The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ex.Tagert-Lot-Split.1988 "_,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,_,.w,.._.,.u~___~___<__,",,",._.~.~._"_.~.-_~..-~"'<r-.>___,,__~".~' tp C;'j #342263 03/05/92 15:26 Ree $15.00 Bf< 671 PG 21 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doe $.00 EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Easement Agreement is made and entered into as of May _, 1991 by and between George Brennan ("Brennan") and Woodstone Associates ("Woodstone"), a Colorado general partnership. WHEREAS, Woodstone is the owner of Lot 1, Tagert Lot Split according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 22, a 30, Pitkin County Colorado; and Brennan is the owner of Lot 2, Tagert Lot Split according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 22, at Page 30, Pitkin County Colorado. WHEREAS, Woodstone has constructed a driveway on said Lot 1 adjacent and contiguous to Lot 2; and WHEREAS, Woodstone has agreed to grant and convey to Brennan in accordance with and pursuant to conditions, and provisions set forth herein. an easement the terms, NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants, provisions, and conditions contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows: 1. Woodstone hereby grants and conveys to Brennan a non- exclusive perpetual easement of ingress and egress over, across, and through that portion of Lot 1, Tagert Lot Split according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 22 at Page 30, pitkin county, Colorado, consisting of the improved driveway from Smuggler Street to that portion of Lot 2, Tagert Lot Split as specifically indicated and identified by the solid shaded area on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. It is understood and agreed that the easement shall provide only one point of access to Lot 2 as indicated on Exhibit A hereto. 2. Brennan agrees to pay one-half of all costs of snow removal for the driveway, payment for which shall be made within 30 days after receipt of any statements for the same. Any payments not made within 30 days shall be delinquent and shall thereafter bear interest at 18% per annum. 3 . The parties hereto agree not to obstruct, impede, or interfere with each other in the reasonable use of the driveway for the purpose of ingress and egress to and from their respective properties. 4. No parking shall be allowed by the owner of Lot 2 on the granted easement or on any portion of Lot 1. 5. In the event that either party uses the easement for construction traffic to either lot such party shall bear the costs of any repairs to the driveway caused by such construction traffic. 6. driveway easement Any trees that are removed by Brennan in extending from the easement to Lot 2 shall be replanted along by Brennan at his sole cost and expense. the the 7. In the event that the underground sprinkler system servicing Lot 1 must be moved as a consequence of the extension of the driveway to Lot 2, Brennan shall do so at his sole cost and expense. 8. In the event it becomes necessary to enforce any provision herein by legal proceedings the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover his reasonable attorneys fees. 9. This agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. .. "_...__^,_e._'_~_""--_"'~~~""'--"'''~"---'-~-'''~<'''- ".... "_,,,--,"---,--,-~~-,", #342263 03/05/92 15:26 Ree $15.00 Bf( Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Do~ 671 PG 22 $.00 WOODS':'ONE have executed this nd above set forth. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the par . es agreement as of the year and date fir t By: 1'. By: The ab~cEasement ~ day of~, 1991 by T. Richard Butera , its ,Ill'" \\\\\\,- MAl't /~~":"f"~";i:'t{. of '~A~,V\ i ~I\\O A!j/'\~ )ss. l ~;;, .00001latei~f' tolo. ) l ~ \,0 U D L' e,j Cl i \~~'......" 't:~~on Expires: I-J -Il.qc.{ ..... r,. .....~.,' .... 0, C....'" "" "" VW" "" """,,"I.tl' Th day of May, 1991 by J.G. & D.B. Investments Inc. by , its Secretary. Agreement was acknowledqed w;oodstone Associates General Partner. ~~ Notary Public County of State of ^\~ The above Easement Agreement was acknowledged before me this ~ day of~, 1991 by George Brennan, M.D. Oc.:\-D te. ( County Of()d~e}ss. state of~a.i;~frl\CL LJ. Commission Expires:l1, h..) b \qq~ ~j f Notary Public lU. ~UJlIj/!--J OFFICIAL SEAL SUSAN W. BYHOWER Notary Public-caUfomla ORANGE COUNTY My Comm Exp. Aug. 16. 1995 schiffer\brennan.ea -" : ~ :i .. ~ .... '" 0: r:, ... ., ~ "' -- -- '" '" b o .:z: o ~ ..._~ -~~-'-:..:. , ~. .., ~ .., <>l '" ... -< ~ t:l Z -< '" -< o c.) nO'- :J rt";1) --- '< m . n I n ....</> m .... ., In ^ , , , , t:I 0 0) n il>o- . "'\I 0... , , '11 di III UI . o > .~ --. -- , - --- ~'--"""-- o .~ '..u 2 d .;;: .< '" '- = (l) .. ~. o:..! .... ~ < t..) ..... t.J !lJ 0'- <...! t:I !lJ 0 < 'A ~. ..... III . , In ..... 6'-5" '1) ..0 ~. t,) rt" ~ .... ~. In :J -- -100 .1.9.60' ~.h;. , ..--.. "':. ,~4' .' ~f . Ar <. ~./,., "; '"Ii: ~ ",':1' ....~. ",.\' ,.,. .i'L!,r~f~~.~ft.( '\.;.b~-f"~!;~.:.-;>:t:.';':, . ,\:~~' .<.. '.,.. '.-, .. ., "'. .j.,....]J';~. ':"~'<Ih' f ''''''l>".<;i(i.: '-"'f " -. .,,~~~.!~~t,.., '''It"',,''''1 'JlShtn9~ . --' "1Vo-W ~ ,,~~ -q,,",') ,,--41-" n~~~U6".~-:- _ _ __ Reaular Meetina .. ASDen Citv Council November 28. 1~88 determine what to do about the annexation. Ms. Hamilton told Council the hospital board has not been informed about the annexation issue. Ms. Hamilton said she feels it would be best. to deannex the property and to take the project through the country process, which is well constructed for doing employee housing. Deannexing would not disenfranchise anyone. Gannett said this parcel is approximately .18 acres, bordered by Doolittle on the east and by county land on the west. This land is not now nor has it been used in a pUblic fashion since it was acquired in 1972. Gannett said this will require subdivision and may require rezoning through the city. . .' . .' . '. J) '. .. . " ..' _ ~ : it; Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. There were no com-.' ments. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance 146, Series of 1988, on second reaqing; seconded by Councilman Tuite. " ~Iayor Stirling said he hoped this would have gone to election; however, Council decided earlier they did not feel this was necessary because it was a clear public interest use for this property. Councilman Isaac said there will be pUblic hearings on this project, either in the city or the county. Councilman Isaac said because it will be used as employee housing, it is important to approve this as expeditiously as possible. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Tuite, yes; Fallin, yes; Isaac, yes; Mayor Stirling, no. Motion carried. Councilman Tuite asked if the city can waive their review rights for this project, rather than deannex it. Gannett said the city cannot delegate constitutionally mandated duties. Councilman Tuite said he does not want to have this go through a dual pr9Ces.s.,_,~" '-:- ' '\.. I.' 1..__ Councilman Tuite moved to proceed with deannexation and proceed with county review; seconded by Councilman Isaac. Glenn Horn, planning office, told Council they will have a chance to Comment on the overall master plan for the hospital as well as the specific application for this project. All in favor, motion,carried. TAGERT LOT SPLIT .1. '. ,.J ~ . , i ' ~ .'; ,;~ \ ~:l ,) ". (Mayor Stirling left due to a conflict of interest>. Cindy Houben, planning office, told Council the adjacent landowners were notified of this public hearing. This is a lot split request at 930 West Smuggler. Ms. Houben told Council a lot 5 Reaular Meetina ASDen Citv Council November 28. 1988 split has 4 criteria outlined in the Code. Ms. Houben said there are 3 areas of Concern. Ms. Houben said in order to qualify for a lot split, a property cannot have been subdivided since March 1969. The Tagert property was subdivided in 1972. Ms. Houben presented a plat showing the portion of land sold off. Ms. Houben said the subdivision plat does not indicate the original parcel which was left over for Tagert. Ms. Houben said staff does not recommend approval since there was subdivision after 1969. The second issue is that in lot splits, one cannot create any more than 2 lots on a parcel. Ms. Houben told Council this relates to the issue of dealing with property that has 2 dif- ferent zone categories. Ms. Houben pointed out the Tagert parcel contains R-6 as well as R-30/PUD zones. The request is to develop the property pursuant to the R-6 dimensional requirements in the code. The R-30/PUD zone is on the area which is a slope. The reason the PUD was applied to this property is because of the steep slopes. Ms. Houben told Council the Code states if 75 percent of the property is within one zone district, those dimensional requirements may be used for the proposed develop- ment. Ms. Houben told Council 73 plus percent of this property is in the R-6 zone district. Ms. Houben said the planning office does not recommend that this property be developed in the R-6 zone because there is not 75 percent of the land in that dis- trict. Ms. Houben said this issue can be brought before the Board of Adjustment. The third issue deals with the site and site planning. Ms. Houben showed a plat with the proposed building envelopes, which taper down the hill side. Ms. Houben said one possible concern about dropping over the hill side is erosive soil. Another concern is that adjacent neighbors have had problems with noise and view planes. Ms. Houben told Council if they find the technical issues can be waived, the building envelopes should be pulled further back on to the site. There is plenty of land for development. Nick McGrath, representing Mrs. Tagert, told Council this sale is condi tioned upon Council approval. ~lcGrath told Counc i 1 there are very technical reasons to deny this application; however, the Council can overcome these technical reasons. McGrath said this parcel is 32,000 square feet and to put only 2 houses on it is a plus for the city and for the adjacent landowners. McGrath said if this went through GMP, it could get 6 to 8 houses. McGrath said the two lots will be far larger than any lot around it. McGrath told Council this sale has been pending a long time, and Mrs. Tagert got an exemption from the moratorium in order to process the sale. 6 Reaular Meetina Asoen Citv Council November 28. 1988 McGrath said Mrs. Tagert' s property was never subdivided in the old sUbdivision. The Code, 7-l003(a) (2) (a) says land is eligible as long as it has never been subdivided. McGrath showed a plat where the Tagert land is outside the subdivision. McGrath presented Council a letter on the calculations about the zone categories. McGrath told Council the zoning line is drawn free hand on a map. When it is blown up to proper scale is 1800 square feet. The difference between 73 percent and 75 percent in the zone is only 300 square feet. McGrath said this is a very technical argument and Council can find that in fact 75 percent of the land is in the appropriate district. McGrath pointed out R-6 requires 6,000 square feet and each of these lots will be 16,000 square feet. McGrath said the building envelopes do not falloff the side and are almost entirely on the top. McGrath said the bUilding envelopes are relatively small compared to the enti re lots. Mayor Pro Tern Fallin opened the pUblic hearing. Chuck Brandt, representing the Starodojs, showed an aerial photograph of the area. Brandt said there have been problems with other houses stepping down the hillside. Brandt said his clients are concerned about the visual impact of the development. Tom Starodoj, Sneaky Lane, pointed out that the building en- velopes do go down over the lip of the hill. Starodoj said the slope is unsuitable for bUilding. Starodoj said the impacts of this bUilding would be severe. Brandt said the neighbors have opted to support this application on the condition that a more restrictive bUilding envelope be adopted. Brandt said if a more ,suitable envelope can be adopted, they recommend approval. Brandt told Council the planning office recommendation for a building envelope is 10 feet back from the westerly envelope proposed by the applicant. The neighbors propose another 10 feet to the east. Brandt said this would leave a 4,500 and 5,000 square feet bUilding envelopes for these two houses. Brandt submitted to the record a letter signed by 7 property owners with the suggested building envelope attached to it. Brandt said this is a compromise situation and will mitigate the neighbors concerns. Betsy Starodoj said the applicants proposed building envelopes would be over the slope and the view would be down into other people's houses. A large structure would be devastating to privacy. There is plenty of room on the property for a bUilding. McGrath said in R-6, the subject of a building site is not reviewable. ~lcGrath said they can compromise and go back 10 feet. Ms. Houben told Council there are private covenants for the Tagert subdivision which say the parties agree there shall not be 7 Reaular Meetina Aspen Citv Council November 28. 1988 excavation on the hillside. Brandt told Council the neighbor s reviewed the compromise sketch and do not feel it goes far enough. Councilman Isaac said he is concerned about having a lot split on land which has already been subdivided once. Ms. Houben said the intention of the lot split provision is an exemption from the growth management process and allows property owners to create a second dwelling. Ms. Houben said this is a large lot; however, it was subdivided after 1969. 11cGrath said the date 1969 was added later and was not a contemporaneous date. McGrath told Council the Tagert parcel is a metes and bounds lot and not a subdivided lot. ~lcGrath said the Tagert parcel is a separate parcel and is eligible for a lot split. IlcGrath said there is not another piece of parcel like this in the city. Ms. Houben said there is no doubt this parcel was subdivided and the Tagert parcel is the fathering parcel of this subdivision. Mayor Pro Tern Fallin asked if Council can make the building envelope a condition. Ms. Houben said Council can add conditions. If Council chooses to overlook the more technical issues, it is only proper to look at the fact that the PUD was overlaid on the parcel for a reason. Tom Starodoj pointed out there is only a 10 foot difference between the planning office proposal and what the neighbors want. McGrath said this is 20 feet off their original proposal. Councilman Tuite moved to approve the lot split based upon the line as described by the Starodoj, Sneaky Lane Group, which is the red line, including 1,2, and 3 in the planning office memorandum and condi tion # 4 be changed to reflect the proposal presented by Chuck Brandt; seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Fallin. Councilman Isaac said he does not like the number of "tech- nicalities". All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Isaac. Motion carried. RESOLUTION #47. SERIES OF 1988 - Block 19 Annexation Assistant City Manager Mitchell said this meets the statutory requirements. This pUblic hearing is to find that these require- ments have been met and to have the first reading of the or- dinance for annexation. Mitchell said this is located on East Hopkins street and the petition was signed by 100 percent of the property owners. Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. There were no com- ments. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilman Isaac moved to approve Resolution #47, Series of 1988; seconded by Councilwoman Fallin. All in favor, motion carried. 8 \ "--- --- x 7879.6 J /~ ./' I /~ \ '. , , , , , , \ \ , \ ( \ \ti \ 111\1 I \ \ "-- - x 7879.6 r ./~' ,,/ 1'0<(,0' , f.....r--' i , . , , , , , \ \ r " or"'," ...."..... MEMORANDUM FROM: Aspen City Council Cindy Houben, Planning Office Robert Anderson, City Manager ~ ~ TO: THRU: RE: Tagert Lot Split DATE: November 28, 1988 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends denial of the Tagert Lot Split application. REQUEST: Approval of a Lot Split APPLICANT: Irene Tagert LOCATION: 930 W. Smuggler; At the top of Smuggler Ave. right before Smuggler Ave. drops down to Castle creek. ZONING: R-15 and R-30 PUD DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to subdivide the 32,000+ square foot lot into two 15,000+ square foot single family lots. REFERRAL COMMENTS: 1. Environmental Health: In a memorandum dated October 22, 1988 Tom Dunlop explained that the applicants will be using City Water and sewer systems. In addition he notes that the applicants must comply with air and noise regulations during the construction of the new homes. 2. Engineering Department: In a memorandum dated November 22, 1988 Elyse Elliott of the Engineering Department made the following comments: 1. The plat submitted with this application is not sufficient. A final plat must be approved by the Engineering Department prior to granting the lot split. The present owner of the property has questioned the right-of-way location of Smuggler Street, a proper survey will clarify this. 2. A 4'x4' utility easement must be granted to the city. This can be located on either lot. 3. This project must agree to join any future improvement I' I., ""' ....I districts. 3. Adjacent Land OWner Comments: Several homeowners along Sneaky Lane (below the Tagert Parcel) have expressed concern regarding the proposed homesites. The major concern of the neighbors below the property is that the new homesites will be allowed to drop over the hillside. This is a concern from a visual, noise and environmental perspective. The following are a list of the attached letters from adjacent landowners: letter from seven homeowners along Sneaky Lane dated November 20, 1988 letter from Joseph Kosniac dated November 15, 1988 letter from Thomas and Betsy Starodoj dated November 15, 1988 STAFF COMMENTS: A lot split application is reviewed pursuant to section 7-1003A.2 of the Land Use Code. This section requires that the application meet specific criteria in order to be eligible for a lot split. These criteria, along with the staff and applicants response, are listed below. While reviewing the criteria the Staff would like to make the City Council aware that the Tagert application addresses several issues which are particularly significant for this site; these include: How the parcel was created (section 7-1003A.2.a) Amount of land in each zone district (section 5-508B.2) Location of building envelopes These issues, as addressed below, are of concern to the staff and require specific direction from the City Council. A lot split for an additional single family homesite may be granted by the City Council as an exemption from the full subdivision requirements if the following criteria are met. a. CRITERIA: The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969; and RESPONSE: The parcel which is currently under consideration for 2 ('''. ....., ..-, ....."" the lot split was part of a larger parcel owned by Mrs. Tagert prior to 1972. In 1972 Mrs. Tagert sold a portion of the property to Bob and Tom Starodoj. Thus it is clear that the property was subdivided after March 24,1969. The issue, however, is that the parcel in question was not reflected as a subdivided parcel on the Tagert Subdivision Plat (see attached Tagert Subdivision Plat). This Plat only identifies the parcel which was sold by Mrs. Tagert and the resubdivision of that land by the Starodoj s. Mrs. Tagert 's property is noted on the plat as an adjacent parcel. The Applicant's position is that the parcel is a metes and bounds parcel (since it is not shown on the Tagert subdivision plat) and that this parcel has not been subdivided after 1969. The staff feels that the intent or the purpose of the lot split provision was to allow a one time subdivision of property exempt from Growth Management. The criteria clearly states that a parcel can not have been part of a subdivision after March 24, 1969. The City Council, however, may make a different interpretation of this criteria in light of the specific circumstances surrounding the Tagert parcel. Jt b. CRITERIA: No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, and both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone district; RESPONSE: No more than tWQ.. parcels would be created by this request. 'Both proposed parcels will conform to the R-6 zone district requirements. The second major issue relative to the Tagert parcel is that the parcel sits in two zone districts; R-6 and R-30 PUD. section 5- 508 of the land use code gives specific direction when this situation occurs. The following is taken directly from the code: liB. Proposed use allowed in all Zone Districts. When a parcel of land contains more than one underlying Zone District and the proposed use is allowed in all of the respective Zone Districts, then: 1. The use shall be developed by comparing each dimensional and parking requirement of the respective Zone Districts and applying the more restrictive of each requirement. These requirements shall, however, be calculated based on the land area and development of the entire parcel. 2. The only exception shall be when the area of the parcel which is designated with the Zone District which permits the higher density constitutes more 3 /""'.... "'-' -.. - than seventy-five (75%) percent of the entire land area of the parcel. In this case, the use shall be developed using the dimensional requirements and off-street parking requirements of the zone District permitting the higher density, which shall be calculated on the basis of the land area and development of the entire parcel." The Tagert parcel is comprised of land, 73.48 % of which is zoned R-6 and 26.52 % of which is zoned R-30 PUD. These calculations were derived by overlaying the zone district maps, topographic maps, and ownership maps of the area. The percentage of land in each zone district is somewhat unclear given the imprecise nature of the zone district maps. It could be argued that the calculations would be different depending on where the calculations were taken (from the center of the zoning line drawn on the zone district map or from either side of that line). When reviewing the intent of the PUD overlay, it is clear that the reason PUD was applied to the Tagert parcel was that the parcel contained steep slopes and (at that time) bordered the river. If we were to calculate the area in each zone district based on the top of the slope then, the R-6 portion of the property would be even less than the 73.48 % calculated from the zone district boundary. Since the R-6 portion of the parcel constitutes less than 75% of its land area, the entire parcel must be subject to R-30 zone district regulations. The Planning Office feels that we must enforce the code in this regard and feel that the appropriate way to deal with this situation is for the applicant to request a variance from the Board of Adjustment. At that time the applicants can argue that the zone district maps are imprecise and that this has created a hardship since the land may be most appropriately considered according to the R-6 zone district. c. criteria: The lot under consideration, was not previously the sUbject of an provisions of this article or a "lot split" Sec. 8-104 (C) (1) (a); and or any part thereof, exemption under the exemption pursuant to RESPONSE: To the best of our knowledge the parcel was never part of a previous lot split application. d. CRITERIA: A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Article and growth management allocation pursuant to Art. 8. RESPONSE: One dwelling exists on the parcel and application is approved the second parcel is exempt if this from the 4 - '-" - - Growth management process pursuant to section 8-104(C) (a). In addition to the above criteria the City Council should also review the proposed site plan. Attached is a copy of a map of the parcel which includes elevations and the proposed building envelopes. The building envelope for lot 1 indicates that the proposed home will be closer to the slope than the existing house. In addition, the application states that this proposed building envelope is for the structure itself and does not prohibit additional paving, landscaping, lighting or signage etc. The Planning Office is concern~d ~h~~ Th~ adjoiRiRg Rcighaorbood will be narshly impacted by anv development whi~h i~ ~llnw~d to drop over the hillside. (Please see the letters from the adjacent homeowners.) -In addition the Planning Office would like to note that since the calculations indicate that more than 25 % of the area is within the R-30 PUD zone district the parcel is subject to the PUD criteria in the code (if this is appealed to the BOA then the PUD criteria will not be applied to the parcel). These criteria are very specific with regard to siting of the building envelopes and impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning Office would like to remind the City Council about the problems associated with existing units on the hillside which are seen from the Castle Creek bridge. We have received complaints about the visual character of these units tacked onto the hillside as seen from public right of way. In addition the reflective materials used on these units has been distracting to drivers on Hwy 82. \~ Given the concerns of the adjacent neighborhood and the visual appearance from Hwy 82, the Planning Office recommends that if the lot split is approved, the building envelopes (including any slopeside landscaping/patios etc.) be located off of the slope. More specifically we recommend that the building envelope for lot 1 be pulled back to the west edge of the existing house. We further recommend that the western edge of the building envelope for lot 2 be located no closer to the slope than the 7880 elevation line. In summary, the Planning Office can not recommend approval of the Tagert lot split because it is unclear as to whether or not the application meets criteria (a); the zone district area calculations indicate that the development of the parcel should be pursuant to the R-30 PUD area and bulk requirements and; the proposed building envelopes are positioned too close to the hillside. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends denial of the Tagert lot split based on the facts that the parcel should be developed under the R-30 zone district requirements pursuant to section 5-508 of the 5 r "",, -. ...... land use code; it is unclear as to whether or not the application meets the criteria for a lot split given the subdivision history of the parcel and, the proposed building envelopes are positioned too close to hillside. If however, the City Council should find that the application meets the Lot split criteria, that the zone district maps are too imprecise to make an exact calculation with regard to zone district boundaries and that the building envelopes are appropriate or can be altered as recommended by the planning staff then the following conditions should apply to the approval: 1. A plat meeting all platting requirements of the land use code for a final plat shall be submitted to the Engineering Department. 2. A 4x4 utility easement shall be granted to the City. 3. The applicants shall agree to join in any future improvements districts for the area. 4. The building envelopes shall be moved to reflect that the westerly edge of the envelope for lot 1 is no closer to the hillside than the existing structure. The westerly edge of the building envelope for lot 2 shall be no closer to the edge than the 7880 elevation line. CITY MANAGERS RECOMMENDATION: ch.tagert 6 ~ ............ x7879 --~ / t" \ I -~ "'" . ,. · to .. \ - /' ",~./"~/ ./ / 11I-8 ............-/ '- - \ (j\ . r ~ l ( ( <, I ~ 38.78S .f AD.lUBTED aD....RII~ o ~~ /~.~~ \\~ \ \ li~1~1i1i1i1~f ~.:...::::::::.:.:.: .:::::-:.:-:.:.:.:. ':::::::::::::::::: '-( . \ \~ \ 0_200/0 21.3aB 9 I . . f: 21-300/0 9B3 31-400/0 1&!BB 410/0 . 917a SLDPE REDUCTIDN: (1 a,B 1 a> 32.72& .F ...... ...'/ ~'.. / AGENDA ., November 28, 1988 ~.," 5:00 COUNCIL MEETING I. Call to order I'. ~/ " ~ , ,~ II. Roll call III. Scheduled Public Appearances a) Employee Bonus Awards , J .--- ( .' , ' vie IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions V. Special Orders of the day a) Mayor and Councilmembers' comments b) City Manager's comments VI. Consent Calendar a) Liquor License Renewals b) Financial Performance Report c) Encroachment Request - Cunningham Building d) December Meeting Schedule e) Water Trust Agreement (Ron Mitchell) ,.: ~. /,~ ^ . /, /j' VII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #43, 1988 - Fines Mandatory Odd/Even No Burn b) Ordinance #46, 1988 - Land Donation Agreement c) Tagert Lot Split (Cindy Houben) , d) Block 19 Annexation e) Lone Pine Annexation VIII. Action Items -;.. a) Ordinance #47, 1988 - Affordable Housing/Displacement (Alan Richman) Ordinance #48, 1988, Conversion of Stoves (Lee Cassin) Aspen Valley Improvement Association -'Request of Council to Zone the Meadows Property and Remand to P & Z Red Roof Inns Sale to Housing Authority (Jim Adamski) Liquor License Renewal - Copper Kettle West Francis Paving (Elyse Elliott) Dwight Shellman Report - RFTA Routes Ordinance #49, 1988, Business Licenses (Craig Overbeck) Ordinance #50, 1988, Liquor Occupation Tax (Ron Mitchell) Request to Defer Water Tap - Hamwi (Ron Mitchell) Drug and Alcohol Abuse Policy (Patsy Malone) 1989 Fitness/Wellness Program (Patsy Malone) . Resolution #45, 1988 - Tow Contract (John Goodwin) Request to Change Half Hour Parking (John Goodwin) Parking Structure Bidding Process (Ron Mitchell) Parking Structure Cost Estimate (Ron Mitchell) Resolution #46, 1988 - 0015 Harbour Lane Annexation Ordinance #51, 1988, Appropriation (Craig Overbeck) Ordinance #52, 1988 - Planning Office Fees (Alan Richman) Referral of Hunter Long House Addition (Glenn Horn) b) '" c) J d) e) ~ g) h) il j) k) 1) m) n) 0) p) q) r) "j.. s) t) IX. Information Items ~ a) Planning Office Code Correction Status Update b) Historic Requirements - Elisha House x. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting December 12, 1988 z o (f) > o CD :J (f) " " ~ " ", ." " U N Iq .. , ~ 9 :;"a ~~ ~'" ~.j ~ -': ~" ,'-! " .' ~~~ .'------- ~ 1 ~ ii A " " . _.. - -- "I ~<:i;> ~J ,r~':".. 'J_ 1.; ~'\ , '" " o , o C 0 ---------.. '- -~ -- , '" s -"'''''''1 ' ~$"-V"Y'~~" ~ (',j' J"~,,":.. j4..--:- .\..._S "- 'J - ~7 , ~, 'd'-__-'. .___ t. ~'-""~""'''oJ1-' .....,.. -----..'" '1 ,. >_ "-~--"'--""" .'......J "-.)1_",",)> I i<. ---- '.... '1~ '" :?5t>2 30" .~. . ___'_ ".~ ,$ ..t-J31'\......t'~ _ tiITI()'IH-' -..;;: . . ~J,."".! R .J...-::I1l 3.ltll\/Cid) Nv,',", ']"_i<j -- ~..~~~;:::;;- \ \" // 'tl':..*'" , 8.,.,<:1_1 /" '_ 3. '~../'_\ ,")"'~-~ ---."" /" 16' .<-~ ------ ll'i:":l __ -------.. c. -, ,',,'.i 0(SS3,),)\1 ~::::-----0_ '\I', 'IS I- 0::: W (.9 <r I- 1 ~~, :.185 f'l.?5 ,.., <I~ " c. ::: '" , z " m ...J..u", . ~" Z It:-r 000 ;::i':E " ?rt'tJ z Q Vl~ '> o <D ::> ,:! ~,' en , tn 6~ :'r n~ h '!-:t ,'", .1'",- '! q', ~ "- "- ~ (~~ V" I/j:" ~C"}( N \) : ~ I 8 ~ I; ~A / w z '" .J ), ..". >i~ ~ u " o " >- ~'7 V" I- ~' 0" -1z o' ,~ '(7069 8\ Zc:::S " . f""" c r ~c. ~,.._r-..i ~ ;; C3>t .;J, 'J" :; 't",-, '" CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen .~~ DATE RECEIVED: 9/9~8 DATE COMPLETE: /0// '/fl'il PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. 2735-122-00-011 50A-88 STAFF MEMBER: r..1I PROJECT NAME: Taqert Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split Project Address: 930 W. Smuqqler Legal Address: APPLICANT: Irene Taqert Applicant Address: 930 W. Smuqqler 925-3559 REPRESENTATIVE: Albee Kern Mc.K /1(" G,...a..~ Representative Address/Phone: t,39 E. ran- 923 1411 S .;:;t,/d? 00 e. pk.,";,s PAID: ~ES) NO AMOUNT:.$ 7.3 0 . 0 0 ~ 73~-0:1)======== TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: ~ 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO CC Meeting Date AfdV d! PUBLIC HEARING:CYES--,) VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO NO ( VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Paid: Date: ! ( " if1F LS: , City Attorney ':',;,,) City Engineer / Housing Dir. Aspen Water city Electric )( Envir. Hlth. Aspen Consolo S.D. Mtn. Bell Parks Dept. Holy Cross Fire Marshall Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Energy Center School District Rocky Mtn Nat Gas State Hwy Dept(GW) State Hwy Dept(GJ) Building Inspector Other / DATE REFERRED: /qij?~ INITIALS: dti- FINAL ;OUTING: -------;;~TE ROUTED~--S-7~5-7N~;~;~~~7==#== ___ City Atty ~City Engineer ___ Zoning Env. Health ___ Housing Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: ~~J ,~~/ MEMORANDUM To: Cindy Houben, Planning Department From: Elyse Elliott, Engineering Department Date: March 16, 1989 Re: Tagert Lot Split Plat ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- There must be language on the plat stating: 1. The owner will join any future improvement districts. 2. A 4' X 4' utility easement is granted as shown on Lot 2. 3. The owner will give an easement to the City for the portion of Smuggler Street that is on Lot 2. cc: Fred Gannett .. , " \ J, NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C. A Professional Corporation Attomeys At law 600 East Hopkins Avenue Suite 203 Aspen. Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925-2612 Telecopler (303) 925-4402 J. Nicholas McGrath. March 15, 1989 Michael C, Ireland Ms. Cindy Houben Aspen/Pitkin Planning 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Office Re: Tagert lot split Dear Cindy: I apologize for the confusion on the applicant's behalf. I have not been involved in this matter since approval was voted by the City Council on November 27. Ramona, working with Alpine Surveys, has been following up on the plat, for the understandable reason of trying to save Irene money. I am sure Ramona was not trying to avoid appropriate staff review of the plat; she was just trying to do a good and thorough job for Irene. In any event, I enclose a copy of the proposed final plat for the Tagert Lot Split, with some additional language suggested by me to meet the conditions of the approval, which were from the end of your memo dated November 28 (see minutes of City Council attached). This was processed entirely as a lot split and the enclosed plat meets all of the platting requirements. The initial checksheet by the planning office did not check the lines for conceptual or final PUD, and none of the handouts referred to PUD--only lot splits. None of the conditions in your memo referred to PUD. More importantly, there is no reason for any additional approval under PUD when the lot split platting and approval process relating to two single family dwellings fully protect the applicant, the City, and the public. Under Sec. 7-902, no PUD approval is required for detached, single family development on a separate lot. By the lot split, these are in fact separate lots. Every one of the criteria in Sec. 7- 903(B)(1), (2), and (3) have already been satisfied. For example, no variation from the area and bulk requirements of the underlying zone were sought (and hence PUD is inapplicable), except for the condition of the Starodoj- Brandt letter as to the set back from the hill. And Sec. 7- 1003(2), under which we applied, exempts a lot split from the rest of the subdivision provisions, of which PUD is one. Since PUD is not involved, there is no need, if that was not already apparent by the nature of the lot split-single .Member, Colo. (1971), Callt (f969),andD.C. (1966)bors J, NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C. Ms. Cindy Houben March 15, 1989 Page 2 family home application to designate where in the building envelopes parking will go--these are two homes, not commercial development, and not a large, multi lot clustered residential development. There is a closing on this property with the original proposed purchasers from last Spring. It was scheduled for March 15, and I believe it will be postponed a week. With regard to Smuggler Street, I proposed that we show the small encroachment, and that we leave the issue unresolved. An easement was not a condition of approval. Please call if you have any questions. I would hope you, Fred, and the engineering department can authorize the City to sign within the next few days. Thanks for your patience. Sincerely yours, J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C. ByJJ~ J. Nicholas McGrath n9\tagert , 5 " t; ~, (/ / ........ J land use code; it is unclear as to whether or not the application meets the criteria for a lot split given the subdivision history of the parcel and, the proposed building envelopes are positioned too close to hillside. If however, the City Council should find that the application meets the Lot split criteria, that the zone district maps are too imprecise to make an exact calculation with regard to zone district boundaries and that the building envelopes are appropriate or can be altered as recommended by the planning staff then the following conditions should apply to the approval: 1. A plat meeting all platting requirements of the land use code for a final plat shall be submitted to the Engineering Department. 2. A 4x4 utility easement shall be granted to the City. 3. The applicants shall agree to join in any future improvements districts for the area. 4. The building envelopes shall be moved to reflect that the westerly edge of the envelope for lot 1 is no closer to the hillside than the existing structure. The westerly edge of the building envelope for lot 2 shall be no closer to the edge than the 7880 elevation line. CITY MANAGERS RECOMMENDATION: ch.tagert 6 J, NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P,C, A Professional Corporation Attorneys At law - 600 East Hopkins Avenue Suite 203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925-2612 Telecopier (303) 925-4402 '1 - I.,' 'i?9 ~ '. lo.,3.o-T ik~~ :r U o~~~ttet k, IM~ CfY\L q> I tdo\.. io 'I tJlA- .- - JW t -t k +- Lllu h, &to "t --br.ve: o Ta~(,. tb.4 r\t)\- c-~~ tu-.wn.v 0lAT, P JU,A..4 '4 aJA() ,. ~ 'f tv.wt IJ illd -cli-t 11 ~ S lU . r (1.W.. tv"t W'S ~ ~ ~ ~ 't d. 1""ke<X' 'j!. f\ € , it.o,.. Y fJ1A r- ~ t J fIf)" Y tJ"t,I..>v hJ.c,~SI,^I\ltz. . fL:t 1 1: ~GlJ ~ I bet.. tlu.% '{ (1M. ,) c.o-u..t &.. ~ l, k> -d.u. plo..1- ,+ ",or l-oAAorrou.; ~ t'rt' cl t1b-tr l..Vv~ .{a-~ ' V\.(.Aj, (., L'J..U..(( It- W"D'LQ. rJ2. c..t.r.. bL. I , h&p. Jl(;XM. ~ f, ) tv, Jrv ,.~, ... ....,..;./ , ~ GIBSON & RENO. ARCHITECTS November 23, 1988 Mr. Nicholas McGrath 600 E. Hopkins Suite 203 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: TAGERT LOT SPLIT Dear Nick: Regarding the zone district calculations for the proposed Tagert lot split, please allow me to make a few observations. I was asked by the Planning Office to attempt to compute the percentage of each zone district, R-30 and R-6 within the property. Based upon assumptions suggested by Engineering, I was able to calculate the percentage of each zone district to one hundredth of one percent. However, I feel this exercise in exactitude could be misleading and inappropriate for the following reasons: 1. City zoning maps are drawn at I" = 200 where a city block is only 1 1/4" long. At this scale the zone boundary pencil line itself is 8 to 10 feet wide! 2. The zone division boundary crossing the property is a freehand line applied by the mapmaker. No survey direction or declination is given for this line, nor is any on file at the Engineers' office. 3. To make matter worse, the Tagert property is at the corner of the zoning map, and is split between sheets 1, 4, and 5 with an imperfect fit at best between these three sub-parcels. Given these extremely imprecise document conditions, I feel it is folly to accept at face value an exact zone district divi- sion for this property, which shows it to be 497 sq. feet,(1.52~ short of the required 75% R-6 percentage, while the pencil line on the zoning document itself covers some 1800 sq. feet on the property! I believe the suitability of the property fo split should take precedence over such question in this case. such a lot e calculations DFG/cd enclosures 418 E. CQOPEI=l AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 303/925,5868 ,. "'",." ..".,. ".... FIRST WESTERN LENDING OF ASPEN, INC. , 17 SOUTH SPRING STREET. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611. (303) 925-7323 November 22, 1988 Honorable William L. Sterling, Mayor City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Bill: I received a notice from you as Mayor relative to a lot split for the Taggert Subdivision which is up for consideration before the City Council next Monday, November 28th. The reason I was sent a notice was that I live below the Taggert home, on Sneaky Lane. I am actually just across the street from the portions of the subject property. My and my wife's feelings on the matter are as follows: A) I think that the lot split should not be granted because a considerable portion of the land owned by Mrs. Taggert is steeply sloped and unsuitable for building. I am sure that at the time that Mrs. Taggert took title to this property that she did so by paying considerably less for the land in consideration of the extremely steep (and at that time considered unusable) slope on a portion of her land. Aspen is trying to limit growth, and does not need to grant a lot split for someone who purchased the land years ago with probably no anticipation of a lot split and for a considerably lower price than would have been paid for flat buildable land at that time. B) The impact on the Sneaky Lane area could be very significant since it is my guess that if the lot split is granted at least one house will be located over the edge of the bank. This gives Sneaky Lane homeowners the feeling of having a house built on top of their heads, destroying a lot of the amenities that were important to the people that built in this area. I would think that the slope is too steep and unstable to build on. Two other homes have been built on steep slopes in this area. These homes are an example of how noise and visual pollution can affect the area beneath them and I have personally seen a great deal of rock and dirt slide down r ... , " sterling Page Two from one home during and after construction. I don't understand why anyone would want to build a house over the slope if they could set it back from the edge of the bank and therefore get a better view that would not include the city garage and truck parking area. with effective screening, one, or even two, homes could be built back from the bank that would include only a view of the mountains, as opposed to building over the bank where the view would most probably include the Castle Creek Bridge and all the city maintenance area underneath it. C) In event the city does agree to a lot split I would hope that the homes would be required to be built on the flat portion of the parcel in question and not on a steep slope which will cause visual, ecological and perhaps physical damage (from falling and sliding rock, etc.) to those who live below. In addition, if two homes are built, isn't it about time that Aspen limited their square footage? Do we really need more 5,000 or more square foot homes in the West End area? In summation, both my wife and I feel that it is time for Aspen to limit growth and not grant subdivision exemptions that result in more growth. In this case there is no economic or environmental reason for granting the exemption and in fact there are strong arguments in both these areas to deny it. If the city feels it must grant such an exemption than I would be most appreciative if the two homes that would be built on this property would be required to be built on the flat, back from the edge of the bank. Consideration from you and other city personnel is appreciated. Sincerely, David A. Baxter CC: Cindy Huban, Planning Department, City of Aspen , c o Affidavit of Ramona Markalunas I hereby certify that I mailed copies of the public notice of the Tagert lot split hearing to the people on the attached list, first class postage prepaid, on November~, 1988. ! c....., c~~~~hJ iURona Marka una . . STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ) ss County of Pitkin My commission expires: :;TD... before me this ,:( '( day of /~ Commission expires 9/ZT192 <~taryc;k1{~/) >>; <~ ~~s~~dto \ l' R01' ERTY ~ERS rlr. 8lld tire. Jolm ScllUiI,,~el 1'.0. Box 3528 Aspen, Colorado 81612 HnllJ tl JOll liT. OF TAGJmT ()l'ERTY ~,,,..,,, B&I~ _ .lrtnersh'.r' c/o Craig L. U~rr Burr, Egan and Ueleage One I'oat Office Sq. Boston, Mass. 02109 Irving B. Hards Suite 505 2 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60607 DeniBon S. Levy 1335 Snowbullny Lane hapell, Colorado 61611 Donnelly and Cinda Erdman Box 10640 Aspen, CO 81612 Lorenzo and Joyce Semple c/o Robert ROBS 2200 N. Central Rd. Fort Lee, NJ 07024 11.11. VandenllJer 1755 NOIlBCO l'kwy Denver, CO 80220 Narlon and Nancy Vllndemoer 644 Gtencoe St. Denver I CO 80220 Frank J. Woods Box 1361 Aspen, CO 81612 William R. Jordan III and cheryll1jord3n 600 Eas t Hapking Aapen, Colorado 81611 La rry J. no Hlllan 1401 Brickell Ave. Hiami, FL 3313l David Henscher 111801 5150 Hidalgo lIouston, Texas 77056 Joan Gantzel 70S Headowa Road Aspen, CO 81611 David A. Baxter Box 2048 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Thomas and Betay Stsrodoj 580 Sneaky Lane Aspen, CO 81612 Joseph Coslliac and Anlleliese 301 Westover, Alamo Uta. San Antonio, Texas 78209 James D. Stout Suite 708 3857 Birch Newport Beach, California 92660 Sandra L. Read Box 4307 Aspen, Colorado _......_-_......"...~".,~...,_.,.--,.~...~,..,.,-_..> Y/U8 -"', '... .. CASE DISPOSITION TAGERT LOT SPLIT Approval was given on November 28, 1988 by city council with the following conditions: 1. A plat meeting all platting requirements of the land use code for a final plat shall be submitted to the Engineering Department. 2. A 4x4 utility easement shall be granted to the city. 3. The applicants shall agree to join in any future improvements districts for the area. 4. The building envelopes shall be moved to reflect that the westerly edge of the envelope for Lots 1 & 2 is no closer to the hillside than is depicted on the attached map (approximately 20' back from the westerly edge of the building envelope proposed by the applicant). All man made features shall be limited to within the approved building envelopes with the exception of access driveways. '...,,' ri -- /' ~ \.. - x7879 ~ \ , ~~ , 84' ........ I ................... ..-................-......., \ y-- ;...~ 't "" . ., "- :.. .~ c.lf'4 " . . 25' ( +1 \ \ I i \ \ \ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ~ / .~~ ~~ ------- 9 9 I . ,. G to \ -" ~ GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS TRANSMITTAL LETTER PROJECT: jV~5~ TO: D(\10 fY'C.t<8JUE:. ftt.-P. kJ~ 0lJfLV8.( ~ ARCH. PROJ. NO. 6f3':)-t.{-- DATE: If f~/Bg WE TRANSMIT: ~'\j ( ) Herewith Via nl!D-r c.UrX'> MAI'-- Under Separate Cover In Acccordance With Your Request THE FOLLOWING: ( ) ( ) (~ ( ) Drawings () Shop Drswing Prints ( ) Samples () Change Order (x.. ) I.-Uf' 6pW-r 'BUIL-1>1/.J/.o @..JVGLoP~ Information Approval Record/Use ( ( ) Distr. to Parties ) Review & Comment FOR YOUR: COPIES / . DATE //M~ DESCRIPTION 71IE "c;rAIlODe>:r"€fVVB..cR? (S flrGHurymEO /N 7Gu.oW. REMARKS: ~ US6 "11Jf!r ~Oe>rr aJt./Et..61lY AS ~ h/),v().-I<Y A~ CITY rhvJ./C.IL- ~ 7JN=. MsII 7D ~ A P~SF-- ~ asc~ &/c...P1 A..Gr- eA!VEtPP6 oN ~ fl---'FT W1IIC-H n(/ Me- pRt:;(:1ATUJ/lr Ii::>/& ~ (w/enel. ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) COPIES TO: Cll.IDi Hout'JEAJ ).II CK... !1 C6r"e,lfflf BY: 418 e. COOPER AVENue . ASPEN. COLORADO 8181'1 . 303/8255968 o o NOV . 5 192) November 15, 1988 Ms. Cindy Ruban Planning Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re.: Irene Tagert Subdivision Dear Cindy: Thanks for taking the time to make a site inspection. I hope it was informative. As Betsy and I expressed, any buildings on or near the slope of the Tagert property would be highly detrimental to us visually, acoustically, and economically, as well as threatening to the stability of the slope. Presently we are severely and adversely impacted by the home built on the bluff adjacent to the Tagert property. Loud hot tub parties in the wee hours of the morning have forced both us and Irene Tagert to call the police on several occasions. Tom Dunlop's statement concerning noise in his memo to you dated October 22, 1988 is an uninformed statement. We have never been contacted by anyone on this issue and we are, and would be, the most impacted. Also, lights at night intrude on our privacy. Both these problems would be greatly magnified should any development be permitted on, or close to, the slope of the Tagert property as this is the orientation of the views of our home. It would also severely impact several other homes on Sneaky Lane. Sunny Vann will be meeting with Dave Gibson, architect for this project, to see exactly what they have planned and he will keep you advised. These issues are our greatest concern and we would appreciate if they are addressed in the review of subject application. o Sincerely, ~. (~ f-'v- ~~~tarOdOj Be~~~s SVr~dOj " -_., r'"". ,-., . November 20, 1988 Cindy Huban Re. Irene Tagert SUbcli vision c/o City of Aspen Planning Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Cindy, We the undersigned hareowners of Sneaky Lane are extrerrely concerned about the develOfl1'eI1t of the Irene Tagert land parcel because of the great potential to negatively impact our neighborhood. 'l'he subject parcel sits on a bluff approximately 75 feet high that overlooks our neighborhood and thus any structure built on or near the lip of the bluff will severely impact the view plane and privacy of several of our hanes. In addition the fragile nature of the slope is of great concern. 'l'he hane presently built adjacent to Irene Tagert's hane on her north boundary is a graphic example of the negative impact created by a structure allowed to be built on a bluff. Loud noises fran hot tub parties and lights in the wee hours of the rroming have led to repeated phone calls to the police. To allow subject parcel to be developed in a similar manner will only canpound these problems. 'l'here is ample land available back fran the lip of the bluff on which to locate any building envelopes. We hope in your review of subject application that you will take into consideration the deep concerns of the undersigned neighbors. See attached signature page x ~---j ~ ,0~' e k UcLy /..e'2- (,':' '; "(' , /4, (:-;1 .. .; (.I jCf ,.J ,'1/ ...... ),1....1.'1 .,,-:'...,/I,/~ -'('--.Y Iv{..-'~ ~ -/\~ (....._....~\...__{V "..... J" ,I ') 'ORr/d) ,"1 /3RXI f..R CI+I'\15 r3AX. 7f:. R ~2J S ,:;N f-r:::I K Y LR;J E. J-g:'A....tLU.V1.2 4tUft -p'l<"Ct:f1 t[ i,: Q~n.~ /2J~~~ CjNTH1R R, at/nEE. ROB6RT (.RM P 5D5 5l'lEAI<y UfAlf) .sOC-iTl-f UNII ---..... ../ WIL/./f//VI (f. ,fORO(frJ Cr/f.RYL A JDtxOAN 050 .5rJlSqKY LfftJE- , d~ 4e<>-- 4J~ ' (?t~/.~ Bfr:J'j it STFtf.J.oOOJ 11-10 1M lis 8TRRooeJ j150 SNe{fI<Y LlfrJE .4, ~) \ /~.>~#~. ~// /" / y"" /' 'J A _ 00 'SuQ 1/ L ?'S/!?,.AZ:. /1 "r>t..-C- ~ ~ ~ G} ""{~c:. c7 -;7 ~ SIV /l A,;.- /-A~c..5 '-- (1P \ LIr'DA- ~'-~ $"l)S' SJ'1~ j - - <-",I)nd. v,v,;"'" fhl' W SJ'\l\!orM L 62.eA:D ;50 I 511..lA-K':) J..wv.- ~ U, ~Ib" ",-.", /~' I '" I-" , i /' / J, NICHOLAS MCGRATH. P,C, A ProfeuJonal CotporatIon Attomeys At law 600 East Hopi( Ins Avenue SUite 203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303)925-2612 Telecopier (303)925-4402 October 11, 1988 Ms. Cindy Houben Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Tagert lot split/GMP exemption application Dear Cindy: This is to supplement Mrs. Tagert's lot split application dated September 9, 1988, a copy of which is attached (Exhibit 1). We would like to request that you schedule this on Council's agenda no later than October 24. I realize that is a quick date~ on the other hand, the application is hopefully simple and most of the materials were submitted following Mrs. Tagert's September 9 letter. Mrs. Tagert has a contract to sell the property conditioned upon approval of this lot split no later than the October 24 meeting. We are negotiating for an extension~ but do not yet have one. Mr. and Mrs. Tagert plan to retire and move to Grand Junction. Most of their moving plans are made and they are in a bit of a limbo situation. Leoal description and ownership. The legal description of the property and evidence of ownership is set forth in the title commitment attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The Irene R. Pastore is the title commitment is the same person as Irene R. Tagert, which is her name by remarriage. So far as we are aware there are no liens, mortgages, etc. affecting the property. Vicinitv map. I have attached an 8 1/2 x 11 vicinity map locating the property in the City is attached as Exhibit 3. We ask your indulgence on all maps involved in this application. Mrs. Tagert's husband drives a school bus, and they are on a fixed income. I am trying therefore to keep all costs down. Owners within 300 feet. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a list of adjacent and lot-owners within 300 feet. Plat. split. We submitting the reason Attached as Exhibit 5 is a rough plat of the lot ask to be excused from the requirements of a formal plat at this stage of the proceeding for set forth above. Member, Cola. (1971). CollI. (19691, end D.C. (1966) bars ..=-_.~~-_.....-....--.....,.--,-.~,._,~.~..~...,...-.,.- .~~" r-.. r''''-''', '''-'-' .Y J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH. P.C, Cindy Houben October 11, 1988 Page 2 Exo1anation of comoliance with code. We believe Mrs. Tagert's property is eligible for a lot split subdivision exemption and a GMQS exemption. The property is located at the end of W. Smuggler, overlooking Sneaky Lane, where W. Smuggler joins Power Plant Rd., which goes beneath the Castle Creek Bridge. Mrs. Tagert acquired her parcel in 1950; she built her house there in 1960-61. The parcel is very large, and substantially larger than the subdivided lots that have sprung up around her. The lot split would create two lots of 16,386 square feet each, each of which is still larger than any of the adjacent lots or other lots in the area. In 1972, Mrs. Tagert sold a portion of the property to Tom and Bob Starodoj for their homes on Sneaky Lane. Those lots were the two lots of the "Tagert Subdivision," recorded in 1972. The plat has the adjacent property--at issue here-- labelled as belonging to Mrs. Tagert, but the property was not part of the subdivision.' In any event, since Mrs. Tagert's land was not part of that subdivision, it is therefore not a parcel created by a subdivision after March 24, 1969, which parcels are ineligible for a lot split subdivision exemption pursuant to Section 7-1003(A)(2)(a) of the Land Use Code. Rather, the parcel was in fact created by a conveyance out of the old Marolt Ranch in 1950, and this is eligible for a lot split. The R6 zone, in which the majority of the parcel is located, allows 1 house for 6000 square feet. At that rate, under a full subdivision and GMQS application, there could be as many as 5 houses on the parcel. While the lot size is larger in the R-30 zone, which affects a small portion of the property, so less than 5 single family houses could actually be built, duplexes are permitted on 8000 square foot parcels; so if duplexes were built then 8 units are possible. In fact as the Planning Office has noted, there is an incongruity here since a duplex could be built without a GMQS application, but there is no GMQS exemption for a second single family home. While we understand you will be drafting a corrective amendment, that will arrive too late to help Mrs. Tagert and her present contract. 'Apparently there was no requirement in 1972 that all contiguous land be part of a subdivision, although we have not tried to research what 1972 codes provided. -~_..,~.,~, .. ,.~,,,,,,,---,,-_..__._.. """' J, NICHOLAS MCGRATH. P.C. Cindy Houben October 11, 1988 Page 3 There are few if any other parcels which are comparable to Mrs. Tagert's, and the interpretation that she is eligible for a lot split and GMQS exemption is reasonable and will not be a harmful precedent. In fact, a lot split (with its usual conditions of no further development) actually benefits the City and the adjacent area. That is, if one had the time and the money--which Mrs. Tagert does not have--one could file for full subdivision and GMQS approval and get from 4 to 8 units. A lot split yields only 2 units. All land use interests of the City can be addressed in the lot split ~ process, such as a requirement that the houses be built on the upper, flat area, rather than on the steep slope. Thus it is meaningless to force this parcel into a larger, far more expensive process to accomplish the same (or a worse-- more units) result. Review standards. All of the review standards of attachment 4, par. 2, items a through e we believe are met by this application: (a) the land is a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after March 19691 (b) no more than two lots are being created conform (and exceed) the requirements of the underlying zone and zones1 (c) the lots were not part of a previous lot split exemption1 (d) a plat will be prepared with the no further subdivision and (e) there is one dwelling on the two lots and thus the property is entitled to a GMQS exemption for one additional dwelling. Section 8-104(C)(1)(a). Mrs. Tagert hopes that the City will act favorably upon her application. Sincerely, J. NICHOLAS McGRATH, P.C. By J lhJ.c.Jt.<- AACG~ J. Nicholas McGrath cc: Mrs. Irene Tagert Mrs. Ramona Markalunas c1:houbo11.ltr \ \ " I c' ,tJ], Y,,'. ~,', [-,- ,_ \! I ' ---. ,-. ,- r 'I i ~, , ' September 9, 1988 Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Tagert Subdivision (Exemption, Lot Split) Application Dear Planning Office: I hereby apply for a lot split or subdivision exemption application (or any other category that may help divide my land into two parcels). I bought about 2 acres from the old Marolt Ranch in 1950, and built our house on the property, at 930 W. Smuggler, in 1961-1962. The property was annexed to the City around 1970. In 1972, I sold a part of the property, down the hill towards Castle Creek, to Bob Starodoj, who processed that into two lots, although I signed the plat. My parcel is about 3/4 ~f an acre. The upper portion, where my house is, and where the two houses would be if the parcel is divided, is R-6, which allows one house for 6000 square feet. At that size, four houses could be put on the parcel. The lower portion of the property is R-30, but the proposal is not to build down the hill. If the property were divided into 9000 square foot parcels, then six or eight units (duplex) could be put on the property. All I want is two parcels. I will order adequate mapping or surveys to assist in finding the zoning line if necessary, although I do not understand why the zoning line does not simply follow my lot line. I ask that the head planner with the help of the City Attorney if necessary determine that my parcel is a "legal" parcel eligible for a lot split. I got no benefit from Mr. Starodoj subdividing the property I sold him, and did not know that action might somehow hurt me in the future. My property should be viewed as a metes and bounds parcel and thus eligible for a lot split or for a further subdivision exemption. If my property is divided into two parcels, the density is one single-family dwelling per 16,363 square feet. That is far larger a parcel, or less density, than not only the vast majority of the lots in the City, but larger than almost all of the immediately adjacent lots, and the lots in the surrounding area. .... ~ 1- ( - I have not completed arrangements to hire a land use attorney but I wanted to get the application on file because I don't want to lose the sale I have pending. Thank you. Irene Tagert " .. - C::III~ .......... t\,,", Central Bank Aspen, N.A. JAN-9 T .5. Starodoj. II PresIdent January 4, 1989 Ms. Cindy Houben Chief Planner Planning Department City Hall 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Re.: Irene Tagert Subdivision Dear Cindy: Just to follow up on this particular situation, I would appreciate your keeping me informed of any changes, should they occur, relative to this subdivision; and also when the final Plat comes in for approval, if I could have the opportunity to review it with you before you put your final stamp of approval on it. Once again, thanks for all your help. Sincerely, 0~ Thomas S. Starodoj TSS/ss 420 East Main Street! P.O. Box 3318 ! Aspen, Colorado 81612 ! (303) 925-1450 - . ASPEN.PITKIN ENVIRO~ENTAL HEALTH DEPARTIVh:!NT MEMORANDUM <".~'. To: Cindy Houben, Planner Planning Office ,. ....~... ," -..' From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director ~ Environmental Health Department Date: October 22, 1988 Re: Tagert Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split Parcel 10# 2737-122-00-011 ===========================================================~==== The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the above-men tioned land use submi ttal for the following concerns. The authority for this review is granted to this office by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office. SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: There is no reference in the submittal that the lots created in the proposed split will be served by public sewer when dwellings are constructed. Since public sewer is available in that area it will be a requirement that the applicant contacttn~ Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District for arrangement~ to-connect future dwellings to that utility. Section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin County Requlations On Individual Sewaqe Disposal Systems defines the policy to "require the use of public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to areas that are not feasible for public sewers". ADEOUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: There is no reference in the submittal that the. lots created in the proposed split will b~ served by ,a public water system when dwellings are constructed. Since public water is available in that area it will be a requirement that the applicant contact the City of Aspen for arrangements to connect future dwellings to that utility. Section 23-55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requires such projects "which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system". AIR QUALITY: Proposed dwellings will be required to comply with regulations governing fireplace/wood stove installations that exist at the time building permits are obtained for construction. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 - ASPEN.PITKIN , . j ENVIRO~j(nENTAL HEALTH OEPARTMeNT Tagert Subdivision Exemption/Lot Split October 22, 1988 Page 2 Further, the applicant shall contact this office for information concerning applicable regulations on containment of wind blown dust that may be generated during development of the properties. NOISE: When development is initiated short term noise impacts can be expected to the neighborhood. However, after construction of dwellings long term negative impacts will not be anticipated. CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAWS: None that pertain to this application. CONTAMINATED SOILS: The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials off-site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy metals being present in the soil. This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative impacts to humans. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 ....... ",--.,".~-_.""""--..",,,.......~.-..-. MEMORANDUM To: Cindy Houben, Planning Office ~ Elyse Elliott, Engineering Departmentv0b From: Date: November 22, 1988 Re: Tagert Lot Split -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- The Engineering Department has the following comments on the above application: 1. The plat submitted with this application is not sufficient. A final plat must be approved by the Engineering Department prior to granting the lot split. The present owner of the property has questioned the right-of-way location of Smuggler Street, a proper survey will clarify this. 2. A 4'x4' utility easement must be granted to the City. This can be located on either lot. 3. This project must agree to join any future improvement districts. - c ...... \../ November 15, 1988 Ms. Cindy Ruban Planning Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen. CO 81611 Re.: Irene Tagert Subdivision Cindy Ruban: I am a resident at 575 Sneaky Lane, Aspen, Colorado, and thus am very concerned about the subdivision development planned on the Irene Tagert property. The view plane from my home is directly up the slope leading to her home and thus any development on or close to the slope would be highly detrimental to me and my family. Specifically, the impact to us could be both visual and acoustic as we are located directly across from the planned development on the west side of Sneaky Lane. I hope you will give our concerns the greatest thought when you review this application. Sincerely, oseph Kosniac 1715 McCullouch San Antonio, TX 78212 (512) 226-9541 (303) 925-4034 NDV 2 I - ....... ,""' ....,J November 26, 1988 To City Council: Up:m review of mem::>ra"'1dum dated 11/28/88 prepared by Cindy Houben of the Planning Office, we, the undersigned haneawners of Sneaky l&'1e re::arrnend approval of the Tagert Lot Split subje::t to the follO\\'ing: 1. That any man made structures, buildi.'1gs, hot tubs, dedcs, roof lines etc. that are located on proposed Lot 1 be located no closer to t.'1e edge of t.'1e hillside thal'1 10' East of t.1'Je Westerly foundation line of the existing Tagert home. 2. That any lTI3Il made structures, buildi.'1gs, hot tubs, de::ks, roof lines, etc. that are located on proposed Lot 2 be located no closer to the edge of t.1'Je hillside th,"-,'1 10' East of the 7880 elevation line. The only difference betwee'1 our re::orrvne.'1dations and t.'1ose of the Planning Office is the 10'. To not grant the lot split will probably result in the construction of a single structure of approxinately the same square footage as the two hanes but located over the edge of the hillside, hanging into our hanes and view planes. This would be a,=tastro,:>he. Attached is a map S!1owing t.1'Je original ~i1J?Osed buildi.'1g envelopes i.'1 Blue and our proposed weste2.TI envelope li.'1es in Red. The Planning Offices' recommended line is in Green. Agenda Time is 5:30 p.m., Monday, Novemebr 28, 1988. ./ ) .(.~ / ~. _/ \ "- \ - x 7879.6 1 <o<2P' ~ Q 9 I . ,. e r: ( ES '( \ \ l.; \ \ I I III I \ - ...... . " ~,--<-~ y .,~ CORRECTED PUBLIC NOTICE RE: TAGERT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A LOT SPLIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public meeting will be held on Monday, November 28, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M., before the Aspen City council, City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO, to consider an application from Irene Tagert requesting Subdivision Exemption for the purpose of dividing the Tagert property into two lots of 16,386 sq. ft. each. The property is located at the end of W. Smuggler overlooking Sneaky Lane, more specifically described as a tract of land situated in Lot 3, section 12, T10S, R85W. The public notice published in The Aspen Times on November 3, 1988 incorrectly stated that meeting would be held on Tuesday rather than Monday. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, (303) 920- 5090. s/William L. Stirlinq Mayor, Aspen city Council ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Published in The Aspen Times on November 17, 1988. city of Aspen Account. .~.._.,c,.~~.__,.._~",-",_.___~., ,r''''- " ""'''', ~~ GIBSON & RENO . ARCHITECTS MOV I 5 i__ TRANSMITTAL LETTER PROJECT: 7;iJ4&~, /Dr ~ TO: PIAN,.., I AI. OP/'la=- I~ ~ <Sto1~ ;>,. A51tEN c:b. e. ~II WE TRANS~t CJ~"H!!::.'(/!:~^' Via !MNo-{)er.IUt:J-~ ( ) Under Separate Cover ~ In Acccordance With Your Request r=~ ( ) ARCH. PROJ. NO. ~ DATE: ''/I>>Iee, FOR YOUR: Information Approval Record/Use ~ Dfstr. to Parties Review & Comment THE FOLLOWING: ( ) Drawings ( ) Samples ( ) Shop Drawing Prints ( ) Change Order COPIES DESCRIPTION ACTION CODE ~ DATE ,j~~: "/I~ /.Nl' , , ,., ~; ~~:;: IJuII.DJ/1(G !;;itIVE/ ~~ REMARKS: CINDY: 2-ONE Dl9"R.~"" BDiUNPA<<J."," A~ ~S~~ P#A. MY It/flAIl. M nH& ltd'TH ~N &/~IILD DP."'.ItY- ~^,&.; <1_0'" ANA"''''Y~ 's ~- P1r.z.,;.,." MEIr- /,.,& "','rN ~~ -- ,t/. /m. 1J1t.1,~,Ad- &.LJV'A.c... Y Pl2oPoS/;O Ie ~& J.,,..,,.,.. 61' ~H~"'.~JllCS ON,..,,) .lVDr Ra& i.AAJlfJc,.~'~Nd, PA"'N&. ~Nr~"" ~UA~ "'" COPIES TO: (w/encl".) , l>t!;7>' i \7"e14 ~ ('-) if. NICHcLAS. MC&~ ~ I ~ ~DNA Ml't4of(M.4JHAS (I) ( ) BY: 418 E. COOPEFt AVENUE . ASPEN, CQLOFtAOO 81811 . 303/925,5968 N. Z N -""; ~ M R-30[p..~dJ ''"'"'' ,-......I 5 7 II 7'[ o \ ~\ , \ \ ).\ \~ /~-- / /1, " ....... LoOT 1 " " " "- '- ~ ~ . .. .... ,.. !: ~ . '" . ~ C , Q: / C i < / ~ 'tOL,S ''''~ ........ f:.;~ , , , co '" '" <, \ \ '" :; ~ .. ~. ~, \ \ \ ,1" ";;::20' ? ~ o \ ~ '" Z ;:: '" ,'" :. "' m '. '< , I I ----, , \ \ , \ \ R-3Dpud 8B79 8F eB.B2D/D R-S 24.048 BF 73.48% Sf', 32,7'24 SQ. PT. -~.._- -- " ' ... ~ ", " - R-; '> LoOT 2 . . i . . . ------------------------~------------------------- -. - - N 75001' If .al~ 86" ,.'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,383 SF t. \ \ \ \ \ R-a \ \ -'-~ . ..S .€.s".:, 5 , 02 ~ F: 577, S]' Jy, LoOT PROPO.SO 8P LJ'T'- PROPOSED LOT SPLIT CONFIGURATION DESIGN ABOVE BY GIBSON .' RBNO ARCHITECTS OF 9/9/88 IS SHOWN OVERLAIN ON HAROLD JOHN BON IMPROVBMBRT SURVBY OF .2123/88. DI'STRleTS Z,CNE ,<I,..Ie8 j 40 ~-ffl 1 .0 I 20 t: - 60: FT ~---_.,._....--~_....-_._-- ~ GIBSON &. RENOG ARCHITECTS T , i,'" .. . NI: g TI 11.1 =:'1 a s S 5e3. ''!J::fl %; 4')8.464' Uf". 194,124.1253 t:t:t 11 48.1748 " . i , HDo 5,347. 1244 , 199.384,470. **11: ;-,j n.%5.7686 H::t. lee.. 131. %72 u* . '.' " CO GO , . 591. 1l1ST , '"77! 323. 65~j u* 1~4..285, 3@6f 4'-U ...' . , , , . , 503. *** S 14,584; " 97,124.1694 ... " HDo 286.38e~ , 194.232.4242 *t* H 14.5949 E .' 583, H.. 97..124,\694 **t , HDo 296.3899 , 1'34-,232.4242 *** 59l. ... 503. U',;t 97.323. 659 1 *** qr. !24.1604 *** 184,285.3866 ... 104.232.424.2 *** S 75.8668E fi 14. S04'? E HD= 183.2909 HD= 2t1t,.18~0 589. *** 5~! . ttt 97,297.1199 *** 97.323. 6581 t** 184,385.1313 tt:t 104.285.386" ""** S 7.3224 W ^ 17.1313t? H HD= 288.8909 , i HDo 222.81ee , 592. *** 5e4. :t.:~' 97,898.8292 *** 97,145.7647 **t 184,357.826\ t** \94,151.\386 j:~:t H 75.0655 W r, 75.9657 " ! HDo 129.7559 , HD= B4.1'376 593. *** i 583, :tltt. 97,124.1694 ... 97, 124.16~4 :t::t:t 184,232.4242 *** 1'34!232.42d2 :n:j: I SQFT= 24,Q48.176~ ~" SPFT = 8,679.9656 C;IF~ PCPSo e.1992 pcPS= 9.5521 p... a.D R.. ~ I ~ I-I T I .~~ "<'"_'.__~"~"""~_"'...-4~__""'____~ ," '.r ............ '-'. -. TAGERT LOT SPLIT/JACK & BETTY PRESS 11/10/88 FOR PURPOSES OF FIGURING THE DENSITY ALLOWED ON THE PARCEL, THE FOLLOWING REDUCTIONS ARE FIGURED PER SECTION 7'~903 B.2.b. (PG 7-44) OF THE ASPEN CITY CODE. SQUARE FEET TOTAL LOT AREA = 32,726.00 REDUCTION IN AREAS OF: 0-20% SLOPES 21,308 SF X 0% 21-30% SLOPES 983 SF X 50% 31-40% SLOPES 1,265 SF X 75% = (0) (491. 50) = (948.75) 41% + SLOPES 9,170 SF X 100% = (9.170.0<1.) ADJUSTED TOTAL LOT AREA FOR COMPUTING ALLOWED DENSITY 22,116.00 ."._'"..-......_~.__'"'N__""__"...~.-"'- ------ R -3 D [pudJ _._-- -------_.~----~-~--~. ---., , ,\ \ 4, "OT C'4/i !;;O"i',.,. - - - - - ._, 1 " , o , / , -I I' / "", ..... ~ "- V I "-... ~ / " I / / ~----------------------_!_------------------------ t -. _ _ N 750071 -N'" 213.861 3 . "--.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " , , CJ f1) ~ c, (l;,J{/ }r :3']-. OI.:S lA{G- .........., C.) . R-30pud 8679 SF 26.520/0 ----1 \ , \ \ , \ , , , \ R-a 24.a4~ 73.480/0 SF 32,7Uo SQ. n. ,-, " f'.... :::' R -l, . . i . . . '" , .. .. Q ... No ,.. to _. ~ ~, .' rn :S, "- , \ \ \ (l) ~ .... .. o ' \D. rI;# ..., 0"'. \ ? o ;xl <"- r" ~ ;> -< 4 o iO z <./l - ,~ fl\ , I '. :&~~' \ . \ \ \ \ I \ I ) , \ ,__.5 .68t"06' Oc" E 577.:>7' iy, LOT --- - s.p L_I"'---'--,-- -- PROPOSED PROPOSED LOT SPLIT CONFIGURATION DESIGN ABOVE BY GIBSON & RENO ARCHITECTS OF 9/9/88 IS SHOWN OVERLAIN ON HAROLD.' JOHNSON IMPROVEMENT SURVEY OF .2/23/88. . Z.ONE R~~1jS" \ I ) Dl'STRleTS I"~ =--;:2D' --- I . ,I o 20 I~ I f<;;' lea I 40 t. 60' FT -e OZ 0 -/ ....,.. /11 "W."M ,az: ==../ .. . of . I " e .98'[IZ "loLO.SL'N - ------ ;0 : ~r-'~ "" . ~-~~ . . . : . . . . . : . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , , \ \ \ \ \ , , , \ \ \ UI \Q ~ 85 l . 1+ Bela BAN. DNla'ln. aBS elatlel . 10 \. : . . . . . : : . . . . : . . ~~ dS [9['91 II .La, , , \........~................... / ~ . t8 '- / / h_,", J 6L8L X ~ ~ / ) (~ .. ( ,09 oz :IS s.....aa :'Y~D~ DB~SnrDY \ V SIIII /O'!: 'N.dB" <a.. s'a..) :NDI~OnaBtI Bela,S :IS saL'aE aL"S . a/a~~ ssal. a/aD~-~ E: ...;.;.;............ .................... .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. .................... ............ :a ESS a/aDE:-~a :.:.:.:.:.:.: ~........... . ........... e . I 8 8 saE'..a a/aOa-D D . I I ------- r ~''''~r '-- I I I I ~ ~ > g-tI I. BBL'BE . . ~ I I ) . . "- . ') , . . ~ 1, . ~ . "- . ) j (.~r1oH - . "ONI,J.<;I"a) \ -- )( -., ....J g-tI . \ , ~ d ~\ "\., ------------~ r [p n -" ~- d]DE:- ~ /"" ,...... ,,-"" ., ,"Ii' j, J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH. P,C, A Prof8$$/onal Corporation Attorneys At Low 600 East Hopkins Avenue Suite 203 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Telephone (303) 925-2612 Telecopier (303) 925-4402 November 29, 1988 Ms. Cindy Houben Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 13 0 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Tagert Dear Cindy: I appreciate your professional handling of the Tagert lot split last night at Council. I thought our position was valid but that arguments could be made pro and con on each issue. I think it would have been fairer for Council to have adopted your green line, which we would have agreed to, rather than the more restrictive red line (which to me represents only the old NIMBY philosophy). But mainly I appreciate a planner making a candid argument, but making it in an understated way because the result is really not all that important in the particular case, saving the more vigorous opposition for those cases that warrant it. Not all planners (and lawyers) do that, even though that approach is best for the process. Thanks. Sincerely yours, J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C. BY~t.d-. J. Nicholas McGrath n6;tagch.ltr Member, Colo. (1971), Collf. (1969), and D.C (1966) bars .' , , J, NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P,C, A Prof9S5iona1 Cotp(XOfIon Attorneys At law 600 East Hopkins Avenue SUite 203 Aspen. CoIorodo81611 Telephone (303) 925--2612 Telecopier (303) 925-4402 October 21, 1988 Ms. Cindy Houben Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Tagert lot split Dear Cindy: In response to your letter of October 19, please be advised that (a) we will provide further information on (i) the two zones on the property and calculations under each, although apparently the City zoning maps in the area, on which we must depend, may not be very helpful (Section 5- 508B)~ and (ii) the measurement of slope and slope reduction on the property (Sections 5-503 and 7-903 B.2(b)), and (b) that we object to the characterization that because the Planning Office wants further information or wants the applicant to address additional issues, that the application itself is "incomplete." We do not regard the application as incomplete, although we will accommodate you to the extent possible. Mrs. Tagert simply cannot afford to pay architects and engineers to make precise calculations on (a) the area in each zone where the zoning map may not clearly provide that information~ and (b) the slope area and slope reduction formulas. It seems to me with this small and relatively insignificant application that one can reach the ballpark conclusion that neither slope reduction nor the dual zone sections affect a lot split~ they might if one were seeking approval for, e.g., four units. Nonetheless, within Mrs. Tagert's means we will see what we can do~ perhaps her proposed purchaser's architect can assist. Sincerely yours, J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C. , By~A-- J. Nicholas McGrath n9 ~ tag021.1 tr (X;f2A. Member, Colo. (1971). Calli (1969). and D.C. (1966) ban 1) 2) --. A'lTACllMENl' 1 .AND USE APPLICATION F1JRM ProjectName Ta1er-r LotSpl,t Project r=ation Me Us c~ bo~s, q 30 tv, Sf)1U~'j /"" 3) 5) (in::licate street address, lot & bl=k number, legal description 'Where appropriate) Present Zonin:J AID V'lWS Hy. )1MI2 ~3D pI.{ {) 4) lDt Size "3 1--} 72.-0 C/J Applicant's Name, 1\ddress & Itlone * J:refl€. To[V r t ~ Q3v lu. SYll\f1~41er-~ BiJf-43'i> I A~ qJ..';- ~3C;s~ Representative'S,Name, 1\ddress & Itlone * J.J\;/c..Lu./oc; )vUGpa-d..~ PL) bOD e I1vpb,vf: SI.Hte '2-D~ , k~' qt..~~~ 2.(01'2.. ( Type of Application (please check all that apply) : 6) 7) Corrlitional Use _ Conceptual SPA _ Special Review Final SPA 8040 Greenline _ Conceptual roD _ stream Margin Final roD _ Conceptual Historic D=v. Final Historic D=v. Minor Historic D=v. Historic Dem:>lition _ Historic D::!signation M:Juntain yiew Plane Subdivision. COrrlaniniumization _ TextjMap A1nerxEeIt '-I lDt SplitjIDt Line ......p... hijust:IIent 8) Description of . Exist.in:J Uses (ramr...r arx:l type of exist.i.nJ st::rucbJres; appraxiJnate sq. ft.; romhE>r of Lo.lu.A.'''''; arf:/ previous approvals granted to the prqJerty) . /1072- ~ I 5 hnff~OD7US/ J 5intj/e ~~ dwe//I~ GU> Allobrent _ GU> Exemption 9) Description of tAA t. ks et^ 51111/€ ~lUt~ i /& 3"'3 PI I cpnent Application . vs tI. r r J,;...CfJvt/fs Ie:, hUl./d! fwo tu.mu ':> fa ch ();I. a. to I- i 10) Have yen attached the following? ~ Response to Attad1ment 2, M:in:iI!I:Jm snhnkc:ion Contents ~tt'Response to Att:admIent 3, Specific Snhnkc:ion Contents (~It..a:i-) ~ Response to Attad1ment 4, Review starrlards for Yoor Application ~- SCHEDULE B - Section 2 Exceptions Order Number: 15590 Commitment Nurrtler. The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records, 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any lads which a correct " survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. . ,. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished. imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5, Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, n any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the p,oposed insured acquires of record for vaiue the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed ,tax sa.les. 7. The effect of inclusions in any general or S~fiC water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservati or other district or inclusion in any ~ater service or 8 eet improvement area. 8. Right of the proprietor of a vein 0 ode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same found to penetrate or ' States Patent recorded t ber 24, 1892 in Book 55 at Page 32 as Reception No. 49767. . '9. Any lien that y attach up vesting of title in the party <. to be insured. > NOTE I Stewart of A8~n, and/or Stewart Title Guaranty . ,Company neither S UIIle, 'nor will be charged with any liability" >'" ..',=.:'Under .thisCol!llllit ent until such time as the DllIIIe of the . co'.' ." '.':"propolled .insured and the llIIIouot of insurance are Ia4de la........','::'-' '.~ . <to the Title Company. " Exceptions numbered are hereby omitted. Page 4 STEWART~T.I.'LE GU A.JtANTY_.-~OK~AXT 1654 (1SM 3186) , -I ,;\'~ .', -- , I ",7:':'1'1' 3 :<\ \ ' ~ d ,,1\,\ ' I -1"hAi-' '~\\. . " . ,\,;,;~,}~~' n-,I~ \ ., :.:'}:'W.. 1 I ',' ", ',"," ' :\:, '/.~";~... \ "..: ',,',.'.'{.[~~.,"l1 '''','''".' / ..' . '. .,::,~~'I, ,to 2' ",. J ~.. ..~, I : ,'/ \'~:f'{~~ ~ ':''',-~ \ 11'~: ~~",::"~X., ~'\,~( ~",s.<,i.~.\'~~(j',:~"?I~J''':'''I\' .,'" " 'ti,~"~f:f~~:'I~~WI\f-;' ..:,~.y;,'~\.....J-" <::"lfj;I:', {, V.~ ~~~. , ,',>:'\',::\ '" ' ' , tSl"t ' \'V'\\~~' ~ ,I . ~ ':~ ".\ '- ~",: \ \Mi\~\~\\\ :.- L",.I!,~:,. _"/"~~:~",,,~~,,r., ,:,~ "',:.,:.,d,, '.,. ,'I' . ,~~,,\~.'." '2 ~, '%IJ'"' f", .. t".'lID~'" .",1 r n \.~ =T'7:~~:~',I'~':~':'.i~~'~,~t.I:~~~~\."'\ " · "T T"'~\'" "':'\\,\-\ " , ,.,. _,')11 n~ I . 'f' r JjI1 ~'~ '. I I ".,.,' " ,,' ," -;; ,'1.1- fT -::::. .. ".,-"" ,',1/\'. ,,' '~:"W' :5 ,'.-<V' vi. /." 'r,,-";';' '""'J!~!"~""-' " ."'.' , ,',:' , '.,1" ,.: -n' I{~~!f.',,' ~':~t':I';~'illJ]]]" " ", .:::,U" ' ., [\1[\ / j . :,~:/itJP, ,:l~;t. rr,~ ,I,. ", ~,,} \ . L.JII. , ,'t,,~I,l11 l" .",.,' i ' ' "."", "",I" , I "'t"" I " ,. ".'/:. ,1"",,' , I ,~~~~i~~:';e;,;: :1:.',' "\'i~'lDt~1 ~ :::;'0:~'..,rrmT\ 1 '''jt!l-j.;j' ,\ \ ," . ' \1 I' 1.'.L1 "",\.1JjDJlllJ' Will- f 'r...'1.l~t~' ,', . ;fZ' ~ ii- 'p' .";\.i.:'l',,; ..1 ;",:; "'i'-" ,.'; . { R'V~~","'!!lii '.11'1.,,"'" ."..', S if,~ ",~'_'k.""', '~,~.~CITJ]J'S ST. ~ ", -.0 ,', ',\; t", , ," ."',': I \~'..jl1~j'e'l"i~ ' I' ',i I~:" ," :: .' , ,"'Zl'i ';, ':: !,. " ,; '.' "~'\"'~;;;'J" , 1(I,l,' . ' . ". :,,;:,; , /\1''''''1 """ffiffiIill" mTIl N'I'1~('.', ,,'" <" ,,' ' . :. ':'. ' "" ',' ' ,/' WJJJ \ ;,ti~')~i~' t, i ' .' '","". ~~<:. """ . , " I b'k~\t~ b'.::.;;..L...__--.:..-~;..'-'.r...~.' :,' ffim\ID' .-~.-.;.~----1. illJ1...............\ ,,,'" 1'-..,,, .".,.,,,.,', . ;,:: /.' ," ',1'\ '",:, '; !,' ,~,'. :\' ",.:,'., ".: :" ..', .. 'In. .:. ' ',';1.', u": .:". " ' ~. I .) '. ;, .,' \~;, :.1';\:"'Ii \ 0; I ' ' Ieli' ' , :to : - R--15 ,.&~j~it~Y:'i.'f';;f:M :"'.\1IIffi :' ~. :ITID1 ;'1 '_': r;r: :1"'-(' l"'.....: .: IF'. - ~, " '.' .. \:5:,p.;l',,;; ~'~, ji~*'\ ',O:;:\i; , i' ': , ': .1'" '., i:: .: ,.:' .: \\"'fY..'" "." ' ':"'i.ll\~~'"I"..": " '. .",.....,'.,.,,'.:'.'; ,.-, ','. .. ," ,%.: .,,'il" 'J."'I'l':'fjj" .1, ,t~IS,!t \;1111,,' . . . .!:..'~ . .' . f:\,\ ., ':, 'I" ,J)~I. ".,~~i'\.',ll'.,,.,l'lP U,[) ',' ~-__-..~' !PJ:\\;!'i,i!:' ~'1~~~ir l~};ut~~).x~r:~." " . ,'::'i~" i' lIL:I: i;,~,'J..::;,._" -"7~ 'ffi] i'~!'~ 1{~~'t;:I'!i\ p~ II? .\\t~ :' 'I' I' ~p ;I . I t,.:", I"i.i"~~' ;\t#;~,rAI, r",':,., '. t-:.' " · i\"l',:J I \~f.,,';~J;;t! 1~i~ft\,~~\~~/IJl' .I--'~ L".:" '~, ~'Ili,~~"~" '~;';r""iit\~\~.,):~I,,. \' : ;~--.T.;-ITIrfI[8-:- " ------mr---'1 t . . ,\I,,~, ." ,.,.I',~ ~,~.;..Iy,/,,~ .~:': , ' "~, C "~": ," :'V '~")~l:l' .... c, 'T1;(,R"~'1'!. ' ,:' ' I ' ,. "., ,;. " ,': ' ' ' , :f Ill;;r;~. ".' -,'. ,. ~-~ . ;:'~!~\' j" I 1, _,t..","'" i l!~ I _',lI~J"",:lt~~:~J~..,~). '~i".r.~~-: C~,~:',,),I.~-':"" ~"R~it- ;,rh,~\"':"'."" i-~..,;,.:""'" : ':,-.l,'!'I;<"",,.,,.!I- ....., ':""'~ r, -.1:'- 'I"'''''; \"'"''TOOW''' 51 \,:.,;,~~,:~~1~~,'.lj,~\~~R~,~,~~~~~S~ih!tl '\f,r~~'(.,;.i:': :, -~ ,', . ,..': . , .:;'i~ ':':'\':; ;',~ :, JT .. 'f1JI , 1':!'f~ ..~' ..1' ..4. ,,,',j" ! It l \ l'i l~\, ' Lu.LJ! . .,,1 "q' '.'to' o:~".. I '..' ,I ' -00-' t ,I '!;"~\S'~"'JI.}l"'~}\.'~tf'tl1i: ,,J'"j ,n~. i/";Y'~ ' ' ' I J \:, ,'" t~J';~;~'I:,!~:\::cy.,~i~~ I~~I\~.' 'l~~ '"\',' :', ,'/", r~'r;'~: _....;; . .,i11\l\o1 '. -'I ,'~';i';i:~,~t\Hi:.i;l~0W\'i\','\'" ",.' 'ii;' ';~;:('f ~. ~.,:u ~' \""'i'f"'i"'!.""iH,<",'Vj1.",,,,,,,. ..,' ,1,:1,',;'';'.'.' ' , ~h0,ii~>,:~,.:r;\~:'1~~;I~(!\:\j\!;!::"!,.;,/.X( ,: "',',, ":,' , " J ,~,":'.,:::~",: .:{.,',','..:, ,: ',' ". -...-' 1"l-.",:\l"~l,.')j\"~"f"-~"'I",t',;"-\ll~I",,'I;:"",",', ;1 ,., [".--,:.1,", . .' . "_ .11'["L' "f' , ,....,'..,.. .' d . ,"~'-' r.. ,. " .., ~l':' ... " ' ' '-H,FJ ;:flo "t";: ~ it, ~ ':I ;-J,~~I''';',;, ~:t;~I.l' ,K.~ (. .. I J-,"'- ',"1 :1,.,"",; ";.J", ;'-,~ 'I,' r ,'/::',;,1.:1; l,:<" .,,,,,,.,,,,,,, ".':." ' , C' ',' ','.1 's,..'''''' ,"::",'" .,,",",.;:.r I;",:,,""'" Q;o' ...~I.'I'..f. '.~'"\ ,t.,,~\r ,r. :,iio',::..~: "ll'l"'; if I..:. I I.;~' <" '\" ',,1. . . : '.'~.' ~"i'.,~,iY'i\'6"""~( 't".L' ,,' " '. '. ',i' ,J . """j, '., '. ,', '1'" , ;,,':i:y(Il:,:;J;\;!\~~4\!:;;'~' , '"2,, "';'~ ,:::~,:., '~',.r');;~:.\; '; , '',',,,It;:~'!':'''''''1;l''' ,,:1,\;0--, - ,.' ,"''1;.0'" , ";, ',' " " :'r ,('\.t!J~~'tl.'~ ~I~ ~:\'j'fi'\''\~:; -\:l t,~" ijtl'I'lI" '1,1 \lr,::I,,~ I" ,I, L, 1,' ~".. ,-.!itUI oJ,'" I,;',.l .\ j'.: }" '. ~ -~", ' '.~ .''"' ,,"_I'iiJ~~~' t--'" " ""'II'~:"1 ' ~.A,.l"., I ,_,' ~I, .:1 .ii-:.tIJ.".,.;I,l,',$,,' \:i J, '1 I'\~ I""t ,,', I ',I'" ;1' I " , '; ....'.,\....'~ ~ 11,'1'itf"i~:'. .. Ill' ",'! ' . ' ' .' ~I'" <;' ~~'\' 'I '.' ... 1~ !", " ',I "i~.:::.,,~',,':,:' ,,1 '~"/"::;':' 'Il ~, '. ,~, ".1,' , .;~:,'" ~''t''. '~, .' :'i -. PROPER.. -'mERS WITHIN 300 FT. OF TAGERT 'JPER'f""'""- Hr. and Mrs. John Schuh......cher B&L ~.J,rtnen."J!p P.O. Box 3528 c/o Craig L. Burr Aspen, Colorado 81612 Burr, Egan Bnd Deleage One Post Office Sq. Boston, Mass. 02109 Irving B. Harris Suite 505 2 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IllinoIs 60607 Denison S. Levy 1335 Snowbunny Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 Donnelly and Clods Erdman Box 10640 Aspen, CO 81612 Lorenzo and Joyce Semple c/o Robert R088 2200 N. Central Rd. Fort Lee. NJ 07024 n.H. VandemIJer 1~5 Monaco Pkwy Denver, CO 80220 Marion and Nancy Vandemoer 644 G1encoe St. Denver, CO 80220 Frank J. Woods Box 1361 Aspen, CO 81612 William R. Jordan III and cherylAjordan 600 Eas t Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Larry J. Hofflllan 1401 Brickell Ave. Miami, FL 33131 David Menseher #1801 5150 Hidalgo Houston, Texas 77056 Joan Gantzel 705 Meadows Road Aspen, CO 81611 David A. Baxter Box 2048 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Thomas and Betsy Starodoj 580 Sneaky Lane Aspen, CO 81612 Joseph Cosniae and Anneliese 301 Westover, Alamo Hts. San Antonio, Texas 78209 James D. Stout Suite 708 3857 Birch Newport Beach, California 92660 Sandra L. Read Box 4307 Aspen, Colorado 9/88 CONTINUATION SHEET SCHEDULE A-NO.4 Commitment Number: Order Number: 15590 Exhibit -AM A tract of land situated in Lot 3. Section 1~. Tp. 10 5., R. 85 ~ ~.o! the Sixth Pr1.ncipal Meridian and more fu1.1y described ~ i folloW1lI. ' '. . ";-- Beqinni[1(] at a point on the l'lest line of the City Limits of the t01<m of Aspen at the 1nter:section with the North line of SmU9'gler Street, thence 1lI 75<>1' ~, 419.12 feet to the center of Castle Creek; thence H 1901' E. 91.99 feet along' the center of Castle Creek; thence R 10"34' W. 126.88 feet along the center of Castle Creek; thence 5 75<>7' E. 420.65 feet to the Nest line of the city lilllits of the t~ of Aspen; thence S 7<>39' ~Z08 feet along the Nest line of the city lilllits of the town Aspen to the point of be<J1nning. EXCEPT all tbAt portion of Tagert S Ivl15ion as hewn on the plat recorded Augullt 24, 191.1 in P Book 4. at Page 283. County of Pitkin. State of Colorado ; .. '.. ' , ", f'age - STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY --.----... 0055 (SQM lJ.871 , -. ..' ~i ~:H~.~ .. -:... I .. lj_:;~';''O P :>~!i~d ...U ;:..!"~ ~,~ :j~-;-:~: H~ 'Q:~~i ::~ "C:..::~"'::; :~... :::;;::. .. :~!:::h.; ,....= o~~e:= ~~ .... _ .....~ ....... ..1""" ... Q"i~:;';ii~ ~~!~)!: :~ .i="T""'.'-": S~ m~~;H ~i~ nm ,~.. .!~~;::O.l!i-::~~::~i ...1:; "1: ..::.... e." e~ .-:' :..~ li....~~'ii".. ;!i <:'.~2..,:, H ..:: ...lj" "'::: ~~:;.- g ;~~;:;:i;:' '.;~ ::~~~ li: ]::: 8.!;-:~~:i ;;~~:"';" ; .::" :: :5.:.ll:< =,n...... i d ~ o:~ .OV=~:.":Q :~~ :EV ",P ~B::"'o~~ 1...:..! :;" ; ~ji j~mm Hi m~; l - r'~" ,. :3 ,0 ,- 'i!; ~ ~~ Ow o. cjw w; w , ;~~~~ .... 10.;:>", "':t c... ....~..o ~.~....~; ~'i~.....: ..,.... 00 " :I"'~ L .1. ....... ~~:;;~~~ ".. ....... ..;~.;~.. <> :1......:11 ~~~~E~ ..~:J.'i::z :::...~.....~ ::;;~7~ ~:~:~~~ '4 ~ .~~::~~~~ t .. " '~-' ' , , ..........,.." . ~ 0' ,oi ge~ "w :;;.;L .....~ ",:;' ., . "~~;' .;; '" ," o. ,,~... ",'to,' ~:, , :::";,~~; ",~ .r":<,,~" ';:: _~:-':_, ' f .,.."< ~ .0"'.....'. f I I \ , "",1".-( l~r . ,..~...' ~ ,,,I,,f -- -- .-.... ..,.",.~;." 'a ~,..'. --------~------------------- ;/=, / / -!) : ----.::::.-' '~'::., ( ~.'--- .J.!i ~: ............... a . "' . ; .. . . . ~I . : m . ! . .. ~ . a . "' . '-'l~- ~.-"r-- ~."- ,._1 . ~ " . " ...'::'1 o~ I ..",: ~~ ; ~ ~: 1 ~~I I""" ~, " i;h ..' ~:~~ '~0' /= . . , E . . . --'-- ~ ~ '", a . . o S21 ~ s=..- .....;sf:. =.~=~ e~.~~ "=~A" :;.,~.U1 ==_2: .0 t=~.1O ~g=Ui :..~=! 81....:0 ....:;2; :=:~! ~z - ~ o6!~ ). z ::I 0 0 ~.Jg~~ .': j:z:-cz!i% - u:-II:"1:"'..... ~~~9~~~ ~ z~<<8 jJ~: '" ..J-::Ja. 0";; WO~%z-'~.. u~~ ~;~ : ~ 1:~:~... ...I:l:v.l g. N ~~ .. .. ~ :0: 0'" ~ ~ ~o . . : ~ 0 .. -- I i --+ -- 7~ "' a "' a . . a a a . a HHf l2p Order Number: .~ ,.. "..( SCHEDULE A " EIIodhoe _: October 2~, 1987 At 8100 A.H. Z. ~<<Policies to be issued: A. AL17. awr-'s Policy "'- 1IlSI.I'Od: To Be Detenained .. .~ . .. AL17. Loan Foficy "'- lnsored: c. 15590 . l " ,~ Commitment Number: Amount of Insurance Premium 'l'IlD ',.,.:'..-'... .~ ,,,. $ TED $ $ 3. 'The estrt8 or interest in the land described or referred to in this commitment ,and covered herein is fee simple and title thereto is at the effective date hereof tlll5lBdin: Irene R. Pastore -:. ~ . ....,... ,", ~.. ." f ;r;/ /'. .\ ~./ . \...,;, / ;j-J"..-v. '/ '- I~~ '652 C25M 3186) ...~ " ~L . /. -r-" . I /~... ,l(. ./ /~,...~.rIC~ Page 2 STEWART TITLF GUARANTY COMPANY -----_/ I /t . (/ (~ I.. f' Jt I<J~ -........ l Ot.s 'A,G- .... {'.J . ! ~ ,,1------------- ------!::::.~---;--'"'" , I ~ ---- ~~--~ . . ~ \ ~ \ \ ,I.. 2.0' .:::. /" ;.: ,:,;" " - . ", ... '" " {', .'.' r- _ . . N 'i'S~ OT' ,. ~ 3.'1:1"07 L 103"..9 ------------------~~---- LOT '1 /~ ' ~~~O~.. ) ! 8 q F" . i-t 18.383 it) 3,!-,' ~~ SQ.,.!; -H .. g LOT a .. 8,383 8q F" . - ------------------- al~ 85' ...S iir.:,,' Cz- C S7Z 5]' 1\'1 LOT .8 P L:i T \ \ , , , \ . PROPOSED PROPOSED LOT SPLIT CONFIGDRATI~ DESIGN ABOVE BY GIBSON . RE_O ARCHITECTS OF 9/9/88 IS SHOW. OVERLAIN ON HAROLD JOHNSON IMPROVEMENT SURVEY OF 2/23/88. \ 1 \ \ I , I I -r- I I , I I I , , , , , \ I , \ , --- '" ~ .. ". ,. .. . . .' ; ,". ~ \ , b -. !" o ", . .~\ ~- < .' ," -. ~. '< \ 2-6' \ \ . i \ \ \ w. i HH/bllp - , SCHEDULE A ()nier Number: Commitment Number: 15590 1~ EfIectiw date: October 22, 1987 At 8tOO A.M. 2- l"DUcy or Policies to be issued: Amount of Insurance Premium TED A.. ALTA Owner's Policy 1'roposod -, To Be Detenained $ TED " , B. ALlJO. Loan Policy Propo$ed Insured, $ ,/ >,;::... c. $ 3. -n. estcrte or interest In the land described or referred to in this commitment and covered herein is f~ simple and title thereto is at the effective date hereof W!S%ed in: '\ <--_..~_._.- ~ See A"oheed EXhibit '\c .. Irene R. Pastore " . \.,..'.,','.... '.,.~\) ~;~ ,'c.' ~ .. /' /.".. ,/., " --;c-. r , .''- '- :/ rJ_././ ...- -;r~~ ~ / ,/ .r'-y..., ~ / " '."/ '. " ,.....- !/ . .', ,." " --' l......:-. Page 2 STEWART TITLF GUARANTY COMPANY 1&52 C25M 3J86) ::.~ , ~.i:;" 01 i-.. 103" i':i ~_______""'____--__~'1_--__ \ .\ , ~ LOT ., /r:::--- ' ;-::~4~~,. 7 :' B q F t: i-1 ., B. 3 B 3 ~-----------------------~~ ------------------------- . .. _ .. ~ _. ., _ . '. III ,,"Q1' ill I' Zl~ 8'" ! Ie' I t, (/ ~ (" L (' {; ~ it .'Sr-, --., I t: '" th.S "'''- " ~ y - ... :/1 " , :; ...I____________~ ______~~r--" '. ~ 01 ' --- -----~~--~ ,;i ."'J' , ~ 01 ' J, . ' ~ . , ,;y .. I " \ , , \ ~!5' -t- , , , , , , , \ , , I \ \ \ ~ \ J--b- \ ~ ,() ~ c '" ~ " ... ". r ~ .; ; " \ \ ,l.. . lO' ~ III i , \~ '.'. \~ . ~ :. .' " .~\ ~. .' . '< \ , r , \ , . J:Z.~~ SQ,'.!.: ,..~ '. . -- " - tl , '~ LOT 2 - ., B.3 6 3 Bq Ft:. . ..5 i..~,;... C 2- f n7. Si]' 1\'1 LOT ,S PL' T I \ , . . . , PROPOSEO PROPOSED LOT SPLIT CONFIGURATIOM DESIGN ABOVE BY GIBSON . RENO ARCHITECTS OF 9/9/88 IS SHOWN OVERLAIN ON HAROLD JOHNSON IMPROVEMENT SURVEY OF 2/2]/88, I VII . AUG , 9 Doremus & welLS an association of land planners -'-~ August 18, 1988 Ms. Cindy Houben Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Cindy: I believe that the property at 930 West Smuggler (see attached map) is eligible for a Lot Split procedure under the provisions of Section 7-1003(A)(2) and that subsequent to approval of such a lot split, one detached dwelling unit can be built on each of the two lots created, exempt from GMQS procedures [Section 8-104(A)(1)(c)]. The parcel is 32,726 square feet. A large majority of the property is presently zoned R-6. The parcel complies with the tests outlined in Section 7-1003(a)(2) as follows: 1. The lot is described as a metes and bounds parcel. The lot has not been subdivided since March 24, 1969 and is not loca ted in a subdi vis ion approved by ei ther the City or County. "Subdivision" is defined in part (Section 3-101) as "land which is divided into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites, separate interests ..., interest in common, or other division for the purpose ... of transfer of ownership, or for bui Iding or other development, or for street use ~ reference to such subdivision of a recorded plat." 2. No more than 2 lots will be created. 3. No portion of the lot was previously the subject of a sub- division or GMQS exemption. 4. A subdivision plat further subdivision applicable approvals wi 11 be may be pursuant submitted indicating that granted without receipt to Articles 7 and 8. no of ---.---{] 608 east hyman avenue 0 aspen, colorado 816110 telephone: 303925-6866 -'..,-,.-----,.'---"{J Ms. Cindy Houben Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office August 18, 1988 Pa ge Two Could you let me know as soon as possible if you are aware of any reason that an Application for Exemption is not appropriate at this time? .~ {Yoseph Wells, AICP JW/b ~ --{] ... "HH/lap -- ,- , SCHEDULE A 0nIer Number: Commitment Number: 15590 1,___: October 22, 1987 At 8100 A.H. z.. Ncy or Policies to be issued: Amount of Insurance Premium TBD A. _lJwno(sPolicy ~_: '1'0 Be Deterained $ 'l'BD ; \ -IL lU.1l\ lDan Pofity 1'roposed Insured: $ j c. $ 3. 1Iw estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this commitment ,and covered herein is fee simple and title thereto is at the effecttve date hereof -"din: '\ <---..---.-..- ~ See A,tahC'" """"it .~ Irene R. Pastore \ .. ;7;' / I" , I' " " , '-. (. fJrv' ..... T ......... "'-- /-'/ . / _ f \ ~' ~ I /;-', :,,~!",'/I/.,':0rl""';;:' Page 2 STEWART TITLF GUARANTY COMPANY 1652 l25O! 31861 r-.. ......., -.....I . SCHEDULE B - Section 2 Exceptions Order Number: 15590 Commitment Nurrber. The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records, 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines shortage in area, encroachments, and any fads which a correct ., survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public reco,ds. , \ 4, Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished. imposed by law and not shown by the public ,ecords. 5, Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, ij any, created, fi,sl appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this CorrmiImenL 6. Any and all unpaid taxes and Assessments and any unredee.ed tu sales. 7. The effect of inclusions in any general or S~fiC water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservati or other district or inclusion in any water service or s eet improvement area. 8. Riqht of the proprietor of a vein 0 ode to extract and reaove his ore therefrom, should the same found to penetrate or intersect the premises ~ebY qranted, as reserved in united Statell Patent recorded t; bel' 24,189 in Book 55 atpaqe 32 as Reception Bo. 49767. 9. Any lien that Y attach up vestinq of title in the party to be insured. BOTE I Stewart itle of Aspen, andlor Stewart title Guannty Coapanyneither IS \.De, nor will be <:ha.rqed with any If.llhl1ity '. '1md.er this' Coaait ent until Iluch time as the name of ~ propoaed .1IUJUi-ed and the &Ilouot of insurance are _de Jm.-. to the title Company. " Exceptions numbered are hereby omitted. Page 4 STEWART'......LE GU"'aA"T'I'"~CMnI."T 1654 (15M 3/86) '"' """",, '-" . ' CONTINUATION SHEET SCHEDULE A-NO.4 Commitment Number: Order Number: 15590 El:hibit "A" A tract of land e1tuate4 in Lot 3. S<<ction 12. Tp. 10 S., R. 85 ; N.of the Sinh Principal Heridian and aore fully deacriJM!d as \ foll0W8a Bec1inninq at a point on the WeISt line of the City Liaits of the town of Aspen at tbe intersection with the Borth line of 8augt11er Street, thence 11 7507' N, 419.12 feet to the center of Castle Creek, tbence R 1901' E. 91.99 feet alonq the center of Castle Creek; thenceH 10034' 11. 126.88 feet alonq the eenter of Castle Creek; thence S 7507' E. 420.65 feet to tbe West line of the dty liaits o-C the town of Aapen~ t.bence S 7039' S 208 feet along- the West line of the city limits of the town Aspen to the point of beg-innlnq, ElCl.'U"r all tbAt portion of Tag-ert S Ivis10n as boWn on the plat recorded August 24. 1972 in P Book 4 at pag-e 283. County of Pitkin. State of Colorado , .. ...- STEWART TITLE GUABANTY COMPANY Qll5S .-"" ~ \ ~ \ \ -~, zo'.::. /" ...... ~ ,0 c "" :;, '> t.. ... ~:.. '" .. " ..; " {l. ~ , , 'I ' -..Ie." ____________~ .>. . _, ,0 i ",". i." i) J,' . y, . (! ., l r, . ~,.' c " ;5~ 01' .' +t .... 8 .~ ~.'5.cnL.C<!.i'9 ._~ '~----------------- < 1_____ I I i I ~I ~ LOT .. /~ - ~..:~IY'~&,.~ ,I B q Ft: 1B.3B3 / j,: ,/ / ~i (" ( /'" ft /(IS-" "- I' oCs I"'G- '.J ' 1..../"'. / --------~----~~~----1 I I , , , , \ ~!'i' -t- I I I I I , I I I I , \ I __--------------__-----1.- \ \__ , ,. ..' -..:....! '" ... , '" ". r ~: :~ ~ \) .. ~. " , '" '~\ ~ ," . " , , t , 32,72b SQ. n, - - "- . LOT 2 - 1B.3B3 Ft:. Bq s .:.lic-.:C C'2M r 577, $']' 1\" LOT SPLIT I I , , , I , PROPOSEO PROPOSED LOT SPLIT CONFIGURATION DESIGN ABOVE BY GIBSON & RENO ARCHITECTS OF 9/9/88 IS SHOWN OVERLAIN ON HAROLD JOHNSON IMPROVEMENT SURVEY OF 2/23/88. I w. \ \ \ I \ , ..,...,.."( ~i;;-.- .~~,P .. :-,' :_u~~.~ . ~. ~ H~[S~j fH ~~~; ~iS':;~~ d~~:~~i ':!d:':v ;E: ~;X~: .l!",::""'~!'; .<:..:;.1:.." :::...:~:"~ !.;j "!i:!~ a)~.....ao~ ~!,,:::,;"'.!" .. g=:"" . ~ ..;; 0":: ..~, .... : ;E~~~;~ i;; l~~~s : i~:"~<}~ cl~ 1';:~~ .l!...li;to.a-::;:....t~~31. ~~ ~ ".l! .. ~=.. t.. i" ..'-' ..... ~.....2 ~..gg~..:!".l! ~g l!:~31'::: 00 .. J!! .., 0" ,,",:...l! ...... ::. ~ ;:,,~~:,,"i~-;;E" '.. )~~~~ i l!! 11!!!I!!I!llll!l i -. ~i i~ ...,~ "" -! ' ::~ 0- :r j: ::; , ,.,t'~.'. '010" ,- >. :E ,0 ." ~~ h '0 ~. 0'" 0' . , ~i~~i :~:~~ ;'~;::,~ !~l!;'t...~ ~:~~!E E~~~~~ ".. "'.... :.:~g~ ...~~.. "' ".. :10..0 ;-.:~""'''' ....~$~~Z ~U......~ :~~~~:; "'....~O.. ~:..~<tt~~ \~ ",:;~:~f t g \\, "'" '~ 0' :;.-n:i c,oO C." " ::;;:,t ...~~ ,^ .,' ::'<t,~ ~/': >, o' ...", >. S:,'," C i 0 :1 ; ..u,~; , ~.~~;~~ .':>;-" ~",'_ 7 .,_,'" '0"""" -" '.'"'' "",:... 'a ---------~------------------- ;; ii', i ":', /' ,} / .~.,,"JF / ~. -........... If'::' t...... ...~ "0~i ~: ~ a . ~ . .. . . . . . . . . . ~I , . ~ o ~ ~ , /:-7------- ' ~ J._I "' ~t ~" ~ :: ~~ :. ~~ hrf>- , I. '. II II , E . ,<~ ,.<0)1 ,0' f" , . . . I .. '~ . " . . iU~ ,>~ < a ::.. II It: B!:a" ~ u::~1; , a !:;;;~p' , . " , . ~=lIai , . t..~ IIQ 0 a ~illQ!i a li"t. " a nm , K a ~z ::::'! ~Q ..ii: o!:!!~ ",-. z w2 z~ 2 )2~~o~: .: ~<(lL. z:.:l: u<<"-~x..! ... ~~~S~~: ~ z~iC8.~: .. ...rglL. a<>~ c~ ....~.. ~~o~ lL. :~~ ; ~iii %...... 09; ~. <> .." ...1%.... ii';''' ~~ .. .. ~I&. ! g ~ ~o .;:l:: , . + i ! r. ,,"""" " ,,"- ~ "\ ' , I I I I I I I I I I . I '-.~J ~~ I ~.--J I '--F I ~ ----'v . ~~ ----~. -------~ ~....._~ r'/ I' I ---.J __ ~.....__ _____ .- ---- _____ I ---- ~ (\ II ------- ( ; / ----0 ( ( :. ( ( N I " II: . N 1'I .~ \~ ~~ c9 ( \.' '-.. ::::::---.... I I - ... - \ '---- ( \ ,-, --- / .~-".,." /' .--., J ~, ~ ()") ,0) -1'--- >< \, , '--,,- \ ~ ,~' ..F~ / ~ ,./,\. PROPERTY /"'TNERS WITHIN 300 FT. OF Mr. and Mrs. John SchuhmL ner P.O. Box 3528 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Irving B. Harris Suite 505 2 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60607 Donnelly and Cinda Erdman Box 10640 Aspen, CO 81612 Lorenzo and Joyce Semple c/o Robert Ross 2200 N. Central Rd. Fort Lee, NJ 07024 H.H. Vandemoer 1],55 Monaco Pkwy Denver, CO 80220 Marion and Nancy Vandemoer 644 G1encoe St. Denver, CO 80220 Frank J. Woods Box 1361 Aspen, CO 81612 William R. Jordan III and Chery1Ajordan 600 East Hopkins Aspen, Colorado 81611 Larry J. Hoff~an 1401 Brickell Ave. Miami, FL 33131 David Menscher 411801 5150 Hidalgo Houston, Texas 77056 Joan Gantze1 705 Meadows Road Aspen, CO 81611 David A. Baxter Box 2048 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Thomas and Betsy Starodoj 580 Sneaky Lane Aspen, CO 81612 Joseph Cosniac and Anne1iese 301 Westover, Alamo Hts. San Antonio, Texas 78209 James D. Stout Suite 708 3857 Birch Newport Beach, California 92660 Sandra L. Read Box 4307 Aspen, Colorado 9/88 TAGERT P.""'PERTY B&L, ,-tnership c/o Craig L. Burr Burr, Egan and De1eage One Post Office Sq. Boston, Mass. 02109 Denison S. Levy 1335 Snowbunny Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 .. 1113~'2:'" E 201, . TO COfl"tR 6 I o ~. ~ 0.0 .- . .. .'0 C C . . ,0 ~'i-', ....... N'O ~.- ~ ~~ ~ ..~ a <1>'- o -c ~.- ~ .... .9.. .. c~ ,- . '0'" .... .. 0 '~M .O~ .. 0 ! .=:;.... " .. t: ~3 III ..... """'0 << ...m U " " u: .... U.... ~ 0 g ~ t t:~:: . '0 ~ ' Ct.l ....c>> .. ..~ :i! '" g-; ll. v...... . N . 2 w .~ o . . ~ . ., e c "U 1ft _.... u.c;.c; +l +l"'U~+lU'" .... 0 II e.c; u tr 0 C.... .... +l.c; C +l U..:l ..:I 100... 0 .c o .......... >. >.;1: 0 III Cl ... ... ... U ,~.... .... U ....... cu U.c...Ql U ... U UlI'I 0.4/ U "....'" _.c: CJ .c;.c;.... .0(... C ...... ClIO .... <o'lNCIIN........C ... )... .... 0 0 C 0... <ri .a~:::r.ie:2: c...... - 15<ri.! '...... ............ ... U ":lr0 .... u ~- . "... 0 ... 1Il_ "lI'I.c: I) .100""',.,,......."... U U O. Ul :J C :J....O .... .... C"".-IUOUO ....,...:z U s:. 0. .c: :z C"'" +lU "U'" III .c; U u.c:... C's:. c...uc...ec.&..l o cu.... 0 ... u.c: .....:1... 0 0( +I 'II.c:....~ ".... C .jJ II >- ... r: .~ III .... .... c 8.8.;;~~~~~ . III III ..... Ul "'0( III 10-. U QJ ..:( ...u....I:;O ............ ......0..... " 0 v. U Ul .0 ...1ll.....CI:I g~~t:UO~~ '.. 0... Ill..... U 0 Cf--OUOC ~E-o C tr ....:J: .. U ::I.... ........ - . o..c E 0 CI <I);:: CI"'U: ................ al 100 C Ul 0 ..........UIllQJ""'..... o 0... U:J:tI:0 .~ .. 0 ..... 0 . . ~ 00. "'v, n. ~ 00'0 ........'.. o . .. o.~ ..- .. o. . .~ ~ ~ ... 0,'" 0."" 0" U ." X NO k.....X c~ . O. . ... 0. 0 ...... ... OO~ o c 0 (fl'........ ~ c... ,- . '" . N ~ o 0 '" \0_ W... 0... - C .01"" 'Q::;'~ 8. "'~~ loo :Z:r--" ClUl.,...(fl.l:; ClooU ... ... III 0 W g.8 i g 2 .. 0 ............c:... ,... ..." ~~ 0 0'>......... k... tl... U ..... ....'C....UCD C U ..... W"'O'> t"l UIlIO\CDN 'C dON . ~ .1:.0.,...000 "'1'Il"'N~ " ~. . 0 U Ul:J ~....... C III - 3:. WllIr--- .1:;"'0"'0 :1'1:(. ........ ~. ~ "'Illr--CM C :Z:"'(fl . Z 0'" IV U 0.. (,J QJ U , .cCOC I'll t.I 011 C III ...c: v.c.:: ....c..->.c... 11I:1' ...~.. o ........ ,;':N 01.1... V ..... VQJQ) I:' C .... QJ ...., ~~ CC ~ ... Or- N c: 0,'" a, '" CD c: llJ'" ~ 0'\ ... 1Il U.... _ J,/...........1, If,"""""" L .. ".." .~ . .. " III U.... o '" ~ 0"0 M , ~. '00'0 C ... .. -.~ O~ ~.. o ~ ~ ~WO o " o . 0 ~ o. . C 0... ~ - Ll NE 'i 1"-"}'Z"'Yl / / , w >z 00 <0- <t" " wu XO t--' 0-, "'" => :>... <Xu 0" ~ Zw Ox "... bZ . zOz o oOw Ow", "'w ....T </m- -' 0 "ww ;>' ,':;'~ o .-' , '" ~:>,",J ZaJ(..) Q '/' ~~ "' ~, [::;;~w <XL we. ~'" O'L'" .n~,-) '" ci. 1->-00, c(~a:z:r. I- 0.:;)0 U):r.w~~ w.,1-J.: a: X<OI-WU I-N cc.z . ""-WWZ zWO~ ~ -X 00 g:I-WlI)Z% o 2l-c((/1 >Z Z , WO~wrnW l'~,'iW-> CD:E.-a:: .1~,fa::1- wzC ,;~c.'O'.w> '" "'%00::1"'" 1-<ta:w2 o 2:0.U1 W,.. 2<0 ~~u)-w.... ....:x~w...Jz ~w XJl; C)o,......c(o W w. .2 g:,..:>zz~ I oo:(lD Q:O 3:: tT ~;-~ W::;)WOlX Z~fII~~O ~XC(:r;: lIJ L ",0 .Lg~e<t~ o C!!a:.on , ". ,..' a:: ~ ;;.- J:O'f. ,'" <1lC.nw .- <l:lIJOz ,0:)0-1- V ,7 lr~~...~~ . , Ila..u.ll." .J J _-00'-,-" ,-." .' ", . 7 N ,OWNS1il AS' to ..{ ~ 1\ ..l Il...;~, ,~-~~" . ~:~./ '" o '" '" -' z o '" Z % 'j. ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ " ,> , - - , ;;/ ~< ~ ~ ~~ ~...;"'" '<" ,'yo 'S,..., 10. nS - ~$-- 106.1)9' ORI\lE,Wt\l ., , " t- W ~'" O<X ... w'^ ~'" -'w -' X'" ...'" <X" 0:> z'" ::: ... ....... :~ :; .- .... ~:! ........ ~; ~ :~ ;:~ r I 1 -- - -- I . . N . o G ~ -~'- 7 L '" '" " " '< "I " '~"" 0 ,I....,' "t'....',';...' .' '- ",- ,N . I i I f , , .1 lii N ~ . .. '. . .; ;; . N .. .. o . . .. 'j -- "~'''\ ..'.. ....-. dO J.I;,) j!j!~ 0..[ J ,)"") ~Of .10 ...c" 11.(," ''7:] N .l.?bo~_ 't~ --- . . ., '" ." , .... .... ~ <> '^ ,~ . ~ o . . N . i I ~' ,...", ~ ... , < PUBLIC NOTICE RE: TAGERT SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION FOR A LOT SPLIT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 28, 1988 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M., before the city council, City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena street, Aspen, CO, to consider an application from Irene Tagert requesting Subdivision Exemption for the purpose of a dividing the Tagert property into two lots of 16,386 sq. ft. each. The property is located at the end of W. Smuggler overlooking Sneaky Lane, more specifically described as a tract of land situated in Lot 3, section 12, T10S, R85W. For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, (303) 920- 5090. s/William L. stirlinq Mayor, Aspen City Council Published in The Aspen Times on November 3, 1988. City of Aspen Account. ......".... . - . CASE LOAD SUMMARY SHEET city of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 9/9~8 DATE COMPLETE: /0// '/fl>i' PARCEL 10 AND CASE NO. 2735-122-00-011 50A-88 STAFF MEMBER: r!-II PROJECT NAME: Taqert Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split Project Address: 930 W. Smuqqler Legal Address: APPLICANT: Irene Taqert Applicant Address: 930 W. Smuqqler 925-3559 REPRESENTATIVE: Jllboe Kern ,A!tc.k /'1(" G,-a.:I-A Representative Address/Phone: ~JO E. ~an- 9:1.3 00 e. pk,.-i..s 1411 S .:26/qJ ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: ~ 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO It @!/ ",7 cc Meeting Date 1\ j"' d/. PUBLIC HEARING:C-YES~ NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Paid: Date: Planning Director Approval: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- (to ;nF . LS: city Attorney /' ,'0) City Engineer . Housing Dir. Aspen Water city Electric .'x Envir. H1th. Aspen Consolo S.D. Mtn. Bell Parks Dept. Holy Cross Fire Marshall Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Energy Center School District Rocky Mtn Nat Gas State Hwy Dept(GW) State Hwy Dept(GJ) Building Inspector Other DATE REFERRED: /q//9~ INITIALS: 4J ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: city Atty Housing City Engineer ___ Zoning Other: Env. Health FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: ,r"',,", ~...- ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 October 19, 1988 Nick McGrath 600 E. Hopkins Ave., suite 203 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Tagert Lot Split Dear Nick, This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application IS NOT complete, however, we have scheduled it for review by the City Council at a public hearing on November 28, 1988. Please address Sections 5-508 B; 5-503; and 7-903 B.2(b) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in order to complete the application. The application will have to be taken off the scheduled agenda date if we have not received this information by November 14, 1988. The Code requires that the applicant give notice of the hearing to adj acent property owners and to post a sign property. I have enclosed a copy of the public requirements for your information. public on the notice If you have any questions, please call me. sincerely, Cindy Houben, Planner ds MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney city Engineer Environmental Health FROM: Cindy Houben, Planner RE: Tagert Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split Parcel 10 # 2735-122-00-011 DATE: October 19, 1988 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attached for your review and comments is an application from Irene Tagert requesting Subdivision Exemption approval for a Lot Split at 930 W. Smuggler Street. Please review this material and return your comments no later than November 11, 1988 so that I may prepare a memo for the city Council. Thank you. _c - CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEE"t' City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 9/9/88 DATE COMPLETE: lo/r1/fl'ir PARCEL 10 AND CASE NO. 2735-122-00-011 50A-88 STAFF MEMBER: r'..1f PROJECT NAME: Taqert Subdivision Exemption for a Lot Split Project Address: 930 W. Smuqqler Legal Address: APPLICANT: Irene Taqert Applicant Address: 930 W. Smuqqler 925-3559 REPRESENTATIVE: Jllboe Kern /f/rC:.-k /1(' Gr-a..1-A Representative Address/Phone: tJO E. IIYlIIun- 9z5 00 E. /fopk.,..;c; 7'411 S -.:t6/d{ ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: \~ 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO PC:) ',-i I.' , " CC Meeting Date \" ; ,:;;/ / PUBLIC HEARING :C YES"':) NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Paid: Date: Planning Director Approval: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- f REFERRALS : ~ c~ty Att~rney L.4 Cl.ty Engl.neer Housing Dir. Aspen Water City Electric /' Envir. Hlth. Aspen Consolo S.D. Mtn. Bell Parks Dept. Holy Cross Fire Marshall Roaring Fork Roaring Fork Energy Center School District Rocky Mtn Nat Gas State Hwy Dept(GW) State Hwy Dept(GJ) Building Inspector Other DATE REFERRED: lo!/9k INITIALS: 4"4 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL: city Atty Housing city Engineer ___ Zoning Other: Env. Health FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: " ,-" ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 Effective 10/3/88 (303) 920-5090 September 27, 1988 Nick McGrath 600 E. Hopkins, suite 203 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Tagert Lot Split Dear Nick, We received a check in the amount of $730.00. Please refer to the attached letter from me dated 9/15/88 stating the required fee of $760.00. I also received the list of the adjacent property owners within 300' and proof of ownership. The remaining required submission contents which still must be submitted prior to scheduling the application are as follows: 1) Completion of the application packet (attached). 2) 5 copies of the entire application. 3) $30.00 additional fee. When we receive the requested information, we will contact you again to inform you of your assigned agenda date. If you have any questions, please call me. Thank you. Sincerely, ~~ Cindy Houben ~~ Planner CMH/ds // ~\l\ ~lluw [ct~ ~.."--,,,.,--~,-~-_.,,~,~,. -,_._-,~;-'"'-"'",--,"-'~"^-' r;"", ~'..... .... ....#1 J, NICHOLAS MCGRATH. P,C, A ProfeuJonol caporatlon Attorneys At Law 600 East HopkIns Avenue SUite 203 Aspen, Colorado 8t611 Telephone (303) 925-2612 Telecopler {303J 925-4402 September 23, 1988 Ms. Cindy HOuben Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Tagert lot split application Dear Cindy: I will be representing Irene Tagert. I encl~e the application fee, additional copies of the appli,c;;at~roof of ownership (Irene R. Pastore is Irene ~ert), and a list of the adjacent property owners. Can we meet Monday or Tuesday for a "preapplication conference?" I hope that we can help Mrs. Tagert. Regardless of the technicals things we must look at, a lot split here makes sense. Thanks. Sincerely yours, J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, P.C. By ~ J. Nicholas McGrath ~23'983 Member, Colo. (1971), Calif. {1969}, and D.C (1966) bon ,-... -- ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 Date: 9/15/88 Irene Taqert 930 W. Smuqqler Aspen. CO 81611 RE: Lot Split Application Dear Ms. Taqert: This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application IS NOT complete. ,Therefore, it is not possible at this time to assign the project to an agenda date. Following is a list of the items we require: 1. Fee: $680.00 Staff Time + $80.00 Engineering Referral = $760.00 Total. 2. 5 copies of entire application. 3. Proof of Ownership. 4. Completion of the application packet (attached). 5. Adjacent property owners within 300'. When we receive the requested information, we will contact you again to inform you of your assigned agenda date. If you have any questions, please call the Planning Office. Thank you. Sincerely, ~~ Cindy Houben ~ Planner CMH/ds frm. incomplete. 50A -r' I +/,,c.//\ T .I.L'~:CI //-/fa-?l? - , ..J