HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.AP.8 Ute Pl.A102-89Welsch Insubstantial Plat Amend
2737-182-65-003 102A-89
y13
rl
MI
CJ
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manger
U.1w/ r ON
FROM: Leslie La�and Amy Margert�t, Planning
DATE: November 2, 1989
RE: Welsch Plat Amendment
SUMMARY: The Planning staff recommends approval of this
insubstantial amendment to the PUD to determine the elevation
from which measurements related to the sub -grade basement are to
be taken. The single family residence, on Lot 3 of the 1010 Ute
Subdivision, is under construction. The proposed grade elevation
of the home was measured from a different elevation from what was
represented during the PUD approval process. As a result, the
basement is two feet above the natural grade from which
elevations are traditionally measured. Without an amendment to
the plat, allowing measurement from the finished grade, the whole
basement would be included in floor area calculations.
COUNCIL GOALS: Review of this application furthers the intent of
Goal 15 which is to protect and serve our residents and visitors
in an open, fair and sensitive manner.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 1987 Council granted conceptual
approval and granted a GMP allocation for the 1010 Ute
Subdivision. Council recently reviewed a memo in which several
issues regarding 1010 Ute were discussed, this plat amendment
being one. Council directed staff to clarify the issues and
return at a later date.
BACKGROUND: In a memo dated October 6, 1987, Glenn Horn
responded to a request by Bruce Sutherland for a staff level
sign -off to alter the methodology used to measure the height of
residences in the subdivision. Glenn recommended that the
request be heard by the Planning Commission and the City Council
because of the controversy about the height of buildings.
Alan Richman, in a January 15, 1988 memo to the City Council,
recommended approval to amend the plat to allow the a variation
in the methodology of the way height is measured on Lot 1. The
applicant had requested that the height be measured from finished
grade rather than natural grade, a difference of 5 feet. The
interpretation was made that a finished grade elevation was
presented during conceptual review and that is was an oversight
that is was not noted on the plat. However there was no
discussion about Lot 3.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: This application is identical to that of Lot
• 0
1 which Alan Richman reviewed, the difference being 2 feet
between natural and finished grade on Lot 3. The Zoning Officer
has put the applicant on notice that the below grade basement is
now two feet above natural grade therefore the entire basement
area will be included in FAR. If the building were lowered by
two feet then the basement will not count in FAR. Under the
current Code, the additional FAR above grade would appear to
increase the building size over the allowable FAR. However, as
part of the PUD agreement this subdivision is reviewed under the
old code. That language, Definition (ee) states: for the
propose of calculating FAR the whole story has to be 100% below
grade to be exempt from FAR. If any portion of the story is
above grade than the whole story counts in FAR.
The applicant was allowed 12 to 18 inches above grade for
drainage purposes.
A significant portion of the subdivision has been regraded. New
pad elevations were identified on the conceptual plans. However
it was not clearly spelled out that development was intended to
be measured from these conceptual pad heights.
The home is under construction. The historic grade was used for
the 30 foot maximum roof height not the pad grade. The applicant
states that it was necessary to use finished grade for drainage
proposes especially off of the adjacent lot which is a higher
elevation.
Lot 3 is also within a swale as was Lot 1.
The applicant has provided a sketch with a written text of the
situation. Please see attached.
RECOMMENDATION: Due to the fact that the conceptual review used
"finished grade" and Lot 1 (with similar circumstances) was
approved, staff recommends approval of the PUD amendment to allow
the measurement of the elevation to be taken from finished rather
than natural grade.
ALTERNATIVES: Deny the insubstantial amendment and require the
owner to reduce the total size of the house to conform to FAR
requirements. According to the Zoning Officer, filling in the
basement would eliminant the problem.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the insubstantial amendment
to the PUD to measure the height on Lot 3, Ute Place, from
finished grade.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
2
•
u
Attachments
Alan Richman's 1988 memo
Applicants written and sketched submission
•
•
ATTACHMENT A
Cv:�- s /ar►...� - -[ti, o � � h--�� -10 6� �. � � c.u.ssc� �.�7 t--j fn, 5 .c.-+L-�-r- 1 �.,.--.�,_.
-----------------
r•o v oar
G.... °� rJ..t,� w t u c� -for- �-k 3 a ►'�I m.r� c _�
C -
of r
lb
F3 v) b r ► .� g -�-(,mac, -�� �., L w 'S r-c� v� t� c. } �.. `,,
V l -,,A Z 4 ki �� g k� 4 S - t G S SG,t¢�Q. -� . 2r ce- - Z 'i j ` (aS no j
c..,i�• c 1 �.. -{-, u �. L -� o r
;a, PP rya c_j�
o r- e- r-
Pr•o��v. a� �ar�� larl�
r zh_ J C, .
3, t tom. b s c-.,• , t-c� �c7 " ? _ -� .� o r5 1 0 -4
-t- o of r +� ��..� x �. 4 to t� Gr`,.� -� �(it. 1 �. -e. M- r ate. a ►-.
-�� a � o -J � I.J � -f'w s � �ie� �.+7 y►�-�-� c.Qx.� -
aa fi
bc� n<
r•r.t.0
0 u--t,
a. r- g �►, v a.. p o L „i s. � 3-v�n. -�j ► ...�.. 4-o wA •ate w ► �
-- _ ._ -T° �° of r� t�.`',�. �'`. b, �'- �-- A►-�.o�,�s► s.-, b �_ 1 �-wti. s.,c.�
cn z.� bc._ �. of o ► cam. -� o �. o
OS.-
- - ---- � „�.-� �,1 S a_ o ► -fir- � r �.� �p-- a- -- � Z rg a� s �. �. try �,� k.� b� �' -� o �-'
e-
- - o-E' �. S t ✓,�,•, 1�-�- - rc �-1,,.� S� i �-: _. �.�� w ka� �t3r�.t.�,e,-�-t.�.�,ti..t� 5 ?�
� I UFU(DK��
�':- �< L) ) I-)
a
N
QI
Normyl 1cl��a,4�o�
l
� 3ASEvoal_IZ—V• Qz161kit- U.y
pa.r
g�semcn�-
I APP20V�D �sye�-rY
2UIe, ..
,
W S L s
/
r�
- -
it"
-
_.To2\c
G2ADE -
��ts�n F-f
GOµLQ 11AJE.
�S�p T'Iy 1S
WovLo-_.�1��.
��Etv AcC!E F--rA BL.E rz S,aSSrtGn>r
2 t- o TS
C i 3 I T 1-4 S v\/ A L A- 1--o P o G 2A t� �-1 Y
w - 2
ad I
u
s
d
0
- - r4 - - _ -- - l
J
3
O
U
L
aE
- -�� - LOTS WjT+4 :R! DY E-TOPOG2i-\P�--t Y
�= t_ O A (2_ 1.i o T F-A Lp 2 r -r ►� A N Z U N?
�J J? Gl O Tul r`fti �. Cn Z o U 1j 1 u 1J %22 -T cD L D T 5 W.T►-� rj uJ A �.G� T� � ; .
c, - �- ► p G �- L o S=� z 11 //..v �-t - �, ►-, a,-! u r�l. rn,,� r�-1... -fn be, c ,,�,-}- .
�owr1 zt'1' �-hc-w���j to k��SErnc�,-}� F. e1elf:a,-}-low
�tn)1}�c�`�+
b_ 1 L4 Uu Fnt2 iT,o Wks r- esoL D
u A "-3t (-.::) u ►- t'T" 7 z V-0 L.D prr �-ri' w a A F F4,>-J v a t)
-IEO- C. ,,t- �y rLatis►.e..�G._T,.te G;�.o► �5 o f -r,.►�
S LJ L1 �..I LC 1 c✓. A
t -E- u �.. l o -� t . t ,�. ? .`� Oc-c� er �c, .�•_;.
ca
GraCN�4ur�l
- C y-► �. b � � � �•► ---�' 1^-er __ 3 D' - M a,.. � r+-+,.� k, �. � � u� t�"� c�--� --% lr�. !� a ,� L �
- - H O' . _ -i'tti.t� . r� e.v� - r i cl�.� T7 t f S� % O v
- --- -- b•-- �je �-=- t- �.�5 � �L. N---�'k..a... -t � r� . S fin,. � � O Q f- ._ .'�'p _"Jjj" C"#.a �-�'fi(..s_:
- - - - V�.1 / �-ttil e �.� �i-'► D r - ti ✓L ► s g �- a c-4
rv. i ,.�.� ► -E- (.. S
---- --1 V VL }'J of-F e,<1 e�a^�--aiS o._. V �tnq . he cr dTAlh Oc\C_ -Rio•.. +- Sb`o-� tc�i.._ r,Ja �b�{
W i t t� Lo T L •- _ l JJ
LQ
PGZCZ iti�i'1 Q�St�..�_-av ck_w6LA C� behc�,t tl� ��T� xcaus
------`13r-=�S`�'_, odl��a-►,o�=�.. hiz-'rtx`t+.�.�. -
�-�
• - n
_ __ sfl►,tic G� cr4� -. b,�j.-�. (iradGs -Cor- Lo. -.. 2 `tom k " z-SISa 2kc..,,�-
s, ev"A"_ ko r< a Gor» n
OI r t Lrc,
0
0
t� r�- .'_ t S t� 3 J G. T ►-� o t= 1J a -r A L
-4-O 0 j:fS a-� - �- o,.-t
G r
t a z L-L C-� tom. ► �2 z.;,v. b -; �- �.
- tl v- _t-
_ . _— _.- - - - - _ - _ _ _ t't�J`u � a ~ 1-1-y,� G � 0....,�-�5.� - .1-0 �'. F) 1 -T -�'t►-.¢..
C, L, FA- a70 GQ,� o c� G4L � G t .t0 c'3,� i v vv S
ATTACHMENT B MT-MOMIDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director fAU'11�
RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Height Variation Confirmation
DATE: January 15, 1988
I have received the attached letter from Gideon Kaufman, on
behalf of Skip Berhorst and the 1010 Ute Avenue development.
Gideon identifies a minor oversight in the review of that project
by both the applicant and staff which has serious ramifications
for the purchaser of Lot 1.
Essentially, the problem is that the Code requires height to be
measured from natural grade. As you may recall, the 1010 Ute
Avenue site was represented as requiring extensive regrading to
accomplish the applicant's objectives and to recontour a site
which had been previously disturbed. On the -applicant's concep-
tual, preliminary and final submissions, a pad elevation was
shown for Lot 1 at 7967. What was not mentioned was the fact
that existing grade was 7962, which meant that a variation from
the manner in which height is calculated was required to allow
the 28 foot height to be measured from finished grade.
From our review of the records it is clear that the pad elevation
was consistently represented by the applicant. It is also clear
that elevations and grading plans were reviewed showing the
extent of regrading which is taking place on this site. There
has never been any misrepresentation of the situation; instead
there appears to have been an oversight regarding placing a note
on the plat that the method of measuring height for this site
would be varied.
Since Section 24-8.3(e), Variations, indicates that the only way
a variation may be granted is if it is shown -on the final plat,
and since Section 24-8.26, Amendments, does net cive me the
authority to amend the plat in this manner, we seek ycur author-
ization fcr the Mayor to sign an amended plat which includes this
notation. Unless this item is removed from the consent agenda,
or is otherwise not .approved, we will direct the applicant to
make the required clarification to the recorded plat for its
signature.
0 •
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 10/17/89
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
2737-182-65-003 102A-89
STAFF MEMBER • ,-.l —
PROJECT NAME: Welsch Insubstantial Plat Amendment
Project Address:
Legal Address: Lot 3, Ute Place Subdivision
APPLICANT: Susan Welsch
Applicant Address:17686 Caminito Hercuba, San Diego CA 92128
REPRESENTATIVE: Richard Neiley
Representative Address/Phone: 201 North Mill Street Ste 102
Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925-9393
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $50.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 1
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1
STEP:
2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date
PUBLIC
HEARING:
YES NO
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES NO
1
CC Meeting Date �al
PUBLIC
HEARING:
YES O
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES
h
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir. Hlth.
Aspen Consol.
S.D.
DATE REFERRED:
FINAL ROUTING:
City Atty
Housing
FILE STATUS AND
Mtn. Bell
Parks Dept.
Holy Cross
Fire Marshall
Building Inspector
Roaring Fork
Energy Center
INITIALS:
DATE ROUTED:
School District
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
State Hwy Dept(GW)
State Hwy Dept(GJ)
Other
INITIAL: (-t �--
City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Other:
LOCATION• li
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113
-63250-134
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
-63270-136
GMP/FINAL
-63280-137
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
-63300-139
SUB/FINAL
-63310-140
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63320-141
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
-63340-205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
-63340-190
HOUSING
00115
-63340-163
ENGINEERING
SUBTOTAL
County
00113
-63160-126
GMP/GENERAL
-63170-127
GMP/DETAILED
-63180-128
GMP/FINAL
-63190-129
SUB/GENERAL
-63200-130
SUB/DETAILED
-63210-131
SUB/FINAL
-63220-132
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63230-133
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
-63450-146
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
-63340-205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
-63340-190
HOUSING
00113
-63360-143
ENGINEERING
PLANNING
OFFICE SALES
00113
-63080-122
CITY/COUNTY CODE
-63090-123
COMP. PLAN
-63140-124
COPY FEES
-69000-145
OTHER
Name: / �)
AddressUa4
`�/�, �C"•�/Cod/
Check # 7 7�
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Phone:
Project: %i(JL�iSSGi? /n svh irii �rc I
r CA -
Date: /0 f
Additional billing: #of Hours:
SUMMARY CLOSE-OUT FOR
WELSCH PLAT AMENDMENT
Council approved the plat amendment November 2, 1989.
-
LAW OFFICES • mi 1 2,
GIDEON I KAUFMAN
RICHARD S. LUHMAN
HAND DELIVER
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
A PPOFESSICNAL CORPORATION
BOX 10001
315 EAST HUMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
January 11, 1988
Mr. Alan Richman
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Dear Alan:
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 3C2
925-8165
Pursuant to our meeting this morning, I write this letter
to formally request that you seek approval from the City
Council to authorize the signing of an amended Plat for Ten Ten
Ute Subdivision. The change we are seeking designates the pad
elevation for Lot 1 to be used as base elevation for measuring
height. As we discussed, this was always the intention of both
the applicant and the Planning,Office, and was represented as
such consistently through Conceptual, Preliminary and Final
P.U.D. This variation was not placed on the Final Plat through
a mutual oversight. There is no question, however, that the
intent to have the pad elevation used to measure height on Lot
1 was clearly represented by the applicant throughout the
review process. The original grade was 7962; the new grade pad
elevation is 7967.
I hope that you will be able to get this request on a
consent agenda for the City Council as soon as possible. As we
discussed, we have relied upon pad elevation in our height
measurements for developing plans. There is a purchaser of Lot
1 who would like to move forward with those plans and,
therefore, time is of the essence. Both Skip and I would like
to thank you for your thoughtful attention to this and the help
that you have given us in this matter.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDE'ON I. KAUFMIAN, P.C. ,
a Pr e'ssiczf'al Corporation
By /1
Gideon Kaufman
r
GK/bw
cc: Skip Behihorst
Alan Richman
December 11, 1987
Pace 2
B) Lot «1 - Clarification Euildina Pad Elevation
As you will recall, the pad elevations fo_ each lot were
graphically and numerically depicted on the Grading Plan, Page #3
of the,Conceptual P.U.D./Subdivision, Submittal dated December 1,
1986: Specifically, the approximate pad elevation for Lct. #1 was
shown as 7968 ft. This same elevation':(7968 ft) was on the final
grading plan of the engineering work drawings finally adopted and
constructed for Lot 41. The final grading plan was consistent
with these pad elevations originally submitted on the conceptual
plan.
As you know, -we are obligated to adhere to all representations
made as originally submitted in t'he GMP Process. I believe this
is one of the representations that was made originally and should
be carried forward and adhered to.
I believe that the pad elevation for Lot #1 at 7968 ft, based on
the conceptual and final grading plan represented to you, is
binding not only on us but should be binding on the public bodies
that approved it. Therefore, the pad elevation represented by us
and accepted by you should control.puilding height measurements.
Thank you for your cooperation and attention to this letter. I
look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
ice','_
David G. Behrhorst
Vice President
cc: Glen Horn
Gideon Kaufman
DGB/ar
I
ATIA,Q*CENP 1
LAND USE APPLICATION FX)W
1) Project Name WELSCH RESIDENCE - INSUBSTANTTAT, P_n_n- PLAT AKENDMENT
2) Project location LOT 3 UTE PLACE quFmTVTCTnm (formeriy known. ;a Ton m rT+e )
(indicate street address, lot & block mmiber, legal description where
appropriate)
3) Present Zoning R-15 P.U.D.
5) Applicant's Name, Address & Phone #
San Diego, Cal. 92128 619-485-7326
4) Int Size 15,188 square feet
Susan Welsch 17686 Caminito Hercuba
6) Representative's Name, Address & Phone # Richard Y. Neiley, Jr
201 North Mill Street, Suite 102, Aspen, Colo. 81611 303-925-9393
7) Type of Application (please check all that apply):
Conditional Use
Special Review
Stream Margin
Mountain View Plane
_ lot Split/Iat Line
Adjustment
Conceptual SPA
Final SPA
Conceptual PUD
Final AID
_ Subdivision
x Zhxt/Map Amendment-
_ Conceptual historic Dev.
Final Historic Dev.
Minor Historic Dev.
Historic DEmolition
_ Historic Designation
_ CAS Allotment
_ GMQS Exemption
8) Description of ndsting Uses (timber and type of existing strictures;
approximate sq. ft.; nLmber of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted to the
property) -
Residence under construction pursuant to approved P.U.D (Plat approved
June 19,1987). This application for plat Amendment seeks approval of the use
of variation in grade elevation as renreeented d„r;n7 -he F g D approval -Process.
9) Description of Development Application
measurements related to the cnh-grade hasement are to he—tako
10) Have you attached the following?
Response to Attachment 2, Minimum Submission Contents
x Response to Attadmient 3, Specific Submission Contents
Response to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Your Application
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director
RE: 1010 Ute Avenue Height Variation Confirmation
DATE: January 15, 1988
I have received the attached letter from Gideon Kaufman, on
behalf of Skip Berhorst and the 1010 Ute Avenue development.
Gideon identifies a minor oversight in the review of that project
by both the applicant and staff which has serious ramifications
for the purchaser of Lot 1.
Essentially, the problem is that the Code requires height to be
measured from natural grade. As you may recall, the 1010 Ute
Avenue site was represented as requiring extensive regrading to
accomplish the applicant's objectives and to recontour a site
which had been previously disturbed. On the applicant's concep-
tual, preliminary and final submissions, a pad elevation was
shown for Lot 1 at 7967. What was not mentioned was the fact
that existing grade was 7962, which meant that a variation from
the manner in which height is calculated was required to allow
the 28 foot height to be measured from finished grade.
From our review of the records it is clear that the pad elevation
was consistently represented by the applicant. It is also clear
that elevations and grading plans were reviewed showing the
extent of regrading which is taking place on this site. There
has never been any misrepresentation of the situation; instead
there appears to have been an oversight regarding placing a note
on the plat that the method of measuring height for this site
would be varied.
Since Section 24-8.3(e), Variations, indicates that the only way
a variation may be granted is if it is shown -on the final plat,
and since Section 24-8.26, Amendments, does net give me the
authority to amend the plat in this manner, we seek your author-
Ization for the Mayor to sign an amended plat which includes this
notation. Unless this item is removed from the consent agenda,
or is otherwise not approved, we will direct the applicant to
make the required clarification to the recorded plat for its
signature.
il
E
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr.
Eugene M. Alder
HAND DELIVERY
LAW OFFICES OF
RICHARD Y. NEILEY, Jr., P.C.
600 East Hopkins Avenue, Suite 3
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-9393
October 17, 1989
FAX Number
(303) 920-2007
Re: Height Issues Regarding Lot 3, Ute Place Subdivision
Dear Leslie:
This letter is a follow-up to our many conversations over
the past several weeks regarding the elevation from which height
is to be measured on Lot 3 of the Ute Place Subdivision. As you
know, I represent Susan Welsch, the owner of Lot 3.
In your September 20, 1989 memo to City Council regarding
this matter, you refer to the issue as one involving "height
variation." However, the overall height of the building will not
be affected in any way by a determination that the elevation of the
building pad for Lot 3 is that which was presented in the grading
plan as part of the conceptual PUD submittal process, and not the
natural grade which is two feet lower.
A grading plan was submitted by the developer of Ten Ten
Ute Subdivision which specifically identified approximate "pad
elevations" which were to be used for purposes of determining the
point from which measurements regarding the dimensions of buildings
within the Subdivision would be taken. In particular, Lot 3 calls
for a "pad elevation" of 7,974 feet, whereas the natural grade for
that site was 7,972 feet. I submit herewith a copy of blue print
page 3, entitled "Grading Plan" which was submitted to the City as
part of the conceptual PUD process.
You will recall that a similar issue was raised in
connection with Lot 1 of the Subdivision. On January 11, 1988,
Attorney Gideon Kaufman, representing the developer of Ten Ten Ute,
wrote Alan Richman, the Planning Director, regarding a variation
in the measurement of base elevation for Lot 1. A copy of that
letter is attached hereto. Mr. Kaufman took the position that the
variation in elevations was consistently presented through
conceptual, preliminary and final PUD approval, but through a
Letter to Ms. Lamont
October 17, 1989
Page 2
"mutual oversight" the variations were not placed on the final
plat. After reviewing the request, Alan Richman concurred with Mr.
Kaufman's interpretation and, in a memorandum to City Council dated
January 15, 1988, a copy of which is attached, the Planning
Department recommended that a minor plat amendment be permitted to
correct the oversight as to Lot 1. The issue was not raised with
respect to Lot 3 at that time, although the same factual underpinn-
ings apply.
I also enclose herewith a drawing prepared by Ms.
Welsch's architects demonstrating the different grades and
reflecting the fact that the overall height of the house is not
altered as a consequence of interpretation of grade. What is
significant, however, is that when the architect sited the house
on the lot, the pad elevation as reflected on the conceptual
grading plan was used. As a consequence, the foundation and
basement which are already in place extend some three and one-half
feet above the natural grade. (The Building Department allows
foundation walls to extend approximately a foot and one-half above
grade without counting the surface area of that portion of the wall
for purposes of calculating floor area ratios.) The dilemma with
which we are presented is that if natural grade is used, the entire
basement of the home must count towards overall FAR or must be
closed off and not used. Since the house is already designed and
under construction, it is not possible to simply modify the plans
to permit use of the basement. It was intended at all times that
the basement would be subgrade and not count towards the total
square footage of the house. Had my client known that the pad
elevation could not be used for purposes of measuring the house,
the foundation could simply have been set two feet deeper into the
ground and no issue would have arisen at all. Unfortunately, it
was not until after the foundation was fully constructed that the
issue was made known to my client.
We believe that the interpretation which permitted the
plat amendment with respect to Lot 1 ought to be applied to Lot 3.
No negative impact results to the public or to any other property
owner as a consequence of permitting Mrs. Welsch to use the pad
elevation for purposes of measuring height. My client intends to
reside in the home she is building on a full-time basis and feels
it would be unfair to require her to forego the use of the basement
area solely because of a misunderstanding regarding applicable base
elevation.
Please consider this letter and its attachments our
application for an insubstantial plat amendment to allow use of the
pad elevation for purposes of determining grade and heights for the
building. I propose the following amendment to the plat for the
Subdivision:
CJ
Letter to Ms. Lamont
October 17, 1989
Page 3
In accordance with §24-8.3(a) of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, the dimensions of the
building located on Lot 3 of the
Subdivision shall be measured from
an initial grade elevation of 7,974
MSL.
As you know, I will not be available to attend Council
meeting on October 23, 1989. In our discussions, I believe we have
determined that it would be most advantageous to have this matter
considered on November 6, 1989, and your assistance in having this
request for insubstantial plat amendment placed on the agenda for
that meeting is greatly appreciated.
While I appreciate that an insubstantial plat amendment
is normally a matter for review and approval by the Planning
Director, City Council has requested that a resolution of all
outstanding issues pertaining to the Ute Place Subdivision be
reviewed by Council. I do not believe that there are any public
hearing or public notice requirements; however, because of the
requirements of City Council, a hearing will be held. I enclose
your Land Use Application form filled out to the extent applicable
to this matter. I also enclose a $50.00 application fee, which I
understand is the appropriate fee for an insubstantial plat amend-
ment request.
I appreciate all the time that you have spent in review-
ing this matter. I look forward to discussing it further with you.
Very truly yours,
RICHARD Y. NEILEY, JR., P.C.
J�
Richard Y. Neiley, Jr.
RYN/agk
Enclosures
Fes.
Av
01-yr'-
l
i�
Wo
•
�
7qqW{
\ T
e \
MITt
9
-7969
71
l 3
10
t.
o6 7973 1 f }
r
POJID
797 788 7978
12
„
! {
POND �`•\ 747a ! 7082'
♦,�_i _ __.. .... ,.%��-'�` O \ 7966 7 74
\ v 7ft dib A\
�954 u15
�-?%r�.. CI�f q Z o 3 tfit` , r t ��� ��` 7986 . 14 { \�
..74
71144
\ NN,^t
. •�• ,,,.,,� `^ r .� � jp A . t.1\\\ � A �A qti f A e � �� V q � 't \ { � j� \ ��} }�} t
18
�\ ` \♦ \ e 'ie `, \'\t`'� r �/ � 0. fit. .. ot4 ,' ! l J �� � \ � j �
7997976
\ \ }} t
1lb3.52.
\,!M`e�`e .. :WJ .' ;' 1 \ '. •A a, \\ �,�...:
_ __ � �1� } t �\\\e \ \\\� \t \q�. �-- � t 1 �\ •s t !rl �+-�-f !l; t 1 ;` r `'� � \ ,f !r. , /i
j; _ _ \ JI 1 `1\t \ \\\ 1 \ ` r��;i�' �� ` W— `:�, , / } f r � i � P i / �[. !✓ f
y �'' `� e j�} ft i If 1 t f 1 i�} eft e •� . \` ®. �v
ur' \\�\\\ \\\\ \` \� �" \ O .^,..�, ., � ��. �-'...'�•�„"'-. �� � � `��,, \ .. \... p .s}f !' f \ \.,4�,� '. + �,"'� i � It
-
\`,�\e4\e\ r "! !' 1 E v .''e e„s�`
AS
o
Aloo
�T�� '`�it.y, .,,\`.. `�,� � ��"'+�.`� "���.,�� ,'` \e,. i`\� \'`` �� lw\ � J`n \ �.f'/�t,y.lay,�ar'�•�.,>�. l�(a.a.,,,� � j / � ,\ \♦��,�'� -
a
,
`..`\1
7e
�3 �� \` .`.,\� \` \ ., \•� �,'\ 'f� - ~�e „�\`' ��1 �,•, ?„q ®,mod
`LOT
f
lb
\�*.�'-. �.,��►. ^ ,""� "^ ..,.,.. � \.,. ,....�"ewe ro,\ <. e °.. -_ ®���,;.`� �.,
r, w
,
,
"`�•� "�'n«+. Pik^-,.:a"�w �,ti`.`•^ `"..:...Y-� ,...,<!\�.�...:. °"°-„ -.;, - ,- "` ,� .., `,."e \,* .. ,�.. ''A� ,, T
mi
f
.: `.♦`^ ti..'` �, •. .., `•.\ `*,,. `»\`'+.�"r^. �"1,•�;, `; -•,,- .,,,...�. A` ^°^.y. .°'..:,,, _.. °�'« ,,p _._,y, .�, ..,, .,�\r y,.,, ,•,,� �"\``•,~'\`;.,`•''4'•.`^\ .,.4,�.�,\.\4, �\�„� ,+i:.ti �,c„_.` ,:. _\.y �4 `,...,
*. +.+,w. a �.^+"o ^•. M �•.. �,. .,,," >`\� ,",°..••."ice o.*��...: "� - t ti. '°, *e ,�\'� � �,� ww, ^.,4��tiw�.,,,'rti,".,��,,,,*� ,•.. �..„ ,�;..�.ti,..'�.y, ^„ 'ti,;`, "�,.•� �"'... ,. `°,4.„�., „,�, ".a,4,,, °`°^�.. "�,,,, :. ..` 1`•�'� "'��`'�'�` `"Q'�. �.`,� `:"^ �";�'`��.� Q �d c�e3 w
fib►,_ . �, _ .^-*•�'� _ `+�...�. � .� h. �����_ ^� .. ^,._ ,.� ti _, ,. - - � *+. _ �+.� _ _� a. �. a. , _ -a .`�.� � ,. Av �.'�, ,. � vw ,.. � _ ,.... � . ^r;.,� �.. � _ •^'H. ,. ...."�.. � ,. .. i 1 _ _ .� ...
•
EXISTING GRADES
PROPOSED GRADES
4 APPROXIMATE HOMESITE
LOCATION
SITE NUMBER
7974 APPROXIMATE PAD
ELEVATION
GRADING PLAN
0 50 100 200
0
4M�7 EDEEN A64PE-e
IN 10 10 L-MF-
V. 7 9 70, &1
L V- 797*4 FAD" EACA"Ir AF I�lE-NT- �Y PU P
EM,7972
N&TVW.,"- 6"m
+41110MM,"Q�k.M