HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.210 Sesame St.A015-03
CASE NUMBER
PARCEL In #
CASE NAME
PROJECT ADDRESS
PLANNER
CASE TYPE
OWNER/APPLICANT
REPRESENTATIVE
DATE OF FINAL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
PZ ACTION
ADMIN ACTION
BOA ACTION
DATE CLOSED
BY
A015-03
2737-074-20002
Alain DeGraeve Annexation Petition/Rezoning
210 Sesame St Aspen CO 81611
Sarah Oates
Annexation Petition/Rezoning
Alain DeGraeve
Krabacher / Sanders P.C.
ORD 46 OF 2003
06/15/04
D DRISCOLL
-
-
.-,
,-
\
a~.
'-I to of
;)-.oV 3>
...,
,-'
MEMORANDUM
Vllle-
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
Julie Ann Woods, Communit~ Development Director 1
Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer.:Ss::>
2nd Reading-Amendment of the Official Zone District Map to Zone the
Annexed Portion of Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2
DATE:
October 14, 2003
REVIEW PROCEDURE
Rezoning (Two Step Review). City
Council may approve or deny an
application for amendments to the
Official Zone District Map for zoning,
after considering a recommendation
from the Planning and Zoning
Commission, a recommendation from
the Community Development Director, and after considering public comment.
ApPLICANT /OWNER: City of Aspen, Applicant!
Alain Degraeve, Owner
LOCA nON: Annexed Portion of Aspen Electric
Subdivison (see Exbibit "B" for map)
PROPOSED ZONING: R-15 PUD
SUMMARY: Zoning to R-15 PUD a recently
annexed portion of the Aspen Electric Subdivision,
Lot 2. The remainder of the parcel is already
located in the City of Aspen and is zoned R-15
PUD.
ApPROVED AND CURRENT LAND USE: Aspen
Electric Subdivision, Lot 2 is currently developed
with a single-family home. Any future
development will be subject to 8040 Greenline
Review.
SUMMARY:
The Applicant is requesting to assign
zoning to the portion of Aspen Electric
Subdivision, Lot 2 annexed into the
City in July 2003 (see Exhibit "B" for
location), to R-IS PUD. The above-
described portion of Aspen Electric
Subdivision, Lot 2 must be zoned
pursuant to state statute within 90 days
of annexation. The area annexed must
be given a City zoning designation.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Zoning:
The Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2 is a parcel of land which, until recently, was
partially in the city and partially in the county. The parcel is located at 210 Sesame Street,
a private road at the base of Smuggler Mountain. City Council annexed the county portion
on July 14,2003.
As the city is required to provide a zoning designation for an newly annexed property, staff
finds the R-lS PUD Zone District supports the proposed use of the parcel and is consistent
with the adjacent parcels and the portion of the property which is located in the City of
Aspen. The R-lS zone district is a moderate density zone district which allows for single-
family and duplex use. The PUD designation was given to properties with steep slopes
prior to our slope reduction requirement. As staff would like to remain consistent with the
'"
-
surrounding properties, we are recommending the PUD overlay despite the fact there is no
PUD associated with the parcel. This will result in common zoning on the entire parcel,
consistent with neighboring zoning.
STAFF ANALYSIS SUMMARY:
Staff finds that the proposed zoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set forth
in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, to approve an amendment to the official zone
district map. The Planning and Zoning Commission has forwarded a recommendation of
approval to City Council on the proposed map amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Council approve the proposed ordinance to zone Lot 2 of the
Aspen Electric Subdivision to R-15 PUD.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMAnVE):
"I move to approve Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2003, approving the proposed amendment
to the Official Zone District Map to zone the newly annexed portion of Aspen Electric
Subdivision, Lot 2 (as shown on the attached map and legal description) to R-15 PUD."
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
Attachments:
Exhibit A ~- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Annexation and Zoning Map
Exhibit C -- Legal Description of Annexation and Zoning
2
. ,
,
'. ,
"""
EXHIBIT A
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
ZONING TO R-15 (MODERATE-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT WITH A PUD
OVERLAY
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this title.
StaffPinding
Staff does not feel that the proposed zoning application is in conflict with any portion of the
Land Use Code, The City is required to zone a property following annexation and the R-IS
PUD Zone District is compatible with the proposed use.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
StaffPinding
Staff believes that the proposed zoning application is consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan. The property is within the Urban Growth Boundary.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
StaffPinding
Staff believes that the proposed zoning is compatible with the surrounding zone districts and
land uses. These uses include single-family, duplex and multi-family uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
StaffPinding
Staff does not believe that the proposed zoning will have an effect on traffic generation or
road safety. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not
limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks,
drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
3
,
...... "
.-
Staff Finding
Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities. There
will be no increase in development rights due to this zoning. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed zoning application would result in adverse impacts
on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed zoning application will not affect the Community Character
within the City of Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel
or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
Staff Finding
City Staff supported the annexation and subsequent zoning because administering a property
that is wholly in the City is more straightforward than one which is partially in two
jurisdictions.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed zoning application would not be in conflict with the purpose
and intent of the land use code or the public interest.
4
".......,
~.-
o
,......
"'..... h b'+C-
""...~ , '\
.....~
Attachment "A" to Petition for Annexation of Territory to the
City of Aspen
(Legal Description of Area to be Annexed)
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of the said "Mascotte
Lode" which point is also the most easterly corner of Lot 3, Sunny
Park North Subdivision, City of Aspen, pitkin County, Colorado,
thence along the following courses:
S.80021'E. 37.50 feet;
thence S.34027'E. 26.25 feet;
thence S.45024'49"W. 156.89 feet;
thence N.21002'W. 61.29 feet to the easterly boundary of said Lot 3;
thence along the easterly boundary of said Lot 3 N.45024'29"E.
(N.45021'E.) 116.62 feet more or less to the point of beginning.
Call in () from Plat of Sunny Park North Subdivision Plat. All other
calls from Siegel-Mascotte Lode Lot Line Adjustment Plat.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
-3-
[E9rkCircl~
~
.-
/
\
\
,
\
~/
,
I As~n ElectricS~bdivisi2~, L-~t 2 I
- --.._-
IIjI..-
,.....
r',
-
.....
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
:2 c')~ L '\ C/~cJL 'i'e .c'uI
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: - - ,Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLiC HEARING DATE: . h"^S ,200
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I, ~;1 Lt.{ ~_C; L-'t \/1 J\ l .. (name, please print)
being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certifY tllat I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304,060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
-X Publication of notice: By ~le publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
_ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable,
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches,wide
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed ofIetters not
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15})lays
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of
, 200 , to and including the date and time ofthe public
hearing. A photo graph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto.
_ Mailing of notice, By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Sfction
26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) dayS prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class post~ge
prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal government,
school, service district or otller governmental or quasi-governmental agency that
owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the
development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be
those on tile current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more tllan
sixty (60) days prior to the date 'of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and
governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto,
(continued on next page)
,.,
"""
Rezoning or text amendment, Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever tile text of this Title is to be amended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real propeliy in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public
inspection in tile planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
~~b -~-J
gnature
Tl~'e~ "Affidavit Of. Notice" was~owledged befqre me this
oL-J C , 2002z, by 0 J--.'
day
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires:Lf /.;:z.3/ ~::S
Pimuc
RE:ASPEN~S
REZONING
NOTICE 15 HEREBY that a public hearing
wUl be held on ~day. OctOber 14, 2003 at a
meeting to begin al 5:00 p.m. belore the Aspen
City Councll,ai the Aspen City HaD. 130 South Ga-
lena Street, Aspen, Colorado in the City Council
Chambers Room, to cllnskler an application sub-
mitted by the City of Aspen for rezorung. 01 A$pen
Electrk: Subdivision, Lot 2, 210 Sesame Street, AIr
pen, 'Colorado. The parcel. will be zoned R-15
(PUD) as.part 01 the anneu.t1oo 01 the northeast
portion 01 theft'L
For further Informal;" "contact Sarah Oates at
the Aspenl Pitkin nty Community Develop-
ment Department, S. Galena St.,' Aspen. co.
(970)920-5441, ',' I.aspen.co.us. -
. s eIenKalIn Klanderud, MayOr
_ Aspen City Council
Published In The Aspen TImes on September 27,
2003. (0819)
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
UPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
UW GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL
-
-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
r',
'-'
VI (-b
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council r
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Directo
Sarah Oates, Zoning OfficeiSc:2
1 st Reading-Amendment of the Official Zone District Map to Zone the
Annexed Portion of Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2
DATE:
September 8, 2003
REVIEW PROCEDURE
Rezoning (Two Step Review). City
Council may approve or deny an
application for amendments to the
Official Zone District Map for zoning,
after considering a recommendation
from the Planning and Zoning
Commission, a recommendation from
the Community Development Director, and after considering public comment.
ApPLICANT /OWNER: City of Aspen, Applicant!
Alain Degraeve, Owner
LOCA nON: Annexed Portion of Aspen Electric
Subdivison (see Exhibit "B" for map)
PROPOSED ZONING: R-15 PUD
SUMMARY: Zoning to R-15 PUD a recently
annexed portion of the Aspen Electric Subdivision,
Lot 2. The remainder of the parcel is already
located in the City of Aspen and is zoned R-15
PUD.
ApPROVED AND CURRENT LAND USE: Aspen
Electric Subdivision, Lot 2 is currently developed
with a single-family home. Any future
development will be subject to 8040 GreenJine
Review,
SUMMARY:
The Applicant is requesting to assign
zoning to the portion of Aspen Electric
Subdivision, Lot 2 annexed into the
City in July 2003 (see Exhibit "B" for
location), to R-15 PUD. The above-
described portion of Aspen Electric
Subdivision, Lot 2 must be zoned
pursuant to state statute within 90 days
of annexation. The area annexed must
be given a City zoning designation.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Zoning:
The Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2 is a parcel of land which, until recently, was
partially in the city and partially in the county. The parcel is located at 210 Sesame Street,
a private road at the base of Smuggler Mountain. City Council annexed the county portion
on July 14,2003.
As the city is required to provide a zoning designation for an newly annexed property, staff
finds the R-15 PUD Zone District supports the proposed use of the parcel and is consistent
with the adjacent parcels and the portion of the property which is located in the City of
Aspen. The R-15 zone district is a moderate density zone district which allows for single-
family and duplex use. The PUD designation was given to properties with steep slopes
prior to our slope reduction requirement. As staff would like to remain consistent with the
"...
,. ."'"
"-...
""
surrounding properties, we are recommending the PUD overlay despite the fact there is no
PUD associated with the parcel. This will result in common zoning on the entire parcel,
consistent with neighboring zoning.
STAFF ANALYSIS SUMMARY:
Staff finds that the proposed zoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set forth
in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, to approve an amendment to the official zone
district map. The Planning and Zoning Commission has forwarded a recommendation of
approval to City Council on the proposed map amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Council approve the proposed ordinance to zone Lot 2 of the
Aspen Electric Subdivision to R-15 PUD.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMAnVE):
"I move to approve Ordinance No.4b , Series of 2003, approving the proposed
amendment to the Official Zone District Map to zone the newly annexed portion of
Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2 (as shown on the attached map and legal description)
to R-15 PUD."
Attachments:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Annexation and Zoning Map
Exhibit C -- Legal Description of Annexation and Zoning
2
-
'-'
....."...
'-"
ORDINANCE No.1b
(SERIES OF 2003)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT MAP REFLECTING THE ZONING OF THE NEWLY
ANNEXED PORTION OF ASPEN ELECTRIC SUBDIVSION, LOT 2, 210 SESAME
STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel #2737-074-20002
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen is required to establish zoning for all annexed lands in the
City; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department developed an application to zone
the newly annexed portion of the Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2, as described in Section I of the
Ordinance, to the Moderate Density (R-15) Zone District with a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Overlay; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, and zoning in
the vicinity of the subject property, the Community Development Department recommended
approval for the proposed zoning to R-15 PUD; and,
WHEREAS, Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2 shall be subject to the dimensional
requirements of the R -15 zone district; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the zoning under the applicable
provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance furthers and is necessary for the
promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use
Code, City Council approves the application to zone the newly annexed portion of the Aspen Electric
Subdivision, Lot 2 to R-15 PUD Zone District legally described as:
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of the said "Mascotte Lode" which point is also the
most easterly corner of Lot 3, Sunny Park North Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado, thence along the following courses:
S80021' E. 37.50feet;
thence S34 027'E. 26,25/eet;
thenceS45024' 49"W 156,89/eet;
thence N21 002'W 61. 92feet to the easterly boundary of said Lot 3;
.............
,
-
'....
thence along the easterly boundary of said Lot 3 N45 024' 29"E.
(N45 021 'E.) 116, 62feet more or less to the point of beginning.
Call in 0 from Plat of Sunny Park North Subdivision Plat. All other calls
from Siegel-Mascotte Lode Lot Line Adjustment Plat.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
Section 5:
A public hearing was held on the 14th day of October at 5 :00 PM in City Council Chambers, Aspen
City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was
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 this 8th day of September 2003.
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
APPROVED BY the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 14th day of October 2003.
",.. .,
...~,""'"
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
/~. ....
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
,"."",
,,/
EXHIBIT A
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
ZONING TO R-15 (MODERATE-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT WITH AN PUD
OVERLAY
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions of this title.
Staff Finding
Staff does not feel that the proposed zoning application is in conflict with any portion of the
Land Use Code. The City is required to zone a property following annexation and the R-15
PUD Zone District is compatible with the proposed use.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed zoning application is consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan. The property is within the Urban Growth Boundary.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed zoning is compatible with the surrounding zone districts and
land uses. These uses include single-family, duplex and multi-family uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed zoning will have an effect on traffic generation or
road safety. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not
limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks,
3
-
-
. ,
.........
drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding
Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities. There
will be no increase in development rights due to this zoning. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed zoning application would result in adverse impacts
on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed zoning application will not affect the Community Character
within the City of Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel
or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
Staff Finding
City Staff supported the annexation and subsequent zoning because administering a property
that is wholly in the City is more straightforward than one which is partially in two
jurisdictions.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed zoning application would not be in conflict with the purpose
and intent of the land use code or the public interest.
4
~
to:
Ji.
~
,J:.
J
.....
<!;'
~
'"
.:::,'<1
~
::,.'<1
~
J<P
ClEAI.,out
-4-.
_.~
Pl.l.1 8K JO Pll liS
___--W----
------.,..
20' PEDE5IIlU,N&
UTILITY [,I,SEIAHIT
---
.
'"
:;~
LOT ,- 8'
PLAT DOllK51 PAOf:85 z
Electric Subdivision
+ S'?
/'l:f9:J.
.OO.fu....
110011 JJ5 PAGE: 80
2~' I)nci-1
E,I,5EI.IENT
FOllOWS1HE
CENTElloF
BUlIIEOp'r[llNE
AS CONSTRUCTED
EKACTLOCATltIN
OrOETERl.IlNEO
'<I'
$
C< ~'"
f.... i~
'" v"
-"
;.:'6
4i ;::~
.... >.
-< -,
~ j;
c..., ~5
J"
C&J ~~
'" "
SET R[UR
r.o.l.
-
-
TEL CAI'
2ft24J
'"
coo
~
J~.I)'
."
co.
~\
\
\
.
I \
~.
\ \ "
\ \ \\
\ \ \
a
~
II;a
~~
;'!:
~<
&0
:f~i
....~.
ip
)/
:5'"
~:2
j
..,
f...
NOTE: LOT 5 \t....SUTILlTY
EASEMEtIT ACROSS lOT 2
;~~E~og~E~~: I ~AS~Bg :~s I oN
'"
LOT j SUNNY PARK NORTH
,~ ,
-
-
:h-h,h'l C-
Attachment "A" to Petition for Annexation of Territory to the
City of Aspen
(Legal Description of Area to be Annexed)
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of the said "Mascotte
Lode" which point is also the most easterly corner of Lot 3, Sunny
Park North Subdivision, City of Aspen, pitkin County, Colorado,
thence along the following courses:
S.80021'E. 37.50 feet;
thence S.34027'E. 26.25 feet;
thenc~ S.45024'49"W. 156.89 feet;
thence N.21002'W. 61.29 feet to the easterly boundary of said Lot 3;
thence along the easterly boundary of said Lot 3 N.45024'29"E.
(N.45021'E.) 116.62 feet more or less to the point of beginning.
Call in () from Plat of Sunny Park North Subdivision Plat. All other
calls from Siegel-Mascotte Lode Lot Line Adjustment Plat.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
-3-
-
-
) Park Circle
I. /
/'~ /
/ '
I / .
/ '.
'; /
//
//
I /
1/
/
/
~::-/
~"". /
". /
.
\
\
\
.~,
'~...-.......,
~
~
~
.~~
.~
IIiiL.
QJ
(
!t).
r-
,.(
J'
\",.
4;-
~
'l;"
.Q,.
~
'-
,#""
'-
lv'V
0"
bJ;;
0~
!J"
&~
~O
~
~, CrTYOF
~ ASPEN
IP
~:s
~~
.~Jj
'~.~
~:2
~4.;
~
~4.;
'\'
4JS
^"i'!
.... -'"
f.., J....
00
c.., u~
"'~
":6
-~
r., ...."
""'" "<.
~ ".
-....
....~
~ ~lr
~"<
"'" fI)/:]
.:i~
4J o~
"'i
c..,
SET
COR
p
NOTE: LOT 5 HAS UTilITY
EASE~ENT ACROSS lOT 2
ASPEN ELECTRIC SUSOIVsloN
PER BOOK 5~6 PAGE 515
LOT 5 SUNNY PARK NORTH
_S'S--"
...~ .-'..' -. . .
<..~
~,
,
v
...'
,,'
. fv~'
~,
"
1,\
MEMORANDUM
:&: ~.
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Joyce Allgaier, Deputy Director-J\k
FROM: Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer.'::;D
RE: Amendment of the Official Zone District Map to Zone the Annexed Portion of
Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2
DATE: August 19,2003
REVIEW PROCEDURE
Rezoning (Two Step Review). City
Council may approve or deny an
application for amendments to the
Official Zone District Map for zoning,
after considering a recommendation
from the Planning and Zoning
Commission, a recommendation from
the Community Development Director, and after considering public comment.
ApPLICANT /OWNER: City of Aspen, Applicant!
Alain Degraeve, Owner
LOCATION: Annexed Portion of Aspen Electric
Subdivison (see Exhibit "B" for map)
PROPOSED ZONING: R-15 PUD
SUMMARY: Zoning to R-15 PUD a recently
annexed portion of the Aspen Electric Subdivision,
Lot 2, The remainder of the parcel is already
located in the City of Aspen and is zoned R-15
PUD.
ApPROVED AND CURRENT LAND USE: Aspen
Electric Subdivision, Lot 2 is currently developed
with a single-family home. Any future
development will be subject to 8040 Greenline
Review,
SUMMARY:
The Applicant is requesting to assign
zoning to the portion of Aspen Electric
Subdivision, Lot 2 annexed into the
City in July 2003 (see Exhibit "B" for
location), to R-15 PUD. The above-
described portion of Aspen Electric
Subdivision, Lot 2 must be zoned
pursuant to state statue within 90 days
of annexation. The area annexed must
be given a City zoning designation.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Rezoning:
The Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2 is a parcel of land which, until recently, was
partially in the city and partially in the county. The parcel is located at 210 Sesame Street,
a private road at the base of Smuggler Mountain. City Council annexed the county portion
on July 14,2003.
As the city is required to provide a zoning designation for a newly annexed property, staff
finds the R-15 PUD Zone District supports the proposed use of the parcel and is consistent
with the adjacent parcels and the portion of the property which is located in the City of
Aspen. The R -15 zone district is a moderate density zone district which allows for single-
family and duplex use. The PUD designation was given to properties with steep slopes
prior to our slope reduction requirement. As staff would like to remain consistent with the
"'",.....
surrounding properties, we are recommending the PUD overlay despite the fact there is no
PUD associated with the parcel.
STAFF ANALYSIS SUMMARY:
Staff finds that the proposed rezoning application meets or exceeds the requirements set
forth in Land Use Code Section 26.310.040, to approve an amendment to the official zone
district map. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a
recommendation of approval to City Council on the proposed map amendment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the proposed
resolution recommending that City Council approve the proposed map amendment.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
"I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2003, recommending that City Council
approve the proposed amendment to the Official Zone District Map to zone the newly
annexed portion of Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2 (as shown on the attached map and
legal description) to R-15 PUD."
Attachments:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Annexation and Rezoning Map
Exhibit C -- Legal Description of Annexation and Rezoning
2
/
RESOLUTION NO.
(SERIES OF 2003)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONE DISTRICT
MAP REFLECTING THE ZONING OF THE NEWLY ANNEXED PORTION OF ASPEN
ELECTRIC SUBDIVSION, LOT 2, 210 SESAME STREET, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel #2737-074-20002
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen is required to establish zoning for all annexed lands in the
city; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department developed an application to zone
the newly annexed portion of the Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2, as described in Section I of the
Resolution, to the Moderate Density (R-15) Zone District with a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Overlay; and,
WHEREAS, upon review of the application, the applicable code standards, and zoning in
the vicinity of the subject property, the Community Development Department recommended
approval for the proposed rezoning to R-15 PUD; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the
development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets
or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal is
consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2 shall be subject to the dimensional
requirements of the R-15 zone district; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on August 19, 2003, the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved, by a _ to _ L - .J vote, to amend the Official Zone District Map
to zone the newly annexed portion of Aspen Electric Subdivision, as described above, R-15 PUD;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that this resolution furthers and is
necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Section 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use
Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that City Council approve the application
to rezone the newly annexed portion of the Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2 to R -15 PUD Zone
District legally described as:
-~
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of the said "Mascotte Lode which point is also the
most easterly corner of Lot 2, Sunny Park North Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado, thence along the following courses:
S80021' E. 37,50feet;
thence S34 027'E. 26,25 feet;
thenceS45024' 49"W. 156,89feet;
thence N21 002'W. 156.89 feet;
thence along the easterly boundary of said Lot 3 N45024' 29"E..
(N45 021 'E.) 116,62 feet more or less to the point of beginning.
Call in 0 from Plat of Sunny Park North Subdivision Plat, All other calls
from Siegel-Mascotte Lode Lot Line Adjustment Plat,
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
Section 2:
All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 3:
This resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 19th day of
August, 2003.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney
Jasmine Tygre, Chair
"'.."
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
-
........
,"' ."
"''''
EXHIBIT A
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
REZONING TO R-15 (MODERATE-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICT WITH AN PUD
OVERLAY
REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
In reviewing an amendment to the official zone district map, the Planning and Zoning
Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable
portions ofthis title.
Staff Finding
Staff does not feel that the proposed rezoning application is in conflict with any portion of
the Land Use Code. The City is required to rezone a property following annexation and the
R-15 PUD Zone District is compatible with the proposed use.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application is consistent with the Aspen Area
Community Plan. The property is within the Urban Growth Boundary.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding zone districts
and land uses. These uses include single-family, duplex and multi-family uses.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road
safety .
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning will have an effect on traffic generation or
road safety. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
demands on public facilities, and whether the extent to which the proposed
amendment would exceed the capacity of such facilities, including, but not
limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks,
drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
3
-
"""
-
....-
Staff Finding
Staff does not feel that there will be an increase in the demand for public facilities. There
will be no increase in development rights due to this rezoning. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significant adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe that the proposed rezoning application would result in adverse impacts
on the environment. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the
community character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application will not affect the Community
Character within the City of Aspen. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel
or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed
amendment.
Staff Finding
City Staff supported the annexation and subsequent rezoning because administering a
property that is wholly in the City is more straightforward than one which is partially in two
jurisdictions,
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public
interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this title.
Staff Finding
Staff believes that the proposed rezoning application would not be in conflict with the
purpose and intent of the land use code or the public interest.
4
""""......
.~..'.~
........
-
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer ySo
DATE: June 26, 2003
r-
TO:
SUBJECT: Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2
Aspen Electric Subdivision was approved in 1992. As part of an approval, an affordable
housing project was built Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 1. The original parcel was
Sunny Park North Subdivision, Lot 3 and consisted of 18,320 square feet oflot area,
which is heavily sloped. The house currently located on Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot
2 had been built at that time. Prior to the approvals, Sunny Park North, Lot 3 was located
wholly in the City of Aspen and zoned R-15 PUD.
As part of the Aspen Electric Subdivision approvals, Pitkin County granted the owner a
portion of the unimproved Mascotte Lode and 99 Lode parcel, granted a lot line
adjustment to incorporate that land into Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2, and
designated a small building envelope on to which an expansion could encroach into
County jurisdiction. At the same time, the BOCC placed a condition of approval (which
is a criterion of all lot line adjustments) that the applicant would not gain any additional
FAR or development rights through the lot line adjustment. The City zoning has
remained R-15 PUD and the County portion is zoned AR-1 but is treated as R-15 for the
purposes of calculating FAR and height.
The current allowable FAR for the lot is 4,276 square feet. The lot is subject to the City's
slope reduction regulations, which require eliminating lot size for the purpose of FAR on
slopes over 20%. Without the slope reduction, the allowable FAR would be 4699 square
. feet. If the parcel were annexed into the City of Aspen there would be no increase or
decrease in the allowable FAR. When the lot was approved in 1992, the BOCC was very
clear that Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2 is subject to City FAR requirements.
Further, the applicant will be required to go through 8040 Greenline review if the parcel
is redeveloped or if there is any addition to the exiting house.
.
As mentioned above, the BOCC designated a building envelope which extends 25' into
County jurisdiction and is a 60'x 35' x 43' triangle on the Mascotte/99 Lode. Ifannexed
into the City of Aspen, the required setbacks would be ten (10) feet [rom the property line
on both the side and rear yards expanding the envelope to a 120' x 45' square. Currently,
this portion of the lot has a combination of native vegetation and a lawn area installed by
the previous owner.
I I
~~
~': ~
, II
...... ~~
JI,
~C\
~~
~~
/Q( ~
"";2' W
lll:z:
U
~~
\ll.J
\,)-
IJ\-
'<~
X~
~
c
~~ "" "'~
.tJ~
I! .\
"'~
.~
Iii;
'I ~
~
>='s
~
~
A
/0'
/
/"
,
,.~~~'< Q~q. /..
".~~ ,~
'" "'-.... <>' -1 'i-,-y,
'" "~b
""'",
"'",
b
.J
-s'.
.Ly,
s.
?
~~
~
~
/'^ ""
/ '"
'"
"",
~
.~.
'~
,
"
~4J
.~
, ~)
. .
r,t:! &
'{o 3
~
r~
s: ~_
\r--
I
I
I
I
I
L_-~
rJ
I
\", I
"'", I
~
c
.,
~'
,
,
,
., . '". .-. ":.-.
..
r _ . _ _ ___ ..
'=.'841t~~;"'~"";>'lI.f~~'i~1!;
~"::..~ .X/
.-...
-
-
"
~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
J/ Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Department
John Worcester, City Attorney
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
FROM:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
RE:
Annexation Petition
DATE:
March 25, 2003
>
Attached is an annexation petition from Alain Degraeve for lot 2, Aspen Electric
Subdivision.
~
.......
-.
-
.......
~
KRABACHER
SAN D E R S p.c,
Curtis 8 Sanders
csanders@krabacher.com
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
. Also admitttIdlttNew YorlI'and NewJersey
Jerome Professional Building
201 N. MILL STREET. SUITE 201
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611-1557
T(970) 925-6300
F(970) 925-1181
B, Joseph Krabacher
Curtis B. Sanders
Jennifer M, Causing'
Diana L. Godwin
email/internet address:
krabacher@krabacher.com
tf.
FEB 2003
CIty M1orn"y',
(1HJl;t~
February 24, 2003
By Hand Delivery
John Worcester
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Alain Degraeve; Annexation petition
Dear John:
I represent Alain Degraeve. Mr. Degraeve is owner of Lot 2,
Aspen Electric Subdivision (the "Subject Property").
The Subject Property is comprised of a portion of former Lot 3,
Sunny Park North Subdivision, plus a portion of the Mascotte and 99
Lode property.
In 1992, the previous owners of the Subject Property (Barry and
Sharon Siegel) developed three affordable housing units on Lot 3,
Sunny Park North Subdivision, and in connection with such
development, a portion of the Mascotte and 99 Lode property was added
to Lot 3 in order to maintain the City of Aspen's minimum lot area
for Lot 3. After the Mascotte and 99 Lode property was added to Lot
3, Mr. and Mrs. Siegel resubdivided Lot 3 Sunny Park North
Subdivision into Lots 1 and 2, Aspen Electric Subdivision, and
constructed the Aspen Electric Affordable Housing Project on Lot 1.
As a result of the addition of the Mascotte and 99 Lode
property, the resulting Lot 2, Aspen Electric Subdivision straddled
the City of Aspen boundary with pitkin County, leaving the portion of
the Mascotte and 99 Lode property outside of the City of Aspen city
limits. Mr. Degraeve now desires to annex the portion of the
Mascotte and 99 Lode property into the City of Aspen.
Accordingly, with this letter, I attach one original Petition
for Annexation of Territory to the City of Aspen. Please review and
process the enclosed materials at your earliest convenience. If you
have any questions, please feel free to give me a call.
-
-
/,.",
-
Very truly yours,
SANDERS, P.C.,
Corporation
By:
--
-
~., ....
...."'"
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
THE UNDERSIGNED (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner")
hereby petitions the Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado for the
annexation of an area, to be referred to as the "Mascotte Annexation"
to the City of Aspen, said area is more particularly described on
Attachment "A" attached hereto.
The petitioner alleges:
1. That is desirable and necessary that such area be annexed to
the City of Aspen.
2. That the requirements of Section 31-12-104 and 31-12-108,
C.R.S. exist or have been met.
3. That not less than one-sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the
area to be annexed is contiguous with the boundaries of the City of
Aspen.
4. That a community of interest exists between the area
proposed to be annexed and the City of Aspen.
5. That the area proposed to be annexed is urban or will be
urbanized in the near future.
6. That the area proposed to be annexed is integrated with or
capable of being integrated with the City of Aspen.
7. That the Petition herein comprises more than fifty percent
(50%) of the landowners in the area and owns more than fifty percent
(50%) of the area to be annexed, excluding public street, alleys and
lands owned by the City of Aspen.
WHEREFORE, said petitioner requests that the Council of the
City of Aspen approve the annexation of the area described on
Attachment "A", legal description of the land.
The Petitioner reserves the right to withdraw this Petition and
his signature therefrom at any time prior to the commencement of the
roll call of the City Council for the vote upon the second reading of
the annexation ordinance.
The Individual petitioner signing this Petition represents that
he owns all of the area described on Exhibit "A".
-1-
-
'"
-
-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this petition for
Annexation this 2/ day of brvM , 2003.
e
,
PtA- J J.J .QE'GIZ.-A€Vt?
Petitioner's Printed.Name
f/.o
Address
~CP(
~ ::rr-
g IbJ''L
1)5Pt'IJ / Co
City, State, Zip Code
-2-
, ,
Attachment "A" to Petition for Annexation of Territory to the
City of Aspen
(Legal Description of Area to be Annexed)
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of the said "Mascotte
Lode" which point is also the most easterly corner of Lot 3, Sunny
Park North Subdivision, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado,
thence along the following courses:
S.80021'E. 37.50 feet;
thence S.34027'E. 26.25 feet;
thence S.45024'49"W. 156.89 feet;
thence N.21002'W. 61.29 feet to the easterly boundary of said Lot 3;
thence along the easterly boundary of said Lot 3 N.45024'29"E.
(N.45021'E.) 116.62 feet more or less to the point of beginning.
Call in () from Plat of Sunny Park North Subdivision Plat. All other
calls from Siegel-Mascotte Lode Lot Line Adjustment Plat.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
-3-
,..,
~ "
-
'00........
Attachment "B" to petition for Annexation of Territory to the
City of Aspen
(Affidavit of Circulator)
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF PITKIN
The undersigned, being first duly sworn upon nis oath states:
That he was the circulatory of the attached Petition for Annexation
and that each signature therein is the ature of the person whose
name it purports to ne. ~
Circulator
nature
..sI-
d;/ day of
Subscribed and swo~n to before me this
Fehf11.OM-( ,2003 by O-utl-i s ~
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
.9/.;;. '-I / 0 ..;
Commission Expiration
~f~il2J'~~ -' 'oj
.: : ().~.:.. ;"':"_:~'t~~';,~~~<' \".
.r :',iJ~~l O;j ".'.
: ;:~ f i7:---:~-' J.. C/ ': :~
".:..,'. ('V) 0 .. :, .
-:.:::~;~::~:. .';:'~, d '.-
'."i/.!::-
-4-
,'"
~..,....
Attachment "C" to Petition for Annexation of Territory to the
City of Aspen
(Proof of Ownership)
I, Curtis B. Sanders, as attorney for Alain Degraeve, as
Applicant, hereby certify that he is the sole record owner of the
real property described immediately below (the "Property"), and
therefore constitutes more than 50% of the landowners in the area
proposed for annexation, as said area is described immediately below,
and more than 50% of the land in such area, exclusive of streets and
alleys: .
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of the said "Mascotte
Lode" which point is also the most easterly corner of Lot 3,
Sunny Park North Subdivision, City of Aspen, pitkin County,
Colorado, thence along the following courses:
S.80021'E. 37.50 feet;
thence S.34027'E. 26.25 feet;
thence S.45024'49nW. 156.89 feet;
thence N. 21002' W. 61.29 feet to the easterly boundary of said Lot
3 ;
thence along the easterly boundary of said Lot 3 N.45024'29"E.
(N. 45021' E.) 116.62 feet more or less to the point of beginning.
Call in () from Plat of Sunny Park North Subdivision Plat. All
other calls from Siegel-Mascotte Lode Lot Line Adjustment Plat.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado.
I hereby further certify that as of the date hereof, the
Property is subject to the following encumbrances of record:
1. Right of the proprietor of a vein 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
Patents recorded in Book 175 at Page 168 ~nd Book 175 at Page 171.
2. Restriction which does not contain a forfeiture or reverter
clause, as contained in instrument recorded in Book 206 at Page 301,
providing as follows: That no trailer camps or trailer parks shall be
permitted or shall be constructed.
3. Easement Agreement recorded September 16, 1977 in Book 335
at Page 80.
4. Right of way for the Salvation Ditch as revealed by Plat of
Sunny Park North subdivision in Plat Book 3 at Page 52 as Reception
No. 122358.
-5-
f""
-
~..........
........
5. Terms, conditions, obligations, and provisions of Resolution
of the Board of County Commissioners of pitkin County, Colorado
granting the Aspen Electric Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Line
Adjustment, Resolution No. 92-387 as set forth in instrument recorded
November 13, 1992 in Book 694 at Page 447 as Reception No. 350755.
6. Terms, conditions, obligations, provisions and easements of
agreement by and between Barry C. Siegel, Sharon L, Siegel and Robert
C. Smith and Glenda D. Smith, for a Utility Easement for Lot 3 and
Lot 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision as set forth in instrument
recorded September 22, 1987 in Book 546 at Page 515 as Reception No.
293066.
7. Access Easement granted unto Barry C. Siegel and Sharon L.
Siegel as set forth in instrument recorded February 4, 1993 in Book
702 at Page 756 as Reception No. 353649.
8. Terms, conditions, obligations, and provisions of
Subdivision Agreement for the Aspen Electric Employee Housing as set
forth in instrumn4et recorded February 19, 1993 in Book 703 at Page
944 as Reception No. 354094.
9. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Ordinance
No. 62 (Series of 1992) An Ordinance of the Aspen City Council
Granting Subdivision Rezoning for Moderate-Density Residential PUD
(R-15) to Affordable Housing (AH), GMQS Exemption and
Condominiumization, Lot 3, Sunny Park North Subdivision, Park Avenue,
Aspen, Colorado as set forth in instrument recorded March 5, 1993 in
Book 705 at Page 277 as Reception No. 354575.
10. Easements, rights of way and other matters as shown and
contained on the Sunny Park North plat recorded in Plat Book 3 at
Page 52 as Reception No. 122358, the Siegel-Mascotte Lot Line
Adjustment plat recorded February 19, 1993 in Plat Book 30 at Page 84
as Reception No. 354092, and the Aspen Electric Subdivision plat
recorded February 19, 1993 in Plat Book 30 at Page 85 as Reception
No. 354093.
11. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions as set forth
in Easement Agreement recorded May 29, 2002 as Reception No. 468021.
12. A Deed of Trust dated May 29, 2002 executed by Alain
Degraeve to the Public Trustee of pitkin County, Colorado to secure
an indebtedness of $1,000,001.00 in favor of Washington Mutual Bank,
FA, recorded May 29, 2002 as Reception No. 468054.
-6-
,..........
Dated: February~, 2003
'~dm
J.-
Subscribed and swo~n to before me this ~ day of
,JJibrUll,Mj. , 2003 by ('.Wl!-is ~ .
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
d--~ /ot.J
Commission Expi~ation
~~01'~~
tar Public
-7-
c-".' <',
i' ::-.....'.O/7').".'c
~.. : " ' {/','. ,.0'
: :?j! "0" . "/ .c. ': \~
: ':..;1:' ~~2 v- .: ~.~ .;-
...-
--
...
.".,r
Attachment "D" to Petition for Annexation of Territory to the
City of Aspen
(Four Prints of Annexation Map)
-8-
r"
'--
~~
<
~^4
~
_5-S--"
~
~
~
4..
c
r
\....
YEL CAP
28243
1..;0
"''<
W~
",t:
:::~
f:1~
"'<0
"'~
~. CITY OF
f: ASPEN
&~
~fS
"'<5
,~g
'~~
ii/2
SET
COR
4J~
iY!i'
.... ...",
[.., j...
00
":l v~
"'::l
;=:0
-~
ll1 ...~
~ '<.
-...
...'"
- 15'"
.... ,,"
t.ry f};~
;;J'"
4J o~
"'" ~li
REBAR
L.
p
NOTE: LOT 5 HAS UTILITY
EASEMENT ACROSS LOT 2
ASPEN ELECTRIC SUBDIVSION
PER BOOK 546 PAGE 515
IN
LOT 5 SUNNY PARK NORTH
PLAT BK 30 PG 65
____--w-----
E
.-
20' PEDESTRIAN ~
UTILITY EASEMENT
~~
~'
,
"
...."
C,'
,,'"
~,
..
/
,
LOT 1-
"'
~
""~
, ~
ro .
~-
. ~
0_
o
1
34.0'
PLAT BOOK 57 PAGE 85 Z
Aspen Electric Subdivision
~
c
'"
BOOK 335 PAGE 80
24' DITCH
EASEMENT
FOLLOWS THE
CENTER OF
BURl ED P I PELI NE
AS CONSTRUCTED
EXACT LOCAl ION
OT DETERMINED
I
\
i \
z
~
t \
~.
\ \ \\
\ \ \\
\ \ \
NO CAP
'"
"
SET
COR
/
'>
. F .
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2003
4:30 PM
SISTER CITIES ROOM
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B, Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES ~ 5; ,;).003
III, DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS
IV. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PARK PLACE (707 E. HYMAN) CONSOLIDATED
CONCEPTUAL/FINAL PUD, CONDITIONAL USE, AND
GMQS EXEMPTIONS FOR AH, Chris Bendon
B. LOT 2, ASPEN ELECTRIC SUBDIVISION INITIAL CITY
ZONING, Sarah Oates
V. BOARD REPORTS
VI. ADJOURN
'( ~
~ ,. , ....
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes AUl?:ust 05. 2003
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS ........................................2
MINUTES .................................................................................................................2
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS .............................................3
MISCELLANEOUS LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS.................................... 3
MISCELLANEOUS LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS.................................... 4
MAROON CREEK CLUB PUD/SP A AMENDMENT, CHANGE IN USE .......... 5
ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE PUD AMENDMENT - SIGNAGE.................. 8
'r ..
1
....."~...,
""'"
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes Au!!ust 05, 2003
Jasrrllne opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
at 4:35 pm in Sister Cities Meeting Room. Eric Cohen, Ruth Kruger, Jack
Johnson, Roger Haneman, John Rowland, Steve Skadron and Jasrrllne Tygre were
present. Dylan Johns was excused. City of Aspen staffin attendance: David
Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Chris Bendon, James Lindt, Sarah Oates, Scott
Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMISSIONER, STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jack Johnson asked about the car inside the hole at the Grand Aspen site and what
was happening with the project.
Ruth Kruger asked how the mall-leased space was determined. David Hoefer
replied that it was a dollar amount based on square footage and Kathy Strickland
was the contact.
Eric Cohen asked about the progress on the Bavarian. Chris Bendon replied that it
was being remodeled for affordable housing; the entire PUD was based upon the
building being remodeled because of the access. Cohen asked if the rest of the
project was affordable housing for sale. Bendon answered that it was various
categories.
Jasrrllne Tygre asked how the Burlingame D project got to this acquisition
problem. Bendon replied that he did not know where the responsibility for that
was but the planning office did not have anything to do with title work. Hoefer
said that one would have thought that the AABC would have come in with these
concerns long before now. Tygre asked about there being no connection between
big Burlingame and the ABC. Bendon answered that was part of the conditions
from John McBride with no vehicular connection but the city was pursuing a
footpath.
Staff and the commission gave Eric Cohen a wedding card.
Chris Bendon provided an updated Infill schedule for meetings.
MINUTES
MOTIO]\': Ruth Kruger moved to approve the minutes from June 3, July 1
and July 15, 2003; seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 7-0.
'C ~
2
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MiIiutes AU!!ust 05, 2003
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS
Ruth Kruger and Steve Skadron had conflicts of interest with the Aspen HigWands
Item on the Agenda.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARlNG (07/01103):
MISCELLANEOUS LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS
Jasmine opened and continued the public hearing for Miscellaneous Land Use
Code Amendments from July I sl (packet IV.A.I.).
Scott Woodford stated that this item was separated from the code amendments to
move it forward to Council as a priority for codification. The proposed change in
language No Multiple Applications. The City of Aspen shall not accept or review
more than one development application concurrently on anyone property or
portion of a vroTJertv. To submit a new application on a property, any active
development application must be vacate. Upon determining there is a public
purpose to be served, the Community Development Director may waive this
limitation.
No public comments.
The commission discussed the several applications that were currently in the
process and how this change would affect that. David Hoefer noted that a better
quality process was maintained if there was only one application in the process at a
time in addition there was the practical issue of staff time; if every applicant
submitted 2 applications it would use up more staff time and burden the system for
new applications. The commission wanted to ensure that the GMQS amendments
would not be left behind.
MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve Resolution #15, 2003 for an
amendment to the land use code regarding No Multiple Applications. The City
of Aspen shall not accept or review more than one development application
concurrently on anyone property or portion of a propertv. To submit a new
application on a property, any active development application must be vacate.
Upon determining there is a public purpose to be served, the Community
Development Director may waive this limitation. Eric Cohen seconded. Roll
call vote: Kruger, yes; Cohen, yes; Johnson, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, yes;
Rowland, yes; Skadron, abstain. APPROVED 6-0.
It was discussed that the new members could vote if they felt comfortable with the '( ~
code amendment after reading the minutes.
3
r~
.......
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes AUl!:ust 05, 2003
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/01/03):
MISCELLANEOUS LAND USE CODE AMENDMENTS
Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on miscellaneous code
amendments. Scott Woodford eXplained that the P&Z requested further
examination of (Section 5) Variance Criteria for Residential Design Standards
regarding the definition of "context". Language was added (1). Provide an
appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the
development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating
the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the
relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate
neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to
determine if the exception is warranted. Tygre noted that there would still be
wrestling matches because there was no way to avoid that and complimented Scott
on a good job; the rest of the commissioners agreed.
Woodford said that the First StOry Element (Section 8) changes were to the word
replacement from "one story" to first story and there was concern for the walk out
access on the first story element from the last meeting. Woodford provided photos
as examples of the first story elements and examples that would no longer comply.
Language was amended All residential buildings shall have a first story street-
facing element the width of which comprises at least twenty (20) percent of the
building's overall width and the depth which is at least six (6) feet from the wall
the first-story element is proiectinz from. A first-story element may be a porch
roof architectural projcctien, or living space. Accessible space (whether it is a
deck, porch or enclosed area)shall not be allowed over the first stOry element.
however this shall not preclude havinz accessible space over remaininz first stOry
elements on the front facade. Commissioners Haneman, Cohen, Tygre and
Johnson expressed concerns for the options of height for the first story and
requested a decision on the height limit for the first story element. John Rowland
said the definitions seemed to become lengthier. The majority of the commission
requested section 8 be re-Iooked at because there was no clear direction from staff
or the neighborhood meetings.
Woodford said the change to the Non-Residential Lighting Standards with respects
to outdoor lighting shall be 12 feet or less in height unless it meets one of the
followinz criteria: *The lizhtinz is fullv shielded and the point lizht source is not
visible bevond the boundaries of the propertv in which the lot is located: or *The
lizhtinz is otherwise provided in Section 27.575. 150(K). Woodford said these '(,.
changes would not require all lighting above 12 feet be reviewed by P&Z.
Haneman expressed concern for reflected light on buildings. Johnson voiced
4
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes AUl?:ust 05, 2003
concern about light pollution, buildings with zero setbacks, and these changes not
accomplishing the lighting goals. Haneman asked about the top parapet lighting on
the Hotel Jerome. Haneman suggested that photos be taken of existing lighting
examples for compliance and non-compliance to be presented at the next meeting
and Johnson requested investigating the possibility of a lighting consultant.
The majority of the commissioners present felt the changes were still in need of
work on the lighting and definition of context portions of this resolution.
MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to continue the public hearing on the
miscellaneous land use code amendments to September 2, 2003; seconded by
Roger Haneman. APPROVED 7-0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
MAROON CREEK CLUB PUD/SPA AMENDMENT, CHANGE IN USE
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Maroon Creek Club PUD/SP A
change in use. David Hoefer stated that the notice was in order; the commission
could proceed.
James Lindt stated that John Howard represented the applicant, Jim Williams. The
applicant wanted to amend the SP A/PUD as well as a GMQS exemption for a
change in use to allow one of the lodge units at the Maroon Creek Club to add a
kitchen thereby making it a residential dwelling unit. Because it was a combined
application the Planning & Zoning Commission was the recommending body on
all the land use requests to City Council. -
Lindt provided the background for the lodge units; the County approved 12 as part
of the Maroon Creek Club Subdivision and PUD in the early 1990's. It was
subsequently annexed into the City in 1996 and a PUD amendment was approved,
which allowed for reduction in the number oflodge units that were in the Maroon
Creek Club; as a condition of approval is was required that no kitchens be allowed
in the lodge units therefore the applicant requested an amendment to that.
Additionally the use of the lodge units was slightly different that the normal city
lodge units, which wererequired to be available on a short-term basis for rental to
the public at least 6 months of the year but these units were approved as part of the
Pitkin County Code in which there was no such requirement of short -term
availability. Lindt explained that the use of the unit was purchased through a
special membership sold by the Maroon Creek Club called the Millennium '( "
Membership, which cannot require these units to be rented on a short-term basis.
Staff agreed that adding a kitchen would not change the use of the units. Adding
5
'.......
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes AU2ust 05, 2003
the kitchen did not provide a community benefit and did not maintain the lodging
bed base therefore staff could not support the change in use PUD/SP A amendment.
John Howard stated that the membership was not a fee simple ownership but a
membership for the occupancy and use of the Maroon Creek Club. The applicant
wanted to combine three of the one-bedroom lodge units into one 3-bedroom unit.
The members of the limited liability company have consented to this change as a
convenience for one of the members as opposed to any interest on their own part.
Howard clarified the original 12 units were reduced to 8 from the original
Pomegranate, which had a reduction in the number of bedrooms but not the square
footage, which was a reduction in the number of lodge rooms. There was a current
building permit allowing the combining of 3 lodge units into one unit further
reducing the lodging units to 6. Howard said that there would not be any change in
use because the units that were available for rent would continue to be rented; the
application was for the addition of the cooking appliance (a stove).
Howard said that the Maroon Creek Club did not operate as a lodge. Howard
stated that he couldn't see mom, dad, the 2 kids and dog in their Chrysler minivan
pulling off to stop at the Maroon Creek Club for one-night; unless you have
business there you probably wouldn't turn into the Maroon Creek Club because
you would realize that you were in the wrong place. Howard said the owner, Mr.
Williams, used the units for his family and the employees of the Texas Company;
there would not be full time residents in these relatively small three bedroom units.
Howard restated that there were not lodge rooms at the Maroon Creek Club with
reference to the general public.
Howard asked that the 15t condition regarding the annual basis letter for the ability
to lease out their units be deleted because the individual members did not want to
be liable for a guest of their unit that was not under the owners control.
Roger Haneman asked how these became lodge units. Lindt replied that after the
Aspen Country Inn became employee housing as part of that there were 12 lodge
allotments left over for the Maroon Creek Club to use. Haneman said the
residential allotments were maxed-out, so GMQS would not be affected by putting
this kitchen in. Lindt replied that GMQS would be affected because it would make
it a multi-residential unit however by obtaining a GMQS exemption for a change in
use, you are exempting one unit and freezes the other 5 units from becoming
residential units. The other unit owners would have to go through the GMQS
exemption process in order to change their units. Lindt said that the other 'r ..
possibility for staff to approve this was to encourage the other Millennium owners
to rent out their units but they didn't feel that was a possibility because of their
6
,
ASPEN PLANNING &. ZONING COMMISSION Minutes AUl!:ust 05, 2003
legal agreement with the Millennium Members, which was exclusive use of their
owned units at any time during the year.
Jack Johnson asked how a building permit was issued prior to a review process.
Lindt responded that it was discussed at a stafflevel and was consistent with the
previous PUD amendment, which allowed the reduction in lodge units as long as
the square footage remained the same. Howard said that the number of bedrooms
was reduceo and the number of units was reduced from 12 lodge rooms to 8 while
maintaining the same square footage. Howard said the lodge rooms were allocated
from the Aspen Country Inn, so in the county code they were lodge rooms and
transferred to the developer as lodge rooms; lodge rooms were built not residential
multi-family. Bendon explained that the project was built in the county without a
definition for lodge. Lindt added that the county had no provision for short-term
rental and that was the reason that the units could be sold as they were without that
rental provision. Bendon stated that when the city annexed the project it was
accepted with the county's land use code at the time as well, which traveled with
the project for the life of the project as annexed. Tygre asked if one residential unit
would be deducted from the GMQS quota if this exemption for the change in use
was approved. Bendon replied that was true. Kruger asked if this was a lodge
room because it did not have a kitchen or a cooking appliance. Lindt replied that
was correct.
No public comment.
Eric Cohen noted that this was an example of when a lodge room was not a lodge
room, when it was part of the Maroon Creek Club. This had no affect on anything.
This stops because anything else changing in this PUD would have to go through
growth management; plus there was the anomaly of the acceptance of the county
code upon annexation. Cohen said that the precedent from keeping other owners
from doing the same request would be that the rest of the owners would be
required to go through GMQS because the one exemption was already used. The
next application would have to go through the GMQS process; all the members
agreed on this exemption.
Haneman commented that it went to push for all that you can for a PUD and then
come back and amend it the next year to get more.
Johnson said that this could have implications because it was called a lodge room
but it wasn't a lodge room; these units will never be rented. T"
7
"
-
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes AUl!:ust 05, 2003
Tygre noted there were problems when properties were annexed with prior county
approvals that came with unlalOWll negotiations on the approvals; most PUDs were
carefully negotiated. This kind of change in use may lead to additional
applications in the future.
Lindt noted there was a specific change in use criteria language, which stated that
only one unit, may be created through a change in use.
MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to approve Resolution #18 and recommend
that City Council approve a PUD and SPA amendment and a GMQS
exemption for a change in use to allow for the combined lodge unit (consisting
of lodge units 1, 2, and 3) in the Maroon Creek Club to add a kitchen and
thereby become a multi-family residential dwelling unit, with the following
condition: 1. The lodge unit to be converted to a residential dwelling unit shall be upgraded to
meet the 1998 ANSI Type B adaptable clearance requirements relating to the handicap accessibility
of the bathroom. Seconded by Ruth Kruger, Roll call vote: Johnson, no;
Haneman; yes; Kruger, no; Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Cohen, yes; Tygre, no.
APPROVED 4-3.
Hoefer stated that for the record this motion included the removal of the condition
as requested by the applicant for the annual basis letter regarding the rental of their
units.
PUBLIC HEARlNG:
ASPEN HIGHLANDS VILLAGE PUD AMENDMENT - SIGNAGE
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing on the Aspen Highlands Village Sign
Amendment. Ruth Kruger and Steve Skadron recused themselves. David Hoefer
stated that proof of notice was provided.
Sarah Oates noted that this was a PUD amendment for another annexed property,
Aspen Highlands Village. Oates distributed the current Aspen Highlands sign
code regulations (Exhibit D), which was developed in 2000 by Hines Highlands
and the Master Homeowners Association. Oates said that the Highlands developed
their sign code about the time that they were being annexed and were told that it
didn't meet the City of Aspen's sign code regulations. Staff recommends
approval. Oates said that the Village core would have the only impact; there were
Village regulations as they relate to real estate signs for residential properties,
lettering but was particularly orientated to the Village core. Oates stated that this
was a P&Z approval only.
'f 10-.
8
ASPEN PLANNING &i' ZONING COMMISSION Minutes AU2ust 05, 2003
Deborah Prince, representative ofthe Aspen HigWands Village Association, said
there were very strict regulations on the neon signs, which would be very artist
signs. Oates commented that there was a design review board for the retail
association to review the signage and would then refer to Sarah Oates to make sure
the sign meets the dimensional requirements.
Jack Johnson asked what the AHV was. Prince replied that it was the Aspen
Highland Village Association, which oversees the Village as a whole. Johnson
asked if the affordable housing residents were members of this association and the
number of representatives serving on the board; who was speaking for the people
not the retailers. Prince replied that they were; there was a board. Bob Daniel,
representative for Hines, eXplained the association structure as the master
association with several sub-associations within the master association. Daniel
said there were sub-associations for all the condominium units, the affordable
housing units that were not part of the Village core, townhome association, which
is a rather complex entity. Daniel said that currently the association was still under
declaring control pursuant to the regulations of the Colorado Common Interest
Ownership Act with 4 Hines appointees. Daniel said for the Aspen Highlands
Village water service agreement required annexation into the city. The City of
Aspen must adopt the zoning and entitlement established for Aspen HigWands
Village due to the Pitkin County Entitlement process so there would not be any
non-conforming uses in the city by the city annexing a county project. Daniel said
there were no signage regulations in the county that were applicable to Aspen
Highlands Village and it was merely an oversight that at the time of annexation
that the PUD amendment was not incorporated into these signage guidelines.
Johnson asked who made up the design review board. Daniel responded there
were 3 architects (1 an affordable housing unit owner and 2 professional architects
from the community) and Gary Beach to review drainage and water issues; the
master association board appointed these board members.
Johnson noted the differences between the Aspen Highlands Signage Regulations
and the City of Aspen Code and asked why flags were not allowed. Prince said
that there were residents that lived above the commercial core spaces and there
would be difficulty in the scrutiny in what was tasteful and not tasteful.
Eric Cohen asked if there was only one real estate sign allowed per property.
Oates replied that was true, page 8 of 10 of the guidelines.
Tygre noted that the signs that were shown in the Highlands Signage Booklet were '< ~
all very western and old western in style; how does that fit in with neon and where
9
,,,,,....,
.......
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes AUl!:ust 05, 2003
would the neon signs be located. Prince answered that they were an eclectic
western and the neon was a generalization of not allowing more than 3 neon signs.
Public Comments: Adam Gillespie stated that he represented a group of
homeowners (confidentially) that were concerned with yard sale signs and for sale
signs on cars; they wanted the signs to be restricted to commercial use only.
Oates said that signs on parked vehicles was addressed on page 9 of 10.
MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to approve Resolution #20, series 2003,
approving a PUD amendment to the Aspen Highlands Village PUD to adopt a
sign code for Aspen Highlands Village, attached at "Exhibit B" included the
amendments on page 6 of 10 to strike the last sentence under Wall Signs; page
2 of 10 to strike the second sentence on Flags, Seconded by Roger Haneman,
Roll call vote: Johnson, no; Haneman, no; Rowland, no; Cohen, yes; Tygre,
no. DENIED 4-1.
Disscussion: Tygre stated that Aspen Highlands was a separate entity but
that she could not approve neon signs, especially with light pollution. Haneman
agreed. Johnson said that he couldn't support the sign code because this
amendment added another layer of bureaucracy and the sub-associations would be
judged by a un-elected board appointed by a corporation; he objected to the quasi-
governmental agencies creating and making laws that were different from
everybody else's.
Meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.rn.
ackie Lothian, D puty City Clerk
'C ~
10
~ ~,
II~07S:5 11/13/92 15:21 Rec $.~ BK 694 PG 447
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, GRANTING THE ASPEN ELECTRIC
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
Resolution No. 92-~1
RECITALS
1. Barry and Sharon Siegel (hereinafter "Applicants") are the
owners of real property in the portion of Pitkin County known as
Lot 3, Sunny Park North Subdivision within the City of Aspen.
2. The Applicants wish to add land to their lot from adjacent
property owned by Pitkin County and located in section 7; Township
10 South; Range 84 West;
commonly known as the Mascotte and 99
Lode parcel.
3. The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to accommodate
the subdivision of the previously identified Lot 3 of the Sunny
Park North Subdivision in order to allow the development of a
triplex to be deed restricted for affordable housing.
4. The Applicants have proposed a lot line adjustment pursuant
to Section 4-2.2(a) (2) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
5. The Board of County Commissioners considered the Applicants
.
request at a regularly scheduled public meeting on October 13,
1992.
6. The Board of County Commissioners found the proposed Lot
Line Adjustment to be consistent with the Pitkin county Land Use
Code criteria for a Lot Line Adjustment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Pitkin County Board of
County Commissioners that it hereby grants a Subdivision Exemption
for a Lot Line Adjustment to the Applicants pursuant to Section 4-
--
""""
~3~755 11/13/92 15:21 Rec $.O~BK 694 PG
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
448
Resolution No. 9~-J]t(
Page 2
2.2(a) (2) of the Pitkin County Land Use Code subject to the
following conditions:
1. Prior to recordation of a subdivision exemption plat the
applicant shall obtain the necessary rezoning, subdivision and
special review approvals from the city of Aspen for the
affordable housing project.
2. The Applicant shall prepare a Lot Line Adjustment Plat which
includes all pertinent easements for access, trails, ditch
maintenance, and utilities and meets the approval of the
County Attorney and the County Engineer prior to recording.
3. The Final Plat shall include a building envelope, as approved
by the Board of County commissioners, defining the minimum
area necessary to acconunodate an expansion to the Siegel's
existing house equivalent to the preexisting allowable
FAR. The building envelope shall be allowed to encroach on the
land being added to lot 3 from the Mascotte and 99 Lode parcel
a maximum of 753 square feet. Said area of encroachment shall
be indicated on the approved Final Lot Line Adjustment Plat.
4. Any development within the approved building envelope shall
be for expansion of the existing dwelling unit only and no
other freestanding structures or development of any kind shall
be allowed within the area being added to lot 3 from the
Mascotte and 99 Lode parcel.
5. Any future expansion of the existing dwelling unit, on the
newly-created lot 2 of the Aspen Electric Subdivision, shall
be subject to 8040 Green Line review pursuant to section 24-
7-503 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Such review shall apply
to the entire addition, including any portion that may extend
beyond the Aspen City limits onto the area added to said lot
2 by the action of this lot line adjustment.
6. The final plat for the sunny Park North Subdivision shall be
amended to reflect the requested lot line adjustment.
APPROVED by the Board of County conunissioners of Pitkin County
on October 13, 1992.
- .........
11350755 ,,-,13/9:: 15:21 Rec $.00 BI< 6....,1PG 449
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
Resolution No. 9~~7
Page 3
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO
By ~ ~>-
~m True, Chairman
ate "/17-/"2...-
. I ,
~
-
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
~~ ~mA~
Suzan Konch n,
Planning Director
~~~
Timothy E. Whi~it
County Attorney
TGM
reso_aspen_lla
,........
-
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ASPEN ELECTRIC SUBDIVISON, LOT 2 REZONING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August
19,2003 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, at the Aspen City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado in the
City Council Chambers Room, to consider an application submitted by the City of Aspen
for rezoning of Aspen Electric Subdivision, Lot 2, 210 Sesame Street, Aspen, Colorado.
The parcel will be zoned R-15 (PUD) as part of the annexation of the northeast portion of
the parcel. For further information, contact Sarah Oates at the AspenlPitkin County
Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5441,
saraho@ci.aspen.co.us.
s/Jasmine Tygre, Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on July 31, 2003
City of Aspen Account
06/27/2003 10:39
97054 4885
ZONE 4 ARCHITECTURE
PAGE 02/02
C'
"~
.?A.~M I --rn IS 5Hoc)c.:o 5[^F
17fAT I'THE': /VI/N1JlAc.JM "5. f.
AU"o/.N tD A Fp.---r- 'SL.oft
!,1l0HIT.EOTUR~ 'f2-6"DI;..(..'TIOfV WC/U L-r;::> '\S r;;-
P 870.644.8041 f (l
~ 970."44.4885 ~L):t..4 "i,-\:. H~
""" F_" b . it.
The code states tbat n more than 25% can be reduced from the FAR. an the lot. Ge max.imwn
allowable FAR. to slope ~on) on the lot is 3,524 sf)
per Aspen Survey Engineers' survey
Ie F .A,R. fur 15,000 sflot
3,320 remaining lot area
/100
33
--m sfofF.A.RJlOO sfoflotarea
198 sfofadditional allowable FAR.
FAR. fur 3,320 lot area above 15,000 sf
F .A.R.
allowable reduced floor area ratio square foocage
18,320 lotar
o lot
-4,929 lot
- 565 lot
. 614 lot
. 4
11,802 sflot
survey
. due to surfilce "'ISement ~ Bill's COIlversatiOll wlSarah Oates
'011 (Lot I) fur slopes ~ than 30 degrees
'011 (Lot 2) fur slopes gmtter than 30 degrees
'01\ (Lot I) fur slopes between 20-30 degrees (50% of 1,227 slope area)
2 forsl 0
with slope reductioll
4,080 alIo1e F.A,R. fur 9,000 sflot
2,802 remaining lot area
...Ll2l!
I 28
. J..l sf ofF ARJlOO sf of lot area
196 ofadditiooal allowable F.A.R.
III
06/27/2003 10:39
97054 4885
ZONE 4 ARCHITECTURE
PAGE 01/02
fro",
\......
".."..... '~'" ..J,'
.'.. ,'..,.., '.
AROHI'reCTUR
, N
.." g70.544.904
F 0'70.544.4.'
Date:
b "'2-1
<?AF1
"If
'.... ~
To: (1./1 v",,,-?
Fax: 0to ~ ~~'1
From: 1?1U- p (> l..--LA:>C-~
Pages: ..1::..... (lnch ~ cover sheet)
Re: -p~(p r-At:V€., 11:
fAf'- CAL.C-- .'7
Comments:
,
w ---- ~
Signed:
M"'- "'-'l\f""",'lo<-b~ ~. III
!
,;1., "
'~,r
f-.J--2:- 8(;'1 J 2ao3
cJ'
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: "'/- / (
C;'t'::C{i l" V:
75 /;Cj /~,
!
c./
"
, Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
~
.e::'_)
,200_
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
I ~--C"\ \ Ii v::' C' I, . /J r/! (I' )
, ,'..~);.\ 'v \ ,-~._'> ! /1 L \ 1.1 I . , name, pease pnnt
being orrepresenting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally
certify tllat I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26,304,060
(E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner:
L Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official
paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto.
_ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the
Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, f
waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches WIde
and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters notl
less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the _ day of
,200_, to and including the date and time of the public
hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto,
_ Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community
Development Department, which contains the information described in Section
26,304.060(E)(2) of tile Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) da:fi prior to
the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class po~tage
prepaid U,S, mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal goventnent,
school, service district or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency that
owns property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the
development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be
those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than
sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and
governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto,
(continued on next page)
1"""
...-.,
Rezoning or text amendment, Whenever the official zoning district map is in
any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision
of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be anlended, whether such
revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use
regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate sW'vey map or other
sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and
addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall
be waived. However, the proposed zoning map has been available for public
inspection in the plalming agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing on such amendments.
oregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was ~ckn9wledged befOtm~~ay
,2003., by ~ \ .
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires: 1-(/ ~ J.~
PUBUC NOTICE
RE:' ASPEN ELECTRI~OIViSJON' WT 2 RE-
ZOMNG
NOTICE 15 HEREBY that a public hearing
will be held on -Tu y, August 19, 2003 at a
meeting to begin at p.m. belore the Aspen
Planning and _lomng ommlsslon, at the Aspen
City Hall, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colora-
do Iri the City Coun<:lI Chambers Room, to con-
sider an application-submitted by the City of As.. '
pen lor rezonlng 01 'Aspen Electric Subdivision,
Lot 2, 210 Sesame Street, Aspen, Colorado. The
--Pm=e1 wtDhe'iOOed R-lS(PUD)'u-part 'of the an-
ne.xatlon of the northeast portion of the parcel.
For further InformaUon. contact Sarah Oates at
the Aspen! Pitkin County Commimlty, Develo~
ment Department, 190 S. Galena' St., Aspen, CO
(970) 920-5441, sarahoOcl.aspen.cO.UIl; .
s/JasmIne~ Chair
-Aspen Planning and Zoning Commlsalon
. ='" 'n Th.k"'! TIm.. on Au....' ,; 2003
Notary Public
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THEPUBLICATION
'APH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
Jill GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BY MAIL