HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Parker Quillen.042A-85
~'.-\.
h
''uisELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Af;peO.. _
/""'I'
~"
,
... ....!
; ,
..... ,.
(
DATE RECENEJiOlin!5
DATE RECENE~._~OMPLE~:
PROJ EO NAM : 0 ( :
APPL lCANT:
Appl i cant Ad ress/Phone:
REPRES ENTA NEUOn' (YL-f/Jlu
Representative Address/ one:
_. . ,
.~....--.~-
. . ~icifij" , ' ,~1;*~\t~:
CAS E NO. ,.\li'"" ."
STAFF:
-Lo+s: L~+
r9 / 'sC
o I II - miff I
fpI~ ttbl~_g1OC
Type of Application:
1. GMP/SUBDN IS ION/PUD (4 step)
Conceptual Submission
Preliminary Plat
Pi nal PI at
($2,730.00)
($1,640.00)
($. 820.00)
I1. SUBDN IS ION/PU D (4 st ep)
,
Conceptual Submission
____ Preliminary Plat
____ Final Plat
($1,900.00) ,
($1,220.00)
($ 820.00)
($1,490.00)
L
III. EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2 step)
N.' SPECIAL REV IEW (1 step)
($
680.00)
~ Special Review
~ Use Detennitlation
<Conoi Honal l,1se / j ,
Other :(~1JAYIVIS/{J r::te1ffJrllJ!fJ'_lo+ "'it\,t
====================================================================
P&Z @MEETING DATE:.f\.QV a~ PUBLIC HEARING: ~ NO
N>TE REFERRED: II~~ INITIALS: ~
============--================~====================================
REFERRALS: '
.,/'
-V-
Ci ty Atty
Ci ty Engi neer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Hater
City Filectric
Env i r. Blth.
____ Aspen Consolo S.D.
____ Mtn. Bell
____ Parks Dept.
____ Holy Cross Electric
____ Fire Marshall
____ Fire Chief
____ School District
____ Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
____ StateHwy Dept (Glenwd)
____ StateHwyDept (Gr.Jtn)
____ Bldg: Zoning/Inspectn
____ Other:
'. ;~~~=;~~;~;~:================~~;~=~~~;~~:.=/~=~t7:;5-==~~;~~:=?L==
\ -./ City Atty ~ JCitY Engineer ~Building Dept.
Other:
Other:
\/"" ..:rr-
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: ~ &.AAIlCU1;;' <tJ;'I..:'
(!Lf)jtb
~'..
-"..t,
CASE DISPOSITION:
Reviewed b,~ ~pen P~
Ci t~uncil
~~,-,~. "'-l
f\.-.t"- kf~ ~
F:e:vieWCC1 By:
~ty COi.1~
F.spen P&Z,
~\'^-"'\
(-'\...\-
-:s 'd-
().e.. '^\.~
Q~ \Je..<-.- \1;" \t~1"
.
((..(Le,-D "'s~..r ~(N).&. t..-Ip \0,\"1>6""
}-"o~-b "
1. The applicant will submit a plat to the Engineering Depart-
ment prior to its recordation which meets, the standards of
section 20-15 of the Municipal Code, including meeting all
applicable comments from Jay Flammond's memos dated November
18, 1985 and January 27, 1986.
2. The applicant will submit a Statement of Subdivision in a
form acceptable to the City Attorney which shall be recorded
in conjunction with the Final Plat_
3. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
district which inCludes these properties in the event one is
formed.
4. The applicant will place a note on the plat stating that no
further subdivision can be granted, nor additional units be
built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to
Chapter 20 and an allocation pursuant to Section 24-11.1.
5. The applicant will release the City from any claims associ-
ated with the law suits.
,~
.-,
rR~TIPICA'l'E OP MAILING
~
. I hereby certify that on this I t.l day of ,
198~, a true and correct copy of the attached Notic of Public
Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class
postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as inclicated on
the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied
to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case
named on the aforementioned public notice.
Jan~;~~ ~
r",
,'-'
FUBLIC NOTICE
RE: QUILLEN LOT SPLl'l'
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public hearing will be
reopened with respect to the request by Parker Quillen for
approval of a Lot Split, on Monday, February 10, 1986, at a
meeting to begin at 5: 00 P. M. before the City Council of Aspen,
Colorado. The property is located at Lot s 11 and 12 of the Red
Butte Subdivision, on Red Butte Drive just east of Cemetery Lane
in Aspen.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Glaena, Aspen, Colorado, (303) 925~2020, ext. 225.
a/William L. Stirling
Mayor, City Council of Aspen,
Colorado
=================================================================
Published in the Aspen Times on December 16, 1986.
City of Aspen Account.
"
('~
1""'\
l"D'l'IFICA'l'B OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on this ~ day of -n~ ,
198~ , a true and correct copy of the attached Notice of Public
Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first-class
postage prepaid, to the adj acent property owners as indicated on
the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied
to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case
named on the aforementioned public notice.
fk~ -!lu ~~:i>
;tinet Ly Raczak
-
r"\
,.-,
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE:
Parker Quillen Lot Split
NOTICE IS HEREBY eIVEN that a public hearing will be held before
the Aspen City Council, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. on November
25,1985, at the Aspen Community Center, Aspen, Colorado, to consider
an application submitted by Jon Seigle on behalf of his client Parker
Quillen, requesting approval for a lot split which will be acted upon
concurrently with the Final Plat for the lot line adjustment to Lots
11 and 12 of the Red Butte Subdivision. The application has been in
the process since 1980 and the lot line adjustment was the subject of
a lawsuit between the applicant and the City. Based on the results of
the court decision, this case is being brought back through the land
use process.
For further information, please contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020,
ext. 225.
s/William Stirlini
Mayor, City Council of Aspen,
Colorado
=====================================================================
Published in the Aspen Times on November 7, 1985.
City of Aspen Account.
~
,..........,
..
J'>
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I hereby certify that on this ~ day of ' ,
1980, a true and correct copy of the attached Not ce of Pu lic Hearing
was deoosited in the United States maiL first-class nostaae nrenaid.
to the- adjacent property owners as indicated on the attacl1ed-list of
adjacent property owners which was supplied to the Plannaing Office by
the applicant in regard to the case named on the public notice.
N9ft,~
,.,
'.
,,'
,r-,
~
,.
l'OBLIC NOTICE
RE: QUILLEN LOT SPLIT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public hearing will be
reopened with respect to the request by Parker Quillen for
approval of a Lot Split, on Monday, February 10, 1986, at a
meeting to begin at 5: 00 P.M. before the City Council of Aspen,
Colorado, at the Community Center. The property is located at
Lots 11 and 12 of the Red Butte Subdivision, on Red Butte Drive
just east of Cemetery Lane in Aspen.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Glaena, Aspen, Colorado, (303) 925-2020, ext. 225.
s/William L. stirling
Mayor, City Council of Aspen,
Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Published in the Aspen Times on January 16, 1986.
City of Aspen Account.
.."....
-
,..."
't. f"" ,p, \ -\ "IV \ I
,~
MEMORANDUM
V &@&D~&~
FfJJ - 3 &!Ii 1M'
FROM:
Alan Richman, Planning & Development
Paul Taddune, City Attorney
Jay Hammond, City Engineer~
January 27, 1986
Quillen Lot Spilt
TO:
DATE:
RE:
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to let you know that I met with Jon Seigle at the Quillen
lot spl it site. Alpine Surveys staked the location of the lot
line along lot l2A and we observed its location relative to
Cemetery Lane. The road veers to the southwest, away from lots
l2A and llA. We noted that the location of the road relative to
lot l2A gives well in excess of 70 feet of right-of-way and I
have agreed not to pursue the 17 foot easement adjacent to lots
llA and l2A.
The revised plat delivered to me by Mr.Seigle on January 23
reflects the current easements on lot l2B. It would seem,
however, that the westerly property line adjacent to the northwest
property corner should be a northwest call, n2t northeast.
JH/co/QLS
cc: Jon Seigle
Jim Reser
~
/
;.....,
D &@&lJtJf&
/'&-6_ ~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen City Council
Jon David Seigle
FROM:
DATE:
January 28, 1986
RE:
Quillen Subdivision
In an attempt to put the present application of my clients,
Parker and Joan Quillen, in perspective, I would like to take the
opportunity via this Memorandum to provide all of you with some
background of this matter. Hopefully, this perspective will help
you in your deliberations on this matter.
Background: In April of 1980, Parker and Joan Quillen
purchased Lot 12, Red Butte Subdivision. Shortly thereafter his
neighbor, the owner of Lot 11, through his realtor, contacted Mr.
Quillen and informed him that his house was for sale and that the
common ownership of Lots 11 and 12 would allow a subdivision
application to be made to the City for the creation of a third
lot. Mr. Quillen, through his real estate representative, made
an appointment with the then City Attorney, Ron Stock, who
confirmed that there was a procedure for creation of a third lot
which did not require application pursuant to the growth
management plan. A meeting was then held with Mr. Vann, who was
then the head of the Planning Office, who likewise confirmed that
the procedure, as suggested by Mr. Stock, existed. Finally, Mr.
Quillen reviewed the subdivision regulations of the Red Butte
Subdivision and determined that there was no prohibition against
a resubdivision of the lot. With this background information,
Mr. Quillen purchased the adjoining lot and applied for a lot
line adjustment. At a hearing on conceptual review, P & Z
recommended denial because the application, although it was in
compliance with the code, violated "the policy" of the code.
City Council approved the conceptual plan, notwithstanding the
recommendation of P & Z, and returned the application for
preliminary review by P & Z. Planning and zoning rejected the
preliminary plat because, again, it did not "comply with the
policy of the land use code". At that point in time litigation
commenced in the District Court of Pitkin County which culminated
in an order of the Court of Appeals of the State of Colorado
ordering the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the
application. The time period from the first Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing until the final ruling of the Court was
approximately five years. During this period of time, other
litigation arose between the homeowners and Mr. Quillen regarding
the issues that are before the City.
Creation of the Third Lot: One of the objections raised by
one or two homeowners at the hearings before City Council this
r--,
;-"
fall, was that when they purchased their lots in the Red Butte
Subdivision, they relied on the "large lot size" of the lots in
the Subdivision. The protective covenants of Red Butte Subdivi-
sion did not contain any prohibition of resubdivision. Addition-
ally, in Block 1 and Block 2 of the Red Butte Subdivision,
comprising 22 lots, the size of the lots vary from 22,000 square
feet to 52,000 square feet. Upon approval of the Quillen
Subdivision application, the three resulting lots, Lots 11, 12A
and 12B will be approximately the 5th, 6th and 7th largest lots
in Block 1 and thus are not only in compliance with the zoning
but also with the nature of the Subdivision.
Sandra Reed: Ms. Reed appeared at the last meeting and
expressed some concern about the imposition of an easement across
Lot 12. Ms. Reed is a purchaser of the property from the
Quillens. Prior to the sale to Ms. Reed, she entered into an
agreement which acknowledged the subdivision application and she
took the property subject to the application. In the agreement,
of course, she not only consented to the application but agreed
not to object to the application as it was pending before the
City. Ms. Reed appeared at the last meeting to express her
concern about the request of the City Engineering Department for
an easement that would encroach upon Lot 12A. After meetings
held between Ms. Reed, her attorney and Jay Hammond of the City
Engineering Department, it was determined by Mr. Hammond that an
easement was not required through Lot 12A and thus Ms. Reed's
concerns have been fully addressed.
Relationships with Neighbors: One of Council's concerns
when this matter was first presented this fall was that the
neighbors approve of the application. Mr. McGrath, who
represents certain of the neighbors and I, on behalf of our
respective clients, entered into a settlement agreement which
would resolve the litigation on the basis of a release of all
claims, and also the approval of the creation of the third lot.
At this time, a majority of the owners in Block 1 have no
objection to the creation of the third lot.
I hope that the background that I have provided in this
Memorandum will be helpful in your deliberation on this matter.
We acknowledge that it has b~en a volatile issue for the City.
However, this application in terms of impact on the quality of
life in the neighborhood and its effect as a "precedent" in
future applications is not significant to the City's interest
because of the particular configuration of the lots in question,
and also because of a subsequent amendment to the land use code
which would preclude the procedure being followed. In hindsight,
the Quillens wish they had never purchased Lot 11 and made the
subdivision application. However, in 1980 in good faith and
reliance on information they received from the City Attorney,
they purchased the property and submitted the application. We
would hope that given the history of this matter and its isolated
impact, that Council would approve the application for subdivi-
sion and lay this matter to rest.
-2-
l20-19
,...,...,
ASPEN CODE
l!().19
(4) In addition to other exceptions which may be granted
pursuant to this section, exceptions may be granted for
the purpose of adjusting a lot line between adjacent
parcels or lots which may be under individual or sepa-
rate'ownership if the following conditions are met:
(i) The applicant demonstrates that the purpose 'of
the request is to correct an engineering or survey
error in a recorded plat, to permit a boundary change
between consenting adjacent landowners or to ad-
dress specific hardship, provided that the corrected
plat meets the standards of the Code at the time of
the request; and
(ii) The adjustment will not directly or indirectly af-
fect the development ,rights or permitted density
on the ptoperty by providing the opportunity to
create a new lot or parcel for development or resale
purposes. It may be considered, sufficient proof that
the application will not affect the development rights
or permitted density of the property if the appli-
cant documents that the lands in question are fully
developed under existing zoning and will not change
in development status due to the adjustment; or if
the applicant agteeS to compete under the GMP for
any development rights beyond the existing level of
development on the newly created lots or parcels;
and
(iii) Subsequent to the adjustment, the parcels or lots
will continue to conform to the underlying area and
bulk requirements of the zone district. In cases of
an existing nonconforming lot, the adjustment shall
not increase the nonconformity of the resulting lots
or parcels; and
(iv) The applicant otherwise complies with all applica-
ble zoning and subdivision regulations of the City
of Aspen.
(b) The city council may exempt a particular division of land
from the definition of a subdivision set forth in sectioQ.
20.3(s), when, in the judgment of the city council, such
division ofIand is not within the intent and purpose of this
Supp. No. 28
1234
,-.,
. ,
/-~'-'''---'',-----~
,-,
,~
~EIIORANDUM
FROM:
Aspen City Council ~
Hal Schilling, City Mana ,-
Alan Richman, Planning an evelopment Director ~
TO:
THRU:
RE:
Quillen Lot Split Fincll Plat
February 4, 1986
DATE:
================================================================-
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommenos approval of the Quillen
Final Plat.
BACBGROUND: On December 16, 1985, the Aspen City Council, by a
vote of 3 in favor, 2 against, approveo a motion to oeny the
Quillen Lot Split. Subsequently, at a regular meeting on January
13, 1:986, Jon Seigle, representing Mr. Quillen, requested that
the City Council move to reconsider this action and reopen the
public hearing on this application. Council agreed to reconsider
the case and directed the Planning office to advertise the
meeting as a public hearing and to notify property owners, as per
Section 24-11.2 (a) of the Aspen Municipal Code. This has been
accomplisheo, and therefore, tonight's meeting is a public
hearing to consider the lot split application, and to consioer
the lot line adjustment.
Rather than reiterate the history of this application, we attach
the following exhibits as backgrouno: \
Exhibit "A"
Planning Office memo oated December 10, 1985
Planning Office memo oated November 25, 1985
Jay Hammono memo dateo November 18, 1985
Jay Hammono memo oated January 27, 1986
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
Exhibit "D"
RECOMMENDED MorION:
Quillen Subdivision,
and l2A, Block 1 of
Lot l2B from the new
"Move to grant final plat approval to the
which adjusts the lot lines between Lots llA
the Red Butte Subdivision, and to split off
lots, subject to the following conditions:
~
,~
1. The applicant will submit a plat to the Engineering Depart-
ment prior to its recordation which meets the standards of
Section 20-15 of the Municipal Code, including meeting all
applicable comments from Jay Hammond's memos dated November
18, 1985 and January 27, 1986.
2. The applicant will submit a Statement of Subdivision in a
form acceptable to the City Attorney which shall be recorded
in conjunction with the Final Plat.
3. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement
district which includes these properties in the event one is
formed.
4. The applicant will place a note on the plat stating that no
further subdivision can be granted, nor additional units be
built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to
Chapter 20 and an allocation pursuant to Section 24-11.1.
5. The applicant will release the City from any claims associ-
ated with the law suits.
6. The applicant will provide an easement to the City, meeting
the standards of the City Engineer, to soften the turn onto
Red Butte Drive.
7. The applicant will release the neighbors from all claims
associated with the law suits."
AR.7:jlr
2
,-...
~
MEMORANDUM
D' [g@ [g D\W~1rm
DEC161985 L,;)"
/IYJ
TO:
FROM:
Paul Taddune
Alan Richman
Jay Hammond*
DATE:
December 12, 1985
RE:
Easements at Quillen SUbdivision
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to our meeting with Herb Klein on December 11 and my
subsequent investigation of the property at the intersection of
Cemetery Lane and Red Butte Drive, Herb agreed to pursue easements
from Mr. Quillen as follows:
1. For the purpose of eventually improving the intersection at
Cemetery Lane and Red Butte Drive, an easement approximately
described as follows:
Beginning at the northwest corner of lot 12B on the Quillan
subdivision plat, thence S 04. OS' 06" E 30 feet, thence N 85.
54' 54" E 47.29 feet, thence N6t 41' 48" W 56 feet along the
northeasterly property line to the point of beginning.
2. The owner will grant a 17 foot wide easement paralleling the
westerly property line adjacent to Cemetery Lane subject to the
following restrictions:
a. Use of the easement shall be 1 imi ted to construction of:
Pavement
Curb and Gutter
Sidewalk
Subgrade utilities and appurtenances
Slopes
Retaining structures
Landscaping
b. The City agrees that in the event the road is to be
widened using the easement we will revegetate the disturbed
areas with young plants to approximate pre-construction
quantities.
c. The owner shall have the right to review any plans for
retaining structures and make reasonable requests for changes.
The Quillen plat is to be updated to reflect the above easements.
JH/ co/Q u illenSub
cc: Herb Klein
iO'..';'{>l:llf.~t' : :"d""'::;;.~',."".~"'.":',;J:"'?~";';;;;'"";:;'"J.::;;."'~"'l\L"'lW';>;t,=~:-";:;.;.,>";;,;;,, =':'~~'-M-~'~~" .a ~'"""~"':;;;;;r;,$>'iA~~Jo:_._....._ _
~ -(<,t"~""'~" t<."
,~
.
~IEK>RANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM:
Hal Schilling, City Manager
Alan Richman, Planning Office
f<<Z.,
THRU:
RE:
DATE:
Quillen Final Plat
December 10, 1985
=====================================================================
SUMMARY: The City Attorney will report to you on Honday as to the
status of his ~lork on this case.
BACKGROUND: At your meeting on November 25, we presented the attached
memorandum to you, recommending approval of the Quillen lot line
adj ustment/lot spl it. The Council, following substantial public
discussion, tabled the item and referred it to the City Attorney while
adding the following conditions to our recommendation:
5. That the City will be released from any claims associated
with the law suits.
6. That the applicant will provide an easement to the City,
meeting the standar ds of the City En gi neer, to soft en the
,turn onto Red Butte Drive.
7. That the applicant will release the neighbors from all
claims associated with the laYl suits.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The City Attorney reports to me that he has been
working \dth the interested parties on the case. He believes that he
is close to a resolution of the issue, and will be prepared to refXlrt
to you on his conclusions at your meeting.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: presuming that the City Attorney can satisfy your
concerns, the recommended motion remains as it was drafted in my memo
dated November 25, plus the 3 conditions noted above.
AR.8
'.
.,.-"
"
12:.,..:\-, ~\~ ,'~
,.-"
MEl<<>RANDUM
DATE:
Aspen City Council _~\
Hal Schilling, City Manage~'
Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director ~
Quillen Final plat - Lot Line Adjustment; Lot Split
November 25, 1985
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
=====================================================~===============
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the applicant's
request for Final Plat approval to adjust the lot lines between Lots llA
and 12A, Block 1 of the Red Butte Subdivision, and to split off Lot 12B
from the new lots.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The application before you has been remanded by
the Colorado Court of Appeals, which reversed the District Court's decision
to uphold the P&Z'S denial of this application on April 2, 1981. The
applicant is the owner of Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, of the Red Butte
Subdivision, on the corner of Red Butte Drive and Cemetery Lane. The two
lot s are zoned R-30 .(minimum lot size = 30,000 s. f., minimum lot area per
dwelling unit = 15,000 s.f.) and are approximately 41,382 sq. ft. and
52,272 sq. ft. in size, respectively. The applicant is requesting subdivi-
sion approval for a lot line adjustment to reduce the size of Lot 11 to
approximately 30,500 sq. ft., while Lot 12 would, be increased to approxi-
mately 63,143 sq. ft. Upon approval of this adjustment, the applicant
would also like to obtain a growth management exemption application to
split the lot, as per Section 24-11.2(d), and obtain the right to a third
house on the property (two homes are now located on the two lots).
HISTORY: On July 29,1980, the P&Z denied the applicant's request for the
above-captioned lot line adjustment through the subdivision exception
process. Subsequently, a full subdivision application was submitted for
the same purpose, and on February 3, 1981, the P&Z adopted Resolution 81-1,
recommending the conceptual denial, of the application. Following the
initiation of legal action by the applicant, on 14arch 9, 1981, the City
Council adopted Resolution 81-12, approving the applicant's conceptual
subdivision. However, on April 21, 1981, p&Z adopted Resolution 81-6,
which finally denied the application at the preliminary plat stage.
On October 2, 1984, you received communication from the City Attorney
informing you that the Court of Appeals had reversed the District Court's
decision, which had previously upheld the P&Z' s denial. The City appealed
this decision to the Colorado Supreme Court, which denied the motion for a
rehearing. Therefore, Paul has asked that we take this application back
through the formal subdivision process, rather than to settle this case
outside of our normal land use process.
APPLICABLE CODE SECTION: Section 20-l9(a)(4), which is attached for your
consideration, establishes criteria for the' review of lot line adjustment
""""i""''''':''''0C!~,,''''1,,,'':I)"" ,~, '^,'-" ,"'=:<"'_' .. ""'~~'~., "i'^ ...~~, ".~,~~ !""'""'\~"""'~"'"",~h"'
~""'~,',,,.,.," ,"',,~, ,~. ", ""","""~"""""-",",-"""~"",-"""",,,,,,,,,---,,^,,.,,-~,,-,,,..,~,- "'" ~,J:: '.~ _u
~
I""""l,
applications. This provision was written subsequent to, and in part, as a
result of, the findings of the original Quillen case. It should be quite
clear that this request cannot meet the applicable criteria, particularly
subsection (4)(ii). However, the City Attorney feels that in light of the
Court's decision, this situation should probably be evaluated according to
the subdivision regulations in effect at the time of initial submission of
this application, which would not include these provisions.
Section 24-11.2 (d) establishes the following requirements for approval of
lot split applications:
II (1) The tract of land which was subdivided had a preexisting
dwelling unit;
(2) No more than two (2) lots were created by the subdivision;
(3) The lot under consideration, or any part thereof, was not
previously the subject of an exemption under the provisions
of this section or a "lot split" exception or exemption
pursuant to Section 20-19;
(4) A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded by the appli-
cant after city approval indicating that no further subdi-
vision may be granted for these lots nor additional units be
built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to
Chapter 20 and an allocation pursuant to Section 24-11.1;
and
(5) The application was reviewed by the city council at a public
hearing held pursuant to the standards of Sections 24-
12.5(c) (1) and (2).
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: In looking back at the prior memo from the
Planning Office to the Planning Commission regarding the Preliminary
Plat, I find the comment that:
"Despite the rolicy concerns of P&Z regarding the intent of the
applicant's request, the actual content of the applicant's
request does meet the current requirements of the City's subdivi-
sion regulations."
There is no reason whatsOever for me to find fault with the conclusion
this office reached in 1981 about the appropriateness of the requested
lot line adjustment in terms of the basic standards of the Code. Further-
more, since the Code has since been clarified in terms of its policies
regarding lot line adjustments, I have no concern about the precedent which
could have been set by approving this application, which involved the
applicant accomplishing in two steps what otherwise would not have been
allowed in one step.
.
As. regards the lot split criteria, Lot 12 does have an existing unit, has
not previously been split, and is. orily being divided into two lots.
2
- ~ ",,""-"""';~k..w ",,,","~"~~',=~-.,.,::,t~l''1t''lf:J!c''II,~'~~''',,*,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,":~,,,"""''','''''i'''''P'''"~''''''''~'''''''''''''':,',''Y:'':,",,''~,,"~''' "--
, '.~.m,_"...."~",, ,__"__-,~"""r~.~'~~"","..,."",_~;""""".~~...
.t-\
A.,
Tonight's meeting is a publ ic hearing. Therefore, the only necessary
condition for approval is that the plat indicate that no further subdivi-
sion can be granted, nor additional units be built without receipt of
appli:cable approvals pur,suant to Chapter 20 and an allocation pursuant to
Section 24-11.1.
Jay Hammond, Public Services Director, has provided us with the attached
memo outlining his requirements for this application which include:
1. An easement of 17 feet in width, paralleling the westerly property
line, to accommodate any future construction or grading which might
take place on Cemetery Lane. This easement would increase the
available right-of-way from 43 to 60 feet in width.
The applicant should be required to join any future improvement
district which may be formed.
2.
.
3. Various other minor platting concerns.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: On October 22, 1985, the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval to the applicant by a
vote of 6-1.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to grant final plat approval to the Quillen
Subdivi sion, which adj usts the lot lines between Lots llA and l2A, Block 1
of the Red Butte Subdivision, and to split off Lot l2B from the new lots,
subject to the following conditions: '
1. The appl icant will submit a plat to the Engineering Department
prior to its recordation which meets the standards of Section 20-15 of
the Municipal Code, including meeting all applicable comments from Jay
Hammond's memo dated November 18, 1985.
2. The applicant will submit a Statement of Subdivision in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney which shall be recorded in conjunction
with the Final Plat.
3. The applicant shall agree to )Oln any future improvement district
which includes these properties in the event one is formed.
4. The applicant will place a note on the plat stating that no further
subdivision can be granted, nor additional units be built without
receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to Chapter 20 and an alloca-
tion pursuant to Section 24-11.1.
AR.30l
3
,-..
, '
~
'~
TIffi@f!Ot
fOI I 9 r985
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Alan Richman, Planning & Development Director
Jay Hammond, Public Services Director :rl-lle.e
November 18, 1985
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Quillen Lot Split
===================================================================
Having reviewed the above application for lot split approval, the
Engineering Department would request the following items prior to
plat recordation:
1. We had requested additional information from the surveyor
regarding the status of the Cemetery Lane right-of-way. If the
fence line indicates the westerly right-of-way boundary than we
would require an easement from all the properties in the application
seventeen (17) feet in width paralleling the westerly property
line to accommodate future construction or grading on Cemetery
Lane and creating a 60 foot right-of-way for construction purposes.
2. The plat should indicate the "toe of slope" adjacent to
Cemetery Lane.
3. Utility easements should be indicated 15 feet in width, 7.5'
on either side of all newly created lot lines. The easement
associated with the old lot line should remain in effect if
utilities are in it.
4. An easement should be indicated for the driveway to lot llA
as it crosses lot 12A.
5. The applicant should be required to join any future improvement
district.
6. The following platting concerns should be addressed:
a. Clerk and Recorder acceptance should read Quillen
Subdivision.
b. Location and size of existing utilities should be
shown.
c. Identify adjoining lots.
d. Add a statement of subdivision for signature by the
owner.
e. A Subdivision agreement is still needed.
JH/co/QuillenLotSplit
Ie.- j
I""
,,-,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Attorney
City Engineer
FROM:
Alan RiChman, Planning and Development Director
RE:
Parker Quillen Lot Split
DATE:
November 4, 1985
=====================================================================
Attached for your review is an application submitted by Jon Seigle for
a lot split which will be acted upon concurrently with the Final Plat
for the lot line adjustment to the Red Butte Subdivision. The
application has been in the process since 1980 and the lot line
adjustment was the subject of a lawsuit between the applicant and
the City. Based on the results of the court decision, this case is
being brought back through the land use process. For the benefit of
the Engineer, we are attaching the memo to P&Z on this case which
provides you with the background necessary for your review. Please
see me if you have any questions about the procedures and to discuss
our need to look at street rights-of-way in the vicinity of this
project.
This case has been scheduled on Council's November ,25th agenda.
In order to have adequate time to prepare its presentation to Council,
please return your comments no later than November 11th.
Thank you.
,,-., ,
,,-.,
KLEIN. SEIGLE & KRABACHER
HERBERT 5. KL.EIN
JON DAVID SEIGLE
8. JOSEPH KRABACHER
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO B 161 1
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-8700
THOMAS C. HILL
October 31, 1985
Alan Richman
Planning ahd Development
Director
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado
Re: Lots 11 and 12, Red Butte Subdivision
Dear Alan:
This letter shall serve as the application of my clients,
Parker and Joan Quillen for a lot split GMP exemption/subdivision
exception for subdivision of Lot 12, Block 1, Red Butte Subdivi-
sion.
Lot 12 is presently approved with a single family house and
the purpose of this application is to divide Lot 11 to create an
additional lot. Lot 12 is presently 63,143 square feet.
Under separate cover, Alpine Surveys will deliver to you the
appropriate number of plats to process this application. I have
previously delivered to you a draft of the plat. I am also
enclosing my client's check in the amount of $680.00 to cover the
processing fees in connection with this application.
Finally, please find enclosed a list of property owners who
own property within 300 feet of the property subject to this
subdivision request.
Pursuant to our discussions, it is my understanding that
this matter will go directly to City Council and I would
appreciate you placing it on the agenda as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
JDS/jgc
Enclosures
cc: Parker Quillen
KLEIN, SEIGLE & KRABACHER, P.C.
A
By k Seigle
,-,
!"""'\
MAILING LIST
Maynard Torchiana
Box 1447
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Cactus Feeders, Inc.
Box 1300
Dumas, Texas 79029
Richard Walbert
1185 Cemetary Lane
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Penny Evans
Box 4774
Aspen, Colorado 81612
T. M. Shuff, Ltd.
1470 Old Mill Road
Lake Forest, Illinois 60046
Marjorie Stein
Estate of Henry Stein
c/o David Dominick
Cogswell and Wehrle
One United Bank Center
1700 Lincoln St., Suite 3500
Denver, Colorado 80203
Alexandra Sadron
Box 7814
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Charlotte Fox
Box 2963
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Charles and Ann Worth
Box 930
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Geoffrey and Linda Howard
2600 Douglas Road, Suite 900
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Nelson H. Heartstone,
28 State Street, 38th
Boston, Massachusetts
Trustee
Floor
02109
Martin Keller
13880 Wide Cove Road
Golden, Colorado 80401
Victoria Aybar
c/o Gulfco
616 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Roland and Gertrude Fischer
12035 Applewood Knoll Drive
Lakewood, Colorado 80215
Marvin T. and Barbara Jordan
Box 980
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Carolyn Miller
825 Roaring Fork Road
Aspen, Colorado 81611
\^
,~
ME!I>RANDUM
RE:
DATE:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
Quillen preliminary Plat - Remand by Court of Appeals
October 22, 1985
TO:
FROM:
;====================================================================
APPLICART'S REeUEST: The application before you has been remanded by
the Colorado Court of Appeals, which reversed the District COurt's decision
to uphold the P&Z's denial of this application on April 2, 1981. The
applicant is the owner of Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, of the Red Butte
Subdivision, on the corner of Red Butte Drive and Cemetery Lane. The two
lots are zoned R-30 (minimum lot size = 30,000 s.f., minimum lot area per
dwelling unit = 15,000 s.f.) and are approximately 41,382 sq. ft. and
52,272 sq. ft. in size, respectively. The applicant is requesting subdivi-
sion approval for a lot line adjustment to reduce the size of Lot 11 to
approximately 30,500 sq. ft., while Lot 12 would be increased to approxi-
mately 63,143 sq. ft. Upon approval of this adjustment, the applicant
would submit a growth management exemption application to split the lot, as
per Section 24-11.2 (d), and obtain the right to a third house on the
property (two homes are now located on the two lots).
HISTORY: On July 29, 1980, the P&Z denied the applicant's request for the
above-captioned lot line adjustment through the subdivision exception
process. Subsequently, a full subdivision application was submitted for
the s,ame purpose, and on February 3,1981, the P&Z adopted Resolution 81-1,
recommending the conceptual denial of the application. Following the
initiation of legal action by the applicant, on March 9, 1981, the City
Council adopted Resolution 81-12, approving the applicant's conceptual
subdivision. However, on April 21, 1981, P&Z adopted Resolution 81-6,
which finally denied the application at the preliminary Plat stage.
On October 2, 1984, you received communication from the City Attorney
informing you that the Court of Appeals had reversed the District Court's
deci sion, which had previously upheld the P&Z' s denial. The City appealed
this decision to the Colorado Supreme Court, which denied the motion for a
rehearing. Therefore, Paul has asked that we take this application back
through the formal subdivision process, rather than to settle this case
outside of our normal land use process.
APPLICABLE ,CODE SECfION: Section 20-l9(a)(4), which is attached for your
consideration, establishes criteria for the review of lot line adjustment
applications. This provision was written subsequent to, and in part, as a
result of, the findings of the original Quillen case. It should be quite
clear that this request cannot meet the applicable criteria, particularly
subsection (4) (il). However, the City Attorney feels that in light of the
Court's decision, this situation should probably be evaluated according to
the subdivision regulations in effect at the time of initial submission of
this application, which would not include these provisions.
,-.,
,-.,
PLANNING OFFICE REVIEW: In looking back at the prior memo from the
Planning Office to the Planning Commission regarding the Preliminary
Plat, I find the comment that:
"Despite the policy concerns of P&Z regarding the intent of the
applicant's request, the actual content of the applicant's
request does meet the current requirements of the City's subdivi-
sion regulations."
There is no reason whatsoever for me to find fault with the conclusion
this office reached in 1981 about the appropriateness of the requested
subdivision in terms of the basic standards of the Code. Furthermore,
since the Code has since been clarified in terms of its policies regarding
lot line adj ustments, I have no concern about the precedent which could
have been set by approving this application.
Since this application does meet the standards of the Code, it is only
necessary for our action to address the following basic issues:
1. Obtaining a plat which meets the standards of Section 20-15 and a
Statement of Subdivision in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
2. Obtaining the applicant's agreement to join any improvement district
which may be formed.
3. Joining the lot split application to the lot line adjustment at
the Final Plat stage.
These items are addressed as conditions of the recommendation below.
RECOMMENDED MO!l'IOlll: "Move to grant preliminary plat approval to the
Quillen Subdivision, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant will submit a plat to the Engineering Department
prior to its recordation which meets the standards of Section 20-15 of
the Municipal Code.
2. The applicant will submit a Statement of Subdivision in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney which shall be recorded in conjunction
with the Final Plat.
3. The applicant shall agree to Jo~n any future improvement district
which includes these properties in the event one is formed.
4. The applicant shall submit a lot split GMP exemption/subdivision
exception application for review by City Council at a public hearing
to be held in conjunction with Final Plat for the subdivision."
AR.30
2
1"""-.
.~
~{ e...
llz{~t;
..--7
(/it:
KLEIN. SEIGLE & KRABACHER
HERBERT S. KLEIN
JON DAVID SEIGl.E
B. JOSEPH KRABACHER
THOMAS C. HIL.L
PROFESSIONAL. CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
-
TELEPHONE
13031925.8700
August 22, 1985
Paul Taddune
Aspen City Attorney
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Parker Quillen
Dear Paul:
Please find enclosed a copy of an agreement that was entered
into between Charles Worth, Penny Evans and my clients Parker and
Joan Quillen. Based upon my conversations with you, it is my
understanding that you will be discussing this matter with City
Council to expedite the approval of the creation of the third lot
in the Red Butte Subdivision as contemplated by the original land
use application.
Sincerely yours,
KLEIN, SEIGLE & KRABACHER, P.C.
By
)t::.:"
Seigle
JDS/jgc
Enclosure
cc: Parker Quillen
-",1"
^
-i
l"
\
j;jt
11.
.
r'"
(""')
,
AGR
This agreement made thi ."). I day of Jul by and between
Parker Quillen and Joan Quille reinafte ferred "l:oas
Quillens) and Charles E. Worth and Ann G. Worth (hereinafter
referred to as Worths) and Penny Evans (hereinafter referred to
as Evans).
WHEREAS, the Quillens filed a complaint in the District
Court of Pitkin County, captioned as 83-CV-354 which named as
Defendants all the other owners of Lots in Block I of the Red
Butte Subdivision (hereinafter referred to as Owners) as well as
the Red Butte Subdivision Homeowners's Association.
WHEREAS, Worths and Evans are lot owners in the Red Butte
Subdivision, and
WHEREAS, the litigation arises from the attempts of Quillens
to create a third lot (hereinafter referred to as Lot 13) from
existing properties owned by Quillen in Lot 1, Red Butte
Subdivision, and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to settle the litigation between
them on the terms and conditions set forth herein.
POW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants the
parties agree as follows:
~
1. Payment to Worths and Evans: Quillens agree to pay to
the trust account of J. Nicholas McGrath, Esquire the sum of
$4,000.00 upon the sale of Lot 13 or upon the sale of all of
their property in Block I, Red Butte Subdivision if the same is
sold as a package. The sums are to be used by Worths and Evans
~s re~mbursement for at~orney's fees incurred by them and o~ #~
Quillens covenant that they will diligently proceed wit the land
use application before the City of Aspen for the creation of Lot
13 and upon approval shall list Lot 13 for sale. The obligations
of Quillens hereunder shall be contingent upon those matters set
forth in Paragraphs 3 and 4 below.
2. Approval of Owners: Worths and Evans agree to use
their best efforts to obtain the written consent from 75% of the
Owners (including the Quillens) to the creation of Lot 13. The
form of consent to be executed by each owner is attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
3. Contingency to Quillen performance: The Quillens'
obligation in Paragraph 1 above is contingent on the following:
a. Final approval by the City of Aspen of the
creation of Lot 13, Red Butte Subdivision
and recordation of the final Subdivision
Plat in compliance with applicable land use
regulations of the City of Aspen.
-,
~
,~
.
b. Written consent by 75% of the Owners (in-
cluding the Quillens) to the creation of
Lot 13 pursuant to the provisions of the
protective covenants for the Red Butte
Subdivision.
4. Dismissal of litigation: Upon receipt by Quillens and/
or recordation in the records of Pitkin County of the requisite
consent of the Owners to the creation of Lot 13, Quillens agree
to execute a stipulation and mutual release of claims to Civil
Action No. 83-CV-354 to dismiss the same with prejudice which
shall also be executed by all parties served in the litigation.
A proposed form of such stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit
B. Quillens also agree to execute, upon receipt of the requisite
approval from the Owners as set forth herein, a release of lis
pendens filed against the lots of Owners in connection with
83-CV-354.
5. Time is of the essence: In the event that the consent
of the Owners as set forth in Paragraph 2 above is not obtained
within 30 days of date of this agreement, this agreement shall be
null and void and of no effect.
6. Binding effect: This agreement shall be binding on the
parties hereto, their heirs, executors and assigns. .
~
d~, ;~/./;/, ;:;;{;;-;7 A ;
nn G. Worth
-2-
.--,
--.
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
No. 82CA1300
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
BLOOMQUIST, as members thereQf )
acting in an official ca-pacity;)
THE CITY OF ASPEN; THE COUNCIL )
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN; HERMAN )
EDELj JOHN VAN NESS; MICHAEL )
- BEHRENDT; TOM ISAAC; SUSAN )
MICHAEL; GEORGE PARRY and )
CHARLES T. COLLINS, as members)
thereof acting in an official )
capac ity, )
)
)
]ARKER QUILLEN and JOAN
QUILLEN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN; OLOF HEDSTROM; PERRY
HARVEY; JASMINE TYGRE; LEE
PARDEE; ROGER HUNT; AI..
f
1 C:-'~j::? ;...? ....,-:: ,~':"' " ~-:"".~
r:" ;"
..,.....:..,.-
;. .
. '""\-..,....
.,".' ."..
d.'d ", _ . I jt:e
Oc-to.b_,e.Y" .
f
_.V
,"t,',
. .~, ." '...
. '.~ ~ >
\:':,~-". :,,-',>"" ",~,:;:-,~ /i
j':/ 1.....,_ "0 .....~'..;,J'.Jv~'~
"".....-."'.-.;."',. --..--
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the District Court of Pitkin County
Honorable Gavin D. Litwiller, Judge
DIVISION III
Opinion by JUDGE KELLY
Tursi and Metzger, JJ., concur
JUDG~~NT REVERSED
AND CAUSE REMANDED
vHTH DIRECTIONS
Sachs, Klein & Seigle, P.C.
Jon David Seigle
James H. Delman
Aspen, Colorado
Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants
The Office of the City Attorney of Aspen, Colorado
Paul J. Taddune
Gary S. Esary
Aspen, Colorado
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees
1"""-
--
Parker Quillen and Joan Quillen, plaintiffs, appeal from
the trial court's determination that the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor abused
its discretion in denying their application for a lot line
adjustment. We reverse.
On separate occasio~~~;q~illens purchased two adj~~~i~~,\
parcers-o:Cfancl"in-"the'-Red Butte Subdivision of Aspen, one/of
/. ..-..."..-..-',-----,-., . . --...-'
JQish-c_O_nJ~.!iined a single family ~~sidence:They a;;~~~d to
---- -----.--..-'_______.,._.w.-/
the Planning Commission for a lot line adjustment to decrease
the size of the lot which contained the residence and to
increase the size of the other. Their plan was to divide the
newly expanded lot and later to build a house on each
newly-created lot. The lot line adjustment sought by the
Quillens was necessary so that the three proposed lots would
comply with minimum square footage requirements.
To obtain a lot line adjustment, the Aspen Municipal Code
requires applications to be submitted first to the Planning
Commission for consideration and recommendation to the City
Council concerning the conceptual acceptability of the
proposed change under the Code requirements. After City
Council approval, applications are to be returned to the
Planning Commission for preliminary plat approval and then for
final plat approval. The preliminary plat approval stage
gives rise to this controversy, and there is no provision in
-1-
\,
,-r"',
~,-.",
the Municipal Code for City Council review at this stage of
the subdivision proceedings.
The Planning Commission, upon the Quillens' initial
application, founn that lot line adjustments had been used
historically to reconcile platting errors or to adjust a
specific hardshi.p, neither of which had been shown here. The
Planning Commission further found that the Quillens' ultimate
plan would effectively create three lots for development
rather than two, thereby circumventing the intent of the
City's Growth Management Policy Plan. Concluding that this
result would be conceptually i.nconsistent with the intent of
the' Aspen subdivision regulation "[tlo safeguard the interest
of the public and to otherwise promote the health, safety and
general welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen," the
Planning Commission recommended denial of the Quillens'
application.
Notwithstanding-the Planning Commission's conclusions, the
City Council decided that all written requirements of the
Aspen subdivision regulations had been met. Stating also that
it wished to resolve a related lawsuit which the Quillens had
filed alleging misrepresentation by certain city officials,
the City Council approved the Quillens' conceptual
presentation, returned it to the Planning Commission, and
directed the Planning Commission to approve the preliminary
plat "upon sufficient demonstration that the application
complies with existing subdivision regulations."
-2-
'~
~
The Planning Commission, after concluding that Aspen
Municipal Code 920-5(d) granted it authority to re-evaluate
the conceptual compatibility of the Quillens' application at
this stage of the proceedings, denied preliminary plat
approval for reasons similar to those articulated in its
conceptual recommendation to the City Council. It also found
that the proposed change would weaken the purpose and purport
of Chapter 20 of the Code concerning regulation of subdivision
development by dis-rupting the current subdivision-plan which
had been relied on by existing Red Butte homeowners, who had
objected to any changes or modifications.
The Quillens petitioned for C.R.C.P. 106 relief. The
trial court upheld the Planning Commission, finding, on
several grounds, that the Commission had not exceeded its
jurisdiction or abused its discretion in denying approval.
On appeal, the Quillens assert that the Planning
Commission is without authority to ~econsider the general
conceptual compatibility of their plan at the preliminary plat
approval stage. The Planning Commission continues to look for
its authority to reconsider conceptual compatibility to the
provisions of Aspen Municipal Code 920-5(d), which provides,
in relevant part:
"No structure shall be constructed . . . on
any parcel of land within a subdivision
approved pursuant to this chapter except where
such structure is to be constructed upon a lot
separately designated within the plat of such
approved subdivision. The lot lines
-3-
~.
4
_r-,
f
established in such approved subdivision shall
not be altered by conveyance of a part of such
lots, nor shall any part of any lot be joined
with a part of any other lot for conveyance or
construction unless and until written
~plication has been made to and a~proved bv
tEe lannin commission after find~n that the
eneral ur ose and ur ort 0 t ~s cater
s a not e wea ene y suc c ange.
(emphasis added)
The reliance of the Planning Commission on ~20-5(d) is
'misplaced. The language of that section shows it to be a
general prohibition clause. It cannot be construed to repose
in the Planning Commission the authorfty to overrule the
decision of the City Council made pursuant to Aspen City Code
'~20-10(d) which states unambiguously that:
"Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the
Planning Commission recommendation and at a
regular meeting, the City Council shall
approve, disapprove, or approve with
modifications the conceptual presentation."
Since ~20-5(d) is general in nature and ~20-l0(d) is a
specific provision, the latter is controlling over the
former. City & County of Denver v. Bigelow, 113 Colo. 170,
155 P.2d 998 (1945).
Moreover, Aspen Municipal Code ~20-l2 details the material
to be included in the preliminary plat plan and states that
the "contents of the preliminary plat shall be of sufficient
detail to deter~mine whether the proposed subdivision will meet
the design standards of this chapter." There is no language
which authorizes another inquiry by the Planning Commission
into the conceptual consistency of the proposed development
-4-
~
?<r-,
.
with the intent of the subdivision regulations. Although
Aspen Municipal Code ~20-l0(f) provides that both the Planning
Commission and the City Council-shall review the conceptual
presentation to determine its consistency with the subdivision
regulations, it is the City Council which makes the ultimate
determination on this issue.
The other arguments of the Planning Commission in support
of the trial court judgment are without merit. Aspen City
Code ~20-5(b) is~ina-pplicable because the Quillens'~p-rop-os-ed-
development is exempt under Aspen City Code ~24-ll.2(d).
The judgment is reversed an9 the cause is remanded with
directions to the trial court to set aside the Planning
Commission's resolution denying the Quillens' applicatio~ for
preliminary plat approval, and to remand to the Planning and
Zoning Commission for further proceedings.
JUDGE TURSI and JUDGE METZGER concur.
-5-
""
I
r-,
AUSTIN McGR. ; & JORDAN
Attorneys at Law
600 East Hopkins Avenue
Suite 205
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
J
Phone (303) 925-2601
March 30, 1981
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council Members/p&Z Conw. Members
I
I
i
I
I
I
f
I
FRON:
Ni<;:k McGrath
Quillen-- Evans
Richardson
RE:
Paul Taddune gave me leave to
circulate to you my letter to him, and to
the other of the City's attorneys in the
Quillen suit.
We would like you to reconsider
your position and believe the advice to
you to settle is (a) short-sighted from
. theCity's-long-rangeland use interests,
and (b) incorrect in viewing the City's
power as limited,- e.g., suppose the
COUnty's minimum lot size in Starwood was
2 acres -- could everyone there automatically
subdivide, change a lot line, and build more
houses?
Thank you for your consideration.
JNHjr/dw
Enclosure
,...~\
MEt10RANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
f-"
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Director
RE: Parker Quillen Preliminary Plat
DATE: March 26, 1981
Background: This application by Parker and Joan Quillen to adjust the pro-
perty line between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Red Butte Subdivision was pre-
vi ous ly recommended by you for deni a 1 at the conceptual stage, in Resol uti on
81-1 dated February 3, 1981. As indicated in that attached Resolution,
your basis for denial included:
1) That the adjustment would create a developable free market lot
and as such circumvents the GMP.
2) That no exemption from GMP exists for the construction of a
single family residence on a lot created from the division of
two lots, and therefore this is an attempt to accomplish in two
steps a procedure which could not otherwise be accomplished in
one step; and
3) That no demonstration of hardship has been provided by the
appl i cant.
The Planning Office carried your recommendation for denial to City Council
at thei r meeti ng of February 23, 1981. At that t~me.L~ol:tl1~il;W<\$ill~
formed that the applicant had commenced litigation against the City, P & Z
and various City personnel, alleging that he was misled into a real estate
purchase based on the former City Attorney's opinion that an exception to
the GMP was allowable through the two step process. The applicant informed
the Council that this lawsuit would be withdrawn if the subdivision applica-
tion was approved. Council was further informed that despite the policy
concerns of P & Z regarding the intent of the applicant's request, the
actua 1 content of the appl i cant I s request does meet the current requirements
of the City's subdivision regulations. Council determined that a resolution
should be drafted which would, in effect, absolve the City from the pending
lawsuit in exchange for an approval of the subdivision request. That re-
solution, which is included in your packet for your review, was approved by
Council at its meeting of March g, 1981.
In addition to granting.approval to the applicant's request in exchange for
the lawsuit being dropped, the Council also provided direction to P & Z
in its review of this preliminary plat application. Council advised P & Z
that it desired that the pending lawsuit be resolved by the approval of
this application and that P & Z not resort to policy concerns as a basis for
denying this application. Instead, Council requested that P & Z approve
this application if it can be demonstrated that the application complies
with current subdivision regulations.
Review Comments: The City Attorney, Engineering Department and Planning
Office concur that this application does comply with existing subdivision
regul ati ons. The Ci ty Attorney comments that "The City woul d be hard pressed
to defend a denial of the application for the policy reasons announced by
P & Z". The City Attorney also indicates that the settlement that has been
negotiated does not concede the validity of the applicant's argument that
the City has no discretion to disapprove a subdivision application for policy
reasons, instead postponing that argument for a more appropriate case.
/
~-
~
.
':);;~'~--";:"':;Y;"';'''
~"""(/
-'~
, '
~,
Memo:
Page Two
March 26,
Parker Quillen Preliminary Plat
i
~
1981
Finally, since there is no disagreement that the applicat on does meet the
stri ct i nterpretati on of the City Code, he does feel its appropri ate to
approve this application.
The Engineering Department; in a memorandum dated March 19, 1981 indicates
that the plat has not been corrected as requested at the conceptual review.
The necessary changes required by Section 20-12 of the Code are identified
in that memorandum, and should be accomplished by the applicant prior to
final plat review by Council.
The Planning Office continues.to be most concerned with the implications
of this application in that it does represent a circumvention of the GMP
by accomplishing in two steps a procedure which may not be accomplished in
a single step. The Planning Office recommends that your approval of this
application continue to express your objection to the intent if not the
content of what is being requested. Therefore, your approval would be
conditional as follows:
1) Correction of the plat prior to final review by City Council to
meet the informational requirements identified by the Engineering
Department in a memorandum dated March 19, 1981; and
2) Recognition that the Planning and Zoning Commission does not
approve of the app 1 i cant IS intent to ci.rcumvent the GMP by
creating a third, developable lot which will be exempt from the
GMP, despite the realization that this application does meet the
strict interpretation of the subdivision requirements of the City
Code.
'~
:~
/
~ .
, -----
On
~~
r
;I:
f
f
I
!
I
i
j
J
",
I'
IY::"
. ")
.,
_1'.. ....
,-,
SACHS KLEIN & SEIGLE .
ArrORNEYS AT LAW .
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO' 81 at 1
TELEPHONE
(303) 9Z:5-6700
/-'\
~ "..
>
..
JEFFREY H. SACHS.
HERBER"r s. KLEIN
JON DAVID SEIGl.E
JAMES H. DELMAN
March 25, 1981
Hartin Keller
Box 2000
Aspen
Colorado ,81612
:APR 11~~{
'" A$PEN I PITi(IN('rl ,"-'"
'fllANNlNG Off!l~e
Re: Parker and Joan Quillen -
Red Butte Subdivision
.
Dear Mr. Keller:
(
I appreciate the consideration that you have extended
to my clients, Parker and Joan Quillen, by allowing them to
submit this letter of explanation of what they propose to do
with their property in Red Butte. I will attempt to be as
objective as possible in setting forth the factual and leaal
basis for the subdivision application. It has come to my"
attention that the motivation of one or both of the known
proponents of the opposition to the Quillen application
stems not from the land use considerations of the Quillen's
application but rather on some other tanqential basis, which
I do not feel is necessary or worthy to address.
ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY
In April of 1980, Parker and Joan Quillen acquired the
property known as Lot 12, Red Butte Subdivision. This is
the corner lot and consists of 52,272 sauare feet. It came
to the Quillens' attention that the neighboring parcel (Lot 11)
was available for sale. The real estate agent involved informed
the Quillens that if they acquired Lot 11 the square footage
of the two lots would be approximately 93,000. The real .
estate agent went on to explain that there was the possibility
of the creation of a third residential lot in the what is
now the horse pasture, because the zoning for the Red Butte
Drive area is R-30 which means that the minimum lot size is
30,000 square feet for each residential unit. Since the
Quillens, if they acquired Lot 11, would have in excess of
90,000 square feet, then they would be able to create three
lots under the present zoning for the area. The concept
appealed to the QuiD.ens, because it would enable them to'
cover the substantial cost that \"ould be inc\1n~ed in the
renovation of not only the house ,on Lot 11, but also the
!louse on Lot 12, \vhich \vere both badly in need of repairs.
Em-lever, , l-1r. Quillen did not want to rely on vlhat a real .,. ~->st t
.estate agent thot\ght.po~sible and h~ ap~roache4 the City _
At'corney and asked h~m :Lf the creat:Lon of a tJnrd lot \-Ias ~ retl/Iov
possible. The City Attorney informed the Quillens that it c{,dl~
was a very easy procedure to obtain a third lot. It recuired
. .~.
:.;.;.:;::
.
.
,,-..,
,~
.. "",'
: ,1
;.
,
I
1
l
I
,
I
I
Hartin Keller
Narch 25, 1981
Page Two
two steps. The first was' to move the lot line between Lot
11 and Lot 12 so that Lot 11 would be approximately 31,000
square feet and Lot 12 would then be 62,000 square feet.
The second step would follow an exception to the growth man-
agement plan w.hich allows the construction of a single-
family residence on a lot created from a tract of land where
there is a pre-existing dwelling and no more. than two lots
can be created. After obtaining this advice, which the
City Attorney has testified that he gave under oath, the
Quillens then reviewed the protective covenants for the Red
Butte Subdivision to see if there was anything in there that
would prohibit the creation of a third lot. _ A thOFl11(JQ
review of the subdivision doeumen .. hat there was
no ro 1 1 1 e resubdivision of a parcel 0
and, and thus based upon this fact and the advice Qf the
City Attorney, they purchased the lot. What is imperative
for the homeowners to understand is that the Quillensrepresent
a very unique situation which most likely could never happen
again in the Red Butte Subdivision. The reason it,is unique
is that first of all the Quillens owned two lots and secondly,
Lot 12, which is an oversized lot, was initially developed
with its improvements located very near the property line
between Lot 12 and Lot 11 so that the majority of the open
space of the lot lies to one side of the house. If the
house had been placed in the middle of the lot, then the
creation of a third lot would not be possible. My review of
the plat tor the Red Butte Subdivision, both Block 1 and
Block 2, indicates that there is no other place in the
subdivision where a third lot can be created because on
every other lot that is presently developed, the structures
are located essentially in the middle of the lot, and for
the lots that have not been developed, their square footage,
plus the square footage of an adjacent lot on either side,
is not in excess of 90,000 square feet.
LEGALITY OF THE APPLICATION
r;
-f1
Apparently there has been a representation made to some
of the homeowners that what the Quillens are proposing to do
is illegal. Thi's representation is totally irlaccurate. The
representations may have been based on the. fact that the
Planning and Zoning Commission initially denied the Quillens'
request for the resubdivision. However, this denial was not
based on ~np.'~nd'l~p ~nno::inpr;;Jt-int.Js (i..e"" the creation of
the third lot) but rather on the procedural process the
Quillens were following. The whole issue with the Planning'
and Zoning Commission has been that the procedure initially
recommended by the City Attorney and follo"led by the Quillens,
allows the Quillens to create the third lot as an exemption
to the Growth Management Plan, rather than comoetinq for a
development allotment through t'he Grow,th Manag~men t" Plan.
,
.
.
"-,,,
~
.
.. .
1-lartin Keller
1-larch 25, 1981
Page Three
The difference is that if the Quillens proceed through the
Growth Management Plan,the lot would have to be developed
with employee housing. However, by developing the lot
through an ,exception to the Growth, !1anagement Plan~ the lot.
may be developed as a free ,market unit.. There is obviously
a significant economic benefit to the Quillens to develop
the lot as a free market unit and also the Quillens feel ~~ .
that an employee unit at that location is not consistent AA,~ I~
with the rest or the neighborhood. The City Council did not f~ ,
follow Planning and Zoning recommendation of denial, but - , "n
rather approved the Quillen subdivision l1n,::n"d,m"",C::lv nrrQ.e It}l4JJ..GLX
c:nl')("<iilph",l 1 p~l and confirmed the procedural process by ~ c.JiJtitt
~Which~ the Qui1~ensare seek~ng ~he resubdivision: Basically lu_uA /JI
the Clty' Councll felt that l.n ll.ght of all the cl.rcumstances u.t' ("~
i.e. the recommendation of the City Attorney and the fact~
t~at t~e pr~cedure that the ?u~llens had follo~e~ ~s not in '" '.~'
vlolatl.on or any of the provl.sl.ons of the subdl.vl.slon, " ~~ I
zoning and growth management regulations of the City of ' ,
Aspen, that their application should be approved and further
I ~. ""gave an unequivocal directive to the Planning and ,Zoning
i ' Commission to approve the subdivision application of the
'I. ~~~uillens at both the prelim inary and final plat stages. As
Ii' ..v\ I mentioned above, the Plannin~ Office has nev~~ hrln rln~
: /I'.w-rJ, lal,).q 1'5~ Q'Qjp.r.>-I:-iona '59 tho QQH_l?p.mo""'+- ,",of +-h~ __t. . The
,fi'-U" creation of a third lot \-lould meet all of the rather high
,~ City standards for residential lots.
/
.'
IS THE SUBDIVISION AGAINST THE COVENANTS
,
i,
i
,
I
I
,
,
Some of the neighbors to the Quillens who are opposing
their subdivision application have told other o\vners in the
neighborhood that the resubdivision is in violation of the
protective covenants. I believe that the "recent "initiative"
by one of your neighbors, to have all of you sign an amend-
ment to the protective covenants which would prohibit the
resubdivision of any lot, indicates that in fact the pro-
tective covenants for the Red Butte Subdivision do not pro-
hibit the resubdivision. It has also corne to my attention
that some of ,the owners have stated that their basis for
moving to the ,Red Butte Subdivision was based on the fact
that there were rather large lots there and that creation by
the Quillens of a third lot would adversely affect the
quality of life in the subdivision. Further, statements
have been made that certain owners made their' choice to ,live'
in the Red Butte Subdivision on the reliance that Lot 12
would remain forever as open space. First, I would like to
address the large lot size concern. For your information,
the approximate size each of Quillens' lots upon completion
of the subdivision process, will be 31,0,00 square feet.
This size will either be greater than or approximately the
same size as 33 1/3% of all the lots in Block 1 of the
subdivision. Most importantly, the lots that are smaller or
.
1'"'\
,-,
. -
...
,
/
Martin Keller
!>larch 25, 1981
Page Four
at least not'greater than the resubdivided Quillen lots are
directly across the street, being Lots 1 through 4. So that
at least from those four owners' perspectives, there has
been nothing done by the Quillen re-subdivision \-lhich' changes
the'character of the lot size of the subdivision~ Further,
I doubt that the resubdivision of Lot 12, the corner lot, .
will adversely. affect in any respect Lots 5 through 10 Which
are at the other e~d of the street. The Quillens acknOwledge
that if given the choice, they would rather see a vacant lot
near their house stay vacant rather than be developed.
However, in addressing those owners who felt that they
relied on Lot 12 remaining as a horse pasture, I can only
say that this reliance could have been based on two things.
One is the zoning for the area to insure a minimum lot size
and secondly is subdivision plats which dedicate open Space
in green belt areas. . The zoning has not changed for the Red
Butte Subdivision for at least six years and probably even
longer and the plat is devoid of any mention of open space,
green belt or prohibition against resubdivision.The Quillens
reviewed all of those documents prior to their purchase of
the lots and relied on the same in making their acquisitions.
Further, we have had an opportunity to take some photo-
graphs of the view of the empty lot from the owners across
the street's vantage points. Those photographs indicate
that if a house was built on the pasture, their present view
would only be inhibited, if at all, to the extent of the
view plane below Cemetary Lane. Further, it appears from
the photographs that the space between the building envelope
for the new lot and the house that is presently on Lot 12
will be greater than the space between the houses on Lots 1
through 4 so that the appearance 'of the density created by
the development of the new lot will be less than the appearance
of the "four houses ,across the street from that lot.
x
..Finally, Some of the neighbors have indicated that the
present state of the vacant ~ace on Lot 12 is in their ALsc '!.C{"-i=
opinion an eyesore. This of course will 'be'u~tlmateLY~ D. ~_
remediedupori its full build'out and even by this summer, the
area surrounding the Quillen residence will be fully landscaped
which \"ill greatly improve the appearance of that side of
the street. Further, in light of what my clients have done
to date and plan for the future to do to their propertY,all
of the neighbors will benefit because of the increase in the
value of the property in historically one of the most under-
valued areas in the City of Aspen. _
l
r
I
"':::>
!
;
c.-"J:. hope that this ans\"ers many of the factual and legal
questions that have been raised by the Quillens' land use
applidation. It has come to my attention of COurse that
.there -'.;is an amendment against resubdivision being circulated.
I would hope that in light of this letter, some, of you will
reconsider that amendment at least to require a re\"ording of
.
,..
/
,
i
I
I
,
I
i
I'
I
I
1.
I
t
l(
II
!
1\
~
1
:1
,
3
.
't
J
'J
.
. .
.
.
r-..
t""'\
Hartin Keller
l-larch 25, 1981
Page Five
it to provide that the amendment would not apply,to the
Quillens' subdivision.
.. If you have any questions," I would "apprecia"te it if you
would please contact me or Parker and Joan Quillen directly
at 925-6840. Again, I appreciate the opportunity that you
have extended to Parker and Joan to allow ,me. to set forth
the facts of this subdivision .application.
Sincerely yours,
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
By
fl
~~
Jon David Seigle
I
JDSjap
."
-.
r--
,-,
- .--.-
SPEN
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 23, 1981
TO: Sunny Vann
FROM: Paul Taddun~
RE: Parker Quillen Subdivision
A memo advising Council of its options regarding the Quillen Sub-
division application is attached for your reference. You will
note that we advised Council that the City would be hard pressed
to defend a denial of the application for the policy reasons
announced by p&Z. We also informed Council of a related lawsuit
co~nenced by the applicant alleging that he was misled into pur-
chasing the subject parcel on the assurance of City officials, in
particular the City Attorney, that an exemption from Growth Man-
agement could be accomplished by the two-step subdivision process.
In view of the persuasive legal argument presented by the appli-
cant that the City has little discretion to resort to unspecified
policy reasons for denying an application which otherwise complies
with the subdivision regulations, Council decided to approve the
application subject to a withdrawal of all claims pending against
the City. The applicant tendered an executed conditional release
and a resolution was passed by Council approving the application
and advising the P&Z of its desire that the preliminary applica-
tion be approved, so long as the application complies with express
subdivision standards.
In my view, Council's motivation for approving the application was
based on the possibility that a denial for the stated policy
reasons would be subject to court reversal. The facts underlying
the lawsuit also played a role in Council's decision and provided
a basis for the City to negotiate a settlement without conceding
the validity of the applicant's argument that the City has no
discretion to disapprove a subdivision application for policy
reasons. Thus, the language of the resolution attempts to pre-
serve the policy rationale for future use in a more appropriate
case.
Additionally, there seems to be no disagreement that the applica-
tion complies with the strict requirements of the subdivision
/'1*"\
..-...
Memo to Sunny Vann
March 23, 1981
Page 2
regulations and, for this reason, we recommend that the prelimi-
nary application be approved in accordance with Council's desire.
Since the Growth Management Plan has always exempted the result
eventually sought to be accomplished by the applicant, it seems
inconsistent to deny an application simply oecause an exemption
will arise.
PJT:mc
r--
~
......
SACHS KLEIN & SEIGLE
JEFFREY H. SACHS
HERBERT S. KL.EIN
JON DAVID SEIGL.E
A'TTORNEYS AT LAW
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN. COLORADO SltSll
TEL.EPHONE
(303) 828.8700
JAMES H. DELMAN
March 23, 1981
""-,;,,.)
Sunny Vann
Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
",,,",,,,,,,_,,"",,,
Re: Parker Quillen Application for Subdivision -
Preliminary Approval
\,<\0- ~ t ~
(J-J.;
~\ ~~~
Dear Sunny,
For purpose of notice of the Quillen Subdivision,
please send notice to:
Mellow Yellow Taxi
500 East Cooper
Aspen, Colorado
Marvin T. Jordan (Barbara A.)
P. O. Box 2806
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Roland Fischer (Gertrude)
12036 Applewood Knolls Dr.
Lakewood, Colorado 80215
Lynette G. Richardson
1440, Red Butte Drive
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Martin Keller
13880 Wide Acre Road
Golden, Colorado 80401
H. Nelson Hartson, Trustee
Hans H. Estin
28 State Street, 38th Floor
Boston, MA. 02109
Cactus Feeders
P. O. Box 386
Cactus, Texas 79013
.'
.
Sunny Vann
March 23, 1981
Page Two
r--.
""'"
If you need any additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
JDS/ap
cc: Kathryn Koch
Sincerely yours,
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
By JO~(~it~
~
,
-
r-.,
^
--?
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sunny Vann, Planning Director
Louis Buettner, Engineering Department~
March 19, 1981
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Parker/Quillen Subdivision
After reviewing the new application material submitted for prelim;
inary subdivision plat approval and having made a site inspection,
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. The plat has not been changed with the correction requested
at conceptual review.
2. The following information has not been submitted for this
preliminary review as required in Section 20-12 of the
Municipal Code:
a) Building coverage - Section 20-12(m)
New building on ~arcel 1.
b) Date of plat preparation - Section 20-12(e)
c) Location and dimensions of existing streets - Section
20-12 (g)
d) Location and dimensions of existing easements - Section
20-12(g)
T6,delete existing easements dedicated on the Red Butte
Subdivision, Block I Plat will require a release from
all utility agencies.
e) Location and size of existing utilities - Section 20-12(g)
f) Location and dimensions of existing ditches - Section
20-12 (g)
g) Existing contours - Section 20-12(f)
h) Designation of areas over 30% - Section 20-12(f)
i) Designation of all natural hazard areas - Section 20-12(j)
Cemetery Lane could be a hazard if a car coming down hill
landed on the property.
j) Location of existing vegetation - Section 20-12(~)
k) Name and mailing address of adjacent property owners _
Section 20-12(p)
.
".....,
~'
.~ Parker/Quillen Subdivision
-March 19, 1981
PAGE TWO
".....,
. .
1) Subdivision name - Section 20-12(b)
All certificates shown on the plat given to the Engineering
Department has the plat a "Subdivision Exception" Map of lots
11 and 12, Block I, Red Butte Subdivision.
____.,~o.."'._..,...........
~,
"
,1"'"'\
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Parker Quillen Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Submission
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the
Aspen Planni ng and ZOni ng Commission on Tuesday, April 7, 1981 at a meeti ng
to begin at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena,
Aspen, to review the preliminary plat submitted by Parker Quillen requesting
the relocation of an existing property line between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1,
Red Butte Subdivision. For further information, contact the Planning Office,
130 S. Galena. Aspen, 925-2020, ext. 222.
sl 016f Hedstrom ,
Chairman, Aspen Planning and Zoning
C011lmi ss i on
Published in the Aspen Times on March 19, 1981
City of Aspen Account
/'
//
...'
."~
.~
r
l
.~
.'
LAW OFFICES
AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE
SUITE: 205
AREA CODE 303
TELEPHONE; 925.260,
OF CO\JNSE:L:
PETER L. BUCK, P. S.
SUIT';; 2600
1m TIoIIAO AV.i!:NUE: BUILOING
S!:ATr...E:, WAS""NGrON 9-9100
RONALD 0, AUSTI N
J. NICHOLAS MC:GRATH, ,JR.
WILLIAM R. .JORDAN m
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
e. LEE SCHUMACHER
March 18, 1981
''''~T ...",..,nI;Ql>( c:OLO.....OO.
Paul Taddune, Esq.
, ci ty Attorney
Ci ty \ of Aspen
130. S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
F. Michael Ludwig, Esq.
Wood, Ris & Haines
110.0 Denver Club Building
518 -17th Street-
Denver, Colorado 80.202
5iJfjl-
1\PR 11981 I U
- '~~J~T~~~,g~.
&"""-.-" - ,-
Michael W. Jones, Esg:. ,
Hail & Evans
290.0 Energy Center One
717 ~ 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 8020.2
Robert Edmondson, Esq.
Grueter & Edmondson, P.C.
430. East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Quillan-City-Evans, et al. -
Gen tlemen:
As Mr. Edmondson and Mr. Taddune know, I represent
several landowners in the Red Butte Subdivision who object to
Mr. Quillan's apparent plan to resubdivide his two lots into
three in order to build an additional "spec" house. I have--
enclosed a previous letter on this matter, for your information.
"It is likely, although I cannot definitely so state
at this ttme, that my clients would file a RUle 10.6 suit
against the City and Mr. Quillan if he obtains subdivision
approval. ,Assuming that to be true, I believe the City ought
to reassess whether settlement with the Quillans on the terms
proposed is possible, or in, the City's best interests.
The long range problem, as I see it, with the Quillan
settlement, is that (1) you have not engaged in any discovery,
,,(',
" .'"
;... ~ .
;.' ."
r
~
"}
:r
~
AUSTIN MCGRATtl & JORDAN
at least as the Court file ~-Iould reveal, and (2) the settle-
ment rewards, by granting full relief, a largely spurious
lawsuit, with claims mos'!: land use practitioners would not
make (and I recognize the Court denied some of your motions).
My office has never sued individual staff, P & Z, or
council members for individual damages. Full relief can be
achieved in almost all cases without subjecting employees,
volunteerp, and poorly paid elected officials to such claims.
Despite Monell and pre-Monell cases against individuals under
Section 1983, there are very few reported decisions in this
country in which damages have been al-larded, and it is not an
iden tifiable land use trend to claim or award such personal
damages. Cf., e.g., Rottkamp v. Young, 21 A.D.2d 373, 249
N_Y.S.2d 330, 334 (1964):
"To fasten responsibility for damages
on a public officer for the exercise
of judgment or discretion in favor of
one disappointed by the result 'would
dampen the ardor of all but the most
resolute, or the most irresponsible,
in the unflinching discharge of their
duties. '"
See also Centennial Land & Development Co. v. Townshi~ of
Medford, 397 A.2d 1136 (N.J. 1979); 'Allen v.' City of Honolulu,
Jlaw. , 571 P.2d 328 (1971). Arguably damages against
individuals perhaps ought to be available if fraud or extreme
bad faith is shown, but that is not adequately pleaded in my
view, even in Quillan's third claim. Besides, do any of you
believe Quillan could prove the allegations of paragraph 23
that Stock and Buettner knew or should have known their repre-
sentations were false?
Should I, or any other land use practitioner, rou-
tinely sue individual staff, P & Z, or council members for
damages? Are you not encouraging such claims by capi tulating
completely? Who paid Shoaf's commission? In all likelihood,
the Seller, not Quillan. If so, Shoaf by statute is an agent
of the seller not Quillan, and hence Quillan could not base
his sui t upon statemen ts made to, Shoaf. Reliance must be in
good faith -- do you believe anyone in Aspen, given our com-
plicated land use regulations, believes he can rely on some
off-the-cuff advice of a staff member, when the process in-
volves a public hearing and city council action? You could
get any decent land use attorney in town to testify as an
expert witness that no reasonable person would so rely. DOn't
you think in discovery of Shoaf, a realtor, and Quillan, you
-2-
1"""'\. ,-.
.;;. ,-, (
l
AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN
would discover they are, relatively sophisticated and hence
knew or should have known they could not rely on Stock's brief
commen ts?
Finally the issue becomes, if the City is sued, on
whose side should it be: the party who filed the spurious
damage. claims or the innocen t ad j acen t landowner s in the
subdivision? Given the presumptions in favor of whatever
action a government takes, and the burden on the party attack-
ing that action, that issue is of obvious importance.
We hope you will reconsider your advice to the City
Council to settle.
Very truly yours,
AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
By
J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr.
r,
JNMJr:lu
Enclosure
bcc: Ms. Penney Evans
Mr. & Mrs. Tom Richardson
. .^~.~
r.
f".
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engi neer
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Parker Quillen Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Submission
DATE: March 17, 1981
Attached is a letter of application for preliminary plat approval for a lot
line relocation between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Red Butte Subdivision. This
item is scheduled before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission for a public
hearing on Tuesday, April 7, 1981. Please return comments to me by Thursday,
March 26,1981, Thank you.
"".-t ...~.
r-,
i~
SACHS KLEIN & SEIGLE
JEFFREY H. SACHS
HERBERT S. KLEIN
JON DAVID SEIGl..E
ATTORNEYS AT l..AW
201 NORTH MILl. STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81eu
TEl..EPHONE
(303) 928.8700
JAMES H. DELMAN
Harch 13, 1981
Lou Buettner
Engineering Department
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Quillen Subdivision
Dear Lou,
I have reviewed the preliminary subdivision plat checklist
for the preliminary plat procedures as set forth in the Aspen
Municipal Code for the above-referenced subdivision. In light of
the fact that the subdivision merely entails the relocation of an
existing lot line, it appears that the map that has been pre-
viously filed addresses all of the criteria set forth in the
preliminary plat checklist. '
The only information which is not present on the plat is the
square footage of the resulting lots.
The new Lot 11 shall be ~.<Co$ and the new Lot 12 shall be
(,,2., /S<np
If you need any further information in connection with the
plat, would you please contact me so that I can obtain it for
you.
Sincerely yours,
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
By:
Jon David Seigle
JDS : j 1I~
cc: Parker Quillen
~
.'"
1"'.
~
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 9, 1981
EDEL
Conceptual subdivision, Parker Quillen
VANN
, You approved this application at your prior meeting subject
to negotiation of an agreement which would in effect absolve
the City and various City personnel from a lawsuit that's
currently pending. I believe the city attorney's office
has drafted a copy of that settlement and you have a copy of
it. Edmondson can explain it to you.
EDEL
Nick, do you want to join this table, please. I think we've
pretty much heard the initial part of your presentation, Jon,
if you want to add something to that.
SEIGLE
No
McGRATH
My only concern about the existing resolution is that it seemed
to unfairly curtail the public hearing that would occur at
the preliminary plat stage. With a few minor changes in the
wording, I think you can take whatever action you care to
take today, but make sure the public process is or remains
.open. The resolution contains some language I think you'll
be sorry about someday in the future because there's an
admission in the second whereas that your subdivision authority
is more limited than I think you would otherwise contend, but
that's a prOblem for your city attorney. The problem is you
direct P & Z, you.don't simply approve conceptual on the ground
that you want to settle litigation, which would be a legitimate
ground; you direct P & Z of your intent, so that when my
clients come to P & Z at the public hearing, we're going to
argue on the merits - arguably P & Z would say, no we have
direction from Council. All I'm asking is that you make it
clear in your resolution your strong desire to settle litigatior
but allow my clients to be heard at the public hearing at to
have it considered as an open public process. I just think the
wording is too strong in that resolution.
I didn't write this resolution, I'll just talk to Paul a second.
Are we supposed to have a copy of this resolution.
We got it in our box.
EDMUNDSON
VAN NESS
ISAAC
McGRATH
I'm not sure you got copies of my letter
EDEL
We received your letter.
EDMUNDSON
We have no problem with that - the changing of the words here
We understand what Mr. McGrath is getting at, and that is, all
we're doing at this time is the conceptual based on a dismissal
of the case. What he's saying is that he has a public hearing
coming up 'and there should be no intimation or any implications
at all in this of usurping the public hearing or any other
powers of the P & Z. The next hearing is the same as it always
is"and if he wants to change the words to make that more clear
we have no problem with that.
BEHRENDT
What is the change in wording? Is that exclusively for reloca-
tion of the lot line? Page 1
McGRATH
NO, quite frankly that goes beyond, that's a consideration on
the merits that I don't think we should have to get into. All
I'd suggest on page two, on the second whereas, that you not
be so clear since my clients haven't been heard. "Since City
Council's advised notwithstanding the policy considerations,
.
EDEL
SEIGLE
EDEL
VANN
EDEL
EDMUNDSON
EDEL:
EDMUNDSON
EDEL
EDMUNDSON
EDEL
McGRATH
,-....
~
-2-
the aforesaid subdivision application otherwise meets the
requirements of the Aspen subdivision regulations." Well, in
fact they haven't entirely reviewed it in our view, and we
want to go in and argue about that. The second whereas on the
first page also has a limitation of your authority. My sugges-
tion would be that you recite in section 2 the desire of the
City Council that pending lawsuits, all claims to be resolved.
, On the other hand, the planning and zoning commission is
directed to consider any legitimate opposition at any public
hearing as it is required to do.
Jon, how do you feel about that?
I think the language we have is appropriate. When we were here
the last meeting, we acknowledged that ultimately P & Z is an
independent body, but it was the consensus of this body that
they were directing the P & Z that as far as they were concered
they would like to see it approved. They were usurping any of
its functions or duties or any other part of the process. It
was an important consideration in terms of the language that
we required to drop the lawsuit because we recognize that the
nature of the proceeding that the P & Z can still dead end this
thing. And that's the reason that Paul and I and the Council
agreed on the language as it is. I think that Nick still has
the full ability to present his clients' views in the public
process. The language that we have here is appropriate, I
suggest you approve it, and he still is going to come in, we
still got to go through all the loops.
Bob, this is a classic case of two antagonists, and we really
have to look to you folks and I really have to refer
Besides the legal issue, Nick will have the ability, it will
be a public hearing; it will be published. But depending on
how you choose to word your resolution, I think you can feel
fairly certain how P & Z is going to behave based on the
resolution it receives. In other words, if you're mandating
you want to see this approved and you word it in such a manner,
in all likelihood, regardless of the public response at the
public hearing, it will probably be approved. I mean, let's
be pragmatic about it. It it's changed, as Nick says, and you'.
simply saying you have a desire to resolve the litigation and
so forth and so on and leaving P & Z the authority that has bee
delegated to it to review it on the basis of its merit, then
they may behave differently. You know, it's a choice.
Bob, could we hear
I have spoken to the attorney who will be before P & Z, and he'
comfortable with it, it's good enough for me.
Comfortable with what.
The way it stands, as is
And he feels it is not inhibiting the
No due the verbiage at the end of the last paragraph where it
says, "approve the preliminary presentation upon sufficient
demonstration that the application complies with existing
subdivision regulations . . "
The only other thing that concerns me that Nick said is somethi
of setting a precedent, I'm paraphrasing you. Now are we indee<
setting a precedent for something that is, could you expound
on that
Sure, the resolution recites that, well the resolution implies
that you may not consider the subdivision policy statements as
.
,,-....,
~
-3-
a ground for denying this application.
EDMUNDSON
I think just the opposite of what
McGRATH
Well, there's some language that says that, but you go before-
,hand in your resolution, which I only saw tonight, so I
apologize for not having had it. Can I borrow the first page,
you don't mind if I borrow yours, do you Jon
SEIGLE
Not at all
McGRATH
The second whereas is what troubles me; if it doesn't bother
Paul, let's forget it, really. Because even though-:: the
application otherwise complies with the subdivision regulations
then certain result follows. I think that unduly narrows your
authority, but I'm not overly concerned.
EDEL
Paul
TADDUNE
Well that language is basically a recitation of the reason for
the P & Z denial. We're in a situation where, if we don't
accommodate Jon's client, we might be sued; if we don't
accommodate Nick's client, we might be sued. So, I feel comfort
able with this resolution. We're stating in effect what we
want to do, and that is settle the lawsuit. We want to recog-
nize the policy consideration that are existent in the subdivi-
sion regulations
EDEL
And what about Sunny's statement that in essence we're telling
P & Z what to do.
TAD DUNE
We're explaining to P & Z, it is our desire to have this subdivi
sion approved, notwithstanding the policy considerations so
long as the application otherwise complies with the subdivision
requirements. There's a policy aspect to this, and what we're
doing is advising the P & Z of what our policy feeling is, in
this particular case, reserving the right to make the argument
at some other point that a similar application should be denied.
VANN
In other words, if this particular application concurs with all
the basic consideration, policy notwithstanding, they should
approve it with prejudice.
TAD DUNE
That's right. The only reason that they disapproved it was
because, they felt, as a matter of policy, that they could do
this, and that was that it would qualify for an exemption from
growth management.
ISAAC
Motion to read resolution number 12, by title only
BEHRENDT
Second
KOCH
read by title
ISAAC
Motion to adopt Resolution number 12-
PARRY
Second
EDEL
Discussion. Nick, Jon, Bob anything further to comment or
contribute
McGRATH
My only concern is that you folks also keep your mind open
because it comes back for public hearing and no one as yet has
heard my clients in opposition. Settling litigation is an
important thing for you, but remember that's only one factor,
and we'll be back
EDEL
All those in favor, signify by saying aye
end
.^. '"
<
>
.r
~
lAW, OFFICES
AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN
600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE:
SUITE 20S
RONALD O. AUSTIN
.). NICHOLAS MCGRATH. ,JR.
WIL.L.IAMR. .JORDAN m
'ASPEN, COlORAOO 81611
March 5, 1981
ARC::A COO~ 303
T~U;PHONE: 925.2601
B. LEE SCHUMACHER
City Council
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Quillan application for subdivision of
Lots 11 and 12, Block I, Red Butte Subdivision
We rep~esent Tom and Lynette Richardson and Penney
Evans who reside in Red Butte SUbdiVision, Block 1. Penney
lives down the street from the Quillan property and Tom and
Lynette Richardson live roughly across the street from it.
It is our understanding that contrary to the recommendation
of the Planning Office and contrary to thereco~~endation
of the Planning and Zoning Commission that City Council is
prepared to approve the Subdivision (entitled as a "lot
line change" only) in part because of what we view as an
unduly narrow interpretation of the City subdivision
authority and in part because ~rr. Quillan filed a lawsuit
against the City and it is the City's desire understandably
to settle that lawsuit.
Without reading further, if you would condition
your resolution of approval upon not only (a) dismissal of
the:lawsuit but also upon (b) the condition that the
relocation of the lot line does not grant or imply any ap-
proval for the creation of a new building site and that any
such development proposal would be required to be presented
for full subdivision review and approval, then you need read
no further. That is, the letters of application from the
attorney to the Planning Office state with underlining that
the application "is exclusively for the relocation of the lot
line." If all the Quillans desire-is to-move the lot line in
order to give a greater side lot to the house in which they
reside as opposed to the house they own on adjacent Lot II,
then surely they could not object to such a condition. Given
the allegations of their previously filed lawsuit, however,
it appears that through a highly technical interpretation of
the "lot line" change provisions, it may be that the intent
;-<,
. .
'r-
>-,
AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN
City Council
March 5, 1981
Page 2
of the Quill'ln' s is to create a new bUilding si te and increase
the density on Red Butte Drive. If that be the case then my
clients ask you to consider the fOllowing.
First, we wish to apologize for entering the matter
so late and give you a word of explanation for that. lt is
naturally a preference of my office that we present our
material to planning staff and P&Zand the Council at the
earliest possible time. However, there have been no notices
to adjacent landowners in this matter (and none may be re-
quired); no public hearing as yet; and hence the failure of
Lynette, Tom and Penney earlier to come forward should not
penalize consideration of their interest. Further, Tom and
Penney each did discuss the matter with Sunny Vann, but
believed after talking with Sunny that the City ~_ given the
p&Z recommendation and his recommendation -_ would deny the
subdivision approval (lot line change), and hence that they
need not be further concerned. Having heard that Council
might act otherwise, Toni, Lynette and Penney came to me for
assistance. Tom and Penney are not in any way criticizing
Sunny's statements to them, nor do they believe they should
make a claim for relief upon arguably being misled by a City
official simply doing his job. I mention that because in our
view the essence of the Quillan lawsuit against the City is
turning the well-intentioned advice of a City official into
a lawsuit. We don't intend to claim that one may seek help
from a City staff member and then turn around and sue him
and the City.
When the Red Butte SUbdivision, Block Number 1, was
developed, Lot 12, the lot at the corner of Red Butte Drive
and Cemetery Lane, was made slightly larger than some of the
other lots because it was on the corner, because a portion
of the lot is steep, because one needs to be able to see up
Cemetery Lane as one is at the corner of Red Butte Avenue, and
an additional dwelling close to that corner would not make
sound planning sense. Obviously moving the Lot ll-Lot12 line
closer to Lot l~ nught enable the Quillans to put a new lot
line beyond their house and create out of existing Lot 12
another bUilding site. It does not make a great deal of
planning sense to permit another house in that presently
.
('\
(,-.,'
AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN
City Council
March 5, 1981
Page 3
eXisting pasture area because of various of the planning
concerns mentioned. Those planning concerns aside, we think
it accurate to say that people in the Red Butte SUbdivision,
Block Number I, purchased their lots in reliance,upon the
subdivision as approved and upon the existing lot lines and
lot sizes. There are only twelve lots in Block Number 1,
although there are further lots down Red Butte Drive. Most
of the lots are large. TOm and Lynette specifically moved
from Snowbunny Lane to Red Butte Drive because Snowbunny
was congested and too dense for their tastes. The creation
of additional density in Red Butte Subdivision, Block Number 1,
by the Quillans or by anyone else is not consistent with the
reliance of the Richardsons and Penney Evans as well as of
other homeowners on Red Butte Drive.
We should note that the minutes of the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting reflect that the applicant's
attorney indicated that the purpose of the lot line change
was to create a lot large enough to split subsequently and
that there was no other reason and that any other reason
would be "a very contrived one." We submit that what an
applicant's attorney states on the record you are entitled,
indeed required, to consider in your determination.
We also wish to add one additional fact. In the
lawsuit brought against the City none of the allegations may
be taken as true. They are allegations only and yet it seems
the City desires (perhaps for good reasons) to settle the
lawsuit without in fact knowing whether the allegations are
true. Penney Evans and Tom Richardson recall that after
~tr. Quillan bought the two lots that, on separate occasions
he invited them Over to his house to explain that he was
remodelling his house. Each of them expressed their concern
that he not attempt to divide the lots or build another house,
and he -- according to Tom and Penney -- assured them that
that was not his intent. How does that square with the al-
legation in the lawsuit that he would not have purchased the
property without an ability to divide the lots ,so as to
create a new building site? By no means should you take
this to be a statement that my clients think either the
attorneys for l1r. Quillan or Mr. Quillan himself are not
proceeding in good faith. All we wish to state is that al-
legations of a lawsuit are nothing more and nothing less than
- .
r
r\
AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN
City Council
Harch 5, 1981
Page 4
allegations. They require proof. My clients' position is
the City should not act to settle a lawsuit when it hasn't
investigated the merits of it if such settlement involves
prejudicing the rights of other people and results in not
adequately reviewing a matter under the City's own subdivision
regulations. We believe the policy considerations under the
subdivision code are more than adequate to permit review of
whether the creation of 'a new building site should be per-
mitted. Since it is conceded that on this application full
subdivision requirements must be met, the breadth of authority
outlined in Shoptaugh v. Board of Co. Commissioners, Colo.
App. 543 P.2d 524, 528, is relevant:
hAfter considering the standards established
by the regulations for the health, safety,
convenience and welfare of the general
public, the majority of the board based its
decision to disapprove the plat on the
recommendation of the Colorado State Forest
Service that the subdivision would create
an extreme fire hazard. Such standards
constitute guidelines within which the
board may exercise its discretion in
determining whether a plat should be
approved.h
Thus in our view the City Council may act based Upon the
public purposes recited in the policy sections of the sub-
division laws. The Court So held in Shoptaugh and that reason-
ing would seem to apply here as well.
We ask that you either deny the Quillan application,
or condition its approval specifically as set forth in
paragraph 2, above.
Sincerely,
AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN
JNNjr/dw
cc: Mr. Sunny Vann
Robert Edmondson, Esq.,
Attn: Paul Taddune,
Jon David Seigle, Esq.
By
J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr.
Acting City Attorney
Esq.
'""
....",- ::...-
~,
.
~,
~,
.'
\,
CITY Oh~ASPEN
130 south galena street
asp en, co J 0 r ado, '8 1611
.'
j'''-
"';'
MEMORANDUN
DATE: February 23, 1981
TO: City Council
FROM: City Attorney's Office
RE: Parker Quillen Subdivision
The Planning and Zonin;,j Commiss ion denied the Parker Quillen sub-
division because the applicant's expressed intent is to eventually
create a third lot with a single family Growth Management exemp-
tion pursuant to Section 24-11.2(d). Other than accomplishing
this result, the applicationcoHlplies with subaivsion require-
ments. Thus, should Council likewise deny the application, the
legal issue would become, simply, whether it is arbitrary and
capricious to deny a lot line change application on the grounds
that the applicant intends, through a two-step subdivision pro-
cess, to accompl ish a development exemptf rom Growth ~lanagement.
The applicant's remedy against such a denial would be to obtain a
court order directing the City to grant the application.
Attorneys for the applicant have presented a very persuasive argu-
ment that a denial of the application would be subject to court
reversal. In essence, their contention is that a Subdivision
application which complies with the subdivision requirements can-
not be denied becaUse of policy reasons, that the City's discre-
tion to clpprove or deny is limited to ascertaining compliance with
subdivision standards. In response, the enabling section of the
subdivision proviSions, Section, 20-2, can be resorted to for jus-
tifyinSj a denial on policy grounds. Although it would appear that
the City would be. hard pressed to justify a denial on this baSis,
the validity of such a rationale nonetheless remains as a matter
for judicial determination. Obviously, if the application is
approved merely uecause of the threat of litigation, the COuncil
would, in effect, be deciding the issuei' against itself.
Also pertinent to the present subdivision application is related
litigation now pending against the City and former City Attorney,
Ron btock. The applicant has alleged that he was mislead by Ron
Stock into be,'.ieving that an exemption could be accomplished by
this two-step process alld that he acted Upon this assurance in
purchasing part of the real estate in question. In fact., it is
alleged th.1t Hon WuS the one \~ho actually suggested the two-step
process and theh, after the property was purchased, informed the
.1""'.
... :-;:~..> ,~
/'
~.
~
Memo to City Council
February 23, 1981
Pag~ Two
applicant that the request might be disapproved for pOlicy
reasons.
In view of the abov~, Council has the fOllowing options:
1. Deny the application.on policy grounds, with the understand-
ing that there is a likeLihood, not a certainty, that the
City's deniq1 will be reversed by the Court.
2. Grant the application on one of two rationales:
(a) The applicant has complied with the subdivision stan-
dards.
(b) In this particular case, accomplishing an exemption to
the Growth Management would not be contrary to the
policy considerations set forth in the subdivision
enabling provisions.
.
---
Recognize that the applicant was mislead by acting to his
detriment on Ron Stock's advice and approve or table the
a~~~(;ation with a view toward approval as part of a
negotiated settlement of the related litigation.
4. Regardless of whether the application is denied or approved,
consider implementing legislation to close this apparent
loophole.
3.
PJT/mc
.
.
."""
"""
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Aspen City Council
RE:
Sunny Vann, Planning Office
Parker Quillen Conceptual Subdivision ~
February 18, 1981 APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR CITY COUNCIL:0~ ~i
DATE:
Background
As the attached letter indicates, this is a conceptual subdivision applica-
tion on behalf of Parker and Joan Quillen to relocate an existing property
line between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Red Butte Subdivision. A similar
request via the City's subdivision exception process was turned down by the
P & Z on July 29, 1980. The Planning Office argued at that time that the
relocation of the lot line would allow the subsequent subdivision of an
adjacent parcel creating a single family lot exempt from Growth Management
procedure. On November 4, 1980, the Planning and Zoning Commission turned
down a request to rehear the applicants' subdivision exception application.
The applicants, therefore, have exhausted all administrative remedies with
the exception of applying under full subdivision procedure. The Planning
and Zoning Commission denied the applicants' request for conceptual subdivi-
sion approval at its regular meeting on January 26, 1981. A copy of the
P & Z's resolution is attached for your review.
The applicants are the owners of Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, of the .Red Butte
Subdivision. The two lots are zoned R-30 and are approximately 41,382
square feet and 52,272 square feet in size, respectively. The applicants
are requesting conceptual subdivision approval in order to relocate the
existing lot line between Lots 11 and 12 so as to reduce the size of Lot 11
to approximately 30,500 square feet while increasing the size of Lot 12 to
approximately 63,154 square feet. Should the applicants receive approval,
they would in turn submit a separate application for subdivision exception in
order to subdivide Lot 12, creating a third lot with a single family Growth
Management exemption.
While the t~unicipal Code provides an exemption for the constructiion of a
single family residence on a lot created by the division of a previously
developed lot into two parcels, the Growth Management Plan does not grant
an exemption for construction of ,a single family struction on a lot created
from the division of two lots. It is this second exemption which the appli-
cants are trying to accomplish in two steps by first taking a portion of one
lot and adding it to the second, and then dividing the second lot into two
parcels. The new lot is therefore created from two lots. If this process
is viewed in totality, no Growth Management exemption exists for the con,.,., '.
struction upon this newly created lot. Specifically, if the applicants had
applied in a one-step process, Section 20-5(b) of the Municipal Code requires
the applicants to obtain their Growth Management approval prior to the sub-
mission of their request for subdivision.
Recommendation
The Planning Office recommends that the applicants' request for conceptual
subdivision approval for purposes of relocating the lot line between Lots
11 and 12 be denied. The process in question would result in the creation
of a developable, free-market lot which could not realistically be accom-
plished under Growth Management, and,as such, the process represents a cir-
cumvention of the intent of the Growth Management Policy Plan. Similarly,
an attempt to accomplish in two discreet steps that which otherwise could
not be accomplished in one step is inconsistent with the intent of the Sub-
division Regulations, specifically "...to safeguard the interest of the pub-
lic and to otherwise promote the health, safety and general welfare of the
residents of the City of Aspen." Finally, while there is no specific regu-
lation in the Municipal Code which establishes criteria for eligibility for
a lot 1 i ne adjustment, such adjustments have histori ca lly been util i zed to
reconcile platting areas or to address specific hardship. No such demon-
Memo: Parker Quillen Conceptual Subdivision
February 18, 1981 1"". .~
Page Two
strati on of hardship is apparent in this application.
Should City Council concur with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Planning Office, the appropriate motion is as follows:
"I move to deny the conceptual subdivisionqoplication on behalf of
Parker and Joan Quillen to relocate an existing property line between
Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Red Butte Subdivision."
i
'~~~~~~~~~-r~-'~'~._~~.~."---'--~~'--_. "~~._, ii,;;1\SP\TI1f7 PI I KIN ('~
II Richardson explained to Council that on Aspen mountain, t ,~j'ij~~~~~ct,~is balanced
01 with the downhill capacity, and there is not much they can 0 except repiace lifts, chairs
II and do maintenance. This is not true at Snowrnas.s and Br<?ckenridgei at these areas a lot.
il c~n be done to increase _the uphil~ capacity. Mayor Edelti"~Gl.id ~his plan is gc:>od for the
II C1ty of Aspen and good tor the SJu Corp; however, Aspen oounta1n and Butterm11k are not
II getting enough money out of it.
II
II
Ii
'I
Ii
II
I[
II
I'
Ii
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Ii
II
II
ii Regular Meeting
Ii
Ii
III
MINUTES
ii There were none
Ii
II ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
I
,I
'I
!i
II
I'
II
I
~
,~
,I ~~ ,,~~- ,,' 1
, _ AP~ 2AJ~~a~y,lbl,
~\~ ..~ ~
i)t} {
Special Meeting
Aspen City Council
1981
All in favor, Councilman Collins abstained.
Motion carried
Councilman Parry moved to read Resolution #6, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman
Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #6
(Series of 19S1)
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
ASPEN SKIING CORPORATION CONCERNING IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE TO THE ASPEN
MOUNTAIN AREA was read by city clerk
Chapman ex~lained to Council this agreement says if the Skiin Corporation gets any
financing at all, they are obligated to do phase 1 of snowmaking.
Councilwoman Michael moved to approve Resolution #6, Series of 1981; seconded by Council-
man Van Ness. All in favor, Councilman Collins abstained. Motion carried.
City Manager Chc:,pman passed out the details regarding the
~f any of them have any problems terminating the lease to
Chapman will work out the termination.
Plum Tree Inn and told Council
call by Wednesday. Otherwise
Councilwoman Michael moved to adjourn at r 10 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Isaac.
in favor, motion carried.
~.ll
~) 4 /c:{~
Kathryn S. och, City Clerk
Aspen City Council
February 23, 1981
Mayor Edel called the meeting to order at 5:03 p.m. with Councilmembers Behrendt,
Michael, Collins and Van Ness present~
Isaac,
Councilman Isaac moved to approve the accounts payable for January; seconded by Council-
woman lilichael. All in favor, motion carried.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
1. Marge Riley told Council she is protesting the removal of the Victorian house at the
corner of Cooper and Aspen streets and read a letter to Council. Ms. Riley said the
plans by an absentee owner are to replace it with an 11 unit apartment building. ~he
Victorian house has been a landmark for years and is on the historical homes tour. The
density is this area is extremely high; parking is at a premium. Ms. Riley said she
hoped the Council would re-evaluate bulk controls. Sunny Vann, planning director, told
Council this project has been reviewed by P & Z; deficiencies were pointed out and it
has been tabled.
Gus Hallum, adjacent neighbor, said this 11 unit building will be on a 65 foot lot. They
are r,emoving a 90 year old single family dwelling. Hallum said the density is already too
high in the area. People in town are opposed to Ordinance #16, Series of 1980, doubling
the density. Vann told Council the applicant wishes to move the Victorian 'and use it
as his residence. Vann said this project will have deed restricted units and is going
under the 70/30 ordinance. Councilman Isaac said three years ago, he brought up a
proposal to make anyone moving a Victorian in the city to go to HPC and Council. He would
still like to see that done. Vann told Council the planning office is on the verge of
completing the his'toric inventory of the city.
Councilwoman Michael said this issue goes beyond the Victorian house; the residents are
beginning to understand the implications of the residential bonus overlay. Vann said
the bonus overlay is.not by right; it is a very specific review process under guidelines.
Bernie Utchenik, manager of the Little Red Ski Haus, told Council that the character of
the neighborhood will be greatly changed. This will be an area that is mostly condos.
Norma Dolle, Snow Queen lodge, said the whole south side of Cooper will be one apartment
building. The parking is already bad;. the impact does not make sens~.
2. Brian Goodheim, representing the Aspen Board of Realtor accompanied by Phil weir,
Bill Stirling and BobGeorge, was present to make a statement regarding employee housing
and the growth management plan. Their appearance is precipitated by P & Z's approval
of the Marolt project, which they feel is a significant deviation from city policy.
Some of their concerns with this project are neighborhood impact, open space, policy this
project will set for future annexations, preemption of smaller disbursed employee housing
projects throughout the cOnt.'TIunity. Goodheim'stated the Board of Realtors would like to
reserve the opportunity to oppose the Marolt project at a later time; they are currently
studying the project with the developer. The Board of Realtors would like to work with
City Council, County Commissioners, and Town of Snowmass Village in reviewing the issue
of growth management vis a vis the community goal of employee housing. They feel the
two are inter-related; the balance between employee housing and growth mana~ernent has to
be carefully arrived at.
.~
3038
~eg~lar.M~eting
Aspen city Council
February 23, 1981
;1
Goodheim-said their organization would like to present a policy statement to Council on )1
these issues. Councilman Isaac said 'it seems like the Council has created too many i
exemptions to get employee housing, and there is a lot of grO'~'i'th going on without controls!.
Councilwoman Michael said the employee housing master plan is a result of a lot of citizen1
participation; this plan backs up the policies the Council is talking about. The Council II
is elected to balance interests. Some neighborhoods say they are tightly impacted. '!
already; open space people do not want any open space touched. This is a true dilemma. II
Councilman Collins asked the Realtors to look at how effective the 70/30 split is in 1'1
reducing the need for employee housing; if 100 units are built, does the community really,
gain 70 employee units. Also, what is the impact on the demand for housing in terms of :
gr~wth in commercial area~ I
Mayor Edel applauded the efforts of the Board of Realtors and asked they schedule a study I
session when they have further work. i
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS I
I
1. Councilman Isaac said he wanted to discuss the water plant housing project; there are i
decisions Council needs to make. Council set a study session for Monday, March 2 at noon.j
,
2. Councilman Isaac said CAST is opposing the four-laning of Glenwood Canyon. He would 1
like City Council to pass a resolution opposing this also. Mayor Edel said this four- il
laning would cost between $650,000,000 and a billion dollars and did not think Colorado i
will be spending that kind of money for a 12 mile stretch of highway. i
Councilman Behrendt moved to put this on the agenda; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All
in favor, with the exception of Councilman Van Ness. Motion carried.
3. Councilman Isaac said he would like the city to call the Aspen Skiing Corporation and
offer any assistance in moving snow, etc., to prepare for the World Cup.
i
,
i
I
4. Councilman Behrendt generally praised what the city has done to clean the downtown. II
Councilman Behrendt asked to see what could be done about sweeping the garbage around the'
corners. Ii
5. Councilman Behrendt said the exteriors of the buses are looking worse than ever and II
is there any hope for clean buses this season. City Manager Chapman said the county has )1
completed the facility; the bus washer has been found but has not been installed. Council~
man Behrendt asked that the windows just be washed with a brush. Chapman said he would ij
ask that the buses be taken to the airport business center and washed during the day. ",
The bus washer will be installed as seon as possible. II
il
Ii
;i
il
II
is any problem in making the equipment available to II
said he did not think there is a liability problem; II
from the Ski Corp for any potential damage to their!1
. II
1'1
8. Councilman Van Ness asked about the across the board budget cuts. Chapman said he
would have a report to Council this week, and he will set a work session on this report. I
was II
to:
i
.,
Councilman Behrendt moved to ask the City Manager to call the Ski Corp to see what the
city can do; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried.
6. Councilwoman Michael said April 20th is ehe centennial of Aspen being incorporated as
a town and suggested the city spend some Council budget money to have some kind of
recognition of the date. Councilwoman Michael said she would like the city to make an
effort to find former Council people and Mayor's and inyite them to celebrate the
centenntia.l.
7. Counciln,~"n Collins asked if there
the Ski CorlJ with insurance. Chapman
however, the city could get a'release
property.
9. Mayor Edel told Council it was suggested tohi~ that the city rename"Fisherman's
park, near the Slaughterhouse bridge, Henry Stein park. Mayor Edel said he felt this
a positive way of showing what was thought of Henry Stein. Conncil directed the staff
return to Council with a resolution for this.
10. Mayor Edel said he would like a report from the City Manager about his trip to
Detroit. Chapman said he would do this at the end of the meeting.
II
II
Joe Wells included in the packet the recommendations of the Rio Grande Task Force and i1
also the reco~~endations of the P & Z. The P & Z concurred with the site planning consid1
erations of the Task Force report; they favored intensive use of site 1, which is the 11
site behind the Courthouse and surrounds Cap I s Auto. P&.Z was concerned about all the I
uses that were identified for that site and requested careful prioritizing of the uses il
be done so the site could accommodate all uses decided upon. P & Z favored transportatio~
uses. and a modified law enforcement facility for site 1.. They felt there might be an Ii
alternative site for a performing arts facility in the community. il
P& Z concurred with the conclusion that sites 2 and 4 should be kept as open space. The~
did feel there may be some encroachment on site 2 for transportation related uses in the h
event that should be necessary. Site 3, which is over near Obermeyer, the Task Force :1
felt this would be an appropriate site for the library if a new library should be con-
structed. P & Z expressed concern over the possibility so close to the river and suggested
the open space of the greenway along the river should be expanded int.o site 3. However,
if Council feels a new library is necessary, site 3 would be a good site for that use.
The Task Force had supported an expansion of uses on the Andrews-McFarlin site, which is
site 6, to include a restaurant use along the river. P & Z reac'ted mixedly to that
proposal, some feeling it would be an erosion of the SIC/I zone to open it up to restaura~t
uses.
RIO G~.NDE TASK FORCE REPORT
t"""-
.~
0( ,_ ~.."..'
01) ,
~~E,~~-, C~ tz_Soun.s.~~~,.,",~==-,,""~"",~~~E,~~.EX_,~f-.~.!.~~J...?1-.-,-_~
",~...~",,=-~_.,..~.~~2~_9~~~~__Me~tiI.:,~
Generally, P & Z did not favor use of the Rio Grande land for employee housing, consistent
with the recommendations in the Task Force report. P & Z had several areas of concern,
which they feel need examination prior to institution of development of an SPA plan. One
of these is the matter of financial feasibility. Some P & Z members felt a consensus
had not been reached on the number of uses allowed on the Rio Grande site or the amount
of square footage acceptable. Also, there should be an overview of the needs for confer-
ences, art groups, and transportation; each issue has been looked at separately. P & z
felt that, because the charge of the TaskForce was limited to examination of the site,
the city needs to look at alternate sites throughout the city for some of the uses before
developing a plan for the Rio Grande itself. The Task Force recommended that consultants
be retained the draft a conceptual SPA; monies not used in the first phase be used to pay I
for consultant work, and that Fritz Benedict be retained to do the work. '
Councilwoman Michael, representative to the Task Force, said she felt it worked very well.:
Councilman VanNess pointed out;:the city has no money to build any of the uses; Council-
man,Van Ness opposed putting money into planning for something the city cannot afford to
build. Councilman Van Ness said he would rather build something that can be built than
plan something the city cannot afford to build. Mayor Edel said that private groups will
be :coming forward with money for th~ngs like the performing arts center. Councilman
Collins asked if the city would be making this land available for a performing arts center
Mayor Edel said that is a decision the Council will have to make. Bill Kane told Council
the Task Forcels purpose and involvement was to develop a set of ideas for the Rio Grande
property, not a definitive plan. Kane said the felt the substance of the work of the Task
Force was to provide a schedule of uses that make sense for the property. The City would
be the steward of the land and identify the highest and best uses for 'the generalized
'parcels.
'(i
"
"
:;
Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the Rio Grande Task Force report; seconded
man Isaac. All in favor, motion carried.
by Counci;:
!i
I:
'j
Councilman Behrendt asked that the city manager get this report to the county so that they
are aware of what is going on. Mayor Edel said he would like to get on to the next step
of the greenway, is there money, what does it cost. Chapman said the Council had asked
staff to work on the cost of doing this plan, this will be included as part of a five-
year capital improvement plan. The staff has to prioritize the items on the capital
improvement plan. Wells pointed out there were two elements of the Task Force recommenda-
tion; one the greenway plan, the other the development 'of a conceptual SPA. The Task
Force recommended Fritz Benedict be retained to work on.
Councilwoman Michael moved that Chapman move on both counts of an architect for the SPA
plan and on the greenway; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, with the
exception of Councilmembers Van Ness and Collins. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #11, SERIES OF 1981 - Purchasing Electricity from Co-generation and Small Power
Producers
Sheree Sonfield told Council there is a federal act which requires allultility companies
including municipally owned ones to amke rules and regulation for the purchase and sale
of e'lect'ric energy to qualifying co-generators and small power producers within the utilit:
service area. Ms. Sonfield drafted the appropriate ordinance to do this. Ms. Sonfield
pointed out, considering Aspen1s small service area, it is doubtful anyone would want to
d.o this.
i
II
II
II
II
II
I
I
I
Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance #ll, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilwoman
Michael., All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #11
(Series of 1981)
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE PURCHSE OF
ELECTRIC POWER FROM AND SALE OF ELECTRIC POWER TO QUALIFYING CO-GENERATION
AND SMALL POWER PRODUCTION FACILITIES PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY POLICY ACT OF 1978 AND THE REGULATIONS OF THE
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION was read .by the city clerk
Councilman Behrendt moved
by Councilwoman Michael.
aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor
to adopt Ordinance #11, Series of 1981, on first reading; second
Roll call vote; Councilmembers Michael, aye; Collins, aye; Isaac
Edel, aye. Motion carried. '
RESOLUTION '#8, SERIES OF 1981 - Ruedi REservoir Water Authority Intergovernmental Agreemen
Lois Butterbaugh told Council she and the city manager have been meeting with the valley
communities in an attempt to put together a group interested in participating in the
negotiation for the Ruedi purchase or establishment o~ an electrical facility.
Councilman Behrendt moved to read Resolution #8, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman
Isaac. All in favor, motion" c;;lrried.
RESOLUTION # 8
(Series of .1981)
WHEREAS, the health and welfare or the citizens of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, will be served by the consummation of the attached intergovernmental
agreement providing for the creation and operation of the Ruedi Reservoir Water
Authority.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO:
That the Mayor is hereby authorized to:
A. Execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen, Colorado
B. Appoint to the Board of Directors of
the Ruedi Reservoir Water Authority
was read by'the city clerk
"'"'
r-,
_... ._"'_.""--~....._._-,._.._.,._"'_._.",_._-~ ".....-'.---'---- .-----
3040
Regular ].1ee!ing
ASpen City Council
February 23, 1981
Councilman Behrendt moved ~o approve Resolution #8, Series of 1981i seconded by Council~
man Isaac.
Chapman told Council most other comnlunities have already signed this agreement. Council-
man Isaac said he did not think it appropriate for Council to appoint people for four
year termsithis could be beyond their term as a Councilmember. John ,Musick pointed out
the board member m~st be ,an elected official rather than a staff person. This has been
raised by other jurisdictions and will be addressed at the first meeting of the Ruedi
Reservoir Water Authority.
All in favor, motion carried.
Councilman Behrendt moved to appoint Councilwoman Michael as the Board member; seconded
Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried.
b14
I
1
1981 RESIDENTIAL GMP ALLOCATIONS
Alan Richman, planning office, told Council there were five applications submitted this
year and identified them by name with a brief summary of the development program.
Mayor Edel said people have commented to him that the city has given past allocations and
these have not been built. How can the city go back to the same person and givealloca-
tions to the same person when he has things that have' not been built. Richman said this ,
was brought up in P & Z and was also a concern of the planning officei however, this is I
nothing in the Code regarding an applicant's past performance on points they have receivea;:.
II
I
1
I
I
Richman told Council there are 18 units left over from 1980, which at Council's discretio~
they may carryover to 1981. There are 21 units in 1981. Both these numbers are based II
on build out, which is removed from the quota. If Council desires, they can give a I
maximum of 8 units bonus. For 1981 quota, the maximum units available is 47i the minimum II
is 21. Richman told Council P & Z scored the units on February 3. Richman pointed out I
that any project which does not receive a minimum of 45 points in categories A,B, and C 'I
will be considered denied and ineligible for allotment. Richman submitted the points in i
the first three categories and said if a project did not get 45 points in those categoriegr,
they could not get points for bonus or unique financing. ,Ii
Based on the scoring r P & Z recommended Council carryover the 18 uni,ts from 1980 for a j
total quota of 39 units. This would give one. unit to 1015 East Hyman Avenue and 36 units
to Gilbert and South Aspen. Richman told Council they could consider any challenges to
the scoring by the P & z, provided the challenges are on basis not previously heard by I;
the P & Z. The Council is here to decide whether an applicant has been denied due pro ces~II'
or the p' & Zhas been arbitrary in its scoring. Richman said following the P & Z meeting,i
it became clear there might be a basis 'for an appeal. Richman told Council that three I
out of seven P & Z member.s, in voting, were not clear regarding the 45 points - they did ;
not realize the bonus points they were g'iving 'to projects which 'total less than 45 points,!1
would not count towards getting the application over the threshold. These members felt I
they were giving an application enough points to receive an allocation, which, in fact, !
they were not. I
!
Andy Hecht said his client has not done anything that will disqualify him under the Code.
Hecht said it seems that the rules Council make should predate the final scorei they are
complying with 'those rules. Councilman Van Ness agreed they have performed within the
present set of rules. If Council does not like the rules, they cannot come back and bust
somebody. They should change the rules. Councilwoman Michael said the Council should go
through the GMP to sort out the problems.
Richman told Council the acting city attorney feels this lack of information on the
members part, may have been a denial of due process because they were not fully informed.
Richman has since discussed this with P & Z and got general agreement there, ,was a basis
for appeal, and the P & Z supported the recommendation of the pla~ning office of appeal
and this appeal would be justified. The planning office recolllinends the bonus points
awarded to the projects which did not receive 45 points by the three members of the II
co~~ission who felt those points were legitmately included in the scoring, should be ii
given by Council. The four members who understood their bonus points should not count,il
their bonus points were not applied in the revised scoring. The points for all five II
projects change somewhati the net effect of that change is that the third application, j
Ute City Place which originally scored 44.3, in the revised scoring get 46.1. The I
rationale of the planning office in approving three applications is getting 52 employee !
units in exchange for 45 free market units. The Ute City Place application is 14 employe'
units and 8 free market, which speaks in its favor. Richman told Council they are only il
approving the free market units, not the employee units as they are exempted from the I
growth management plan. .J
I'
Councilman Behrendt asked if there was anything the City could do to assure the units are [I
built in a timely manner. Vann said there are only submission requirements within two !i
years. The planning office has identified a number of problems with the growth managemen~
plan, including the net balance and paqt performance. il
Cour!.ciltnan Van Ness moved to approve a 1981 residential GNP quota of 45 units to consist il
of 18 units carried over from 1980, ,21 uni.ts available from 1981 and a bonus of 6 units il
for 1981. The 45 units are to be allocated as GMP development allotments to the follow- !I
ing projects: Gilbert and S. Aspen/Third and Main - 36 units: 1015 East Hyman Avenue - il
1 unitsi and Ute City Place - 8 unitsi seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, :1
motion carried. 1,..'1'
CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION - Parker Quillen :
"
Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council this is an application for conceptual approva'~
on behald of Parker and ,Joan Quillen to relocate a property line in the Red But'te subdiv-;!
ision. The applicants originally submitted thic'3 via the subdivisionexcept.ion process
w-hich the P & Z turned down. The applicants then submitted a reql.lcs.t for conceptual"
-,
~,
3011
Regu,lar Meet~_ng,=~~~~,~l'er:-S~_!:y. ~?E.l1c~l.
Febru~.!X,.".~_~L-19 8_~-,-.
subdivision, which P & z turned down. Should this application be approved at Council
level, it will return to P & Z for preliminary plat and come back to Council for final plat
The request is to relocate an existing property line between two lotsi the two lots are
zoned R-30. One lot is 41,400 square feet, the other 52,300 square feet; the applicants
wish to relocate the lines so that one lot is redcued to 30,000 square feet and the
other increased to 63,000 square feet. The minimum lot size in the R-30 zone is 30,000
square feet. If the applicants do obtain approval to relocate the line, the could come
back in a separate request to create a third lot, which would have a growth management
exemption for a single family residence.
Vann told Counci] the basic issue is whether something can be done in two discreet steps
that could not be done in one. Vann said there is no growth management exemption for a
single family house on a lot created from two lots - only from a lot created from one
pre-existing lot. Vann told Council when this application was submitted through the
exception process, the planning office argued that the application was an attempt to create
in two discreet steps that which ordinarily would not be allowed, and therefore, represente(
a circumvention of the intent of the growth management plan. Relocation of lot lines had
historically been used to adjust boundary disputes, correct survey errors, etc. It had no~
been anticipated an applicant could move a lot line, then come back later to create a new
lot and create a dev~lopable lot.
Vann told Council the planning office and P & Z relied upon the general intent of' the
subdivision regulations. The P & Z resolution sites that since no exemption from growth
management exists for construction of a single family dwelling on a lot created from two
lots, that this particular application by finding a loophole in the Code could be regulated
under the intent'of the subdivision regulations, which was to safeguard the interests of
the public and otherwise promote the health, safety and general welfare. They relied
upon the historic precedent for' relocation of a lot line, which had been to reconcile
platting errors or to address hardships. Vann said he did not feel this could be demon-
strated as an economic hardship. The creation of a free market lot, which had the appli-
cant applied in one step, would have required him to go through growth management proce-
dures. 'Also, it states in the Code that one must disclose the full intention of what is
I' intended with the full property in question.
II
II
Ii
II
I!
"
!i
I!
II
Ii
II
II
II
!I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
,i
II
II
'I
II
"
II
If
I:
Councilwoman Michael asked what the size of the lots are envisioned to be i-f everything
occurs that is asked for. Vann answered there would be three lots of 30,000 square feet
each. Councilman Behrendt asked if this would start a pattern throughout the community.
Vann said there are some other instances where this could Qccur. Vann noted there is
currently litigation, the P & z, City of Aspen, Sunny Vann, Ron Stock and the city engineer
are being sued. Acting city attorney told Council, from the deposition, it appears the
applicant or his representative carne in, we~t over the property, and the then-city attorney
came up with this idea. Vann explained to Council what he had told the applicant; however,
they did not have an application at the time. Vann made no indication of what the pOlicy
was, and told the applicant when they had an application to come back to work out the
process. Vann said the staff' reveiwed this and felt it was a circumvention and was
something that had never been envisioned, and there was rationale why it should not be
approved.
Vann told Council when the applicants later contacted him with an application, they went
through the, process and told the applicant that while it was conceivable it could be
accomplished under the Code, however, the planning office could not support it. The
applicant indicated he would take his chance and file an application. He did not indicate
the property had already been purchased since the original discussions with the city.
When the P & z turned this down, litigation was filed on the basis of misrepresentation on
behalf of Ron Stock and Vann. Seigle read from the desposition Stock's answer. Seigle
told Council his client went to Stock and asked if they acquired the adjacent piece of
property, could they get a third lot out of it. Stock recommended the process. They then
purchased the lot and came to the city with an application. Vann told Council the applican1
came directly to his office from Stock1s office and asked for a clarification of the
process, which Vann did without discussing policy at all. The applicant subsequently
purchased the parcel prior to filing an application. When an application was received,
it was referred to the referral agencies.
Councilwoman Michael asked if what the applicant was attempting to do is illegal. Acting
city attorney Bob Edmundson told Council it is not illegal; ,each body, P & Z and Council,
have two duties - legislative and administrative. Edmundson told Council when people come
in with applications, they are acting as judges. The applicant,s have found a loophole in
the,Codei they have abided by the Code. However, the code is not comprehensive enough.
Courts have said if a code is not comprehensive enough, it is the city's problem and not
the applicants.
Councilman Isaac said the Council has approved lot line changes before. Here, it seems
they are asking to move the lot line so it may conform better with the zone it is in.
Va~nn said there are a number of processes in which the Council has discretionary review
power. The issue is what is the impact of what they wish to accomplish and whether it
should be approved on that basis. Vann stated baseq on the end result, the planning office
feels there is sufficient ability withint:the intent of the subdivision regUlations to turn
this down. Councilwoman Michael said she could not suuport, even though what someone is
asking is legal, that the Council does not like the implications of that. Vann stated
Council sets criteria by which they review whether an application can be processed through
a legal process or not. The issue here is that specific language does not exist in the
Code to make a finding.
Councilwoman Michael asked if this should be turned around and approved, would the
applicant drop the lawsuit. Seig~e ~tated the, only 'thing his client wants is what he
thought he was going to get when he started the process. If he gets his lot, that's all
he cares about. Seigle stated all through this process, they have been asking for a
reason if there is denial. There are cases stating one cannot deny things on. policy.
Seigle said this might undermine the growth management plan. At this time, the applicant
can put two duplexes on these lots as they,were subdivided before growth management. All
they are asking is to put three units on this; the density will be one less than they are
entitled to.
~,
~
30-12
Requla_L...Meeti.nq_
A?p~E_ Ci~y.Cot:n~il
FebruarY_~3,1~~~_
i
Councilma:'1 Behrendt asked if the then-city attorney did not give other alternatives to .
this process. Seigle answered he did not give any other scenarios; this lot could not i
compete under growth management. They would have to give the lot to employee housing;
they would not have gone through the process; they would not have bought the neighboring l'
house. Vann summarized the planning office would be remiss on the argument of the laws~it!
to imply that. what was being accomplished was consistent with the policies ,and regulationsi
adopted by the Code. They fall back on the intent of the subdivision regulations since I
they could not anticipate every situation that comes up. .
I
I
Councilwoman Michael moved to approve the conceptual subdiv,ision
of?arker and Joan Quillen to relocate an existing property line
block 1, Red Butte subdivision; seconded by Councilman Isaac.
application on behalf
between lots 11 and 12,
I
Mayor Edel asked if a proviso regardint the lawsuit should be added. Chapman suggested I
directing the attorney I s office to nego,tiate a settlement with the applicant and come back I'
to Council. 1
i
I
COUDcilwoman Michael moved to direct the city ,attorney's office to negotiate a settlement
with the attorneys for Parker and Joan Quillen WiLh the intent that the Council approves
the conceptual subdivision application on behalf of the Quillens to relocate an existing I'
property line between lots 11 and 12, block 1, Red Butte sUbdivision; seconded by Council-
man Isaac. "I
Councilman Collins asked if this then becomes three' duplex lots. Vann answered no, as II
t~en all lot lines would have been changed after growth management was established. It I
would be three single family lots. Vann explained the way the process is set up, this I!
goes back to P & Z for preliminary plat. If they do not approve it, it does not come back ill
to Council. Councilman Behrendt said Council is not in a position to deny P & Z whatever :
they have a right to do. i
II
'I
"
',I
DECISION FOR DEVELOPER OF PLUM TREE INN
Monroe Suwmers told Council this is an up-date on the negotiations taking place between ,1
the city and the two selected offers, Red Roof Inns and Aspen Park. On February 3, staff i
brought to Council a list of items to negotiate with the, l'ndividuals involved. Both partie~,'
were brought in and discussed the items. Aspen Park indicated a willinginess to work with!1
the city on all items. Subsequent to the discussions, Sununers was invormed that Red Roof II
Inn they were pulling out of the negotiations. SUmmerS told Council he was asking per- II
mission to continue negotiations with the remaining offeror. :1
City Manager Chapman pointed out the situation has changed; there were negotiations between
two people and Council could have a choice. It is probably best for Council to sit down :j
with staff, spend some time, look at all of the options, based on the new information of II
only one party interested. Council has to look at the status of this in regards to the I
one remaining applicant and decide what they want to do, seek more applicants, go back to !I
the original applicants. One of the things Council has to consider is the process this i'l
will have to go through, given the applicant that is left. Staff needs to get Council a !
memorandum on the options, negotiations strategy and other issues. i
II
'I
II
:1
ij
!,
il
I!
I
I
I
ii
II
!,
II
!I
WHEREAS, the 'II
. City of ASpen, Colorado, (hereafter "City") faces periodic
shortages of water, and Ii
WHEREAS, the City desire that existing and future customers of its water Ii
utility receive adequate water .service in terms of reliability of flow and quality, !I
WHEREAS, the City recognizes the need for comprehensive water management I
planning, in order to provide for the needs of its customers, in the most efficient !I
and cost effective manner, consistent with the minimization of adverse environmenta~
impacts; and. II
WHEREAS, the City ha.s adopted the Aspen/Pitkin County Grow'th Management Plan 11
and desire the implementa'tion of a water management plan consistent with the goals H
therein adopted; and II
WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary to establish a comprehensive water rate and i!
connect charge system 'to adequately and fairly provide for the construction, operation
and maintenance of the Aspen Water' Utility and to equitably apportion these costs Ii
among the customers according 'to the base wa ter usage and potential impact upon the Ii
Aspen water utilitylspeaking capacity; and :i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ~ESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO:
All in favor, motion carried.
Council set a meeting with staff for Wednesday, February 25 at 9 a.m.
RESOLUTION #9, SERIES OF 1981 - Water Management Plan
Assistant City Manager Lois Butterbaugh reminded Council from their last study session
they gave approval to go ahead with (1) planning and engineering studies, (2) develop and
recommend a temporary rate increase schedule to provide funding, (3) to begin to develop
the water billing and connect rate computer program. Mayor Edel said he would like an
item added which outlines in detail how the city is going to explain this, and to extend
the input to the public.
Councilman Behrendt moved to read Resolution #9, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman
Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #9
(Series of 1981)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A UTILITY BILLING SYSTEM FOR
THE PROPOSED ASPEN COMPREHENSIVE WATER MANAGEMEWr PLAN
=~==.-==,,,"",~~~~~~_~~~~E_12..~_~~_,~.~_,..,,~~2:12.,,..~,~~~unc.i~.
i!
II
.I
II
II
i
,
,
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
III' Councilman Collins moved .to adopt Resolution #9, Series of 198.liseconded by Councilman
Isaac. All in favor, motion carried.
,...."
.""'\
3"I't 1. "
\)-.::::J
February 23, 1981
""'-'-"--:..._-"~--,-,,-,,,.........~-,-,-~----_.
Section 1
In anticipation of the adoption of the proposed Aspen Comprehensive Water
Management Plan, the City Council hereby deems it to be in the best interests of
City of Aspen to develop a utility billing system for the proposed Aspen Compre-
hensive Water Management Plan.
Section 2
The City Manager be and he hereby is authorized and directed to develop
such a utility billing system, utilizing the following guidelines:
(a) The utility billing system should be generally compatible with the
draft of the Comprehensive Water Management, Plan of the City of Aspen presented
to the City Council on July 7, 1980
(b) Study session shall be scheduled at convenient intervals for the
benefit of the City Council and the public to assure full understanding of the
proposed legislation
(e) A specific plan should be developed for the wide dissemination of
information and customer education, so that water customers can adequately
express and evalute their personal and community concern.
the
Councilman Collins questioned the temporary rate increase. Ms. Butterbaugh said the bond
counselor, Don Diones, is working on several different schedules of monies needed to get
into construction. If the city issues investment of unused monies, costs would be in the
neighborhoos of $206,000 this year. Ms. Butterbaugh said she was not ready to make a
recommendation of what the rate increase will be.
ORDINANCE#9,"SERIES OF 1981 - Restaurant in C-l Zone
Councilman Isaac moved to table until the next Council meetingi seconded by Councilman
Collins. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #8, SERIES OF 1981 - 70/30 Small projects exemption
Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance #8, Series of 1981i seconded by Councilman
Collins. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #8
(Series of 1981)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EXCEPTION PROVISIONS OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN,
MORE SPECIFICALLY SECTION 24-10.2(i).was read by the city clerk
Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Ordinance #8, Series of 1981, on first readingi
seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, naYi Van Ness,
ayei Michael, ayei Isaac, ayei Behrendt, ayei Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #10, SERIES OF 1981 - H, Historic Designation of W. J. Venture
Councilman Isaac moved to read Ordinance #10, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilman Van
Ness. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE no
(Series of 1981)
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING AS AN HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND SITE THE LOCATION OF THE
W. J. VENTURE RESIDENCE CONSISTING OF LOT 17, BLOCK 103, HALLAM ADDITION was read
by the city clerk
Gideon Kaufman told Council this was required because of the WPW subdivision, the Council
required that the structures had to be individually designated.
I Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Ordinance #10, Series of 1981i
,I Collins. Roll call.votei Councilmembers Behrendt, aye; Van Ness,
i Collins, ayei Michael, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried.
i
i
I
I
,
I
II
II
,I
Ii
!!
!i
"
seconded by Councilman
aye i Isaac, ayei
ORDINANCE #66, SERIES OF 1980 - Lease with Elder, Quinn and McGill
Lois Butterbaugh told Council this ordinance
six additional buses were purchased in 1979.
are here, but there was no ordinance.
is to correct an oversight on a bus contract;
The contract has been signed and the buses
Councilman Behrendt mQved to read Ordinance *66, Series of 1981i seconded by Councilman
Isaac. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #66
(Series of 1980)
AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING A CERTAIN. LEASE OPTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND ELDER/QUINN & McGILL, INC. PROVIDING FOR THE INSTALLMENT PURCHASE BY THE
CITY OF ASPEN OF SIX BLUE BIRD BUSES OVER A PERIOD OF SIXTY (60) MONTHS WITH
QUARTERLY PAYMENTS OF $20,700 EACH, ALL AS MORE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED HEREIN
was read by the city clerk
Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Ordinance #66, Series of 1980; seconded by
Isaac. Roll call votei Councilmembers Collins, aye; Van Ness, ayei Behrendt,
Michael, ayei Isaac, ayei Mayor Edel, aye.' Motion carried~
Councilman
ayei
~~;..
,~
"
J
,
3044
Regular Meeting
Aspen City Council
February 23, 1981
.,.... .. . ...,_.
'--.----.---
I
I
i
Councilman Behrendt moved to read Resolution #7, Series of 1981; seconded by Councilwoman 1
Michael. All in favor, motion carried. I
,I
,
I
,
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
!
RESOLUTION
#7, SERIES OF 1981 - IC~ Retirement Corporation
RESOLUTION #7
(Serious 1981)
A RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING KEY EMPLOYEES ENTITLED 'fO P1>.RTICIPATE IN THE
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN OF THE IN'fERNATIQNAL CITY MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION RETIRD1ENT CORPORATION
WHEREAS, Section 2-10l(k) of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen
requires the City Council to determine which employees are eligible to
participate in the Deferred Compensation Plan. .
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
C'JLORADO:
Section 1
That the following employees are hereby determined to be key employees
entitled to participate in the Deferred Compensation Plan~
Director of Environmental Health
Recreation Director
Parks Director
Director of Data Processing
Assistant City Manager
Mayor Edel questioned if these withdrawals are seriously weakening the plan the rest of
the city employees belong to. CounCilman Van Ness asked where the line is drawn as to
who are key employees are who are not. Ms. Butterbaugh said presently the key employees
are department heads.
Councilwoman Michael moved to adopt Resolution #7, Series of 1981i seconded by Councilman
Isaac. All in favor, with the exception of Mayor Edel. Motion carried.
Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the special event permits for the Aspen Foundation
for the Arts; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINfu~CES #5 and 7, SERIES OF 19B1 - Aspen Sanitation Rezoning and SPA for Aspen SAN
Hayor Edel opened the public heari.ng. Sunny Vann, planning director, told Council this
rezoning of the Sanitation District's property is to take advantage of the residential
bonus overlay to enable the construction of four deed restricted employe,e housing units.
T~is necessitates the second ordinance because of development in the public zone must be
in accordance with an SPA plan~ Mayor Edel closed the public hearing.
Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Ordinances 5 and 7, Series of 1981, on second reading;
seconded by Councilwoman Michael. Roll call votei Councilmembers Collins, naYi Michael,
aye; VanNess, ayei Isaac, aye; Behrendt,ayei Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried.
'!3.~~OLUTION #l,~', SERIE~-2E' 1981 - Opposition to four-laning Glenwood Canyon
Councilman Isaac moved to read Resolution #10, Series of 1981, by title; seconded by
Councilman Behrend,t. All in favor, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #10
(Series of 1981)
A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE CITY OF ASPEN'S OPPOSITION TO FUNDING FOR THE
EXPANSION OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 70 THROUGH GLENWOOD CANYON was read by the
city clerk
Councilman Behrendt moved to adopt Resolution #10, Series of 1981i seconded by Councilman
Isaac. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Collins. Motion carried.
City Hanager Chapman reported to Council he, city engineer Dan McArthur and Hovde Mallory
went to Detroit and met with the architects for the Wheeler OpE!ra House to review the
works and the various plans.
Councilman Van Ness moved to adjourn at 8:45 p.m.i seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in
favor, motion carried.
_~_; . J-C ) 4.Lr1 C!-~_
'(\,at~ry~s~-'~~t~-clerk
Regular Meeting
Aspen Ci,ty Council
March 9, 1981
JOINT HBETING WITH COUNTY C0l-1.11ISSIONERS
. --
,
Mayor Edel called the meeting to order at 4: 00 p.m. with Commissioners Chid, Madsen, Ii
Klander1.:.d and Kinsley and Councilmembers Michael, Collins, Isaac, Parry, Behrendt present.!i
'I
1. ~~peE.L~it~in County ~.uildin2:..l2~:.~~_tment ,!:~_~_.-!~a,ses. ~rian Staffo:l::'d told the Boards:1
t~e first e:lement of this request. are the fec1.Dcreascs. ThlS would generate about
$56,000 in revenues in 1981. The second element is to increase the modifier used to
value the p:r.operty being constructed. Presently the modifier reflects the average cost
of CO:1struct in the sL"lle rather tha,r. in Pitkin County. Staffo.cd talked to 10 people
in the various businesses invo:Lved, they came up ',\lith 2. re:a,scnable modifier to evalua.te
hO~,lS}_ng .
/""'\
,..-"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Sunny Vann, Planning Office ,.~
Parker Quillen SUbdiViSiO~
December 11, 1980
As the attached letter indicates, this a conceptual subdivision application
on behalf of Parker and Joan Quillen to relocate an existing property line
between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Red Butte Subdivision. As you will recall,
a similar request via the City's subdivision exception process was turned
down by the P & Z on July 29, 1980. The Planning Office argued at the
time that the relocation of the lot line would allow the subsequent subdivision
of an adjacent parcel creating a single family lot exempt from Growth Manage-
ment procedures. On November 4, 1980, the Planning and Zoning Commission
turned down a request to re-hear the applicant's subdivision exception appli-
cation. The applicants therefore have exhausted all administrative remedies
with the exception of applying under full subdivision procedures.
A copy of the Ci ty Attorney's comments wi th respect to thi s appl i cati on is
attached for your review. The Planning Office is prepared to discuss this
application in detail at your December 16, 1980 meeting.
.""""
MEMORANDUM
,.-,
TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
FROM: Louis Buettner, Engineering
Departmen~
DATE: November 20, 1980
RE: Parker/Quillen Subdivision
After reviewing the application material for above subdivision
and making a site inspection the Engineering Department has the
following comments:
1. The submitted plat for this subdivision is titled sub-
division exception map, etc.
2. The road right-of~way for Red Butte Drive was omitted.
3. The Planning Office is changing the subdivision title.
Items 1 and 2 above can be corrected before the next review of
this application. Item 3 is an inhouse item which has no bearing
on the applicant's application.
The Engineering Department recommends that this application for
subdivision conceptual review be approved.
The Engineering Department would like to question the need for
this property boundary change. Engineering not having information
to the contrary can only assume that this action is to permit the
additional subdivision of the larger parcel. If the developer is
planning this additional subdivision they might like to address
any problems that this action could bring at this time.
-
.,...."
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ci:I;yAttorney
City Engineer
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Parker/Quillen Subdivision
DATE: November 12, 1980
The attached application requests subdivision to allow the relocation of an
existing property line between Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, Red Butte Subdivision.
This'..;tem is scheduled to corne before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission on
December 16, 1980. Please comment no later than December 5, 1980.
Thanks again.
,
~_~...iJ'
1""\
...-,
" No. hi, g-o
CASE LOAD SUMMARY SHEET
Ci ty of Aspen
1. DATE SUBMITTED: /1-1/- YO STAFF:
2. APPLICANT: p{U~ if- ~ jJJLu. )
() .
~lI~ -
3. REPRESENTATIVE:~ ~
4. PROJECT NAME:
5. LOCATION:
e~~-dLh~~
& rc-~/J~. t-3o
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
/' Subdivi sion
Exception
Exemption
70:30
Residential Bonus
____Stream Margin
____8040 Greenline
____View Pl ane
____Conditional Use
Other
Rezoning
P.U.D.
Special Review
Growth Management
HPC
7. REFERRALS:
./ Attorney
~Engineering Dept.
____Housing
____Water
____Ci ty Electri c
Sanitation District ____School District
Fire Marshal ~ocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Parks ____State Highway Dept.
Holy Cross Electric ____Other
Mountai n Bell
8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: P+ 2 -.J C(! ~
P'f/2 p~ I Uj-
e~ \+M.d VJU
\
.~
~
~
(
~
9. DISPOSITION:
P & Z Approved
.
Denied
Date
Council
Approved
Denied
Date
10. ROUTING:
Attorney
Building
Engineering
Other
-
_.
JEFFREY H. SACHS
HERBERT S. KLElN
JON DAVID SEIGL.E
SACHS KLEIN & SEIGLE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
201 NORTH MILL STREE'r
ASPEN. COL.ORADO 81811
TELEPHONE
(303) 9215.8700
JAMES H. DELMAN
November 10, 1980
Sunny Vann
Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Application for Subdivision - Lots 11 and 12,
Block 1, Red Butte Subdivision
Dear Sunny,
On behalf of my clients Parker and Joan Quillen, I am
submitting this Application for Subdivision to allow the
relocation of an existing property line between Lots 11 and
12, Block 1, Red Butte Subdivision. ~20-2l(a) requires that
a change to a recorded plat requires full compliance with
the subdivison procedure. Accordingly, this letter and the
accompanying material should be deemed our conceptual pre-
sentation pursuant to ~20-l0. I wanted to emphasize that
this subdivsion application is exclusively for relocation of
the lot line. As indicated on the conceptual plat attached
hereto, there will be no change on the existing improvements
of the property. The zoning for the area is R30 and the
proposed square footage for what is shown as Parcel 1 on the
Plat is 63,634 sq. ft. and for Parcel 2, 30,144 sq. ft. The
owners of the two lots in question are Parker S. Quillen and
Joan F. Quillen. The property is free and clear of all
liens except for Deeds of Trust recorded in Book 354 at Page
61 and Book 387 at Page 790 which affect Lot 12.
I believe that the attached Plat and the information
contained in this letter provide all the information re-
quired in ~20-l0(a) and (b). I would appreciate it if you
could please inform me when this matter will be scheduled
before Planning & Zoning for conceptual hearing.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
JDS: jlw
EIGLE
Enclosures
cc: Parker Quillen
1'"'\
.~
Dear Planning Commission:
I am writing this letter to you as per instructions from Sunny
Vann, and specifically following the instructions in Sec. 20-19,
Exceptions and Exemptions (page 1237).
There are speci a 1 ci rcums tances and conditi ons a ffecti ng the sul::ject
property, such that the strict application of the provis.ions of the
subdi vi s i on chapter for wili ch thi s excepti on is souglt woul d depri ve
the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. We wish to move
the property boundary between lots #11 and 12, Block I, Red Butte
Subdivision, Aspen, Colorado, in such a way that lot fill would
consist of approximately 30,500 square feet after adjusting the
common lot line. Presently lot #11 has approximately 41,382 square
feet. The zoning for the entire subdivision is single family, R-30.
We would still easily fulfill the requirement of a minimal 30,OQO
square foot necessary for the R-30 zone.
This exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant in light of the fact that
in ~ way will the granting of the exception be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other property in the area.
With the relocation of the existing lot line, the applicant will then
be in a position to pursue full subdivision of lot #12, Block I, Red
Butte Subdivision.
Thank you for your consideration.
CJ~'jl :;Jt~
':;Z~'f ~..
JSS/jj
,-.,
.~
SACHS KLEIN & SEIGLE
JEFFREY H. SACHS
HERBERT S. KLEIN
JON DAVID SEIGL.E
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81811
August 22, 1980
JAMES H. DELMAN
Sunny Vann
City of Aspen
Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado
Street
81611
Re: Parker Quillen Request for Subdivision
Exception pursuant to Section 20-9 of
the Aspen Municipal Code
Dear Sunny,
I would appreciate it if you would please place the
above referenced matter on the agenda of the Planning and
Zoning commission for the first meeting in the month of
September for purpose of reconsideration of the matter by
that body. If a reconsideration is precluded by the code,
then I wish this request to be construed as a new Request
for Subdivision Exception.
If you have any questions or need any further infor-
mation please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
SACHS, KLEIN & SEIGLE
~
By .
on. d Seigle
JDS:jlw
CC: Parker Quillen
CC: Jeff Shoaf
TELEPHONE
(303) 9215-8700
~
1""">.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 22, 1980
TO: Sunny Vann
FROM: RoS5
RE: Shoaf Lot Line Adjustment - Addendum to Memo of June 30,
1980
Jeff Shoaf has requested that I provide a clarification of my memo
of June 30, 1980, to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
When Jeff first proposed the project for which he has submitted
the above-entitled application, he contacted me regarding an
appropriate procedure. I advised him that the code would not
preclude an application for lot line adjustment followed there-
after with an application to split the enlarged lot. My memo of
June 30, 1980, is a policy statement wherein I proposed to the
Planning and Zoning Commission that it is my personal opinion that
approval should not be granted. However, it should not be misread
as a statement that the code precludes approval of this project as
presented. It is within the power of the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission to grant approval of the application.
I would appreciate it if you would distribute this memo to the
Planning and Zoning Commission at the time of their consideration
of the above-entitled application.
RWS :mc
cc: Dan McArthur
Jeff Shoaf
,-..,
!""'\
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
FROM: Louis Buettner, Engineering Department ~
DATE: July 17, 1980
RE: Shoaf/QuUlen Subdivision Exception
After reviewing the above subdivision exception application and re-
viewing the property in question the Engineering Department has the
following comments and recommendations.
1) The intent of writing section 20-19 out of the municipal code
was to permit people who have legal problems with lot boundaries
to correct these problems without going through full subdivision.
2) By allowing the above subdivision exception to be approved this
would undermine section 20-19 of the code by allowing the appli-
cant to subdivide two lots under two separate applications
and create a third lot exempt from the Growth Management process.
3) To allow subdivision approval under two steps also undermines
the Growth Management process.
4) I think the Planning and Zoning Commission should pay particular
attention to the precedent they might be setting.
In conclusion the Engineering Department can find no circumstances
that may call for recommending the granting of this exception. The
Engineering Department must recommend that this application be re-
fused.
\J
__ ".'M__.__..__. ,. "'_ "~',___.___"."..~ _..,,_,_.__.....
~ ~.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Aspen City Council
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Shoaf/Quillen Subdivision Exception
DATE: July 16, 1980
The applicants are the owners of Lots 11 and 12, Block 1, of the Red Butte
Subdivision. The two lots are zoned R-30 and are approximately 41,382 square
feet and 52,272 square feet in size, respectively. The applicants are
requesting an exception from the full requirements of the subdivision process
for purposes of relocating the existing lot line between Lots 11 and 12 so
as to reduce the size of Lot 11 to approximately 30,500 square feet while
increasing the size of Lot 12 to approximately 63,154 square feet. Should
the appl icants receive approval for this exception, they would in turn submit
a separate application for a full subdivision in order to create a third lot
with a single-family Growth Management exemption.
While our code provides an exception for the construction of a single-family
residence on a lot created by the division of a previously developed lot into
two parcels, the Growth Management Plan does not grant exception for the
construction of a single-family structure on a lot created from the division
of two lots. It is this second exception which the applicants are trying to
accomplish in two steps by first taking a portion of one lot and adding it to
the second, and then dividing the second lot into two parcels. The new lot
is therefore created from two lots. If this process is viewed in totality,
no Growth Management exception exists for construction upon this newly created
lot. Specifically, if the applicants had applied in a one-step process,
Section 20-5(b) of the Municipal Code requires the applicants to obtain their
Growth Management approval pri or to the submi ssi on of their request for subdi vi-
sion approval. To allow approval in two steps undermines the Growth Manage-
ment process. The Planning Office therefore recommends that the Planning and
Zoning Commission deny the application as submitted, and refer the applicants
to the Growth Management application process for their initial approval.
Both the Engineering Department and the City Attorney concur with the Planning
Office in their recommendations and their memoranda are attached for your
review.
~
,-,
PEN
130 s
aspen
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 30, 1980
TO: Sunny
Vann._.,
/ );;;,
, Stock },
"
FROM: Ron
RE: Shoaf Lot Line Adjustment
In reviewing the provisions of the Growth Management Plan, I find
that Section 24-10.2 (which has been renumbered by Ordinance
No. 16, Series of 1980, to Section 24-11.2) provides an exception
for the construction of a single-family residence on a lot created
by the division of a previously developed lot into two parcels.
However, the Growth Management Plan does not grant an exception
for the construction of a single-family structure on a lot created
from the division of two lots. It is this second exception which
Mr. Shoaf is trying to accomplish in two steps by first taking a
portion of one lot and adding it to a second and then dividing the
second into two parcels. The new lot is created from two lots.
If this process if viewed in totality, no Growth Management
exception exists for construction upon this newly created lot.
Mr. Shoaf should be required to obtain Growth Management approval
prior to construction.
I cite the above for the purpose of advising you that subdivision
approval should not be granted for this lot line adjustment.
Specfically, if the applicant had applied in a one step process,
Section 20-5(b) would require the applicant to obtain his Growth
Management approval prior to the submission of his request for
subdivision approval. To allow approval in two steps will under-
mine the Growth Management process. Therefore, I recommend that
the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the application as submit-
ted and refer the applicant to the Growth Management application
process for his initial approval.
RWS:mc
cc: Dan McArthur
"""
.,-,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron Stock, City Attorney
Dan McArthur, City Engineer
FROM: Sunny Vann, Planning Office
RE: Shoaf/Quillen Subdivision Exception
DATE: June 16, 1980
The attached appl ication is a request for redefinition of the lot line
between Lots 11 and 12 in the Red Butte Subdivision submitted by Parker
S. Quillen and Jeffrey Shoaf. This item is scheduled to come before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on July 22, 1980; may I please
have your written comments concerning this application by July 3, 1980?
Thank you.
j
?
-,.:~.::-.-
.""f..
,~
,.."""""
,..~
No. 23-80
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
Ci ty of Aspen
1. DATE SUBMITTED: June 10,1980
2. APPLICANT: Parker S.Quillen
STAFF: Sunny Vann
3.. REPRESENTATIVE: Jeff Shoaf
4. PROJECT NAME: Shoaf/Quillen Subdivision Exception
5. LOCATION: Lots 11 & 12, Block I, Red Butte Subdivision
Ilf2-5 c;- '*15" lZed.J3v4t./Drhl(....
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Rezoning
P.U.D.
Special Review
______Growth Management
HPC
x Subdivision
x Exception
Exemption
70:30
Residential Bonus
_Stream Margin
8040 Greenline
. View PI ane
Conditional Use
Other
~/~CNC-r 0:5/ U'</6 ~// ~ //1/2'
7. ,REFERRALS:
~Attorney
-2L-Engineering Dept.
___Hou sing
Wo.ter
Sanitation District School ~istrict
_Jire Marshal . _Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
.---.-?arks __State Hi ghway Dept.
Holy Cross Electric ____Other
Mountain Bell
____._City El ectri c
8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS:~~>fL "'::;;c1P.::>./.r4z, pM.:. ?LAT/
~~/L / /. /
--'m"
-'
~
..-1""\
9. DISPOSITION:
p & z / Approved Denied ~ Date --Lt.-'/"?1 /;?c50
d:'.Ab-~ -=----kc /)c:i::;cy/,'c~OtT~t.- 4r4-. .
, ,/
Council
Approved___
Den i ed
Date
10. ROUTING:
Attorney
/Engineering
Buil di ng
Other
I
I
~
1
'I
!
Ii
I
I
!
I;
'I
t1r
>-<::.~
~\~
\!::.. ...g~
z ~
<( M
Q v M
~ ::l ~ ,....c
O ~ 00 0
~ V '"
~~< 0 ~
0; >-l ~ '" ~ '"
,.~J::O N
11.... N 0\
..... ~
........ ..... c..vO ~
~ v .$ .~ H 0
::...... ::l ('t)
O"...,CI;lO __
.g .... ~ U IJ.)
.G .... ~::
Z<(~ Z 0
_ 0 ~ ..c
~ 0 A.. A..
'" '" '"
::> <(
<(
~-
~ ~~. t ~q
~':S~~1~ ~
l i" ~v~
~ ~. " ~ ~ .-
~. Vt ~ ~..:2.
~ ~ ~i1l ~ 1 j
~ I ~ t 1- I' ~
~ ~ ~ .Jk 4 ~ ~
~~J..e~~
~ ~~f~J~
.. ~ J
. "
... ...
~
~
i
i
l-
cJ
~
..(,
l{ ~
~ ~
~~
~ ~
~1
--
.'
e