The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutlanduse case.boa.601 E Durant Ave.012-83 -. :.'::.~,T:::~-~,~:I?3.';? ,.~,j"iLi;,~':;:~C:~';,,!:;~C~::;~~:JJ~T';:~~;;Z!'Z~:J:~:;: ;~';J7.' _ "",<",...":"..~~~,~T'.~~.~~~:'.C',c ',-{ l:i;~,;:~,::';'.~~i';~~'~;'t}~;\~~ ~.>~::rs,:!:~' '~:'X~,',~. ~;., {;/<:.;",'~,:.' '.~. , ,.-" .- .' . ~. ......-. .......<.,..: NanCE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No.#83-12 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUST~ffiNT TO ALL PROPERTY OvrnERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOH: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of Jun~ 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council ROvm, City Hall, Aspen, Colo- rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state.. yorrviews by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Heeting: Date: September IS, 1983 Time: 4:00 p.m:. Thursday ~e and address_of Applicant for Variance: Name: Stanford Johnson Address: Box 406, Aspen, Colorado 81612 Location or description of property: b Location: 601 East Durant Avenue, Aspen, Colorado ~escription: Tract of land located in westerly ~ vacated Hunter Street from Durant Avenue southerly to Aspen townsite line. Variance Requested: Subject lot is zone C-Conservation. Lot size 10 acre. Setbacks Front-IOO', Side-30', Rear-30'. Lot width 400'. The subject lot appears to be 7,142sq ft. Setback requirements would prohibit construction of a single family residence. Applicant.appe~rs to be asking for relief from all the setback requirements of the. C-ZOl1.J..U(1 d.1.str~ct. ' Dura~~on o~ ~ar~ance: (Please cross out one) ~ Permanent THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY Remo Lavaqnino, Chairman Sally B. Hanes, Deputy City Clerk iv' .. . CONDOMINIUM RENTAL MANAGEMENT. INC. 747 South Galena Street Aspen. Colorado 81611 (303) 925.2260 Managing .AQent fOl' . Fasching Hous . Rfth Avenue . A1penblick . Tipple Inn . Durant . Tipple Lcx:lge October 1, 1983 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RECEIVED SEP 3 0 1983 ~ To the Board of Adjustment, We, the owners of the Tipple Inn Condominium, located at 505 East Dean Street, would like to express our objection to the proposed variance in the setback requirements for the lot situated between the North of Nell Building and the Ski Company ticket office. We feel that the proposed construction project would adversely impact the building density and traffic conjestion of the Little Nell area. Sincerely, Tipple Inn Condominium Owners l-D15~iTI)-~O-~W~m1;n , nc"-- " "WJi H '\11 , 'I! I'" "p Q i .i,l SEP ,j J 1.,83 iiU ej(:.......___._.___...__jl!. ASPEN I PITKIN CO. PLANNING OFFICE Pr-tEIVEO OCT 0 319cJ ~, PR~~f~1 Bl ~Vf~lmf~1 [~mPB~Y (313) 524-2211 1100 OWEN DALE, SUITE 0 TROY, MICHIGAN 48084 September 28, 1983 City of Aspen Board of Jldjustment Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Board Members: Charles H. Hopton, Managing Agent, North of Nell Condaninimn Association, and also a property owner of a unit in the sane c:<:trplex, expressed our position and concerns in a letter to you dated September 15, 1983, a copy of which is hereto attached. I want to add my voice to the list of those protesting the erection of a new structure next to North of Nell. It 'WOuld change a beautiful apartment into a dungeon, reduce the number of renters, eliminate any view I nON have, create darkness where before there was light and a view -- a gorgeous view. Location and view was what made my apartment so valuable and so luxurious. If the new structure goes up, my apartment will becane another "hole in the wall". I respectfully urge you to turn down the request of a variance. Very truly yours, j 'n, ) . ~.-::t~'C'-~ Si'&!iy I Kat Unit 2-N North of Nell SK:ek enc. . ,// / - September 15, 1983 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Board Members, I am here today as a property owner whose permanent residence is right on the west line of the applicant property. I am also representing, as Managing Agent, the North of Nell Condominium Association and the 57 members of that Association. To ~l<p1ain our position and concerns regarding this application, I would like to bring to your attention certain facts related to this property. 1. In the ordinance dated Oct. 6, 1947 vacating South Hunter Street, Section 2 states" reserving to the City of Aspen at all times the right to construct, maintain, and remove sewers, ditches, open canals, water pipes, and appurtenances, and to authorize the construction, maintenance, and removal of the same therein and therefrom, and subject to the continued right of the owners to maintain and operate existing electric light and power lines, telephone lines, gas mains, water mains, and pipelines". 2. A deed from the City of Aspen to Toni and Ilse Woerndle, dated Feb. 23, 1968, describing this piece of property, which states "subject, however to the easements of the City of Aspen for the construction, maintenance, and operation of electric light and power lines, telephone lines, gas mains, water mains, and other similar pipe lines and appurtenances. 3. An easement dated Oct. 6, 1960 to the City of Aspen to con- struct, maintain, and repair a water line. Although this right is provided for in the Oct. 6, 1947 ordinance, the pipeline goes over other property as well, so all of the affected properties are listed. 4. A deed from the Aspen Skiing Corporation to Daly Construct- ion, dated July 3, 1968. This deed is for the West 8 feet of the Westerly one-half of South Hunter Street, and the North 10 feet of the East 15 feet of the Westerly one-half of South Hunter Street. With this transaction, the owners of the prop- erty sold 950 square feet of a 3750 square foot lot, thereby voluntarily creating a non-conforming lot. At the time this lot was zoned C1, with a minimum lot size of 3000 square feet. The same deed also conveyed "a non-exclusive right of way for ingress and egress over and across the Westerly one-half of vacated South Hunter Street. 5. An easement dated July 13, 1971, from Stanford H. Johnson to the Aspen Skiing Corporation, conveying " a perpetual ease- ment over and across the land described in exhibit "c", attached hereto and made a part hereof, for pedestrian ingress and egress between Durant Street and the Little Nell Ski Area, owned by th~ Aspen Skiing Corporation. The minimum width of said easement is 14 feet." All of these easements and encumbrances are filed in the County courthouse and were either in effect prior to or con- veyed by the applicant when he acquired the property. The City of Aspen, the Skiing Corporation, and North of Nell Condominium Association are all using these easements and intend to continue doing so. Sincerely, ~#~ Charles H. Hopton l -- "-' -- ,~ SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE JAMES H. DELMAN 8. JOSEPH KRABACHER RICHARD J. DELACENSERIE' NANCY J. DELACENSERIE' PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 8161 I TELEPHONE (303) 925.8700 JEFFREY H. SACHS HERBERT S. KLEIN JON DAVID SEIGLE October 24, 1983 'ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ONLY HAND DELIVERED Mr. Gary Esary City Attorney's Office Aspen City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Stanford Johnson Dear Gary: In accordance with our telephone conversation today I confirm that I have requested an extension of the public hearing before the Board of Adjustment until December 15, 1983. Mr. Johnson and I will use the extension period as additional time in which to develop further title information pertaining to the property which is the subject of the application to the Board. Thank you for your courtesy in extending the foregoing extension to us. Very truly yours, SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE( '" 11 '\ I 1// By , , , , JHS/nlw Co...6cit"?,3 - I l SPEN ree t '1611 o Paul J. Taddunc City Attorney October 28, 1983 Gary S. Esary Assistant City Attorney Jeffrey H. Sachs, Esq. Sachs, Klein & Seigle 201 North Mi 11 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Stanford Johnson, Case No. 83-12 Peggy Carlson Administrative Assistant Dear Jeff: The Board of Adjustment at its meeting of October 27, 1983, continued the public hearing on the referenced matter to 4:00 p.m., Thursday, January 19, 1984, in the City Council Chambers. At the meeting, I presented your request for a continuance to December 15, 1983, but the Board was unable to set a meeting for that date because of the likely absence of a number of its members. Also at the meeting, I called your office to confirm a new date, but was informed that you were on vacation until November 9th. Please let me know if the new date is convenient for you and your client. If not, we can either appear on January 19 and get a new date or pick another date and re-notice. . Gary S. Esa Assistant City Attorney GSE/fs cc: Gideon Kaufman/ASC Charles H. Hopton/North of Nell Lou Buettner/Engineering Department Bill Drueding/Building Department Sally Hanes/File~ ............--.....__~~,__...,;...._.....:..... _ .~__.................. .._..~.&..'::a.._,""'"'+'''''''''~'_''''''.''' . -' - . - "-"'---' . " anything I ~ ~ I SU:' ,.rc%o:'t Nort!'. ~, ~', 87U Regular l-teetinq Aspen City Council October 27. 1975 ..._1...._-.--.. __..._.....________... ........_____....__._.._.._..,......._______.____...._..1_ ......_--- -.-.-.....-.-.-.... -...-.--. .-.--..--...--...-----..-.'...--... derogation of the proposed changes, Ms. Stuller would object to this approval. The planning office is taking the position that this does not set a precedent because there is only one other project in these circumstances.. Mayor Standley stated this would not release the next parcel of land to the west of this project from the new changes. . .-: Councilman Behrendt asked why Aspen Savings and Loan had taken out the drive-up window. Kane explained this project had corne through P , Z as a conditional use in the office zone. The concern at that time was that a full service bank would become a CC zone . Use. Kane added the planning office was taking a very militant stance on drive-in anything in Aspen. Councilman Parry said he would like to approve this project as originally presented .with garden level open space rather than street level open space. City Attorney Stuller said that would present difficulties. If the Council if going to approve Aspen SaVings , Loan on that basis, then Council must defeat the Ordinance presented tonight which requires open space be at grade level. This open space at grade level change is a zoning code change and does not affect the subdivision review. If the City is going to have administrative delay, we will assume Meeker will get his building permit before the code change. That is not necessarily the case about this code change in grade level. ~he permit time is cut off time. Council cannot give Meeker immunity from zoning changes in the future. Councilman De Gregorio moved to approve final plat as it; seconded by'Councilwoman Johnston with the added conditions of the city engineer. All in favor, motion carried. COLUMBINE CONDOMINIUMS - Conceptual Subdivision Review The planning office presented this project and told Council it will be a five unit condominium at Original and Hopkins on the southeast corner. The.lot is zoned R/MF. and the planning office anticipates full compliances with the zoning regulations. The planning office told Council this is only conceptual approvel. The floor plan may be an issue later on as the area scems to be large. The planning office said they did not feel it was appropriate at this time to deal with the floor plan. Hal Clark noted that this is not an area the planning office is considering a zoning .change on. Planner Kane reminded Council the question is the suitability of the land for subdivison, which is platted lots and blocks in the City of Aspen. Councilman Behrendt moved to approve Conceptual Subdivison review; seconded by Council- woman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried. SUNNY PARK - Exemption from Subdivision Hal Clark told Council this application for subdivision exemption was for a project currently under construction in the Park Circle Area. When Costley applied for a certificate of occupancy, it was discovered that the building permit was issued in error. iClayton Meyring, building inspector, had submitted a memorandum to Council explaining the events in this error. Clark told Council it was important to note that this is an apartment. house; Costley is not asking for condorniniumization. This project had started before the new regu- lations require that a multi-family dwelling go through subdivision review. This was referred to P & Z for their consideration. On October 21, 1975, the P & Z recommended that subdivision exemption be granted but that a subdivision plat be recorded for the property. Mayor Standley pointed out that this does not affect in terms of dedication because it is only a four-unit dwelling. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to approve the exemption for this project; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY rn~ED BY STAN JOHNSON Chuck Brandt, representing the owner of this property, told Council this land is presently zoned C, conservation. Brandt had done a map for Council to illustrate the piece of property and what is being requested. Last spring~before the City did the downzoning, this property was zoned C-I, as was the land to the east and west. It was proposed to zone this property C, conservation. This request is to point out the mis- undcrtanding and failure to take into account consideration of the property status. This piece of property is Hunter Street vacated and 100 by 75 feet wide. It was believed when the planning office recommended this be zoned C, conservation from C-l there were certain recreational easements to.the Ski Corp. It was also believed by the olanning office that there were other conveyances that made the entire property wdevelopable. Brandt demonstrated for Council the easements and conveyances. There is an easement to the City of Aspen for a water line and pump house. This is off the property; it runs north and south and is 30 feet east of the property line. There ~s an easement to the Aspen Ski Corp which gives them ingress for access to the mounta~n, it is 14 feet in width. There is a wood deck for access to' the ticket office. The Ski Corp has agreed they will release the easement in exchange for a more accessible place to that land. Brandt pointed out the planning office also thOU9h~ the N~rth of Nell trash area projected nto the property; but it does not. Brandt stated that this piece of land is 30 fe~t bY 100 feet with only one casement, which the Ski Corp had agreed to release on certdln conditions. Brandt.said it strikes him that the conservation zone does not really applY to this property. Brandt told Council he had spoken with an appraiser. Cool property from 1971 to 1973 wa~' $6.67 a square foot to $13.33 a square foot and more recently up to $20 a square foot"d Br~ndt was requestinq that Council initiate an appropriate rezoning status. Brandt sal he w~s aw~rc of activities to look into rezoining certain areas and felt it would be llppropriale to. request Council to rezone this property to some corr~crcial status. ...... ......._._.~ .-..-.....,................. ---.-....-.... .....___._.... ...-......-..--.....,........1' ,.,-"-"'-'-'-'~' -" ,. , CoL. Cor..: . Sum:': 1 ~ I l ",.~ ~..tl n9 :., ;.::..::.-..:-- .. ..:trraul . . t".~nslon '- r..:aUon I It. , ",1975 ,. .J Chang s I I "I '. ,1975 ,.'t . ~ropc J........ .187'1 ' Ii l I" (: "1 \ l i · Ii ~i I !\ ~1. i IIi I ~.l' ':1 L ij!1 I., H ~!\\ i \it " :t 1" '11 tm ~", IW: ~~!i ' 1\: '\.. il; II' 1:1' Ii' \1. \ t. .,'1 ',I .!f, -I: di ..~';.$1~:"::'l:l<;';~~_a~,.:.:';;:::~;-_.- -..........-..-... .--...... ---~......-.-.-- I ~', ,~.-_....-. .....--.,...... ... - ,.~...----....--...-.-..... ," ..,~"",........ --.--,.-....- Aspen City Council -..----- ------- October 27, 1975 - --- City/county Planner Bill Kane told council the planning staff had investigated the history of this site. They had spent substantial time in tracking down the easement. The planning office also investigated with Council to see if legitimate planning processes had been pursued. Kane stated he felt the planning office had spent efforts on this project which arc not in the record. Kane explained the planning background on determining the conservation zone.~ The urban design plan established a desirability to develop access from town to the mountain. This location was an ideal environment for that. This site also had overlapping easements which made the C, conservation zone, make sense. Mayor Standley said that Council at this point had two descriptions of this piece of property that did not agree. Kane told Council he would have to go back and look at the plat to see where these two descriptions disagreed. Kane said there was a plat on file in the City Engineer's office which showed the easementsl the planning office tried to put them together. Kane will now have to see how he can reconcile these plats. Brandt reiterated the water easement does not pertain to Johnson's land 1 it fS 30 feet away. The C~ty's analysis correctly showed the well pump house site, but it is not on Johnson's property. The City's analysis also thought there was an enrochrnent of 10 feet for trash storage. There is one 8 foot strip owned by Daily Construction. The only easement on the property is the easement to the Ski Corp, which has been dealt with. City Attorney Struller asked where the power lines were. Brandt answered bey were just off the property; on the corner there is overhead lines from the power pole to the pump house. Ms. Stuller asked if there was space allowed. for access and maintenance of these lines. Brandt answered no, there is no record of easements for this. councilwoman Peders~n stated that on June 27 she had suggested to Mr~ Johnson that he should apply for the October rezoning hearings. Councilwoman Pedersen said she felt ample time had allowed for that and did not understand why this- issue was at the council level. Brandt told Council that he felt if his analysis of this property were correct, this piece of land was erroneously zoned. If so, it would seem that council could initiate the rezoning rather than the prope~ty owner. Brandt said he was suggesting that this land could be rezoned with the entire packet the planning office was suggesting. Kane told Council that in all fairness, the planning office ought to re-Iook at the plat to square the planning office analysis with Brandt. councilwoman Pedersen moved to deny consideration at this time as the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship, at the June 27th meeting he had ample time to apply for rezoning to the P & z. Motion died for lack of second. councilwoman Johnston moved to ask the planning consideration of the new plat and come back to seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. office to take another look at this in the Council with recommendationsl All in favor with the exception of Councilwoman Pedersen and Mayor Standley. carries. Motion GENTRY-PERRAULT - Conceptual Subdivision Review Hal Clark, planning office, told Council this is a request for condominiumization o'f 'a building currently under construction located behind the Chart House. This will have five one-bedrooms and one two-bedrooms; the property is zoned L-2. The project is in conformance with the present zoning. These are lcxury apartments not yet occupied. The condominiumization will not affect any dislocation of any local people. Clark told Council that at a later date the planning office will recommend a cash dedication. The technical provision should be reviewed by the City Engineer. At this point the planning office recommends approval of the conccputal subdivision. Councilman Behrendt questioned a sidewalk going up the hill. Clark told Council the plat showed a 5 foot sidewalk. Mayor Standley asked if an inspection had been done of the facility, and pointed out that one bedroom unit had 1500 square feet. Architect Jack Walls told Council this originally was a two-bedroom unit which the OWner had converted into a bachelor's pad. . Councilwoman Pedersen moved to approve the conceptual subdivision for Gentry- Pettaultl seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried. MALL EXTENSION CONSIDERATION Planner Bill Kane approval to start closures. told Council he had su~mitted a memorandum and was asking for extensive staff time work in order to prepare resolution for street Councilwoman.Johnston moved to approve staff work for street closures; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #60, SERIES OF 1975- _Salary Change~ There were nO comments~ Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. Mayor Standley closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to table the second reading of this Ordinance until the . Council has a work session; seconed by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried ORDINANCE #64, SERIES OF 1975 - Annexation of Benedict Property ty Ordinance *64 was read by the City Clerk. l I \ , , i i , i Ii I' Ii !: ~ " II I' i I II " ,I j.;' :';i i) :!! di: ~\\ 1\-1 fl'\; I;'; I:,: 'I I, ',j ,I 'I :1' " 1 , I! Ii :~ \' I ,: 1 II I ! \ \ 1 , ..__,___._w_'__ ,.-,- .... '1'_~,,".~-_.V"_;_n~ .~. 'I'!'"~---.........._-,. GALL '{ . t, .l~A CITy,dF~~ASPEN .'~. ~ ~ . -.... 130;south galena street aspe.n, co 10 r a d 0.8'1611 303-925-2020 ',r-" . AGENDA BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS SEPTEMBER 15, 1983 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4:00 P.M. I. Minutes II. #83-12 / Stanford Johnson III. Adjourn C 6~C ~ .,J L"2- D_ ,-+ 0 ' ~0 '. Dc5 .~I/ ~:y V\!\.'z."i/ \ (r' 'I 8> {'J / ------- , "....., ~./ C'00't -4-~~-\'d.... "","" .....,,,,i ~ECEIVEO SEP 19 1983 September 14, 1983 Sf'lL-c?",r.c0- C"'')-\<..'') ......,,~r.Z ".- :..-t- ~~-s D~-\")~~"L--- \\\..~'-\'"'''-\?( t--. C<~+L , - r-JC;) <.- ---\;- ~ ("'<.-~._{e-" '-.J\....-'1- >" ,(," ''(,.0 (}\- Iv - ~ I City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Co. 81611 Dear Board Member: It has been brought to my attention that on September 15, 1983, you are to review a variance for property located next to North of Nell, Case No. 83-12. I feel it would be a terrible mistake to grant this variance. This lot is so small that it is inconceivable that any building could be built that would fit in with the environment of Aspen. Furthermore, I understand that this building is to house a fast food type of operation. Are the board members ready to show Burger King and Mc Donald IS that we will change any law so someone can sell hamburgers? I've been coming to Aspen for fifteen years and I don't believe this is the image you want to promote. ? J::z; . R. Garritano 5302 W. Drummond Pl. Chicago, Ill. 60639 ~....~-....:..i..:",,-_ _~~,_"-___.......:.....-" '. 870 ........_....._. _'""-"_...._-:.;iI:I..,-:-..u.""'c.c..>>.....~._......~. _,_.....-'.. , ~. -. . .. ~.....__."--- -.... c' Regular Meeting Aspen City Council October 27, 1975 _.~.U";C'~~_...... .' -'-"-'~---'--"~--. ~..~"..----~.,~. -_.._...-..._-".--~-----~_...-. _[_... .~_~,.__ ___..___m..~_.._..__~,____.._.~__ III ~~~~~~~~o~f~ic~h~sP~~~~~~dt~~a~~:~ti~~.t~~~l~~~sW~~;~ ~~ae~;tt~ ~~;~e~~~~o~:~~us;he there is only one other project in these circumstances. Mayor Standley stated this ! would not release the next parcel of land to the west of this project from the new changes. . ,~ Councilman Behrendt asked why_ Aspen Savings and Loan had taken out the drive-up window. Kane explained this project had come through P & Z as a conditional use in the office zone. The concern at that time was that a full service bank would become a CC zone use. Kane added the planning office was taking a very militant stance on drive-in anything in Aspen. Councilman Parry said he would like to approve this project as originally presented with garden level open space rather than street level open space. City Attorney Stuller said that would present difficulties. If the Council if going to approve Aspen Savings & Loan on that basis, then Council must defeat the Ordinance presented tonight which requires open space be at grade level. This open space at grade level change is a zoning code change and does not affect the subdivision review. If the City is going to have administrative delay, we will assume Meeker will get his building permit before the code change. That is not necessarily the case about this code change in grade level. ~he permit time is cut off time. Council cannot give Meeker immunity from zoning changes in the future. Councilman De Gregorio moved to approve final plat as it; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston with the added conditions of the city engineer. All in favor, motion carried. COLUMBINE CONDOMINIUMS - Conceptual Subdivision Review Col ~. COt~ . Ii II Ii II " II 11 " I' ]1 II I 'I II I i I I I I! ! I i , il It Ii Ii It .1: The planning office presented this project and told Council it will be a five unit condominium at Original and Hopkins on the southeast corner. The.lot is zoned R/MF. and the planning office anticipates full compliances with the zoning regulations. 'l'he planning office told Council this is only conceptual approvel. The floor plan may be an issue later on as the area seems to be large. The planning office said they did not feel it was appropriate at this time to deal with the floor plan. Hal Clark noted that this is not an area the planning office is considering a zoning change on. Planner Kane reminded Council the question is the suitability of the land for subdivison, which is platted lots and blocks in the City of Aspen. Councilman Behrendt moved to approve Conceptual Subdivison review: seconded by Council- woman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried. SUNNY PARK - Exemption from Subdivision Sun" 1 ~ Hal Clark told Council this application for subdivision exemption was for a project currently under construction in the Park Circle Area. When Costley applied for a certificate of occupancy, it was discovered that the building permit was issued in error. iClayton Meyring, building inspector, had submitted a memorandum to Council e~plaining the events in this error. Clark told Council it was important to note that this is an apartment. house: Costley is not asking for condominiumization. This project had started before the new regu- lations require that a multi-family dwelling go through subdivision review. This was referred to P & Z for their consideration. On October 21, 1975, the P & Z recommended that SUbdivision exemption be granted but that a subdivision plat be recorded for the property. Mayor Standley pointed out that this does not affect in terms of dedication because it is only a four-unit dwelling. REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY O'~ED BY STAN JOHNSON anything ii " I, II " " ii StJ:'" i:rczo:t Nort~- Councilwoman Pedersen moved to approve the exemption for this project: seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. Chuck Brandt, representing the owner of this property, told Council this land is presently zoned C, conservation. Brandt had done a map for Council to illustrate the piece of property and what is being requested. Last spring1before the City did the downzoning, this property was zoned C-l, as was the land to the east and west. It was proposed to zone this property C, conservation. This request is to point out the mis- undertanding and failure to take into account consideration of the property status. This piece of property is Hunter Street vacated and 100 by 7S feet wide. It was believed when the planning office recommended this be zoned C, conservation from C-l there were certain recreational easements to ,the Ski Corp. It was also believed by the planning office that there were other conveyances that made the entire property mdevelopable. Brandt demonstrated for Council the easements and conveyances. There is an easement to the City of Aspen for a water line and pump house. This is off the property: it runs north and south and is 30 feet east of the property line. There is an easement to the Aspen Ski Corp which gives them ingress for access to the mountain, it is 14 feet in width. There is a wood deck for access to' the ticket office. The Ski corp has agreed they will release the easement in exchange for a more accessible place to that land. .. 1 . . d Brandt pointed out the planning office also thought the North of Nell trash area pro)ecte nto the property; but it does not. Brandt stated that this piece of land is 30 feet bY 100 feet with only one easement, which the Ski Corp had agreed to release on certain conditions. Brandt said it strikes him that the conservation zone does not really applY to this property. Brandt told Council he had spoken with an appraiser. C-l proper.ty from 1971 to 1973 waS $6.67 a square foot to $13.33 a square foot and more recently up to $20 a square foot.'d Brandt was requesting that Council initiate an appropriate rezoning status. Brandt sal he was aware of activities to look into rezoining certain areas and felt it would be appropriate to. request Council to rezone this property to some commercial status. ...... -.........~".. - -. -_.,_...~_.., ....___.._'.... ._._"..._H.__......'~... ...-..-..----.-. _.~""'''''''''''''''''''''''' ._.'k. ...........-.....~.- - '...._ ."...,__..:,;,:>",~,~",,,,>,,,c:"'. ~~'"'""""~>~....,....... .1871 Aspen~~~_y'council October 27, 1975 tl~cting ---- ,r >.-:::-- -~. -~~~~. City/county planner Bill Kane told council the planning staff had investigated the history of this site. They had spent substantial time in tracking down the easement. The planning office also investigated with council to see if legitimate planning processes had been pursued. Kane stated he felt the planning office had spent efforts on this project which are not in the record. Kane explained the planning background on determining the conservation zone.~ The urban design plan established a desirability to develop access from town to the mountain. This location was an ideal environment for that. This site also had overlapping easements which made the C, conservation zone, make sense. Mayor Standley said that council at this point had two descriptions of this piece of property that did not agree. Kane told council he would have to go back and look at the plat to see where these two descriptions disagreed. Kane said there was a plat on file in the City Engineer's office which showed the easements; the planning office tried to put them together. Kane will now have to see how he can reconcile these plats. Brandt reiterated the water easement does not pertain to Johnson's land; it is 30 feet away. The City's analysis correctly showed the well pump house site~ but it is not on Johnson's property. The City's analysis also thought there was an enrochment of 10 feet for trash storage. There is one 8 foot strip owned by Daily Construction. The only easement on the property is the easement to the Ski corp, which has been dealt with. City Attorney Struller asked where the power lines were. Brandt answered bey were just off the property; on the corner there is overhead lines from the power pole to the pump house. Ms. Stuller asked if there was space allowed.-for access and maintenance of these lines. Brandt answered no, there is no record of easements for this. councilwoman Pedersen stated that on June 27 she had suggested to Mr. Johnson that he should apply for the October rezoning hearings. Councilwoman Pedersen said she felt ample time had allowed for that and did not understand why this- issue was at the council level. Brandt told Council that he felt if his analysis of this property were correct, this piece of land was erroneously zoned. If so, it would seem that council could initiate the rezoning rather than the prope~ty owner. Brandt said he was suggesting that this land could be rezoned with the entire packet the planning office was suggesting. Kane told Council that in all fairness, the planning office ought to re-look at the plat to square the planning office analysis with Brandt. councilwoman Pedersen moved to deny consideration at this time as the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship, at the June 27th meeting he had ample time to apply for rezoning to the P & z. Motion died for lack of second. councilwoman Johnston moved to ask the planning office to take another look at this in consideration of the new plat and come back to the Council with recommendations; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. All in favor with the exception of Councilwoman Pedersen and Mayor Standley. Motion carries. . .~C'rraul GENTRY-PERRAULT - Conceptual Subdivision Review Hal Clark, planning office, told Council this is a request for condominiurnization of a building currently under construction located behind the Chart House. This will have five one-bedrooms and one two-bedrooms; the property is zoned L-2. The project is in conformance with the present zoning. These are lcxury apartments not yet occupied. The condominiurnization will not affect any dislocation of any local people. Clark told Council that at a later date the planning office will recommend a cash dedication. The technical provision should be reviewed by the City Engineer. At this point the planning office recommends approval of the conceputal subdivision. Councilman Behrendt questioned a sidewalk going up the hill. Clark told Council the plat showed a 5 foot sidewalk. Mayor Standley asked if an inspection had been done of the facility, and pointed out that one bedroom unit had 1500 square feet. Architect Jack Walls told Council this originally was a two-bedroom unit which the owner had converted into a bachelor's pad. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to approve the conceptual subdivision for Gentry- Pettault; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried. 1 fO "lnsion "'~Hion MALL EXTENSION CONSIDERATION Planner Bill Kane told council he had suqmitted a memorandum and was asking for approval to start extensive staff time work in order to prepare resolution for street closures. I I 1 Councilwoman ,Johnston moved to approve staff work for street closures: seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. ,.. , ".}97S I: I Chang s Mayor Standley opened the public hearing. There were no comments. ORDINANCE #60, SERIES OF 1975- _Salary Changes Mayor Standley closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to table the second reading of this Ordinance until the . Council has a work session~ seconed by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried ~~. "I , ,1975 ,',' p I ORDINANCE . rope ty II II I' !i #64, SERIES OF 1975 - Annexation of Benedict Property Ordinance *64 was read by the City Clerk. ... .-. ~, "'''." \. \'i :j ~ 1 , fl i~ 1" ~: i ~j : h:1 II J r.i il I. I:\i I ~ , { :r II \ ~ii I :,'1 i ~ii I 11\\ ! h '1' 1 it f Ii:: fJii dl:> l~ il,: 1\: ".\.1 Iii I, II 11\ I' ,1\ ~11 :. [I: ~\i li'::\ , 1 ~ ," , t \ . r , , , i \1 ii II II Ii :1 II II " 1\ " II i I I \ I 1 II I i I .1 Ii j\ II i.': ,I j:, 1';' "I i, \:! " 'j f d ! I I . I I : I I , ~ '.- ~....,," RECEIV~D SEP 2 61983 r' ~(:'\\ ..... J <p-\... (. ~y~..w~ 9~ Skven J, PhiUip., M.D.. F.A.C.S. ChDmnahn Kongtahwom, M.D., F.A.C.S. Robert H. Zell. M.D., F.A.C.S. James R. Skinner, M.D. Practice Limited to Cardiac Surgery 944 - 18th Street Des Maines, Iowa 50314 TeL: (515) 243-1010 September 20, 1983 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen.City Hall 130,S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Case No. 83-1~ Dear Board: As an owner 6f a condominium at North of Nell, 555 East Durant, Aspen, Co. , I strongly urge the board to take an opposition (have they always have in the past) to the variance to the west half of vacated Hunter Street. J ;e;:}.~;'~ Steven J. Phillips, M.D. ! I I , r /jm RECEIVED SEP 2 6198~ ~Y~.w~9~ SUllen J. PhiUip., M.D., F.A.C.S. Chamnahn Kong/iJhworn, M.D.. F.A.C.S. Rollen H. Zef{, M.D., F.A.C.S. James R. Skinner. M.D. Practice Limited to Cardiac Surgery 944 - 18th Street De. Moine.. Iowa 50314 TeL: (515) 243-1010 September 20, 1983 City of, Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen,City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Case No. 83-l~ Dear Board: As an owner of a condominium at North of Nell, 555 East Durant, Aspen, Co. , I strongly urge the board to take an opposition (have they always have in the past) to the variance to the west half of vacated Hunter Street. ) ;e;.l~'#tP Steven J. Phillips, M.D. b /jm . RECEIVED SEP 2 6 198~ ~Y~J&f~ 9~ StelHln J. Phillip., M.D.. F.A.C.S. Chomnohn Kongl<lhworn, M,D., FA.C.S. Robert H. Zeit, M.D., F.A.C.S. J~!.R. Skinner, M.D. Practil:e Limited to Cardiac Surgery 944 - 18th Street Des Moines. Iowa 50314 TeL: (515) 243-1010 September 20, 1983 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen, City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 8~61l Re: Case No. 83-1~ Dear Board: As an owner of a condominium at North of Nell, 555 East Durant, Aspen, Co. , I strongly urge the board to take an opposition (have they always have in the past) to the variance to the west half of vacated Hunter Street. j~}'~'HW Steven J. Phillips, M.D. /jm RECEIVED SEP 2 6198j , , ~st~.w~ 9~ Steven J. PhiUipI, M.D.. F.A.C.S. CluvnMhn Kongtahwom. M.D., F.A.C.S. Robert H. Zeit, M.D., F.A.C.S. James R. Skinner, M.D. Practice Limited to Cardiac Surgery 944 - 18th Street Des Moines. Iowa 50314 TeL: (515) 243-1010 September 20, 1983 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen, City Hall l30S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Case No. 83-l~ Dear Board: As an owner of a condominium at North of Nell, 555 East Durant, Aspen, Co. , I strongly urge the board to take an opposition (have they always have in the past) to the variance to the west half of vacated Hunter Street. j ~lfJDj::,'f#P Steven J. Phillips, M.D. /jm , I I t , f I ll!i!i_ RECEIVED SEP 2 6198~ ,"" 'J ~ ~y~%~~ 9~ Stouen J. PhiUips, M.D.. F.A.C.S. Chamnohn Kongtahworn. M.D., F.A.C.S. Robon H. Zoff. M.D., F.A.C.S. James R. Skinner, M.D. Practice Limited to Cardiac Surgery 944 - 18th Street Des Moines, Iowa 50314 TeL: (515) 243-1010 September 20, 1983 City of, Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen. City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Case No. 83-l~ Dear Board: As an owner of a condominium at North of Nell, 555 East Durant, Aspen, Co. , I strongly urge the board to take an opposition (have they always have in tbe past) to the variance to the west half of vacated Hunter Street. ) ;e;:~{}tJj:;'Hqp Steven J. Phillips, M.D. b /jm . RECEIVED SEP 2 61983 -".... ./ "'" ...."J ~ y~ .Qt'..J.k>cUz~ 9 ~ Su.." J. PhiUips, M.D.. F.A.C.S. Chamnahn Kongtahwom, M.D., F.A.C.S. Robert H. Zeit, MD., F.A.C.S. JGI'M! R. Skinner, M.D. Practice Limited to Cardiac Surgery 944 - 18th Street Des Moines, Iowa 50314 TeL: (515) 243-1010 September 20, 1983 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen.City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 8~611 Re: Case No. 83-1~ Dear Board: As an owner of a condominium at North of Nell, 555 East Durant, Aspen, Co. , I strongly urge the board to take an opposition (have they always have in the past) to the variance to the west half of vacated Hunter Street. ) ;e.:.l~'Jt>p Steven J. Phillips, M.D. /jm . K.,;;. RECEIVED SEP 2 619B~ ~!/~.w~~ 9~ Steuen J. PhiUipI, M.D., FA.C.S. Chamnohn Kongtohworn. M.D., F.A.C.S. Robert H. Zelf, M.D., F.A.C.S. Janae& R. Skinner, M.D. Practke Limited to Cardiac Surgery 944 - 18th Street De. Moines, Iowa $0314 TeL: (515) 243-1010 September 20, 1983 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen,City Hall 130.S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Case No. 83-1~ Dear Board: As an owner of a condominium at North of Nell, 555 East Durant, Aspen, Co. , I strongly urge the board to take an opposition (have they always have in the past) to the variance to the west half of vacated Hunter Street. j/e:-Jffl+>~ Steven J. Phillips, M.D. /jm RECEIVED SEP 2 619B~ '" '- ~Y~d~ 9~ Slown J. PhiUips, M.D.. F.A.C.S. ChGmnohn Kongt4hwom. M.D., F.A.C.S. Roberl H. Zoff. M.D., F.A.C.S. .lame, R. Skinner, M.D. Practice Limited to Cardiac Surgery 944 - 18th Street Des Moines, Iowa 50314 TeL: (515) 243-1010 September 20, 1983 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen.City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Case No. 83-1~ Dear Board: As an owner of a condominium at North of Nell, 555 East Durant, Aspen, Co. , I strongly urge the board to take an opposition (have they always have in the past) to the variance to the west half of vacated Hunter Street. j ;e.::~fMh'MP Steven J. Phillips, M.D. .- /jm RECEIVED SEP 2 6 198~ CO ~ y~ yt'~ 9 :t: Steven J. PhiUips, M.D., F.A.C.S. Chamnahn Kongtahworn, M.D., F.A.C.S. Robert H. Zeff. M.D., F.A.C.S. James R. Skinner, M.D. Practi<:e Limited to Cardiac Surgery 944 - 18th Street Des Moines, Iowa 50314 Tel.: (515) 243-1010 September 20, 1983 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Case No. 83-12 Dear Board: As an owner of a condominium at North of Nell, 555 East Durant, Aspen, Co. , I strongly urge the board to take an opposition (have they always have in the past) to the variance to the west half of vacated Hunter Street. ) ~Jffl+;'MP Steven J. Phillips, M.D. / j m c VARSITY bookstore /".... ", OF DAllAS, INC. 6413 HILLCREST 214/528.9266 DALLAS, TEXAS 75205 September 12, 1983 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 RECE1VELJ S!:.P 1 51983 Dear Board Members, RE: Case #83-12 As an owner of one of the units in North of Nell Con- dominium, I strongly urge you to continue to deny any zoning variance for the subject property. The several easements involved with this property should be suffi- cient for a permanent denial of any such requests. In addition, it is most unlikely that any construction on such a small parcel could be of any real benefit to either the citizens or City of Aspen. The Managers of the North of Nell Condominium have landscaped and maintain the area adjacent to this prop- erty in a manner complimentary to the City's attractive parks and malls. Please, let's keep it that way. Sincerely, ~~~ H. L. Burgess 1 ./ / " RECE1'::l: r:-" ...'_1 1 4 1983 Sept. 12, 1983 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman, City of Aspen Board of Adjustment, 130 South Galena St., Aspen, Colo. 81611 Hearing Case No. #83-12 We are the owners of Commercial Space #1 in the North of Nell Building which joins the subject property. Over the years we have followed the various attempts by the applicant to change the zoning on the subject property. We are not aware of any circumstances which would jus~ify changing the zoning from the existing zoning which was established prior to the applicant's acquisition of the property in , question. vance:~~llen D~ ~kO~ By // ~ /~~____ - Vance Grenko - - ~~9)C)~" , ~ 'NEC-NEOSEP 1 21983 ECEIVEO:s.. _' ", '-oj -J Septmber 10, 19sJ- .., .-- City of Aspen Board Of Adjustment 130 South Galena St. Aspen, Colo. 81611 Dear Sirs, I am writing to you in regards to the application for a variance for the Stanford Johnson property at 601 E. Durant Avenue. I am opposed to granting this variance. As an owner of a North of Nell Condominium since 1968, I live in Aspen every summer. We have an easement across that property that we have been using for 15 years and the building that Mr. Johnson proposes would restrict the use of our easement. Furthermore, I can understand a variance for part of the setback requirements, but this building would eliminate all the setbacks and fill the entire lot. None of the buildings that have been built in Aspen in recent years have been permitted to cover the entire lot. I request that you deny this variance for the good of Aspen and the surrounding property owners. Yours truely, ;' j; . 1/'" j'P(' {tVC- .. .iL it] It /{ Marion Chabay 555 E. Durant Aspen, Colo. 81611 ! ~ ;" n CL o.J.--e(.1 tlul/V,.. ~ Leslie Chabay / ~~C..l~l,ltt".., t't""l . ~ ~,~ j ... September 13, 1983 ~~C~:VEO SfP 1 '" - 'oil ,........ City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Gentlemen: I am writing to express my opposition to the variance appli- cation filed by Mr. Stanford Johnson as reguards the tract of land located in the westerly ~ vacated Hunter Street from Durant Avenue southerly to Aspen town site line. As a owner of one of the condominiums a right to use the existing easements exercise that right. in North of Nell I have and will continue to Sin;z, fJJ ,J1 ",.., ,""., JTG/cm cc: Charles Hopton I / ,/ ~r ~~~ ~, b- 4r' #: . Z; ~ ~~.- ~~ ~~~ Q'-' ~ ~ 7 ~ 7tde. /~~~~ ~.~~--- ~ ~ , . # ~~~.d- &r 7 ~ ALd.~. ~~~~. ~<</ 7(90 ~ECEIVEO ~EP \ S 19b] e:'L-- A - / . t. 'RECEIV::': S:? 1 41983 Sept. 12, 1983 Remo Lavagnino, Chairman, City of Aspen Board of Adjustment, 130 South Galena St., Aspen, Colo. 81611 Hearing Case No. #83-12 We are the owners of Commercial Space #1 in the North of Nell Building which joins the subject property. Over the years we have followed the various attempts by the applicant to change the zoning on the subject property. We are not aware of any circumstances which would justify , changing the zoning from the existing zoning which was established prior to the applicant's acquisition of the property in , question. Vance and Ellen D. Grenko, BY~~ - Vance Grenko ....., .-.-...-'"-'--...----.-- ,. -- ". ....;.. , ' , ~tJ;:II/~r.V!:"f\ f. - " Qll(-~I~- ~ , ~[CDVEO SEP 1 September 13, 1983 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Gentlemen: I am writing to express my opposition to the variance appli- cation filed by Mr. Stanford Johnson as reguards the tract of land located in the westerly', vacated Hunter Street from Durant Avenue southerly to Aspen town site line. 'As a owner of one of the condominiums, in North of Nell I have a right to use the existing easements and will continue to exercise that right. Sinrz' fJJ ;11 ,"0'" ,""., JTG/cm cc: Charles Hopton b '. - -(,. ~- ~- Ad-Lit Distributing CO. P. O. BOX !2M WISCONSIN DEUS, WISCONSIN 53965 /;7,Ij~~ "~1j'~~~f\!>:" I:" J983 ~~> . ---' / r ~...""'\ oJ ,-".. Ii 'i I 1 I i ..._~ __,,~-=4_". .', -- ._,~.-- , .-.,.....- . -.'.... ~~~~;:-: . y;p~ ~ "', ,",.oJ ~ECEjvE:D ~EP 1 519b3 i I ., .. H I. ~ i !i +__+u___ __ _.__ .._.~ '. ',_" _'.___.__..+_____._.n__. .. __ . .... __.. _____...__.....;"...._ 0- ____.,_ _"'__'_P" , , Ii I I i i , u."';;4 _n... ._. __'" L h,f/Ehg~ ... u.uu~ ! 1&'1'> Ilh #V~Ai , fJPp r1 ;1<-/ )jf l 'lId Ii I . -- ~ ',-:.,"- ~-'-. '-, r ,. , I i ~ . -- . - --_.~-' . - ____.-' ,'~c= . - _. ,rl!"~~. - --.---- , '~SA-. . - ..::---:' i~:il 20:-' i . _. -: -sI~.' ( C/l1 'r JytJr/ ~,(,4? ~~/h>i.?T . ~PeJf/ C/lTf ~L- I tJt) S c:;- % LL7V/t' s-r- I' . /Y' "'. 1"Iro..i"C j .,n , (1 ..-1)<:;.<:_1) ,--(i,':)'L. -! OL) c-.... , September 15, 1983 City of Aspen Board of Adjustment Aspen City Hall 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Board Members, I am here today as a property owner whose permanent residence is right on the west line of the applicant property. I am also representing, as Managing Agent, the North of Nell Condominium Association and the 57 members of that Association. - To explain our position and concerns regarding this application, I would like to bring to your attention certain facts related to this property. 1. In the ordinance dated Oct. 6, 1947 vacating South Hunter Street, Section 2 states" reserving to the City of Aspen at all times the right to construct, maintain, and remove sewers, ditches, open canals, water pipes, and appurtenances, and to authorize the construction, maintenance, and removal of the same therein and therefrom, and subject to the continued right of the owners to maintain and operate existing electric light and power lines, telephone lines, gas mains, water mains, and pipelines". 2. A deed from the City of Aspen to Toni and Ilse Woerndle, dated Feb. 23, 1968, describing this piece of property, which states "subject, however to the easements of the City of Aspen for the construction, maintenance, and operation of electric light and power lines, telephone lines, gas mains, water mains, and other similar pipe lines and appurtenances. 3. An easement dated Oct. 6, 1960 to the City of Aspen to con- struct, maintain, and repair a water line. Although this right is provided for in the Oct. 6, 1947 ordinance, the pipeline goes over other property as well, so all of the affected properties are listed. 4. A deed from the Aspen Skiing Corporation to Daly Construct- ion, dated July 3, 1968. This deed is for the West 8 feet of the Westerly one-half of South Hunter Street, and the North 10 feet of the East 15 feet of the Westerly one-half of South Hunter Street. With this transaction, the owners of the prop- erty sold 950 square feet of a 3750 square foot lot, thereby voluntarily creating a non-conforming lot. At the time this lot was zoned C1, with a minimum lot size of 3000 square feet. The same deed also conveyed "a non-exclusive right of way for ingress and egress over and across the Westerly one-half of vacated South Hunter Street. 5. An easement dated July 13, 1971, from Stanford H. Johnson to the Aspen Skiing Corporation, conveying " a perpetual ease- ment over and across the land described in exhibit "c", attached hereto and made a part hereof, for pedestrian ingress and egress between Durant Street and the Little Nell Ski Area, owned by the Aspen Skiing Corporation. The minimum width of said easement is 14 feet." All of these easements and encumbrances are filed in the County courthouse and were either in effect prior to or con- veyed by the applicant when he acquired the property. The City of Aspen, the Skiing Corporation, and North of Nell Condominium Association are all using these easements and intend to continue doing so. Sincerely, ~fr~ Charles H. Hopton ~ / co . 10 .... In (/)0_ z.... 010>- u'-' "'::> "'.., >-N -' '" <! o OAI L Y CON ST. 235/670 3 JULY 1968 C "<::22,-\--'::' (\.,."7L ~ U'-~ ,a-- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATER DEPT I EASEMENT STREET I I NORTH OF NELL EASEMEIlT I SKIING CO I EASEMENT , I 37,5 I I I I J CITY OF ASPEN 196/525 27 NOV,I961 12' , N , 120 W I- ~ - I- O:;e "'W I~ 0 JW CD UJ C/) CD~ <to> wNI- 'u o NO W 0> CXl W-CD -:;e 120- U-J C/) W ' W Q. 00: e' I VACATED I ! HUNTER I I I I I I 37.5' I I I I 7 5' , J lOB Eaat Main Street; ~. Color_ B1811 303/9215-15873 / '1UILDING PI:HMII AI"I"Lll,J..\ .IUIII ~, #'33-12 1 Gp.lleral Construction Permit , - ASPEN.PITKIN REGIONAL f.JUlLOlNG OEPARTMENT NO. ~. ~~ IJ'..' Jurisdiction of _ Applicant fO complere numberad spaces only. JOB AOORESS . i/ , '" r / r)/-i..,' F ;/ "~ .-. LEG....L_I.LOT NO J BLOCK ._'! T~?-_S_T OR SUBOIVISION' . .. ....- ~...-. 1f;.~~ATT~E.?'..tiEF.;n.., : 1.0ESCA_ . ':~::. .. .~:" _._' .. i. ,~- - .~~-'..'... ....c~, , .. .. . r ,,'. , ,. ~" , ,,' H .. .. T-- j //. .. :- .,.,' . ,.. OWNER I MAIL AOORESS zoo " PHONE.-2" -~: 2. .,5-r-.4 /tJ/~::' ?/) JI/V)u/lI /30J< /.c '1/G 6;. ' , ( .Ii /i" , , "-'../-54 ..of 1./ t j/ , p- " " , . . ';'."" f' .. . ", CONTRACTOR MAIL ADOl'lESS PHONE LICENSE NO. 3. ....RCHLTECT OR DESIGNER. MAIL ADDRESS PHO,.,.F LICENSE NO. 4. ENGINF!:.R 'VIAlL ADDRESS PHONE LICENSE NO. 5. USE OF BUILDING 6. " " /"',...-"_ -l'/{ /~," . i.....~ /!~ - ."';''r/ " , ,:L;.' , 7. Class of work: Iil-l'lEW o ADDITION o ALTERATION 0 REPAIR o MOVE 0 WRECK 8. Change of use from PLAN CHECK F'EE I PERMIT FEE TOTAL FEE Change of use to Tyg. oj Conslrucllo" OCCUM"cyGrout' OIVlllon 9. Valuation of work: $ - i L- .- \ 10. REMARKS: Sil" 01 Buil(lll'i 1\;0.of$10"eI MIIl.O<<.Lo..4 (TOI~d sQu..... PI.) Fire Z'J<\' ""ZOOt, ~ Fir.Sorl"k!'" R~ulr.rt I 0 V.. o No , ,.- NO, (>! DW'lIlniUn,U OFFST.'ET PA."NG 'PACT Cov"ecl u,,=""~ Special Approyab REQUIRED AUTHORIZED BV OATE ZONING i" ) jJ...:! / " ! ~'J2 ., ,,,, ' A' A_ ,.,./~ HEAt. TH DEPT. /tl.l:,('--.A' " ;/..." -'-. (((~ 1 /' ~ ........" D,PPLlCATION ACCEPTEO PLANS CHECKEO APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE J-' >' f"LRE DEPT. ~ ~ ,./ av av av .I~. .v ., SOIL IH.PQIH " .... .- DATE DATE DAn: ~r" "" ~ .',,:.,,' F'AI'l:K DEDICATION NOTICE WATER TAP /\ .I I, , SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. ENG, DEPT. . ,y~ I ,- j , THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION OTHEqISP~F'lIII <lI J , AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120 DA YS, OR IF CONSTRUe. TiON OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 120 "- ;g -- DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMEN.CEO. , , HERE8Y CERTIFY THAT 1 HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION "NO KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS A.ND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL 8E COMPLIED WITH THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONL'l'wHEN VALIDATED WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF M'i! v./L OU8LE FEE Al\iY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PEA. WORK STARTED WITHOUT FOHM4NCE OF CONSTRUCTION ~ ..iNG '" S".~'.IArurH- OF co~,rqAC'OR on .......rHORiZED AGENT (DATE) NiJV ;;::. 1982 \ - '.,":. '". .'1/, " ,'i //...' 1-1/(!..-'.L r/' , , ""~rV!tf. Qf OWNE~ PI" (JWNE_R 6UI!-"pE~) " , \ J .. ,- PERMIT VALIDATION CK.O M.O.O VALIDATION CASH 0 PLAN CHECK VALIDATION C ~Ef1t1'\ DATE November 22, 1982 CASE NO. 4:t<g.3'I~ \ , ~ I , . 1, ~ {' " 'f . APPEAL TO BOARD OF ZON I NG ADJUSTr1HIT CI TV OF AS PErl APPELLANT Stanford Johnson ADDRESS Box 406, Aspen, CO 81612 PHONE 925-2570 (6021 325-8425 \ I I , -ow N E R Same ADDRESS LOCATION OF PROPERTY 601 East Durant Avenue - Tract of land located in westerly ~ vacated Hunter Street from Durant Avenue southerly to Aspen townsite line ~ lStreet & Number of Subdivision Blk. & Lot No.) Building Permit Application and prints or any other pertinent data must accompany this application, and will be. made part of CASE NO. THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION. L[SCRIPTION OF PROPOSED EXCEPTION SHOHING JUSTIFICATImIS: SEE EXHIBIT A (ATTACHED) Will you be represented by counsel? SIGNE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING IMSPECTOR TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON FOR NOT GRANTING: SvJ..~ M ~V> ~ C--~ L...n- ~ to o.LnL ---' 0.. ~l. n t _ O.L.GVlA I! n A-. ~~~ ~.....J.r- 100 I \ __ c,.1A.V"~ -l::K\ o.-v ,- - ~ ~ 'f) Il/;J. 't' ~ _ 30: ~~wR 1'\..QQ>....<~~~....t.:, ~ 11..1.0Hit C1'vt~ ~~ ~~~: ~ ~ ~-~-- ,-: --~~~ ' ~~oh ~~w+4 ~b~ ~S' ~*~ C.~L~ . " ,1 Jd\...J ' , . ~]Co--\I~ '<C~~ PERMIT REJECTED, DATE~~,I'1k~ DECISION DATE MAl LEq. SECRETARY ~ <63 (f'l APPLICATION FILED DATE IF HEARING #'83'I~ r '- ....., -' EXHIBIT A This variance request is made under Section 24-13.6 (a)(1)(2). Titled, nonconforming Lots of Record, Aspen Code. The zoning is C-Conservation, a farming and agricultural zone, requiring a 10-acre minimum lot area, 400' minimum lot width, 100' front lot setback, and 30' side and rear yard setbacks. The subject lot is zoned C-Conservation albeit located in the Aspen downtown Commercial Core area fronting 14.75 feet on Durant Avenue with a depth of 221.65 feet and having various widths: 14.75, 29.5, and 37.5 feet. The lot area is 7,241 square feet. The C-Conservation setback requirements as applied to this lot overlap prohibiting the construction of a building. A variance is therefore requested to rectify these practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships. An application has been made for the construction of a single-family residence in accordance with the setback requirem~nts permitted at the time the applicant pur- chased the land under the Commercial Core zoning which has no setback requirements. The authority for this variance request has been established by the Supreme Court of Colorado in the following cases: "Evidence with respect to peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties as well as exceptional and undue hardship placed upon owner of land by revision of zoning supported granting of variance to permit construction of dwelling which was permitted when owner purchased land but precluded by setback requirements of amendment placing land in farming district." Johnson v. Board of County Com'rs. of El Paso County, 406 P.2d 338. "Municipality may by ordinance require property owner to so use property that public health and safety will be best conserved, and to that end police power may be exercised: but not less funda- mental is the inherent right of owner to erect buildings covering such portions of property as he may elect, and put property to any legitimate use." Hedgcock v. People ex re1. Reed, 13 P.2d 264. The applicant by the act of applying for this variance in no way acknowledges the City of Aspen Zoning Ordinances as applied to this property or in general as being legally enacted or valid lawful ordinances and reserves the right to challenge the validity of such ordinances by proper legal action. \ ,... '-" - - AFFIDAVIT STATE OF COLORADO) ) ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The undersigned, Stanford Johnson, being over eighteen years of age and first being duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and says as follows: 1. I am the applicant who has submitted a variance request to the Aspen Board of Zoning Adjustment in Case No. 83-12. 2. In connection with the foregoing application I posted a sign upon the real property which is the subject of said application. In connection with this affidavit I have submitted a photograph of said sign in place upon the property. 3. I know of my own knowledge that the sign was posted on the property on August 26, 1983, and the sign remained on the property until September 15, 1983. I checked the property at various intervals throughout said time period to assure that the posting of notice upon the property was continuous. FURTHER affiant sayeth not. ;g~ The foregoing affida~~ was acknowledged before me by Stanford Johnson on this ~ day of September, 1983. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: o-II-?J1 J~~ J .~ o rOllIl. '.'.IIOl:tlUl...'.' I.. co. ( ') .._,./ ~ It-\ "'\~ '--'-", {Ji \; F l-. LL G:'5<:- ir t<:~) ~I,~ r ., l (~~",-J11) ~:.._, j c)O'y\j,:SotV RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves March 9. 1976 j Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairman Chic Collins at 5:20 p.m. with members Patrick DObie, Danny Abbott, Allison Dowing, Roger Hunt and John Schuhmacher present. Also present was City Attorney Stuller; City/County Planner Kane, and Hal Clark from the Planning Department. Approval of Mintues Old Business Jenkin's Letter of Commendation Resolution Initiating Procedures for the, Rezoning of the Vacated Portion of J South Hunter Street j , . - ~ Hunt moved to approve the minutes of February 24, 1976 with the following corrections: Page 1, paragraph 3, line 9 add "to thank" after the word would; Page 1, paragraph 6, line 1, the word "acting" should be "vice"; on page 4, paragraph 6, line 4, the word "part" should be "park"; last page, paragraph 2, line 6, the words "opposed to" should be the word "adjacent; last page, paragraph 7, line 5, the word "on" should be "as". The motion was seconded by Downing. All in favor, motion carried. Hunt mentioned a few typographical erros in the letter of commendation written for Jenkins. Hunt moved the adoption of the resolution commending Jack Jenkins with the corrections; seconded by Abbott. All in favor, motion carried. Brandt was present and asked to speak on the Resolution. Because the property is now zoned specially planned area; and the applicant now has to present a master plan to the planning and zoning commission for approval at which time the, planning and zoning commission may not approve; Brandt proposed to the commission to ~ather than adopt the resolution as written; to hold the resolution in advance and let the property owners come forth with a proposed plan under the specially planned area designation so the commission can see the kind of package that is being brought with the zoning. Also, if the property is zoned specially planned area and a master plan is not decided on, that would leave Stan Johnson, the current property owner with nothing. Johnson, Brandt explained, would like to have the property left "conservation" because the specially planned area zoning would leave Johnson with nothing. City Attorney Stuller did not support the position that the commission shouldn't consider the resolution. If the commission would like to submit the resolution to the City Council for a Specially Planned Area (SPA) designation, and at the same time have an approved master plat to send with it; the master plan will show Council what is being done and why and what the commission's thoughts are of the project. The commission is not processing an application for a rezoning submitted by a private land owner. The applicant came to the commission out of sequence at a time during the year when they could not process an application for rezoning and re- quested the commission's indulgence, and the commission then went through the appropriate, independent of the history of the rezoning, and his particular project designs. City Attorney Stuller suggested to the commissi. tkat they adopt the resolution as it stands now, which means for a period of one year no building permit could be issued until the conwission forwards it on to the city council and they s~ould deny the SPA request. That would allow the commission to look at a master plan for the site, endorse it or reject it; and at the same time precludes the applicant in going ahead with the C-con- -1- " ' .._--_.~-_. -_.-.~--_...", ,/"":::.~-_:_"'_.__._- ---,.--..............- Hotion o ~ ." '-' Planning and Zoning Commission "" - March 9, 1976 servation in the interim. The adopting of the resolution . and of the master plan are almost identical procedures; therefore, both can be presented to city council at the same time. The resolution could be adoped and held until a master plan is reviewed and approved and in the interim the conservation zoning would n~t apply and they couldn't get any building permit at all. Brandt commented that the city has been criticized as trying to get the best of both worlds; namely if a master plan is not adopted, they would like conservation zoning. If it will take a year, Johnson may be willing to file his personal rezoning application on July 15. ~ity Attorney Stuller responded the commission has gone through the deliberations week after week and have made a finding fact as to what the appropriate zoning is. That finding should receive the recognition of law in the immunity from challenge at this point that they deserve. The ability to undermine that determination at this point exists if the resolution is .not adopted. The resolution gives the commission's deliberations and determines the force of law for a period of a year; that is merely enjoying .the benefit of your time and labor at this point. Collins mentioned to City Attorney Stuller the would like the resolution separated. One part do with the rezoning and the other part has to the purchase of the property~ commission has to do with j I r Hunt moved to adopt the resolution concerning the vacated f portion of the south Hunter street with a few minor. corrections as written. The first paragraph, third line, insert the word "the" between "and history"; third paragraph, third line, there is a repeated un" between transition and between; also. to remove the last para- graph concerning the city purchasing th~ property and to -2- () i ..--" '. ~. ; -., CJ .~ r- ......... - --' , ",'"IW e. .,Hn[tlffl.....~. U. ~l. .-, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 leaves Re ular Meetin As en Plannin and Zonin Commission Februar 10, 197 1'7' 76 Meeting was called to order by Chairman Jack Jenkins at 5:45 p.m. with members Patrick Dobie, Allison Downing, Roger Hunt, Danny Abbott, and Chic Collins present. Also present was City/County Planner, Bill Kane; and John Stanford from :the Planning Department along with'Hal Clark. Stan Johnson Property At 5:00 p.m. the following members went on an on-site inspection of the Stan Johnson Property: Jack Jenkins Roger Hunt, Allison Downing, Patrick Dobie, and Danny Abbott; excused was Chic Collins from the on-s~te inspection. Chuck Brandt, representing the Stan Johnson Property, j questioned whether the easement does or does not j create a problem, whether the conservation zone was . erroneously or mistakingly applied to the property in J April of 1975 and whether conservation zoning is an I appropriate zoning for the 'property. . Kane pointed out why the property was zoned C-Conservation: 1) the j urban design plan showed a need for continuing a skier easement from Little Nell out to the town; 2) it was J felt that the site was over-laned by a series of , easements (skiers easements, access easeme~ts, over- head electric pump station) there was'~:p~9u~r triangle of land that remained a buildable site; 3) C-Conservatic did allow for limited commercial facilities in connec- tion with the ski recreation. Kane also reponded that it did not constitute a confiscation or other taking of the land and has been represented by the following: 1) it was.not a taking; 2) it wasn't in conformance ; with an urban design plan that was reviewed and j suPported by the Planning and Zoning and the City , Council; 3) C-Conservation did not represent a taking ! . I or an excessive confiscation of the land. What would P make sense for that property would be a ski ticket sales j *. ':::t' .11i. window or a small facility. Kane mentioned that the i . ~ ~ easement configuration should be*1eft i-n-i-to-s-r-egulttr : ~t ~ ~ size and-shap~~he-bu~lding.' Brandt felt different ' . about the points Kane brought forth. Because of the J&~ many legal questions which were being brought forth ~ ~ which needed further research before they could be ~ :JJt., ~ I~ +: L answereq; Kane suggested to the Commission to table ~~ . ^ ~ the Stan Johnson Property request until the planning ~r,- ~ ~ office put together an outline 'and memorandum outlining ~JL' ..ti 4- ~ what exactly has happened. Kane felt it would be wise --~ . to refer the plat being shown to the engineering department and have them comment and if the plat is correct, the notice requirements are correct the planning department would be willing to recommend that a zoning change be made. Brandt mentioned the three easements which City Attorney Stuller will have to comment on: 1) water line; 2) ski corporation easement it is an undefined easement; 3) an easement which runs to the north of nell owners, ingress and egress over the lot; legal research has shown that property owner ca:n(~channel such an easement so long as the right of ingress and egress is not impaired. Motion Hunt moved to table the Stan Johnson property until ~urther preparation .is completed and there is response from the planning office; seconded by Downing. All in favor, motion carried. -1- '- .. . ..... ~ \ , . ( / . ,1*'''''' ""'_ /~~-_._._---_.._-,...._....~..,,_....__..- ,,,~..,...-. .~- .. . ..,..",. . ~ Planning and Zoning February 10, 1976 ;,r :pprova1 of Minutes n..t moved to approve the minutes of February 3, 1976, . with the following corrections: Page 2, first paragraph, fifth line add that Downing abstained; Page 4, third ' paragraph, last line add that Hunt was in favor; Page 5, paragraph one, seventh line split permitted use, ninth line split the type, ele~enth line should read belongs in, fourth paragraph, third line should be explained; Sixth page, first paragraph, fi~stlirie take out the word as, tenth line after is add a comma and the word at put in lower case, eighteenth line should be Mall Program Information, third paragraph, sixth'line, the word becomes should be comes; seconded by Downing. All in favor, motion carried. City of Aspen Master Plan Up-date h v (f) ,The discussion was in whatdirection.the planning depart- ment would like to see the planning and zoning commission move. Kane would like the planning and zoning to get more involved with the planning department and set up a work program for developing a new land use master plan based on new goals and objectives and a whole new evalua- tion for the City of Aspen. Kane feels that it is time to get into a long term data based comprehensive planning process. The Planning Department's roll, Kane explained, is to try and provide the planning commission with a budget, staff support and an overall program for updating the Aspen land use. Kane prepared a packet for the planning commission which consisted of: 1) the housing inventory for. the City. It evaluates 12 to 14 areas of the City. The first sheet being a summry of the total existing residential development by type. There is a City summary and then it is broken down into the 14 districts which split the total number of vacant lots and developed lots where the housing is. It also derives same assumptions of the social mix of housing; 2) also provided is a reference index which is a bibliography of all the publiShed reports in the planning office; 3) a set of adopted plans which the planning department use as a source of guidance in many of the decisions and recommendations that the planning office makes to the planning and zoning commission. The Planning Department , feels that the Commission is at the stage where the Planning Department would like to see the commission decide what they would like to see for the community goals and objectives such as choice and priorities. Kane would like the planning and zoning commission to be'. the policy makers because the difficulties have been in policy making and there is not enough data generation ~oll. Wha~ the Planning Department should be doing is supplying the commission with the data and letting the commission serve as policy guides to the City Council. However, the members are going to have to allot the time to read the material and become informed. Kane also felt one of the purposes of the commission is to be the reference point and the group that is respon- ,sible at any time representing community goals and objectives on the development process both public and private. Stanford feels that the Planning and Zoning Commission, since the adoption of Ordinance #19, Series of 1973', has not been involved with the long range planning process for the City. The planning process now is to adopt a number of policies in which each issue proposed can be judged and evaluated ~rom the adopted policies. Stanford explained the steps to the planning process: 1) establishing goals and objectives; 2) do an inventory of existing data which is used to formulate plans; 3) develop the plans; 4) then check it back over the goals and objectives; 5) the implementation phase. There will be a continual checking of the go~s and objectives -2- (.~ ~::.~._....t::" ..........~ ..:.."I_..lI!..; .~,., .-.-.~..,.;A.-"" &~ __^ '''V-...~". . '-- _.. "... . . ~.. '-' ~~ ,~..... .....~~ .II '. > :3:30 ~9ular Me~. Aspen City Council December 12, 1977 r--TCd Armstrong was told that $160,000 would not fly, so the grant request was. for ::::-~- The land is still $40,000 an acres. Sin~e that time, Jim Moore would like to donate' 00. acre to the City, which would make a net purchase of 7 acres. This was submitted to ~~ BOR and asked if the City could put in the land donation as the matching grant. The ~ reading from the BOR is that they will allow this. Armstrong apd Jenifer Carr are con-" tinuing to negotiate with the BOR and Moore. The City has not set mo~ey aside. The nOR' approved the grant for $100,000 but has not funded it. The total price will be $320 000" $180,000 from the City: $100,000 from BOR, and $40,000 donation from Mcoree '. Finance Director Butterbaugh asked about an appraisal on the property. Planner Kane told Council in his opinion, this is an astronomical price. The County is spending $5,000 an acre for the North Star Ranch. Mayor Standley agreed it is too high. Mahoney explained that Moore had told Armstrong that the $40,000 price is not negotiable. However. he will give an acre to the City, which will be a reduction of $5,000 per acre. Mayor Standley said this is just an up-date, and the City is far away froID a deal. h .~ '.a..:, t... -, ASPEN MOUNTAIN BUILDING Mayor Standley told Council this concerned the property between the North of Nell and the Centre, that a building was being designed and presented to HPC. Mayor .Standley said he asked this be on the agenda to see if anybody shared his concern that this Hunter extension is the last visual contact with Aspen Mountain and he did not want to see any- thing built on it. Don Horowitz and Chuck Brandt came in and discussed it. they would like to show the building to Council, discuss what they are attempting to do and what the option are. Chuck Brandt told Council they had withdrawn from HPC waiting to see the outcome of this meeting. Planner Kane noted that the land in question has had a confused history. This is at the end of vacated Hunter street, is an old right-of-way 75 feet in width. This land was believed to belong to the Ski Corp. There is a conveyance of 30 feet for a water easement to the City of Aspen for the well and pump house to the water tank on Aspen mountain. OOn Horowiti has gone back and found the lan4 was still in the title to DRG&W. The DRG&W has granted Horowitz a quick claim deed. In April ).975 the land was zoned C, conservatio::. which would allow 1 dwelling on 10 acres. It is still zoned conservation. Stan Johnson, owner of some of the land, contested it. The point of the planning office was that the land was so thoroughly encumbered with easements that it did not have development value. It was desirable that this land remain as open space. Kane said the planning office has been assuming through the process that Horowitz could produce a clear title to 10,000 square feet. The planning office feels that the highest and best use for this land is open space. Kane noted things to be considered by Co~ncil; a report from the staff as to the prospects for guarantee of title, alternative funding sources if purchased. Kane told Council that it might be appropriate to focus the discussion to a building or non-building on the site. Kane showed Council the right-Of-way casement, the pump house, and the easement for the transformer. Kane told council there was an application made for rezoning of the area, but it did not 'specify zoninq. The response of P & Z was to see a specific plan for thc site. ..... Chuck Brandt told. Council they had asked P & Z to hold up on the SPA so that they could come in with an SPA master plan. As they were putting this master plan together, the administrative delay carne along. The architect proceeded to devise drawings and go undcr .the GMP ordinance and go to HPC. Brandt said they had tried to do this under the 1911 allocations, but realistically it will be in the 1978 allocation. Brandt said they would present the building to Council, with the alternative of acquisition of the property. If Council does not like the structure, they can buy the property. Brandt outlined the sale proposal; Horowitz's contractual rights to buy the Stan Jo~n~on piece of land at $75,000 plus costs, would simply be assigned to the City. The addltlOna! piece of property which Horowitz has fee-simple title to, 37~ feet by 150 feet, would be conveyed to the City at roughly half the square footage price of the Johnson's price. The Johnston piece computes at roughly $27 a square foot. This has the condition that taX consequences works out for Horowitz. Brandt told Council that the Ski Corporation has an interest in this, they would like to restrict Horowitz's conveyance to the City to the piece that is contiguous to the Johnson piece for ticket lines, skier maze areaS. The round figures for the total price is roughly $150,000. Horowitz told Council his primary interest is a building. Michael Gassman has designed .... this building purposefully for the site. Horowitz said the price of the Johnston pr~per~1 is the price he would have to pay if he exercised his option. He has incurred certaln expens~s. Horowitz would give the City his ,option at his cost. The other piece of 't~ property that Horowitz owns,. he has made certain agreement with the Ski corp. If Horo~l c~. puts his building up; the Ski Corp can put the ticket office in there for 1200 square Ie Horowitz reiterated he would give the City half of his property such to his tax counse d agreeing to this. Horowitz said he felt the building would greatly enhance the area an 'has a definite purpose. Horowitz said he would be willing to ~ork with the City in - different. ways if their choice is to purchase the property. Horowitz said the onl~ co~p. tingency he would have to make, if the City chose to purchse, is to protect the Sk~ eolS The area on the mountain the Ski Corp wants to remain the way it is, to have ski cerra ' the racks, etc. b to the Kane told Council there are a lot of very complicated legal questions with respect City's right to use the casement. Kane said Council could benefit from very careful ased thought on this from the City Attorney. Michael Gassman presented a model of the pro~cn building. Gassman said the Council has an opportunity that doesn't usually come up wnt open space is being considered. In this instance, Council can choose whether they waw3Y a specific building or not building. Gassman said there is a difference between th~hiS people view open space in a rural area and the way it is viewed in an urban area. to dO site has never had trails and elk. It is not that kind of open space. It has more with visual impacts and appearances. ;:~. ...., t... ;l',.. .. , . I . . i . I 1 I i i I , l . \ I t. .~ 1 . . I 1 t I 1 I ,., "1. ./ .., , '..... ~,;-;..~''''''-'':''-'''''''&''~'''-'-- ,. ~_...... :-:-..-""':...-.... // ~': ~. ..01 .. t:,oQ] ......, '.:U1 '., ~.".f '.. )17 "1 ' I "":, ,', " '. ~'."'" " 2331 .1 ',' , I I ." Regular Meeting -_..-...._-.,-,~.......--,_.- ~;:::.-- - i Aspen City Council " December 12, 1977 .., .,. !', ,I; > r Gassman showed details of the proposed building, parts of it designed with cortron steel. There will be a ticket office for the Ski Corp on one level. The intent of the design is to facilitate traffic from Durant to Little Nell, to improve the' access. There will be wide steps going up about six f~et to put people on the same level as the bottom of Little Nell. On the top will be a restaurant. There is some commercial space in the front" ._ and along the side. Below this there will be rental lockers for the storage of skits. Gassman pointed out the deck on top could be served from the restaurant. Gassman told council that the highest point on the building is at the heighth of the existing railing of the centre. Gassman stated there is no view plane in the area; in developing the building they did take 'sort of an average of view planes that have been developed. .. .\ Gassman told Council that about one and a half yearR 8g0, he met with Jim Markalunas and oave Ellis to assess the feasibility of doing something with the pump house. It was agreed informally that there was no problem moving the pump house. It would go down in the basement of the building. Gassman said he felt this building doe~ some positive things which are of benefit to the public. Gassman pointed out that 100 per cent of the 6ite is usable ope~ space after the building is built; there isn't any part of the site that you can't walk on or sit on. rhe building improves the access and circulation beyond what is presently there. Presently there is about 12 feet in total width of steps; this would replace it with about 5S feet~ The location of the ticket office would be a"lot better than it is now. The building would improve the appearance of the mountain from town, and would get rid of the pump house, and would get rid of the retaining wall. Gassman said he felt the building would turn out a kind of focus to downtown that it does not have now. Gassman said this would become a very attractive gathering place. This would also improve the drainage. i: I:. \.,. .> , :. . ;. 't. . \'. , , I I' t J: ..t! , .; . ., , ~. I :}I , . I .' 1 Mayor Standley said the building was super, but felt the perspective was not right. Realistically the building is in the wrong place. There is continued increase in activity at this site every year. Mayor Standley said he felt the whole area could be master planned as SPA. Mayor Standley demonstrated on the model how all the buildings could be moved east and re-grouped. This would preserve the open space and get rid of some of the trash at the bottom of the mountain, and the buildings would be directed towards serving Aspen and.the ski area. Kane told Council there are time constraints from the GMP deadlines, December 15 and February 1st. ~ane said he felt Council should rely on the staff to come back with the title investigation, scrutinization of the offer, an appraisal, talking to the Ski Corp and contrib~tions from neighbors. There should be a definitive answer before February 1st deadline. Brandt told Council the option on the Johnson property expires April 1. Horowitz reminded Council that the Ski Corporation is contributing through him: he will sell the City his property as half the price of the Johnson property. Basically the Ski Corp wants this left as open space. ., " ., .j Councilman Wishart said he could not give expression of his feelings until the Council finds out the possibility of all options, the legal ramifications, and the position of the planning department. Councilman Hershey said his expression was to keep this as open space. Councilwoman Johnston said she would like to see what the staff comes up with. Her first inclination is for open space. Councilman Van Ness said he saw it as open space; he would like the staff to determine exactly what the City's rights are as far as easements, etc. Councilman Behrendt said he would like to hear from the sta!f. Councilman Parry said he would go along with the building. Mayor Standley stated he was definitely in favor of open space. '. :. , ., MAYOR'S DEED - SAUNDERS Councilwoman Johnston moved to authorize Mayor Standley to sign the Mayor's Deed for Lots H and I, Block 56, City and Townsite of Aspen; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION 117, SERIES OF 1977 - Budget Transfer Councilman Parry moved to read Resolution '17, Series of 1977: seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Standley pointed out that Triangle Park Was supposed to cost $13,000. Ms. Butterbaugh answered that the Council had appropriated up to $20,000. The City spend quite a little time on equipment. RESOLUTION U 7 (Series of 1977 1 ! i .I I Pursuant to Sec 9.12(d) ~ the Home Rule Charter of the City of Aspen and upon request of the City Manager, the excess appropriated land acquisition ~udget of $38,361 is hereby transferred within the land fund as follows: Debt Service - 1972 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Debt Service - 1973 Sales Tax Revenue B6nds Triangle Park Improvements $ 313 18,048 20,000 Councilman Parry moved to adopt Resolution '17, Series.of 1977; seconded by Councilman nchrendt. All in favor, motion carried~ ~ESOLUTION '18, SERIES OF 1977 - Sixth Penny Revenues for Rio Grande Indebtedness COunCilman Van Ness moved to read R~solution t18, Series of 1977; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. RESOLUTION 117 (Series of 1977) WHEREAS, the indebtedness incurred by the purchase of the Rio Grande Property is currently being paid with revenues received pursuant to Ordinance lS-@, Serics of 1972 (7th Pennyli and . .,....~........ . w..........._.~.............__~_.. ..__ ............ ~..,~.. ...-....,.....-...-...--.---...... .---' ( 0 .) ,~..... ",. .~ ,,-,. '" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves '011.. e. ""OltIlU I. I.'~, ell. As en Plannin and Zonin Conwission Ma 4, 1976 Re ular ~leetin Goals and Objectives . (Cont' d) Rezoning Hunter Street Public Hearing , I I I I . \ . i i , I I 1 \. i ~ . ~ -. the parking element of the downtown area. City Council requested a parking plan of the downtown area before anything was done on the Rio Grande. The planninq Department's recommendation is not to do any long-range future planning about the parking; but to see what can be done with the Rio Grande. The main element that is being looked at is to construct the clean water from the Durant Mine going through the malls. The water will surface behind the Mill and Main Building where the water will be used for irrigation purposes' on the Rio Grande site. The water will go through the Oden property into the Rio Grande site and will be distributed with small irrigation ditches. A sidewalk will be developed from Main Street to the Rio Grande site. The parking spaces need to be reorganized to make the layout more clear. .... Collins asked to' have the goals and objectives on the May 18 agenda. Clark explained the public hearing is on the resolution which the Planning department wrote and the planning ~nd zoning enacted ~~~endorses the change of zoning from "c" conservation to SPA specially planned area. Collins opened the ,public hearing. Bob Francis was present !~ represent Stan Johnson. Franci. explained that Johnson is opposed to the SPA zoningx because 7 years ago the property was zoned c-l and continued to be zoned c-l until the 1975 rezoning at which time the property was given the "c" conservation zoning designation. Johnson and Francis feel the "C". zoning is illegal. Francis went on stating the property was zoned "c" as a mistake on the part of the City and illegal in the sense that it consists of one small tract of land that has that zoning. Francis continued stating all the property around Johnson's property has a different type of ~oning classification. Francis believes the reason the property is zoned "c" is because when the City was formulating the master plan in 1975, the City assumed the property belonged to the Ski Corp. which is not true. Francis mentioned the Ski corp. did not object to the land being zoned "C"; however, Johnson was not contacted regarding the change of the zoning when the property was downzoned to "c" Conservation. Thus, the downzoning was illegal. Francis felt the land has been spot zoned which means a single isolated tract of land has been singled out for a special desig- nation. Francis feels the act of the city could be held to be confiscatory because of the fact that in its present state of "c" conservation, it can not be used for any use in that neighborhood which would be feasible under the permitted uses of conservation zoning. The only action that can be taken at this time is not a recommen- dation for SPA; but an initiation by the P&Z to initiate a ,rezoning to an app'ropriate zone for it to be CC or C-l.. Downing questioned what the objections are to the SPA zoning. Francis explained the buyer is not obligated to buy the property zoned SPA. The buyer may not be. happy with that designation. Downing mentioned that at the last meeting, Brandt's client had no objection to the SPA zoning. Brand~j respons~prov\ded that a. sui table -fh"--\ sr () "" ~ .....\~ h<>- ,~cC'ef \ v..hl~ -3- ....-....-........-....----- - ~. .-.-.... -.' -.- , ,/ /' . Y' ---,- /' 'Rezoning Hunter Street public Hearing (cont ,'d) '" "'" , . . ...... .....I Zoning commission ... -. ". . ,-,. Aspen Planning and May 4, 1976 master plan would be adopted. Brandt asked that a public hearing not be scheduled until a reasonable master plan could be presented to P&Z and considered. Kane explained that the area was zoned SPA. becuase of its unique characteristic. Francis didn't feel the property had a unique characteristic and sho~ld have been left at CC or C-l. Kane explained further that the "c" conservation and SPA zoning evolved in response to the uniqueness of the site which derives from the fact that 1) it is a vacated street; 2) there were ligitimate goals that were adopted by the City Council which state that the site is useful in terms of gathering people, taking people from the mountain which is a clear open space "c" conservation recreation site, and providing ade- quate open space for pedestrian travel between the city and the mountain. There was always the goal that some- thing would develop on the property that would be in harmony with the recreational character of the area that would take advantage of the unique requirements of that site. The Center was zoned SPA so it would accommodate the public nature of the property as opposed to commercial lodge zoning. SPA is not unusual, the Center didn't feel like they were being singled out. Kane felt the zoni'ng for -the property was legal because the Planning department had done research on the property . and found that legal notice had been given, it was presen- ted to the City Council, all the rationale was presented to them, they acted in good faith, and the zone was adopted. Collins mentioned the site has several number of severe development limitations. It will have to take an SPA type of planning to bring all the constraints into it. Collins also mentioned that the property had many easements. Francis didn't feel the easements ~posed any serious development problems. Francis questioned the uniqueness of the property and questioned the vacated street. Kane explained that at ~ne time it had always been recognized as a thourghfarek~s an important site for providing . transportation from the mountain to the city. Brandt was present on behalf of the purchaser of the property. Brandt requested that at the close of the public hearing Bh&t a recorMlendation of the resolution not be promptly forwarded on to city council, that the purchaper be given the opportunity to hire an architect to do the topographic survey necessary and to present a master plan to the planning and zoning corrmission for their consideration. Hopefully the master plan could be adopted and then at that tine forward the resolution to City Council with a recommendation of a master plan and a recowaendation of an SPA zoning designation. Brandt feels the request is logical because it ~ives Council a total package to look at rather than a vacant abstract zoning designation. Also it saves the public hearing. Downing felt Brandt's request was reasonable. Vance Grenko was present to speak on the zoning 0:: Stan Johnson's property. Grenko fel t the property provides history and character and has always been an area for pedestrian traffic. Grenko pointed out the property is 37~ feet wide which is ~ of a vacated street. Grenko mentioned Johnson bought the property from the Ski Corp. and gave the Sl:i Corp egress and ingress across the property. GrcnJ<o thought there "las 1/2 feet of property that didn't belong to anyone. City Attorney Stuller mentioned the landowner can resolve the problem with the SJ:i Corp. and have that easement taken off the property through one acconwodation or another. ,. )' () C) -4- ; '.-/ //~ .<!i '011." e.r.MO[(KU........CO' Re ular !leetinc' lJ - - "", ...,JI RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Loaves As en Plannin and Zoning Comnlission Ua ..., 1976 Rezoning Hunter Francis commente.9 st_ating.J;l1at~f the easements are that Street . ~'~UCh of a significant point, &ug~c3tcd Lo rezone the Public Hearing ~ )~ property C-l. If.the easements prevent any development (cont'd) f4" 1-. then everyone will be happy. However, the easements are not that significant. Also, the real issue is whether the change to Conservation was accomplished legally. City Attorney Stuller explained to the commission that when they resolved to discuss the mat;.t,e_r\!i,the commission made as a preamble to the resolution''(.;'1\~ the commission felt the previous zoning was incorrect; however, the commission did not question the illegality. The incorrect zoning is what is precipitating the present discussion. City Attorney Stuller feels the discussion is a more concrete discussion as to the advisability of the SPA designation itself or the more appropriate nature of the C-l designation. City Attorno' suggested to go on to the merits of the proposal and district. I-iotion Ilistoric Designation 'of ~lesa Store I Bakery and . Floradora Motion I Tailings Apartments Conceptual Subdivision . - .... Collins closed the public hearing. Downing moved to table the Stan Johnson property pursuant to Mr'E~.~:g request; Abbott seconded the motion. Collins asked to have the Stan Johnson property on the agenda as soon as possible. All in favor of the motion. Motion carried. Stanford explained there was a request from the property owners of.the Hesa Store Bakery and the Floradora for Ilistoric Designation. Stanford mentioned that because Council may not approve the Main Street Historic District he would like to see the Mesa Store and the Floradora become designated. Also there is a possibility it could enhance the properties. The planning office is requesting the P&Z'S preliminary approval on the request by the Historic Preservation Committee for recommending to Council that the Uesa Store Bakery and the Floradora be designated "Historic" and setting the public hearing for June 1, 1976 which requires 15 days of public notice. Abbott made a motion to set the public hearing for June 1, 1976; seconded by Downing. All in favor, motion carried. Clark explained the Tailings Apartments is an application for the condominimization of the .existing apartment house located on Park Circle. The property is zoned ffi4F and consists of 16,837 square feet. The development consists of 4 one bedroom units of about 536 square feet each; and 6 two bedroom townhouse units. One unit is larger (2,000 sq.ft. unit, occupied by owner). The concerns of the planning office q;a'~"l) parking requirement is 16 spaces. Only lS spaces are available on the site. The planning department would recommend keeping the 15 p~rking spaces because of the constraint of adding additional parking spaces; 2) concerned with changing from rental apartment units to ownership of units. The Planning Office would like the P&Z to address hml the overall type of change is helping or hindering the housing market. The planning department docs recommend approval of the Tailings Condominiums for conceptual subdivision approval. -5- .---..._-_._.-------~.._. ,,,- , . --- .'$ o o ,,,., , "\ '-,.,,J ,,,...... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves 1 I ~ Regular Meeting Aspen Planning And Zoning Commission February 24, 1970 ,._ t.",MO(ClCUI.'..1,CO, Meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Chic Collins at 5:15 p.m. with members Patrick Dobie, Allison Downing, and Roger Hunt present. Excused was Danny Abbott. Also present was City Attorney Stuller and from the Planning office was City/County Planner, Bill Kane; Hal Clark; and John Stanford. Approval of Minutes Hunt moved to approve the minutes of the February 17, 1976 meeting with the following corrections: Page 1, seventh paragraph, line six, add the words "to a" after similar; page six, paragraph seven, line three add the word "an" before irregular. The motion to approve the minutes was seconded by Downing. All in favor, motion carried. Jenkins' Resignation Collins read into the record a letter of resignation from the present Chairman, Jack Jenkins. The Ip.tter stat. the following: "It is. with regret that I must resign from the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. I can no longer devote the time necessary to do a proper job. Also you will recall that I told you we will be moving to a new home near Basalt about May 15th. The press of business and our upcoming move seems to make this the appropriate time for my resignation. I would like you and Council for providing me the opportunity to serve the commission. Jack Jenkins" I i I 1 I Election of Officers City Attorney Stuller explained the procedure for electin a new officer for the Commission. The officer will be elected until the first P&Z meeting in June, 1976; at which tune the proposed by-laws state that the Chairman must be re-elected. Motion Hunt moved to nominate Chic Collins as Chairman; seconded by Downing. All in favor, motion carried. Stan Johnson I Rezoning Proposal I I .I , . / .... Downing moved to nominate Roger Hunt as Acting Chairman; seconded by Dobie. All in favor, motion carrieJ. Clark summarized the requests which the Planning Department received from the Planning and Zoning Commissi from the last Planning and Zoning Meeting in which Stan Johnson was on the agenda. The requests were in referenc to the City Engineer checking the location of the ease- ments; and for the city Attorney to explain the types of and effects of the various easements burdening the west side of vacated Hunter Street. City Engineer Ellis stated that all the easements are as platted on the map. The City Attorney feels that the methods of changing the zone are more a legal matter than a planning matter. The conclusion of City Attorney Stuller's memo focused attention on two issues, those being: 1) Was the Hunter Street property correctly zoned "c" Conservation in 1974 given the acceptable planning criteria to be applied in the zoning process; or was this a "mistake", i.e., the zone district applied inherently incorrect given the nature of the land and surrounding area. 2) If the original zone designation was correct, has there been such a "change in condi- tions" in the area to warrant re-evaluation of the appropriateness of zoning category to be applied. -1- ~...... .. , i' . /--~-._---_._._._._~ -.... L Johnoon Rezoning Proposal (cont'd) . , , , . ....,.."",. . -,. ....." - Aspen Planning and Zoning February 24, 1976 The Planning Office comments are: 1) they feel that it is an important piece of property as it relates to the City; 2) there is importance because of the urban design plan for a view corridor over the property; 3) and the fact that there are existing uses that are allowed in the conservation zone which the planning department thinks were appropriate, particularly relate~ ski facilities such as a ticket office serVing the mountian. Clark feels that the whole area could be redesigned and reintegrated with the base of the mountain; and by not providing a good ingress and egress for the base skiers it has inhibited the working of the base of the mountain. Hunt asked if the zoning, "C" Conservation, was legally zoned. City Attorney Stuller replied that. it was. Also that the ownership of the land is not relevant to the question of whether or not it was an appropriate zone designation. The developability of the land is of no consequence, the ownership of the land at the time of the zoning is of no consequence if the "C" Conservation can stand on its own planning merits. If the Commission now feels that that was an incorrect designation without regard to ownership, easements or anything; than it would be appropriate to consider. Brandt, representing the Stan Johnson property, questioned if the' zoning which was applied to the land in 1974 was an appropriate classification of zoning for this particular piece of property. Brandt mentioned that there has to be a comprehensive plan that a city zones to. Looking in 1974., Brandt asked what the changed conditions in 1974 that gave rise to the City to change the zone to Conser- vation. Brandt pointed out that the only thing the planning office sites to is a comprehensive plan justifying the conservation zoning for that particular piece of land was the urban design plan which Kane mentioned at the last Tuesday's meeting it has yet to be adopted; therefore, the City hasn't met some of the criteria. Brandt submitted several newspaper articles from the "Times" which were in reference to the zoning of the property which was zoned AF (agriculture and forestry) used for skiing. Hunter street vacated wasn't used and still isn't used for skiing.' What the planning office was looking at was the ski area. Instead of focusing on the changed conditions and any comprehensive plan; the planning office has come up with easement problems and a burden on the property created by the easements which City Attorney Stuller has said that legally she is not concerned with the easements, they may be dealt with by the parties. Brandt felt that what the Commiss1on should be concerned with is whether the zoning was appropriate in 1974. There really wasn't a bases to zone Hunter Street vacated or the west half of Hunter Street vacated to conservation zone. Everything that had been done to substantiate that,. has all been information gathered after facts. Brandt questioned what conservation does for the land--it still permits single family dwellings schools, hospitals, churches, golf course riding stables, etc. many uses are not appropritate. Brandt questioned what really was accomplished by the conservation zoning in 1974. The answer may be a commercial designation with a specially planned area designation. That is compatible with the property immediately to the east that would enable the city to take into. consideration the view corridor con- cerns that have been expressed by several members from time to time. It gives the city specifically authority to control scale and heighth and bulk of any building and it would be an improvement over the present situation. What is being taken into consideration are power lines, power poles, transformers, pump houses, and there has been mention of the city wanting the lOx15 piece of land that borders on the sidewalk of Durant for some utility . purpose. Brandt feels the site is becoming more of an )I I , I I ,. '0 ,",-J -2- ( ) 'qlt_ If t.'. 11l1(ClltL t. t. t ~. Co. .~ o ~"'~. IC.'~" ~ I" ,-. -.... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves February 24, 197G j Regular Meeting Stan Johnson Rezoning Proposal (cont'd) ,- I j i , I j i I b. ..... , . ~ Aspen Planni.ng and Zoning Commission eye sore than anything else. Brandt feels that if it was zone specially planned area (SPA) with an architecturally pleasing building structure, subject to the very finite review criteria that the Planning and Zoning Commission has, and some of the utitlity things be put underground and others incorporated within the structure; it would be a great improvement over what is presently there. Collins asked Brandt if he didn't feel that the original zoning at the time was a mistake. Brandt replied that it looked like the planning office was after preservation of the ski runs and since there was not opposition to zoning that property conservation; the city thought that it would be an appropriate step to take. However, the.Ski Corp. didn't own the west half of the Hunter Street vacated. Since the City didn't ~ealize tha~ the Ski Corp. didn't own the west half of the Hunter Street vacated it could have been a mistake in zoning it Conservation. Brandt mentioned that he had spoken with Tom Richardson of the Ski Corp and he is interested in taking the east half of Hunter Street that the Ski Corp. owns that is zoned con- servation and contributing that to part of the underlying land package for a structure in exchange for ticket 'offices for the sale of tickets right on the slope. City Attorney Stuller mentioned usually the only time an SPA is granted is under single ownership. However, if the Ski Corp. would consent to an SPA it would make it much easier. Downing asked Brandt what his client proposes to do with the property. Brandt replied a restaurant use on the firs floor in conjunction with ticket offices on the second floor. Or a private club for the 40-S0ish set. Collins felt that what it has come down to is two basic questions, those being: 1) whether the original zoning was a mistake; 2) whether we want to come down to the position of whether changed conditions would indicate that some change in the zoning is appropriate or necessary because of that some things have changed. If the area has changed at all, it would be in the direction that would require that the zoning established now be maintained in terms of some appropriate openess because of traffic gen- eration which is now peaked out. The original question which should be addressed is one of whether the original zoning is a mistake. Not on easements or on the change of conditions because the easements are a problem that can be taken care of or the change of 'conditions just to say that because adjacent property i.s commercial this should L commercial also~ City Attorney Stuller felt Collins was right. The appli- cant had not argued that there has been a change in con- ditions in the last two years to warrant your reconsider- ation in that light. Also, if there has been a change in conditions, public sentiment has been towards less density an~ more open space and less traffic generation. The development potential for the site, when it is related to land ownership patterns, really is of no concern to the planning and zoning because if humans can pose the limi- tations they can withdraw them. The question is, as phrased by the applicant, that essentially there was a mistake in the original zoning that the land should have been directed to more commercial development in a higher -3- .-..... --__.. ....__...'.h...."..____.. \ -..~_.~. -~_.---_. ._._-~ -..... Stan Johnson Rezoning Proposal (cont'dl Motion Rezoning Proposal City of Aspen , r _. ... '.. -- ~._-_. .-.-. Aspen Planning and Zoning . February 24, 1976 use; and it should not have been considered part of the ski area for purposes of future development. His original arguement'was that it was a mistake in the ownership pattern and that was the reliance of the planning office in their ability they felt to integrate the whole mountain side in one zoning pattern. Thajj is not relevant and the ownership pattern is not important for that purpose; the question is; is this site truely more compatible to conunercial and higher density development in the "Cn Conservation that would permit. City Attorney Stuller explained how to rezone the property to SPA stating that to make it an SPA zoning and tie its development onto the North of Nell Building means that the owner has to work with the Ski Corp and the leasees of that building and all have to agree on a master plan . City Attorney Stuller felt that would be a harsh burden to put on someone. Also the Ski Corp. has been hesitant to join in with the leasee of their building in developing a master plan. They have no desire to want to do that. Kane mentioned that the planning department had argued "c" Conservation in light of the numerous easements. The zoning was applied' with a feeling that the true development of the potential of the site was unknown by virture of the unspecifity of the easements. SPA, if applied to the site, would be a zoning catagory that wouldn't necessarily require the easements to be defined right now, but certain: before any development activity was entertained on the site before any subdivision plat would be considered. The easements would have to be tied down, thus a lot of conunu- nication and survey work after they would be tied down. It takes a little bit of academic because of the location of the easements would ultimately determine the develop- ment potential of the site. SPA gives a fair measure of control. City Attorney explained the theory behind the SPA zoning. It is used because a piece of land is found to be un1que so this zoning allows the people to come up with a devel- opment proposal that is compatible and the City will impOSE with a logic plan review and come up witha final master plan and that becomes the zoning code for that piece of land. Hunt moved that the Planning Office and the City Attorney develop a motion for the Planning and Zoning Commission designating this area as a specially planned area and the reason is so the planning office and the City Attorney get all the input that is necessary for the respective protections; seconded by Downing. All in favor, motion. carried. Hunt further moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission' developes a resolution requesting the City Council strongly consider purchasing this particular property as a part; in other words acquiring the land. The motion was seconded by Downing. All in favor, motion carried. Mixed Residential (East) from R-MF to R-6 - Kane explained that the planning office is reconunending that mixed : residential east stay R-MF. Mixed Residential (West) from R-6 to R-15 - There would be a non-conforming provision. Any lot as of the date of the adoption of the zoning ordinance that is less than 15,000 sq. ft. would be eligible. Stanford gave an example stating that if someone owns 3,000 sq. ft. he would be allowed to build. The philosophical point is to try and eliminate the development potential of the City; and the closer to Smuggler Mountain the more open space there is and less development. Commission had no -" comments. (:) _A_ ! 'j ~' ,""" 'I C. '.II~tr.H I. I.. ~. Co. " .,j ~ ......, . i.w. \ , ) RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Regular Meeting February 17, 1976 Harper (cont'd) Julie Hane Hans Gramiger Stan Johnson . Ardith Ware Dick Meeker Mike Behrendt Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission if it goes into a housing aurthority situation. Multi- family areas are becoming extinct. Also changing the density of C-l and CC areas; Harper felt that by trying to get walking traffic out of that area and get the car out the supply and demand factor will run the cost per square foot for leases to an,. astronomical price. Julie was in favor of downzoning in the Oaklahoma Flats area because of the parking problem. Gramiger didn't like the implications of the local resident having to go to the housing authority. Also, there should be a provision that if a person wanted to go completely RMF that he could have the 1:1 ratio. Gramiger also felt that if an individual wanted to have a mix of half office and half residential that he should be able to. Gramiger also commented on the heighth limitation and felt that if everything on Main Street was the same height it wouldn't look good. Johnson discussed the pressures that may result from the proposed downtown downzoning. The expanding of the mall is creating an internal pressure in the downtown area. The Planning and Zoning is creating pressures on the outside because of the proposed downzoning. Also there is an auto disincentive program to take the car away; thus creating an inconvenience. At present, the downtown area is unique and serves both the local resident and tourist. The pressures may cause a shopping center out in the county. If the pressure does cause an outside shopping center, the people will return to the auto, the transit system would not have a central focus point and the downtown area would become a tourist area and the inter-reaction between the tourist and the locals may be lost. It may create urban sprawl. Ardith questioned that since the three letters submitted were from all the people living in the.area that is to be downzoned to R-6 PUD; doesn't that account for anything that 100% of the property owners in that area are against the downzoning of the property. Do the downzoning people really give a damn about the local resident who has lived in Aspen for several years and have property? Meeker suggested the Planning and Zoning Commission re- direct their energy into some kind of growth management plan so the long time property owners will know what can be expected of their property so there will be some con- sistency and. some use reserved on tha t property. The downzoning will precipitate growth rather than detract from the growth. Another reason for a growth management plan would be so the people who do have property will know that they will always have their property and it will always be valuable. Behrendt mentioned that the Council's priorities is to contain growth. Zoning sets the limits and kinds. Council does have concern for local housing; but the argu- ment is a cover-up plea for grabbing unwanted density. In the past it has been the case. Council feels that, at present, there is an imbalance and it doesn't mean we are establishing a footprint for the community. The Council is trying to establish a gr~dient between the City and the vacant land. The gradient proposal is R-6, R-15 and, R-30; the county still would like to reduce the dens~ty . ."~ -5- , I Dennis Faukai Stan Johnson . b P1ann~ and Zoning -' ~ebruary 17, 1976 L~.. on Shadow Mountain and in order to do that the Council felt that gradient was necessary and that is one of the reasons why that area and the lower river areas were brought 'back for re-consideration. Behrendt asked the residents to really consider the proposed down zoning and he supports the downzoning'strong1y. Fukai is a Carbondale architect and feels that down zoning is an unimaginable way to controlling growth and may not necessarily be successful. Rather than controlling the town as a whole, it is hurting the local resident. The downzoning could possibly push many people out of the area because the prices will be too high for anyone to live in the area. Fukai gave an example by stating "you wear a size 32 coat and no longer will you gain anymore weight" and feels that by eliminating heights, (orcing people to have flat roofs there are other imaginative ways for controlling growth or eliminating density to buildings. Johnson feels that the local people are The policies are creating more growth. back off, growth may stop. being misunderstood. If the City would Jenkins closed the public hearing. Hunt made a motion to continue the down zoning to the next planning and zoning meeting; seconded by Downing. All in favor, motion carried. '. Jenkins asked Stan Johnson if the Planning and Zoning could put his project on the next agenda. Johnson had no problem with that. City Attorney Stuller said that she would contact Johnson's attorney and discuss it with him. Johnson asked to state his own case. Johnson.stated that he never felt that a building should be built on the property. He had approached the city 2~ years ago to try and work out a solution to this problem. He had in the back of his mind a partial donation; but was ignored. When he approached the City last time before he put it on the market; the City did say they were not interested in the property; however Johnson feels that the City was spot-zoning the property all the time and were taking it from behind his back. Approval of Minutes Hunt moved to approve the minutes of February 10, 1976 with the following corrections: Page 1, paragraph 3, line 12 the words "a regular" should beP'1rregular; Page 1, para- graph 3, line 24 where it starts out--Kane mentioned--the line should read: Kane mentioned that the easement con- figuration should be verified by the City Engineer and that the actual buildable area should be analyzed given the real easement network and setbacks according to the code; seconded by Downing~ All in favor, motion carried. Hunt moved to adjourn at 7:20 p.m.; seconded by Abbott. . ~:elf JY{. /(1y,~~ LiD M: Yym, Dep t.Y City Clerk ! ...., .-:::: :i)":'~ ;."~ h;;"'~:~';: \~ ,.';",; < ~:;:~:i:(:,).:~:~:: ;::'j;~:.' '~;:~.:~;;;;;F;;}~;$.ili~':;J~{\.'j i,~;>;!;}'i~j'~~~~;;d;;c>~><;.,': ;;,;.j. , -:~. ';f:": ~". , r .r,. ., ~.':l.-: .... .,...'$.">I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Case No.#83-l2 BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE DESCRIBED BELOW: Pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colo- rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting authority for variance f~om the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 24, Official Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state.. yo~views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance, as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to grant or deny the request for variance. The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows: Date and Time of Meeting: Date: September 15, 1983 Time: 4:00 p.lli. Thursday Name and address of Applicant for Variance: Name: Stanford Johnson Address: Box 406, Aspen, Colorado 81612 I Location or description of property: Location: 601 East Durant Avenue, Aspen, Colorado Description: Tract of land located in westerly ~ vacated Hunter Street from Durant Avenue southerly to Aspen townsite line. Variance Requested: Subject lot is zone C-Conservation. Lot size 10 acre. Setbacks Front-100', Side-30', Rear-30'. Lot width 400'. The subject lot appears to be 7,142sq ft Setback requirements would prohibit construction of a single family residence. APplicant.appe~rs to be asking for relief from all the setback requirements of the. C-zoIJ.l..ua d;Lstr~ct. Dura~Lon or ~arLance: (please cross out one) ~J{ \I Permanent THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY Remo Lavaqnino, Chairman Sally B. Hanes, Deputy City Clerk . "',.,,..,/._.....,_._.-c..~....__^<i'.....--_., _....,,,,,.,.,,__ ~~___'^ w .' .."-____-.--_^.._.~__.... --M <63 ./2 # ~;gc..e~ r /'l-t:p-eI";;Y 0 U/7/e/3 //.spe~ Sd'//7/Y Co. gox- /2 9"'.8 r/5?eH CD f'/b/...? "{ I<'r :._ 1[,\1, / CU Wer-::ro \ - ~\ . ,~.). /, j .............?-J. '. ". C/7y OT ASr'.en~aI4~\ ~J po..IT. ~. /.3 0 J 0 v T~ C Ci /eno S?";?-eT 4s~~1 (0 l?/C// ""- . /J/or;/h Or /U?// Co>>c;V~??;1//7/##7 ~ 55'.:5c, OV/'d/?-r 4y.e~.?I.(! /ls;oe/7 G P/6/~ c~.z /fes/,re #TNI C'C)J?dt:>h?/4/d'~ a,:r.r ) {' /5 C6#7M~U"/CS/ ('61'/qt)}w/1/t/#1 CJn;r~) ) ~ .4 JdX /J/t::JL/n ra/I'/ hJ' oC/BPt>n / L7't:/- ..Box /70'r /7'5peJ1( Co cf'/b/:Z 0W Iv'tJl<rfl or tf/CLk COAJoo$ 1A/ltM1 II- ss 0 C/ .4170(1/ 55"5 E. OfltrflAlT I1jPI3A/ 8/{. ( I S 7 C ()f'li55 6~ olC- -=t-..,,)q . ~ ~ <&~ 'D - ......., " ,If CITY. OF~~;ASPEN .<~ .,.. ~ -~ 130:'south galena sheet , . aspen, colorado~8'1611 303-925-2020 ''v' ~"- AGEDNA BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS AUGUST 25th, 1983 ,,,. CITY COUNCIL CllAHBERS 4:00 P.H. I. Ninutes II. #83-12 / Stanford Johnson III. #83-13 / Stan Hathis IV. #83-14 / Stan Mathis V. Ajourn ~~, ~ Box 406 . Aspen, Colorado 81612 RECEIVED JUL 2 21983 July 19, 1983 Ms. Joy Brooks City Clerk's Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 fuar Joy: This is to confinn our telephone conversation tcxlay in which I requested to be scheduled for a hearing before the Board of Adjustments during the month of August. We discussed August 11, 18, and 25th as possibilities. I would appreciate it if you would confinn the date selected with my attorney, Jeffrey Sachs (925-8700), who will be free on most dates in August, except August 16, 17, and 19. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, y~ Stanford H. Johnson Box 406 . Aspen, Colorado 81612 t~ ..._"_ I /-QtL ";'.~" 'f~' '. \ ~:51 . PM ~ '0.\ ., i ~D JUL / ~~ '--lgJ0/ ~...;. -""""-..,.~.,,... ~""~ ~"'" "-~'C~~""" .. ...."'-,...;......~ ~ - --'.-..... -........,.,....- ..,. --"''C., c.__............... ... .._..,,,.,...,,.... RECEIVED JUt 2 2 1983 Ms. Joy Brooks r.irv r.lprkl~ nff;r~ ,. #83'12 ---= ,.", November 24, 1982 MEMJRANDUM 'ID: City Clerk's Office City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Please do not schedule this variance request for hearing before The Board of Adjustment at this time. I will not have time available to proceed with the hearing until March or April of 1983, at which time I will contact you to arrange for a date to set the hearing. Very truly yours, ~ff~ Stanford ohnson (" ~ SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE JAMES H. DELMAN B. JOSEPH KRA8ACHER RrCHARD J. DElACENSERJE' NANCY J. DElACENSERIE' 'ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN ONLY PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 201 NORTH MILL STREET ASPEN. COLORADO B 16 1 1 TELEPHONE RECEIVED AU6 3 (1Y~.e700 JEFFREY H. SACHS HERBERT S. KLEIN JON DAVID SEIGLE August 29, 1983 RE.CENt:O A~ ~ " ;; 19M Aspen City Clerk 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Appeal to Board of Zoning Adjustment Case No. 83-12 Stanford Johnson Dear Cathy: The captioned appeal has been re-scheduled for hearing by the Board of Zoning Adjustment due to a defect in posting the prior notice. The new hearing date is September 15, 1983. Enclosed is a check for $10.00 for the notice fee. There have been no changes in ownership of the adjacent properties, and thus the names and addresses of property owners which have previously been provided to you are the same persons to whom notice should be provided again. Please note that 15 days advance notice is required for this hearing due to the fact that a multi-family condominium building is one of the adjacent properties. Thus, I would appreciate your promptest attention to this request. Please feel free to telephone me if you need any additional information or have any questions concerning this matter. Very truly yours, By JHS/nlw - CITY OF ASPEN 061.. ~ () 3('\~ r.NANCE DEPARTMENT ... CASHIER'S RECEIPT LICENSES & PERMITS I' I r o GENERAL OCCUPATION BUSINESS L1C. o LIQUOR OCCUPATION LICENSES o BEER, WINE, LIQUOR o LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWAL FEE o LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION o EXCAVATION PERMITS o SEPTIC TANK PERMITS o NON-COURT DOG LICENSES o COLORADO FOOD SERVICE LICENSES FINES & FORFEITS f o CITY SHARE-OUt'S o COURT TRAFFIC FINES o TOWING FEE-CITY o PENALTY ASSMTS. ON TOWS o STORAGE FEES o NON-TOW PENALTY ASSMTS. o TRAFFIC FINES o NON-COURT DOG FINES o NON-COURT IMPOUND FEES o NON-COURT VET OR R.V. o NON-COURT ADOPTION FEES o CITY COURT DOG FEES o COURT BOND FORFEITS o COURT COSTS o ACCIDENT REPORTS/XEROX o GENERAL ACCT. NO. DESCRIPTION: (NAME, NUMBER, ETC.) I ,- -,/ RECEIVED FROM I' I RECEIPT ~r.:: t4 !, -- 00111-61000 00107-60900 00107-61030 00107-61031 00107-61039 00115-61211 00125-61213 00135-61100 00125-61001 00131-64002 00132-64003 00132-64011 00132-64013 00132-64014 00132-64014 00132-64020 00135-64040 00135-64041 00135-64042 00135-64045 00135-64043 00131-64101 00131-64201 00131-63420 - - I I I I I