The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutlanduse case.AP.8 Ute Pl.A102-89 ~ I""'" CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET city of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 10~1~89 DATE COMPLETE: \ l! ,I C; PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. 2737-182-65-003 102A-89 STAFF MEMBER: kL PROJECT NAME: Project Address: Legal Address: APPLICANT: Applicant Address: Welsch Insubstantial Plat Amendment Lot 3. ute Place Subdivision Susan Welsch 17686 Caminito Hercuba. San Dieao. CA 92128 REPRESENTATIVE: Representative Address/Phone: Richard Neilev 201 North Mill Street Ste 102 ASDen. CO 81611 (303) 925-9393 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $50.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 1 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO ~ 8j~ Paid: Date: CC Meeting Date .~ PUBLIC HEARING: YES VESTED RIGHTS: YES Planning Director Approval: Insubstantial Amendment ~..v.'\~ 'f'U:J\e.vJ REFERRALS: City Attorney City Engineer Housing Dir. Aspen Water City Electric Envir. Hlth. Aspen Consolo S.D. or Exemption: Mtn. Bell Parks Dept. Holy Cross Fire Marshall Building Inspector Roaring Fork Energy Center School District Rocky Mtn Nat Gas State Hwy Dept(GW) State Hwy Dept(GJ) Other DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: ROUTED: 1P"lltq(~;;';;'~~~== FINAL ROUTING: DATE ___ City Atty ____ City Engineer ___ Zoning ___ Housing Other: Env. Health FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: r". '... t"'~ ~~,<~:$:f~,'Ym'7,'~9P-."..;,,-: ., (d)-A--~q ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920,5090 2, 1989. LAND use APPLICATION FEES City 00.113 -63250-134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL -63270-136 GMP/FINAL -63280-137 SUB/CONCEPTUAL -63300-139 SUB/FINAL -63310-140 ALL 2cSTEP APPLICATIONS -63320-141 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIoNs/ 50-~O CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-130 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 -63450-145 BOARD. OF ADJUSTMENT REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00113 -63360-143 ENGINEERING PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 "63080-122 -63090-123 -6314().c124 .69000-145 CITY/COUNTY CODE COMP, PLAN COPY FEES OTHER SUBTOTAL TOTAL '\-0. 00 Check # Additional billing: Phone: 5~9 393 Project: V.J?1.rch /mu6s1a.J'I'J.;o, f ?bJ k~flPllL~ Date:. . /o-! 7- #ofHours: -"'--,_..~ ".,.....__..~...._--.-.".---- ..'~'-""-_..--'--'---~~- ,1'""\ -, MEMORANDUM FROM: Mayor and Council Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City ~ger ~ Leslie La~and Amy Marger~, Planning TO: THRU: 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 I'"", ""'" 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 adj acent 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 ,~ r-,. Attachments Alan Richman's 1988 memo Applicants written and sketched submission 3 ~. ""'" ATTACHMENT A ~v'- "'" k~ - "T"\r- 0...... ~ "'-~ -\ 0 be... J..';" c...-...L....,.c:.J. W I~ '^-- S-<.-f1,.c..r 1 ~ C~ c.\~~ a-,^ ~"'f'~'") \. \ -.'\;, '" I"';'~ +-0 e""i=>~~ -h..e.. .;;I.f?r-o V....\ 0':' oV.r h""",,-<:,. (l" \,:.........0;,) ~ VI.:,<;..'\ ore c.... ""r--;:.-Ly ......,~... u.",J.- -C'or. -l-\-~ ?D'H:L""..,....~ ~o+ ~~ ",-,"t"' C ~ ,",,0'* ~ p~ ~r~ ~f>rov~ .4.'=!l<.-Q4""S '? :;J..co '0 ~ ~ ~.+-':,. 13'-') b....;"-~;"-~ +t........., ..(',:....,<..~ ~r~ ""?j~ ......-t....-.;v\" ~9-.... V. .,.~":l.1. .lJ ~~.~ '" '""',.., I ~~,,>c:., - '&",,+...'2.. f.L- '2.."1 .('~ (a-", M"" C..\.>S.T,~ '2.. I""-c... ..fy'^',~~.l. eo \......,.-;..."'...::,........... ..(or- Go I~"':.... hO..Mr..... ~ ~;J~~e.. J LfltZ. I ~e.-> e.v:~':.::3 Q.~&.1"'I'\"\'~ I,..(..or...:~.~. -'PF'ro""~~.-;a.J~ o~ 4- ~e.:a.rc... '*~O "..'''.-.''''.'._''_H. :1" \ -l- ......=-- ..............c.--....:o...-~ ~ ~ ~r:l.-J.-.~ ,,, o.tJ..,~..- +CLV.~. rn~ J.(';'''':I~~, ~ ?-:l-r"4':"""(ML:j -h, r>.o*' J.-...";O..~ Go '-v..~~ w~ J..,r..:.....~,.~ t). 0 ~C'. ~::>.r~~c:...... ..,. ~ IVl..-G.- 'b~......~ r-'^'\..c.-(:::p':'?)....('~or'!:. 10-<'<> W,-+-..... rIJ-'6,~ -+ 0 f ';;l ";) (' ;... ~ ~ . L ~ !==::.c. l-~ "" i 1-) .,. c...-.........vvt. ~ .......I.v..re.. ~.. __ 6;"" t. ~ -n.".., \) I 0 -l ~.. ~: -h.... ..;;.,;.) ~ ca....&..;-\...o-.c.. . .c, v,,<:"":.. ~ \-...:J +' l .G., . ~...... 'L~_. \..>J..o.(?%1\.-c-. ~c..,,:~o..-- 'w~. 4- o. be.... n..-eA-. -", 4 b~ <ir -u~) A.. ( I c9.-~ h~ e-....o~~ o-G..h.a... ':l..c..-h...._1. er.-k.rl'a. .;. ctsv4~ n-b:. d.-r~v...~_.h- po\.d~_~. ~.~:~+o ",^~.w:~ .n~:-rO~5\~~."'e.w.\;I.'. h,,-t- ~.A,.JA-<-'i~l!:.... b~_,), ~..~\A.~ ._..,-.--,k""_Q.+.'f'X-~ MeA. ...-\+. rn~ bc....;L. <QD";"\J..-e..a.+o;"o+ O""\.~ "'---.. b-('~, /) w""L~-s.~, po.~~~~ ~. ta.l~. ~~~: ~c.~--=-,>" '-'---.- o~.:l.-\..",c- c:. ~~. d.r~''^'P_-a....I:.C'''~4.J s. ...'::\.\~, E>oL 1-\..; b;,... +or- ,.._--P:c.~.~~.~~-,h..-_C\..~c.D.......-.c:..:,LHe...d..~.<:o.,."Ll. "'~ aU.' ....".,---,-ct~,:.e-~c...J......""'-~.".. '8 .(..\ \. S'Z.e-.&C"'::::kV1 ~c;".. ~ .::l.(,,"~~~ '~_..-. 0,"* .::l.. -::>\-......,.\-:w---1;2>'~1::;"'+,Sc...e...tvk.~ 'Ec~ ~lc:::... ~ 1) l-"""\ i/,\ )~ ~~ .fll.l,. jlll 3 'Iv ~, l .r\ _LUt-UGJ<L\ ~tL_ EX~1IBJ-r' ,/'\ '^ ,. ::r ~~ ~:lll J's .0 r- rJ I ,) N No<"r-n~l t1\....\I:of.o 1') p...r e..~.. r"n"1'\-t- IZl.d<::- ~ S."'SE<;:;> 0":> "'L.~V, Oe\c,l~u..'j APp","ovec F3>'tCITY . - We\.-s / --/ ....... -- -.....- ".:.....6... AJ A i u ' ... ,..... ,......-. ... ....L G.Rou >..Ie ' .,. -" .... ..--. .-,-,.".'----" ,-- _H, 14 I:STOR-Ie. GR.ADE (u:>'E: 0 FOR- ~o' ) { c.0....<..0 \.>...'" e;' t-l,,;>Et:> 'I'" .,., ." ". " . ., LWOUl..O_.H,t,>,Y_E a'e. EN ....C.CEP-r.... BLot::. t==,,1Z.;e.A:>E.M~,...;r :2 LoTS CL~__~J-~__ITH_<5WAL. E.Toeo_GRApqy i ..--7"'zo~.. -.t ... ... ....._._. ._._._..u... _..___.n_______."" ___._.._ _...._....._..._~__..___.._._ ....__..___.__..._.___"._,_..._.. .__... a . .'_,__._m_.___.._,__,,,._,.._,___,__ .1.__.._m ,~~..,__._. "....,_ '."'._'''___.'.__''''..__".__ _. ') .. " -. --.---...... --.----..-----...-,------Q --_. .------,...-.-...-,---"'.-----....--." ---_..._.._.~._.~_._-_._.~---_. ...,---- .~~:~:;:?-~~~~~-:-:~:,-:~--~~~~~'=-- , _ a~~~x' 'C... \"~,3?:B--.~.' r.:;'.i...o.i~~__ ~_~~:;.aHe:/JT'~___ t L.QI~-WIT-ld'RJC6cTQPOGR.APH y ,~. 1"'""\ t;. ...,..,......'1 ~\ ~... <=> J; .""\0 f'e::> c.~~+l'-1 ~ \-l\~\T \. ~""'''1Ct-''I~..:rr .r<."',..:e c.F\""""'I4F....",ora. \oJO'" ~...rz-l<:.-r...p..'>-J Z.O~: A-r>;,Ov'2 l-)" ......rvr-.'- a. ~OU NO) 1..1.\..l F t:l. f2-.",0 I. OT' ~ . \)J'-r~ 5' LI.H:. ",eTe po, a.. \2- \ o.~ e- L 0 ':,,$.2. J!-,o....:J ~ V'\ a..4u,:>.A, fI rO..A.;V'<k...,-inb.e.. c;; \.A...+" 6t ol.^.n'i-2:'~'\' t-he vv;;l ~ t-o l?;o ~e rr"len.'4:-', F~F. e I~v~+\o n :1;", c;.Oh1~c..;z.~~_~- C W Hh 0......+ d ~~;n~;;:; pro b Ie-In os Y , b.. ..1HIS,lAu.rf>fR. c:.O,,",OI-rIOt--l V!q:>_ce;:,oLvJ:1:>,,-r IW",,-rIH';::: ,"'\ u e. r>....,A. >-,...,e D tA l-' \.. P e \J -e L..?p~,...n-: W'.A--:,. A? f"-P-O u,a c> ..n_'.'~'i"- r~-e: c.. ~cr'1-- r-5....j rz. A.'\ s:.f.bo-lc..,.-r~ Ial C j7.. tl'ce":;.. 0 F ."-L-l ~ u - ? u:> fi> .....tz._ &.... o.T.:~ ,. (v." I-\...:.~...;z- I.U o.kli...- ;;'I.U;~ p. Po G:. I eN. 0, A") -. .- P-'-'" .. .-. a.,-,c.,e.>-A-c-'(':::vtt <--s 0 ('\.l ~ +'^-l 0..1 oA~,1 ,^--\k~&c<.J("1o PIV-<-(-'_ .-'...-'...'---.----h.;a.I)-A.:I'A.v-v... s.....,-:1- t.:... c:..o ......S-do b.......::,L. a-\- \, :'--J>.J..., LD ,*.3, :2.., ..W'G:,--;;:',G~~.l2-ec,..,~ Z'I-lc.;e- L.a,. ~.. ... .,.. ,1. h.'Lb......, 14. ....+or. c..." r"""~(J"'.:vlur.",,.l Gra.........J., ') w':\-~ ~....e...J.....+o _un e"#\::..b\.~.~""_+\....e.._:?D., H""....;m.....n h.c..~ ~ ~~ o~-t1No- ""o'^-...~ .. m. (V\.o+-,+t....e...W'I.~~r::~k p-er \" b ~.bO\J<"'0H"_" b . . (',. -CI +.. "/-1- . .__.u__.._ ~ 1.-}-7t: ;l.L"""~""'~-+~""', "". -;,. 1r... .' .._. 0 Q r::.... 0,_ 13>. L , a ~'e.. -t-t.-._r- . .--.-."..-. W'I~-e.)t...+.e.r..or::-+:v\": c;.,v., ~c.Ql..d ~ ",,~)_f'Y\...(..._h e-,..d;\.::":~~o-f, .... .,,--...._.~_?&4..\J&,....:.....~-'-w a~_,~......,.._'C.,:':l..'5....J... ..,_M. ~ 1.:::., .:..-~. 1+- j~::. ..., .__.__,__1 v'\;\. P o~.;.PI.....~ .(c\n.L~~_!L~.~,,l,.\""\.'oe.1fe!::_.:!J:,,,~ho.:)Ct:r"'" ~. ::.\:Co..<:~~,_&r,v"''-''<>.'1 ._,.",_,__..LA.U."...._l.,,!>'f" _.z.,) ..... ~-' ."..."'.".__.___,_____._.,_ _._,___..____". ~,.!.-. __J" ~,~ ;., J..,,' ~I.'t.f-y....> pO; ~_l?.,::I,_~~~~~=~_J.9.0 ~(,L, l'\ 0 +. ~ L4c:..c. -I~, .-...--..~~f_P~~. t)j!._~_.6 () ...c-~c-_ }_q,t-__~_~~_=".J~J~eh"'hL~;~\\'(. beCo.uS, . . __.___s#- ~:......rE.~~~a:>:'~-"~,,~. ~m_~.",__'_~,..--,:'::,,,-':'=.... . ... '''''.,_..__ ,,____ J..-,__.__.-=r~,_ d;+~b..lL...h.~~,L~ f'~F -E.I..v,,+~,_L~+:3_ w...~.._"__..,___,, .-----<;,OM~v.t-__'''''I~f.:l.,fc.~.~~,~ w-a.~ ~oc:.L.o~_. 2., ( "" k7~ ~S~vl.~..J " \..o-*_.-3~. ellW\'A~_J~o~ o.k..) 51~~e..~Sh-:l..~.a. C.OM~OYl d r ~ v-c::.- . ~. I"'"'" ~ U,j1-4-~ \ "';;. O?:...,) C;;;c::.-\li)~ of J,.)O, A?ri2--cJ...r't-_::r~ B;i)~~aI-.::JT'~ ;;.., The... b~...."-",,,,~ CU"'-i::.-!rv<<=--4;-IClr'\ v:JD-.l..I.!- >".D-r . :l- \ +c-r +k.c:... \ 00<:::-,>> C)* ~ "'-- O..<-",-~ l. P...., b ~ Y\ \ ~h.a.r "t1.-c... ~ ??ro..J ~ h "'~~ \,U, \ t' 10'ol<::-: b'.0-k.r- ~..{'~ .c'V''':I~ i-o. <f:) r:..)'-';,.......~ "7; .......:.-c.... ~ h.;~-1 Dr: c:..>g r::J.~ '-UL.-c.J K."'-.::.ol-... ~, ~ 3<)' t-1~I""",,,,,,,^-, -ro .j-'t..::...;?",,,,,"k-a{ r::c{ '"'2-. 1 -+' .~ -e.-l-... v~J.,. <5 "",..('.:Jr -\-t..e...('. .;...:... kJ ..(', u(;) r h 'lo..J- b....."-,,,,,-, vt..",-.l.. w k. .:...-(,... w;:) "d J-, h ~ Yw\ CL.-f -h........ .b ~ ~ c:.+d c- n~\ __ - -k-......(,;""': c;.. /.-a <:9- .... ----------- ~~.9-~ wou.lJ-. Irr.. ,.. ,-t-z;) ~ b~ \o..uu- --- -,----..---....-----. ~ CrL-:lft~ \.1',,-..? {.t ~. vv-<lre...> b":. '4 \-..~~l.:J: ~--,-- b",uT'~ ..(:.....:",~~~-"~D<)r- l.-V~c:-J.-.u.>.:\ t Jtr"~.b...f~ _ .' .-, U. ....SI ~ 1<...+ l~ <?w ;0.~"" W 0:> ....1<9, 1....-, ,'r.-- t?) h ::J..vc...... b <C4-..-y ~~~.<~ ~ ' . , I'" () -" m_. -" ________,____v.... . .. w...... Dr J-G.(:'- +-0 a. r'4-"",", ,.\ "- .b...,t.A ,~ ~l -tc...> (, ~ .m. '...____... _~- b"":', \ ~ h ~ b."", to...., e--o "'..~ "'-' -t u C-~{ UW\. . . ,,-'.----------.--- +o_~ b~_, C', '::f r.......L..s.., .'_' .----------------c'.-::r..............o'" l-~. ato~ ~,.:......... 5.....~ lo..:.... ~ b'j....~ .--------..------- ,,- ~ C: 0 "l-'L ~ . c. roo "~..l-c F.. j::: ) I .f. -h-- -,.----,.-------b;.,.-\-v'\f',<:...>.~ro~,,~.. .....__.4-..,=_..W-D-...l~ s\~o... . . ._,___________U_""__.~. ~ c-:>.,g, , -:.... -9t>-r_, ~.. !.-e.....'><-<oo4.. La + z... w.....-.:.- . ....,----".. ___u__ \...l.......J-.."'->..~,,__l:::4....,e..:..+wf>I,;,., ~ ~ r~ C ?..,....,. --.- .~-u-u~ ~l~...-tE<)~,~+'~h~b,.'j~,,~:~:~~ u_______~.._____,_'?_-\.~~ ~~~. ).~,^" ~, ~ ~t.o('" l..i)+,~ ------- ---.----~"""'.:....V..L.;,.~c...a..Ik.~, ~c._~,,~ ~~~a.A.,.I;;........."'::.- ._c::{Dr--u~-k-3. ;-,::I::\-~_J,.1,.o..":~. o.b~ e.J.\.;,..~ \o..O-..<-Q. ,.,0 -I- be::. _ ,,--_..,:) ~4;4\ ....h~;.__._"'__,__...___ . ___'_..__ ---.._....~--_._----_. - ,.-...----.. ......._, -- .-.....--".....-..,',-- ......_'.~_...-.,..._.__ _......._..._..._~, _._ ~~.m_"_.._..__~,,. ""'" .,-., , ATTACHMENT B MEMORA.NDUM TO: fPJr- Ala~ Richman, Planning and Development Director ~ Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager Aspen city council THRU: FROM: 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. f From our review of the records it is clear that the pad elevation was consistently represented by the applicant. It is also clear that ele\'ations 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~n 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 yeur author- ization fer 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. (. ( .~ ,......" ~ \ 2'-- LAW O_FleES GIDEON I. KAUFMAN GIDEON I. KAUFMAN .... PROFESSIONAL C:ORPO~^710i'>l SOX 10001 315 EAST HYMAi'>l AVti'>lUE. SUITE 305 ASP(N, COLOR....OO Bt61l RICHARD S. LUHMAN TELEPHONE AREA coor 3C:? 025-81e6 January 11, 1988 H!\.ND DELIVER Mr. Alan Richman Aspen/Pitkin county Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Alan: 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 your~, , LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I, KAUFl1AN, P.C" :yp~orpor"tiO" Gijeon Kaufman GK/bw cc: Skip Behrhorst 1'""\ ,-, , i: l'L ti~~ -.... Alan Richman December 11, 1987 Page 2 B) Lot #1 - Clarification Euildinq 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 Let ~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 #1. 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 the 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 onl~ 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.Quilding ,height measurements. Thank you for your cooperation and attention to this letter. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. SinCe~elY'D ':g; 'C.-;f)" . , '-.I b ' (1 ~~? t/:::):;/~ ~ David G. Behrhorst vice President .> cc: Glen Horn Gideon Kaufman DGB/ar ATrACHMENr 1 t-, IAND USE APPLICATION FURM '-', 1} Project ~ WELSCH RESIDENCF. - INRTJ'RgrpANTTln. P n n PI ll.1'Jl 7\Mti"'P.1DMlrl.TI'fI 2) ~ect Loca"'on ~~'OJ'J ,\,.."I,; LOT 1 tlTF. PT,:ll..~'R .c:an:mT'UTQTrH\r (.f'.....'I""n'l~r]:: kFlSUR aE: TeR T9:R TTt.e) (irrlicate street address, lot & block nl:miJer, legal description wheJ::e apprcpriate) 3) 5) ~ zoning R-15 P.U.D, 4) Lot Size 15,188 square feet lIH?licant.s Name, l\ddI:ess & EtJc>I1e if Susan Welsch 17686 Caminito Hercuba San Diego, Calc 92128 619-485-7326 6) Representative's ~, l\ddI:ess & R10ne if Richard Y. Neilev, Jr 201 North Mill Street, Suite 102, Aspen, Colo. 81611 303-925-9393 7) 'lYPe of lIH?lication (please check all that apply) : Oxrlitional Use O:>nceptual SPA Final SPA O:>nceptual Historic Dev. Speci"l Review Final Historic Dev. 8040 Greenline Conoeptua1 IUD Final IUD Minor Historic Dev. ; stream Mai:gin Historic Dennlition ~.VieW PlaDa SUI:xlivisian Historic Designation Corrlaniniumization ~ TextjMap AnErrlment GO:> Allol::uent ~ ExEnption Lot Split;lLot LiM Adj~ 8) Descl:"iption approximate pl:t:lperty) . of sq. Exist:iri:J Uses ()'1Imher ani type ft.; nmDer of LWi..........,,; any previClUS of ex:ist.iDJ st:rucbIres; approvals granted to the Residence under construction pursuant to approved P,U.D (Plat approved June 19,1987). This aoolication for pl~T Ampnnm,:r.n+ coovc ~rr'l""Q~7~1 gf t.he UE:e of variation in aradp- Alp,\7;:at"inn ::I~ y""p,...pcu:::>n+on rhn"';n'J .the P TT D 3.:@:@rsnal EJrocess. 9) Description of Developnent Application No new or addit:ion;:al np'\1Plnpm~::.n+ ;'C! rr....T.....C!o~ -FQ"':"' t.R:9 site TaB ssle issld:c is that of t:hAt=lpprnpri :::I"""" mO:=I1H:! .,:.....'1'" ..,9+0...."'.;.....oj R'J the 91e~>:3.tieR fE'sm t.'*tieR measurement~ rp.:l ~rp.:n rC"'l t-ho:;l> c:mh_g-r:::lor'lo:;l> h~soTn=""+-i'r9 tg lae t.:a]tBB 10) Have you attached the follow.in:j? _ Response to At:t:adJJIent 2, Minim..nn Sllhni<c<:ion O:lllterrt:s --.X.- Response to Attad1ment 3, Specific Sllhni<c<:ion O:lllterrt:s Response to Attad1ment 4, Review standards for Your Application . .-.. /', V""\ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen city council fP-f-- THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager FROM: Alan Richman, Planning and Development Director ~ 1010 ute Avenue Height Variation Confirmation RE: 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 s'ubmissions, 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 eleyations 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 ~n the final plat, and since section 24 -8.26, Amendments, does not give me the authority to amend the plat in this manner, we seek yeur author- ization fer 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. ~ , -~ Riebard Yo lIlelley, Jr. . Eugllile '/if. Akfer lAW OFFICES OF RK:HABDY. NElLE:V, Jr., P.C. 600 East Hopkins AveaHe; Suite 3 Aspen, ,Cllibtada'ltl611 FAX Nuniber . (303l92O'2007 (3031 92'5,9393 . OctO'ber 17, 1989 HAND DELIVERY Ms. Leslie Lamont Planning Department 130 SO'uth.Galena Street Aspen~ COJ.or,ado 81611 Re: ,Height Issues Regarding LOt 3, Ute Place SubdivisiO'n 'Dear Leslie: This, letter' is a fO'IIO'w-up to' O'ur many cO'nversatiO'ns ",ver the past several weeks regarding the elevatiO'n frO'm which height is to', be, measured O'n LO't3O'fthe Ute Place SubdivisiO'rr. As you know, I represent Susan Welsch, the O'wner O'rLO't 3. In your SeptElIl\!:ler 20,. 1989 memO' to' City Council regarding this matter,yoti refer. to' the issue as . O'ne invO'lvirig' "height variatioIl;, " HO'~ever, the O'veral.l height O'f the. building will nO't lie affected in al),y way.bya,detenninatiO'n th,at the elevation O'f the 'building pad fO'r LO't 3is that which was. presented in the grading plan as, part O'ftheconceptualPUD s.llbmittal prO'cess, and nO't the 'natural. grade which is .two feet lO'wer. " " A g;ading plan was subIRitted by the develO'per .O'f Ten Ten Ute SubdivisiO'n which specifically identified apprO'ximate "pad elevations "which were to" be used fO'r 'purpO'ses. of determining the pO'int frO'm whicnmeaSllreD.Ients regarding' die' dimensiO'ns O'f buildings within .the SubdivisiO'n would' be tak.en. In particular ,Lot 3 calls fO'r'a "pad elevatiO'n" of 7,974 feet, whereas the natural grade fO'r that s'ite was 7,972 fe~t. I submit herewith a: CO'Py O'f blue print . page 3, entitled "Grading Plan'" which 'was submitted to' the City as , par.t of the 'conceptual:.PUDprO'cess. ' ", .. YO'U willrecaTI that a similar issue was .raised in cO'nnectiO'n with LO't 1 O'f" the SubdivisiO'n. .on January 11, 1988, AttO'rney Gideon Kaufman, representing the develO'per 'O'f Ten''l'en Ute, . wrote Alan Ricbman, the Planning DirectO'r; regarding avariatiO'n in the measurem.entO'f base elevatiO'n fO'r LO't 1. A CO'Py O'f that . letter is'iitti!lched heretO'. .Ml::. Kaufman tO'O'k the positi",n that the variation in elevatiO'ns was cO'nsistently presel)ted thrO'ugh conceptual, .preliminary and final PUD apprO'yal, but through a L i""'. t""'\ Letter to Ms. LaJllont 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^CityCouncil dated January 15, 1988, a copy of which is attached, the Planning Department rec01lllllended that a minor plat aJIIendment 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 saJlle fac::tual underpinn- ings apply. ^ I also enclose ^ herewith a drawing prepared by Ms. Welsch's architects d~onstrating the different grades and reflecting the fact that the overall height of the house is not al tered 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 a.l:ready in place extend some three and one-half feet aDOve the natural grade. (The Building Department allows foundation walls to extend approximately a foot and one.-halfabove 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 perJilit 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 iss.ue 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 aJIIendment with respect to Lot 1 otightto 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 aJIIendment to allow use of the pad elevation for purposes of determining grade arid heights for the building.. I propose the following aJIIendment to the plat for the Subdivision: ~ ~ Letter to Ms. Lamont October 17, 1989 Page'3 In accordance with S24-8.3(a) of the Municipal Code of the <;:ity of Aspen, Colorado, 'the dimensions of the building located on Lot 3 of the Subcl.ivislon 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, 19'89. In our discussions, I believe we have determined that'it,WQuld 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 1 hOWev~r, because 0'1: 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- mentrequest. 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, RYN/agk Enclosures RICHARD Y. NEILEY, JR., P.C. ~t>>Ui tt . It ',! n, '-j~/a.c;jt Richard Y. Ne{/le;~