HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 26 comments_Jacqueline MastrangeloApril 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