Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.1st Aspen Company.1976a �!, Va Tuk-y ClpvelaW ADDR7-S`': 131 (live, _:ill Lance E anta .'arbara, California 93108 s':: C:•�.� ::k Tuk^y Clpvsland ubdivisian LCCATIC*.: :'ire.t As on Company V7 7!'C7TFTIO ", : Lots 5, 69 70 89 9, and Darts of Lots 100 11 and adjotnig narcol ZOti :.D: -15 TCT4L SGOATM ^ram T 0T A. rRO:,Tq,rv: 30,52 I:S2!,-,N'T: To or-%t- a building site for construction of a singl- family dwelling oo 15,GOG squarQ feat. NGLC` U�' : x: ortion of City reap ehowing genAral ar-a and pro jPct location *,,:ketch plan of pro; osnrl, davalop-mrnt *IitlP Insuranc4 CONCEPTUAL REVIE'i; * f,J EY G!A;VLLAND SUBDIVISION ADDITIONAL INFORIATICN TO SATISFY PROCEDURAL RQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPIMNT The purpose for seeking a Planned Unit Development is to allow variations from certain zoning, code re- quirements that would improve the character of the new development. Specifically, it would reduce the newly created lot area to under the 15,000 sq. ft. that is required. However, the average lot area of the total develop went will be above the minimum established for this zone. Another deviation from code that would be ex- ercised under PUD would dispense with the required 75 ft. front lot width. In seeking the PUD approach it is not intended to circumvent those raquirnments (They can be accommodated as shown on the subdivision plat prviously submitted), but to eliminate the awk- ward and contrived lot division in order to meet those crteria. . The objective for subdivision is to provide for sep- arate ownership of land and building into two parcels. It is the intention of the applicant to sell the ex- isting house and lot and to build a modest home (Max- imum 1,200 sq. ft.) for herself on the undeveloped parcel. She has contacted her adjoining property owners and they have no objections to her proposed development. She has owned this property approximately 25 years and has demonstrated in time, her sensitivity toward the land by maintaining the lore profile, low impact structure of her home. She has left the indigenous vegetation and trees undisturbed on the sloping land toward Hallam Lake and has landscaped and planted all the stately trees that are in the front of her property. The proposed house would have no adverse effect on anyone in that area. The view is into the swamp and toward Hallam Lake. Even the very few people visiting the sanctuary would have the house screened by a dense growth of cottonwoods. The request for a PUD is both modest and reasonable and is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by anyone in the R-15 zone. Remo Lavagnino for Mrs. Tukey Cleveland 01001]7.11,k11714 I TO: Aspen ��j Cdww4� FROM: Planning Staff (HC) s y a D 4- CUIt� C 1eeT� K l RE: Cleveland Subdivision - Conceptual P �.�/.�• DATE: September 17, 1976 This is a request by Tukey Cleveland for a two lot subdivision (one lot developed) located on the First Aspen Company Subdivision on Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and parts of Lots 10, 11 and an adjoining parcel. The property consists of 30,520 square feet and is zoned R-15. /Mi eThe comments of the Planning Office are as follows: 1. - 5 density requirement is 10,000 square ;p �� 7 �S feet per un o units are below t owed density � s� y-7 for the sitep mum 15,000 square feet !9N site is 7 ,exc.e,oT uwct e, i�ti� iry S e t Wkeew-i . 2. The building s be located at pre plat stage to prevent phys ons on the wildlife areas su Ing Hallam Lake. ro 1'+e i pX/sT/rv6 of configuration is irregula t e necessity minimum 15,000 square foot lot and the exists by appropriate .� I - _ D%Q-ta_the_ahove-E©ns des, T e Planning Office recommends requiring P.U.D. review of this proposalaand ��nmm na,g Z,�1,n�•nct^�_„3{ fh" i++�l att}�r�ivic� *+.i c r, 7ti -- P doe e ��^�L ` %- ti2e j'Z> GUI oua sv � /d a Gc o �, o �k cam. one �? P6 v L.► �c �' T ..� e c a, Fs6 Yap T� o-t u al P`vb,e?'t[�C 9 �Te 6*04-1P­0 1 e , Ta !7c'.� see �� ys��gJ �e.•. ty.t?.s-e il-. �,44� G-:/d LiF� /t'/t �,�s S yit2Dcr.�iw�6 �}�9CCsrR. L�'�iP A-P?y ,- e c6r e,e !:✓Tts- Ft rr.,c cz w i7 �,tis �'i�` t� <6,PT•�7�'0,�. , � , Tom- ,gcT�veLy /i ovslw6 dis7/U6krow CONCEPTUAL REVIEW x `lUKEY CL .VF:LAND SUBDIVISION ADDITIONAL INFOFF.;.ATION TO SATISFY PROCEDURAL REQUIREhiENTS FOR YIAN-ED UNIT DEVELOPKENT The purpose for se,eking a Flanned Unit Development IS to allow variations from certain zoning code re- quirements that would improve the character of the new development. Specifically, it would reduce the newly created lot area to under the 15,CCO sq. ft. that is required. However, the average lot area of the total devPlop- ment will be above the minimum established for this zone. Another deviation from code that would be ex- ercised under F UD would dispense with the required 75 ft. front lot width. In se,'king the PUD approach it is not intended to circumvent those r0 uirements (They can be accommodated as shown on the subdivision plat prviously submitted), but to eliminate the awk- ward and contrived lot division in order to meet those crteria. The objective for subdivision is to provide for sep- arate ownership of land and building into two parcels. It is the intention of the applicant to sell the ex- isting house and lot and to guild a modest Howe (Liax- imum 1,200 sq. ft.) for herself on the undeveloped parcel. She has contacted her adjoining property owners and they have no objections to h-r propos-d development. She has owned this property approx.imatel,y 25 years and has demonstrated in time, her sensitivity toward the land by maintaining the low prof1le, low impact structures of her horse. She has left th^ indigenous vegetation and trees undisturbed on t?.e sloping lard toward Hallam Lake and has landscaped and planted all the stately trees that are in the 1'ront of her property. The proposed 'house would have no adverse effect on anyone in that area. The vi-w is into the swamp and toward Hallam Lake. Even the very few people visiting the sanctuary would have the hous? screened by a dense growth of cottonwoods. The request for a F UD is both modest and reasonable and is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right enjoyed by anyone in the R-15 zone. Remo Lavagnino for Mrs. Tukey Cleveland `•��•'�•v �� fir✓ t\4 �J�•p Of p CJ ? • 4� HALL A is rc-ciflii �j/�;-::• � '�':•:�•�, ::::.'::•`�._s, c• • • • • • • `\ • ' \ -. • e Jyi •. �; ^•: •'i _ice F:••',•:•L �: y�' .. u -di fln a r� � fir' 1 CCU L�,f �,CC D 29T2C�"kr7J�UCC 5Ct E 1"-40' (APPRox) nlln t OAP4 POLWY Amended ICIO/ O • SCHEDULE A Order No.: 6384 Date of Policy: May 13, 1976 at 8:00 A.M. Policy No.: M 395717 Amount of Insurance: $ 43,000.00 Loan No.: 1. Name of Insured THE BANK OF ASPEN 2. The estate or interest .in the land described in this Schedule and which is encumbered by the insured mortgage is: in fee simple 3. The estate or interest referred to herein is at Date of Policy vested in: LYDIA L. T. JONAS and LYDIA T. JONAS 4. The mortgage, herein referred to as the insured mortgage, and the assignments thereof, if any, are described as follows: Deed of Trust from Lydia L. T. Jonas to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County for the use of The Bank of Aspen to secure $43,000.00 dated April 23, 1976, recorded April 29, 1976 in Book,311 at page 322. 5. The land referred to in this policy is in the State of Colorado County of Pitkin , and is described as follows: Please refer to Page 2—A Page 2 GUARANTY COMPANY 0022 • AtIt IcIIccl to ,uul I1JJ(IC ,i I);u t Of ;;tuw,u t Titic! Gu,u.inty C<niilnuiy Policy No. M 395717 c COI)tillUJliOn of SCII(KIUIC A Parcel A: All of Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, Block 4, ASPEN CONPAW SUB -DIVISION and that part of Lots 10 and 11, Block 4, ASPEN COMPANY SUB-DIVISIOti lying Southwesterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly line of said Lot 11 whence the most Northerly Corner of said Lot 11 bears North 36°59' East 2.03 feet and the most Northerly Corner of Lot 14, Block 4 of the Aspen Company Sub - Division twhich corner is described in document No. 111989 recorded in Book 195, page 106, of the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, bears North 27°50'30" East 55.67 feet; thence South 26°54'10" East 120.24 feet to the Southeasterly line of said Lot 10. Parcel B: A tract of land situated in the North east Quarter, Section 12, Township 10 South, Range 85 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian and more fully described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southeasterly lire of Block 90 of the Hallam's Addition to the town of Aspen, Colorado whence Corner #11 of the Fowler Placer, U.S. Mineral Survey #6786 bears South 22°16' West 221.7 feet_; thence South 20°57' East 63.0 feet; thence North 80*28' East 152.0 feet; thence North 62°48' East 45.50 feet; thence North 41°01' West 90.0 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 21, Block 90 of said Hallam's Addition; thence Southerly and Westerly along the Easterly line of said Block 90 to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING FROM Parcel B, any portion thereof lying within Block 4, ASPEN COMPANY SUB -DIVISION. All in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. Page 2,-7A_ S 11,1; NVA 1l'1` '1' 111,111: S Y PART I Policy No.: M 395717 This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims or easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in houndary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts 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 theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5.Taxes for the year 1975 and thereafter, and any special assessment or charges not yet certified to the office of the County Treasurer. 6.The right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises, as reserved in United States Patent recorded June 8, 1888 in Book 55 at page 2. 7.Any tax, assessment, fees or charges by reason of the inclusion of subject property in Aspen Fire Protection District, Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District, The City of Aspen and Aspen Valley Hospital District. Exceptions Numbered are hereby omitted. I] Paste 3 S 11, E'Wlk 1z 11, 11,11,1. E' 1623 17 11 A It A N ' V Y 4 ' 1 l 11 I' A % \' yj{ a flab. • '^µ{ �; - - G/3: !' k � � ( '..L�. . 1-'. ✓• • � ' }• S:. J. {, _ � 7.M ny N �y. i . � .4S (, ' f .� �'r wy M. 1 ..� 1 G'•'"if, - :I•'• , ~ .0 'S4�r,�,}�'1X �•µ�� r:,� 1.yP h3 • n. • ' �A 't • '% �' i"' Z yi � w � 1 )lt> !, .. • • • F ..a � �+� ,� 1 ` : x j,�- .!. '•' �,. Yc" '��- � i ig .•.+� lw�y .Y r �? 5� .. � crA ti c � � s ,x 3 �'�.' a, r ,• t ti.R, Of *)%t---S 0 Pro c cwaor�S MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Cleveland Subdivision - Conceptual Subdivision & Conceptual P.U.D. DATE: October 6, 1976 This is a request by Tukey Cleveland for a two lot subdivision (one lot developed) located on the First Aspen Company Subdivision on Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and parts of Lots 10, 11 and an adjoining parcel. The property consists of 30,520 square feet and is zoned R-15. The Planning and Zoning Commission on October 5, 1976 recommended approval of the request and encouraged the land exchange described below. 1. The Planning Office recommends requiring P.U.D. review of this proposal, so as to reduce the lot size to 10,000 square feet. This would accommodate a more regular lot line configuration and promote better site manage- ment. Further the building site will be defined to reduce physical encursions on the wildlife areas surrounding Hallam Lake and reduce interference with existing vegetation. The applicant has agreed to process a P.U.D. 2. Slope reduction calculations show a reduction of 10,000 square feet of area which still allows a second unit on the site. 3. The Planning Office is actively encouraging the adjacent property owner, R.O. Anderson, to exchange lands with Mrs. Cleveland to promote better housing distribution in this residential area. Mr. Anderson owns additional property to the south of his studio and residence which is suitable for subdivision. It should be noted that Mrs. Cleveland could place an additional dwelling unit on the property without subdivision approval and without P.U.D. site placement considerations due to the large size of her land parcel. 4. The Planning Office recommends approval of the request and emphasizes its encouragement of a land trade between Mr. Anderson and Mrs. Cleveland. 0 . RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves /ORM 9 C. V. MnUCKEL !. !. • L. CO. Regular Meeting Aspen Planning and zoning, October 5,1976 Chairman Chic Collins called the meeting to order with members Hunt, Kienast, Schuhmacher, and Hedstrom present. Also present were Bill Kane and Hal Clar. of the Planning Office. Hunt moved to table the minutes of the August 31, 19 meeting. Hedstrom seconded. All in favor, motion c-. ried. Cleveland Subdivision Request Clark mentioned that a site inspection had been con- ducted the previous week. The request was for a 1 1_ subdivision, zoned R-15. The Plannirg Office had rec- mended that a PUD plan be required, which the applic- has agreed to, and that the lot size be reduced to 10,000 sq. ft. for ease of management. The adjacent owner had also been approached by the Planning Office and asked to participate in a swap of the land which would accommodate the subdivision, while maintaining the integrity of the building site. The Planning Office recommended approval of the conceptual PUD primarily because the applicant is allowed to build an additional unit on the property by right, and P&Z should maintain control over where that unit is buil-:: where the access is taken, how much land mzping is pr, served on the property. Remo Lavagnino was present to speak for the applican= Tukey Cleveland. He commented that the P&Z should co_ sider the control they have available with PUD, rath: than if the applicant would be allowed to do whatev. she desired. Clark pointed out that the PUD require ment would prevent future development on the site, a._ this would be a condition of the approval. Hunt asked if the adjacent property owner had been contacted recently in regard to the land swap. Clary_ said the owner had been contacted, but he could not speak for the owner. There were no other comments, at which point Hunt me -,.- to recommend conceptual PUD approval for Lots 5,6,7,: 9, part of Lots 10 and 11, conditicne6onthe comments the Planning Office dated September 17, 1976; and conditioned on the non conversion of the existing structure into a duplex, and that additional dwellinc units shall not be allowed, other than the ones shown on the plan submitted. Schuhmacher seconded. All in favor, motion approved. Aspen Athletic Club --Public Hearing -Conditional Use Hal Clark introduced the request for expansion or modification of the food facility use, depicted on tl- building plans at the time of the conditional use approval of;.the Athletic Club. The applicant is now seeking approval to modify the area designated as a food serivice area; extending the conditional use, and increasing its impacts on the area. The buildinc was currently over the allowed FAR: The Planning Office did not recommend approval of the extension. Dwight Shellman, representing the Aspen Athletic Club, -1- MEMO TO: HAL CLARK PLANNING OFFICE FROM: DAVE ELLIS lb S CITY ENGINEER DATE: March 8, 1977 RE: PROPOSED CLEVELAND-ANDERSON SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION In looking at the engineering problems with this proposal there are primarly two - service by utilities and provision of emergency/service access. Although the proposal creates a separate parcel at the end of an existing dead-end right-of-way there is the legal possibility, and definite probability, that a building permit could be applied for under the existing owner- ship pattern. Thus the same problems would exist, Utilities would have to be extended approximately 300 feet at the expense of the developer. It appears that there might be one other potential building site which could absorb some of this cost. In regard to the vacation of Castle Ave to facilitate the land exchange, there appears to be only one problem and that is the lack of frontage on a public road. This would require a variance. However, the utilities would need the same 30 foot width as an easement. Considering the overall benefits and disadvantages the engineering department is disposed to favor the proposal. P mil)}' . r,► a- -a• �•'''}1C }%�{, -yp .?.�• t ri ^+y►�r .,per �!• i—' .'�-'• .w :�::. -...W - _ ;� ) - 'r:'' .ea •, )- - 4► 4 t 2 F�`'• - - t `t• ;� • •r� . �- k to ' i, f - � � ems. • �_•� yT- t .. �' .. , � •' l` 4 4er y 4 j 0 Oc �CC9= wwos 10 the ---+ el-0►5�0 l4 t U V(St CW C�CT 4, l9-76