Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Land Use Case.CU.200 W Gillespie St.A1-91
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Ae /0(/— oo' DATE RECEIVED: 1/9/91 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 01' 4. iii —tot-- 64A- A1-91 STAFF MEMBER: KJ µu lla+ LaK. 13 /u f {' itte v, u..: PROJECT NAME: Moores -and Conditional Use Review Project Address: 200 West Gilles i, Aspen Legal Address: WOActvn \c.�co ,�� APPLICANT: John and Rebecca Moores Applicant Address: P.O. Box 1146, Sugar Land. Texas 77487 -1146 REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells Representative Address /Phone: 602 Midland Park Place Aspen. CO 81611 925 -8080 PAID: YES xxNO AMOUNT: $- 8tt3:00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED , 7 810 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: X 2 STE _ P &Z Meeting Date W19 PUBLIC HEARING: ei5 NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFERRALS: City Attorney Mtn Bell School District � City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn NatGas Housing Dir. Holy Cross State HwyDept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshall State HwyDept(GJ) City Electric Building Inspecto Envir.Hlth. Roaring Fork Other VS DwA C Aspen Con.S.D. Energy Center DATE REFERRED: , //2//9� INITIALS: ' Ul FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: ✓� [�/yINITIAL: City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health • A Housing Other: 1 FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: .L � a , I I w , .. 4 i f ?tLOW 1 5 2,,Pr/ tiGIP "� A � ' <5 /SP EAST - n „..., 7 n 92 63 'S Fa VO• MICA/ P/AS]Y CAP 'JI (ul 1 14 ]5 D3 'WBO� L32O/51 /I 95� h .•;'' �� E . • K 10 N7 'n''a� E 6 *5 (0° n n -� Ln•x.3e / Ls LiEiHC �e+rvmnEO . m Ir NORTH 59' J " r o ox .TA rr zqs /Artr.,.++av % it _p X09 52 rb E 83 �+ w : 3ic, sA m o 1 —� A:: 0 off LA5 JOY USEMEM 86,4N SELO✓ 1 i 51''`100 W 37.• 5 . IS N 1 �l Y ? _ -- .. - _ ._. 1 . B J +� 1 3 oo RILNO•YELIaW PlA52GP yq Ny 11 Netnto 4 L520/5/: , .i I ' \ - I n� I\ H Y 3 .. I LO A ° m e - I: i 0. 55 \ ' o\ l Lr \ EAST \` � O 1 (.02 3 I A \ 0% 4 I •1P I ON ' I A ) ' :' (LOT B v vV ,.,\ f di I0.24_9 A •�� ,, (IXw✓D' , \ o \ YELLOW PI"us'C 5 " I U/ w 6 L N w \ ai 11 61.520LY b 5° VACATED __________ / 20 fl WOE ACCF-55 i az 8 UTILITY EA5P1nEN '^g C1L ______ IIE - -_ _ __ __ 1 R Ef I 5 FA5EMEN1 SHOWN ON LOTA RH'OROED AK 334 t ze y O' v r I R R IC�TION EASE 386 co �✓ ' s'-AF3 k { .361' 4300'W 80 w -. � x e L \ 0/1) PU51X CAP � OI B>< . 4 YELLOW ILOTIC �.. "aV R£dR,Le 9b4 r A!irratq,46 I ' AVENUE s � ', W W /TNE3S CORNER S 'r !,h ° END ERDMAN 1 Z LOT SPLIT :ai`er_61k,iss to ` In/KATES SET YELLOW 1 PU7rCUP QV RE -OAC. *HI°- r 1 I BLOCK 103 HALT A?t 'S ADDITION � ` n v 2 v l . 1 . 1-11— I i 1 :1 11 ,—.0. ,..1 ,—.0.,..1 W 4 i I � PL..NNING DI • 1 / I 11.15 p ' � iNAL PATafa -E VG01QS ur +' .Y - >, 4 -M W j 4 1 ' A9PEN ftANNING DIRK701C y E{ I z I115 ' K' ^ 3 ' x ,, 7 ! Z NORTH 1 1 �� . L " - '- I_l O 510 2J 30 5. cart I wq y '4 C Y YM I I I I I 4 V 4 ' , I I ' ` -11,4 -11,4 ' BUTS OF DeARING' IFE WCIAMEN15 0HOWN tA FOUND 0-41 'MS INAL PVfT 1., , " . PVS ARE E IPDpN'vt SEEN ,XT M'-FD ON THE DVMING OF G a ' ' - ,L N N ETWEE 4 10 POINT �CO FEET U Fv { AD 0N, A WESTERLY' NE OFEET F157N 10, TW5 ` - . : y am z> /^ CORNER, AND QJ. WESf flD LIPEO( DUSK 1'90 Nz 'l '. 4 /" / -22 ESTADIl5IED 13'(.1:5 1175 AND FOAKD IN NACU PER -D.E. IMRR �y R A T m T'EVENT F.WY OiIED Y t� I- - ta. - 1104; �' OF le EFOE `�" Y 1913 D J , n • , -' $ITRVF:TOB'S CFRTIFIrATE TW5 LANAI. faro(' s I E ID THIS F ANO AT Cf Tit C HETSDY 154 I DTSLJ TH HAT:TH E PREMISED THIS.FWAL RAT 4AEY, TW9 D1 0. . INTERNAL LOT L to LOCATION Os eS D L/ Tl u G1A NEW IRRIGATION LOT NEA ISOAT MENT A gk APD N T 5 ITY !. F T 13 'qj NFM" llTTL EAXMDNT ALL *.. D E 74 , A F0�!i ANERIIAN TIT. A RA ELY .442 NO. D LY 5 ShO FEREO , Ni AND OP-ER W FFAURED ARE ACLUW.JFLY. AW CO11fCTL\' `J1 / ,� y ' t S:. 4 I - -S S?aP O NTH M E G RO JT E.NPRD IOA A . 3 A AflMAI I :. \ . , I - SPACES ON LIMIT O TH N1 0,00) FNS WM FERFOr TH � l � 7 (( - Ii .War, y^ - l • I $.4 RE WITH A LIINi OF 1 W 73, TI t ,TIL 51, A5, cc4i IN THE OA`CE CG M w )DANCE wIR■ CMS 1173, TITLE 90, TITLE 51 A5 C 1-1 i ,(ITIQN ,i r" iS\e'. T .1 ./ T Cfi WF� r I HAVE . DAYOF 1A- YT MY HMD ANC Of FIG.AL O T IN DOOK Pica r t MB z.S er)BV ! 1115. . y \ � "r IN wITP G ti � -� 45 F"400 4FS6, Y.?fO A:.PNEtL /YY4IPC. Dh __i- ,y f \ > Pagano. Bail 1no n 11 ti � �g gr 61011 y P y R1 ' °{k A �•''' ' r s r s r OM MOORES ESA AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW • r ONO r ■ January 8, 1991 MOORES ESA AND r CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Review of Development in the Hallam Lake Bluff EnvironmentallySensitive Area, Conditional Use Review and GMQS Exemption ofAccessory Dwelling Units. Submitted to: The City of Aspen The Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 r Phone: 303 - 920 -5000 FAX: 303 - 920 -5197 r Applicant: John and Rebecca Moores P. 0. Box 1I46 Sugarland, Texas 77487 CONSULTANT TEAM ARCHITECTS: �. Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd. 210 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 - 925 -2867 FAX: 303 - 925 -3736 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE: Julia Marshall tdt. Daly Enterprises 300 South Spring Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 - 925 -1624 FAX: 303 - 920 -1736 ATTORNEY: Brooke A. Peterson 315 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 303 - 925 -8166 FAX: 303- 925 -1090 LAND PLANNER: Joseph Wells, AICP 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 - Phone: 303 - 925 -8080 FAX: 303 - 925 -8275 a TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 ar II. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE HALLAM LAKE BLUFF 3 .. ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA (Article 7, Division 5) III. SPECIAL REVIEW (Article 7, Division 4) ire ($ IV. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING 21 UNITS (Article 7, Division 3) V. REQUEST FOR GM/DS EXEMPTION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 27 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ( §8- 104(B)(1)(d)) EXHIBITS 1. Application Form 2. Applicant's Letter of Consent 3. Disclosure of Ownership 4. Property Owners Within 300 Feet - 5. Ordinance 65/90, Granting Approval to the Moores Lot Split 6. Moores Lot Split Plat ra ar I. INTRODUCTION The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. John Moores, request approval of r' development within the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area, Conditional Use review and GMQS Exemption for accessory dwelling units to be built on each of the two lots .. within the Moores Lot Split. w On July 31, 1990, an application was filed for approval of a Lot Split for the 34,000 sq.ft. parcel owned by Mr. and Mrs. Moores as well as for GMQS Exemption for development of a detached residential dwelling on each lot. That application was approved by City Council on October 22, 1990 (see Ordinance No. 65- Series of 1990, Exhibit 6). The two lots created by the Moores Lot Split are unequal in size. Lot A includes the 24,072 sq.ft. on the north and west sides of the parcel and is presently intended as the site of the Moores principal residence. Lot B includes the remaining 9,988 sq.ft. in the southeast corner of the parcel; the owners presently plan to develop a guest residence on this parcel. In addition to the request for approval of a Lot Split, approval of GMQS Exemption and Conditional Use review of an accessory dwelling unit for each lot as well as Vesting of all approvals was requested in the July application, but those reviews were not 1 nw a acted upon, in part because architectural drawings for the .. accessory dwelling units were not available at the time. There- . fore, these three requests are repeated in this application. a 1 r1 2 a �. II. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE HALLAM LAKE BLUFF — ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA (Article 7, Division 5) The Hallam Lake nature preserve, location of the Aspen Center for w Environmental Studies (ACES), is an area of approximately 23 r acres, somewhat in the shape of a long oval extending in a north -south direction. The preserve is bordered on the east by the Roaring Fork River and on the west by a bluff some forty to fifty feet in height. The lake is in the southern half of the preserve and the majority of visitor activity occurs to the southeast of the lake. The northern half of the preserve is an area of marshes; ACES intends to retain this area as a more private habitat area with little visitor activity. The map of the ACES property on the following page and the accompanying photos illustrate the location of the Learning Center ( #1) and the Teaching Platform ( #2) as well as the view toward the site from these two locations. This map also clearly indicates that the most prominent topographic feature along the western bluff is the "bulge" to the east which occurs just to the r north of the lake. The two lots which are presently owned by Donnelley Erdman are located on this point of land. It is safe to say that the residence which has been built down the slope toward the lake on a the Erdman lot closest to the lake, and the resulting loss of e s 3 _, // i 552 9. iii` , \, \ —C– 1 � . D , Q .v a�u ( � � o 1 0 \ r J Y - �� th �. •Gt _ - \ , ), )* \ _ \\ \ : .... ... ..- ....\\ . \- As ler' YR \ rsi c iftbs , u . % \ 0 \ ,c \ 4" / 4 "\(' 1.4-1041),_r k LI_ (1; :,.,;x f\y ‘It -t i ,c, iz - \\ .:`;;- N., * , \\ , 1 11 ` ,. / , " /' - d o s \ \I\ :�\ \ -' \ A o I `\\ \ c n;.. H �„ oo s • es ' a ce si ° 0 --- ��� ice w �_ r r 7 .---- ‘ c t • • " I' . ' : 1 � 22809 . --- •• ` i" `'( � � ) • At 4 4 4 %)\, i - p " \ 1 1 1l - i -� h . ' "° - T i H Jt , '. �1 ..��. ���V -, �� .cam T------ t' ' � 1 i o v "A rr . %_A VA��V _ �.,c' - i M °k�� 2 o fi %o o ! V� W _ a '� t I E /: ;, \ y am ° _� alt ©,! J�` a ri ` tee t ?ry i ' ■ 4a °. t X1 \ 11� � I F � . , * ' I oero i VIM w.. �• - +. a N • t ✓ \ R' 1 .�... 1i ,� 1 ..... _ � it l /- ( 0 I S 1 11 9 L Y J - 14 i inii, ,,,,, ! _. 1 , 1 _ , , N , 0 4 I ? j ! '.IPr r 1. View from the Environmental Learning Center MAP OF A C E.S NTS • 2. View from the Teaching Platform Hallam Lake E.S.A. 3. View from marshes to Moores Residence site se 00 to as - 4-, -44 ki " -4- ,' , 4 ' 4 .... , =-.1 , ' : • ; n : ...,, .... ‘ i le 1 I, ''' \ 1 • i ' tk 5 " ''.. 1 ‘ !,.,, i- r . '. ;Y■'' ' ' ,1 i;:‘, '- 1 , - ' 1/2' ' , . * "t• ' L r" IN MN AM lial -4.■ a ••• 4: ... 4 : - =.,—k- n ia's- - - -7---et* -•:. {- ---; 4 ° ," 1--.--'1 4 . k - .. _. e• 1 ".- 1-4 .4.7;" 4- tatc: . ,.. --. a-^L °"." ° - ' °1- _ - -. 0-4 , - . - ......tt .2.:• -;-, - ,.., af .... - 1. View from the Environmental Learning Center • . '43' A !YIN • ' eXt` • .w..t • f , , 4 MItt ...I . .... - .... e .. .. . ret"''' ?I' ' " v % a - q '''' .40; . Vti , .4 ' , , -, . ' 0 IN % 411b0 NE O. 2. View from the Teaching Platform ei w r M,,pes RSIoeNct; E SA 507, COVSR FU.OM HAL-MM LAKE ,.. NOV t, 199 T5 ,wI • PIA') 'T/ J ,, -- a � .. s y � Y�y � .i1.47 2* � ✓ zed � / �� As till* ea _ #1 y. } 0 7 } `11. S • _ #'. Mm Imo. . � ; ' +1l. �.�; i t 1 .. ? �ry' f ;, i {Nl:, 1 x.9 - * 3. , 1: v . . Y '' "' ' ' Y _ 3. View from marshes to Moores Residence s t // • 4. I ..i• 41IW1 ` OP PIIOPtP fl LINE w r +r TOTAL. AWtA, : 561 CI - »55 AI¢FA : t15 ❑ .. 77 AKIA : 146 C7 • 477 GOVt■ existing vegetation in that area, prompted the Board of ACES to approach the City Council with its concerns about the impacts of development on the preserve, which ultimately led to the adoption of the Hallam Lake ESA. The Moores property lies immediately to the north of the Erdman AMP property, in an area where the slope of the bluff flattens to some degree, and turns to the northwest away from the lake, forming a secondary bowl some 400 feet across. The majority of the Moores property faces across this secondary bowl, rather than directly across the marshes. A significant portion of this secondary bowl is not within the boundary of the Hallam Lake Nature Preserve. Because of the location of the construction on the Erdman property (see photo #2 following page 3), the houses to be built on the Moores property will not have a significant view of the lake. The City's recently adopted Ordinance No. 71, Series of 1990, which is intended to create a review process for development along the slope adjacent to the Hallam Lake nature preserve, includes an amendment to *7-501, Development In Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). Specifically, the area subject to ESA .� review is defined as follows: as w 7 Hallam Lake Bluff: "That bluff area running approximately on a north -south axis bordering the Aspen Center for Enviroon78 t aloot Studies nature preserve and bounded on the east by the 50 mean sea level elevation line and extending 100 fee, masd in horizontally, up slope and there terminating Deve this area shall be subject to heightened review soraseto reduce noise and visual impacts on the nature preserve, protect erosion and landslide, minimize impacts on surface runoff, maintain views to and from the nature preserve, and ensure the r aesthetic and historical integrity of Hallam Lake and the nature preserve." r Approximately 75 percent of Lot A and 95 percent of Lot B are r within the western boundary of the ESA and development is r proposed within the ESA boundary on both lots. In order to ., approve development within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA, the se Planning & Zoning Commission must consider all of the following review standards of §7 -506: ve (1) "No development, excavation or fi ll , o therw t a n nat vegetation planting, shall take p oint Slope." (Under §3 -101, Top of Slo p e is defined daseampoin by o r a line connecting at least three (3) points the point of intersection of two 50 foot lines, one line being the level of the existing grade above the slope and the other line being the angle of the existing slope, both lines measured on a site section drawing.) T Top of Slope has been defined for Lots A and B by establish "' ing three points on each parcel (see Sheets 1 and 3 of the Hallam Lake ESA Overlay drawings on the following page). The three points selected for Lot A were chosen to smooth out the irregular edge of the bluff, which includes a A T• 8 significant swale extending west into the property near the north boundary of the parcel. This problem of the irregular shape of the edge of the bluff was discussed during the code amendment process and it was decided that applicants would be allowed to select any three points along the bluff to establish the Top of Slope. •' No disturbance of the area below the Top of Slope is proposed. Only plantings of native vegetation will be permitted in that area. (2) "All development within the 15 foot setback from the Top of Slope shall be at grade. Any proposed development not at grade within the 15 foot setback must be approved by special review pursuant to §7- 404(D) of this Article 7." All development proposed above- or below -grade on Lot A has been located outside of the 15 foot setback from the Top of Slope, as shown on Sheets 1 and 2 of the Hallam Lake ESA Overlay maps. On Lot B, the smaller of the two lots, two areas of the entry level of the guest residence extend into the 15 foot setback. These two areas are discussed in Section III, Special Review beginning on page 18. (3) "All development outside the 15 foot setback from Top of Slope shall not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a 45 degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Zoning Officer utilizing that definition set forth at §3 -101 of this Chapter 24." All development proposed on Lot A is beneath the 45° plane, as illustrated on Sheet 2 of the Overlay maps. The height ". 9 6J f HH f - 1--1 I S is Z 1 _ _ _ chi c \, T S. o p _ N < N W .d d . w , 1;� N 6 o Z i`�� i� / �F`_: 2 ��_� /� / �� —i ce i i / / 1 c., \ \ J \ \ I .. I i . I N \ \ AIN a w My will NA is a. as i Li a I AO r a�u 3 n n�. . nu ••P Tr + M•• e Sz e€ i I H N• • 111 C '- r _ ■ al _ u �_ _ • _ ••••••••••••••••• r r u 0 W y ?E / � y a .. E / / .. / / r a Y k 4 ♦y�ii^ aF sm. rei • I '� • € s_. crs r > O - m �� � Si) sal W x rod r V G ct o ..• Fr x J / cit at '~ Y ran aw mob ■ /� J_I 1 1 i..:.11 1 l ale U e a E u - u I , e , I 9n YIN IN t >1 F G o \. CD b O • O r . C en E cu s. CS ¢ ▪ r c SS oi ii AS r ' [ U U "" c MN 0 V 11 AN WIN 1• i 11111 .,. a of the guest residence extends above the 45° plane in two locations. These areas are discussed in Section III. (4) "A landscape plan shall be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall include native vegetative screening of no less than 50 percent of the development as viewed from the rear (slope) of the parcel. All vegetative screening shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall be r replaced with the same or comparable material should it die." was A landscape plan of the area facing the nature preserve has been prepared by Julia Marshall of Mt. Daly Enterprises (see following page). The existing vegetative screening on the east side of the site facing ACES already approaches 100 percent in the vertical area between the Top of Slope up to allowable building height (see photo #3 of Moores site from the marshes following page 3). Therefore, the landscape concept is intended to enhance the screening created by existing deciduous tres with additional plantings of ponderosa pines. The pines will further screen the residence from the preserve but will allow views of the -- preserve beneath the canopy of the pines. Western red birch, mountain ash and serviceberry are propos- a ed near the Top of Slope to effectively extend the wildlife ,I habitat further up the slope toward the residences. The •. applicant intends to maintain the existing mature vegetation on the site, unless a professional arborist makes a is 14 , q,, , i) ���� Hallam Lake E.S.A. - Proposed Planting Screen 1. Selected young cottonwood saplings. Other saplings pruned out. ° ° 2 Windows or views from the guesthouse and. g 2. p a t ottoi Hallam Lake through openings in the 3. Ponderosa Pines. The pines are located to satisfy the 50% vegetation cover where there x - are currently openmgs during the winter. The 1. ° pines screen the building from the kP but allow one to view t ie lake and the wildlife r beneath the canopy. •^'4. 4. Western Red Birch. The shrubs extend wildlife area beyond the top of the_ slope. This creates the possibility of viewing birds from inside the i A • house by bringing their habitat closer. .are 0 3 5. Mt. Ash or Serviceberry. The shrubs are located _ � ; below the top of slope and enhance the wildlife ' aspect of the ro Pe rt • .y _ P Y• %►, 2. u 410 a ° 0 l3. Moores Residence Hallam Jake E.S.A. — 71 Mt. Daly Enterprises NTS .. determination in writing that a tree is either diseased or threatens other healthy vegetation. Some of the younger saplings will be removed to allow other trees adequate room to grow. Because of the extent of the existing screening and the advanced age of some of the trees, the applicant .� commits to replace any trees which die with a tree of the same species in a size commonly available from local nurseries. (5) "All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the nature preserve or located down the slope." 1 - The Applicant commits to limit exterior lighting which may be visible from the nature preserve to low fixtures directed away from the preserve; such lighting will be located only in the area above, or to the west of, the Top of Slope. (6) "No fill material or debris shall be placed on the face of the slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down the ^ slope." The Applicant commits that no disturbance will be permitted below, or to the east of, the Top of Slope. Historic drainage patterns and rates will be maintained through the use of on -site drywells or other appropriate techniques to be engineered prior to the issuance of a building permit for the residences. (7) "Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer shall be submitted showing all -- 16 existing and proposed site elements, the Top of Slope, and pertinent elevations above sea level." Site sections for both lots have been prepared by Hagman Yaw Architects (see Sheets 2 and 4 of the Hallam Lake ESA .. Overlay maps, following page 9). • r 17 III. SPECIAL REVIEW (Article 7, Division 4) Under *7-401, the purpose of Special Review is to ensure site- .. r specific review of any development not at grade within 15 feet of the Top of Slope in the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA (Art. 7, Div. 5), in order to maintain the compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses. .W Review Standards for Special Review of encroachment into the 15 foot setback from Top of Slope or height limit established for .. the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA (*7-404) reads as follows: o "Whenever Special Review is for development above- or below - grade within the 15' setback from top of slope as identified on a site - specific section drawing or above the height limit established by the ESA, the development application shall be approved only if the following conditions have been met: (1) "A unique condition exists on the site where strict adherence to the Top of Slope setback will create an unworkable design problem." The Moores acquired the property in February of last year. After selecting Hagman Yaw as architects for their residence and guest house, architectural design of the buildings began immediatly after closing. Tim Hagman is a member of the ACES Board of Trustees, so the design team was aware at a very early stage of the concerns of the ACES Board. Because of this, a number of meetings have been held beginning last spring and continuing to the present between Tom Cardamone a r 18 r of the ACES staff and the Moores' architects, planner and r landscape architect to arrive at a solution for the .. residences which can be supported by ACES. r The Moores lot split application was filed in July, 1990. The boundaries of the two lots were designed to accommodate the proposed residences based on the design team's +. understanding of design solutions which could be supported by Tom Cardemone, according to his input at these meetings. The proposed Hallam Lake ESA code amendment was presented to the P &Z for the first time on August 7 and P &Z recommended approval of the regulation on October 2, 1990, after signi- ficant modifications; City Council adopted Ordinance No. 71/90 regarding the ESA amendments on November 12, 1990. By the time the code amendment was finally adopted in November, the Moores had already incurred considerable expense in design fees and the boundaries of the two lots had already been established by the City's approval of the Moores Lot Split application in October. At the time the boundaries of Lot B were established, it was important to keep the size of the parcel below 10,000 sq.ft., to avoid the greater side yard setbacks for larger lots. An eleventh -hour change in the boundaries of Lot B a. 19 a was also necessitated in order to achieve staff support for (and therefore Council approval of) the Lot Split proposal and this had the effect of "pushing" Lot B to the east toward the preserve. The Engineering Department took the position that Lot B in its original configuration was a "reverse- corner lot" which is not permitted under the code; the department would not change its position even when it was pointed out that such a lot is defined under the code and that Lot B did not remotely fit that definition. The change which was required limited the applicant's ability to shift the guest house further west away from the Top of Slope during a critical state of the design process. Construction documents are now well under way in anticipa tion of applying for a building permit and beginning construction as soon as necessary approvals can be secured. (2) "Any intrusion into the Top of Slope setback or height limit is minimized to the greatest extent possible." The principal residence is entirely outside of the setback and height limit from the Top of Slope. The guest residence extends into the setback and height limit in two locations r at the entry level. The area to the north is approximately .. 20 110 sq.ft. and the area to the south is approximately 70 sq.ft., as illustrated on Sheet 3 of the ESA Overlay maps. The maximum distance these two areas encroach into the setback is 7 feet. These two parts of the guest residence also extend above the ' height limit established by the 45 plane. The roof of the area to the north extends a maximum of 7 feet above the .. plane, and a 3 -foot square chimney element extends 15 feet above the plane. The roof of the area to the south extends - 3 feet above the plane. (These measurements are all taken perpendicular to the 45° plane.) Both of these areas are very well screened from the preserve by the existing cluster of large trees in the center of photo #3 (following page 3). Plantings of ponderosa pine, as illustrated on the Landscape Plan, are intended to further strengthen the year -round screening provided by this grouping of trees. (3) "Other parts of the structure or development on the site are located outside the Top of Slope setback line or height limit to the greatest extent possible." Sheets 1 through 4 of the Hallam Lake ESA Overlay drawings illustrate that a large majority of the two residences proposed are located outside of the setback and height limit line established from the Top of Slope. 21 A . °" (4) "Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or development in the setback from all adjoining properties." The landscape plan (following page 14) illustrates the additional plantings to be installed along the Top of Slope to increase the existing screening, already well in excess •' of 50 percent, as illustrated on photo #3, following page 3. r a a a 22 IV. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (Article 7 Division 3) The Applicant committed to provide one Accessory Dwelling Unit on r each lot in order to be eligible for Lot Split approval. An r Accessory Dwelling Unit is a conditional use in the R -6 zone district. When considering an application for a conditional use, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider, where applicable, the following standards: A. "The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located." The Accessory Dwelling Units proposed are consistent with the goals of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and the R -6 zone district. Under R -6 zoning, up to seven dwelling units would be allowed on the 34,000 sq.ft. parcel, subject to GMQS approval. B. "The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development." — The area is generally characterized by single - family resi- r dences on 3,000 to 6,000 sq.ft. lots and duplexes on 9,000 r sq.ft. lots. The proposal is compatible with the character r of the neighborhood. 23 r C. "The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties." The characteristics of the accessory dwelling units minimizes adverse effects on surrounding properties. D. "There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage system, and schools." Public facilities and services in the area are adequate to service the accessory dwelling units. E. "The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use." The applicant commits that if either of the units are rented in the future, that they will be rented to bona -fide residents of the community as that term is defined under the City's housing guidelines. F. "The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter." +` The conditional use is in compliance with all other applicable standards and requirements of the City. rr 24 a As the plans on the following pages indicate, the accessory a dwelling unit to be provided on Lot A is 370 sq.ft. The unit to be provided on Lot B is a two -level unit of 850 sq. ft. Both units are 100% above natural grade, as illustrated on the partial 1 elevations which follow. Draft deed restrictions for the two units have been forwarded to the Housing Office for review. a w i 25 x de z r C V e \- .. ior2 5 p u. 8 CI dB MI 41 - L _ i r p 7 • _ _ -�' w 1—\4111 V 01 s r M 11M t .4 1 40-0 ISE MI k --:! . t ! 'I III 1-> 0 tm: 1\s ab 1 R EF G !i / r -- CINS I T w 1 ,—, 5 ■ AWN am I' 6 a ( d Bi it Si JO e OA illal iii 1 q t I Ali .. I — _ j C en 1 E♦ o - is - - � _ z _ MI MI R a ' k — r s x Me ele a p L 0 u ,d t au p W �W: ISM rcm ww. i 0 1 d 111 O rli ' non a , w. m n'. w m i 001 .a -'- .o .,�to a.. ® ;p 19\ ,.; ,, t 111\ INI \ H\ I 1 ' :_:. I I ,.. ate, - r." rift. I ra i is i M al a de -- AIM -.. _ _ __. _ - _ _ ,..r o / s c, Q o oz AN mg ii-%! LL iQ o pa w m i N-, '- ..� - -- -- i _ o o 0 0 0 0 r p Il �� ,\ h \_J tri , r \---- o 0 as 1 U � k i , f ..a li m . 7 ff M I p El MI RIM/ s lag 1 \/ 1 . MS nen -m , T I� PINS M 1111 l my gm y I-- i V. REQUEST FOR GMQS EXEMPTION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ( 8 -104 (B) (1) (D) ) The applicant has previously committed that if either of the two lots is developed as a single - family or duplex site, that one accessory dwelling unit will be provided on that lot. Under the provisions of §8- 104(B)(1)(d), the Planning and Zoning Commission r may grant exemption from GMQS procedures for the development of w no more than one Accessory Dwelling Unit per each dwelling unit on a parcel containing a detached residential unit or duplex. Under the provisions of §8- 104(B)(2), the Commission shall grant the exemption if the application meets the standards of .. §8- 104(B); however, no standards for review of Accessory Dwelling «. Units are included in that section. An applicant for a Lot split must commit to provide an Accessory Dwelling Unit in order to be eligible for lot split approval ( §7- 1003(A)(2)(b)). r 29 GENERAL APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS [ §6- 202(B)] 1. Application form is attached as Exhibit 1. _ 2. Applicants' letter of authorization is attached as Exhibit 2. 3. The street address of the parcel is 200 West Gillespie. The legal description of the parcel is included on the attached plat (Exhibit 6). 4. Disclosure of ownership is attached as Exhibit 3. 5. A vicinity map locating the subject parcel is included on the attached plat (Exhibit 6). 6. Description of Proposal. The Applicants seek approval for development within an Environmentally Sensitive Area to con - TM struct a single - family residence and Accessory Dwelling Unit on each lot in the approved Moores Lot Split. The Applicants also seek Conditional Use and GMQS Exemption approval for the Acces- sory Dwelling Units as well as Vesting for all approvals granted. As discussed above, the application complies with the relevant review standards of the City's land -use code and therefore qualifies for the requested approvals. 30 W _ �+ 7. Under the provisions of 6- 205(E)(4), development in an Environmentally Sensitive Area, development subject to Special Review and GMQS Exemptions require no public notice. Conditional Use Requests require mailing of notice and posting of notice pursuant to §6- 205(E)(3)(b) and (c); owners of property within 300 feet of the parcel are attached as Exhibit 4. Wr 31 - EXHIBIT 1 LAND USE APPLICATION FORM W 1) Project Name MOORES ESA AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW 2) Project Location See attached legal. The two lots are located at 200 West Gillespie. The two lots total 3) Present Zoning R-6 4) Lot Size 34,060 square feet 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # John and Rebecca Moores P. O. Box 1146, Sugar Land, Texas 77487 -1146 6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Joseph Wells 602 Midland Park Place, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -8080 7) Type of Application (please check all that apply): X Conditional Use _ Conceptual SPA _ Conceptual Historic Dev. X Special Review — Final SPA — Final Historic Dev. y _ 8040 Greenline _ Conceptual PUD — Minor Historic Dev. Stream Margin — Final PUD -- Historic Demolition Maintain View Plane Subdivision — Historic Designation — Exemption X Hallam Lake ESA Text /Map Amendment CMGS Allotment Condominiumization — X CMOS Exemption Lot Split /Lot Line — Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (number and type of existing structures; appro- ... ximate sq.ft.; number of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the property). The two lots are presently vacant. 9) Description of Development Application Request for ESA, Special Review and Conditional Use Review for a single- family residence and accessory dwelling unit to be developed on „r each parcel. 10) Have you attached the following: a X Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents X Response to Attachment 3, Specific Submission Contents .. - X Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application at EXHIBIT 2 W January 2, 1991 Ms. Amy Margerum, Director Aspen /Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Application for ESA and Conditional Use Review Dear Ms. Margerum: This letter is to confirm that we are the record owners of the property located at 200 West Gillespie, subject of the attached ESA and Conditional Use Application. -- We will be represented by Joseph Wells during the City's review of this application. ii ncerel hn Moores `rq atstlo Becky Moores P.O. Box 1146 Sugar Land, TX 77487 -1146 Form No. 140211/701 ALTA Owner _r Policy Porn d — 1970 AMER! ..0 Amended 10-17-70) '( EXHIBIT 3 7 • 1. • • a POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE W ISSUED BY First American Title Insurance Company SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE B AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HEREOF, FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A, against loss or damage, not exceeding the amount of insurance stated in Schedule A, and costs, attorneys' fees and expenses which the Company may become obligated to pay hereunder, sustained or incurred by .w, the insured by reason of: 1. title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested otherwise than as stated therein; 2. any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such title; 3. lack of a right of access to and from the land; or 4. unmarketability of such title. I WITNESS WHEREOF, First American Title Insurance Company has caused this policy to be signed and sealed by its duly authorized officers as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A. First American Title Insurance Company • a ay PRESIDENT • see I 711P n / , lCe/ / ma 4ATTEST ^ lJ ws�.4�gL , SECRETARY Ire f .1 It \ \ ill N(( / / _ Ntt 11 MS n '62 'Jl.2,f. 87} ;Illy SCHEDULE A File No. 400633 -0 Policy No. D 714597 amount of Insurance $ Premium $ "" Date of Policy February 15, 1990 a.m. at 3:57 P.M. p.m. 1. Name of Insured: JOHN JAY MOORES and REBECCA BAAS MOORES 2. The estate or interest in the land which is covered by this policy is: FEE 3. Title to the estate or interest in the land is vested in: JOHN JAY MOORES and REBECCA BAAS MOORES in Joint tenancy 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: • THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SET FORTH ON SHEET ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE INCORPORATED HEREIN AND MADE A PART -- HEREOF. • vo. 402-C LT,\;r:carnPc'cv Order f10, 400633 -0 — .,es ern eg�cn Pe..9/87) Policy No. D 714597 SCHEDULEB PARTI This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of: Section One: 1. Taxes or assessments authority that levies taxes 1 or assessments on real property or b by the public s taxing records. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land orby making inquiry of persons in posses- sion thereof. 3. Easements, claims of easement or encumbrances which are not shown by the public records. 4. Discrepancies, facts hicha correct survey would disclose, a which area, e are shown by public a records. other 5. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 6. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. Section Two: 7. Right of the Proprietor of a 'lein or Lode to extract and remove his ore - therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or Intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved In United States Patent recorded June 8, 1888, In Book 55 at Page 2. 8. Easement and right of way for construct!ng, maintalning, repairing and utilizing a surface irrigation ditch, as granted by Lydia Perry Marquand to the City of Aspen, a municipal corporation, by the instrument recorded October 11, 1977, in Book 336 at Page 288, said easement being 10.00 feet in width and lying 5.00 feet on each side of the centerline more particularly described therein. ., 9, "Any possessory rights agalnst that part of subject property lyingg Easterly of a .41 r e fence on the Eastern part of subject property which riseebyNvirtue r< X s ,f ai,d fen as stbown o cZ o9��. g� -i o =.f n r A�p ne urveys, ce Inc. a ed uecem er , 10. Easement and right of way for a water line upon the conditions and limitations specified, as granted by General Efforts Corporation, Inc. to Robert F. StarodoJ and Paula A. StarodoJ by the Instrument recorded June 1, 1987, In Book 537 at Page 965, said easement being 5.00 feet in 'width and lying 2.50 feet on each side of the centerline more particularly described therein. �1 No. 1056 'd Polley F arms Order No. 400633 Pol Icy No. D 714597 SCHEDULEC .. The land referred to in :his policy is situated in the State of COI orado County of P1 tk 1 n and is described as follows: "'" That part of the Southeast one- quarter of the Northeast one- quarter cf Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the 6th P.M. (Including therein Lots 35 to 37, Block 90, Hallam's Addition to the - City and Townslte of Aspen, part of Lots 3 to 8, Block 2, Aspen Company Subdivision, and part of Lake and Gillespie Avenues adjacent), described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Block 90 of Hallam's Addition, whence the East one - quarter corner of said Section 12 (1954 brass cap) bears South 64 °23'34" East, 911.14 feet (record call at Book 256 at Page 651 Is South 64 °14'17" East, 904.35 feet); -- thence North 89 °52'00" West, 13.50 feet; thence North 00 °38'00" West, 120.01 feet; thence South 89 °52'00 East, 14.83 feet; thence North 5.91 feet; thence North 87 °07'00" East, 6.35 feet; thence North 69 °55'00" East, 66.07 feet; thence East 31.61 feet; thence South 89 °52' East, 92.63 feet; thence South 07 °45' East, 49.46 feet; thence North 89 °52' West, 49.30 feet; thence South 29 °07'00" East, 114.60 feet; thence South 37 °06'00" East, 37.94 feet; thence South 89 °43'00" West, 80.22 feet; thence South 86 °31'00" West, 148.72 feet; thence North 40.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, EXCEPT that portion thereof, If any, lying with those certain tracts of land conveyed by Elizabeth H. Paepcke to Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, a Colorado non - profit corporation, by the �. Statutory Deeds recorded December 30, 1969, In Book 245 at Page 481, and December 30, 1970, In Book 252 at Page 784. a AM r .. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. rtle Insurance Company V'incs ^:t J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins. Aspen. Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis y. President •303) 925 -1766 • (303) 925 -6527 FAX Vice President EXHIBIT 4 .r ADJACENT 'IWNER'S STATEMENT ., ?_CS_n Iounty Title, Inc.. a du __lensed TitLe Insurance -gent in the State of :oioraco hereby certifies the following list is a c urrent list of adjacent property owner's within three hundred feet of the Subject Property, as obtained from the most current Pitkin County Assessors Tax Rolls. NAMES AND ADRESSES BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION JcEN JAY lni S METES AND BOUNDS QFPFrrA BASS rre ES SUBJECT PROPERTY P.O. BOX 1146 S RG\Rffl, TEXAS 77487 THE ERDMAN PARTNERSHIP METES AND BOUNDS P.O. SOX 12395 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN CENTER FOR METES AND BOUNDS ENVIROMENTAL STUDIES - 100 E. PUPPYSMITH ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 LUCY REED HIBBERD UNIT A, LBH CONDOMINIUMS 2222 EAST TENNESSEE STREET - DENVER, CO 80209 STERLING A. COLGATE UNIT B, LBH CONDOMINIUMS - ROSEMARY W. COLGATE 422 ESTANTE LOS ALAMOS, NM 84544 CHARLES W. BRADY LOT 1, NORTH ST. SUB • 45555 STELLA ORIVE ATLANTA, GA 30327 LE RAY DIGILIA LOT 2 , NORTH ST. SUB JOHN WILLIAM OIBILIA P.O. 30X 4305 ASPEN, CO 81612 ,r ALEX KAUFMAN LOT 1. CHEEK SUB KATHRYN 3UMGARONER CHEEK - P.O. BOX 6221 ,� EDISON, NJ 08818 .. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. e Title Insurance Company Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis President (303) 925 -1766 • (303) 925 -6527 FAX Vice President MORTON A. HELLER LOT 2, CHEEK SUB P.O. BOX 98 '4000Y CREEK, CO 81656 H. ARTHUR LITTELL LOT 3, CHEEK SUB TRUSTEE, ET AL P.O. BOX 1748 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73101 JOHN H. CHEEK JR. LOT 4, CHEEK SUB KATHRYN BUMGARDNER CHEEK CLONMEL ROAD NASHVILLE, TN 37220 ROBERT P. GILLMAN LOT 5, CHEEK SUB .� ELEANOR L. GILLMAN 2390 EAST ORANGEWOOD AVENUE ANAHEIM, CA 92806 CAROL G. CRAIG LOT 6, N1 /2 LOT 7, BLOCK 100 HALLAMS P.0. BOX 18 WOODY CREEK, CO 81656 HOUSTON R. HARTE 51/2 LOT 7, LOT B, BLOCK 100 HALLAMS ANNE P. HARTE 476 WESTWOOD DRIVE DENVER, CO 80206 JAMES K. DAGGS LOTS 4, 5, 6, BLK 102, HALLAMS GAY DAGGS 640 NORTH 3RD STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 ELIZABETH ANN ALTEMUS LOTS 7, 8, BLK 102, HALLAMS — 620 NORTH 3RD STREET ASPEN, CO 81611 r MORTIMER M. DENKER LOTS 1 & 2, SUNNY ACRES DORIS DENKER " P.O. BOX 1566 ASPEN, CO 81612 PHOEBE MASSEY RYERSON LOT 3, SUNNY ACRES P.O. BOX 4222 a ASPEN, CO 81612 AO r PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, inc. ride Insurance Company ` /intent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins. Aspen. Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis +r President 303) 925 -1766 • (303) 925.6527 FAX Vice President a a JAMES _0T5 7 -9, BLOCK 103, HALLAMS 11:0 No. LAKE _-ORE :RI.E CHICAGO. I_ 60611 a LIT? ,F ASPEN METES ANO BOUNDS 130 5. GALENA ASPEN, CO 3:611 ASPEN INSTITUTE METES AND BOUNDS 1000 NORTH 3RD STREET ASPEN, CO 3:611 JANET SCHRIEBER LOT 13, SECOND ASPEN COMPANY SUB 452 WORTH AVENUE PALM BEACH. FL 33480 BRUCE BERGER THE "WESTERLY ANO EASTERLY TRACTS" SUITE 604 HALLAiMS ADDITION 342 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK CITY, NY 10173 ANNE F. FARISH ALL OF LOTS 5 -9, PT OF LOTS 10 & 11„ #16E, 2200 WILLOWICK BLOCK 4, ASPEN COMPANY SUBOIVISION HOUSTON, TX 77027 JAMES, JOAN & GAIL MERRIAM METES AND BOUNDS 1884 MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE TI BURON, CA 94920 ,,1 k_k_Nas x. ic AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE r „. EXHIBIT 5 �- ORDINANCE NO. 65 (SERIES OF 1990) +- AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING SUBDIVISION E7EMPTION FOR THE MOORES LOT SPLIT, DESCRIBED IN METES AND BOUNDS, AT THE N.E. CORNER OF GILLESPIE ST. AND LAKE AVE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 -1003 of the Aspen Land Use — Code, a Lot Split is a subdivision exemption by the City Council; and WHEREAS, John and Rebecca Moores, represented by Joe Wells, has submitted an application for the lot split of a 34,058.64 square foot parcel described in metes and bounds in the SE 1/4 NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 west of the sixth P.M., City of Aspen); and ~' WHEREAS, the Engineering Department, Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority, Aspen Parks Department, Aspen Water Department, Aspen Fire Marshal, and the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, having reviewed the application has made referral comments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having reviewed the application pursuant to Section 7 -1003, and reviewing referral comments from various agencies recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The plat must meet all of the Engineering requirements in ”' Municipal Code Chapter 24, section 7 -1004 D. 2. Prior to filing a final plat the applicant must agree to join any future Improvement Districts. r • 3. One joint driveway access will be allowed for both lots via the 20' access easement across Lot A. 4. The applicant must verify approval for water service to Lot B from the Aspen Water Department prior to filing the plat. 5. The irrigation easement, if moved to the proposed location, must be a platted easement with legal description, subject to Engineering, Parks and Street Department's approval in writing. 6. Development on these parcels must meet the storm water design requirements of Section 24- 7.1004.C.4.f. of the code. 7. An Accessory Dwelling Unit must be included on each lot for which development is proposed as a requirement of this Lot Split. Each Accessory Dwelling Unit must comply with the Housing Authority's requirements and must receive Conditional Use approval by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. 8. Prior to issuance of any building permits, Deed Restrictions for the Accessory Dwelling Units shall be approved by the Housing Authority and recorded by the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 9. The Floor Area and site coverage limits will be: J.ot A: FAR maximum - 4,358 s.f.(access and proposed irrigation easements are subtracted from lot area for calculating FAR); Site Coverage maximum - 20% (4,814 s.f.) Lot B: FAR maximum - 3,593.9 s.f.(proposed irrigation ,110 easement subtracted from lot area); Site Coverage maximum - 28.4.% (2,836 s.f.) ~ 10. The 10' Front Setback for Lot B along N45 00'00 "E shall be a Side Setback to be dimensioned according to applicable zoning a requirements. 11. The "Excepted Area" on the plat shall be removed from any r area calculations. 12. Development proposed for any lot(s) resulting from this lot split shall conform to the terms and requirements of the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) if such ESA is enacted prior to issuance of any Building Permits for construction on said lot(s). 13. A Subdivision Exemption Agreement listing the conditions of approval shall be included as a note section on the final plat. 14. The final plat will be signed by the Planning Office and recorded by the City Clerk only upon complete satisfaction of the above conditions. S WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning Office's recommendations for lot split does wish to grant the requested Subdivision Exemption for the Moores Lot Split. - -,. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: That it does hereby grant a Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split, with the previously mentioned conditions recommended by AO the Planning Office, to the 34,058.64 s.f. parcel described in this ordinance. r Section 2: That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the • .. adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in ✓ the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 3: - A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of 1) U r , 1990 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, �J by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of r v , 1990. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST; w t � / Kathry'n S. Roch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this , day of C <47- , 198• William L. S irling, ayor ATTEST: d ryn J_ — . :Koch, City Clerk a 4 a s TM ., EXHIBIT 6 M NA% 5 6 e 4Y is WO 0' 4 yy B i al 1 ^ � ! E- S I ' Q [ �i z , i , S Cr �1 8 W b ! ! ` H h .. z z h N'§ CL 9 k ` �V/11 [14 4284 € `t - ..9,,.; 2 F 1- L t+. C Y C �x dd 0m E +� r a M RN, 4 !..`=, '�; s g I t o S C Illi 1 /,al/. .s 2 4 g Z 11 q a'= � 3 YAS ash �$ eimn 4 ii �rP ink a O p 8$ t 9 L p 1 8 lr,,. € �g� ns :,B - F � h ;! d £ �'� €Rx _ z 'r"' S 8 s ^o °°' U1 /u11 %/f g $ ,_ i p µC k �y - x9Y u9ww 384 9 w 9N,, EW _ _ ! €� s 1 % C: . �O Uw la g I ,tfl � , '' ', x 1 t4 , .,1 P - O A - i ..+ .. ;;�r -4 9- �y 0 W _ F -y 1 / x- ta F. µ Cil� Id L C Q 11 4 .� • - 19::: reir:o Au 1R '� "�^ n W O F. ici ' • ,fi e it I 3 p r:', V I '^ �' 4(11' Sx o o 1 � ' 6 '�N i -''. �� 2 � aMil 1, i pig 3 . • Fi r� o § y --;14t04-4 k� s,g c[ y � [yyy a ns 4 � b > ON $ m I 4 §86/L h ° 6 yry 58' £ 1E mu ° - a _ off a `r hh9 r ra b ill a en IS i 2 E' 2 Y Aa � n k „z < 7 W sr +viT+H -n � 4 - -� 8 a a/ •88 s 3f1NaAV aMn is 11i INN PP i MO w IRf1 it � ° fp is I 1 m Ili ii. 1 f 1 ! -1 V R ORDINANCE NO. &E; (SERIES OF 1990) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING SUBDIVISION E]EMPTION FOR THE MOORES LOT SPLIT, DESCRIBED IN METES AND BOUNDS, AT THE N.E. CORNER OF GILLESPIE ST. AND LAKE AVE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 -1003 of the Aspen Land Use Code, a Lot Split is a subdivision exemption by the City Council; and WHEREAS, John and Rebecca Moores, represented by Joe Wells, has submitted an application for the lot split of a 34,058.64 square foot parcel described in metes and bounds in the SE 1/4 NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 west of the sixth P.M., City of Aspen); and J WHEREAS, the Engineering Department, Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority, Aspen Parks Department, Aspen Water Department, Aspen Fire Marshal, and the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, having reviewed the application has made referral comments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Office, having reviewed the application pursuant to Section 7 -1003, and reviewing referral comments from various agencies recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The plat must meet all of the Engineering requirements in Municipal Code Chapter 24, section 7 -1004 D. 2. Prior to filing a final plat the applicant must agree to join any future Improvement Districts. 3. One joint driveway access will be allowed for both lots via the 20' access easement across Lot A. 4. The applicant must verify approval for water service to Lot B from the Aspen Water Department prior to filing the plat. 5. The irrigation easement, if moved to the proposed location, must be a platted easement with legal description, subject to Engineering, Parks and Street Department's approval in writing. 6. Development on these parcels must meet the storm water design requirements of Section 24- 7.1004.C.4.f. of the code. 7. An Accessory Dwelling Unit must be included on each lot for which development is proposed as a requirement of this Lot Split. Each Accessory Dwelling Unit must comply with the Housing Authority's requirements and must receive Conditional Use approval by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. / 8. Prior to issuance of any building permits, Deed Restrictions for the Accessory Dwelling Units shall be approved by the Housing Authority and recorded by the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 9. The Floor Area and site coverage limits will be: LotAL FAR maximum - 4,358 s.f.(access and proposed irrigation easements are subtracted from lot area for calculating FAR); Site Coverage maximum - 20% (4,814 s.f.) Trot 8: FAR maximum - 3,593.9 s.f.(proposed irrigation easement subtracted from lot area); Site Coverage maximum - 28.4.% (2,836 s.f.) 10. The 10' Front Setback for Lot B along N45 00'00 "E shall be a Side Setback to be dimensioned according to applicable zoning requirements. 11. The "Excepted Area" on the plat shall be removed from any area calculations. 12. Development proposed for any lot(s) resulting from this lot split shall conform to the terms and requirements of the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) if such ESA is enacted prior to issuance of any Building Permits for construction on said lot(s). 13. A Subdivision Exemption Agreement listing the conditions of approval shall be included as a note section on the final plat. 14. The final plat will be signed by the Planning Office and recorded by the City Clerk only upon complete satisfaction of the above conditions. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Planning Office's recommendations for lot split does wish to grant the requested Subdivision Exemption for the Moores Lot Split. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1• That it does hereby grant a Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split, with the previously mentioned conditions recommended by the Planning Office, to the 34,058.64 s.f. parcel described in this ordinance. Section 2• That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. acct i on 3: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the , . day of /2 G fr , 1990 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the Y day of v� , 1990. d i William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of William L. / S irling, ayor ATTEST: athryn ,C Koch, City Clerk 4 • • THE CITY OF ASPEN OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY January 16, 1996. Herbert S. Klein, Esq. 201 North Mill Street, 1203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lots 1 and 2, Moore's Lot Split Dear Herb: This is in response to your letter dated January 12, 1996, regarding the above - referenced matter. You have asked for my opinion regarding the proper FAR available for the two lots in question. • As I understand the situation, when the Moore lot split was approved an allowable FAR was calculated for each lot and includ- ed in staff's report to City Council. In making that calcula- tion, staff did not exclude the vacated portions of Gillespie Avenue as required by the code. While the plat of the lot split does not reference any particular FAR for each lot, it does state that an "excepted area" depicted on the plat (not Gillespie Avenue) "shall be excluded from lot area calculations." Appar- ently the original error of failing to include vacated ROW in lot area calculations was carried forward to the plat as there is no reference to excluding Gillespie Avenue from lot area calcula- tions. Your clients purchased the property in April, 1995, two months after the plat was recorded. You have further represented that the purchase was made in specific reliance on the FAR calcula- tions and methodology used by the planning department in present- ing the lot split to City Council. Based on this factual situation I believe a court would uphold a finding of equitable estoppel should the City require that the vacated portions of Gillespie Avenue be deducted'from lot area calculations. Perhaps, more importantly, City Council has repeatedly instructed staff to treat the public it serves in a fair and equitable fashion even if it means acknowledging our mistake and accepting the consequences of those mistakes. 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 •. PHONE 303.920.5055 • FAX 303.920.5119 PvnM on marled paper Letter to Herbert S. Klein, Esq. January 16, 1996 Page 2 For all of the foregoing reasons, when your clients file an application a building permit, I will advise the Community Development Department of this opinion and recommend that they continue to include the vacated portions of Gillespie Avenue in the FAR calculations. As you already know, the FAR calculations will, however, be reduced by any slope reduction regulations that may apply to the property. Finally, I should note that a subsequent purchaser of either undeveloped lot will not be able to avail themselves of this opinion as they will not be able to claim detrimental reliance on the erroneous FAR calculations. If you have any questions regarding the above, please let me know. Sincerely, John P. Worcester City Attorney JPW /mc jw116.1 cc: Community Development Department • 8 March 1996 ASPEN • PITKIN PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Herbert S. Klein, Esq. COMMLNITI DEVELOPMENT DEPARTNIENT Herbert S. Klein & Associates, P.C. 201 iNorth.Mill Street Suite 203 Asrden, CO 81611 Re: Lots 1 and 2— Moores Lot Split— Amendment • Dear Herb: I am in receipt of your letter of 6 March 1996 with respect to the lot line adjustment for the above referenced property. A lot line adjustment, such as is being requested by Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez, is technically an amendment to a subdivision development order. The original Moores lot split was carried out as an exemption from the Subdivision Ordinance which resulted in a subdivision development order. I view the requested lot split as an "Amendment to subdivision development order," covered under § 26.88.060 of the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations. This section has three subdivisions: A. Insubstantial Amendment, B. Other Amendment, and C. Plat Vacation. According to the code, an insubstantial amendment "shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during the approval process, or any other minor change to a plat which the Community Planning Director [sic] finds has no effect on the conditions and representations limiting the approved plat." The following section, Other Amendment, states "Any other amendment shall be approved by the city council, provided that the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat." The section you cite for a lot line adjustment has been recodified as § 26.88.030 Exemptions, 1. Lot line adjustment. This section provides that an adjustment of a lot line between contiguous lots may be exempt from the general terms of subdivision regulation . • provided that a number of conditions are met. First among these conditions is "It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or survey - error in a recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels...." • • Under subsection B., Procedure, the code provides that the planning director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a lot line adjustment. This . sub- section does not explicitly provide for referral to City Council in the case.of a lot line / 1 130 SULTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PHONE 303,920.5090 • FAX 303 920.5197 DIRECT F>x LINE: 303920.5139 Herbert S. Klein, Esq. 8 March 1996 Page 2 adjustment. It should be noted, however, that the same subsections provides that all lot splits are to be forwarded to the City Council along with the planning director's recommendation. I believe that the Moores Lot Split received a subdivision development order and that the request which you have made on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez is technically a request for an insubstantial amendment to that development order. In that context, the letter received from an abutting property owner, Robert F. Storodoj, raises considerable concern that the proposed lot split may have an "effect on the conditions and representations limiting the approved plat." In delegating to the planning director the authority to approve insubstantial amendments, I do not believe that the City Council intended to grant broad authority to deal with situations where questions of impact have been raised. Mr. Starodoj's letter certainly raises issues of impact resulting from the proposed lot line adjustment. These questions are most appropriately addressed in the public forum of city council as contemplated under subsection B. which states: "any other amendment shall be approved by the city council...." Even if you argue that this request is more properly considered under § 26.88.030, Exemptions- -Lot line adjustment, I would respond that the requirement that the boundary change be "insubstantial" for planning director approval is not met in the Light of Mr. Starodoj's letter. I would further point out that provisions relating to the code provide for appeals of an administrative action to the Board of Adjustment. While he does not explicitly state that he intends to do so, Mr. Storodoj would have the right to appeal the planning director's approval of the requested lot line adjustment under $ 26.116.010 of the land use code. Such an appeal would result in further delay to the proposed project. You refer to an established understanding that the lot line adjustment component of the approval process was promised as an administrative ultimate step in the approval process. I can only respond that in providing information on the code and the approval process, we are only able to indicate what the ordinance provides for, not what eventualities may ensue. I have no doubt that it was stated that a lot line adjustment could be provided as a planning director sign -off. This does not convey an obligation to do so if, in good faith, we believe the requirements of the code dictate otherwise. I have provided, as you requested, the relevant sections of the recodified land use regulations. A full set may be obtained from the City Clerk. I regret that my referral of this issue to the City Council causes you to believe that I am acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or that, for some reason, I am attempting to obstruct the progress of this project. I truly believe that prompt referral of this matter to Council - -which can be scheduled at their meeting of 25 March 1996 - -is the most expeditious way to address the remaining issues of Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez development • Herbert S. Klein, Esq. 8 March 1996 Page 3 • proposal. I cannot predict how Council may respond to the issues raised by Mr. Starodoj's letter, but I am certain these issues are best addressed in a public venue as intended by the limits placed upon the planning director's discretionary approval by the land use code. Cordially yo Stan lauson, AICP, ASLA Community Development Director CITY OF ASPEN cc: John Worcester, City Attorney • 26.88.010 Chapter 26.88 SUBDIVISION Sections: 26.88.010 Purpose. 26.88.020 Applicability. 26.88.030 Exemptions. 26.88.040 Subdivision approval. 26.88.050 Subdivision agreement. 2628.060 Amendment to subdivision development order. 26.88.070 Condominiumization. 26.88.080 Timeshare. 628.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chanter is to: A. Assist in the orderly and efficient development of the City; B. Ensure the proper distribution of development; C. Encourage the well- pianned subdivision of land by establishing standards for the desizt of a subdivision; D. Improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for surveys and plats; E. Coordinate the construction of public facilities with the need for public facilities: F. Safeguard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser. G. Acquire and ensure the maintenance of public open spaces and parks; and H. Provide procedures so that development encourages the preservation of important and unique natural or scenic features, including but not limited to mature trees or indigenous vegetation. bluffs. hillsides or similar geologic features. or edges of rivers and other bodies of water. and I. Promote the health. safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of .aspen. (Ord. No. 22 -1995, § 15: Code 1971. § 7 -1001) 2628.020 Applicability. This chapter shall apply to the subdivision of all land in the City of Aspen. unless it is exempted pursuant to Section 26.38.030. (Code 1971. § 7 -1002) 26.88.030 Exemptions. The following development shall be exempted from the terms of this chapter. A. General exemptions. I. Lot line adjustment An adjustment of a lot line between contiguous lots if all the following conditions are met. a. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or survey error in a recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels: and b. All landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted shall provide written consent to the application; and 633 (xmcn 10/95) 26.38.030 require submission of an application for a building permit. An application for a lot split shall require a public hearing. (Ord. No. 47- 1988, § 10; Ord. No. 13 -1993. §§ 1. 4; Ord. No. 22 -1995. §§ 16, 17: Code 1971, § 7 -1003) 26.88.040 Subdivision approval. A. General prohibitions. 1. General prohibition. a. It shall be unlawful for any person to develop. lease. or sell any parcel of land. including any separate interest in a parcel of land (including leasehold interest or condominium interest) in the City of Aspen until it has been subdivided and a plat recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder pursuant to the terms of this chanter. b. A written agreement to sell or lease an interest in a parcel of land which is expressly conditioned upon full compliance by the seller with this chapter within a specified period of time. and which expressly recites that seller's failure to satisfy such condition within said period of time shall terminate the agreement and entitle the buyer to the prompt return of all consideration paid by the buyer. shall not constitute a violation of this chapter. 2. Development allotment No development order for a subdivision shall be approved pursuant to the provisions of this chanter unless the applicant has been awarded a development allotment or has obtained a GMQS exemption pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Growth Management Quota System. 3. Prohibited conveyances. No interest in a parcel of land shall be transferred. conveyed. sold. subdivided or acquired to create or extend a nonconformity. or to avoid or circumvent any provision of this chapter. 4. Prohibited development. All structures shall be located on a subdivision lot. The lot lines established in a subdivision shall not be altered by conveyance of a pan of a lot. nor shall any part of a lot be joined with a part of any other lot for conveyance or construction. unless the application has been made pursuant to the terms of this chanter. 5. Aspen Townsite lots. If two (2) or more lots within the original Aspen Townsite or additions thereto have continuous frontage and am in single ownership (including husband and wife) on October 27. 1975 the lots shall be considered an undivided lot for the purposes of this title. and conveyance of any portion shall constitute subdivision. An Aspen Townsite lot or addition thereto includes all iands depicted on the Aspen incorporation plat of record. dated 1880. plus any lot or parcel annexed to the city since that time which constitutes a nonconforming lot of record. plus any lot or parcel which has not received subdivision approval by the City of Aspen or Pitkin County. but excludes any subdivided lot in the City of Aspen which conforms to the requirements of this title. B. General overview. A development application for a subdivision shall be reviewed pursuant to the procedures and standards in this chapter and Common Procedures, Chapter 2652. The procedures require review and approval of a development application for plat by the commission at a public hearing and by the city council at a hearing. C. Review standards..A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements. 1. General requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this tide. 635 then 10/95) ' 26.88.050 E. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within a period of one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the city council shall render the plat invalid and reconsiders don of the plat by the commission and city council will be required by for a showing of good cause. (Ord. No. 22- 1995. § 19; Code 1971. § 7 -1005) 26.88.060 Amendment to subdivision development order. A. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved plat or between adjacent subdivision plats may be authorized by the Community Development Director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process. or any other minor change to a plat which the Community Planning Director finds has no effect on the conditions and representations limiting the approved plat B. Other Amendment. Any other amendment shall be approved by the city council. provided that the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved plat, the amendment shall be subject to review as a new development application for plat C. Plat vacation. Vacation of an approved plat or any other document recorded in conjunction with a plat shall be considered a plat amendment and shall only be approved by the city council if good cause is demonstrated. (Ord. No. 22 -1995, § 20: Code 1971. § 7 -1006) 26.88.070 Condominiumization. A. General. Where a proposed development is to include a condominium form of ownership. or if an existing development is to be convened to a condominium form of ownership, in whole or in part. a condominium subdivision exemption plat reflecting all condominiumized units. orthat portion of the development to be condominiumized. shall be submiaed to the planning director for review and approval as a subdivision exemption pursuant to the terms and provisions of this section. B. Procedure. A development application for a condominiumization shall be reviewed pursuant to the procedures and standards in this section and Common Procedures. Chapter 26.52. 1. Contents of Application. The contents of a development application for a condominium or condominiumization shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Common Procedures. Section 26.32.030. b. A condominium subdivision exemption piat drawn with permanent ink on reproducible mylar. Sheet size shall be twenty -four (24) inches by thirty -six (36) inches with an unencumbered margin of one and one -half (1-1/2) inches on the left hand side of the sheet and a one -half (1/2) inch martin around the other three (3) sides of the sheet. It shall include: (1) Accurate dimensions for all lines. angles and curves used to describe boundaries. streets. setbacks. alleys, easements. structures. areas to be reserved or dedicated for public or common use and other important features. All curves shall be circular arcs and shall be defined by the radius. central angle. tangent arc and chord distances. All dimensions. both linear and angular. are to be determined by an accurate control survey in the field which must balance and close within a limit of one (1) in ten thousand (10,000). (2) The plat shall be drawn at a scale of one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet or larger. Architectural scales are not acceptable. If it is necessary to place the plat on more than one (1) sheet, an index shall be included on the first sheet. A vicinity map shall also appear on the first sheet showing the condominium project as it relates to the rest of the city and the street system in the area of the proposed condominium. (Aspen 10/95) 644 • 26.116.010 Chapter 26.116 APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION Sections: 26.116.010 Appeals from the administrative action. 26.116.010 Appeals from the administrative action. A. Authority. The board of adjustment shall have the authority to hear and decide any appeals from any decision or determination by Y administrative official pursuant to the standards and procedures hereinafter set forth, except for interpretation to the text of this title or the boundaries of the zone district map, which shall be decided pursuant to the terms of Chapter 26.112. B. Initiation. An appeal may be initiated by any person who receives a decision or determination by any administrative official with respect to this title, except for an interpretation to the text of this tide or the boundaries of the zone district map. C. Procedures. A notice of appeal in the form prescribed by the platting director must be filed with the planning director and with the office or department rendering the decision or determination within ten (10) worsting days of the decision. Failure to file such appeal shall constitute a waiver of any nghts under this title to appeal any decision or determination. The filing of a notice of appeal shall require the administrative official whose decision is appealed. to immediately forward to the planning director any and all records concerting the subject matter of the appeal. D. Effect of filing an appeal. The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay any proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the administrative official rendering such decision. determination, or interpretation certifies in writing to the planting director and the appellant, that a stay poses an imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further proceedings. The board of adjustment may review such certification and grant or deny a stay of the proceedings. E. Action of the board of adjustment The board of adjustment shall consider the appeal within rhino (30) days following receipt of all records concerning the subject matter of the appeal. The board of adjustment may reverse, affirm. or modify the decision or determination appealed from. and. if the decision is modified. shall be deemed to have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the appellant The decision shall be in writing and shall be sent to the appellee by certified mail. (Code 1971. § 12 -101) 707 C I C I I N. N f B N fl N 0 I April 8, 1996 Mr. Stan Clausen Community Planning Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Stan: This letter is meant to immediately withdraw my opposition to the Hernandez request for a lot line adjustment at their property at the corner of Lake and Gillespie Streets in Aspen, Colorado. Please disregard my letter of opposition dated February 20, 1996. We have worked out a compromise and I ask that you process their request immediately. inlerely, Ma I. &be . - t. "o1 ,y 4 %Et' 17144 X u 1' N C1 tvg,v 173 , & & \ 0 1P‘12 300 0 1 X E E I O EX V C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 071 7 0 1 7 7 7 9 7 0 0 .. _ LAW OFFICES OF HERBERT S. KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 201 NORTH MILL STREET HERBERT S. KLEIN SUITE 203 TELLURIDE OFFICE: MILLARD J. ZIMET" ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 P.O. BOX 215 ROBERT ERIE (970) 9258700 300 WEST COLORADO AVENUE THOMAS G. KENNEDY• TELECOPIER (970) 925 -3977 SUITE 29 TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 also admllled in New York (970) 728-5151 also admilled in MarylanJ TELECOPIER (970) 728 -3069 March 6, 1996 Via Hand Delivery John Worcester, Esq, City Attorney Aspen Attorney 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lots 1 and 2 - Moores Lot Split - Lot Line Adjustment Application Dear John: Once again we are having difficulties with the Planning Office with respect to Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez' efforts to obtain building approvals on Lots 1 and 2, Moores Lot Split. As I am sure you recall, we spoke with you about previous difficulties in obtaining Ordinance 30 review for the design of the houses and certain issues concerning the F.A.R. applicable to these lots. Now, we have a problem in obtaining the processing of the lot line adjustment necessary to allow the construction of the dwellings on each of these lots as approved under the Ordinance 30 procedure. I am enclosing a copy of a letter delivered to Stan Clausen today which explains the current situation for your review and consideration. Briefly put, despite Mr. Clausen's direction to Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez and their architect, Michael Lipkin, that they should process the Ordinance 30 design review approvals and the conditional use application for caretaker units prior to obtaining the lot lire adjustment necessary for these approvals, and with his assurances that the lot line adjustment would be handled administratively and did not pose any problems, and after Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez complied with his directives and obtained the :requisite approvals, Mr. Clausen is now refusing to process the lot line adjustment administratively and has told Mr. Hernandez that he is going to refer the matter to City Council for review at a public hearing. The reason cited by Mr. Clausen is a letter received from a neighbor objecting to the design of the house approved under Ordinance 30. I have reviewed the Code and, in particular, the provisions concerning the criteria for lot line adjustments (Section 7- 1003(A)(1), as amended by Ordinance 30 (Series of 1993)) and John Worcester March 6, 1996 Page 2 Section 6- 205(A)(1)(f), as amended by Ordinance 13 (Series of 1993) which grants the Planning Director sole authority for granting lot line adjustment exemptions. I am at a loss to understand how Mr. Clausen can refer this matter to City Council. Under those Code provisions, the objection of a neighbor to Ordinance 30 design issues is irrelevant to the processing of a lot line adjustment, which has specific criteria outlined in the Code. Furthermore, given Mr. Clausen's assurances that he would grant the lot line adjustment and the substantial expenditures of funds, time and effort on the part of Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez in processing design approvals, it is totally inequitable and possibly illegal for Mr. Clausen to refuse to grant the lot line adjustment based upon extraneous considerations. It seems to me that such action on Mr, Clausen's part would be arbitrary and capricious, as well as an abuse of his discretion. I regret having to impose upon your good offices once again in order to keep this project on track. Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez have obtained a fairly high frustration level with Mr. Clausen's deviations from both his prior commitments and the provisions of the Land Use Code and the consequences of not having the lot line adjustment approved at this late stage in the review process, poses a very serious financial and personal problem for. hhem. I would appreciate your review of the attached letter to Mr. Clausen and your interpretation of the Code with respect to this situation. Thank you very much for your consideration. Please contact me as soon as possible so that we can discuss this in greater detail. Very truly yours, HERBERT S. KLEIN &,ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: � l Herbert S. Klein \mk \HERNANDEZ \27 Enclosure cc: Stan Clausen Cecil and Noelle Hernandez MEMORANDUM / F TO: Mayor and Council APR O THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager 1 FROM: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director ' , ° eivr A ¢N PITK t DATE: 8 April 1996 RE: Lots 1 and 2 -- Moores Lot Split -- Amendment SUMMARY:—On 6 March h 1996, Cecil and Noelle Hernandez requested "a lot line adjustment" for the previously granted Moores Lot Split. Action on this request had been deferred pending Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)review by the Planning & Zoning Commission for their proposed development on the two sites. The request for a "lot line adjustment" was addressed by the Planning Director, with the concurrence of the City Attorney, as an amendment to an approved subdivision because a lot line adjustment is not intended to provide for the type of request made by the applicant. The insubstantial amendment procedure requires the Planning Director to make certain findings with respect to the minor nature of the request. The Planning Director has received a letter from an abutter, Robert Starodoj, dated 20 February 1996, alleging that significant impact would result to his property from the granting of the amendment. The Planning Director has therefore determined that he is not able to make the necessary findings to permit him to approve the request as an insubstantial amendment. The amendment request has therefore been referred to City Council under the provisions of Section 26.88.060.C. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Council previously approved the subdivision exemption for the Moores Lot Split as Ordinance No. 65, Series of 1990. A copy of that ordinance is attached. BACKGROUND: On October 31, 1995, Atty. Herbert Klein, representing Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez, wrote to the Planning Director requesting a clarification with respect to the exclusion of the vacated portion of Gillespie Street from lot area and FAR calculations. After a review by staff and the City Attorney, a response from the City Attorney's office was issued on 16 January 1996, identifying that the owners had a reasonable reliance on the FAR determined in the 1990 Ordinance approving the lot split and permitting that reliance to continue for the present owners. Subsequently, the proposed development was granted ESA approval and exemption from the Ordinance 30 design standards by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Ordinance 30 exemption was granted by the Planning & Zoning Commission based on the unusual configuration of the lots which have no significant frontage on a city street. The Owner was not exempted from Ordinance 30 provisions with respect to FAR. CURRENT ISSUES: The current issue is whether the amendment to the lot split as proposed is in some way contributing to the design and placement of structures on the Hernandez properties which will incur undue impact on the abutter, Mr. Starodoj. Section 26.88.060 provides that: "Any other [than an insubstantial] amendment shall be approved by the city council, provided that the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat. If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved plat, the amendment shall be subject to review as a new development application for plat." Based upon this provision of the land use code, Council need take testimony from the applicant and from the public, then proceed to make a finding with respect to whether the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat. If the proposed amendment is found not to be consistent with the approved plat, Council shall require a new development application for the plat. If the proposed amendment is found to be consistent with the approved plat, Council may approve the amendment, providing whatever conditions they deem to be appropriate, consistent with the ESA review requirements. Staff has been informed that the applicant has attempted to redesign the structure intended for Lot 2 in order to mitigate the impact of that structure on abutters. However, staff has not seen any plans for such redesign nor have they been advised of any agreement or acceptance of a redesign by the abutters. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the proposed new lot line configuration is consistent with the approved plat. However, it is recommended that Council review the actual proposed development on the site to determine that the development will not incur any undue impacts on abutters as a result of the subdivision amendment to relocate the lot line. Council may wish to set its own conditions relating to the proposed development so as to minimize impact upon abutters. ALTERNATIVES: Council may not approve the proposed subdivision amendment and direct the applicant to work within the approved plat or submit a new development application for a subdivision plat. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Ordinance No./ y amending the Moores Lot Split plat, with conditions. [Conditions to be determined at the public hearing.] CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: A. Letter of 31 October 1995 from Herbert Klein, Esq. B. Letter of 20 February 1996 from Robert Starodoj C. Letter of 6 March 1996 from Herbert Klein, Esq., with Lot Line Adjustment Application D. Response of Planning Director dated 8 March 1996. ORDINANCE NO.) 7 (Series of 1996) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOORES LOT SPLIT PLAT, WITH CONDITIONS WHEREAS, City Council granted approval for a subdivision exemption for the Moores Lot Split as Ordinance #65, Series of 1990; and WHEREAS, the owner has subsequently requested an amendment to the lot split, entailing a lot line adjustment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Director has determined that the lot line adjustment may not be approved as an insubstantial amendment to the subdivision, as it is not required as a result of technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development, nor is it a minor change in terms of the conditions and representations of the approved plat; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.88.060.C. of the Municipal Code, the City Council finds that the lot line adjustment is consistent with the approved plat, however the proposed development of the site shall be amended as described below so as not to incur any undue impacts on abutters. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That City Council hereby approves the proposed amendment to the Moores Lot Split plat, pursuant to Section 26.88.060 of the Municipal Code, with the following conditions: i Section 2 That the plat, as amended, shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within a period of one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the city council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the commission and city council will be required but for a showing of good cause. Section 3 That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4 A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on thel3th day of May, 1996, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing notice of the same was published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of April, 1996. John S. Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 2 FINALLY adopted, passed, and approved this day of , 1996. John S. Bennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 3 • LAW OFFICES OF HERBERT S. KLEIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 201 NORTH MILL STREET SUITE 203 HERBERT S. KLEIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELLURIDE OFFICE: GEORGE M. ALLEN' (303) 925 P.O. DOx 215 MILLARD J. ZIMET' TELECOPIER (303) 925 -39]] 300 WEST COLORADO AVENUE JACQUELINE K. LISLE SUITE Ze WILLIAM L. LAWRENCE' TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 talso admined in Hawaii (303) 728 -5151 'also admined in New York TELECOPIER (303) 728 -3069 also admired in Texas October 31, 1995 ; )� / Ci\ VIA HAND DELIVERY i OCT 311995 Mr. Stan Clausen Aspen Community Development Director O ` } ' E w" +T ,/ 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ory"t, P?;'�E� Re: Lots 1 and 2 - Moores Lot Split Dear Stan, This letter is in furtherance of our meeting several weeks ago with Michael Lipkin to discuss the Hallam Lake ESA guidelines, the City design guidelines and FAR calculations for the above referenced property. During that meeting I discussed with you the loss of square footage for FAR purposes due to the vacated portion of Gillespie Avenue. I indicated that during our investigation of the attributes of the property prior to my clients'(Noelle and Cecil Hernandez) committing to acquire these lots, I reviewed planning office records for the lot split which calculated the allowable FAR for this subdivision but did not exclude the vacated portion of Gillespie Avenue. The lot split application was processed and approved by the City Council in October of 1990. The final plat was approved by you on January 30, 1995, the City Engineering Department on February 1, 1995, the City Council on February 6, 1995, and recorded on February 10, 1995, only a couple of months before the acquisition by Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez. A copy of the plat is enclosed to aid in your consideration of our request. In the planning office records which I reviewed, an evaluation of the site was made by the planning staff and stated the allowable FAR and the method used by the staff in its FAR calculation. This calculation specifically indicated the items which were to be deducted from the FAR calculations. As you can see from the enclosed memorandum from the planning office, dated October 12, " v Mr. Stan Clausen October 31, 1995 Page 2 1990, the vacated portion of Gillespie Avenue was not deducted from Lot Area (see condition No.9 on the enclosed memorandum). Only those matters, such as easements, which are referred to in the definition of "Lot Area" in the City Land Use Code at section 3- 101, were deducted. It is also significant that an area of the lots referred to as the "Excepted Area" was specifically excluded from area calculations (see condition no. 11 on the enclosed memorandum). The memorandum clearly shows that staff was concerned with establishing FAR limits for this subdivision. The code regulation which reduces lot area for portions of vacated streets is poorly codified and obscure. It was adopted in 1989 and is found at section 5 -502 and is titled "Zoning of Vacated Streets ". It is not surprising that the staff did not apply its provisions when all the deductions from Lot Area are contained or referred to in section 3 -101. The lots were platted in the same configuration as reviewed by the staff and there were no changes in the code between 1990 and the platting which change the applicable provisions. Please also note that the final plat, recorded in Plat Book 35 at page 99, has a City Council sign off that states that the plat was approved by Council on October 22, 1990, shortly after the date of the enclosed memorandum. Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez contracted to purchase the property in April of 1995, just two months after the final plat was recorded. I believe it was reasonable and appropriate for Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez to rely on the FAR calculation and methodology used by the planning office during their review of the zoning matters affecting the property prior to committing to acquire the property. The timing of this investigation almost immediately after the completion of the Moores Lot Split platting also supports their reliance on the credibility and relevance of the planning office analysis. Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez consulted with me and with Joe Wells during their due diligence investigation of the property and at no time did any of us have any reason to question the statistical information contained in the City's records upon which the approval of the subdivision was based. The property lies within the Hallam Lake ESA and is subject to rigorous design guidelines which will ensure that the massing and location of structures built on these lots will be consistent with City codes and policies. This property is adversely impacted by the recently adopted City design guidelines which deduct sloped areas from lot coverage for purposes of calculating FAR. My clients' were already financially committed to acquiring the 1 Mr. Stan Clausen October 31, 1995 Page 3 property when the City decided to impose the slope reductions and rather than walk away from substantial earnest money, they believed that the FAR remaining available would be just enough to meet their needs. The reductions based on slope are significant and the unanticipated deduction of the vacated portion of Gillespie Street is now creating a hardship on their ability to realize a reasonable square footage for the improvements on these lots, especially in light of the significant price paid for these properties due to their location and building potential. According to our calculations, the FAR lost because of the vacated portion of Gillespie Street is approximately 200 square feet in the aggregate between the two lots. Although this may not seem to be a significant amount of space, when it is coupled with the slope reductions, the other reductions in FAR brought about by the recent design regulations and the ESA regulations, this square footage has become very critical in allowing my clients to build a house that they, their children and family members can enjoy. Because of the impact of the slope reduction regulations and in order to more fully comply with the requirements of the Hallam Lake ESA regulations, Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez are considering an application to the City to revise the lot lines between these lots. Therefore, depending upon the ultimate lot configuration, the square footage loss might be slightly different with respect to each lot. However, the loss of square footage from the vacated portion of Gillespie Avenue will continue to be a problem for them. In light of the foregoing, I ask that you allow the square footage of vacated Gillespie Avenue to count towards lot coverage for purposes of FAR calculations in this instance. We believe that fairness and equity clearly support such a result. From a legal point of view, there is certainly an equitable estoppel issue present under these circumstances. I have not taken the time to provide you with a lengthy legal argument and analysis of estoppel cases, because, having dealt with you on other matters, I know that you are a fair and reasonable person and I am optimistic that the facts contained in this letter and the attached copy of the planning office memo will be sufficient for you provide the relief we are seeking. After you have had a chance to consider these matters, I would appreciate hearing from you. If you are able to deal with this 6 Mr. Stan Clausen October 31, 1995 Page 4 issue promptly, it would greatly assist my clients in their architectural planning. Thank you very much for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yours, HERBERT S. KLEIN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION By: He ert S. jk \hernande2 \24 Enclosure cc: Michael Lipkin Cecil and Noelle Hernandez 7 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carol O'Dowd, City Manage Amy Margerum, Planning Director • FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner 10 DATE: I —October 12y a RE: MOORES SUBDIVISION E7EMPTION FOR A LOT SPLIT at the N.E. corner of Gillespie St. and Lake Ave. (Metes and Bounds Description in the SE 1/4 NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 west of the sixth P.M., • City of Aspen); Second Reading of Ordinance 65 (Series of 1990.) lb SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of this Lot Split (revised configuration 9/28/90) with conditions as required • by the Engineering Department and the Land Use Code section on Lot Splits. s As per Council's instruction at first reading, the conditions of 2Ib approval have been expanded to include required compliance with the proposed Hallam Lake Bluff ESA which will be considered by Council on October 22. COUNCIL GOALS: This project reflects Council goal #14 which emphasizes fair and consistent treatment in governmental 1) processes. 10 BACKGROUND: The applicant seeks to split a 34,058.64 s.f. parcel into two lots. As per a revised configuration dated 9/28/90, • Lot A will be 24,071.08 s.f. Lot B will be 9,987.56 s.f. The site is located in the R -6 Zone district. Pursuant to Section 7— .3 1003 A.2. of the Aspen Land Use Code revision date 8/14/89, lot splits are exempt from general subdivision requirements, but do JO require a approval by City Council. Subdivision approval shall be by ordinance. See proposed plat (revised configuration 9/28/90) Attachment "A ". 10 First Reading was held on October 8. 15 day newspaper notification required by Land Use Code Section 6 -205 E.3.a. was provided by the Planning Office. REFERRAL COMMENTS Engineers Jim Gibbard and Chuck Roth forwarded memos regarding the proposed lot split (Attachment " ".) Their comments are reflected in the list of proposed 1 JP • J 4 ' - •p4 ' f s t 3 v ' ale,.. ( . conditions of approval. Since reviewing the 9/28 lot revision, Engineering Staff feels comfortable with the new lot configurations. The Yvonne Blocker with the Housing Authority submitted comments (Attachment "C ") which are also reflected in the recommended conditions of approval. George Robinson with the Parks Department has no problems with the proposal as long as all City Of Aspen tree removal codes are met. He added that relocating the irrigation ditch easement is not a problem as long as the Streets and Engineering Department are satisfied with the new alignment. Judy McKenzie from the Water Department forwards this comment: "Concerned with easements for water to Lot B - at this present time they have no access to water other then off of Lake Ave." Tom Cardamone, Director of A.C.E.S. submitted a letter of tentative approval of this lot split based on preliminary agreement with the Moores' architect regarding certain issues. As the City is still in the process of creating an Environmentally Sensitive Area overlay for the Hallam Lake Bluff, Mr. Cardamone is working with individual owners and their representatives to lessen the impact of development on the A.C.E.S. nature sanctuary. The "formula" which A.C.E.S. is promoting: 1. Excludes development from the bank. 2. Establishes setback and stepped back building parameters which allow for alterations on a site by site basis. 3. Provides for significant screening with native trees and shrubs. 4. Protects A.C.E.S. from dogs, other predators, intrusive lighting, etc. Please see Mr. Cardamone's letter, Attachment "D ". PROJECT DISCUSSION: The current use is a vacant single family residential parcel. The neighborhood is predominantly single family residential. Another lot split request is in progress directly to the south (Erdman property.) Proposed lot sizes would allow maximum development of a single family residence on I' each lot with an accessory dwelling unit for each (as required by Ordinance 1, 1990.) The lot split request complies with the subdivision exemption requirements of Section 7 -1003 A.2.A. : CONDITION a: The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds 2 ID subdivision plat will be recorded only if notes are added to the A plat indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots, and that any further units will be developed under rie the provision of Article 7 and growth management alloca f /9 All Article 8. W/O afr�e C,,,p,.Qi„{, "fP 64 QP�I ( (,10 j ALTERNATIVES: Without a lot r split, the property property may be fi cj redeveloped as one or two detached residences (single ownership) I or one duplex. With a Conditional Use Permit, useum p o p ' be used for Day Care, Church, School, Dwelling uses. s RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the Moores 110 Lot Split request with the following conditions: ,4 1. The plat must meet all of the Engineering requirements in , Municipal Code Chapter 24, section 7 -1004 D. 2. Prior to filing a final plat the applicant must agree to join 4 any future Improvement Districts. Al 3. One joint driveway access will be allowed for both lots via the 20' access easement across Lot A. 4. The applicant must verify approval for water service to Lot B AO from the Aspen Water Department prior to filing the plat. a 5. The irrigation easement, if moved to the proposed location, must be a platted easement with legal description, subject to A Engineering, Parks and Street Department's approval in writing. 6. Development on these parcels must meet the storm water design t requirements of Section 24- 7.1004.C.4.f. of the code. 7. An Accessory Dwelling Unit must be included on each lot for which development is proposed as a requirement of this Lot Split. Each Accessory Dwelling Unit must comply with the Housing a Authority's requirements and must receive Conditional Use approval by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. 8. Prior to issuance of any building permits, Deed Restrictions 1111 for the Accessory Dwelling Units shall be approved by the Mousing Authority and recorded by the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's 3 Office. 10 9. The Floor Area and site coverage limits will be: a Lot A: FAR maximum - 4,358 s.f.(access and proposed irrigation easements are subtracted from lot area for calculating FAR); Site Coverage' maximum - 20% (4,814 s.f.) Lot B: FAR maximum 3,593.9 s.f.(proposed irrigation 11 ,, $f ; easement subtracted from lot area); Site Coverage maximum - ' ' All :.. 4 .; 1 fib. .. I f ,� OD I ` 4y .r ' :! 28.4.% (2,836 s.f.) 10. The 10' Front Setback for Lot B along N45 00'00 "E shall be a AD Side Setback to be dimensioned according to applicable zoning _ requirements. AD 11. The "Excepted Area" on the plat shall be removed from any 4 area calculations. ID 12. Development proposed for any lot(s) resulting from this lot split shall conform to the terms and requirements of the Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) if such ESA is enacted prior to issuance of any Building Permits for r construction on said lot(s). 13. A Subdivision Exemption Agreement listing the conditions of approval shall be included as a note section on the final plat. 14. The final plat will be signed by the Planning Office and AD recorded by the City Clerk only upon complete satisfaction of the above conditions. AD PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have second reading of Ordinance 65 (Series of 1990) approving the Moores Lot Split with conditions. ID CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: co AD AD AD AD AD ATTACHMENTS: "A" - Proposed Plat "B" - Engineering Referral Comments AD "C" - Housing Authority Referral Comments "D" - Referral from Tom Cardamone, A.C.E.S. AD Ordinance 65 under consideration, with amended condition regarding compliance with the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA 9 A AD 3tkvj /Moores.ccmemo AD AD 5 AP AP ID MOO'�F;S 1" DT IT SITUATED IN HALLAM'S ADDITION, ASPEN, COLORADO w CERTIFICATE OF 1 Asp ....f* OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION I OW ALL NeJ DY THESE "ate-NM -MA JONJ JAY M E F E5 Af0 REDECLA eIM•l MTDR£5, 1141•01141- TEN MLY DEJI C THE RE CORD - HERE! OwN ERD OF INC UN DS DE'YICIDC DLLl HERP T ON HF1z0X PUT MID 3JDOMDE ',f11 I IMO IOI�A AND t .. — = I • IT, A � g ExR1eeD MERraJ, , N C> NdceDY rf + � �— - T FE 20 FCC'. WIDE #C 55 AND UNDERG2VND UTIT LIY r -�` */ :7\ P/.SCMFJ JN]NN AN NDTED N ERroJ n MREDY OW luAL *+ .. T � 1 -I ER � P M 11L � i T b % E GUB O I THE { �i -` DENGFIT OF ALL UT ILITY CO MPANIEO. Ty AN° cAatkItAir 'le, ee ` - \ '\• _-. (! — OF , • UR i O R TH OF 74c N n w ATLR a — — awe - � 1 . ` - . THE PTOPER]Y.. -" — — \ ' a - Do PLA IDppg� CLT11Wor WRIT TrC.3fNJMRDS OF M1S — � \ �l teCMO E 7-1 O (D) OPT}! LAM lA:£.RG%1[MIP{A TMiE UN VICINITY MAP • — - WEN SCHL• I'• KW' - "i` ` ® I p,Y1MIER5 AGRECN..gN TK FORYWTKN OPMK rrC10` _ IMR•ORMWT OKR'IUCi�i WFCN DE)JEPIr Ow)JERS' fIR7PWT , 6 F A(OED5 "K l05 A 04417 15 414,1S EE Dr.w r.OF THE / , EA JrIfM ON AND ACROED I ON THIY CPERTY DESCRIPTION v THE AXLN w ATf < DErAn 140 Tf ie - » TLUT 1Psr OfTIC ) n-i4ITQ6Cd/ARTEROF Tiff NVCHbe5T AVNIApUTY 0? W ATE R O ERVVIEE TD'tZb :.,," ,pdc4 ON E•0.M1efER OF SfsfCTl7�rr/ 0 XA7IF4 1C MK+E 05 7 own THE RGDRGFG •... y � ,., s ` k c • WC7f OF1FE 4T i rn (itdz ;venter D icr9 35 TO 37 CI CAM RECOROrR r J, i.. i y ! ` DIOCK 47 HN br AG9fpON W 71-E CI TYNiDUVNSfTE ,,��EE j,yLL� ^T" `N c.�-•+ '^Y.. `' + A�I'ETI, �ARf Q 1015 5 W O b(trx2 /.XOY O1 PWPIJCIY A ' -c2 . . �. - � �ACNI'Jta`I, MID e Or LFKC ANO QLLEbne AVENUE G ..lex.. • 1 hi r ` r � � ^a 4 Y _ • e AOICCNT) DeeclaEev Wl!"0A"3 • a: , Nv s'i EK -APNII G q' M OaJfFayI'Jf 071NKR:Of MOfK b OF FWIAM " S) ,et, d r5 r''° J Y' f AGDITIO,Y, Nkk1'CC Tke CC$QYntK CO .ie) O c '� • �j Y" r - 4 ,- , 9SP@I E (FI54 CAI SWIM 64 29'3 i EA7 0 4r' � " A • ,' , r 91LI? 112 ( i lNr K. 75&AT.rMe 73 i 44'41 1D s ,RUTH G5 Ik I'/ rA ro �., •S1 ET)1 ,� T} -1 4�� , { „f a` As1,4 �l.LGT'_ , +I • Ar - ,•-• i s r ' . - + L r ie , ,. 'I-Era A a+ t v 5 S \ T 1WItL . t•DAli i p s , G4.Q7� },,. V ,1 V I j ` ! / rtit Inc : �.'A y '' ''- . .Y. 4 . A "may r` . 1"`""- ° 4:- )�- 1 F of -,r tea:" J' 'b id. T -r - , . i ' T ea :" " r - 7..,31 -v-",,,',4-‘,";;;, i r £ TFErCt ., T ; ,� F a . Y , r `� I 401 Y. l :,m y - Tea E w rr r J a r / , • 1 r 'LF .c -4$1 1m.� t l >,-. x w- h • C € `C • ' °L' F y . i. xa F 3 It' r ^i / : Darr 1 4 .1 i"t4 * i 1 } i 1 L5.7.-.„-:: 1 -` _ / ' • I .'4 ,'(✓'r „ fi .. ' D '""' t"' J ''.41 7: L i t I i } U;54. '1" P . a, 1 om ,. � 'T a ' - � 4 4 Ar ' . - + 7 M YMY W. t 71, I �q �• �{ � AanAill r r IOHJw"T , a.- - 4 ' 5 d 7 , , . •y7 o r , : ; PrRT)( .r uwv 1 1 r � -y r 1 t o r r a 4 ' a Y . rRw OTC J . ,x 441 r-T -F • ' - "- L "' • Ficewen3f 4 - r EXEOJIFIJ 71115 r e r :4 "' ,:zi j' l 4" -, c i i .• - f 1 h Id -�.v �' i 1 } x .. I s b JATI.Or• ," ' iii- c 1 <a$ ', c F 2 ; '4 4 rS'Y A fOt1MY - Q/ h� Sr,+A .� , --1.1/4c,,, ° a 7� YO� e .J a C A, ,+ r <) r a 7^ S ' ° T ,3����g`�°x.,.D✓�R' x �� ��.t r - t! k , , - wti e s F s y r(r"tr 4 t 2 � Y .3. t 1 t '6E1.4" d -!, k j y f y 1 � Jr 3 e 'T . r a M,i h f v - C,' " +':1" w J a . Z r � r I` 1. ro, }� 4 } tip ... ___...... .. ---....--- — ; t J4/ 44 .5 s J 4.. (TKOvt PErcS eD (5P 4 .,..s... . EA 5T 5 or 52 co' E 12 63 t 5 01 Col 75 53 • Fa %t T CV N lit • •■'S ,4 ' ■-1L• 0 TRTh-I s' --_, ___---- - \_cfmra wipe' i R I nCint • Pt 41 S. CLA Mo. 26e m p L -im Al Jr. Pf °LAC.° BY eA5E MEN7 a wagN BELdle "- ° - - - • 1. \-. 5 .50S11 00 V/ 37 5. • - • - - - - rano • yetioWel.Asfras NOI*52SOXY • I A r * I _ , 0. ^‘ ■ .... '$ ' r i LOT! A . A . 9 - zr ' 0 553 ACRE. j cA \ \ 5 EAST 5\ s ' a L I:' i 3(.. oZ W O N . 8 - ,;(..) •v - 2 Q , k A „ p \ . \ • ‘‘I D N t a [ , . 3 .4 f ! , \ . ... \ \ • 1 ' / ..11) , 1 1LOT B' \ • \ -, t ,• - • 1 102/1 ACRE i \ ” ‘ I TE. Low PLA5PC • 1 3 \ • i' 7 - % 5 ' ■ CAP sw / s .. OE 34c (52015/ j \ 3 ° L \ te.52C"1 1.5 5C VACATED r : . ------------------- -------------- 1 2 45 20 FT ut,CE ACV-55 _ t 0< „4171,. f ' AND uNCE 9 '' GILLESPIE ()nun, EA.5EMENI ------------------------ __ ----------- ----------- — , keN1 .5HC ON LOT^ RECORDED 8K 756 112 Zee) jr1 ° ,, , ,I, 6 ' i . - - - - "7 IRROWON C A5r iLley , . . 5t1 43 0 0'W 0 - Yellow &arm enr I ON *ChM It 7/5.4 :0 ; k • , ,,,, LW RECHIc CS 7/144 AVENUE OlUi wirmem cORA/eft • , T, , N3 , ,f,..i , ERDINAN s : LOT SPLIT rEtioW 17.45nC C4/ l /..`, t E a .23' > 1Z CAIRMAR, <120151 in c, \t, T55 .557 raspy,/ 1 t ' ''4 C Cr O 0.1 A ..143 s< - - I , 1 BLOC} 103 HALLA4S ADDITION 1 I , ft " . I i 1 -j *, 1--,1- olo ;1_, NING nit Dillt; • 1 ". ;IV Z. t 1,7 ' ^. I 1 - Din NAL RAT arm( vroms-tie -- ill tirn: '1253, c3; I ' ti tk. urr`f-' . o IT mrtn flANNII•6 CIACCID1 r .t.,./ ; 1111 1 d erlF; i' ' 1) © NORTH I 1.. 4 1.11 0 3 ID 20 30 1 9 00 Fr I I .31 , ., 4.V,5 4 ,1 Cs. 7 yd, WI 1 I i 1 1 11 -4 1 •,1 _i - -, : ■' ''‘‘ a AT NzE KN:nvN TO MEN . MCC a'4 lyIE C OARJNG Or C• • .,,- , ..„ •-, - • ,: N 7".FSti.,C,. . • 7 c 71.114 A 7145 . , CO EOWEEN .500110/55r5CENER Cf 10, 0 CCIEN MINT 120.00 FEET r .,,,,,,, AC ..... PL 0:23.1Eg.. ANC 054 wECIFJ:LY" UNEOF IfitXK A5 1 . e■ 7 blerlio ' ; r- • -a-- x j , ty 7 . 7;.7 ... :,17;:: ,. .7 , , , E57,61.1551517 15Y L 6 1 ANC FCUN17 IN rtn MA 71-E 151/170vEVENT LOF11-115 FrOPEP:11' MEP 3/LT 1173 BY' 1---- ts - trair CI -.....-.1“. gll mulvEvores cErri-rwriatE ... 1, Cvairrilw 1 HAve mooing) mos mu. nAr or ne In:GrEt 1=4 11 tv a par - 4- - - -- ,EPI ,C., • la ,JT THAT 114E LOCATZN OFTWE CUM= EXLICARY, -.,:. - '•': • ; ' , ,71.. ' - , InfrEXNA,L LOT LANIS,.11UWEACUSOATC1.1fluTT* EA5CMENT, • ' ' '94. - :... ' , -% ''',.. NW IRRIGATION FAXMINT, ALL EktEMENIE MR FIRE? 4- • a ;WM .. ' • _ ,', --: L.i ,;:, • ANIER.CANTITIE 'MORAN= Mott( NG, 0714517, AND oll-Eg , / ' • c4Sr4 `" * ' , `"' 4 FEALPES ARE ARATOIELY A.N7 CcrnaLY srown frecEcn ' -11Z. • ', • --, ^:,-,:. )- ___nitantsvaLeniazaussasunars.mascaneeur?___ k • _ : : . • ) to j ; 4,, 1 OF CFCCFP ANO THAT THE FLATTE0 LOT atircni TO T142,E .4 i VINFEO ON THE GRANO. TH1, WIRYLN" MO A MANEMADCAL rub, ' Ptia , 14 1 CLOUSE WITH A WAIT of 1 n 0,000 ANC) W½ 12R55...ED FICAG IN THE Offete ce .A.r"../P'', vr t : i I N FCCOROANCE trM C RS. 1173, TITLE 3/5, TITLE 51, A5 CO‘Nrr OP.MTKIN, r.,1 • -,., - fri J¼CtCW ibrs 110 -. 4--- t i I IN h1TC6 WI-AftOr 1 HAVi .t W HAND AND OFFICIAL IN MCI< 11 AT OW • . ..",". TN1115. SEAL 5 "Z .,5__ OAK OF As usev n / ' ,,..4.2 $7.4 !ea .M. ..,.:.' .1 ,-' f 44. ALF1NE .51.15/CTA 15C "..., CP 4 ,, , ,,,.• ,,,,/.45A..6174r...1 • - ---:- rz.-, • r Sjgfrpl ..11,7,7774± ,,, s.:".t. ,',f ° ti ' 7[47,,rAalc(P^I: ■ .; I I.'. ,.; -; - • ,.. . ,Iiiii$10:4.,01,1111,t A/Pk* urvell's. Inc. I Re g e cr o ,,_? Pool Onke Ike 1730 ' , .in. Cams Ihell Mitt 26133 ' ' 'c litt , i A ,I 'II. I:, 1124: I 'Oh FEB 2 1 i;,a Dc.:‘ February 20, 1996 -1 " 9 P N i P` 1\-. Mr. Stan Clauson Community Planning Director City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lot line adjustment, Hernandez Property Moores Lot Split Amended Plat Gillespie Street Aspen, Colorado Dear Stan: As an adjoining property owner (per city code 26 -88 -060, amendment to subdivision development order), I oppose the amended plat of the existing Moores lot split plat for the following reasons: 1. The amended plat will cause the development on the two proposed lots to take place in a totally different manner than was originally perceived either by the city, the architect, or the previous owner, John Moores. 2. The proposed development plan heavily impacts the adjoining property owners to the north (Starodoj residence). Those impacts include, but are not limited to, privacy, view plane and quiet enjoyment of the property. 3. There is a blatant lack of sensitivity in the proposed development plan as to the impact on the adjoining property owners. 4. The adjoining property owners were never given an opportunity to provide input into the revised, proposed development plan, even though they are the most affected by its positioning. Ordinance 30 does not allow for any such input under its present guide lines, and it fails to take into account the impact of a structure on adjacent properties. 5. The proposed plan shows lack of flexibility and creativity when there is ample space on the property to minimize the impact on the adjoining property owners. n 2 � For the five above stated reasons, I hereby oppose the Moores (Hernandez) subdivision plat amendment and request that the amendment be brought before the City Council so that I may have an opportunity to express my opposition regarding this matter. Respectfully submitted, Ro tarodoj Adjoining Property Owner 514 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 T �Al USE IrLY� +y MENT 1y� KM �( IAND USE APPLICATION KM 1) Project Name i P - 0semC • 2) Ptuject Location 2- W • Gct -cSP(e (indicate street addr2SS, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) atte) 3) P r e s e n t 7 a d fl 1 4 1 ) lot Size 21,015 - • 3- O Z . t4C . 5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone # (.10 *took $'r Ge•Gt l_- 1 (; hl c44 10155 g. F. 0 '3e* 1 t ek 5 AtPEN , C.c. S Uo (2- 6) Representative's Name, Address & Ma # (/ l re-41-1 kt* e9-- Oat t >J pxeT 4e.Ittk LP 1 {00 k4 Macl4 c st• / , 9Z0 • it92- *ft 7) Type of Application. (please Bieck all that apply) : Conditional Use _ Conceptual SPA Conceptual Historic Dev. _ Special Review _ Final SPA _ Final Historic DeV., 8040 G een7 ine _ Conceptual ua1 RID _ Minor Historic c Dev. _ Stream Margin _ _ Final RID _ Historic Demolition Mountain View Plane _ Subdivision _ Historic_ Designation [rdcminitmizatim _ Mulct/Map Amendment _ GCS Allotment TiSt'S Line G&W nosmition Adjustment 8) Description of Existing Uses (number' and type of existing structures; approximate sq. ft.; number of booms; any previous approvals granted to the ProicertY) - VAc our ?'PAPER -TY 9) Description of Development Application lever a ,� \p'{ L t & 6 A 0.Il9S Wt401 - TD cK(Stc N &r u-r 10) Haye you attached the following? V Response to Attadment 2, Minimum Submission Contents w v"" Response to Attachment 3, Specific Sutmiss ion Contents 2 4 K 3C. M1'LA$ -- ✓. Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Applic tion C V[tli4C. Tao IA 14t F6 Kl Etht i �L 0© D HERNANDEZ RESIDENCE Applicant's Authorization Letter Noelle and Cecil Hernandez P.O. Box 1045 Aspen, Colorado 81612 12/11/95 Aspen/ Pitkin Planning Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Hernandez Residence Lake and Gillespie Aspen, Colorado To whom it may concern, By means of this letter we authorize Lipkin Warner Design Partnership to act on our behalf in obtaining the necessary development approvals for our proposed residence at Lake and Gillespie Streets. / . CECIL . H' DE NO7LE . ". `'+ DEZ /7 00 D fl HERNANDEZ RESIDENCE Legal Description: TUAT FART of THE SJUTHEA T 01N.E'QUARTER,OF ME NOR -=EAST ONE'QUA,KTEIZ OF 5ECTiONI 12 TOWh.SHIP 10 rf�rl SA,NGE f�5 WF5T OF THE 0TH (INCJ UDfNG THEKEIN (OTJ 35 TO 37 DLCCK `}O HALLAI✓l'S ADDITION TO THE CIY(r.N � D .VNOI E OF ASPEN, P ART OF LOTS 3 V b, SLcCK. 2, ASPEN COlv1CCHY 5UbDIV15i01H, AND KAKI or LAKE AND GILL -5flE A'/ NULS ACV/CENT), tC LQ A5 FOLLOWS. 5ESINNING AT Tr1E HWEST CORNER. of 6LCCK "00 OF HALLAM'S ADDITION, WHENCE THE EAST CCRNEZ OF 3A10 SECTION 12 ( 1954 6 S4 CAP) f5EAR5 SOUTH C EAT, 9 1 1. 14 FEET (>OSD CALL INK 25L , =.T S 651 15 iT r 64 °I4' 17" EA 904.35 FEET); THENCE NOKTH 8T WEST, 1.50 ffECT/ THENCE NOKTH CC .3 'C C WEST 12Q 01 FEET, THE kJTH 5 ' 52'00" EAST, IA .t3 FEET; -HE NC E. NGRZTH 5.91 FEET; THENCE tiOK 'r, o7'0700 00 ETAS T , 3. 3 5 I•' E*_' T,. THENCE IH, N Ul ° 55'00 " EAST, 63.07 FEET; Ti4ENCE E.=Ar :31.61 FEET; THENCE `C LT r', �° °52 EPr01 , `12. G3 FEET THENCE tOLTTIri 07 EAST, A9.4(0 FEET THENCE NORTH et 52'00" WEST ^9.30 FEET,. Tr�E CE ALT H, 29'07'00" EAST 114 FEET; THENCE t0L TA1 37'06' 00" EAST, 57. `4 FEET, TI-1EI C ODT'H 5°,'.4 00'' WEST, W.22 FEEL THENCE ROUTE �' 3 b 00 - FEET. THENCE N.C1CTH 4000 FEET 70 Mr-AE FOINT OF S u N'NG, EXCE_FT THAT FOKi lON THEREOF, IF ,% 'C LYIRG N'iTr T iGtE_ CEKTA;'N T< =CTS OF L •i`+Q CO`lVE ED 6Y E_IZa.i'ET ri N. FA.Eft<. TO F.,SFEH CENTER FOS EH`JIKONME.N A,'L tTUCIE3, C LGA✓G NC - ° -cF.- CO KPCRKATON, TEE STATUTORY DEED° ; ZC0KED LEC.EHG °_K 3J,.; °,C,9, IN Ear` =-v A..' PrA G= =C1, =.'<j) CECEM R 30, I 3 TG GK 252 AT PAGE 75 ( ► Nr-o,2ruettoN fo'i Moog..cs L0 SeL yr 3001c- 15 P `rI) o© op HERNANDEZ RESIDENCE Disclosure Of Ownership: VW OF}M SOF HERBERT 5. KLEIJN PF.CrES;iIUUL COAFCe ro4 231 .4CW) Full S EET SUITE 2 I—EJ En'T S, KLEIN COLGRA'b t1611 MLUATME CFRC'_ w .t.ARD J.2JUET` A2647C7 P CL Sae s .LA03(J )MEK 0SL_ rL ECJP C (7O) 925r xn a^5r CCLGRk O ,��_:''. ■4).MN ft ` 11KG' GUfSE 2y (flew rat (97C) 72G5151 s a'Y.ta.a cvra,sl December 12, 1995 g•a Aspen /Pitkin Community Development Office 13D South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Cecil and Ncaile &c_aa:;dez - Disclosure of Cwnerohip To Whom It May Cenci r_ The undersigned is an attorney licensed tc practice in the State of Colorado and hereby certifies as follows± Title to Lots A & B, Moores Lot Split according to the Plat thereof recorded February 10, 1995 in Plat Hook 35 at Page 99, is vested in Cecil M. Hernandez and Noelle C. Hernandez. Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez acquired title pursuant to a Warranty Deed recorded on June 23, 1995, in Book 784, Page 292 of the records of Pitkin County. Title is subject to a patent reservation recorded in Book 55 at Page 2, a waterline easement recorded in Book 537 at Page 965 (said easement being five feet in width); and all easements and rights and ether matters disclosed cn the Plat of the property referred to above. Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez have the right, as owners of the property, to apply for the development approvals contemplated by this application. Please feel free to call me if you have arty further questions. Very truly yours, HERBERT S. KLEIN PROFESSIONU CORPORATION . B y s Herbert S. Klein 0© D HERNANDEZ RESIDENCE Vicinity Map rd` ?>r- 0 c ze 1, ,iI �J r o h Ito Q g 00 0�. LAW OFFICES OF HERBERT S. KLEIN Sr ASSOCIATES, P.C. 201 NORTH MILL STREET HERBERT S. KLEIN SUITE 203 TELLURIDE OFFICE: MILLARD J. ZIMET° ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 P.O. BOX 215 ROBERT ERIE (970) 9258700 300 WEST COLORADO AVENUE THOMAS G. KENNEDY° TELECOPIER (970) 925-3977 SUITE 2B TELLURIDE, COLORADO 81435 'also adnined in Newyork (970) 7293151 also admitted in Maryland TELECOPIER (970) 7293069 March 6, 1996 VIA HAND DELIVERY MpR O ' 199 Mr. Stan Clausen Aspen Community Development Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Lots 1 and 2 - Moores Lot Split - Lot Line Adjustment Application Dear Stan: This letter is intended to be part of the Hernandez Lot Line Adjustment Application for the above referenced property. The Application is submitted with this letter and was prepared by Lipkin - Warner Architects. As you know from our prior contact on this matter, I am the attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez. Lipkin- Warner has asked me to provide information concerning compliance with Section 7- 1003(A)(1) concerning lot line adjustment criteria (as amended by Ordinance 13 (Series of 1993)] as well as comment to you on the applicable procedure for processing this application. This Application is submitted pursuant to the direction that you provided Michael Lipkin, the project architect, beginning last summer. As you know, this project required Hallam Lake ESA approval, approvals under Ordinance 30 (which were obtained after your referral of the design plans to the design review committee) and a Conditional Use application for accessory dwelling units. Pursuant to your direction, all of those approvals were obtained prior to the lot line adjustment which you assured Mr. Lipkin would be processed administratively after those site - specific and design oriented applications had been approved. This direction is consistent with your authority under Section 6- 205(A)(1)(f) as amended by Ordinance 13 (Series of 1993) which grants the Planning Director sole authority for granting lot line adjustment exemptions. Needless to say, Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez have expended substantial sums of money on the Planning and Architectural work necessary to obtain the prior approvals and have satisfied all City Code requirements both substantively and procedurally in obtaining those approvals leading up to the Application now before you. "C . Mr. Stan Clausen March 6, 1996 Page 2 The specific criteria for the lot line adjustment exemption as set forth in Section 7- 1003(A)(1) [as amended by Ordinance 13 (Series of 1993)], and our satisfaction of them are as follows: 1. CONDITION: a. it is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or survey error in a recorded Plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels; RESPONSE: As you can see from the attached amended Lot Split Map, this Application is for an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels. The lot line adjustment simply slides the common boundary line between the former lots in a northwesterly direction making the former Lot A (now Lot B). the smaller lot, and the former Lot B (now Lot A) the larger lot. External boundary lines are not changed. The shape of each of the resulting lots is very similar (almost identical) to the prior shape of the lots, and the resulting size of each lot is very close (former Lot A .553 acres, new Lot A .602 acres; and former Lot B .229 acres, new Lot B .180 acres). 2. CONDITION: b. All landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted shall provide written consent to the application. RESPONSE: Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez are the owners of both lots and are the applicants of this application. Their consent to process this application as attached as an exhibit. 3. CONDITION: c. It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship. RESPONSE: The lots were originally platted before the adoption of Ordinance 30 which imposed significant site reductions for properties with steep slopes as well as design regulations that, taken together, fundamentally changed the ability to use these lots in their previous configuration. Approximately one -third of Lot B was impacted by steep slopes and it suffered a significant FAR reduction under these new regulations. In addition, it was determined by Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez and their architect that in order to satisfy the design requirements of Ordinance 30, it would be preferable to revise the lot line so that the larger house (with greater design implications) could be placed on the new Lot A and placed in the more easterly portion of the property while the Mr. Stan Clausen March 6, 1996 Page 3 smaller lot (new Lot B) with a smaller house, would be located in the northwesterly or rear portion of the property. It has been long recognized that a change in zoning requirements which diminishes the ability to use property, especially where topographic concerns are involved, is a valid hardship when considering that issue in land use decisions. Furthermore, considering the process that was agreed upon and directed by your office whereby Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez would pursue all of the other time and capital intensive design and site specific approvals prior to the issuance of the lot line adjustment, the failure to provide the lot line adjustment would certainly create a severe hardship on them. I have been informed by Mr. Hernandez that he spoke with you a couple of days ago and you had told him that, despite your previous assurances, you would not process the lot line adjustment administratively. Mr. Hernandez indicated that the basis for your decision was your receipt of a letter dated February 20, 1996, from a neighbor, Mr. Robert Starodoj. I have received a copy of Mr. Starodoj's letter. Procedurally, I do not understand how the Land Use Code provides any jurisdiction in the City Council to determine the lot line adjustment on a referral from the Planning Director. As previously cited above, the Land Use Code was amended in 1993 to vest authority on determining lot line adjustments with the Planning Director. I have been unable to find any provision which authorizes a referral of this decision to the Town Council, nor any requirement that this be done at a public hearing. Mr. Starodoj's letter refers to this as a "lot split amended plat" and cites City Code Section "26 -88- 060." I do not believe that characterization is accurate and was probably done by Mr. Starodoj to interfere with the normal processing of what is a very simple application. I assume you agree with me because you have previously stated that this is a lot line adjustment process. In addition, I am unable to locate the code section he cites in my version of the Town Land Use Code which is the most recent version available from the Planning Office. I would appreciate your providing me with a copy of that Section so that I will have a greater understanding of Mr. Starodoj's (and apparently your) position. With respect to the merits of Mr. Starodoj's letter, I believe his objections are misplaced and, in some respects, beyond the scope of your review of this lot line adjustment application, in the following respects: Mr. Stan Clausen March 6, 1996 Page 4 1. The lot line adjustment will not change the exterior boundary lines and, in particular, the boundary line adjacent to Mr. Starodoj's property, nor their setbacks. 2. The existing configuration of the lots, in fact, is more impactive on Mr. Starodoj's property than the adjusted lines because the larger lot upon which a larger house can be built, has the contiguous boundary line with his property. The existing configuration, if maintained, would force the smaller house to be built to the east and consequently push the placement of the larger house up against the rear lot line setback adjacent to Mr. Starodoj. The proposed lot line adjustment actually allows a smaller house to be placed in the vicinity of Mr. Starodoj's lot rather than a large house. 3. With respect to Mr. Starodoj's assertion about a lack of sensitivity in the proposed development plan, first of all, the improvements to be constructed on the lots are not an issue in determining the merits of a lot line adjustment. The code is quite specific at Section 7- 1003(a)(1) as to the conditions before you. Consideration of external matters outside these guidelines would render any denial of the application arbitrary and capricious. However, putting that aside for the moment, the development plan approved under Ordinance 30 indicates a house on the lot adjacent to Mr. Starodoj which is approximately 1300 square feet below allowed FAR and approximately 12 feet lower than the maximum permitted height at the elevation closest to Mr. Starodoj's property. This is clearly an indication of a sensitively designed and considered building plan. 4. Mr. Starodoj complains that he was not given an opportunity to provide input under Ordinance 30 review. As you recall, the design plan was submitted to the Design Review Committee and comments from neighbors were discussed with the Committee. Although that review was not a public hearing, it was a public meeting and Mr. Starodoj had the opportunity to participate at that time. However, in any event, the Ordinance 30 process was followed and if Mr. Starodoj has a complaint about that process, it should not change the procedures applicable to lot line adjustments as provided for in the Code. 5. Mr. Starodoj acquired his parcel some time ago and built his house in a location that was very close to the rear lot line of this property. He was fully aware that at some point in the future these lots would be developed. Mr. Starodoj has further aggravated his situation by orienting his living room, along his side lot line, in a manner which takes advantage of Mr. Stan Clausen March 6, 1996 Page 5 the views of Aspen Mountain rather than orienting his house with views directly to the east, overlooking Hallam Lake. By doing so he chose to place himself in a less favorable position relative to future development that would inevitably take place on the adjacent property. Mr. Starodoj also constructed his house with a sunken living room which further diminishes his ability to accommodate neighboring development. These circumstances are unfortunate but 1) irrelevant to your determination of the lot line adjustment, and 2) nothing that is due to any fault, neglect or noncompliance with Town Land Use regulations on the part of Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez. Given the totality of the circumstances outlined in this letter, I request, in the strongest possible terms, that you process and approve the lot line adjustment according to the Code requirements. If you are unwilling to do so, please provide me with a written response from you explaining your position and any Code sections that support your interpretation. I greatly appreciate your consideration of this matter and would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible so that Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez know how you are going to proceed. Very truly yours, HERBERT S. KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. A By: He ert S. Klein jk \hernandez \26 Enclosure cc: John Worcester, City Attorney Cecil and Noelle Hernandez °2f. D a Aye--Ai 8 March 1996 ASPEN • PITKIN • PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT - Herbert S. Klein, Esq. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Herbert S. Klein & Associates, P.C. 201 North.Mill Street Suite 203 • Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lots 1 and 2— Moores Lot Split— Amendment • Dear Herb: • I am in receipt of your letter of 6 March 1996 with respect to the lot line adjustment for the above referenced property. A lot line adjustment, such as is being requested by Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez, is technically an amendment to a subdivision development order. The original Moores lot split was carried out as an exemption from the Subdivision Ordinance which resulted in a subdivision development order. I view the requested lot split as an "Amendment to subdivision development order," covered under § 26.88.060 of • the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations. This section has three subdivisions: A. Insubstantial Amendment, B. Other Amendment, and C. Plat Vacation. According to the code, an insubstantial amendment "shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during the approval process, or any other minor change to a plat which the Community Planning Director [sic] finds has no effect on the conditions and representations limiting the approved plat." The following section, Other Amendment, states "Any other amendment shall be approved by the city council, provided that the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat." The section you cite for a lot line adjustment has been recodified as § 26.88.030 Exemptions, 1. Lot line adjustment. This section provides that an adjustment of a lot line between contiguous lots may be exempt from the general terms of subdivision regulation . provided that a number of conditions are met. First among these conditions is • "It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or survey - error in a recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels...." • Under subsection B., Procedure, the code provides that the planning director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a lot line adjustment. This . sub - section does not explicitly provide for referral to City Council in the case.of a lot line n 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PHONE 303,920.5090 • Fax 303.920.5197 Rmmlm anvamype DIRECT FEx LINE: 303.920.5439 Herbert S. Klein, Esq. 8 March 1996 Page 2 adjustment. It should be noted, however, that the same subsections provides that all lot splits are to be forwarded to the City Council along with the planning director's recommendation. I believe that the Moores Lot Split received a subdivision development order and that the request which you have made on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez is technically a request for an insubstantial amendment to that development order. In that context, the letter received from an abutting property owner, Robert F. Storodoj, raises considerable concern that the proposed lot split may have an "effect on the conditions and representations limiting the approved plat." In delegating to the planning director the authority to approve insubstantial amendments, I do not believe that the City Council intended to grant broad authority to deal with situations where questions of impact have been raised. Mr. Starodoj's letter certainly raises issues of impact resulting from the proposed lot line adjustment. These questions are most appropriately addressed in the public forum of city council as contemplated under subsection B. which states: "any other amendment shall be approved by the city council...." Even if you argue that this request is more properly considered under § 26.88.030, Exemptions- -Lot line adjustment, I would respond that the requirement that the boundary change be "insubstantial" for planning director approval is not met in the light of Mr. Starodoj's letter. I would further point out that provisions relating to the code provide for appeals of an administrative action to the Board of Adjustment. While he does not explicitly state that he intends to do so, Mr. Storodoj would have the right to appeal the planning director's approval of the requested lot line adjustment under § 26.116.010 of the land use code. Such an appeal would result in further delay to the proposed project. You refer to an established understanding that the lot line adjustment component of the approval process was promised as an administrative ultimate step in the approval process. I can only respond that in providing information on the code and the approval process, we are only able to indicate what the ordinance provides for, not what eventualities may ensue. I have no doubt that it was stated that a lot line adjustment could be provided as a planning director sign -off. This does not convey an obligation to do so if, in good faith, we believe the requirements of the code dictate otherwise. I have provided, as you requested, the relevant sections of the recodified land use regulations. A full set may be obtained from the City Clerk. I regret that my referral of this issue to the City Council causes you to believe that I am acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner, or that, for some reason, I am attempting to obstruct the progress of this project. I truly believe that prompt referral of this matter to Council - -which can be scheduled at their meeting of 25 March 1996 - -is the most expeditious way to address the remaining issues of Mr. and Mrs. Hernandez development Herbert S. Klein, Esq. 8 March 1996 Page 3 proposal. I cannot predict how Council may respond to the issues raised by Mr. Starodoj's letter, but I am certain these issues are best addressed in a public venue as intended by the limits placed upon the planning director's discretionary approval by the land use code. Cordially yo -- 40 Stan lauson, AICP, ASLA Community Development Director CITY OF ASPEN cc: John Worcester, City Attorney • a e1� 26.88.010 Chapter 26.88 SUBDIVISION Sections: 26.88.010 Purpose. 26.88.020 Applicability. 26.88.030 Exemptions. 26.88.040 Subdivision approval. 26.88.050 Subdivision agreement. 26.88.060 Amendment to subdivision development order. 26.88.070 Condominiumization. 26.88.080 Timeshare. 26.38.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to: A. Assist in the orderiy and efficient development of the City: B. Ensure the proper distribution of development; C. Encourage the weil-pianned subdivision of land by establishing standards for the design of a subdivision: D. Improve land records and survey monuments by establishing standards for surveys and plats: E. Coordinate the construction of public facilities with the need for public facilities: F. Saiemsard the interests of the public and the subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser G. Acquire and ensure the maintenance of public open spaces and parks; and H. Provide procedures so that development encourages the preservation of important and unique natural or scenic features. including but not limited to mature trees or indigenous vegetation. bluffs. hillsides or similar geologic features. or edges of rivers and other bodies of water, and I. Promote the health. safety and general welfare of the residents of the City of Aspen. (Ord. No. 22 -1995. § 15: Code 1971. § 7 -1001) 26.88.020 Applicabiiity. This chanter shall apply to the subdivision of all land in the City of Aspen. unless it is exempted pursuant to Section 26.38.030. (Code 1 § 7 -1002) 26.88.030 Exemptions. The following development shall be exempted from the terms of this chapter. A. General exemptions. 1. Lot line adjusunent. An adiusmaent of a lot line between contiguous lots if all the following conditions are met. a. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or survey error in a recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels: and b. All landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted shall provide written consent to the application: and 633 (men !0m5) 26.88.030 c. It is demonstrated that the request is to address specific hardship: and d. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this chapter, and conform to the requirements of this title. including the dimensional requirements of the zone district in which the lots are Located. except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot in which the adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot. The plat shall be submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure to record the plat within a period of one hundred eighty (180) days following approval shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the Planning Director will be required before its acceptance and recording; and e. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development rights or permitted density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new lot for resale or development. 2. Lot split. The split of a lot for the purpose of the development of one detached single- family dwelling on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14. 1977. where ail of the following conditions are met a_ The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Firkin County Board of County Commissioners or the city council. or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24. 1969: and b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Section 26. i00.040(A)(1)(c). c. The lot under consideration. or any Dart thereof. was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this chapter or a "tot split" exemption pursuant to Section 26.100.040 C;(1)(a): and d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this chapter. and conforms to the requirements of this fide. is submitted and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder after approval. indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.:00. e. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Firkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by he City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. f. In the case where an existing singie- family dwelling occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split. the dwelling need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split g. Maximum potential buiidour for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units. which may be composed of a duplex and a singie- family home. 3. Condominium conversion. All conversion of existing development to condominium ownership. pursuant to the standards and procedures of Section 26.38.070. 4. Approved subdivision. All subdivisions approved prior to the effective date of this chapter. except those lots contained within an approved subdivision which are intended or designed to be re- subdivided into smaller lots. condominium units. or multi- family dwellings. B. Procedure. Before any development proposed to be exempted from the terms of this chapter may be considered for exemption. an application for exemption shall be submitted to the planning director. After a determination of completeness pursuant to Section 26.52.050. the planning director may approve. approve with conditions or deny an application for a lot line adjustment. For a lot split or condominium conversion, the planning director's recommendation shall be forwarded to the City Council which shall approve. approve with conditions or deny the application at a hearing. An exemption for an approved subdivision shall only (gym 10r95) 634 �Cj 26.88.030 require submission of an application for a building permit An application for a lot split shall require a public hearing. (Orr. No. 47 -1988, § 10: Ord. No. 13 -1993. §§ 1, 4: Ord. No. 22 -1995, §§ 16. 17; Code 1971, § 7 -1003) 26.88.040 Subdivision approval. A. General prohibitions. 1. General prohibition. a. It shall be unlawful for any person to develop. lease. or sell any parcel of land. including any separate interest in a parcel of land (including leasehold interest or condominium interest) in the City of Aspen until it has been subdivided and a plat recorded in the office of the Pitkin County cleric and recorder pursuant to the terms of this chapter. b. A written agreement to sell or lease an interest in a parcel of land which is expressly conditioned upon full compliance by the seller with this chanter within a specified period of time. and which expressly recites that seller's failure to satisfy such condition within said period of time shall terminate the agreement and entitle the buyer to the prompt return of all consideration paid by the buyer. shall not constitute a violation of this chapter. 2. Development allotment No development order for a subdivision shall be approved pursuant to the provisions of this chapter unless the applicant has been awarded a development allotment or has obtained a GMQS exemption pursuant to Chapter 26.100. Growth Management Quota System. 3. Prohibited conveyances. No interest in a parcel of land shall be uansferred. conveyed. sold. subdivided or acquired to create or extend a nonconformity. or to avoid or circumvent any provision of this chapter. 4. Prohibited development All structures shall be located on a subdivision lot. The lot lines established in a subdivision shall not be altered by conveyance of a part of a lot nor shall any part of a lot be joined with a pan of any other lot for conveyance or construction. unless the application has been made pursuant to the terms of this chapter. 5. Aspen Townsite lots. If two (2) or more lots within the original Aspen Townsite or additions thereto have continuous frontage and are in single ownership ((including husband and wife) on October 27. 1975 the lots shall be considered an undivided lot for the purposes of this title, and conveyance of any portion shall constitute subdivision. An Aspen Townsite lot or addition thereto includes all lands depicted on the Aspen incorporation plat of record. dated 1880. plus any lot or parcel annexed to the city since that time which constitutes a nonconforming lot of record. plus any lot or parcel which has not received subdivision approval by the City of Aspen or Pitkin County. but excludes any subdivided lot in the City of Aspen which conforms to the requirements of this title. B. General overview. A development application for a subdivision shall be reviewed pursuant to the procedures and standards in this chapter and Common Procedures. Chapter 26.52. The procedures require review and approval of a development application for plat by the commission at a public hearing and by the city council at a hearing. C. Review standards. A development application for subdivision revie'.v shall comply with the following standards and requirements. 1. General requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this title. 635 tam :0/95) J 26.88.050 E. Recordation. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within a period of one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the city council shall renderthe plat invalid and reconsiders Lion of the plat by the commission and city council will be required by for a showing of good cause. (Ord. No. 22 -1995, § 19; Code 1971, § 7 -1005) 26.88.060 Amendment to subdivision development order. A. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved plat or between adjacent subdivision plats may be authorized by the Community Development Director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process, or any other minor change to a plat which the Community Planning Director finds has no effect on the conditions and representations limiting the approved plat B. Other Amendment Any other amendment shall be approved by the city council. provided that the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved plat the amendment shall be subject to review as a new development application for plat C. Plat vacation. Vacation of an approved plat or any other document recorded in conjunction with a plat shall be considered a plat amendment. and shall only be approved by the city council if good cause is demonstrated. (Ord. No. 22 -1995, § 20: Code 1971. § 7 -1006) 26.88.070 Condominiumization. A. General. Where a proposed development is to include a condominium form of ownership. or if an existing development is to be converted to a condominium form of ownership. in whole or in part. a condominium subdivision exemption plat retlecung all condorniniumized unit orthat potion of the development to be condominiumized. shall be submitted to the planning director for review and approval as a subdivision exemption pursuant CO the terms and provisions of this section. B. Procedure. A development application for a condominiumization shall be reviewed pursuant to the procedures and standards in this section and Common Procedures. Chapter 26.52. 1. Contents of Application. The contents of a development application for a condominium or condominiumization shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Common Procedures. Section 2652.030. b. A condominium subdivision exemption plat drawn with permanent ink on reproducible mylar. Sheet size shall be twenty-four (24) inches by thirty -six (36) inches with an unencumbered margin of one and one -half (1 -1/2) inches on the left hand side of the sheet and a one -half (1/2) inch margin around the other three (3) sides of the sheet. It shall include: (1) Accurate dimensions for all lines. angles and curves used to describe boundaries. streets. setbacks. alleys, easements. structures, areas to be reserved or dedicated for public or common use and other important features. All curves shall be circular arcs and shall be defined by the radius. central angle. tangent arc and chord distances. All dimensions, both linear and angular. are to be determined by an accurate control survey in the field which must balance and close within a limit of one (1) in ten thousand (10,000). (2) The plat shall be drawn at a scale of one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet or larger. Architecrrral scales are not acceptable. If it is necessary to place the plat on more than one (1) sheet, an index shall be included on the first sheet. A vicinity map shall also appear on the first sheet showing the condominium project as it relates to the rest of the city and the street system in the area of the proposed condominium. cam 10r95) 644 26.116.010 Chapter 26.116 APPEALS FROM ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION Sections: 26.116.010 Appeals from the administrative action. 26.116.010 Appeals from the administrative action. A. Authority. The board of adjustment shall have the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision or determination by any administrative official pursuant to the standards and procedures hereinafter set forth. except for interpretation to the text of this title or the boundaries of the zone district map. which shall be decided pursuant to the Terms of Chapter 26.112. B. Initiation. An appeal may be initiated by any person who receives a decision or determination by any administrative official with respect to this title. except for an interpretation to the text of this title or the boundaries of the zone district map. C. Procedures. A notice of appeal in the form prescribed by the planning director must be filed with the planning director and with the office or department rendering the decision or determination within ten (10) working days of the decision. Failure to file such appeal shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this tide to appeal any decision or determination. The filing of a notice of appeal shall require the administrative official whose decision is appealed. to immediately forward to the planning director any and ail records concerning the subject matter of the appeal. D. Effect of filing an appeal. The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay any proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the administrative official rendering such decision. deterrmination, or interpretation cenifies in writing to the planning director and the appellant, that a stay poses an imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further proceedings. The board of adjustment may review such certification and grant or deny a stay of the proceedings. E. Action of the board of adjustment. The board of adjustment shall consider the appeal within thirty (30) days following receipt of all records conceming the subject matter of the appeal. The board of adjustment may reverse. affirm, or modify the decision or determination appealed from. and. if the decision is modified. shall be deemed to have all the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken. including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the appellant. The decision shall be in writing and shall be sent to the appellee by certified mail. (Code 1971. § 12 -101) 707