The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLacet Subdivision_Resolution Amendment_Public Comment_Post Packet Upload1 Garrett Larimer From:Cheri Grinnell <cherigrinnell@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 7, 2020 9:11 AM To:Garrett Larimer Cc:Cheri Grinnell Subject:Lacet Subdivision public notice Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Dear Garrett and City Council members: Regarding the proposed change of buffer zone to setback: I would like to see that the existing pedestrian right‐of‐way remains and is protected in the legal document that results. I have lived year round in Aspen since 1989 and Riverside Drive has been my home. I use this path almost daily. I have always considered it thoughtful foresight by city planning. It has been nicely landscaped and maintained by the owners of lot 1, the applicants. This property now has a sale pending this outcome. I hope the new owners realize and respect that this appreciated short cut to town involves crossing their driveway or adjacent lawn to reach Lacet Lane, otherwise the right‐of‐way is a dead end to nowhere! Please make this clear in your legalize In order to protect and preserve this privilege. I consider this a fair trade off for the potential legalization, of a major encroachment by the beautiful patio into the buffer zone, by transitioning it to a setback. Respectfully, Cheri Grinnell Thomas L. Kurt, MD, MPH Mail POB 7977, Aspen, CO 81612 UPS or FedEx: 1375 Riverside Drive, Aspen, CO 81611 Tel: 970-925-6648 E-mail: Date: April 15, 2020 TO: Garrett Larimer Community Development 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Tel: 970-429-2739 RE: Notice of Public Hearing, Lacet Subdivision Public Hearing: Tuesday, April 141h, 2020, 5:00 p.m. Applicant: Paulette Perkins and Thomas Hext, on behalf of Lacet Homeowners Association, 152 Haystack Road, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Description: The applicant, Thomas Hext and Paulette Perkins, on behalf of the Lacet Homeowners' Association, requests City Council strike Section 1 of Resolution No. 58.... Location: Lots 107 of the Lacet Subdivision... FAVORABLE COMMENT AS A NOTICED NEARBY HOMEOWNER AT 1375 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, RIVERSIDE SUBDIVISION As a noticed nearby homeowner at 1375 Riverside Drive, Riverside Subdivision, I wish to comment in favor of this application. I have been a nearby homeowner since 1978, know the neighborhood well, and have known Paulette Perkins and Thomas Hext shortly after they purchased their property. Thomas L. Kurt (Thomas L. Kurt, MD, MPH) Co -signed by wife, Carol S. Kurt Attachment: Notice of Public Hearing, Re: Lacet Subdivision 13o S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 p (970) 920.5090 w: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING RE: Lacet Subdivision Public Hearing: Tuesday. April 14`h, 2020; 5:OOPM Meeting Location: City Hall, Council Chambers 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 8 1611 Project Location: Lots 1-7 of the Lacet Subdivision (f%k,a East Cooper Subdivision), 403, 406, 407, 410, 411, 414, 415 Lacet Ln., City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. Commonly known as the Lacet Subdivision Description: The applicant, Thomas Hext and Paulette Perkins, on behalf of the Lacet Homeowners' Association, requests City Council strike Section 1 of Resolution -No. 58, Series of 1994. Section I prohibits all development in a 25' buffer on the west property boundary of lots 1-3 and a 25' buffer from property line to the south of lot 7. See the attached exhibit for the areas in question. The applicant requests the 25' buffer for each of these lots be applied as a setback, permitting development consistent with allowed development in setbacks established by the City of Aspen Land Use Code. Decision 1Nlaking Body: City Council Applicant: Paulette Perkins and Thomas Hext on behalf of Lacet Homeowners Association, 152 Haystack Rd., Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 More Infor-nation: For further- information related to the project, contact Garrett Larimer at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, 970.429.2739, Published in the Aspen Times on March 26, 2020 1 Garrett Larimer From:Jacqueline Mastrangelo <jackiemast@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, April 13, 2020 12:04 PM To:Garrett Larimer Subject:See attached comments Attachments:Resolution No. 26 comments.pdf Hi Garrett, Attached please find my comments and a foto re: Resolution 26. Please confirm that you’ve received these. And can you tell me again when and where I can watch it? Thanks again for all of your help with this issue. Jackie IV ^ _ _ "it 41 VIP I VI NIX. ,61 oll,A�ei� d x'%N i 3^ +a:,'�1. IV I. i} �. - ,x Y f, » , r�F �{i ^, Fd� �. F iqr . Ac"3(q `.,• v ,W -�9; `tl .d pT' M .. NN L I '� '� r•. P t! t- rA��.6�,,;�. �� L ;VOIPatec� $�� Ftop I\z all +_eA� ".\• '' ' ` F NV WA I VI y!4kN�L �tl du iF4jQ! ri N3j't►'�w1i• y=�✓�o�! x ?.a. Ikk t lsr t _ a�.e� . >A� re 17• y �' 1rt :�E. �. LvF•. S _,aR. \ ' Ysa Y _ �r P I r(� j _ko 4. Fwo jr! III I f ,�, �_ �a cz yaTM� x - �j c'4 't -r•`� 1 Jt,` . ��y S VI IV IN it IV .17 �S.;L.7 1i ..� +' ,'4R 8i . e �'a n `'iy t . 4. *�e JI - „ tly �e u II;VtVVI-x %t n11' VA �� M! tl r yv p SIP .�� y Y i VI •L 1. 1 i. .'�!V � a� I. \ 'ky' r r a ,. +V 4m.*``ia b s to .4 Ilk .. + Ys"i/ 4� IF r E r,IV I jj S q., '�' Vt``IN � 1 �p y a-,.:. ' .b• .z Ta! -P!:Z A'• a + +, a,+eoVol �' 6. .�('�T£+,�81 q ,r� yid y 'iFY x.� �'.tli A.is 4 k'„ f.S (Qcf 5.+ IV V. :?.: s„ _„ �; qY 'c yp,�.3wd , e,r M�- ;c �� oilIt o. ! � }.''a y�: TIt V�mp -s,..VIV''^'." ` /C 'S..�` .'� 4,-'"-,�"t'F V, r �i'� `off` - b . ^�%- %i - OFF- ;mayd�='� ! + , y` ?` . co IV -a4444 MT, ►MT ( r w: \ +�artrJac 44 VF a.J f s Nal-` J� \It ; t4 �` 1a ON e, , e' f "�' { �"�!£a�� Div14, , IN a .. .r VONx IV N VoOV Sr I,v Arlo , I I Xe��OWT y f \Mkt f,, It, rx A.r' . Lq y vl x �rIV -ld A �i11 /7 4 ��Ir r ,'�rF•q�'�!w gi '.r.:` P .�# �'g'K ,3, ,tl®ti. ae+ b I_y A� a x 1 r VIV -It ` ; < Fi�g d.,v^ ; All Ak4 _ �8 ''iP4 ~ r ✓JY G F.. Wigti, loffil i eeIV "tlE mile Itt'; IN IN #pop Vhl Na OV 44 .4 I --i'•'. 19 Tim; � t� ( y f — �ir�. FFFF //7 ggr.•aatli+Q _� +n`a"—_�.. I.#�1.: �5 1� 1� 'ff !t�. i oll If YY /� II it CG➢will, Atoll I IV If oft _ �— - - Ill I - - /�..: - *" NWI Amor 44 VIA VVI VVI .'/ +Y n, r + n • _ _ ' _ r ;ram •1\ ; t.+. - v{ -x -#• �„ y. - ry a '� t� Y "° -�-Ec Ste"' _ ^ , VII ,•cam VIEW oil VI — a ^ r ' ' r NO - _ v. s� �+ _ _ 4� _y _ z - ;c z( zmoorr tV dw `A t n 3 Jacqueline M. Mastrangelo PO Box 950 Aspen, CO 81612 (970) 274‐3898 April 13, 2020 Dear Council Members, I am writing to express my concerns and strong opposition to the request from the Lacet homeowners to amend the Resolution No. 58 (Series of 1994) regarding the 25 foot buffer for lots in the Lacet Subdivision. This resolution has been in place for 26 years and has been effective in keeping our neighborhood a pleasant place to live despite the changes we’ve seen with the replacement of small older homes with new larger homes. The peaceful enjoyment of our properties has been maintained in part because of the original resolution. That was the reason why it was supported by the Riverside Drive neighbors, and considered and passed by the City Council in 1994. Now, in 2020, I believe that most of us who live on the street never realized there was a problem with the resolution and that it had to be ﬁxed with this new resolution. We on Riverside Drive have experienced quite a bit of new development and have always trusted that the regulations in place would keep the neighborhood much the same. And so far it’s worked. We are satisﬁed with the status quo and wonder why there is a request to change something that is working? I can only guess that this proposal has been submitted because the Lot 1 house, owned by Perkins/Hext is listed for sale. Reading through the resolutions both old and new brings up more questions than answers. It’s unclear as to the speciﬁcs of what’s allowed and what’s not allowed per the request. What exactly can happen in this 25 feet that has been preserved as a setback for all these years? Proposing these changes because one homeowner wants to sell their house does not meet the stated goals of the new resolution of correcting “unique and atypical restrictions” on certain properties. Nor is the requested change to the long-standing 25 foot buffer zone around the properties necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. What does that mean? That the buffer has harmed people in any way, shape or form? To my knowledge no one’s health, safety, or welfare has been adversely affected by the buffer zone as it was originally written. It was supported by the neighbors, passed by Council and been successful and a non-issue until now. I live at 1235 Riverside Drive which looks directly onto the Perkins/Hext Lacet Lot 1 house. For us living on the “circle” the front yards of our homes face the circle, while Lot 1 of Lacet backs onto it creating a somewhat odd streetscape. Our back yards face the back of our neighbors’ lots - the norm of most streetscapes. It’s an unfortunate development design ﬂaw. It was one of the essential reasons why the 25 foot buffer was put in place years ago — to ameliorate the impacts of having someone’s backyard and associated activities impact the neighbors on Riverside Drive. To date, the buffer zone has worked as planned, with the exception of a large patio and fence on the Perkins/Hext lot. I worry about any more changes. What more could appear in the buffer zone that will affect Riverside Drive? Hot tubs? Pools? Driveways? The backyard activities of that house face our street. I’m afraid these allowances will allow greater impacts that will change our neighborhood forever. I also wish to comment on an issue with the pedestrian walkway easement from the Riverside subdivision through to Lacet Court. This is an oft-used walkway by many of us who live on Riverside Drive. It’s a great way to walk to town and we very much appreciate having it. However, It’s been made difficult to maneuver through due to the landscaping between Lots 1 and 7 of Lacet Court. (see foto). The start of the walkway is easy to negotiate along the south of Lacet Lot 1 and the house to its south on Riverside Drive. The problem lies between Lots 1 and 7 of Lacet Court where landscaping created a mound and a row of trees on the path, forcing pedestrians to use the Perkins/Hext’s driveway to get onto Lacet Court. None of us want to walk on anyone’s driveway, but the nature of the landscaping leaves us no choice. I propose we stop where we are and not allow any further mistakes to occur with Lots 1, 2, 3, and 7 and the other lots on Lacet Court. The request is a one-off solo attempt from homeowners who are selling their house who won’t be around to experience the uncertainties and impacts of the new resolution. I strongly object to this resolution. Thank you for your consideration. Jackie Jacqueline Mastrangelo 1235 Riverside Drive Aspen, CO 81611