HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.219 E Durant Ave.3A-86CITI
130
asp
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 16, 1987
TO: City Clerk
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Chart House
PEN
eet
611
ia� c
Attached for recording please find the Declaration of Covenants
for the Chart House.
PJT /mc
Attachment
cc: Planning Office
i
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS
Balderson, Bent and Cabell, a Joint Venture ( "Covenantor ") for
itself, successors and assigns, in consideration of the granting of a
revision to the 1985 conditional use application by the Planning and
Zoning Commission dated April 22, 1986, and as an inducement to the
granting thereof, hereby convenant with the City of Aspen, Pitkin
County, Colorado, to restrict such property, and hereby does restrict
such property as follows:
1. Covenantor is the owner of the following described property
(the "Property ") together with the improvements thereon situated in
the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, State of Colorado:
Lot 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 3, Eames Addition to the City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, which property is also described
as Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 3, Eames Addition to the City
and Townsite of Aspen and also that part of Lots 6, 7, 8 and
9 within the City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin,
State of Colorado.
2. In the event of any municipal improvement or improvements of
the kind contemplated in Section 20 -16 of the Municipal Code of the
City of Aspen, as amended, become, in the sole judgment or discretion
of the City Council of the City of Aspen, necessary or desireable to
the area of the subject property, Covenantor will make no objection to
any special assessment or special tax or proceeding therefor on the
basis that the property is adequately served by existing improvements
and /or on the basis that the premises will not be served or benefited
by the improvement or improvements proposed. Covenantor further
agrees to join, upon the City's demand therefor, any improvement
district formed for construction of such improvements (including,
without limitation, drainage, underground utilities, paving, curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, street lights, etc.) in the area of the property
or to reimburse the City of Aspen directly upon demand therefor if the
City should choose to construct these improvements without the for-
mation of such a district.
-1-
3. Covenantor warrants that this is the title owner of the subject
property with full authority to restrict the property as aforesaid and
that there are no persons or entities who have an interest in the sub-
ject property who have not agreed and consented to the aforesaid
restrictions.
4. None of the covenants contained herein shall be released or
waived in any respect without the prior consent of the City of Aspen,
reflected by resolution of the City Council of the City of Aspen.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this declaration has been duly executed this
day of JGr , ru 198 -1.
BALDERSON, BENT and CABELL,
a Joint Venture
By_7
STATE OF
ss.
COUNTY OF T \LS1y )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ��?? day
of Z.c_rs. , 1981, by L\ t�
as �,�,�n 7 8 aQr of Balderson, Bent and Cabell.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires:
Notsy�Public-
Address
-2-
0
CI
ME MORANDU M
DATE: May 30, 1986
TO: Planning Office
FROM: City Attorney
RE: Chart House
P
et
11
i
v�U v If
My o IW6 J�
0s, 104)
Attached for your review please find a draft of the Declaration of
Covenants regarding the Chart House. Please let me know if they
meet with your approval.
PJT /mc
Attachment
J
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS
The Chart House Corporation ( "Covenantor ") for itself, suc-
cessors and assigns, in consideration of the granting of a revi-
sion to the 1985 conditional use application by the Planning and
Zoning Commission dated April 22, 1986, and as an inducement to
the granting thereof, hereby covenant with the City of Aspen,
Pitkin County, Colorado, to restrict such property, and hereby
does restrict such property as follows:
1. Covenantor is the owner of the following described pro-
perty (the "Property ") together with the improvements thereon
situated in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, State of Colorado:
Lot 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 3, Eames Addition to the City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, which property is also described
as Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 3, Eames Addition to the City
and Townsite of Aspen and also that part of Lots 6, 7, 8 and
9 within the City and Townsite of Aspen, County of Pitkin,
State of Colorado.
2. In the event of any municipal improvement or improve-
ments of the kind contemplated in Section 20 -16 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Aspen, as amended, become, in the sole judg-
ment or discretion of the City Council of the City of Aspen,
necessary or desirable to the area of the subject property,
Covenantor will make no objection to any special assessment or
special tax or proceeding therefor on the basis that the property
is adequately served by existing improvements and /or on the basis
that the premises will not be served or benefited by the improve-
ment or improvements proposed. Covenantor further agrees to join,
upon the City's demand therefor, any improvement district formed
for construction of such improvements (including, without limita-
tion, drainage, underground utilities, paving, curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, street lights, etc.) in the area of the property or to
reimburse the City of Aspen directly upon demand therefor if the
City should choose to construct these improvement without the
formation of such a district.
3. Covenantor warrants that it is the title owner of the
subject property with full authority to restrict the property as
aforesaid and that there are no persons or entities who have an
interest in the subject property who have not agreed and consented
to the aforesaid restrictions.
4. None of the covenants contained herein shall be released
or waived in any respect without the prior consent of the City of
Aspen, reflected by resolution of the City Council of the City of
Aspen.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this declaration has been duly executed
this _ —__— day of 1986.
THE CHART HOUSE CORPORATION
Title
STATE OF COLORADO
ss.
County of Pitkin )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
- - - -- day of ---- _---- - - - - -- -1986, by --------------------
as _ —__— of the Chart House Corporation.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
Address
6B
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: . 01'-ZA
DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE:
PROJECT NAME :Lr((JK P(I")V
APPLICANT• �`
Applicant Address Phone:
REPRES ENTATIV E
Representative Address/P -one:
Type of Application:
I. GMP /Subdivision /PUD
t`SENa.
STAFF:
5-7S17
1.
Conceptual Submission
20
$2,730.00
2.
Preliminary Plat
12
1,640.00
3.
Final Plat
6
820.00
II. Subdivision /PUD
1.
Conceptual Submission
14
$1,900.00
2.
Preliminary Plat
9
1,220.00
3.
Final Plat
6
820.00
III. All
"Two Step" Applications
11
$1,490.00
IV. All "One Step" Applications/ 5 $ 680.00
V. Referral Fees - Environmental
Health, Housing Office
1.
Minor Applications
�
2
$ 50.00
2.
_Major Applications
5
$ 125.00
Referral
Fees-
Engineeiing
Minor Applications
OD
Major Applications
200.00
P &Z
CC MEETING DATE:
tCV,71
PUBLIC HEARING• YES NO
------
DATE REFERRED:
3 L
INITIALS:
- - - - --
REFERRALS:
- -- - -- - --
✓
City Atty
Aspen Consol.
S.D. _
School District
17
City Engineer _
Housing
Mtn. Bell
Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Dir.
Parks Dept.
State Hwy Dept (Glenwd)
Aspen Water _
Holy Cross Electric
State Hwy Dept (Gr.Jtn)
_
City Electric _
Fire Marshall
Bldg: Zoning/Inspectn
Envir. Hlth. _
Fire Chief
Other :,
Roaring Fork Energy Center
FINNAL
ROUTING:
- - - - - --
DATE ROUTED- '2 7
INITIAL:
City Atty
City Engineer
Building Dept.
Other:
Other:
CASE DISPOSITION: C{1Mr� Y1bu3Q /V t,c� „( IJS�
Reviewed by: den PfiZ City Cou f1
Qm P"m) f Z�,n � C rte,,Er ar ,l c w riaQy �ipp�uar
}
OU 44d. H:W (U J4V d 61 A �Ur, atrr,, 0,1 .tk 19g; co_�44., LAI Lw.r
t�
1. The trash dumpster enclosure shall be roofed to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Department after the
applicant has consulted with BFI Trash Service regarding
design requirements of the trash pick -up function and
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
2. The applicant shall agree to join the Lodge Improvement
District upon formation. This agreement shall be
submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
F.eviewer. r : P,sp_r. PLZ City Council
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Chart House Conditional Use - Public Hearing
DATE: April 16, 1986
LOCATION: 219 E. Durant Avenue.
ZONING: L -1.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a revision to
the prior conditional use application for enlargement recognizing
an increase in dining capacity.
BACKGROUND: On February 5, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission
granted the Chart House approval for an enlargement of less than
500 square feet of space based in part upon the representation
that there would be no additional dining capacity. Zoning
official Bill Drueding noted that more dining capacity did result
from the project. Accordingly, Drueding wrote a letter to Rod
Dyor (attached) determining that a Certificate of Occupancy
cannot be issued for the Chart House expansion without Planning
Commission review of the changes made from the plans P &Z approved.
A condition of the P &Z's approval was the inclusion of two
parking spaces located off Dean Street. However, the applicant
was encouraged to proceed to the Board of Adjustment for the
removal of this requirement. On March 14, 1985, the Board of
Adjustment approved a variance request for exemption from the
parking requirement conditional upon replacing the dumpster on
the property, screening the dumpster, and installing a five foot
sidewalk off the curb along Dean and Monarch Streets all prior to
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE:
Section 24- 11.2(h) states the condition by which the Planning
Director or Planning Commission can approve an exemption from the
Growth Management allotment procedure for a commercial expansion
under 500 square feet. It is stated that ... "For expansions which
involve any request for commercial or office space, or which
involve expansion of any type of space of two hundred fifty (250)
to five hundred (500) square feet, the expansion shall be subject
to the special review of the Planning and Zoning Commission..."
The criteria for permitting the expansion are that the growth
impacts of the project (parking, housing, utilities, etc.) have
been mitigated. Section 24- 3.3(c) states "No approved conditional
use may be substantially modified, structually enlarged, or
expanded in ground area unless such modification, enlargement or
expansion receives the prior approval of the Planning Commission
which approval shall be obtained."
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. Referral Agency Comments:
1. Engineering Depastaeat - In a memorandum from Elyse
Elliott dated April 9, 1986 (attached) it is recommended
that (a) the recently built trash enclosure should be
roofed, and (b) the applicant need not return to the
Board of Adjustment for another parking variance, but
should agree to join the Lodge Improvement District
upon formation.
2. Housing Authority - The Housing Authority determined
that no additional employees are anticipated from the
Chart House expansion. There are presently seventy -
five employees of the restaurant according to the
management; and the applicant's representative, Thomas
Wells, stated that the number has not changed from
before the changes.
B. Planning Office Comments:
The purpose of this review is to determine whether there are any
growth or development impacts from the increase in the Chart
House seating capacity which should be addressed at this time.
The original application stated there would not be added capacity,
and the Planning Commission as well as Board of Adjustment
depended on this representation in evaluating the project.
It should be noted that the expansion of the lounge area and
placement of a wet bar instead of a seafood bar added some lounge
and waiting seating even if the dining capacity has only increased
by six seats. However, because most Chart House customers come
to eat at the restaurant, and not just to drink at the bar it
appears that added lounge seating does not add substantially to
the intensity of use. Moreover, an increase in lounge area was
one of the main objectives of the expansion and was stated in the
1985 application.
The Housing Authority has reviewed the employee generation of the
Chart House and was satisfied that no more employees were needed
from this expansion. Therefore, it was determined that no
additional employee housing should be supplied; nor should there
be additional employee parking demands.
A variance was given for the two parking spaces which the Planning
Commission required as a conditional use of approval in 1985. The
P &Z recommended the Board to grant the variance; and we do not
recommend that the Chart House undergo this requirement or
variance procedure again, as conditions have not substantially
changed in this area.
The trash dumpster enclosure cover should be accomplished as
suggested by the Engineering Department. It is reasonable that
trash generation is a factor associated with the expansion.
Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the Chart House to keep
the dumpster area clean and free of ice and snow in the winter so
that the dumpsters remain in the enclosure and are not unsightly.
Because no alley exists between Durant and Dean Streets, it is
especially important that the trash situation be handled as
neatly as possible on Monarch Street.
The Lodge Improvement District plans, still being developed,
should address aesthetics of the area, parking, trash storage and
pick -up, and service access needs. The Chart House should agree
to join this district upon formation, as many of the proposed
improvements pertain to the conditional use issues of the project.
During a site inspection, a shed along Dean Street was noticed
which appears to have been built in the set -backs without a
building permit. Because the present expansion has used up the
500 square foot GMP exemption, the shed cannot be approved by this
allocation. Furthermore, it was the subject of complaint at the
Board of Adjustment meeting by Fred Smith. This structure should
be removed.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Office recommends approval of the Chart House
request for a revision of the 1985 conditional use application
subject to the following conditions:
1. The trash dumpster enclosure shall be roofed to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Department after the
applicant has consulted with BFI Trash Service regarding
design requirements of the trash pick -up function and
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
2. The applicant shall agree to join the Lodge Improvement
District upon formation. This agreement shall be
submitted to the satisfaction of the City Attorney
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
The Planning Office also recommends the Planning Commission to
direct the Building Department to require the shed along Dean
Street to be removed due to its illegality.
SB.416
C �
THOMAS WELLS & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS
314 SOUTH MILL STREET ASPEN, COLO RA DO 81611 TELEPHONE 303925 -7817
Feoruary 7. 1986
aspen Pianninq and =ninq 'Jcmmission
'i3Cl Sonth Ga .erla
As: en. Cif 81,ni-
DkR.ar Members:
i am writing to request a revision to our
Previous applicat..ion zor expansion of the
ri[Kld itiQ.'lal uses of the Chart House
restaurant..
_n our original suomittal we stated that no
addit.i.cnal dlni.nq space would be adaea. ;he
>ea =.on for this was that previousiv considerec!
Cinina room aariitions were deleted from the
nrolect. Because of internal changes to the
::.oi_et area acid aQloininq ..ounce. the Seating
Capacity has been iricreaE.ed from that wh'ica
e.,-fisted batore remcceiiI'iq riv tb'.
"ne 'wlldinq Je Dartment has recently f o'unc7
that this is Not consistent with our or..ginal
elan ana we hereby request that tie adriitiona.
seats be annrovE2d. ORe _-ingie. ChanQP.. that waE
made durinq construction from the nrlginai
aotirovai was elimination of the sk2aY000 rrar
area and the e:, :istinq cocktail bar moved into
that same area. no changes or additions were
made to the existing building shell or fi.00r
area. Tice numbe -r of employees nr-Sor ,..'rye
nro7ert cuntempiated for oricinal anproval or
as now com Dlei ed has not chatl• ^.E_':1.
Four copies of both the original ti�'D- ar1Q
Seata.ng plan Orlor to cor : =-.ruction anc aS nub'
_.OMOn et?a are e ricio3 :?a �.or -your review. .he
hart. Houses Ch. ? :, - :: tnr 'he reau -red review YCeL_
_n,,:losed.
truly your].
"Phomas 0. we_l.B
,9r�=hitect
cc: Steve 1� :_tr._tei ::
ASPEN *PITKIfft REGIONAL BUILOrAG DEPARTMENT
January 13, 1
Mr. Rod Dyer
c/o Tom Wells
Thomas Wells & Associates
314 S. Mill
Aspen, CO 81611
JAN 1 4 1986
Re: Chart House Restaurant
219 E. Durant Street
Dear Sir:
As we discussed, Tom Wells' letter to the Aspen Planning & Zoning
Commission of December 31, 1984, regarding the Chart House
expansion, stated that there would not be additional dining room
capacity. Colette Penne's memo of February 5, 1986, to the Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission also states that there would be no
additional dining. My inspection last week indicates that the
dining area and seating has been increased. Also, the floor plan
given to the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission for their review
is different than the one submitted to the Building Department.
The plan submitted to the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
showed a seafood bar where there is now a liquor bar - the liquor
bar was moved and seating added. The original plan to the Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission shows a lounge area where there are
now dining tables.
I feel these deviations from what you presented to the Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission are major and will require that you
return to them with these changes. They may accept or reject
these changes. Your cooperation in complying with Aspen Planning
& Zoning Commission's approval will be appreciated.
V, _:_y,
JK l
.J�' I` I'jf `mot
William L. Drueding
Zoning Enforcement Officer
cc: Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official
Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official
Alan Richman, Planning Director
BD /ar
offices: mail address:
517 East Hopkins Avenue 5O6 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611
M
To: Steve Burstein, Planning Department
From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department
Date: April 91 1986
Re: Chart House Conditional Use
The Engineering has the following comments on the amended condit-
ional use application:
Trash
In the past, the Chart House has had problems with their dumpster
wandering out into Monarch Street. This was exacerbated by the
snow build -up during winter months. Recently, an enclosure has
been constructed to house the dumpster. Unfortunately, this has
not completely alleviated the problem. BFI has indicated that
the enclosure should be roofed to keep out the snow and ice. The
Chart House should contact Tony Vagneur of BFI for his approval
on the roof addition.
Parking
City Code states that 4 parking spaces per each 1000 square feet
of addition must be provided, requiring 2 parking spaces for this
application. The Board of Adjustments granted a variance from
this on March 14, 1985, with two conditions (screening the
dumpster area and installing a 5' sidewalk). The applicant
argued at the hearing that the restaurant was not increasing its
seating capacity and therefore the addition would not impact the
present parking situation.
Since the Board of Adjustments meeting, the engineering and
design portion of the Lodge Improvement District has commenced and
is adressing the parking and traffic situation on Dean Street.
We do not recommend that the Chart House re- petition the Board
of Adjustments for another variance, but instead agree to join
the Lodge Improvement District.
Utilities
The new proposal will not have any significant impact on the
utilities.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER
DATE: APRIL 4, 1986
RE: CHART HOUSE CONDITIONAL USE
ISSUE: Has the new seating arrangement at the Chart House
created a need for additional employees?
BACKGROUND: Presently there are 75 employees at the Chart House.
The new seating arrangement creates six additional chairs. The
current seating is for 146 seats the new proposal will be for 152
seats. The applicant, Tom wells of Thomas wells and Associates
Architects, in his letter of February 7, 1986 states "in our
original submittal we stated that no additional dining space
would be added. The reason for this was that previously con-
sidered dining room additions were deleted from the project.
Because of internal changes to the toilet area and adjoining
lounge, the seating capacity has been increased form that which
existed before remodeling by 61." Further, "The number of
employees prior to the project contemplated for original approval
or as now completed has not changed."
ACTION NEEDED: The Housing Authority recommends approval of the
conditional use request and does not anticipate the need for
additional employee generation due to the new seating arrange-
ments.
reject this applicant's request in its present form, but
perhaps will assist by offering guidance in the development
of a hidden remote location where suitable for this type of
electronic gear."
Kotiont
Roger Hunt moved to table this application until February 19,
1985; seconded by Ramona Markalunas. All in favor; motion
carried.
POBL�.13E1i$ZLLG
- - , H"o GR EX E[IPTTOP'/COr7DTTTONAL USE sl�i
Penne briefed the commissioners. The Chart House is located at
219 Durant Avenue in the L -1 zone. The applicant requests an-
addition of approximately 500 square feet. The tool is an
exemption from growth management. A restaurant is a conditional
use in the L -1 zone and this request expands the conditional use
-permit.
if. the Commission finds the impacts of 500 square feet minimal
or manageable, grant an exemption from growth management for the
additional space_ Make findings based on the following criteria:
a minimal number of additional employees are generated by the
expansion or housing is being provided for additional employees;
a minimal amount of additional parking demand is created or that
parking can be accommodated on site; minimal visual impact on the
neighborhood; and minimal new demand is placed on services on
site, such as, water, sewer, roads, drainage, and fire protection.
Additional criteria for evaluating the placement of conditional
uses or expansion are: whether the proposed use otherwise
complies with all requirements imposed by-the zoning code;
whether the use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of
this zoning code and the applicable zoning district; and, the
proposed use is designed to be compatible with surrounding
land uses and uses in the area.
The proposed additions meet all area and bulk requirements. The
restaurant's location is compatible with surrounding land uses.
The location is convenient for lodge guests within the lodge
area. The location is within one and one -half blocks from the
Rubey Park Transit Center. The location is on several bus
routes. The location is easily accessible by car. Most off
street parking on Monarch and Durant is utilized by Chart House
There is a
day andkdinerst restaurant used by
during the night.
The restaurant's current footprint is 5,716 square feet. The lot
is over 11,000 square feet. The FAR is .52:1. The allowed
external FAR is 1:1. 508 of. the space will remain open space;
the requirement is 258. The requirement for height and distance
between buildings is met.
The placement of the addition at the rear of building, facing Dean
Street and the southwest corner, is sensitive and will have
minimal visual impact on the neighborhood. The square footage is
for a lounge ate, 126 square feet; for a storage area, 87 square
feet; for an office space, 116 square feet; and for a bar, an
increase of 169 square feet. The applicant is building larger
rest rooms.. -The Ir-cu3ati-6n- between the bar and dining room will
be upgraded. Existing office and storage space is lost with the
bathroom expansion; that office space is replaced with the
addition. The applicant believes the current bar and waiting
area are inadequate for the dining capacity of the restaurant.
The applicant proposes to improve those areas, not to change
dining capacity. -
The engineering department does not anticipate increase in the
infrastructure usage: water, trash generation, roads, etc.
® Additional parking requirements may not be generated by this
addition. But, the code (Section 24 -4.5) requires four parking
spaces for every additional 1,000 square feet of commercial
area. The requirement is two off-street parking spaces. She
received a letter from Tom Wells, architect for the project. The
letter explains the location of the two parking spaces, as
submitted in alternative one. Major restructuring of the site 7
involves movement of a retaining wall and loss of two on- street
parking spaces. The trade -off from two on- street spaces to two
off - street spaces is not that desirable. The Commission and the
planning office cannot vary the code's requirements for parking
space. Only the Board of Adjustment can grant a variance from
this parking provision.
The planning office recommends approval of special review for the
GMP exemption for expansion of the Chart House by no more than
500 square feet and for expansion of the existing conditional
use permit with a condition that the two parking spaces shown on
alternative one be instituted. The Commission can table its
action until the applicant receives a variance from the Board
of Adjustment. This action does not put the Board of Adjustment
in a compromising position.
Tom Wells, architect for the project, noted a problem with
Penne's recommendation on parking. The construction period is
short, April 15th and June 15th. Approve construction tonight.
5
�rpR_n OP PROCEEDLNGS
Regular Meeting Plannin and-
Penne asked if the applicant will either locate the parking, as
suggested in alternative one, or apply for a variance. Wells
preferred a vote on the 500 square feet tonight. There is
no rush on parking. Separate the parking from the construction.
Penne argued the two issues are inseparable. Wells replied the
vote tonight should include the parking spaces. The applicant
can always approach the Board of Adjustment to overturn the
Commission's condition of approval. Penne said if the Board of
Adjustment thestwo parking spaces. Wells understood.
applicant has
understood
Hunt requested engineering's review. Dean Street is critical
to Aspen Mountain Lodge's construction. The proposed parking
solution may be acceptable under the code but not for the street.
Elyse Elliott, engineering department, commented she did not
review the solution under a new lodge scenario. She only considered
the existing conditions. Hunt requested the entire parking
along Dean Street be solved. Consider the lodge. There is a
need for a _service vehicle egress out of this area. Richman
replied the city solved this issue with the lodge. It is unreason-
able to hold up this applicant for the lodge. Hunt suggested no
off- street parking on Dean. Dean Street is critical to the
lodge. Why present a solution diametrically opposed to the
ift lodge's needs? Penne agreed off - street parking may be more
VO reasonable. Hunt said the trade -off from on- street to off -street
parking is questionable. He requested engineering's analysis.
Dean Street is the solution to the egress for the lodge.
Penne noted that the city is tied to a code that requires four
parking spaces per every 1,000 square feet of commercial space
added in this zone. The requirement for 500 additional square
feet is two parking spaces. Perhaps a case can be made in front
of the Board of Adjustment to waive that requirement. The
appropriate body, the Board of Adjustment, waives the requirement.
Hunt asked if the parking area used by skiers during the day can
be used by patrons of the Chart House during the evening. To
require two additional spaces in inappropriate. Penne recommended
send this message to the Board of Adjustment. But, the Commission
cannot vary the parking requirement. Hunt agreed to approve the
request with the parking condition and a resolution for the Board
of Adjustment expressing the Commission's position on parking.
Engineering should also submit its position. The proposed
v parking solution is poor, especially, given the excess parking
adjacent to the property during the restaurant's hours of opera-
tion. White concurred with Hunt. Anticipate the lodge. And, study
the area before requiring the Chart House to provide two parking
spaces. Parking is adjacent to the restaurant. Do not compound
9 6
Dean Street.
wells explained there are immediate internal problems, inadequate
toilet rooms, the three levels, etc. The applicant wants to re-
organize the internal space. Mechanically and electrically the
situation is a mess. He argued the site is underutilized,
especially, with the projected growth intensity of use of the
area. The Chart House may rebuild in ten years.. The 500 square
feet is a remedial step before remodeling. He .cited the Hotel
Jerome approvals. Gilmore obligated himself to sixty stalls in
the some -day parking garage. Consider a letter of agreement
stating if and when the city wants the two stalls, the Chart House
shall provide the stalls. The design and the impact on Dean
Street are separate from the Chart House.
Anderson opened the public hearing. There was no public comment.
He closed the public hearing.
done
Roger Hunt moved to approve special review for the purpose of a
GMP exemption for the expansion of the Chart House Restaurant by
not more than 500 square feet and for an expansion of the existing
conditional use permit with the following conditions:
1. Two parking spaces shown on alternative #1 be instituted
for technical purposes of this approval.
2. The applicant must further apply to the Board of
Adjustment for the removal of that requirement. This
variance is recommended by the Commission. The purpose
is to improve Dean Street use given future building in
the area. Engineering and the Commission are co-
applicants with the Chart House for this request. Excess
parking is available in the immediate area.
Seconded by David white. All in favor; motion carried.
WHI T L OD m PIT � 1$S HEARING, N
TTY(' OF REVTEw PROCESS
Richman said Council initiated a code amendment during its SPA
review. Two issues were raised during the SPA public hearings.
First, what comes first, the ability to build or the proper
zoning to build. During the Little Nell application, in 1983, the
planning office argued the applicant should be properly zoned and
the entire Little Nell parcel should be zoned SPA before the
submission of a land use application for any of its parcels.
Q7
Aspen P &Z City. Council -
!-T 4L i o u
—4-o
Feviewed'By: Aspen P &Z
City Council
7;
Jl d``L t j
I i
r I
1
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 14. 1985
Vice Chairperson Francis Whitaker called the meeting to order
at 4:05 p.m. with members Charlie Paterson, Josephine Mann, Rick
Head, and Anne Austin present.
CONTINUED HEARING
CASE #85 -2 /CHART HOUSE
Whitaker introduced and read sections from a memo from the city
attorney.
"I would like to make some comments about the variance
granting procedures it gave me some concern while attending
your last meeting. I think our processes have become distorted
for the benefit of applicants and feel compelled to state
the basic premises identified in our code...
The variance is granted to render justice in unique or
individual cases of practical difficulties and unnecessary
hardships resulting from the literal application of the
zoning ordinance...
Without exception the courts have held that proof of unneces-
sary hardship or practical difficulties must be present
before the variance may be granted...
Only after determinations made that practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardships exist, you must determine before you
grant a variance that in addition those four paragraphs..."
He researched cases. He cited a Pennsylvania case in 1965 which
is pertinent:
"A variance is designed as an escape hatch from literal
terms of an ordinance which when strictly applied would deny
a property owner all beneficial use of his land and this
would amount to confiscation."
Whitaker cited a Connecticut case in 1973:
"So they, the regulatory measures do not operate in arbitrary,
unreasonable or confiscatory manner or in any manner which
would be unconstitutional."
Whitaker opened the public hearing. He introduced a former
member of the Board of Adjustment, Fred Smith, who has asked to
appear and present his case.
Fred Smith, an adjacent property owner, represented the owners of
1
Aztec Condominiums located across the street. To his knowledge
be did not receive,,,any notification of this hearing. The clerk
noted the associy,,.on was notified at 131 cast Durant, the
address presented in the application. Smith replied that address
is incorrect. The proper address is:
Aztec Condominium Association
c/o Fred Smith
P.O. Box 1388
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Smith recalled a previous variance awarded to the Chart House in
1973. The case was #73 -6. The Chart House had requested not to
provide sidewalks when the new modern front addition was com-
pleted. The primary concern of the Board at that time had been
the provision for proper trash and utility service area. He read
the motion from the 1973 meeting:
"Lavagnino moved to grant the variance due to the practical
difficulties of the location of the building on the site.
Conditions for granting the approval are one, to construct a
service area on the property with the approval of the city
engineer, and, that the addition not encroach on city
property."
First, the addition does encroach on city property. The service
area was never constructed. The proposed service area the Chart
House agreed to construct is represented on a site plan. (Smith
presented two maps to the Board.) He indicated on the map the
addition the Chart House applied for and built. The steps extend
on the city property. Bill Drueding, building department,
explained steps can encroach on city property 30 inches. Smith
presented photographs of the current situation. One photograph
documented the location of the dumpster. There is an illegally
installed shed. The shed probably does not meet the setback
requirements. An out building in the front yard is illegal.
Smith clarified the Chart house received approval for the 1973
addition with two requirements: the addition not encroach and
the service trash area be built. The Chart House completed the
addition without meeting the requirements. The Chart House
originally requested an exemption from sidewalks. He could not
recall if there had been a parking requirement in 1973. The
minutes of 1973 did not reflect parking. The Chart House had
requested the exemption from the sidewalks because sidewalks
would destroy cottonwoods. Smith had originally suggested
shortly after the 1973 hearing the Chart House construct a
temporary sidewalk with a log in the street. That area is not
(LJl 2
shovelled or maintained. Angle
solves the problem(nf walking up
street.
parking not parallel parking
the hill. Mpny buses use that .
Whitaker requested convincing proof of a unnecessary hardship.
Whitaker clarified his parking suggestion applied to the piece of
property not indicated on the site plan. Pat Trott, architect
for the applicant, argued Whitaker's solution to the parking
problem is unreasonable. she presented a site plan with sketches
to prove her client has a hardship for situating the parking as
proposed by Whitaker. Her client would have to— - remove five aspen
trees -&nd -thr`e fir trees fo -t�ie.--sp.�c�S. The arm - , e -34fy
planted. A con ominium is located adjacent to this proposed
area. Several balconies at the condominium front the area. That
complex is already surrounded on three sides of the condominium.
The owners of those condominiums whose units look over the
landscaped area are partial to that area. They do not want
their view impacted by parking. She presented a photograph of
the existing trees. Head asked if the applicant has any letters
of support from the condominium owners. Trott replied no. But,
she could retrieve an owner of the condominium immediately.
Whitaker noted second -hand testimony is not acceptable. Paterson
asked are there letters of objection. Whitaker answered there
are no letters of objection or support.
Trott continued. Her client is not adding extra dining space.
Her client is not trying to generate more income with extra
dining spaces. Her client is remodeling outdated bathrooms,
increasing office space, and adding employee space. Her client
wants to concentrate his money on the interior remodeling.
Whitaker noted trees can be transplanted. Second, the applicant
enjoys 330 feet of street frontage. Two head -on parking spaces
require 16 feet. The applicant does not have to push the stalls
in 18 feet. The 18 foot requirement applies to parallel parking.
Head -on space is considerably shorter. Trott interjected the city
requires 18 feet. Whitaker replied the Board can grant a variance
on that requirement. Drueding noted the requirement is 8- 1/2x18
feet. He agreed the Board can grant a variance to reduce that
requirement.
Whitaker expressed the public concerns. The Chart House already
received a variance and has not provided any public amenity.
In the area there is no place for people to walk except in the
street. That is extremely hazardous. Sidewalks were never
constructed, even where there were no trees. The guidelines
state that the Board rarely finds practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardships when the applicant appeal is a matter of
�� 3
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Rsgylar Meeting Board of Adjustment March 14 1985
aesthetics or design or economics or if a reasonable legal
alternative is available. He claimed there is a legal reasonable
alternative. Trott disagreed. The alternative is not reasonable.
Locating parking in the view of the condominium owners is unreason-
able. Locating parking as proposed by Whitaker demolishes the
Chart House's only view.
Paterson recalled at the last meeting this situation was settled.
The Board had tabled to allow the attorney to explore other
parking arrangements, for example, renting space elsewhere. At
the last meeting all the members except Whitaker agreed the
parking solution was impractical. He wanted a response from the
attorney, is there a plan. Whitaker argued it was reasonable to
allow Smith to present his case since he was not notified. Head
echoed Paterson's sentiments. The Board agreed Trott did not
have to present the adjacent condominium owners.
Smith conceded the Chart House is the most delightful bar to sit
at and view the private courtyard. But, the Chart House has not
acted in good faith. Trash is located on the street. Plastic is
on the windows. Austin asked can the approval be subject to a
condition to clean the area. Can the previous condition be
incorporated. Can that condition be enforced?
Paterson commented on dumpsters. Very often the trash collectors
move the dumpsters on to the street. The owners are not at
fault. Smith argued the property owner is responsible for
maintaining a shoveled, clean space on the property for the
dumpster.
Austin asked can the Board condition an approval: trade an
exemption from the parking requirement for sidewalks and service
area. Paul Taddune, city attorney, explained the Board should
not be concerned about land use planning matters. The Board
should be concerned about adjudicating the issue not about
negotiating the city's land use .requirements. Either a hardship
or practical difficulty is presented or not. Smith informed
Taddune that as part of the Chart Houses' 1973 approved variance
the Chart House was required to provide an enclosed trash area.
The Chart House has not implemented those conditions. Taddune
clarified the Board can grant a variance based on conditions. He
is concerned the Board may be operating as a planning and zoning
board with discretion. Head clarified the Board directed the
city attorney, the city manager, or the planning commission
to create a benefit package for the city in this particular
case. Paterson argued health, safety, and welfare of the public
come under the Board's jurisdiction. These conditions protect
the public. A service area on the property is necessary. Get
�_�
the trash off the street. Taddune said many times in the past
the applicant has agreed to a condition that is in the public's -
best interest to induce a favorable decision.
Head asked did the city and the applicant agree to anything.
Trott replied she had talked to Uhlfelder. She involved a
contractor on the parking design and on cost. She also talked to
the owners of the Chart House who agreed to building the parking
stalls or to financing a substitute. She did not talk specifics,
e.g, sidewalks. Uhlfelder had reported to her that there were
precedents on this issue.
Head understood the postponement was to allow the city and the
applicant to explore and to present a deal. Mann expanded the
purpose of the delay was to investigate the alternatives. The
applicant was not directed to return with an agreement.
Elyse Elliot, engineering department, reviewed the application.
No definite parking proposal has been submitted. Two on- street
parking spaces are being exchanged for two on -site spaces. That
is superfluous. Whitaker corrected his proposal,. head -on not
parallel, provides two on -site spaces with the loss of only one
on- street space.
Paterson asked Uhlfelder if he had reached any solution for
relocating parking. Uhlfelder repeated the Board is capable
of making a deal. The basis for that determination was the
section of the code he had read last week. This action has been
applied to two cases in the past. Paterson asked did the solution
work, did the applicant actually pay for the parking spaces.
Taddune clarified the Denver -Buick case was a subdivision exaction
case, a landmark land use case. That case is different from the
city's case Whitaker has referred to, Rubey Park. In the later
case the city extracted payments for .parking spaces without
providing the parking spaces.
Whitaker suggested the applicant agree to install a sidewalk
without disturbing the trees. The construction of sidewalks
would compensate the public interest greatly. Walking in the
area of the Chart House is dangerous. This town is suppose to
be pedestrian - oriented. Taddune discouraged the Board encouraging
the applicant to pay for two parking spaces, wherever, in return
for granting a variance. That is not the perogative of the Board
of Adjustment. However, talking about how to best accomplish a
particular zoning result for a particular piece property is
acceptable. If the applicant wants to induce the Board by
agreeing to fit the request to install sidewalks within the
context of the use of his property,. the Board is then within
5
r^
its discretionary powers. Avoid requesting future parking spaces
or contributing cash.
Mann addressed unnecessary hardships and practical difficulties.
She emphasized the accumulation of several small difficulties.
The prominent hardship is the distance of the property line from
the street. Installing two on -site parking spaces at the expense
of losing one on- street space is unreasonable. She would favor
the variance. Austin argued removing. the trees is also unreason-
able. Taddune interjected the applicant will have to apply for a
tree permit for the removal of the trees. He discouraged the
Board waiving the tree permit.
Smith presented another location for the parking stalls. Paterson
said that location fronts large windows. The Commission discussed
this suggestion.
Whitaker closed the public hearing.
Paterson proposed a motion: to grant the variance based on
practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship. Austin asked
if the motion should include a condition on the service area or
the sidewalks. The motion is withdrawn for further discussion.
Head was not ready to vote on the variance without further
information. Something needs to be accomplished with the sidewalks
and the service area. He would then agree to exempt the Chart House
from the two parking spaces. He cannot grant the variance also
because the applicant has not presented a hardship. Austin said
the applicant should approach the Board with a plan for the
service area and the sidewalks. Mann suggested the Board make a
recommendation that the applicant address these two issues, not a
condition. The area could change with the construction of a new
hotel. It will be obvious to the Chart House at that time not to
clutter the street with a dumpster. Paterson agreed Dean Street
will be an important thoroughfare from the hotel. Austin argued
the applicant does not have to comply with a recommendation.
Whitaker favored a condition not a recommendation. The failure to
enforce the previous conditions is the enforcing agency's respon-
sibility, not the Board's fault. Austin repeated the applicant
should return with a plan for the sidewalks and the dumpster
before granting the variance.
Trott requested assistance from the Board on the design. The
Board discussed the location of five foot sidewalks on Dean and
Monarch, e.g., sidewalks can be built off the property near the
curb.- Locate the dumpster off the city property, tightly cover the
dumpster according to code, and screen the dumpster. Trott noted
she will agree to the condition if the Board will define the
location of the five foot sidewalk and the dumpster. Whitaker
directed the applicant to return with a proposal. Indicate on
the plan or elevation the proposal for the dumpster's location.
Smith repeated the applicant should locate the dumpster on the
property according to what works for the applicant. Whitaker
noted the dumpster has to be on casters or positioned for easy
access by the garbage truck. Smith cited the Crystal Palace as a
good example.
Trott asked can the Board vote on the request today with the
present sketch on the plan, with the proposed location of a
screened dumpster, and with an agreement to construct the five
foot sidewalk. She will submit a final drawing later. She preferred
not to postpone the vote.
Motion:
Charlie Paterson moved to grant the variance conditioned upon
replacing the dumpster on the property, screening the dumpster,
and installing a five foot sidewalk off the curb along Dean
Street and Monarch. Seconded by Anne Austin.
1� Discussion. Whitaker asked if a sidewalk should only be constructed
on Dean. Paterson answered yes. Colette Penne, planning office,
noted the lodge improvement district is installing sidewalks in
the area. CCLC is working on a plan for sidewalks throughout
that lodging area. Paterson asked is this request premature.
Perjne replied may be. She does not know how this request fits in
with the improvement district's plan. Whitaker noted a defined,
constructed sidewalk helps avoid encroachments, helps identify
the property line, and helps define the public right -of -way.
Drueding requested a time for complying with the conditions.
Amendment to the Motion:
Paterson amended his motion to read:
"To grant the variance conditioned upon replacing the
dumpster on the property, screening the dumpster, and
installing a five foot sidewalk off the curb along Dean
Street and Monarch, all prior to the issuance of the certi-
ficate of occupancy."
Seconded by Anne Austin.
Discussion. Penne commented the Chart House is landscaped along
�� 1
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 7. 1985
Vice Chairman Francis Whitaker called the meeting to order at
4:03 p.m. with members Anne Austin, Rick Head, Josephine Bann,
and Charlie Paterson present.
MINUTES
Anne Austin moved to defer the minutes to the end of the meeting;
seconded by Rick Head. All in favor; motion carried.
CASE #84-23/FRANK WOODS AND ED RODGER
Rick Head, representing the applicant, requested the case be
postponed for another three weeks because of the city's inaction.
Motion:
Charlie Paterson moved to table case u84 -23 to (larch 28, 1985;
seconded by Josephine Mann. All in favor; motion carried.
Pat Trott, architect for the applicant, presented a notarized
affidavit and photograph of the public notice.
Whitaker read the requested variance:
"Applicant is requesting relief from a requirement of the
Planning and Zoning Commission's approval for expansion of
two additional on -site parking spaces. Section 24 -4.5: the
L -1 zone requires four (4) additional parking spaces per
1,000 square feet of commercial use."
Trott explained the Chart [louse is expanding by 500 square feet.
The code requires the Chart House provides two extra parking
spaces with the expansion. She indicated the location of the two
parallel parking spaces on the site plan (dotted lines). The
Planning and Zoning Commission did not support the two sites.
The law prevents the Commission from waiving the parking spaces.
The applicant needs the Board of Adjustment to approve a variance
from the regulation. The Chart House does not want the parking
spaces. But, if the parking spaces have to be installed, they
will be located as indicated on the site plan (two adjacent
parallel parking spaces on Dean Street).
Mann asked does street side parking exist now. Trott replied an
existing retaining wall interferes with the parking. The owner
will have to move the retaining wall and to provide fill for
street level parking.
Paterson asked who will use the parking spaces. Trott replied
guests or employees.
M
5
Austin asked why did the owner situate the parking spaces at the
proposed angle (parallel). Can the parking be perpendicular?
Trott answered the cars would be located off the property. Whitaker
visited the site this afternoon. He suggested locating the
spaces head -on to accommodate two cars. There is room to park
cars 90 degrees to the street. Only one on- street parking space
would be lost. The snow made it difficult to evaluate the
situation. Bill Drueding, building department, distinguished the
property line and the curb line. Trott repeated the best way to
accommodate the parking is to remove the retaining wall and then
to fill. That action provides the ten feet necessary for the
parking. The present space cannot accommodate Whitaker's proposal.
The Board discussed the pros and cons of various parking alter-
natives and the retaining wall: parallel parking was not accepted.
Austin asked who owns the parking lot (known as Willoughby Park)
referred to by the Commission. The property if it were privately
owned the owner could develop the property could be a problem.
If the city were to own the property there would be no problem.
Austin presented a solution involving city property. Drueding
explained the code requires off- street parking or on- street
parking. Austin's proposal does involve an encroachment which the
City Council grants. Drueding emphasized the Commission cannot
waive the parking requirement because of the code; only the Board
can provide relief.
Whitaker suggested a solution involving platform par in in
lieu of removing and filling the retaining wad- sts, beams,
and planks can be used. This solution removes the cars from the
streets. Drueding noted the problem with this solution: cars
will park alongside the proposed area and will obstruct the cars
parked in the driveway. Whitaker said post no- parking signs
along the driveway. Paterson reasoned this solution eliminates
existing parking and defeats the purpose. Cars cannot park in
front of a driveway, therefore, one parking space is lost.
Whitaker argued one space is lost but two spaces are gained.
Paterson corrected only one space is gained.
Whitaker commented exemptions granted to the provisions of the
code only compound the problem that the code was implemented to
prevent. He applied this reasoning to the present request.
Paterson asked what is the Chart House's hardship. The Board
makes determinations based on the seriousness of hardships.
Trott responded the restaurant already exists with no parking.
The additional square footage enhances the restaurant, dogs, not
increase the capacity, and, therefore,__ doss --not -- Increase the
-aumbbe_r, of cars_. The retaining walls are steep and moving a
retaining wall is hard. Whitaker's proposal disturbs a very nice
landscaped backyard. No parking exists in the backyard. Paterson
asked do the windows face the backyard. Trott answered yes. That
backyard view is the main view. Paterson asked does the addition
consist of windows. Trott answered yes. The new addition
r
Regular Meeting Board of Adjustment March 7. 1985
increases the size of the existing lounge. The bathrooms will be
enlarged and remodeled. Paterson asked does the deck exist.
Trott replied yes. The deck is used during the summer.
Austin noted the proposed parking spaces on Dean Street are a few
feet from a parking lot. Siting two parking spaces close to
a city parking lot is unreasonable. Paterson questioned the value
of the two parking spaces. Most people park in front of the
restaurant not at the rear. May be the parking spaces are for
employees.
Head said the Board must give weight to the Planning and Zoning
Commission's opinion. The Commission has reviewed this case in
detail. Head quoted from the minutes of the P &Z dated February
5, 1985:
"Two -off street spaces are not that desirable..."
The Commission cannot vary the parking requirements of the
law. He quoted Roger Hunt, page six of the minutes:
"The proposed parking solution is poor especially given the
excess parking adjacent to the property during the restau-
rant's hours of operation...
Paterson noted in summary the Commission had no problem with the
use of the parking lot. Head quoted the motion on page seven:
"This variance is recommended by the Commission."
Whitaker understood the Commission had taken the position that
two off- street spaces would eliminate two on- street spaces. The
proposal of the two parallel parking spaces eliminates three on-
street spaces. The access and egress to the parallel parking
spaces have not been considered.
Whitaker asked for public comment. There were no comments.
Whitaker closed the public hearing.
Austin would favor granting the variance based on the Commission's
recommendation and the excess city -owned parking in the area.
Additional off - street parking is unnecessary.
Whitaker asked has the applicant proved a practical difficulty or
hardship. Head replied no, the applicant has not justified the
variance within the Board's parameters of considerations. The Board
must weigh the Commission's recommendation. fie understood the
Commission concluded the
overall general plan No hardship or practical cal difficulty has been
presented.
Mann remarked this case is an accumulation of little practical
difficulties and hardships. The lay of the land and the contours
dictate the parking location and the location is not good. She
� 4 M- " 1 r e 1
questioned the usability of the parking space. The inability to
use the space is a practical difficulty. The applicant is
proposing minor upgrades and changes to the restaurant. The
applicant is not increasing seating capacity. And yet, the law
requires two parking spaces for the minor change and addition.
That is a practical difficulty. The parking solution does
not work well. She repeated city -owned parking is near -by.
Paterson challenged the solution of head -on parking. Backing in
or out of the driveway onto Dean Street, which is narrow, would
be dangerous and impractical. Clearly, the parallel parking
solution represented on the site plan makes no sense. The head -
on solution would not be used. The downhill grade is another
problem. Granting the variance would benefit the city. He would
favor the variance. He concurred with Bann that there are many
small accumulating problems. Siting unsightly and unusable
parking in order to comply with the law is impractical. Whitaker
asked is the situation any more dangerous than any other off - street
parking. Paterson answered backing out on Dean Street may be
dangerous. Dean Street is very narrow. Whitaker argued the
spaces could be leveled.
Whitaker disagreed with the other members. The restaurant
occupies a great deal of property. There are no sidewalks.
There is n4_�treet_�king. Any exemption must be ju— --stii ied.
Every exemption adds another burden to the city. The applicant
has not demonstrated a practical difficulty that cannot be
solved. The applicant has not demonstrated an unnecessary
hardship. The four criteria for granting a variance do not apply
in this case.
Head asked why did P &Z not require the applicant to install
sidewalks in exchange for an exemption from the parking require-
ment. Drueding explained the code required the two parking
spaces based on the amount of the expansion. The Commission
is not authorized to trade parking spaces for a sidewalk. This
Board is the only board empowered to change the parking require-
ment. Paterson recalled the city attorney at the last meeting
had told the Board that it could not make deals in exchange
for a variance. Drueding introduced Mark Uhlfelder, assistant
city attorney. Drueding questioned whether or not the Commission
can waive an exemption from a code requirement in exchange for a
sidewalk. This Board, not the Commission, grants the relief. This
Board can waive the code requirement. But, he understood the
Board cannot waive a requirement in exchange, for example, a
sidewalk. The Board only can condition approvals. Uhlfelder
explained the Board cannot make deals, making deals overreaches
the Board's authority. Whitaker asked at what point in con-
struction would the Chart House be required to install sidewalks
for a certificate of occupancy. Drueding did not know if the
code required certain zones to install sidewalks for a CO. He
referred Whitaker to the engineering department.
Paterson repeated and summarized Colette Penne's recommendation
• 1 • 0 �y
Regular Meeting Board of Adiustment March 7 IM
that requiring two additional spaces is inappropriate. Whitaker
argued the P &Z based its decision on the parallel parking solution,
not on the head -on proposal. Paterson cited from the Commission's
minutes John Gilmore and the Hotel Jerome. Gilmore had obligated
himself to sixty stalls in a "some -day" parking garage. He quoted:
"Consider a letter of agreement stating if and when the city
wants the two stalls, the Chart House shall provide the stalls."
Whitaker recalled the city had attempted to establish off -site
parking at P,ubey Park for new construction. The city had required
stores to participate in this parking project in exchange for a
building permit. People proceeded to receive building permits
and to build. Those people subsequently sued the city, the city
returned the money for the parking fund, and the applicants built
without providing parking. This suggestion is dangerous.
Whitaker asked is off- street parking not required of commercial
buildings in the commercial core. Drueding answered yes. Also
residential units in the commercial core are usually exempted
from the requirement. Paterson noted the Chart house is located
in the L -1 zone district. If the Chart House were located
downtown in the commercial core, the zone would not require the
parking.
Whitaker argued the Board should not make its decision based on
the fact that the parking spaces will not be used or backing out
of the driveway will be difficult. The applicant has to prove
hardship. The Board must uphold the zoning ordinance unless
a hardship is demonstrated.
Head asked can the city make an arrangement with the applicant
for the later to buy spaces in a future parking lot. Uhlfelder
replied the Board of Adjustment either grants or denies a variance.
The Board is limited in its ability to attach conditions on the
variance. The limitation is prescribed in Section 2- 22(c)(8),
page 156 of the Municipal Code:
"The Board of Adjustment, in granting a variance, may prescribe
appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the
zoning laws of the city violation of which shall be deemed a
violation of this section."
Head interpreted the Board could condition the variance. Uhlfelder
remarked the condition being considered would not be construed as
in conformity with the zoning laws of the city. The section is
very vague.
Austin reasoned if the Board denies the variance, the city loses
t one on- street parking space, and consequently only gains one
additional parking space. The intent of the law is to gain two
spaces.
Whitaker asked what are the practical difficulties, unnecessary
hardships, the special conditions, the special extraordinary
circumstances, that granting a variance is essential to the
• - fir++. ,.eP�
'r y 1• i• • • • u'1 y
enjoyment of a substantial property right and does not affect the
general purpose of the comprehensive plan.
Mann referred to the P &Z minutes. In addition to saying the
proposed parking solution was poor, mr. Hunt had talked about Dean
Street, the area's potential development, and the hotel's develop-
ment.
Uhlfelder interjected he just discussed the situation with Paul
Taddune, city attorney. Taddune had said it may be possible to
make a deal. The best solution now is for Uhlfelder to research
the basis for such action. The possibility exists to make some
sort of trade -off: install sidewalks in exchange for the parking
spaces, or to provide parking spaces elsewhere, etc. Head
encouraged the city and the applicant to pursue this approach.
Does the applicant have the time to pursue thi:._ _izwered
the Chart House wants to begin construction as soon as the skiing
season ends, around April 15th. The Chart House needs to submit
drawings for a building permit. Can the applicant proceed while
the attorney researches the issue? If so, the applicant might be
agreeable to a parking arrangement. She added Crested Butte
instituted an ordinance allowing someone who cannot provide a
specific parking space to contribute a playing field or other
land for parking. Head asked is a decision by March 28th acceptable
to the applicant. Drueding said he can issue a building permit
but has to hold the CO until the parking issue is resolved.
Trott accepted Drueding's proposal.
Paterson emphasized again excess parking is available adjacent to
the restaurant during its hours of operation. The proposed
parking solution is poor. The property is sloped and not conducive
to level parking. Constructing a retaining wall is not practical
especially with the adjacent empty city parking. This is not
sensible. Austin suggested the Chart House advertise the parking
lot in the rear. The proposed solution is not sensible. why
construct a retaining wall and obstruct the windows and decks?
Head asked is Whitaker amenable to a parking arrangement between
the applicant and the city. Whitaker answered he will consider
any thing that is reasonable. Currently, it is difficult to see
the site because of the snow. Head asked can Uhlfelder respond to
this issue within a week. Uhlfelder replied yes.
Motion:
Rick Head moved to table this case until March 14, 1985; seconded
by Charlie Paterson.
Discussion. Austin asked should the Board move to approve the
variance first. Paterson argued that action might preclude the
city and the applicant from making some arrangement. Head argued
the Board should have as much input on the parking arrangement
before it makes a decision. Let the city attorney and the applicant
explore the alternatives.
FA
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CHART HOUSE CONDITIONAL USE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
April 22, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M., before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in City Council Chambers,
City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to amend a prior
conditional use approval for the purpose of recognizing the
greater seating capacity which has been put into the restaurant
and to mitigate the effects of that expansion.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Co 81611 (303) 925 -202. ext. 223.
&/Welton Anderson
Chairperson, Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on March 20, 1986.
City of Aspen Account.
I
\�\
\ ^�\
LL
Z
\
�
\ \. %
Fq
4J
0
~\
CD
04 CD
Q)
Z
I hereby certify that on this //_"' day of�� %��
198 &� a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing
was deposited in the United States mail, first -class post-ace prenaid.
to the adjacent property owners as indicated on the attached list of
adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Plannaing Office by
the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice.
f "bA
4�
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CHART HOUSE CONDITIONAL USE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
April 22, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M., before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in City Council Chambers,
City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to amend a prior
conditional use approval for the purpose of recognizing the
greater seating capacity which has been put into the restaurant
and to mitigate the effects of that expansion.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Co 81611 (303) 925 -202. ext. 223.
s/_ elton Anderson
Chairperson, Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on March 20, 1986.
City of Aspen Account.
THE CHART HOUSE
Steaks - Seafood - Prime Rib
March 12, 1986
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
This letter is to acknowledge that Mr. Thomas Wells represents CHE
Inc. dba The Chart House regarding the remodel of the Aspen Chart House
restaurant.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call.
Sincerely,
J n M. Minola
Corporate Counsel /Assistant Secretary
JMM /ssk
CITE Inc. dba The Chart House
115 S. Acacia Ave., Solana Beach. CA 92075 • Telephone (619) 755 -8281
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Zoning Inspection Officer
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Chart House Conditional Use
DATE: March 17, 1986
Attached for your review is an application submitted by Tom Wells
on behalf of the Chart House requesting an amendment to the prior
conditional use approval granted to the Chart House. The purpose
of the amendment is to recognize the greater seating capacity
which has been put into the restaurant and to mitigate the
effects of that expansion.
Please review this application and return your referral comments
to the Planning Office no later than April 8th in order for this
office to have adequate time to prepare for its presentation at a
public hearing before the P &Z on April 22, 1986.
Thank you.
Recorded at. ._....2.. 0......_....o'clock._.. P_.. M., .April ...?3, 1973......
Reception No.... F ,19 Peggy E 1•fiklich ....... Recorder.
...................
RECORDER'S STAMP
THIS DEED, Made this 2nd day of January ,
1973 , between THE CHART HOUSE CORPORATION, a
Colorado Corporation, of the first part, and
HERBERT P.BALDERSON as to an undivided 1 /3'in-
terest, ALFRED E. BET, as to an undivided 1/3
Ekthez Loaxtw • s Sf rxtz���
YLt€133Ri 21f'$G2H't,34: interest, and JOSEPH B.
CABELL, as to an undivided 1/3 interest,
of the
STkTE 6CCRNTI.RY FEE
APn 1 °73
2 v)
County of and State of Colorado, of the second I
part;
WITNESSETH, That the said part y ofrthe first part, for and in consideration of the sum
Of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND and 00 /100 ($150,000.00) Dollars,
and other valuable considerations,
to the said part y of the first part, in hand paid by the said part ies of the second part, the
receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, ha s granted, bargained, sold and conveyed,
and by these presents do e s grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the said part ies of
the second part, their heirs and assigns forever, all the following described lot or parcel
of land, situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State of
Colorado, to wit:
Lot 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 3, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite
of Aspen, Colorado, which property is also described as Lots 6, 7
8 and 9, Block 3, Eames Addition to the City and Townsite of Aspen
and also that part of Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9 within the City and Town -
site of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
Together with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in any-
wise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and
profits thereof; and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever, of the said
part y of the first part, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with I
the hereditaments and appurtenances; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bar-
gained and described, with the appurtenances, unto HERBERT P. BALDERSON, ALFRED
E. BENT and JOSEPH B. CABELL the said part ies of the second part, their
heirs and assigns forever.
AndthKm4d THE CHART HOUSE CORPORATION, a Colorado Corporation
part y of the first part, for it sel f I heirs, executors and
administrators, do es covenant, grant, bargain and agree to and with the said parties of the
second part, their heirs and assigns, the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable
possession of said part ies of the second part, their heirs and assigns, against all and every
person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, by, through or under
the said part y of the first part to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said part y of the first part ha s hereunto set its
hand and seal the day and year first above written.
Signed, Seale5 and Delivered in the presence of THE.. . HART... HOUSE --- CM_CR_ -. [SEAL]
n ATION 4h Colorado Corporationjl
�/.... -... y.L... BY. :_ T 7 CGL [SEAL]
Secretary Fresident
_....... -.. - ...... °- - °° ............................................................ [SEAL]
STATE OF COLORADO,
Count�af
The foregoing. instiiiment Rai. acknowledged before me this :21-- day of
1973 kr'_ HERBERT -P'- `BALDERSON, as President, and attested by
ALFRED' BENT; ";as,SeCretary of THE CHART HOUSE CORPORATION, a
Colorada_corporationi
�,�- zF' 19 .7 3 . Witness m hand and.official seal.
My commis sion Bapires `. C }} 9 2' �..............�.r„n. i... .
..... _.......... - �.�.`... r oL
or persons here Insen name or names ;yyIf by person acting in representative or official capacity or as
nfnaueh officer or as executor, thetpresident or other officers of such corporatln, naming ottic3tatuto p
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -1766
ADJACENT O14NERS LIST -- CHARTHOUSE RESTAURANT- -LOTS 6,7,8,9, BLK. 3, EAMES
1. CITY OF ASPEN
130 S. GALENA ST.
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
2. AUGUSTUS FELTON & MARGERY L. HALLUM
410 SOUTH ASPEN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
3. RICHARD D. & HELEN R. SCALES SABBATINI
c/o HOLLAND & HART
600 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
4. JOHN P. KLEINER
55 SECOND STREET
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO 80906
5. MARGERY A. KLEINER
P.O. BOX 4191
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
6. EFFIE M. ECKLUND LERNER
221 N. KENILWORTH AVE.
OAK PARK, ILLINOIS 60302
7. MAX E. & JAYNE FRANCES FREEMAN
P.O. BOX 1180
1520 WEST CAMINO URBANO
GREEN VALLEY, ARIZONA 85622
8. JOHN DOLINSEK & FRANK DOLINSEK JR.
P.O. BOX 275
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
9. PRESTON H. & CLAUDIA R. HILL
3910 S. HILLCREST DR.
DENVER, COLORADO 80237
10. DONALD L. & SANDRA S. FEINSTEIN
1415 WINDRUSH CIRCLE
BLACKLICK, OHIO 43004
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -1766
11. GENTRY REAL ESTATE CORPORATION
310 ELLIS BLVD.
JEFFERSON CITY, MISSOURI 65101
12. RAYMOND E. & EMILY M. LOCHHEAD
1018 RUSSELL BLVD.
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 63104
13. PATRICK A. SMITH
P.O. BOX 688
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MICHIGAN 48013
14. FRED G. SMITH
P.O. BOX 1388
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
15. LEROY G. PAAS
228 EAST COOPER AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
16. ASPEN MANOR LODGE, LTD.
411 SOUTH MONARCH STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
17. JOHN H. ROBERTS, JR.
P.O. BOX CC
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
18. COMMERCE SAVINGS ASSOCIATION OF ANGLETON TEXAS
SUITE 1350
111 SOLEDAD
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205
19. MOUNTAIN CHALET ENTERPRISES, INC.
333 EAST DURANT AVE.
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
20. OLIVER S. & MARY JEAN TRAVERS
SUITE 304
106 WEST PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
TOWSON, MARYLAND 21204
21. ROGER M. & DIXIE H. DIXON
COTTON EXCHANGE BUILDING
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201
�� AB
�ef r
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -1766
22. NORVA M. BRAY
CONDO 1 -J,
205 EAST DURANT AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
23. PAUL E. & SUSAN W. PENN
9505 COPLEY DRIVE
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA 46260
24. CHARLES E. BAKER, JR. & BARBARA M. PRITCHARD
333 EAST 75th
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10551
25. SOUTH POINT - SUMNER CORPORATION
4828 FORT SUMNER DRIVE
BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20816
26. SOUTH PIONT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
205 EAST DURANT AVE.
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
27. RICHARD J. & ANN S. GARRETT
405 ALLENS CREEK ROAD
ROCHESTER, NEW YORK 14618
28. FRANK & VIRGINIA HARDISON
1211 EMERALD BAY
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92651
29. PHILIP G. HERSHBERGER
2737 CLUB TERRACE
FORT WAYNE, INDIANA 46804
30. NANCY KULLGREN
UNIT 2 -C,
205 EAST DURANT AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
31. BRYNMAWR NEWPORT COMPANY
c/0 DON GIFFORD, C.P.A.
SUITE 507,
500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -1766
32. ELSA FISCHER, MARTHA FISCHER & FRIEDA FISCHER
525 WEST HALLAM
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
33. FRANK KONST
APT. 104,
BAY TREE CONDOMINIUM
8635 MIDNIGHT PASS ROAD
SIESTA KEY, SARASOTA, FLORIDA 33581
34. KARL HEFLEY
607 OCEAN DRIVE, #11K
KEY BISCAYNE, FLORIDA 33149
35. HUGH S. & JENNIFER M. HATCHER
191 RACE STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80206
36. SALLY RAE GLENN
504 WEST HALLAM
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
37. DAVID COURTNEY EVANS
X1201
199 MARLBOURGH STREET
BOSTON, MASS. 02116
38. HELEN ZOLLER
NORTE 45, 11 633
MEXICO 15, D.F.
39. ELIZABETH B. FISHER
61 GREEN VALLEY ROAD
PITTSFORD, NEW YOK 14534
40. CHARLES M. SCHAYER, III & KAREN JANE HORTON
588 SO. PONTIAC WAY
DENVER, COLORADO 80224
41. CARL F. & HELEN J. LEVY
937 DALE ROAD
MEADOWBROOK, PENNSYLVANIA 19046
42. LTC. C.M. SCHROEDER, JR. & BETTY ANN SCHROEDER
937 DALE ROAD
MEADOWBROOK, PENNSYLVANIA 19046
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -1766
43. WILBERT T. WOODSON JR. & TATJANA D. WOODSON
P.O. BOX 9708
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
44. MRS. MAUDE M. TWINING, ARTHUR HAROLD & FREDNA STROMBERG
c/o MRS. TWINING
205 EAST DURANT AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
45. HAROLD V. & LINDA M. VAN TONGEREN
TWO THOUSAND CHEESMAN EAST
200 EAST 12th AVENUE
DENVER, COLORADO 80206
46. TERRY A. MITCHELL
JAY C. SCHUPPERT
UNIT 1 -H, SOUTHPOINT CONDOMINIUMS
205 EAST DURANT AVE.
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
47. RICHARD & GERALDINE M. BOUNDY
906 W. SUGNET ROAD
MIDLAND, MICHIGAN 48640
48. RAYMOND DALE STUHL & EDWARD L. BROWN
P.O. BOX 604
ISLE, ILLINOIS 60532
49. STANLEY G. ANTON
70 LINCOLN DRIVE
SAUSILITO, CALIFORNIA 94965
50. HUBERT C. HIGH, EDWARD DE PINTO, JOHN F. GURY & WILLIAM ANDY HAYS
D.B.A. H.H.G.D.A.
c/o GAYLON WEAVER
P.O. BOX 2243
GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81502
51. GEORGE W. CALKINS
5100 E. QUINCY AVE,
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80110
52. BENJAMIN B. CASSIDAY, JR.
5621 KALANIANOLE HIGHWAY
HONOLULU, HAWAII 96821
53. SHU -YUAN & MIN -CHUN CHU & CHI -KANG & NANCY LU
1357 CENTURY AVENUE
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92506
54. STANLEY J. BARBARA W. CRISTOL
2918 3rd STREET
BOULDER, COLORADO 80302
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -1766
55. ADAM M. ARON
APARTMENT 22V
30 LINCOLN PLAZA
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10023
56. DAVID A. & SANDRA L. MULKEY
213 CAMPBELL DRIVE
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89107
57. THOMAS W. & KAY L. McCONNEL
4603 GREENSBORO
TROY, MICHIGAN 48090
58. ROBERTO ALVARADO RIOS
c/o COFRE DE PEROTE 325 -302
LOMAS DE CHAPULTREPEC
CODIBO POSTAL 11000
MEXICO D.F., MEXICO 10010
59. C.W. LANGFORD, JR. & LANE LANGFORD
1300 TODD BRIDGE ROAD
OWENSBORO, KENTUCKY 42301
60. LYNN W. REED
6434 RIO GRANDE, N.W.
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87107
61. ROARING FORK PROPERTIES
604 BRIER STREET
KENILWORTH, ILLINOIS 60043
62. FRED G. SMITH
P.O. BOX 1388
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612
63. JOHN M. STEPHENS
APT. 208
6744 HILLPARK DRIVE
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90068
64. FRANK D. & DONNA T. WIBERDING
F.D.W. PROPERTIES
20630 HARPER AVENUE
HARPER WOODS, MICHIGAN 48225
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -1766
65. DONALD W. WILSON
679 KISKATOM LANE
MANDEVILLE, LOUISIANA 70448
66. ROBERT T. WARSTLER
17421 RIVERHILL DRIVE
DALLAS, TEXAS 75252
67. MILTON ZALE, EDWIN C. GLICKMAN & BENN JAMES JACOBSON
c/o NORTH TOWNE CONSTRUCTION
2536 NORTH HALSTED STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60613
68. RICHARD L. FRIEDMAN
175 FEDERAL STREET, SUITE 500
BOSTON, MASS. 02110
69. JOEL WUGALTER
245 EAST 54th STREET
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10022
70. DEAN & SYLVIA VANDER WALL
531 EAST POST
LONE PINE, CALIFORNIA 93545
71. VERA JEAN KNOWLTON, JUDY KNOWLTON, KAY KNOWLTON & JOY KNOWLTON
SUITE 31,
2552 EAST ALAMEDA
DENVER, COLORADO 80209
72. DAVID C. KNOWLTON
APARTMENT 953B,
460 SOUTH MARION PARKWAY
DENVER, COLORADO 80222
73. ROANE M. LACY, JR.
P.O. BOX 887,
WACO, TEXAS 76703
74. GILBERT WALTERS
2540 SOUTH TAMIAMI TRAIL
SARASOTA, FLORIDA 33579
75. ALLAN P. LECHARD
1002 BUCKINGHAM ROAD
GROSSE POINTE PARK, MICHIGAN 48230
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -1766
76. L. DUNCAN SMITH, CONNIE J. MOAK & PETER T. CHINGOS
APT. 30
419 EAST 57th STREET
NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10022
77. ROBERT W. O'CONNOR & CATHERINE L. O'CONNOR
P.O. BOX 1357
SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46621
78. MARVIN R. & DIANE W. BANTON
9600 RED GATE ROAD
RIVER RIDGE, LOUISIANA 70123.
/
2
1 r zo J
♦ ? r �i
�Oar
�r
♦tea. - .� /� r � m ° - Vl` r r�� � � L O
IF
e r I •J M c I v
'tl h
aN4R�M'�
R ET
� a
a�
y�
r /
a
ag
Oy=
m=
v UZ I
�T o tlO a • S C
8
r
PI a ( t
y p
SoUTN G4
4 �P `E N4 ST
r
u o0 o� f hN
t
Uloo.oa ,{ Y
O R s
2r° 2g o
® � a
I ENTER
�-
1 ® Y]
0
11j s m °
G4LEN4
STREET
2
G
STREET
0 4
♦ OI
N
CaRMIS�M
STRE
®t
o O I o
0
la nn
4SPEN
tr ". ',. SHEET
60
C47;--ip
A
a
rpill
ASPEN /PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -2020
-Tow. wt \�S
Go • ca b 0
RE: L\,,,.� l,o•�,.�- o,...\
Dear
mow
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of your application for complete-
ness. we have determined that your application
_. is complete.
is not complete.
The additional items we will require are as follows:
v/ Disclosure of ownership (one copy only needed) .
✓ — Adjacent property owners list (one copy onl needed).
Additional copies of entire application.
Authorization by owner for representative to submit
application.
Response to the attached list of items demonstrat-
ing compliance with the applicable policies and
regulations of the Code, or other specified materials.
A check in the amount of $ is due.
A. Since your application is complete, we have scheduled it
for review by the on
We will be calling you if we need any additional information
prior to that date. In any case, we will be calling you
several days prior to your hearing to make a copy of the
review memorandum available to you. Please note that it
(is) (is not) your responsibility to post your property with
a sign, which we can provide you.
B. Since your application is incomplete, we have not
scheduled it for public review at this time. When we have
received the materials we have requested, we will be happy
to place you on the next available agenda.
d
Please feel free to call '--I *c `^ 5"W-t^ , who is the planner
assigned to this case, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
AS EN PITRIN PLANNING OFFICE
Alan Richman, Planning and
Development Director
AR: j1r
To A.M.
'�t A.M.
Date Time P.M.
WHIL� YOULWERE OUT
From r b ,60A /
Of
Ph
Message r4N ]�-v f
nh+ �7r►��eii w1 �iN ' 0 ��,�
Notes
Signed
• He -order No. 7 -92001
100 S. Schaller Road • P.O. Box 4700 • Lincolnshire, IL 80197 -4700
-xN