has also been dismissed for failure
to prosecute. As you may recall, Fritz initiated procedures
to o:ns:ruct the Ute Village (77 units), and made a combined
application for subdivision and Ordinance 19 approval. The pro-
ject was disapproved by the P & Z under Ordinance 19 and Fritz
sued requesting of the court (1) a decree declaring Ordinance 19
invalid, (2) an order directing P & Z to approve the subdivision
plat, or (3) in the alternative, an award of ~l,OOO,OOO to
. -
!
~
""""'.
,.
Members of City Council
September 4, 1975
-Page 2-
compensate Fritz for an unlawful "taking" of his'property. The
subsequent Ute down zoning also affected the tract and consider-
ably reduced the allowable density. However, Fritz did not
challenge the down zoning which he would eventually have had to
successfully do in order to construct the proposed development.
There is nothing in the record to indicate why Benedict did
not proceed. It was probably an "in-house" decision.
SS/pk
Attachments
cc: Mick Mahoney
Bill Kane
\
'lit
"""'"
1""""-,
r'\
^
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
~~q>l'~ C. F. l<,)ECKF.~ B. e, 6; 1... C;l.
special Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
January 22, 1974
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:40 p.m. with Chuck
Vidal, Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins, Spence Schiffer, and Geri Vagnuer. Also
present City/County Planner Herb Bartel and Assistant Planners Donna Baer and
John stanford.
Follow Up on
Vote to, Reconsiqe~
Motion on Villa V
of Aspen
Chairman Gillis explained to the Commission that the
purpose of this meeting is to follow up the vote to
reconsider the action taken on the Villa of Aspen.
Gillis further explained that the same motion, in the
same wording before the Commission again. Stated the
procedure that should be taken is to have the same
motion, have a second and have discussion.
Commission had no objections.
Vidal made a motion to approve the preliminary sub-
division plan as submitted, as well as the stream
margin, but making the stream margin subject to a
drainage plan submittal and approval at that time.
Motion seconded by Jenkins.
Art Daily, Attorney, was present representing the
Villa pointed out to the Commission that he had been
unable to attend the meeting in which the Commission
voted to reconsider the motion on the Villa. Stated
that Attorney Jim Moran was present at that meeting
on behalf of the Villa and asked that they be per-
mitted to reserve their 0bjections uhtil the rehearing
of the motion until today. Stat,ed that that had ap-
parently been acceptable to the Commission.
Daily stated that firstly, the Villa objects to hold-
ing a rehearing at this time without any formal no-
tice being given. Stated that Section 20-5 of the
Code provides that for a hearing on a preliminary
plat five days notice of a public hearing will be given
to the subdivider as well as to adjoining owners and
the notice has to be published. Stated it was the
contention of the Villa that any such rehearing should
have the same notice and a public hearing should be
held.
Daily stated that the essence of the argument the ap-
plicant would like to make against the rehearing of
this matter, it is th~ Villa's firm belief that any
rehearing of the matter, for the purpose of permitting
a Commission member to change his vote, is contrary to
the laws of the State of Colorado. Stated that the
question of the authority of a Municipal Board to re-
consider its own earlier judgment is complicated.
Stated that this is determined by the function that
the board is performing in the decisions made. In
this case, we're dealing with approval or disapproval
of a request for preliminary plat consideration.
stated the Commission is performing an adjudicative
function as distinguished from a legislative function.
Daily further stated that adjudicative functions are
those which apply the existing law to a specific situ~
ation. Stated that the Courts have traditionally de-
niea the power of an administrative board to reopen,
rehear, reconsider a matter where an adjudicative fun-
ction is being performed. Stated that it is important
,-'>.
.
.
,
..
,-,
t""\,
.-.,
~,
.,
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
rC~M 'Q . C. F. ~,ltC!(~L.a., II. ill. 1:.- co.
special Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
January 22, 197~.
/
V
that there be some finality in the decisions of a Corr.-
mission of this type.
Daily further stated that judicial actions look to a!1
existing situation, apply the law as it is today to a
set of facts as they appear to the Commission today.
Daily questioned if the Commission was making their
decision on the original facts before the Commission
or whether something had intervened.
Daily further sited the case of Chitwood v. Adams Coun
ty, 1972, Colorado Supreme Court Case, in which the
Court said, "It is well settled in Colorado that a
zoning board may hold a rehearing, and even reverse
itself, if there has been a substantial change in the
facts or circumstances subsequent to the first hear-;
ing.1I
Daily pointed out that in this case, there are no new
facts or circumstances and the situation has not
changed.
i
.t
Schiffer stated that this was not a rehearing, that
instead, it was a reconsideration of a motion. Fur~
therstated that, acr::ording to the Commission's By....
Laws, which incorporate Robert's Rules of Order, the
Commission can reconsider a motion without giving
any notice. Stated that the provision is that the
motion to reconsider can be made and considered pro-
vided it is made at that meeting or the next regular
meeting, which was the case. Stated it was not anothe
public hearing to get any new input from the public.
Referred to Article II, section 8 of the Aspen Plan-
ning and Zoning Commission By-Laws.
:
Daily stated that Robert's Rules of Order are simply
procedural rules, and do not say whether or not a re-
hearing is legal. Felt that in this state, this type
of rehearing is not legal.
,
"l
:
Gillis stated that the Commission did have the opinion
of the City Attorney, who felt this procedure is legal
A.
I
I
,
j
Schiffer stated that he felt the distinction was that
this was a revote rather thana rehearing.
MAIN MOTION
Roll call vote - Bruce Gillis, nay; Chuck Vidal, aye;
Bryan Johnson, aye; Jack Jenkins, nay; Spence Schiffer
aye; Geri Vagneur, aye. Motion carried.
Schiffer stated that the reason he voted the way he
did was based on two basic grounds: (1) feels it
is probably a bad project for that area, and a lot of
reasons ,why the project should have been shot down be-
fore, but based on the minutes and the memorandums
from the Planning Office to the applicant, the ap-
plicant was led to believe that if they satisfied
certain conditions, that the Planning Office would
feel that the project was sui table for that particuLl'
site, stated that just because the Commission ap-
proved the project at this stage, does not mean that
they cannot disapprove it at a later stage.
Schiffer further stated that his understanding from
-2-
,
"'-
-..,.,
"
,
~,
,.....
t'"
1""'\
,t""\
~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
fQIIIIl'~ C,. f. H,lECOtEV8. B. a L. co.
special Meeting
Aspen Planning & Zoning
January 22, 1974
/
the Planning Office where the Commission first
on it, that the conditions had been satisfied.
the main problem was from the point of view of
department, and they stated it wasn't an ideal
dition, but that they felt that it met all the
ments.
voted
Felt
the fire
con-
require-
"
Schiffer stated that the primary reason that he voted
as he did was that the applicant had come before the
Commission on July 10th (public hearing on preliminary
plat) and no action was taken; July 17th no action
was taken. November 20th, the matter was tabled.
Stated that he understood the applicant did not with-
draw voluntarily and that it was up for consideration
each one of those time,s. Stated that the subdivision
regulations provid~ that the Commission must take ac-
tion within 30 days of the, date of the hearing. They
must either approve, disapprove, or approve subject to
modifications, and none of those actions were taken.
Therefore, feels that this Commission has any power
to make any determination at this point. Stated that
he felt by not taking action to approve or disapprove,
felt the Commission gave up any right to take that
action previously.
...
Schiffer stated that he felt that when the applicant
returns to the Commission for future approvals, that
the other considerations will be extremely relev~nt.
Pointed out that the subdivision regulations do pro-
vide thaI: the subdivision cannot be approved if the
Commission feels that there is any factor likely to
be detrimental to the health, welfare and safety of
the inhabitants of that project.
Johnson stated that even though he voted for the mo- fl.
tion, he did not approve of the project in that 10- ,
cation. Does not approve of the idea of rehearing i
something which has already taken place. Stated that !
although he did not attend the meeting of the original !
vote, he would not have voted for it at that time. I
!
.'
.
Jenkins stated he felt the project was not consistent
with good design and felt it was using up the last
square inch of an area which is neither safe from
fire, etc.
Johnson made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Jenkins.
All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at
6:30 p.In.
/1
~/
,
r_,::,!::",:~, c,~. 1.0':SK~1.. a. B. ~ L. C'.
Regular Heeting
......_;ri;'.,""'"
"....., ,"-'"
.-. .~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Umves
-------~=----':'7---~---_===__===_::'.===~:;:;:::;.~=,=::.=;=_~.:;.,.:::.='':::;='
Aspen Planning & Zoning
January 8, 1974
Meeting was called to order by Yice Chairman Bruce Gillis at 5:40 p.m. "ith
Chuck Vidal, Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins and spence Schiffer. Also present
City/County Planner Herb Bartel and Assistant Planners Donna Baer and John
Stanford.
Johnson made a motion to send a recow~endation to City Council asking for a
Resolution commending Jim Adams for the time and effort he has spent on the
Commission during it's most difficult times. ,>lotiOn seconded by Schiffer. All
in favor, motion carried.
OLD BUSINESS \ /
Vill of Aspen, y
Phase II
, Rehearing
J
View Plane Memo
Grant-In-Aid
Application -
County
,/
Rezoning of Ute
Avenue area
j
I
!
Gillis stated that there had been a decision to go
through the procedure of a potential reversing of the
vote on the Villa. Stated that a motion to that affect
would have to be ,made by a member who had vbted in fa-
vor of the project the last time.
Schiffer made a motion to re-hold the procedure, secon-
ded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried.
Attorney Jim Moran, representing Attorney Art Daily, was
present and stated that he would like to preserve for
Mr. Daily, at such time as the COlTuuission does rehear
the matter, the privilege of argument that rehearing
is not appropriate or wit~in the jurisdiction of the
Commission. Would like to preserve the point for fur-
ther argui'llent that what the Commission has just done
is erroneous and not within their jurisdiction.
City Attorney Sandra Stuller stated that she had no
objections to that proposal.
Schiffer made a motion to hold the meeting for the re-
hearing at the earliest possible date, seconded by John-
son. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting date set
for January 22nd.
I
Bartel 'stated that the Planning Office had written a
memo on the View Plane preservation, and wanted the
members to review that before the meeting of the 15th.
Stated that a study session had been held, and they
had the ordinance on the view preservation, and what it
does specifically is provide for PUD options where the
height limit as set by the view preservation is less
than that allowed by the existing zoning..
Bartel stated that the County had made application for
a grant-in-aid for open space for the land adjacent to
the hospital, and stated that there was a letter con-
cerning that for the Commission's consideration.
Bartel stated that the Co~~ission By-Laws would be in-
cluded in the packet for the next meeting.
Bartel stated that he and Stanford had worked on a plan
and requested the Commission set a public hearing to
consider a change in zoning from the area south of
Waters and generally centered alo~g Ute Avenue. Bartel
stated that the point that that raises is whether or
not the Commission would like to review these items
with the applicant or whether they would like to. do
the Mixed Residential part of the agenda first. Stated
that he felt Vidal should have precedent in this matter.
Bartel stated that he did not want to get into discus-
-~~""~ ",--"-
r--, '"'
.~ ~
n
. ',', t"): ::~' F'.
,'"." 1"\'"
~:':
.~ t
,'."/
f~:fLi:LLL a.r_.J~~:? c::::~i":19 --;___~ A[3P~::12-]-:.~J:_~~}:2,E~:J:!!5L__.~:._~?n j r~,:l._"__"_____~_.,.__J2.:::~:._~~~iL:.~.E..._.l:'~2-_:l. ?_L
hE'l' DAIIJY
Just to bring this up to date, this is i;he , and
this is about the fourth time we've been here-:-' I--'think
we started in July. A number of recommendations were made
by the Planning Office at that time, and by the Engineer-
ing Department, and we came back in on November 20th fol-
lowing a meeting wit:h the Ordinance #19 conunittee. We
came before the Planning & Zoning Commission on the 20th
an.d at 'that t.ime the Planning [{Zoning Corrrmission exp:cesse(
addi tional concerns and the Pla.nninq Off .:i.CE; haa a i::cw 0.0.--
di tional ones ~ Rich rni9ht: explain wbat. changes he.ve be(3:'n
made.
RICH l'IILDE
The basic changes have been control of the radius where
fire access, thechnnge in parking lot J.ocatior
to allow these t:wo t,rees to remain vlhere 'they are. Just
two thing's that were mec1l1t 'to be on and \';e:['("n' t sho'dn on
the other plat were the pedestrian access above
notation the turn-around area-'WTll
be posted and just one second, page __.....____. pedestrian,
easement will be provided for.
SPENCE SHCIFFER
How about the problem with the access road.
cussing this problem with POI'le;... Plant Road.
question whether or not....
We were dis"-
'['here WaS a
RICH \'IILDE
Power Plant Road, of course, is not on the
part of the project, there is an increased
access is easier in this direction.
property or not
radius here so
CHAIRMAN ADAMS
But you have no alternatives to the usage of Power' Plant
Road to gain access?
BRUCE GILLIS
Do you mean by that what i;he maximum buildup for that \'lholc'
area was, including this guy's property, what the traffic
problem would be on that small access? Isn't tha.t part
of the recommendation?
RICH WILDE
It was part of the recommenda.tion on a 24 foot wide, 2-lane
road, you can handle upwards of 2,000 cars an hour.
DONNA, BAER
Well, he's talking about what could happen.....
RICH WILDE
Traffic generation, right. So a.s far as the capacit:y of
this size road to handle traffic generat:ion in that area
I feel it would be more than adequate.
DONNA BAER
Well, Rich, that's a street in town. That isn't a private
road, the figures you quoted. And that's like this street
in front.
RICH WILDE
The figures I'm quoting are for a 24 foot wide, 2-lane road
JhCK JENKINS
Dead end road.
DONNA BAER
Dead end road?
RICH WILDE
It takes a section of the street and how many cars can pass
through it in an hour.
"
A dead end, it's got to be a different figure ... parking?
BRUCE GILLIS
IJ1\CK JENKINS
The highway out here going t:o t110 airport, t1w t '-s it t:wo...
lane road, and that doesn't have the same capacity as that:
road.
-10-
,"""", t"",
""" r>,
.Hr:'CO;
.'
u
~:) (,; ;'.-1 "~)! f'Z 'I~'~ ::::
'1
j l'
_,~,. __ ....... .'_.._....". 'u.
.. ,.,..---........,.,...-+---... --'.'-
....._~_... .......
.."..-..-....,----
~~~:.',,~!' :,~;U:i.~;'~+)~:S::~:::..t;,.:~,.t1 SL._._.____.,_.~____!~~.l~.~'.!L, ~~}~1J.,~'li.:.!2,~L~~~"'~,l:~(~Dj~ 1.:~SL.._____________,,____".."
J,(' .1' -,.'...
. ._",.,-~~~_!..,.._-~, .:'~:..'._.:!:~
1\ !I
ART D1UJJY
It's my understanding that the traffic engineer for the
City has expressed the opinion of his depar'tmentthat: .the
24 foot wide roadway is more t:han adequate for the ingress
and egress of the residents of the proposed development.
BRUCE GILLIS
Plus any further development?
.CHUCK VIDAL
We are concerned about the potential cro,;sing t,his neck, of
t.ho total development poten-tial of the 0.)'+~(~a, as t.o ,,;theth8r
that road is adequate to handle not only this, but tl'llS
potential of the other piece of property.
ART DAII,Y
If that was one of the City's concerns, was the traffic
engineer, has he exprc-;ssed an opini.on on tha't?
DONNA BAER
Ed, have you expressed an opinion on t:hat?
ED DELDUCA
.'
The 24 foot wide road is adequate for the future develop-
ment of both properties, hov!ever, if someone parks there
then there is one lane, would be the only objection. 1.t's
not adequate if someone parks along one lane, if no op-'
portunity to park off the road except in the parking space"
provided.
m,UCE GILLIS
Under current zoning, Vihat is the tot.al potential build-
up of this property down here? How many units? Still it
has to be a consideration.
DONNA BAER
That's tourist now.
CHAIRMAN ADAMS
Well, they're about to pass on all unsubdivided property,
one house for ten acres.
DONNA BAER
That's the interim zoning. That will be zoning, it will
just be across the board zoning. But that. 'Wouldn't nec-
essarily be included, that little parcel. The river might
be the boundary.
CHAIRMAN ADAMS
That's R-15 now, and.... that property should be because
you were planning on buying it at one point.
1,RT DAILY
It's less than an acre, Jim, and at the time we contemp'-
lated buying it, of course, we contemplated also annexing
into the City and obtaining the same zoning we had here,
and that rapidly, it became obvious that it wouldn't be
easily obtained, and that idea was dropped.
CHAIRMAN ADAMS
Well, Bruce, in answer to your question, it's R-'15, it I S
about an acre, three units could be placed on it. So that
makes a total of three 'down there. Plus the t.WO or three
that are already existing.
CHUCK VIDAL
Well, I think that could' be a very, you kn(M, you could
calculate that out very easily and I would, too U1Cl dClsi<JTl
element of that road I would say it's probably going to
be proven that it's adequate to handle thai: dcmsit:y. I
don't know what your concerns are relative to Power House
'Road and other aspects of this.
CHAIRMAN ADAMS
Have all of you' been down to see the site? Spencer, have
you seen that?
SPENCE SCHIFFER
I haven't been down to the site itself, but I've been down
around Power Plant Road and that vicinity, and the only
-11-
~.',,-,,,,,,,,,,;",~.'.
I""".. ",......,
'.~ -
I"..".
....:,',."
,.
n r3 C ;:'~'
'-'" (. (:\
I :\ ~ l
\ ,',. <o..P
^ ~~,.25=-1~.J? 1 g:.~~:~:!..L12.9__,0: Z (~_~.L~9
I}_,=. c (~!.',~I:?E,E__,_~':~L_;l:_~L~)_
Ecqula.:r J.1cc;t:inq
--_'~-"-"'--'----'-'-'-'--'--'-~
,
ART DAILY
CHOCK VIDAL
RON HINDEIIlULLER
ART DAILY
CHOCK VIDAL
JACK JENKINS
,
AR'r DAILY
JACK JENKINS
ART DAILY
JACK JENKINS
ART DAILY
JACK JENKINS
ART DAILY
JACK JENKINS
AH',r DAILY
problem I really have was with respec"t to the fut:ure pro-
blem of handling traffic on Power Plant Road at some time
in the future it beoomes necessary for the City t,o widen
that road, I would like to see them participate in the
cost of that. I think that would be covered in a....
That's an agreement that the developer's already made.
He is willing to agree to that on a plat. '
And, Art, because this is a
going to make restrictions
itself?
private road, is the develorcr
on the parking on the road
It will be posted and towed.
Sure, definitely.
Because that would affect the capacity of the road.
\\Tell, my feeling about it hasn't been satisfied about: it
at all, because of the topography over here, twelve units
going in a strip this long and that "Tide, it hasn't change'
a bit. Becam;e this is completely unusuable land.
\\That is it that bot,hers you about the development?
\\Tell, two or three things about it. In the first place,
any parking that is not in a marked parking spot in here,
any time there is a fire, any time there is reasons for
access of any kind, one or two cars in the wrong location
makes it inaccessible. . Anybody that has a party down then'
that attracts more than one extra car, that thing's going
to be a traffic jam. I don't see hm'l it could be other-
wise.
Well, to start with, Jack, you've got 24 parking spaces
here for twelve units, which is 37% over what's required.
Let's say you have two for each.
Okay. And the way they're aligned at the present time they
prov'ide. for a 24 foot wide, or wider, at all points, acces,
road through here. Now, there's a couple of points, where
if a guy misparks, it can happen anywhere. It can happen
anywhere. We can't control that.
But it's different, Art, if that road is one that goes
tnrough here and there's a crossroad here and an alley
behind it here. There's all kinds of other access. It's
a different situation than that situation. We're not
looking at generalitites, we're looking at a specific 10-
9ation. If one person has a party with ten cars only, the)
isn't anyplace for them to go except in that road.
In your mind, Jack, is parking the main problem?
The need from my side, the situation is this. You', re put-
ting twelve units on a strip of land that has only this
much use t.O it,..and there's no other area available. It's
just that's what it is.
Well, we Ciln provide additional parking if that's t:l1e ki.nd
of problem we' va got. We've got some space in here thai;
we could use for visitor parking.
-12-
L)!~~ Sf! 1 ~'..~r I, !,.~:..~(.~). J.:.SL__
JACK JENKINS
ART DAILY
JACK JENKINS
~- --
RON l\1INDEMUI,LER
CHAIRMAN ADAMS
RICH WILDE
CHAIill-lAN ADAMS
RICH WILDE
CHAIRMAN ADAl-IS
RICH WILDE
DONNA BAER
RICH WILDE
DONNA BAER
AR'r DAILY
CHAIRMAN ADAMS
/"""", .-,
r\, r'\
nr,::~CGnr) Oi'''- r);:;OtCFEr)lr\iC~S
lwC, . \:(',,~~
--.,-.-..,. ,_.._"~,-",,, ---'........' ,-,.,--.,. ....... '......---. ..-
.-..--., "'-"._-"--'-'.~'_.." ,- ..-.,-.-. ,.. - .._. -.'. ,-"
.."".',,,....,.,,.,,-,,...,...........,',.....'.....
__ ...._..0___._.. ,'_...._,._,..__......' ..__.o_
__-0-se.5..:.~0:}allni1i9 [~ Zon ~<. '1S;
Dc' "C')1\)")' (:).... J"':o -j C.I'?
-_-.:::....'-::-.::.::..:-.:-.::..::-..~_':..!__..:-::..:.~.!-.
Well, do you think it's safe to say that there could be a
possible congestion? Would it be possible that there coule
possibly be a situation where a fire truck couldn't get in
and out of there? Or an ambulance?
I could see it happening, and I could see it happening on
Sneaky L,ane and a number of other places that we. have .in
the City. I think it's just a matter of degree, and if
we resolve it dO\vn to an acceptable safety factor, then
YO'..J. have a legit..imate pro:Ject. vIle have space fo)':, additio-
nal parking' if tha.t' s something that you feel we ought leO
pu't in.
\'Ibat, do you think about the statement I made?
it is possible we could have a problem? Fire,
Do you thin:;
ambulance?
Very remotely, Jack, if you've got enoug'h width there that
you've got 24 feet, ev~n if one car parked illegally, ther,
is still adequatee room for an ambulance to get by. We're
not talking any half a mile of length. We're talking a-
bout a maximum of a couple thl1ee hundred feet, ahd a fire
tJ:'u,ck, as fax as getting in )2he way of their, one good
bunlp and a car is out of the way. That's been done con-
tinually. \
"
What did you do to satisfy our ~"equest that t.he back of
the building be opened up to some kind of fire fighting
equipment?
Well, the only thing we can do iis that the one fire hy-
drant was moved farther north do this location and this
walkway exists in the back. Other than that there is
really is not much that can be done on that site to allovl
other access.
Ho,y high is the retaining wall going to be on this side
that walkway?
L'
oJ.
Back here?
Yes.
Some place there won't be any.
It looks like 15 feet all the way along.
There is a fifteen foot elevation change from the front
to the back, however, at the rear of the building, you're
one floor above the front of the building. The access is
one story above the front access.
Well, you're cutting in here for the building. The differ-
ential here is roughly fifteen feet all the way across.
Your path "Till be, you'll come up your path by s'tairs, is
this correct?
Jim, we've addressed this problem at some lengtb "lith Bill
Caille, who is principally concerned with this, and if
Bill's still here, we might ask him to present his comment:
A lot of inforni'aLion aboui: t,hcc units and i:heir com~truc-
ti.on was 9iven t.O Bill that he wasn I t fEuniliar \Vit.h b\~:;forc
What's your feeling, Bill?
-13-
l'r>('ul -,....- ?\1;'cl" i ~'g
~L_..:..:=__~._..:::....::.....:..:.::~,~ .
BILL CAILI,E
CHAIRMAN ADAMS
13ILL CAILLE
JACK JENKINS
BILL CAILLE
Jl,CK JENKINS
BILL CAILLE
CHUCK VIDAL
BILL CAILLE
BRUCE GILIJIS
lULL CAILLE
"""~':""':.'
1""'.
I""'i
"""'"
"""'"
.. )
ni'::conD 0;:" ~':noc:
t:;)C~'~
10D t 'F~:l\':.
... ,---,_....... ....__..-~,-,.
.. ..'...m'....._._.__.......
._--,-,_.,,,.......-....._-",..,,,..
...--..-.....-........',.-'..-..-
-..-.,..,',--,....-.,.'-...-........
....._..__..u._, "."__,__
A~)p(?n Plarl!:l:.~!?:9_~~~oni!"'.::1
DeC2TIlber 18, 19]3
a problem with
There's no way
There could be
Well, as Jack mentioned, there could be
something here. That I'll agree with.
you're ever going to control that __
a problem across Main street.
But you have alternate routes to go on.
Okay. I'm not concerned with, if 'chat problem occt:rs and
you lose a buildin<), tIl.at is not' my CCJnc:ern as long as \:Je
don't 100;2 any people. I'm more concerned with the life.,.
safet.y of .the t.hing'. \-'le' ve had several meetingr-.; oveX' -this ~
l-t's not the best sit~u().t_ion in 'l:he world!, 9rant:ed. They
have Illade concc,swions with t:his walkway aCl-OSS the back
which gives the people access out the back themselves,
which I'm more concerned with them getl:ing out. As far
as the fire equipment gel:ting in, tha.t's one of the things
that, may happen and it may not, I ,can't: argue the point.
Jack's got a valid point. ! can't argue that with him.
Are these two or three story buildings?
Three, technically.
So the access to the back is through all floors or jl'st
the top floor?
No, just the second floor, which, will be, from what I
gather, that will be the living area. In other words,
without an elevation drawing it's a\vful hard. That's
what confused me so badly on it. What we're talking a-
bout is underground parking, basJ.cally, except at the front
it's not. The back will be below grade. The grade, the
finished grade from my understanding, will be at the level
of the second floor in the back only. They will have ac-
cess out of the living area through that way. Also, the
fireman can, if they have to, at least get around there.
It's not the most ideal situation in the world, but we
have reduced the hazard by providing better access to a
point where Willard thinks he can handle it.
What.'s the maximum distance that you can operate or fight
a fire from a truck or your equipment? In other words,
let's say, we're talking about 300 feet and your truck
gets stopped down here, and is it impossible to say that
you could still fight that fire by running hoses if, in
fact, that happened, or let's say, you get to here, is
that an unreasonable distance, because a City block is
270 feet long.
No, it's not, if you get over 500 feet, then you've got a
problem. The less line you lay, handwise you wOJ:'k \Vi th
the easier it is. By the time you lay 300 feet of 2~"
hose you don't move it once you get down here.
How about coming down from the top?
.Wel.l, Willard and I discuo;sed al: one time; it'G possible
you can set the snorkle up in here. That's a steep grade.
Handling a 2.," Jwndline it would be impos,;ible. There is
a foot paUl here. Yc'ah, walking down it is one thinCj,
and t:rying to handle a 2.," handline is ~~ornet.ld,llCj cls<.,.
'l'hey go't: to be pretty awkwCll:d the longer i't get's the \mJ.':~'
it gets. It takes three men to drag a line. Especially
after it's charged.
-14-
t""\ ~
~-
HEC{)i-~i;) Gi;- l~"t:~;OG
'ICU
!~
il;'.; l.,,:~.:.
..-,-..,.."...,.......--.
- ..,-.......---"..
......--.-...--,...." .
--..-.......-.... ..
-,..._-,,_._--- ''''''''''
.- .-,......--..,.,.,.
.,~.J2E:.~::!.:~]~e ~.}~!.,,!_.),~~,Jl.
J"" '" .l""~ ~,~ ,~,:,.',.' ~ v, Ac' (, 1 PI ~1'" ~. "r & "or.'.. 'Y
~':.~~:5L.::.::::::;.:~_j~tC ~~:...:.::~L~St___._2___._.-.::_':J?_~~~2L:"I- 11 ~'J . .. {.. 1 .1. J.19...
,
BRUCE GILLIS
CHAIRMAN ADAMS
BRUCE GHJLIS
CHAlmlAN ADAHS
ART DAILY
SPENCE SCHIFFER
CH1URMl\.N ADAMS
SPE:NCE SCHIFFER
Yes, but that would be a shorter way then from the
We've all played around with this considerably and nit-
picked it to death again. The one glaring fact that stick~
out in my mind is that, perhaps, we haven't faced the real
issue and the real issue may be that 'chis piece of pro-
perty has density, as proposed, to be as densely populated
as it is, is probclbly pretty damned unsuitable for th2i.t
kind of develop~rl.e:n.t.. Maybe you wa.nt to .toss that n:rouna
a little. I don't know how suitable it is to any d8vel~
opment.
I 29ree with th2.t., but where, again do vie stand, wha't was
approved before to what we're considering now?
I think that if you really want to make a decision with
some responsibility, 'you let t.he City lawyer ,'lorry about,
where do we s'tand, and make a decision tha.t has something
to do "ith how health, welfare, and safety of .the corrunun.-
ity.
I might comment on it a little bit, Jim. The first thing
that occurs .to me is that if, in fact, the City has con-
cerns about t:he viability of t,he project at all, it should
have come up a lonS) time ago. A tremendous amount, of time
and effort: has been spent on this. NOvl, I recognize that
this is the kind of argument that you guy's hear all the
time, but I think you're also familiar with how many times
we've been in here , and I thj,nk it even goes back to las't
year. Secondly, after talking with Bill, Bill's conver-
sations with Willard Clapper, it appears to us that we
have eliminated all unacceptable safety difficulties with
respect to this property. We have brought ourselves c10vm
within an acceptable safety factor.
And then here's the third thing. Of course you mentioned
that, it g'oes back to the initial proposals that were
made to the City last year when annexation of this pro-
perty was approved. And while admit.tedly, no specific
designs were presented at that time, the City did see some
early plats which did show twelve units along here, Dn-
nexation, rezoning and everything else was conditioned'upm
48 units going in on this property. So these are all con-
siderations.
I would like to say that I agree with Art. I think it's
kind of late in the game to tell these people you don't
like their project at. all and you can't build it down
there. There are leg i tima te problems, and there seem t,o
be, let's work with them and get to them and deal with
t.hem. I mean if we're just trying t,o nit--pick and find
other ways to tell them we don't like it., that's not valid
Well, if we were nit-picking this for crazy re,lsons, I ad-
mit we probably have been evading the one issue tha.t we
should have addressed ourselves to a long t;ime ago and
all I'm suggesting is that. "Je're considering at 'this poinl:,
We 'still have the responsibility. You ask a man who is
apparently an expert in the field if it's an acceptable
situilLion and h~ sllrugs his Slloulders and illtimates that
it could be a trap, and we've got certain responsj.hil'itic~
in that.
I can see that. I don't see these problems as pl.'oblems
-15-
r r.l'
, ~- :,. ~ ~ "
.-._"
-.......-'-.-..-'-"....--...."...'- .-.......,..'.' .'" ,......'........,,'",-
....-."^.-..... ......,,-.,-.-......-.'.. ....".'_...",-----".. "
As p(~:n ~? 1 al.2~1 1.1,29 _~_~?~2-22-~1.________...___~~~ ce:~.~..:~~:::_..2~:~...!_~2~~ .~L
~og~lar J:.'1c.~2ting
.TACK JENKINS
SPENCE SCHIFFER
JACK JENKINS
SPENCE SCHIFFER
CHUCK VIDAl,
'.
JACK JENKINS
RON WINDEMULLER
~DAILY
I"""-. ~.
1"""-., """'"
nL'COF:l]
, ;..: r~ . ~ ( - \
() t".
'..
,
"""'"
that can't be resolved.
Have you looked at the particular site with the things
layed out on it?
No, I said I haven't, and I'd like to.
Okay. 'I'his is t,he thing that makes me make my decision an,
my feeling has be;.::11 -that rrolT1. the first ti1~l8 I ScHv i.t: and
I haven't changed it since. and that's the reason.
Well, all 11m saying is if that is the case, it'slate in
the game to be telling these people that, to forget it,
you know? If at one time, you led tchem to believe thiitc
they could build the thing if they resolved certain pro-
blems and they come back and say "heJ:e' s how we resolved
them" and if vie don't like i.t we can tell them no good, bu
don't say "\'-1ell, forget those problems. 'l'he main prob1em
is that we don't like your project and you're not going
to build it."
Addressing yourself to Jack's problem, I see two possible
solutions. One is you reduce the denSity significantly or
yo~provide enough parking to where you eliminate almost
100% the possibility that people will park on the strec't.
Or you possibly widen the street out, to where if that oc-
curs, which is what he's concerned about, that you haven't
reduced the safety factors significantly, that that ca~
occur and you still have access. And maybe that says that
"Alright, this road is adequate for access,"but to put to
lie Jack's apprehension, if you've got a guy on each side
of the street, parked, can you still get a fire truck by,
maybe widening that road to 28 feet or to 30 feet would,
in fact, allow that to happen, that the whole road could
be parked from one end to the other with cars, and, in fae'
you could drive a fire truck down the middle of it. I
don't know what those measurements are, but maybe that's
an alternative that you could consider to where, then I'd
say you've reduced significantly the probability, not ,the
possibility, but the probability of there being a problem.
I say this. If you start at one unit, which is obviously
ridiculous for the use of the land, and you come up to a
matter of t\velve, which to ,me has the same connotation,
it's so jam packed I don't feel it's safe for anybody.
Somewhere in the middle you have compromise, but, that num.
ber of people and the potential for any weekend situation
which could put 15 or 20 extra cars in that area, and the
reason that this is different is that it isn't like up
town. If you've got blocks in all directions, if people
can't find a parking place here they go around the block,
a block or two away they park and walk to \.,here they're
going. Dm'm here .there' s no vlay to get there. In the
winter time they're not going to park up above and walk
down there. 'l'hey can't park out on this street. They
can't go anywhere but here.
This is an access road
It's a matter of what?
there.
walk down there. They will use it.
200 and some feet from here to
They're all going to members of the same ownership assoc-
iation. Maybe there would be some....
-16-
[-', .' ,"..:;, n_ u, 1, l, ~ '.
~~~L~!~~,:C }:1~~.t:i.n9 ~
CHUCK VIDAL
AR'r DAILY
CHUCK VIDAL
RON vHNDEHULLER
CHUCK VIDAL
RON ,VlNDEMULLER
"
CHUCK VIDAL
RON WINDEHUl,LER
CHUCK VIDAL
ART DAILY
BILL CAILLE
ART DAILY
BILL CAILLE
JACK JENKINS
BILL CAILLE
JACK JENKINS
~";.,_","':c:l~~"'~
('. '-'.
,-" ~.
"",
n
[- " > '~, ~~:' ~~'~: Lj ! ;--.: (;, '~,
~~)' ~ .. U
"" ~.."
'".I,
Aspe,n P l(}nE!_i!~L_ & Zon~.:.ng'
D,~"",,-,,]')~l'\,-::,-'" 1 n, ~I 0'/""-,;
,,"0 "-'~. ...:.,'...:::-.:::..:::....._,:::.(~!.._:.:.::_,-:..:..
Can you widen that road?
Let me go on J Ja.ck. 'rhere is room for more parking. I
didn't ,ret to complete that earlier, along this part of
the road here, which I guess iS,one of the areas where
there is a threat that someone might park and block off a
fire truck. And there's also space along in here, where we
could provide six or seven spaces inherG and post it'visi.
tor parking_
But you still might not have enough parking. I guess the
arlswer, if Jack's problem reall,y is access, I would 'be j..ll-
clined t.o 'try t.o Vliden the st.ree.t and not necessarily pro'-
vide more parking.
How much is enough, Chuck?
Well, I think th,"l. t. I S a calculable thing. You can put two
Cars and you can de-t<"rmine how wide the fire truck is..".
At 24 feet, YO\l can do that novl. You can put two ca:r:s on
either side a.nd still go down the middle.
~'7ith a fire truck?
Yes.
Well, maybe I would present that. argument. I mean, if you
could validate that, you know, and maybe put an extra
couple of feet on that for contingency or safety's sake,
I guess, I don't know whether that would satisfy Jack at
all, but relative to the issue that he's brought up, it
would satisfy me a long way.
Let's ask Bill how wide a track you need to bring that tru(
through, the big one.
To drive it through?
Well, I think that's what bothers ....
I've never actually measured, to be perfectly honest with
you, but I would consider 6 or 7 feet maximum, just in the
width.
How many units do we have in town?
We have three pumpers and a snorkel.
So it's four units, and on a given fire, we'll say might
encompass three of those, hOYI many units would you want to
use?
Possibly a third one.
BILL CAILLE 'I'wo tninimum.
.TACK JENKINS How would you
and out again
mal situation?
BILL CAILLE
get three of thcm in there, turned around,
and function with them. ,'/ould that be a nor-
Are you happy wit:h t.hat?
No, it's no.t normal, and like 1 mentioned to st,art wi t:h,
t.hat. it leaves a quess~ It I S not: the mOf-lt. ideaJ. sit.uatioll
in the world_ I'd love to ~:;(:~eanothur road out' lhcrc~ E,;()lil(~'
where, but physi.cally it's possi.bl,e.
-17-
r-" '-',
~t""\
nEC(>nf) O~:. P:,':~
C;,.C?,
"inn 1'!'"
Fcqu J. a:r l'1c 8 t~ in. g Aspe ~L.~l~~Di~:s:_.._~~~ 0 n i 115r__...___,_,__~,__]225~.:::.:~0.?_5~:~.:::-_",~.}.:,::~.~,_._}._~~~~ .
.~.._-,......."---,.._-----_._'--~---~~
JACK JENKINS Everybody envisions a road, a fire t,ruck, a single pro-
blem. But let's take three fire trucks and two pickups
and the place where the people would come dOl-in to fight
the fire park their trucks. ' How many people are in the
volunteer fire department?
BILL CAILLE Thirty.
JAC1, JENKIPS
l'hir'cy. And how do they get to the fire?
BILL CAILLE:
Some ride in the tcrucks, most of ther\l go in their O\'1Yl
cars.
JACK JENKINS
In their own cars. \'lhere would they park them in this con'
dition.
BILL CAILLE
Well... .
JACK JENKINS
I'm not trying to be facetious, I'm dead serious.
BILL CAILLE
Right, okay. As long as you're behind the truck~
JACK JENKINS
Oh, behind the t.ruck?
where we've got to get
the fire tru,ck?
Then what if we get a situation
that truck out of there in a hurry,
BILL CAILLE
Then we're in a world of hurt, Jack. Then what you're
talking about now is a professional paid department,with
somebody still at the station.
JACK JENKINS
I don't mean that. I mean, we get in here and we get a
situation where we want to get that truck backing out and
all the volunteer trucks are behind it. We're going to
have ,thirty people coming in some number of cars, vlha tever
it is.
BILL CAIJJLE
Okay, you say they bring ten cars, that's one thing they
no better than to do is to block the truck in to start
with. I'll say that much for the fire department.
But let's say these people a~e home and there's just five
extra cars and somebody tries to get thirty cars into there
JACK JENKINS
BILL CAILLE
Well, like I mentioned earlier, I'm not really concerned
if all twelve units burn to the ground, so be it. If we
can't get in there to put the thing out, that's a property
damage thing and I'm not really concerned with that.
SPENCE SCHIFFER
Maybe you need to get there to get the people out.
That's what we're concerned with is getting the people out.
BILL CAILLE
SPENCE SCHIFFER
Well, what recommendations can you make specific recom-
mendations to these people so that they can resolve that?
JACK JENKINS
-----
Let's take the situation where we can take three fire truc]
and fifteen volunteer pieces of equipment - pickups, p~s-
senger cars, whatever, and as a result of a fire in three
of those units or four, because th(,y' re connect:ed tha't' s
very simple thi'ilg to have. With three fire trucks and fif,
teen additional units, and every parking space is filled.
BILIJ CAILIJE
Well, with a 24 foot road, they park at tllG edge of UlC"
road. If you have one car each side, Jack, how wide's 8
-18-
~ 1'-\
,1""\ ,.....",.
E C; (~' n ("! C~ r n (\c ~;-. :,~ (}; I '. ,'I ;:~
'i
,
RC9u~_ar 1'.-lecting
BmJCE GILLIS
BILL CAILLE
JACK JENKINS
BILL CAILLE
CHAIRMAN ADAMS
SPENCE SCHIFFER
BILL CAILLE
CHUCK VIDAL
ART DAILY
CHAIRMAN ADAJ:.1S
SPENCE SCHIFFER
DONNA BAER
ART DI\.II,y
----,-
CHI\IRMAN ,ADANS
DONNA BAER
:< :<.
Aspen Planni00 & Zoning
De,cem}~~9r _)J).~11.}
car? Four feet, five feet? That's ten feet you're taking'
up. That still leaves you fourteen. And I can get a
truck through. If I can't get it through 14 feet, I'm
hurting. I can see your point, and to a point I agree.
It's not the most ideal situation in the world. But, they
have made.... As far as that goes we can sit up on the
bridge and we can pour water over it, with a snorkel I
can hit the end of that building.
Would that be any be'tter if there wa,s a fire wz,ll betwee:"
each unit?
Well, okay. l'li.th t.heir const.rnction, there is, which i,,;
another concession t.bey made today. It! 11 be type five f
one hour. These are actually individual units "Ii th a
two-hour wall between each one, which limits the hazard
again. The hazard is still there, but the ratio is being
reduced. NO'll, I' In not saying you're not going to h"ve a,
fire down there, you're not going to lose the whole thing,
But they're reducing the hazard by the particular. type of
construction they're going to do. This is one of the oth.:::-,
what is it, fire zone 3 down there, they're allowed type
five .,. one-hour, Jack, is it?
r don't know.
And they I re going t,o go one hour plus each unit will be
individual with a one hour wall for here, an air space
and another one hour vlall, plus .the underground parking
are all concrete, which will ease another hazard. .So I
think what we're getting into now is construction more than
Just a nervous flicking of your small finger. Any more
questions?
Well, now, you were talking about the possibility of hav-
ing more access to the... you know, talking about another
road. Is there any way in the world ,to get another road
down here?
Not with the 750 slope.
I mean, that would have been the simplest solution....
It might be, it's feasible to bring a, you know, a better
path down, or that type of thing. But nothing for ve-
hicles.
Well, I'll entertain any kind of a motion at this point.
Well, where do we stand procedurally on this, I mean, did
we disapprove it the first few times around, or whathap-
pened?
This is stream margins, subdivision and Ordinance #19.
Is this....
Well, you need ~onceptual approval of the project. We nom
preliminary appl.coval, of the pI," t and we need ....
Approval or disapproval of the stream margin.
-19-
l_ .
("I
I.::e9u1ar Nc:e:t.ing'
CHAIRMAN ADAI'1S
CHUCK VIDAL
CHAIRM.'\.N .'\.DAMS
DONNA BAlm
SPENCE SCHIFFER
DONNA BAER
SPENCE SCHIFFER
ART DAILY
CHUCK VIDAL
SPENCE SCHIFFER.
CHAIRMAN ADAMS
CHUCK VIDAL
DONNA BAER
CHAIRMAN ADAMS
DONNA BAER
CHUCK VIDAL
ART DAILY
SPENCE SCHIFFER
DONNA BAER
SPENCE SCHIFFER
DONNA BAER
SPENCE SCHIFFER
DONNA BABR
1""", ~,
a~;;-~&",i
^ - ,.-"
E C;;:[) ,CF' ri
U\:C~}
IuD L
------..'........... ,.
....-,..."..,--.,. - ....,,,_.
~~
Aspen P_~~1],~2:I~.9..,,_.~_~OEi~19
Dec~~~Lc:~~ 8,. J.9)~
Hunter stream margin.
And then we have to clarify where we, because you know,
I though.t we were kind of through conceptual by virtue of
the past approving of this in concept of density.
I didn't understand that.
Yeah, I think, I t:hink that:'s true. I think you're :c:LgllL
On Ordinance #1.9, "(de g21ve thcm tE-~ntai.::ive approval condi.-
tionc:d on subdivis:LC~1 approval a
And. where do you st:a:1d on the subdivision?
And we're still pending on s'trea.m margin.
Is this the first tillle you've been here on a subdivision?
No, it's about the third.
They've been sent back with corrections to make.
So it's been (li.sapprovaed each one of those times or ap-
proved with condiLions?
NO, it has not been approved, they've just simply been re-
quested to go back and try to work out some better' ar-
rangements. And you know, thc:t's been our problem.
The last one vIas the access, satisfying somebody that that
road was adequate to handle the traffic circulation and
address themselves to Jack's problem.
Yes, there's along... There were other conditions origi-
nally. For example, that: Wright-McLaughlin do a drain-
age study as a condition of final plat. I mean, there's
a long complicated story behind it.
Anyway, the important thing tonight is to make a decision
on the preliminary plat.
Yes: Well, and I suppose stream margins, but that should
be conditional on the drainage study anyway.
And that's still pending, the drainage thing.
Right, and that would be presented prior to final plat ap-
plica tion.
Well, so the stream margin request has not been presented
before, is this...
Yes, it's being presented the first time.
Nothing's ever been done on it?
Yes, they ... the original plat had this turn--around over
here in the flood plain. It was moved back.
Yes, well, just: ,',ha t I want to know is that, could we ap-
prove the stream mi"lnrin subject to those thing:,'?
NO, it never VIas defi.nitely approved, and i.t should be su,b-
ject to the Wright-McLaughlin study because, you see here,
you~ve got, for an example, fifteen feet differential
CHAIRMAN ADAHS
DONNA EllER
CHUCK VIDM"
DONNA BAER
CHUCK VIDAl,
SPENCE SCHIFFER
O'
DONNA BAER
SPENCE SCHIFFER
DONNA BAER
ART DAILY
SPENCE SCHIFFER
DONNl'. BAER
CHUCK VIDAL
CHl'.IHMAN ADAMS
,1'''''\ 1"""\
~. r-.,
r'!LCOFifJ OF !-. ~;(';"c:.L.
...._,_...._..." .,'. ......'_.,,__,..,_' _ ...."...... 'n'n'.... W'_"
__._...,............"..'_...,_ __,. .",,,..,.. .' _,_..._,._..__'...,..'... _,....,.n'~ .,.., ""
;\
~~
and what, about 20 feot of cribbing here? And '101.1'1:0 goin(
to be, you know" disturbing this natural bank to an extent
that we don't know \'lhat happens to the drainage, the run-
off the pollution into the river. As a result, the same
situation prevails here, in other words you're cutting
back into that. This is extremely steep.
So what you're saying is we can't really'do anything under
stream margins until Wright-McLaughlin....
Well, I wouldn't think so because you don't know what, I
mean, I don't knO\'T vJhat:'s going to happen to that.
\\'ell, tradi tionally, stream margin comes in as a part: of
building permit anyvwy, and then it comes before us at
that time.
'I'hey made a stream margin request.
Oh, they did? I see. Okay.
You see, my pl:oblem is, you've got to take action wi thin
a certain time period, so what's the time period for streaT
margins?
Thel.'e' s not one, I don't think.
I think there is one.
Well, they can, and essentially what they did was agree to
go back. I mean, othenvisewe'dget into a jammed up situ
at ion where you just deny and then let them come back and
deny and let them come back or approve it 1,Ii th conditions
that are impossible, you know, to approve on.
The Engineering Department request in it's first recom-
mendation memorandum that we have a Wright-McLaughlin
study done prior to final plat. And that's kind of the
condition it's gone on and the memo of the Planning Office
of November 20, which sort of ca.me along with our meeting
of that time, on that day, stated that stream margins
determination okay subject to Wright-McLaughlin. Haybe
tha~ could be made continuing still a condition.
That's your recommendation at some place?
Yes. It was the original one and because of the changes
we specifically asked or made. I think the problem is,
sure, you can take the whole hill away, you know. The
P & Z's problem with it is, how much engineering, re-eng-
ineering of the site are you going, is acceptable. In
other words, that's all of our prOblems, you know. What
can you do? You can build out in the middle of the Gulf
of Mexico, too. You know, they can poke il Ivhole hill alvay
to get that extra access and circulation.
I'd like to make a motion that we approve the preliminary
subdivision map as submitted, that we postpone any action
on the stream margin request and consider that at:' the same:
time we consider the final subdivision map, at which tiD~
we should have the available information from the drain,:lCJc
st.udy.
DoI hear a second?
":21-
/""', 1""".
1""",',-.,
nFconD OF PFrO('~ Dl~':(.::.~
'., n:,
i\.-',;
Hcqular Hcot.inq
---"~~------'---~::"_---;-;
Af3J29~,2?1:3~.!2.n'~E~9.__0--2~or~~!:,.s-___._____w._,-._.__.,_.._......_,,__,__,:.Li~_!,_~.~,~.:.~~:',___
BRUCE GILLIS
CHAIRMAN ADAI'lS
SPENCE SCHIFFER
CHUCK VIDAL
-------~-
SPENCE SCHIFFER
BRUCE GILLIS
CHUCK VIDl\.L
. '
BRUCE GILLIS
CHAIRMAN ADAMS
CASEY ARMST1<.ONG
CHAIill1AN ADAMS
CASEY ARHSTRONG
CHUCK VIDAL
CASEY ARMSTRONG
BRUCE GILLIS
CASEY ARMSTRONG
JACK JENKINS
CASEY Aill1ST1<.ONG
SPENCE SCHIFFER
CHAIRMAN ADAMS
ART DAILY
DONNA BAER
AH'f DAITS
----.--.----
I'll second it.
Any discussion?
Yeah, I'd like.... what I \'lould say with some concern after
this procedural hang up about doing things \'lith ,
I would prefer to approve the stream margin subject to the
Wright-McLauCjhlin study, because that is what: the Plan-
nigh Office rccoTLr:tE~n.dE:'" you know I, I Jchink i:18 should do t.ba.t l
subject to that study, !
,
C' ,I,. > ", - . A i - ~
...") l..rcam l',ldJ. q ._...H f 1
~ ,.1 s All >'0-""' '
~;uld~~e ;a~;~-I
I
I Cjuess the problem: is that relative to the
we t~E; not really approving anything r t cause
ded up in that: ".tucy, so procedurally, t,11at
factory with me as far as....
I just prefe,r to app:covc it subject to that, rather than
say, let's just v7ai t and see what happens.
I withdraw my second.
I amend my motion to approve the stream margin also at
this point, Sl:bject to the drainage plan submittal and
approval at that time.
[
,
L
No\'l I second.
Okay, any more discussion?
I guess we better have a roll call vote, Casey.
Jim Adams?
No.
Chuck Vidal?
Yes.
Bruce Gillis?
Yes;
Jack Jenkins?
No.
Spence Schiffer?
Yes.
Okay, thank you, gentlemen.
I have one question that just occurred to me as the vote
was going on. Does that also constitute Ordinance #19
approval, or was that something that was sort of resolved?
live 1 1 ,t,hat' s subject on the final subdivision approval.
That's subject .on subdi.vision being approved.
Okay, so \ole' re through, let's say, conceptual s tag'" on 'thai
Is t.hat, I know that went to t,he committee and t.llQY i1P-
proved it.
-22-
,,~ ., "-""
~
~
~'! ~
F'.l 0 , )"'" . , c' 1
, , ! ,
2L~::,:~X~i l..:?~ 1:' lJ~~S=-,~:.j~E:_g.~~-;-._____,_~.~2_~:,:.;l~,_~:,~:.~~L~1~~-:i!]~(;[ c,_~.~:.. _.~~~.g E~t!.~~,2'___~,_~,__.__~_....___,~~',:.~~~:,~~~:-::.S:~~~~__::!,:.:~_:.".. J.. ~~; './ ?
ART DAILY
Thank you for your time.
CHAIHMAN ADAMS
You're welcome.
Bruce Gillis made a motion to adjourn the meeting r secondel
by Spence Schiffer. All in favor, motion carried. Meetin
adjourned at 8,10 p.m.
,z. . /. '-70;--<>-..."."
// r1~d:C~:~'d~(t0L?~rZ>//1~::;J.:~
(R~COIVng secretarY;.iF
.
.
-
""----'_c_
1""'--,
I""
~
,-"
Aspen Planning & Zoning
December 18, 1973
Villa of Aspen, Inc., Phase II
Chuck Vidal: I'd like to make a motion that we approve the preliminary
subdivision map as submitted, that we postpone any action
on the stream margin request and consider that at the same
time we consider the final subdivision map, at which time
we should have the availabe information from the drainage
study.
Jim Adams: Do I hear a second?
Bruce Gillis: I'll second it.
(Vidal withdrew motion, Gillis withdrew second)
AMENDED MOTION
Chuck Vidal: I amend my motion to approve the stream margin also at this
point, subject ot the drainage plan submittal and approval
at that time.
BRUCE GILLIS: Now I second.
Roll call vote -
Jim Adams - nay
Chuck Vidal - aye
Bruce Gillis - aye
Jack Jenkins - nay
Spence Schiffer - aye
"
"
~(;n":..\o c. F. HOt~"n n.~. II L. co.
1(89.:,1,11ar Meeting
TREE
ORDINANCE
ROARING FORK
FLOOD PLAIN
STUDY
,ORDINANCE #19
EXE}WTION REPORT -
Gleason Remodel
Villa Condominium
Subdivision Phase
II - Resubmission
of Preliminary /
Plat V
,-,
,-.,
.~
,-,
RECOl'lD OF PROCEED!NGS
100 Leaves
~
--'----------------,-._-------- "
._-_.._--~_._-
-'---~----,~-'._-_.
-------.-".--.,-'-.
Aspen Planning & Zoning
November 20, 1973
Bartel request the COITIDission set a date for a public
hearing on tpe proposed Tree Ordinance.
'Public Hearing on proposed Tree Ordinance was set for
December 18th, 1973 at 5:00 p.m.
Bartel request the Commission set a date for a public
hearing on the Adoption of the Roaring Fork Flood Plain
Study.
Public Hearing on the Adoption of the Roaring Fork Flood
Plain Study was set for December 18th, 1973 at 5:00 p.m,
Bartel pointed out that. the Commission could use this
study for consideration of stream margin requests and
subdivision review.
Ms. Baer explained that the Gleason remodel was coming
in under the recently adopted amendment to Ordinance ;119.
Ms. Eaer pointed out that this project was on .the land
that was the proposed site for the Ute Avenue Condominiums.
Submitted plans of existing house. Stated that Gleason
wanted to finish the lower level into an additional sleep-
ing area with bathroom.
Further pointed out that the Planning Office was recom-
mending that this be approved on the condition tJ,1at the
ditch remain where it is presently.
Jenkins made
Remode:i. \vi th
by ,Tohnson.
a motion to approve the proposed Gleason
the condition of the Planning Office, seconded
All in favor, motion carried.
Bob Mitchell was present representing the Villa Condo-.
miniums. Stated that they had come before the Commission
in June and had run into a number of problems.
Mitchell submitted a map showing the location of the pro-
posed project. Stated that access would be off of the
powerhouse road.
Jenkins questioned if the turn-around is satisfactory
wi th the Fire Department.
Developer .stated that it had been okayed by Willard Clapper.
Further stated that the open space was being provided by
the river.
Ns. Baer reconunended that the northerly fire hydrants be
relocated. Further would like to see trail alon t.he en.-
tire boundary and a pedestrian easement, relocation of a
couple of t.he parking spaces, need clarification of owner-
ship of the project.
Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office needed appra~sal
subinitted before the final plat for t.he 4% cash dedica-
-tion. Pointed o~t that the Planning Office was not satis-
fied wit,h the access on public ri9h'<:,-of.-\-lay.
-2-
,
,
~
/",
^
t"""\
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Regular Meetin9
~~~:__:.~=r,ct. R, e.a L~~____.__:.....____
,
Aspen Planning & Zoning,
~
ORDINANCE #19
REVIEWS
.--.---------,-----------
----------,.
------------
November 20, 1973
Bill Caille, City Fire Marshall, stated that they would
like to be able to get behind the buildings due to the
steep grade./Further, would like to see sprinkling wall
'structures.
Ed DelDuca, Assistant City Engineer, stated that they
would like an asrreement on an improvement district for
that public roan.
Ms. Baer stated th~ the Planning Office felt the circu-
lation problem is~solved. Developer is providing 24
parking spaces.
Chairman Adams stated he would like to table the consider-
ation of this project until some of the problems ,had been
cleared up.
Jim Reser, from Tri-Co Management Company, stated that
Willard Clapper had given approval to the proposed access.
Con census of
the project.
public road,
area,
the Comluission vas to table consideration of
Expressed conC8~n on the access from a
width of turnaround, and access out of the
Chairman Adams stated that the Commission had discussed
the problems facing them with Ordinance #19 reviews.
Stated that the concensus of the COlnmission was to table
all the projects under the conceptual presentation of
Ordinance #19, based on the following reasons: (1) would
like cost-benefit considerations on a project-to-project
basis; want to begin the economic impact evaluation of
land-use concepts represented by the map and the mixed
residential category in particular;
Attorney Jim Moran was present and questioned the Com-
mission to explain exactly what additional information
they are requiring - need to know exactly what the re-
quirements on "economic impact" includes.
Bartel stated that in the near future, the Commission
would be able to give the specific requirements as to
what type of information they will require. Stated that
the second phase of the requirement is a cost-benefit
comparison for the Commission to review for the long
run economic impact evaluation.
Chairman Adams stated the Commission would try to make
a determination within thirty days, but didn't want to
be pushed into any fast decisions. Further stated that
the concensus of the Conmlission was that tourist-accom~
modations should not be in mixed-residential.
Moran questioned the Cornmission on just exactly consti-
tuted a tourist accommodat:ion Or resident accommodation.
Bartel:stated that the Planning Office and thce Commission
want to be specific in wri t:ing on what use informa'cion
will be required. Hould hope to be able to give specific
examples in Aspen as to what was meant by the differen.t
categories.
l!loran questioned the Commission on when t:he public could
expect these answers, and Bartel replied that this would
~
~~ "
"-.'
.-,
,-,
NtJ\'(~!nbc r
b,1073
~lE~\iOH_l\Nl )U~\j
TO:
MEMBEns OF BOllnD OF lIDJUS'l'1IlENT
FR011:
SlINDHlI 1,1. STULLER, CITY lITTORNEY
,
I
I
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF VILLAS OF ASPEN
You have received the written materials submitted by Art
DaHy on behalf of Villas of Aspen. In response I am hereby sub-
mitting counters to his arguments which I hope you will read
prior to the hearing on Thursday. We both appreicate that
making such determinations are difficult, so I hope to make this
memorandum and my presentation as clear.as possible so that the
issues can be clearly presented.
Factual Background
Prior to March of 1972 all of Blocks 5, 6 and 11 and the
North Texas Mill site belonged to Ralph Curton and Howard Lee.
On March 13, 1972, they conveyed all this interest in two parcels
to the Villa of Aspen, Inc. The parcels consisted of
a. parcel one: Block 11, the vacated alley and a part of
the vacated Eighth Street; and
b. parcel two: Blcoks 5 & 6, a part of vacated Bleeker
Street, a part of vacated Eighth Street, vacated alleys,
and the North Texas Mill site.
The conveyances were by metes and bounds description. On August
14, 1972, the Mill site and the west ends of Blocks 5 and 6 were
annexed. In October of 1972 a condominium declaration was filed
covering that parcel designated above as parc8A. two,' During 1972
the Code included the following definition of subdivj,sion:
"Section 20:-2 (a) Subdivision. A Subdivision is a described
tract of land which has been divided into two (2) or more
lots, tracts br parcels, any olle of whieh is five (5) ac]'("s
or less in area for the purpose, whether immediate or future,
?
-
I"""".
,-,
of transfer of o~TIership for building developme~t or for
street use by reference to such subdivision or a recorded
plat thereof. (b) Subdivider. The person including the
owner, or agent for the owner, dividing or proposing to
divide the land so as to constitute a subdivision xo be
shown on a recorded 'plat."
It is the City's contention that the March, 1972, conveyance
constituted a subdivision as described by the Code at that time.
It is worthy of note that all. alleys in Blocks 5,6 and 11 had
been vacated, as had Eighth Street (which lies between Blocks
5 and,ll). I would like to counter Mr. "Daily's arguments out of
the sequence in which, made, if you will bear with me.
Counter to Applicant's Contention that City Building Inspector
Has No Authority to Deny Building Permit Application on Ground
That Subdivision Law Not Compli,ed With.
In support of his argument Mr, Daily cites State v City of
Tacoma 385 P2d 372(Washington 1963). In Tacoma the applicants
purchased two lots from an intended large subdivision prior to
plat approval. The court held that the subdivision regulation
cannot be interpreted to allow the city "to visit the sins of
the grantor upon the grantee.... . Both the provisions for
fixing a penalty and granting injunctions in the foregoing
(subdivision) statute are directed against the owners of land,
or his agent, who transfers or sells it before the plat or map of
the subdivision in which it lays has been approved. They are not
directed against a bona fidepurehq.ser, and a failure of the grantor
to eomply with the planning statutes and ordinanees does not give
the city grounds to refuse his bona fide grantee a building p~rmit."
This is eertainly not. the ease here. For some unexplained reason"
Villas took title to a single tract of larid in t.wo pareels,
condominiumized one t.raet. and ret.ained the other for its own'
'irt1pi'ovcmC''litt!'f':< I think a ease more i.n point: i.8 l!.ratt__~ Ad~2'
(2)
....;!'
.
,1"""\
,~
40 Cal, Hpt 505 (Ca] if, lfJ(4), whieh concerned two married couples
who purchased 46 acres of land, and to avoid the subdivision
district. The rezoning was enacted. However, the county code
I:',
,I
"
I'
If
1['
I,
!
1
I,
I
\
.'
r
t'
, ~
I
I
\
I
!
I
1
i
i
I
requirements, took title as joint tenants, conveyed to.four
other couples as joint tenants, and then commenced a partition
action to have it divided among the 12 married people involved.
Each person then divi.ded hi.s or her parcel into four parcels.
(Note partitions by order of court are usually exempt from the'
definition of subdivision and the regulation here defined subdivision
to include only division into five or more parcels). The time
.between the purchase of the single parcel and the ultimate
.
division into 38 took about four months. During these maneuvers,
the local planning commission was holding hearings on rezoning
the land, considering a single family - three acre minimum
provided also that a rezoning could not affect the right to
i
t.
build upon a lot providing "such was a separate lot or parcel
of record or shown on a map of a recorded subdivision on the
effective date."
The original lot owners then made application for building
permits arguing the rezoning did not affect their property.
The permits were denied on the argument that the procedure followed
was in violation of the local and slate subdivision regulations.
The court upheld the refusal stati'ng:
"This is not a case in which a building permit has been
denied because of some old violation of subdivision laws,
possibly done by predecessors in title to the applicant;
it is a case where the permit is sought as the culmination
of a plan to circumvent the law by one of the planners.
The courts will not assist, by equitable process, the
fulfillment of this pls,n."
Here, the Villas took title, to what was before a tract ,held
in single owner8hi.p, by a siI\gle deed conveyi ng tho tract in two
parcels. The Vi.llas then conveyed,onepareel toa eonclominium
(3)
~-:.
-~~
, t""i
i~
!
on the effective dat~ of the O~dinance. Consequently" the Villas
,
I
I
\
J
\\
assoc.iation within seven months. In the summer of this year
Ordinance 19 affected the balance of the Villas property. The
Ordi.nance excepted permit (as this was) applications pending
but a permit is not deemed pending unless all subdivision require-
ments have been satisfied (if any are applicable to the project)
I'.
"
,
of Aspen, Inc., is in a situation not unlike the permit applicants
in Pratt, i.e., only ~f the subdivision requirements are held
not applicable to their property will a land use regulation
(Ordinance 19) be deemed to affect theiT'intended use.
'Counter to Applicant's Argument that Subdivision Regulations Are
Not Appli.cable in the 'Present Situation.
The thrust of Villas' second major argument is that inasmuch
as Blocks 5, 6 and 11 have already been designated as such on
an offi.cial. city map, any conveyances in which they are kept in
tact cannot constitute a subdivision of land. In sum, the appli~
cant states "There has been no modification of or interference
with the land divisions created by the city, and thus no further
division has taken place."
Let me note, first, that there has indeed, in the history
of this tract, been "modifications of....the land division created
by the city" inasmuch as Eighth Street and all the alleys have
been vacated.
Consequently, one of the most important functions of an
official map, that is, to cause dedication of land for public
access, has been negatived.
But more importantly, I do not think Villas' theory will
survive comparison with American case law. Courts have several
times discussed the issue as to whether or, not the selling of a
lot or lots in an officially recorded map constitutes a subdivision.
The Courts' reasoning should be helpful here.
(tJ )
;
~
,~
I,n .!::.?g_c:hnZ],:....~C:i'2iJ!oli, 231 A2d 553 (M, J, 1963) plaintiff
attempted to sell two of five contiguous city lots designated
on a January 1900 ci,ty map, She argued that the existence, of
'the mapping made inapplicable the subdivi sion requirements of the
city as once a map is filed the individual lots never lose their
separate iBntities regardless of how many contiguous lots remain
in or are assembled into one ownership. The Court disagree'd':
"This reasoning ignores the.differerices in purpose of the
two acts. The Objectives of the Old Map Act and the Sub-
division Act are completely different. The history basic
purposes of the Old Map Act were.. ...(a) to provide a
method for offiCially filing maps '130 that future conveyancing
instruments might referto'a parcel of realty by reference
to the lot numbers as delineated on the map and (b) to set
forth sound engineering standards for maps so filed so as
to avoid surveying errors. On the other hand, concerning
(subdivision regulations), they were designed to afford
municipalities desiring the advantages of their provisions
to enact comprehensive regulatory standards which would
facilitate sound and orderly future municipal growth along
preconceived lines, in short, a planned community growth."
The Court found that the Old Map Act was subject to subsequent
valid exercises of the police power in ZOning and other land use
controls. In accord is Ryan v Woodridge 231 A2d 562 (N. J. 1962),
Lake Intervale Homes v Parsippancy-Troy Hills 147 A2d 28 (N. J.
1958) .
'l'he State of New Hampshire has taken a like pos.i ti.on in
Blevens v Manehester,170 A2d 121 (N. Hamp., 1961). The landowne'r
had from 1936 to 1956 acquired land all of whicll had been sub-
divided into lots with the ci. ty surveyor's or engineer's approval.
Sales were made with reference to the reeorded plat. Subsequently,
subdivision regulations were enacted and the city attempted to
(5 )
I
r-..
-...
.
apply t.hem to future sales by the la.ndowner. The Court sustained
the cHy:
"Statues regulating the subdivision of land seek to promote
the orderly and planned growth of relatively undeveloped
areas within a municipality. Planless growth and haphazard
development accentuaremunicipal problems in a demand for
streets, water and sanitary ,services which have a direc't.
relation to traffic safety and health. The subdivision
of land has a definite economic impact upon the municipality
and hence the regulation of subdivision activities has
been sustained as a means by which the interests of the
public and the general taxpayer may be safeguarded and pro-
tected. Since the subdivider of land creates the need for
local improvements, it is considered reasonable that he
should bear the cost rather than the municipality and
. the general taxpayer..... The subdivision law and ordinance
.apply to all of plaintiff's lots shown on their recorded
maps which are unsold and any conveyed after the subdivision
ordinance was approved by the city. This is not a retrospec-
tive law."
Lifewise is Toothaker v BilJ.erica 193 NE 2d 582 (Mass. 1963).'
Consequently, I feel' there is enough ,'case law to support a
demand for satisfaction of subdivision requirements when any
city lot, formerly under single ownership with adjacent lots, j,s
conveyed. However, as is evidenced by the letters to Ken Hubbard
submi tted by Art Daily, in the case presented by Ken this offj,ce
did not require compliance with subdivision regulations for the
following reasons. Such transfers concern lots on existing
streets in a developed neighborhood. In such cases there can be
little basis for apprehension either that the purchaser will be
bilked j,llto buying a lot which ,is unusable for lack of improvements,
or that the city will be forced to install major improvements.
The character of the neighborhood is fixed so it cannot be
materially affected by this technical subdivision of the land.
(6)
,....
"""-,
However, none 01' thesc protections exist whcn a large pare(>1
is conveyed, consisting only partially 01' city blocks and lots,
when adjacent streets and alleys have been vacated and proposed
development will have a major impact on the community. It is
submitted that in such cases the intents and purposes'of
subdivision come into play and demand compliance with Chapte-r
20 of our Code.
Response to Appl icants Contention that gity ,is Estopped From
RequiTing Compliance and that Appl ica 'lion of Subdivision Regu-
lations Would Deny Applicant Due Process and Equal Protection
of the Laws.
These arguments lend themselves to more casual presentation
and the City's response will be made orally at the time of hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra M. Stuller
City Attorney
-:..:"
~
y <-""~. <' ...-:'
^
..:". ~ - 'j./
/
Itl:i,vLCT1ON OF ASP];", J~Oi\H!) OJ' M)JrSnnc;:T
ON APPElIL NO. 7:3..2>1, TllL VILLA OF ASPEN, INC.
WUEREAS, ~he Applicant, The Villa of 'Aspen, Inc., has appealed
a decision of the Aspen Building Inspector denying a building
,
I
I
,
permit for a motel project on applicant's property located in the
City of Aspen, Colorado, said denial being based on applicant"s
failure to comply with the subdivision regulations of the City of
Aspen, and
WHEREAS, the public hearing on Appeal No. 73-29 has been
had before the Board of Adjustment on November 29, 1973, at 3 p.' m.
in the Aspen City Hall Chambers, and
, .
WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment has, at such hearing, deter-
mined that:
1. The Villa of Aspen, Inc., did apply to the City of Aspen
.
for a permit to build a motel project on the site of the existing
Villa of Aspen motel, consisting of Block 11 and a vacated portion
of Eighth Street, City and Townsite of Aspen.
2. On August 15, 1973, the building inspector advised the
applicant that such permit would be denied (1) because of various
'comments made on the plans found in the check by the International
Conference of Building Officials, (ICBO) and (2) because it was
the opinion of the city planning department.and City attorney
that.the applicant must comply with the city subdivision regu-
,lations prior to the issuance of any permit.
3. On approximately September 26, 1973, the building'
inspector advised the attorney for applicant that on qorrection
of the structural and non-structural ~lan deficiencies noted in
the ICBO comments thos~ objections to the plans carlie~ noted as
grounds for denial would be withdrawn, leaving as a basis for
denial only the failure to comply with the city subdivision
regulations. Such corrections were subsequently or are in the
process of being made. to the sat i.sfact i.on of'.the' bui Iding inspector.
~.
-.',.~!'
"
t""'-,
r-,
4. The history of the chain of title of the subject property
is as follows:
a. In 1963 .Howard Lee was the owner of all of 810cks
5, G and 11 of the' City of Aspen and the adjoining
North Texas Millsite. All alleys in Blocks 5, 6 and
c. On March 13, 1972"all of the subject property
l~
'I
:,
'I
ill
I
f
I:
11 had been vacated as had Eighth Street lying between
Blocks 5 and 11,
b. In January of 1970 one Ralph Curton acquired an
~ndivided Ij2interest in the same property,
was conveyed to the applicant, the property being
described in two separate parcels in the deed of con-
i
I
I
I
veyance in order to facilitate mortgaging. The two'
parcels consisted of the' following:
(1) Block ,11, the vacated alley therein, and the
greater portion of the adjoining vacated Eighth
Street; (the boundary being approximately 8 feet
to the west of the center of the vacated Eighth
Street) and a second parcel consistin~ of
I
,
,
,
'I
[
I
I
t
I
(2) Blocks 5 and 6, the balance of the adjoining
vacated Eighth Street, a part of vacated Bleeker
Street, vacated alleys in Blo~ks5 and 6, and the
North Texas Mill Site,
d. In October of 1972 a condominium declaration was
filed covering, with slight modification, the tract
described in section 4 (c) (2). Numerous conveyances
to condominium owners followed.
I
5. 'I'he North Texas Mill Site was anne'xed t(P the city on
August 14, 1972, Le., subsequent to the transfer to the applicant
but prior to the filing of the condominium declaration. At the
time of the annexaUon proceedings the city and the applicant
discussed whether the condomini,umizing of any fulturc structures
would require complia.nce with the city's subdivis.ion regulations.
-.
(2)
',<0i~,)
.'.
-'.'\'
.
~
,
(3)
A,
.
!
"'~ .
r"--,
A.
.
2. TlIe intents aIlc1 }JurposGS oJ subdivision regulation \'.'ouJd
.
be undermined if this division ~ould be allowed and a permit
issued without requiring of the applicant compliance with the
subdivision. regulations.
,
3. The building inspector for the City of Aspen has authority
to deny a building permit for failure to comply with the subdivision
regulations of the City of Aspen.
NOW, THER1~FORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the action of denial
of a permit be and is, heroby sU$tained, and the appeal of the
applicant, The Villa of Aspen,. Inc., No. 73-29, be denied.
Date
John Dukes, Chairman
Aspen Board of Adjustment
I, Casey Armstro.ng ,duly acting and appointed deputy city
clerk of the City of Aspen, COlorado,do hereby certify that the
foregoing is a true and correct copy of 'the Resolution adopted
by the. Aspen Board of Adjustment at its meeting held on
1973, .
Casey Armstrong
Deputy City Clerk
.
l
" .'