Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Bibbig Drew .1"'" August, 1973 v ,~, ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION BIBBIG-DREW LAND EXCHANGE WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the planning commission to supervise the implementation of the City of Aspen subdivision regulation, and WHEREAS, Mrs. Gertrude Bibbig and Mr. and Mrs. Michael Drew have requested the approval of the planning commission to exchange land in Block 2, Sunny Park Subdivision to change the configuration of two lots hereafter to be designated Lots lB and Lot lC, and WHEREAS, the planning commission reviewed said app- lication and finds that said exchange has not weakened the general purpose and purport of Aspen Municipal Code, Section 20-3 (b), NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; that the Aspen Planning Commission grants said application for lot line change re- suIting from the proposal large exchange, said approved plat to be filed in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. _.~~A~OI) ~ ,-M ~ rman PIa ing Commission Dated this day of , 1973. >..... FORM ~o C. f'. !N2CK rL B. B. '" t. CO. Regular Meet~l]l', r~ ::i}) b i ~,::;.' D)~ CT.., J.~ rid EXC!.i.:Jng;t~ . ,-.., r 1""'\ ,; . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning & Zoning August 9, 1973 At this point, Moran submitted the cross-sections prepared by Reser. Moran pointed out that if one walked a short dis- tance to Wagner Park, would be able to see all of Aspe~ Mountain and Independence Pass. Bartel stated that the view from Rubey Park was wanted since Rubey Park is a transportation concentration, rather than a casual stroll through Wagner Park. Moran stated that the City and Chase were in similar posi- tions because neither knows what they're going to do w:..th their property. Questioned whether or not the Commiss:..on wanted to preserve that view at such a high cost to Chase. Bartel pointed out that the view corridor in no way restricts what can be done underground, and that 11' is all that is re- quired for a single-story building. Moran stated that the compromise would be a tradeMoff that would allow the property to be developed in the future in the same manner as the surrounding property which is C-1 district. Stated that they wanted to preserve the "bui1d- ability" that is presently there. Bartel pointed out that they didn't need a vie';~ corridor if there was no building on the property. Further pointed out that the Conwission had acknowledged its willingness to wait by their request for Council to table it. Their concern is what happens after Ordinance #19 is no~ in effect. Bartel stated that he would like to handle the consideration while still under Ordinance #19. Would like to either es- tablish a compromise corridor or make an agreement that the view corridor would be a consideration. Moran stated that he would like to have in that type of ar- rangement a concession from the City that the estab1is)1~ent of view corridor and corresponding adjustments would be made accommodating what would otherwise be the holding capacity of that property under the then-existing zoning. Bartel questioned whether or not they wanted a compromise or just didn't want a view corridor. Suggested that the En- gineering Department shoot other angles and gat a copy of thi? cross-section for the site inspection. Also would 1Uee to investigate with tb:, City Attorney the possiblity of not at this time passing specific con:idor but some arrnngemenL for view crnlsideration criteria after Ordinance #19 18 no longer in effect. ~<'I' ':t""1t.. VI ""'IV")' ])("]'1''''1 ]"')"" "t':"I'(,() t"I.\~t- t"]l~ ] "))','1 .(.'c,..h..,....,(, VA.S,...,... .~~!.., .^.~.<,...1_..,--.> . ,'.l... ,......... "..-.t...,," ",'.1. . .,-._ ..'".'. ..<'.,.....,..,."j'"-',_ \\I:U:: be L\V'('CTJ. H}~'s<< B ,;,bb5 ;;','.111.1'1 hUL; h(_lnd ':lnd her d:lD,'lht'cr. ]\),1 ;'I!. '"1 " -' out t:]1at~ tl"r(; lot,;-; \\~C'.l~'C' "!O{.',.':\t~",c1 OJ'l P~.lr'l;:. l\v('nllC~ SI...tlLc'(J !, 'J::!" Section 20<lb r(:'1'1in'~; I:1wt wiUl il subdivision lot Li.liC ill" Commi.ssion mUf;t olcay ~Iny l(Jt line) CbLU)r~e. fORM5Q C.~,H(\r.CKf~.!~~.E.2:... --Regular'-Meett~g Building Permit Review - Apex Building ,/", 1'"""1 !" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves Aspen Planning & Zoning August 9, 1973 Carl Nutzhorn, attorney representing Mrs. Bibbig, sub::nitted a map and explained that since the house in which l1rs. 3ibbig plans to live for the rest of her life is on her chil:lren' s land, they planned to exchange ownership. Nutzhorn s'.1bmitted the map from the Planning Office showing the lot line change and the resulting parcels. Nutzhorn pointed out that the land was located in the resi- dential, multi-family zone. Mrs. Bibbig's daughter and son- in-law plan to retire there and not build more than a duplex. May at some future time exchange land with Banker, but would still not build more than a duplex. Barbara Lewis made a motion to approve the lot line chapge on Sec. 20-3b of the Subdivision Regulations on the condition th~l it would be recorded at the Courthouse. Seconded by ~enkins. All in favc>r,motion carried. Larry Windes and Randy Wedum were present representing the developer Sherman and Company. Building would be located on lots G, H, and I, Block 94, on the corner of Hunter and Hopkins. Hindes stated that the bulk of the working drawings were done before Ordinance #19. Stated it was a commercial building on commercial core lots with C-C zoning. Gave a brief explanation of building and relationship to commercial core and mall. ' ~ubmitted plans of building and explained that the building does not interupt the proposed view plane for the park. Explained that the uses tie closely to the objectives of Ordinance #19 and complies with the zoning requirements prior to Ordinance #19. Stated there was a large open interior area which is not counted in the open space. Further explained that this was the first phase and that there was an additional stage in the project. Due to problens with a land sale contract, that was being held up. Felt that the building was designed so that it is complltib1e with and will enhance the mall and the historic overlay dis- trict in the area. Gillis stated he would like the op:l11wn of the City Attorn8Y on the land sale contract. Questioned the parking, lesality of the contract, and the open space. Gillis asked if they had considf~rcd underground parking. \.Jcdum statf1d that the PLmning Office said tbat :In arch'r to 11181((; the core area pcd(>strLm,,,oJ::i.cnt:od, 1:!Wy ,'Joulc1 j)]:CL'1J: i:h,.~t: dc::velopcl:' ptlj~'Ch::l,::)e FDxLing from the C:i.cy.. Lc\/ln nt::it"c.(l she> \"(')',,](.1 ]",'1<'(\ 1",')""0 f....I.., ",(.(, C)',', ('I"l' ,')(,1'(",'((" 'J .(" l,i'I' "', ,'._. " 'H"" ,_ ,'_;.... ")':".- ~ ' ' ,_ ,.,,". ,,~ ,"', tJ1C' hllild:Lllg mc~t: tIle (;p(~n bpncc l'l'(lt1:i.rell'l.'I,I;, ;-;, pointed out thtlt "'// ", ,- 1''''\ 16th July 1973 \, City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Cornnlission, and Aspen City Council, City Hall, Aspen, Cobra do 81611, U.S.A. Gentlemen: .... "" "" ~~ y Re: \ Bibbig Res~i? 1 . ."."..<.._""~, - Dr~:-~~XChange ~ HuJ_ ~ii<"f'rrmily Zone in Park Avenue In connection tdth the pending application for the above land exchange, the purpose of which is to place the long term occupied residence of Mrs. Gertrude Bibbig on land technically owned by her (the other portions of that ground being owned by her daughter who is my wife, and myself). Ingetraut Drew an:1 I hereby state that our intention is to use the resulting par>cel (Lot lC and Parcel B on the Plat) for a one or two family dwelling only. Since our proposed me will be consicferably 'To't~er'Tn'-popuiaTion"'--- density than that permitted in R-MF (Residential-Multi Family) zones, we submi,t; tha't; you should readily be able to conclude that "... the general purpose and purport" of Aspen Code Sec. 20-3(b) "shall not be weakened by such change". We further hereby undertake to be bound for our heirs, assigns and transferees by this commitment, with the condition that a presently considered further exchange of the above "l1't lC ar.d Parcel B" tract for all or a part of that of Bancker, immediately west of the Gertrude Bibbig house, would transfer our present "one or two family house" undertaking to that latter tract. v~,r truly yours, '. I , /' r: . , ...', / l.. \.. . ..,/....., ,'\ /llZ9./;fdtl',r ,V);t-f([1 Ingfraut Dret~ ~~O_K, \ I~~ , ! Michael John Drew French's, Long Wittenham, Nr. Abingdon, Berks. ENGLAND.