The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.ec.930 W Smuggler St.A21-91Tagert Lot Split Plat Amend.App. 2735-122-05-002 A21-91 z El ASPENTITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303)920-5090 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 -63250-134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL -63270-136 GMP/FINAL -63280-137 SUB/CONCEPTUAL -63300-139 SUB/FINAL -63310-140 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS -63320-141 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING SUBTOTAL County 00113 -63160-126 GMP/GENERAL -63170-127 GMP/DETAILED -63180-128 GMP/FINAL -63190-129 SUB/GENERAL -63200-130 SUB/DETAILED -63210-131 SUB/FINAL -63220-132 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS -63230-133 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/ /"%g O CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS -63450-146 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REFERRAL FEES: 00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 00123 -63340-190 HOUSING 00113 -63360-143 ENGINEERING C.j a PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00113 -63080-122 CITY/COUNTY CODE -63090-123 COMP. PLAN -63140-124 COPY FEES -69000-145 OTHER SUBTOTAL TOTAL (� , Name: 'F - / TT% �j."Phone: yo ' �C0V Address. r% < .)1,k, Q—j Projec Z � i,IL Check # Date: Additional billing: #of Hours: CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 4 11 91 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE:_2735-122-05-002 Ag1-91 STAFF MEMBER: KJ PROJECT NAME: Tagert Lot Split Plat Amendment Application Project Address: 930 West Smuggler, Aspen, CO Legal Address: Lot 1, Section 12, Aspen, Colorado APPLICANT: J.G. & D.B. Investments, Inc. Applicant Address: 730 Durant Avenue, Aspen, CO (920-2000) REPRESENTATIVE: David Levitt Representative Address/Phone: 207 S. Ori 'nal Aspen, CO ----------------- _'____=-____________________= G=n= PAID: YES xxNO AMOUNT: $780.00 NO.. OF COPIES RECEIVED 2 C TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 1` 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date / 3 PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Paid: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date: REFERRALS: X City Attorney City Engineer Housing Dir. Aspen Water City Electric Envir.Hlth. Aspen Con.S.D. Mtn Bell Parks Dept. Holy Cross Fire Marshall Building Inspector Roaring Fork Energy Center School District Rocky Mtn NatGas State HwyDept(GW) State HwyDept(GJ) Other DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: �~ -------------------------------------------�____—______________ FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: / � / INITIAL: — City Atty >� City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Other, FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: �'�� Ordinance 17 Series 1991 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE TAGERT LOT SPLIT PLAT WHICH ADDS AN ACCESS EASEMENT, REVISES PLAT NOTE NO.4 AND ADDS NOTES 5,6 AND 7. WHEREAS, the Tagert Lot Split Plat which was approved in 1988 required that any landscaping or manmade features were to be constructed within the building envelopes as defined on the plat; and WHEREAS, the owners of Lots 1 and 2 of the Tagert Lot Split Plat subdivision wished to amend the plat notes to allow certain window well construction and landscaping outside of the building envelopes show on the 1988 plat; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer and Planning Office determined that an access easement for the benefit of Lot 2 was represented to and approved by the City Council during the 1988 lot split consideration but was not drawn on the plat which was recorded by the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder; and WHEREAS, the owners of both lots of the Tagert Lot Split Plat consented to submission of an application to amend and expand the plat notes of said plat and to establish an access easement across Lot 1 for the benefit of Lot 2; and WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1006 B. of the Municipal Code states that City Council may approve a plat amendment provided the change is consistent with the approved plat; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer and Planning Office reviewed the proposed plat amendments and recommended approval with conditions; 1 and WHEREAS, the creation of the access easement on Lot 1 reduces lot area for purposes of determining allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on Lot 1, thus the existing structure exceeds the maximum FAR and is considered non -conforming. The City of Aspen recognizes this resulting non -conformity and will not pursue any future enforcement action regarding this non -conformity; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Engineering Department and Planning Office's recommendations, does wish to approve the First Amendment to the Tagert Lot Split Plat with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: That it does hereby grant approval for the First Amendment to the Tagert Lot Split Plat with conditions. Section 2: The following amended and new notes shall be added to the Tagert Lot Split Plat: #4 (amended) "Any man-made features (including but not limited to window wells, retaining walls, pools, patios, etc.) along the west side of the Lot 2 must be constructed within the building envelope." #5 (new) "No further development (including but not limited to window wells, retaining walls, pools, hot tubs, patios, etc.) shall be permitted on the west side of Lot 1, except for within the window well patios, where such development shall not be higher than six (6) feet below existing lot grade." #6 (new) "The planting of trees, bushes and other vegetative matter will be permitted outside of the building envelopes." #7 (new) "An easement is granted over the driveway which is part of Lot 1 for the benefit of Lot 2." Section 3: The conditions of this approval are: 1. The access easement width shall be expanded to accommodate the turning radii of the driveway for Lot 2. 2. Both lot owners shall sign the plat amendment mylars prior to filing with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 3. The amended plat must be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval by City Council. Failure to do so will render the approval invalid. 4. The applicant shall consult with the City Engineer for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way and shall obtain permits for any work or development within public rights - of -way from City Streets Department. 5. Any pending certificates of occupancy will be held by the Zoning official until the amended plat and notes are duly recorded. 6. The building envelope on Lot 1 shall be adjusted to include only the two existing below grade window well patios on the west side of the residence. Section 4: That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the day of , 1991 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council 3 Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the c-li -_ day of 1991. Yo-hnIBennett, Mayor A ` EST: Kathryn . Roch, City Clerk FINALLY, opted, passed and approved this 9 day of 1991. �3 John tennett, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S Koch—, City Cie—rjE. 4 6 aiy Frith", hip"M 0, Oil Edi or . Way to go, city council! Plaudits to the Aspen City Council for standing firm this week against insistent pressure to ' ignore a decision made by an earlier city council. 4 A pair of persuasive and skillful attorneys did their best this month to convince the council to overturn a compromise agreement governing the a building of two luxury homes at the west end of ha Smuggler Street. Cs The original compromise, reached through in council mediation of a 1988 neighborhood fight w3 over the two building projects, clearly stated that on the buildings were to be placed entirely within pr building envelopes set back from the bluffs edge RE overlooking the Sneaky Lane subdivision. All ah manmade structures, including pools and patios, :St+ were to be contained within that envelope. Cb bum But, through intimidation and obfuscation, the Jimattorneys hoped this month to distract the council ele from the plain facts of the case and win approval - the for a swimming pool on the edge of the bluff at Jin Ku one of the houses. am' It didn't work, although the attorneys did them- has selves proud in representing the interests of their alr( clients over the interests of the community at ber large. Mol The council reaffirmed the earlier decision, as knoO, well as making a common-sense ruling that exist- clog ing violations of the compromise agreement (two hear "window wells" that are really small patios) could t,te be left to stand at the house that is already built farm and up for sale. Stat But the house that is currently under construc- Akr` tion, the council ruled, must be built strictly pri this according to the agreement. by nt Regardless of the merits of the original com- N< promise, or the validity of wealthy neighbors their squabbling over what may seen inconsequential to part,, others, the council's decision was a good one. IT. Because any other decision would have been a othe, green light for developers anxious to exceed per- P° mitted building restrictions to jack up the value of all�tt spec homes and other projects. It would have mem clearly told the development community that it been can basically do what it wants, then claim later or ar the F that violations were just an honest mistake and ever have the city validate it. Colo It also would have been a clear signal to the and community in general that the city council cannot t n be trusted to live up to its agreements, but will Usa bend to the will of whoever can hire the best takc attorney with the most persuasive style. hell pan OMYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW DAVID J. MYLER SANDRA M. STULLER ALAN E. SCHWARTZ Mayor and City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 106 S. MILL STREET, SUITE 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 920-1018 FAX 9204259 poUgust 16, 1991 RE: Tagert Lot Sl✓lit Plat Amendments Dear Mayor and City Council Members: At last Monday night's public hearing on this matter, a number of issues were raised that we thought required some Clarification. This memo is being offered to "set the record straight" with respect to those issues. 1. History of Lot Split. The lot split on the subject property occurred by City Council action on November 28, 1988. According to the minutes of that meeting, the Planning Office actually recommended denial of the application, on the grounds that the propert,. did not qualify for a lot split as a matter of right under the Code. The reasons cited for the recommendation of denial were two -fold: (a) the Code prohibited -- and still prohibits -- lot splits on parcels which had been subdivided since March of 1969, and the Tagert property had previously been subdivided in 1972; and (b) the property failed to meet the dimensional requirements necessary for development in the R-6 zone district. In view of those facts, the Council was clearly justified in voting to conditionally approve the lot split upon the terms and conditions which are being challenged today. To the extent that you have any questions concerning the original lot split, we suggest that you confer with Cindy Houben, who was the project planner at that time, and has a vivid recollection of the circumstances that gave rise to the conditions now in place. Ironically, it was the Sneaky Lane homeowners who salvaged the lot split in 1988, and forged the consensus for the conditional approval. Mrs. Tagert was ill with cancer, and had been unsuccessful in her efforts to market the property. When she finally received an offer predicated upon a lot split, the neighbors agreed to help her out of her predicament -- provided their concerns were adequately addressed. The conditions that resulted, thus represented a substantial initial compromise on the part of the Sneaky Lane neighbors. r • MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ Mayor and City Council August 16, 1991 Page Two The conditional language that was ultimately agreed upon was no accident; rather, it was arrived at after painstaking negoti- ations among the applicant, the neighbors, the Planning Office, and the Council. The language that was used -- "All man made features" -- is about as clear and unmistakable as we can imagine; ironically, it was specifically selected so as to prevent any misunderstanding as to the parties' intentions. Evidently, however, the language of the conditions was altered somewhat from the time of the Council's disposition of the matter to the final recorded plat. According to the "Case Disposition" for this matter, the language actually adopted by the Council was as follows: "All man made features shall be limited to within the approved building envelopes with the exception of access driveways." This language accurately reflected the concerns of the adjacent homeowners, who never objected to the placement of landscaping features or driveways outside of the building envelope. Thus, to the extent that the Plat Notes provide that "any landscape or man made features are to be constructed within the building envelopes," this language is slightly inconsistent with the original approval. 2. Restrictions were of record. The restrictions in question were a matter of public record, and all parties were apprised of them, or should have been apprised of them, prior to either acquisition or construction. To the extent that they were not fullv informed, or failed to make the appropriate inquiries, their hardship is self-created. There is no reason why we should bear the brunt of this. The plans submitted to and approved by the Building Department by the owners of Lot 1 lead one to suspect that the owners were fully aware of the restrictions: all proposed improvements were clearly confined within the building envelope; it was only because of unapproved "changes/ mistakes that occurred during construction of the house on Lot 1" (according to Kim Johnson's memo of August 12, 1991) that IC -he building envelopes were exceeded -- which is the reason why no certificate of occupancy has been issued. In the case of Lot 2, there is obviously still plenty of time for the owners to redraw their plans to comport with the restrictions. Their respective claims of being uninformed, misinformed, or misunderstanding have a distinctly hollow ring. The language confining'"All man made features" to within the building envelope should not be confusing to anyone. It means exactly what it says, and clearly precludes construction of a pool or hot -tub outside of the building envelope. In any event, neither alleged ignorance of, nor alleged misunderstanding of these restrictions would be a valid defense to violating them, and should not be grounds for changing them either. It is entirely unfair to expect neighboring property owners to fight this battle all over .again whenever property changes hands, and a • • MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ Mayor and City Council August 16, 1991 Page Three new owner pleads ignorance or misunderstanding. The last set of conditions were intended to be just that: the last set of conditions. We presumed that we could rely on them, and do not wish to open Pandora's Box at this late date. 3. Lot 2 is drawing on a blank slate. No improvements whatsoever have been constructed on Lot 2. There is no reason why the owners of that lot cannot tailor their plans to comply with the existing restrictions, much less the relaxed restrictions now being recommended by the Planning Office. The Sneaky Lane neighbors support the current Planning Office recommendations, which would permit improvements to be constructed outside the building envelope on the north, east and south sides of the property. The only reason why this apparently will not suffice for the owners of Lot 2 is that they have elected to fill virtually every square foot of their building envelope with their planned house, and have left themselves no room for a pool except on the west side of the lot. As far as we are concerned, that's their problem, and they should not be foisting the solution upon us. 4. Compounding errors. We are very much opposed to the notion that one error should be allowed to be compounded into several more errors, that one violation should be leveraged into numerous other violations, or that one change be used to justify another. For the owners of. Lot 2 to argue that the17 are somehow disadvantaged by the errors that have been committed on Lot 1, and to permit them to duplicate these errors, strikes us as absurd. 5. Efforts to arrive at a compromise. While we regret consuming the Council's time with such a relatively minor matter, suggestions that we repair to the Center for Conflict Resolution belittle our extensive efforts to arrive at a compromise. First of all, numerous hours of discussion went into the original compromise in 1988. Even now, with respect to Lot 1, we are not asking that the offending patios be filled in, that the illegally protruding decks be cut off, or that the driveway and landscaping be ripped out. We are prepared to make the same concessions on Lot 2. We are only drawing the line at a pool on the western edge of the property, as it would completely undermine the objectives of the original conditions. Moreover, please understand that if a pool and patio are approved on Lot 2, the owners of Lot 1 have informed us that thev too will seek approval for a pool and patio. If that were approved, the original conditions would be completely emasculated, and all of our efforts three years ago for naught. So where does it all end? At some point the line must be drawn, if we are to preserve the MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ Mayor and City Council August 16, 1991 Page Four barest integrity of the original conditions. We believe, in all good conscience, that the line must he drawn at the pool. 6. Pools and Hot -Tubs. Our concerns about pools and hot -tubs go to the very heart of the original conditions. Pools and hot -tubs are magnets, invitations for a gathering. Of course we recognize that people have the right to stand on their prop- erty and talk, but common sense tells that they are much more likely to congregate around a pool than on an undeveloped corner of their lot. There is no reason whatsoever why Lot 2 cannot be developed with a pool located anywhere else on the property, consistent with the Planning office's recommendations. 7. Analogy to variance request. As a practical matter, what this application most resembles is a request for a variance from set -back regulations. We believe that it is appropriate to ask whether this application would meet the standards for a variance, which include, among other things, that the following circumstances exist: (a) "The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure"; and (b) Literal interpretation and enforcement of the [restrictions] ... would cause the applicant unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty." Section 10-104. If these were in fact the controlling standards, this application would not meet them. 8. Conclusion. Finally, we ask you to consider what your position would be if this matter was coming before you for the first time. Because this does not qualify as a lot split by right, what conditions would you impose? Would you permit. landscaping outside the building envelope? Of course; and so ,have we. Would you permit window wells -- which are actually patios -- to protrude outside the envelope? We have. Would you permit a driveway outside the envelope? We have. Would you permit a swimming pool to be constructed on the western edge of the property, over the strenuous objections of neighbors who have had highly negative experiences with pools and hot -tubs, and who do not care to repeat them -- especially when the pool could just as easily be located anywhere else on the lot? We sincerely hope not. In point of fact, however, while you may be considering this matter for the first time, we have already devoted considerable time to this subject, and it has already been decided once by the Aspen City Council. As we trust is now evident, by everything we have stated above, we compromised our position. once 3 years ago, and yet remain willing to compromise even further today. We believe that we, in turn, have earned the right to have you, as MYLER, STULLER & SCHWARTZ Mayor and City Council August 16, 1991 Page Five elected officials, stand by decisions made by previous Councils, which we have relied upon to our detriment. Is that unreason- able? We don't think so. We feel that we have the right to expect some modicum of integrity in the public process, and that much more compelling reasons should be cited than have been by the applicants in this case, before you turn your back on conditions that were expressly intended to protect our interests. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Sincceerr ly, Tom"Starodor; A Betsy arodo Lindra1 Harlem Ann Mass Anneiiese Cosniac cc: Carol O'Dowd Amy Margerum Cindv Houben i Johnson kT d Gall Susan Carter Robert -Camp Cynthia Cur�ee ohn Foley Cherie Jord Pietro Danieli Patricia Peterson - Ed Peterson I • ROBERT CAMP 505 Sneaky Lane Aspen, Colorado BY HAND Mayor John Bennett Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Tagert Lot Split Plat Amendment Dear Mayor Bennett: August 14, 1991 You and the other members of City Council are being asked to give the owners of Lot 2 - Tagert Lot Split something that they do not now have, i.e., the right to develop a swimming pool outside their building envelope. At the same time, we are being asked to accept the increased risk of disturbance from visual and auditory impacts related to the pool area. As you know, we do not accept this win - lose proposition. Risk is associated with uncertainty, and there is considerable uncertainty with respect to the impacts of the proposed modification to the building envelope. We are told that sound travels along a straight line, up and out rather than down. While this may be true in a vacuum, we have plenty of empirical evidence that sound does indeed travel down and gets around corners. The house to be built on the lot may act as an echo chamber bouncing pool related noise directly to the west. The sound of Castle Creek tends to mask out sound, especially during peak run off. This effect is diminished after July and is nearly nonexistent during the winter when snow and ice covers much of the creek. Finally, the cottonwood and aspen leaves which help buffer sound and sight during 5 to 6 months of the year are gone the rest of the year. Unless you can be certain that the variance from status quo will not impose increased risk of disturbance upon the neighbors, we ask you to reject the proposed swimming pool. Thank you for your continued consideration in this matter. Robert Camp on behalf of 505 Sneaky Lane MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director{") FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: August 26, 1991 RE: Tagert Lot Split Plat Amendment - Site Visit and Continued Public Hearing for Second Reading of Ordinance 17 Summary: The public hearing for this item was opened on August 12, 1991. The Council heard presentations from the Planning Office, representatives from the Tagert lots' owners, and neighbors from Sneaky Lane. The Council decided to make a visit to the West Smuggler / Sneaky Lane area prior to rendering their decision. Council instructed staff to research several items prior to the August 26 meeting. These items are: Minutes of 1988 approval of the lot split: Please see Attachment "A". Included is the Planning staff memo for that meeting. FAR non -conformity of Lot 1: It was assumed by the owner of Lot 1 and Zoning staff that there would be an FAR non -conformity for the existing structure when the access easement was dedicated (land area comprising of surface easements is subtracted from lot area for purposes of calculating FAR). In researching the actual amount of non -conformity as requested by Council, staff has determined that the house will exceed allowable R-6 FAR when the area of the easement is subtracted from the overall lot area: Current Situation (without easement): gross lot area: 16,364 s.f. allowed FAR: 4,088.2 s.f. existing FAR: 4,061.0 s.f. (as per building permit) surplus FAR 27.2 s.f. Proposed Situation (with easement subtracted from gross lot area): area of proposed easement: 1,089 s.f. net lot area 15,275 s.f. allowed FAR: 4,033.75 s.f. existing FAR: 4,061.0 s.f. non -conforming FAR: -27.25 s.f. The exposed wall area created by the new below grade patio will increase the FAR by only a few square feet. The exact increase will be calculated by Zoning prior to issuance of a change order to the original building permit once the proposed amendments are adopted. The owner of Lot 1 requested that the approval ordinance address the FAR non -conformity by including a "non -enforcement clause". This language has been included as "whereas" #7 in Ordinance 17. Planning Office definition / practical use of "building envelope": There is no definition for "building envelope" within the Land Use Code. The Code contains a definition for building: "any structure including a roof supported by walls, designed or built for the support, enclosure, shelter, or protection of persons, animals, chattels, or property of any kind which is erected for permanent location on the ground. A building includes yurts, removable sheds, and similar uses, but does not include signs or fences." Common usage of the term "building envelope" typically would be a designated area in which structures must be located on a site. The plat indicates a "building envelope" on each lot and plat note #4 which restricts development even further to include "any landscape or man-made features". Diligent review of all of the plat notes would be the only way to catch the difference between common usage and the specific Tagert plat requirements. In the R-6 zone, there are no required "building envelopes". Instead, locations of structures are dictated by setbacks determined by lot size. The north, east and south sides of the building envelopes on the Tagert lots are in conformance with standard R-6 setback lines. The side setback line on the west side of the two Tagert lots would be 20 feet from the western property line, or approximately halfway up the slope. The potential situation of locating a building down the slope is what concerned the Sneaky Lane neighbors during the original lot split review. Logic behind staff recommendation: As mentioned at the 8/12 meeting, staff has relied on the original 1988 approval and that the neighbors have a "vested" interest in no development along the western sides of the two Tagert lots. Both Tagert lot owners bought the lots with plat note #4 in effect. Staff believes that the below grade patios on Lot 1 should not be removed because they will not impact the Sneaky Lane residents with noise or visual intrusion. Staff recommends adjusting the building envelope on Lot 1 to encompass the below grade patios. If the envelope is not changed, the patios would not be in compliance with the plat. The proposed note restricting any development on the west side of Lot 2 is based on the fact that the lot is still vacant and any design effort can still take into consideration this restriction. The Planning staff memo from Council's August 12, 1991 meeting is attached after the 1988 information. 0 �ACHMENT "A" Y_ n1't 4 JJ Regular Meeting __ Aspen City Council November 28, 1P88, c 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. Mayor Stirling opened the public hearing. There were no com ments. Mayor Stirling closed the public hearing. Councilman Isaac moved to adopt Ordinance #46, Series of 1988, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Tuite. Mayor 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 process.,, 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 (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 Regular Meeting Aspen City 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 conditioned upon Council approval. McGrath told Council 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. 3 Regular meeting Aspen City Council November 28, 1988 McGrath said Mrs. Tagert's property was never subdivided in the old subdivision. The Code, 7-1003(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 fall off the side and are almost entirely on the top. McGrath said the building envelopes are relatively small compared to the entire lots. Mayor Pro Tem 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. McGrath 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 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 28, 1988 excavation on the hillside. Brandt told Council the neighbors 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. McGrath 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. McGrath said the Tagert parcel is a separate parcel and is eligible for a lot split. McGrath 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 Tem 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 condition #4 be changed to reflect the proposal presented by Chuck Brandt; seconded by Mayor Pro Tem 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. N TOM AND BETSY STARODOJ 580 Sneaky Lane t,o 201991 P. 0. Box 2298 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Mayor and City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Tagert Lot Split, Lots 1 and 2 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: The Aspen City Council has been asked by the owner of subject Lot 2 for approval to build improvements, including a swimming pool, on the westerly bluff outside of their designated building envelopes. Also, the owners of subject Lot 1 have requested approval of two existing below -grade patios that are in violation of their designated building envelope. We recommend approval of the below -grade patios, but strenuously object to any further development on the westerly bluff on both Lots 1 and 2, outside of their building envelopes, because of acoustical impacts on us. On 8-18-91, we conducted tests with a "Ghetto Blaster" on the edge of the westerly bluff, as well as from within the below -grade patios. The results were that the residences of the Starodojs, Robert Camp, and Linda Harlem were adversely impacted by the acoustics originating from Lots 1 and 2. This is in contrast to the opposition's contentions that sound travels only up. We do not wish to be subjected to this problem, especially late at night, as we have already been by another home on this bluff. Please approve the Planning Department's position on this matter as presented to you on 8-12-91, and let's put this issue to rest. This is a substantial compromise on our part from the original approval by the Aspen City Council in 1988. We were assured by the Planning Department (Cindy Houben) that this issue was laid to rest permanently in 1988, and we had nothing more to " be concerned about. Your approval of the Planning Office's recommendations will enable us to view these events with some degree of fairness, and will allow the Aspen City Council to proceed to conduct its affairs without prejudicing its future credibility. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. MSIAVT(0);i.11;i6I71)ZT TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: August 12, 1991 RE: Tagert Lot Split Plat Amendment, Public Hearing for Second Reading of Ordinance 17, Series 1991 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the proposed plat amendments for the addition of an access easement and a revised notes section with conditions. First reading was held on May 28, 1991. Since first reading, the applicants have met with neighbors in an attempt to resolve noise and visual impact concerns. Planning staff has also met with the applicants and neighbors and proposes the revised plat notes as well as the access easement across Lot 1 for the benefit of Lot 2. COUNCIL GOALS: This review supports goal #14 to develop consistent and fair government processes. LOCATION AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The Tagert Lot Split plat encompasses about 3/4 acre at the end of W. Smuggler on the north side of the street. Each of the two lots is about 16,000 s.f. The current request is to draw in an access easement for the benefit of Lot 2 within the panhandle of Lot 1, and to amend and expand the plat notes to revise certain limitations on landscaping and construction outside of building envelopes. Staff also recommends redrawing the building envelope on Lot 1 to encompass the existing below -grade patio in order to remove a structural non- conformity. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: First reading was held on May 28, 1991. (The proposed Ordinance 17 has changed since First Reading to include a reference to FAR and inclusion of the new plat notes) On November 28, 1988 the City Council approved the lot split for this property. At that meeting, neighbors of the area below the subject lots expressed their concern about intrusions to their privacy if homes were built close to or down the slope. To limit this potential, the building envelopes were moved away from the top of the slope and note #4 was added to the plat stating that "any landscape or manmade features are to be constructed within the building envelopes." The proposed plat which Council reviewed and approved in 1988 showed that the whole panhandle of Lot 1 was to be an access easement for Lot 2 (Attachment "A"). However, when the plat was filed this easement had been removed and was not recorded. BACKGROUND: An amendment to the 1988 plat is necessary for two reasons. First, it was discovered during a zoning inspection of the residence on Lot 1 that window wells approved in the plans for building permit were enlarged during construction to exceed the building envelope. This is in violation of note #4 on the existing plat. Zoning Officer Bill Drueding will not issue a Certificate of Occupancy without resolution of this encroachment situation. The second problem involves the fact that no platted access easement exists for the benefit of Lot 2, as referenced in the Engineering referral comment #1. Lot 2 has frontage on West Smuggler, but that section of the road contains a downhill curve. The Engineering Department is strongly against another curb cut in this downhill curve area. This is the reasoning behind the original plat approval of joint access through the panhandle of Lot 1. Staff considers this a critical issue and feels that any replatting must replace this joint access. REFERRAL COMMENTS: City Engineer Chuck Roth forwarded his concerns highlighted below. Complete memo is Attachment "B". 1. Lot 2 Access - This has been the engineering department's primary concern with this land use application. The site is located on a curve. The original application depicted a single access to the two properties which was acceptable to engineering. When the plat was approved and filed, it was done erroneously because the approved access easement was missing. 2. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way, we would like the following condition of approval: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way and shall obtain permits for any work or development within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). STAFF DISCUSSION: As mentioned above, the neighbors downhill are concerned that development on these two lots will have significant impact on them. Several issues surround the plat amendments: Noise and Visual Impacts: The neighbors below the subject lots want to limit activities above them to protect their privacy. They wish to have any plat language forbid patios, hot tubs, expanded lawn areas, decks, etc. from being developed on the west side of the subject lots (along the slope). Staff feels that most noise 2 generated on the Tagert lots will project outward and upward as long as decks, hot tubs or pools are not cantilevered over the bluff. The neighbors believe that noises generated from anywhere on the western side (rear yard) of the Tagert lots will project downward towards their properties. original Lot Split Approval: The neighbors voiced their concerns about noise and visual impacts during the 1988 lot split hearing. Because of their input, the building envelopes were moved back from the top of the slope and a plat note was added forbidding any "man- made or landscape features" outside of the approved envelopes. The neighbors are adamant that a deal was struck between the original owner, City Council, and themselves which must not be changed and that the intent of the original approvals remain intact. Although any property owner may request changes to conditions imposed on their property, staff realizes the importance of the original approvals based on neighborhood concerns. In recognition of the intent of the original plat notes, staff proposes plat note #4 to prevent development outside of the building envelope along the west side of Lot 2, the vacant lot. Specifically, man-made features (eg. window wells, pools, patios, etc.) may only be constructed within the building envelope on the west side of the lot. On the other three sides of Lot 2, man-made features may be constructed pursuant to issuance of applicable building permits. For Lot 1, which contains a recently constructed home with basement patios outside of the building envelope, staff proposes plat note #5 which will allow no additional development along the west side of the lot, other than the existing patios. This effectively "locks in" development in its current status along the west side of Lot 1. Proposed plat note #6 will allow vegetation to be planted outside of the building envelopes on both lots. Changes During Construction: The neighbors are upset over changes/mistakes that have occurred during construction of the house on Lot 1. Specifically, the original building permit showed minimal window wells for egress along the west side of the Lot 1 home. A decision in the field (without appropriate building permit change orders) converted these small openings to doorways, exposed more wall area, and created below -grade boulder lined patios with facilities for hot tubs. The neighbors feel that the errors of the project should be fixed where they were made, not be corrected via a plat change. Staff agrees that the building permit approvals were exceeded, however, a developer/contractor does have the right to try to alleviate a problem through standard amendment processes. There also was an error in the placement of the sewer line below Lot 2. The contractor placed the service line for the two Tagert lots outside of the dedicated easement. This caused extended negotiations between property owners to solve the problem. 3 Proposed Plat Changes: Access Easement: The Applicants propose a design for an access easement which affects both lots (Attachment "C"). The original representation of the easement during the 1988 Lot Split review showed the entire panhandle as the easement without any restrictions as to its use. The current proposal shows a much reduced easement, which both owners feel meets the access needs to the proposed garage on Lot 2. Staff has considered the proposed easement in conjunction with the site plan for Lot 2 currently in the design phase (Attachment "D"). The 18' entry to the garage area of Lot 2 needs more width to accommodate the turning radii as per discussion with the architect for Lot 2. Staff recommends approval of the access easement with the condition that the easement accommodate the driveway curve radii. Plat Notes: Existing plat note #4 reads: "Any landscape or man- made features are to be constructed within the building envelopes." As discussed above, the patios on Lot 1 are non -conforming specific to this plat note. The owners of Lot 2 want to be able to create recreational space (pool and patio) outside of the envelope on the west side of their lot. Owners of both lots want to place landscape plantings anywhere on their sites. The proposed plat notes seek accomplish the following: 1) add the necessary access easement for Lot 2 2) legitimize the existing patios on Lot 1 3) limit future development along the west side of Lots 1 and 2 4) allow landscaping anywhere on Lots 1 and 2. These notes would read: #4 (amended) "Any man-made features (including but not limited to window wells, retaining walls, pools, patios, etc.) along the west side of the Lot 2 must be constructed within the building envelope. #5 (new) "No further development (including but not limited to window wells, retaining walls, pools, patios, etc.) shall be permitted on the west side of Lot 1." #6 (new) "The planting of trees, bushes and other vegetative matter will be permitted outside of the building envelopes." #7 (new) "An easement is granted over the driveway which is part of Lot 1 for the benefit of Lot 2." In addition to plat note #5, staff believes that the building envelope on Lot 1 should be enlarged to incorporate the already built below -grade patios on the west side of the house. This will alleviate the existing non -conformity and will allow the Certificate of Occupancv to be issued for the structure. 4 Lot 2 Design Efforts: Representatives of Lot 2, including Attorney Spence Schiffer and Landscape Architect Bonnie Johnson, have met at least twice with two of the neighbors below the Tagert lots. The goal of the meetings were to show designs for a pool and patio contemplated by the owner of Lot 2. According to Mr. Schiffer, the neighbors are opposed to all alternatives presented. Staff has seen the drawings and understands that they will be presented to Council during consideration of this agenda item. Citizen Comments: Since first reading, the Planning Office has received letters and had meetings with several neighbors. Copies of letters from neighbors and attorneys representing the owners of the subject lots are attached. Please see Attachment "E". Addition to Ordinance 17: Since first reading, the owner of Lot 1 has requested a language addition to Ordinance 17 regarding non- conforming FAR on Lot 1. This addition is necessary because the access easement being placed on Lot 1 reduces lot area for purposes of calculating FAR. The structure on Lot 1 was designed and constructed based on the original lot area including the land covered by the easement. Therefore the house's FAR will be non- conforming when the easement is filed. Upon consultation with the City Attorney, staff has added new "whereas" statement number seven to Ordinance 17 stating that the City will take no future enforcement action on this non -conformity. The City Council has the option to accept this "whereas" statement. If approved within the ordinance, this statement will assure the current/future owners of Lot 1 that the City will not require demolition of the excess FAR. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the access easement and changes to plat note #4, and the addition of notes 5, 6 and 7. The access easement is shown on Attachment "C". The following are proposed conditions: 1. The access easement width shall be expanded to accommodate the turning radii shown on Attachment "E". 2. The building envelope for Lot 1 shall be revised on the plat mylar to encompass the below -grade patios in existence at the time of this approval. 3. Both lot owners shall sign the plat amendment mylars prior to filing with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 4. The amended plat must be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval by City Council. Failure to do so will render the approval invalid. 5. The applicant shall consult with the City Engineer for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way and shall 5 • obtain permits for any work or development within public rights - of -way from City Streets Department. 6. Any pending certificates of occupancy will be held by the Zoning Official until the amended plat and notes are duly recorded. 7. The plat notes shall read: #4 (amended) "Any man-made features (including but not limited to window wells, retaining walls, pools, patios, etc.) along the west side of the Lot 2 must be constructed within the building envelope. 15 (new) "No further development (including but not limited to window wells, retaining walls, pools, patios, etc.) shall be permitted on the west side of Lot 1." #6 (new) "The planting of trees, bushes and other vegetative matter will be permitted outside of the building envelopes." #7 (new) "An easement is granted over the driveway which is part of Lot 1 for the benefit of Lot 2." ALTERNATIVES: The options available to Council are: 1) Require the owner of Lot 1 to fill in the below grade patios that are outside of the building envelope on the west side of the lot (strict compliance with the existing envelope). 2) Expand the building envelopes for one or both lots to encompass existing or proposed patios, decks, pools, etc. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have second reading of Ordinance 17 Series 1991 for the approval of the First Amendment to the Tagert Lot Split Plat including new notes and access easement. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: Ordinance 17, Series 1991 for Consideration "A"- Original Plat Approved at the 11/28/88 Council Meeting "B"- Engineering Department Referral Memo "C"- Proposed Easement "D"- Lot 2 Site Plan Including Driveway Radii "E"- Letters from Neighbors and Applicant's Representatives jtkvj/tagert.ccmemo.3 SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW PARK CENTRAL BUILDING ADMITTED TO COLORADO 215 SOUTH MONARCH. SUITE 202 T J,EPHONE (303) 925-4041 AND NEW FORK BARS ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 f.1"�� -] T'ELECO PIER (303) 925-4043 Augur; Aw U `11 Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers City of Aspen 130 S . Galena -----� Aspen, Colorado 31611 Re: Lot 2, Tagert Lot Split Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers: I represent Dr. George Brennan who owns Lot 2, Tagert Lot Split, which is part of a land use application scheduled for public hearing before you on August 12, 1991. You have received several memos on the matter and letters from neighbors in opposition. Since most of the issues have been resolved, the purpose of this letter is to simply focus attention on the one remaining issue and to present the position of Dr. Brennan and his wife Adrienne with respect thereto. Simply stated, the Brennans would like the ability to use their rear yard with possibly a small patio and a swimming pool. The neighbors on Sneaky Lane below are adamantly opposed to any swimming pool and apparently to any use of the yard other than as a lawn. They claim to be concerned about potential noise problems, based upon the Staradojs' bad experiences with a house that was built directly above them with a hot tub on a deck cantilevered out over the steep slope. Although this is an entirely different situation, we offered to mitigate any potential impacts. The Brennans engaged Design Workshop to design a landscape plan which would screen the pool and yard from view and which would mitigate, if not entirely eliminate, any potential noise problem by recessing the pool below grade, putting a rock wall around it, using a natural berm and planting a substantial number of large evergreens. A copy of the proposed plan is attached hereto. The neighbors are still not satisfied. The Staradojs, the most vocal opponents, live furthest away from the proposed pool site. Numerous sixty foot cottonwoods already stand between their lot and the Brennans which, when added to the evergreens to be planted, will not only obstruct any view, but virtually eliminate any sound from being heard from the Staradoj property. sfs\brennan.6 SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C. Mr. Mayor City of Aspen Councilmembers August 8, 1991 Page 2 We respect the neighbors and understand their concerns. However, they are overreacting based upon a situation which is totally unrelated to this one. The building envelope adequately protects them. The restrictions on the plat unreasonably restrict the Brennans' use and enjoyment of their property without any real concomitant benefit to the neighbors. Moreover, if the Brennan's request is approved, the public will derive additional benefit in that the landscape plan will substantially screen their lot from public view. It is the Brennan's position that they should be allowed to make any reasonable use of their property provided that it does not unreasonably adversely impact adjacent property owners. The proposed pool and use of their yard will not so impact the neighbors. It will not be able to be seen and will not generate any noise which could be heard below. As the Planning Office memo of July 22, 1991 states: Staff feels that most noise generated on the Tagert lots will project outward and upward as long as decks, hot tubs or pools are not cantilevered over the bluff. (page 3 of memo) . Finally, with respect to the issue being characterized as one of fairness by the neighbors, i.e. that you should not modify restrictions imposed by a prior council, I have the following responses: 1. In this matter you act as a quasi-judicial body and, like a court of law, you have the right and the power to modify the restrictions. 2. If a restriction serves no useful purpose it is per se unfair and unreasonable, and it would be manifestly unfair not to modify it. 3. Although it is not offered as an excuse, when you are balancing the equities you should understand that the Brennans were not aware of the restrictions when they bought the property. 4. The public benefit to be derived by granting the Brennans' request, i.e. the additional landscape screening, far outweighs the narrow self-centered interests of the neighbors. sfs\brennan.6 SPENCER F. SCHIFFER. P.C. Mr. Mayor City of Aspen Councilmembers August 8, 1991 Page 3 All we are asking is for recognition of the essential freedom each of us has to enjoy the right to use our property in any reasonable way that does not unreasonably adversely impact someone else. We have been told that three of you have already decided to vote against our request and have just learned that three of you have visited the sight with the neighbors and their attorney. In that regard I would point out that the flagged stakes were not set by us and do not represent the corners of the building envelope, and the grade of the slope was disturbed when a sewer line was trenched. As a consequence, the building envelope appears to be much closer to the slope than it actually is. As for your predisposition to vote against us, we hope that is not the case and trust that you will act fairly and reasonably. Thank you, SPENCER Ff !¢HIFFER, P.C. Spencot F/f/Schiffer SFS:jw cc: Ms. Amy Margerum Jed Caswall, Esq. Ms. Bonnie Johnson Michael Herron, Esq. Dr. and Mrs. Brennan sfs\brennan.6 ,sL4uly 27, 1989 Mr. Richard Butera c/o Aspen Club Realty 520 E. Durant, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Dick: Congratulations on your purchase of the Tagert subdivision lots. They are choice. Recently, the Sneaky Lane Homeowners hired Chuck Brandt and Sunny Vann for the purpose of becoming involved in this subdivision application as the potential impact to them was of great concern. The SLH were actually in favor of the subdivision, however, they did want to have input into the location of the building footprints as they wished that they be located as far back from the lip of the bluff as possible. I would also point out for your benefit, that there was a boundry'encroachment problem along the East line of this property. The purpose of writing this letter is to make you aware of the sensitivity of the SLH to the location of the building footprints. Once you are ready to pour the foundation, it might be worth both our time and effort to review the exact location to preclude any problems. . Enclosed is a copy of the recorded plat showing actual square footage of the lots which maybe helpful to you. If I can be of any futher assistance on this matter, please call. Sincerely, Thomas S. Starodoj cc: W. Drueding Planning Department enclosure • I T No Erc 9r"&6 dcy w&-.4 (snow / t qb, CfX"W 44w$117—a w Ac pair a*ra rcus5a 0" , s m w, nui stKzn*rs' &Ww-Qi as b/dS. evn rlo , /2'-7f �rric� 1� majul avLa aual!&I1 mac, c pareEa� �{Y6v,� fiaur DCi/6W woAxettop, /NG, avl'y It, /7y1 / r • X ( Oli-i x7883.9 r �7884.17 x 787 ,.� • / "l l x 7820 9_ x7819.7 \b, . �- 7880.8 \ x 7621.4 11 x 7819.7 p -.► x 7820.5 x7891.4 /891.8x sMIUGGi r q 825.Ix \ I _ x 7 OD � � I 1 I - I x 7822.3 rlkw is EXISnNG MAMAF G0f(w-00 11 / PA C K dF A p NO, 'iD60 CAMP jzc;ID6NGo CRocf SeCTfON - CLQVr4T1oN &RENA_li4N RESIPOhICIS of•, INC. 1. 0 I . o uuw /9, /W/ V"r f ma la. PINW1N "POWX -=Xisn"ro MA-,VMO _COVN"017 E1sr *'- 4,0, lT�Rvo� � �ce�vtNca / / CRoCr i/crtoN - ipirrvirtoN ,ORSNryAN R 66/aENCE Dt cl /N woRK VHAO , iNc. 11, a to I - c" *V0. 'F1 /91/ vw, iHoN= . BRINNA N RogtD6N C; 0.w -MILL Fl2a- M -TIN& �v,oe Sandra L. Read and John P. Foley 501 Sneaky Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 July 19, 1991 BY HAND Councilwoman Margot Pendleton Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 re: Tagert Lot Split Plat Amendment Dear Ms. Pendleton: As residents, and land owners, on Sneaky Lane we are writing to register our opposition to the approval by the City Council of portions of the proposed Tagert Lot Split Plat Amendments currently under consideration. Presently before the City Council is a proposal to amend the plat of the Tagert Lot Split in two respects. First, to correct the plat as regards access to Lot 1 through Lot 2. Second, to remove building restrictions applicable to the two lots related to contruction outside of the proscribed building envelopes. As regards the first, we have no objections to the plat amendment ( proposed note #7 ). However, we are strongly opposed to the adoption of proposed amended Note #4 and new Note #5 related to construction outside of the established building envelopes. We, however, do support proposed note #6 which allows "[t]he planting of trees, bushes and other vegetative matter . . . outside of the building envelopes". Background On November 28, 1988 the City Council approved the Tagert lot split (930 West Smuggler), subject to set backs and proscribed building envelopes. These restrictions were included, in part, as the result of concerns expressed by residents of Sneaky Lane regarding intrusions on their privacy. Not only were the residents concerned with sight line infringments, but there were also concerns expressed with noise intrusions emanating from structures being built close to the western bluff dominating Sneaky Lane and the residences below. The restrictions adopted at that time were specific, Note #4 states "any landscape or manmade features are to be constructed within the building envelopes". Subsequent to the City Council's actions Thomas Starodoj, a resident of Sneaky Lane whose property adjoins the Tagert lot, contacted the owner of the lots, the architectural firm designing the structure on lot 1, and counsel to the owners of the lot, in order to insure that each was aware of building restrictions applicable to both lots 1 and 2. (See letter dated June 17, 1991 to Aspen City Council from Thomas Starodoj.) Current Situation Construction has been completed on a single family residence on Lot 1. However, the Building Department will not issue a Certificate of Occupancy because, as constructed, the "manmade features" exceed to building envelope prosribed. In order to correct this problem, the owners of lots 1 and 2 propose to have the restrictions placed on the sites by the City Council in 1988 relaxed. The owners of the.lots have the support of the Planning Department in their efforts ( See, Memorandum, dated May 28, 1991, to the City Council from Kim Johnson). Objections to Proposal 1. The "manmade features" extending beyond the proscribed building envelopes are not merely technical violations of the plat. Counsel to the owners of Lot 1 has asserted in a letter dated April 5, 1991, to the Planning Office that the "construction of a below grade rock garden" was a "technical violation of the language of the plat". In fact, not one but two "below grade rock gardens" were constructed. Moreover, these "below grade rock gardens" were constructed after the owner, counsel and the architects were advised by Mr. Starodoj of the restrictions applicable to the lot. In addition, the extensions beyond the building envelopes are of significant size. Given these facts to characterize the violations as technical is at best understating reality. 2. The use of the descriptive term "below grade rock garden" and the term "window wells" are misleading. In the above referenced letter to the Planning Department counsel to the owner of lot 1 describes the extensions beyond the building envelope as "below grade rock garden[s]", and the Planning Department in its Memorandum of May 28, 1991, describes these extensions as "window wells". Neither of these terms describes accurately what has been constructed on lot 1. In his letter dated June 17, 1991, Thomas Starodoj describes in some detail what has been constructed on Lot 1. Outdoor extensions of the living area of the structure on Lot 1 have been constructed to include access doors and finished concrete surfaces 0 totaling approximately 160 square feet. These areas would be better described as patios, albeit below grade. It should be noted that one of these areas is of sufficient size to accomodate a spa. 3. The Planning Department's proposed amended Note 4 and new Note 5 to the Tagert Lot Split Plat, are non-specific and thwart the intent of the City Council's actions of November, 1988. When the City Council approved the Tagert Lot Split they did so with specific language and proscribed building envelopes. These restrictions were duly considered, discussed, and voted upon and were intende to preclude development of any type near or close to the bluff located on the western side of the property overlooking Sneaky Lane. To amend Note 4 to the plat is to effectively remove these restrictions. In Memorandum of May 28, 1991, the Planning Department concurs with applicant that the wording on the original plat is "too restrictive". We hasten to point out that the applicant was a party to the City Council's actions taken in November 1988, and that the applicant was aware of the intent of the council in placing the restrictions on the plat. Moreover, given, in part, the concerns of the neighbors on Sneaky Lane, the City Council intended for there to be restricted building envelopes on the property and that the set back from the bluff be adhered to. Therefore, for the Planning Department to take the position that the existing language is "too restrictive" is contrary to the intent of the City Council. The proposed language of Note #5 is so nonspecific it would allow the construction of such improvements as swimming pools and below grade spa facilities in the area of the set back from the bluff. This would clearly thwart the intent of the City Council in its earlier actions. 4. The actions of the Planning Department in this matter subverts rather than supports Goal #14 to develop consistent and fair government processes. In its Memorandum of May 28, 1991, the Planning Department describes incompletely the concerns, missing are any references to concerns with noise intrusion, of the neighbors on Sneaky Lane as expressed to the City Council in November, 1988. However, in the process of developing the proposed amendments and additions to the plat the Planning Department made no effort to solicit the input of those neighbors. Inasmuch as the restrictions placed on Lots 1 and 2 were done, in part, at the behest of these neighbors, actions in support of the goal of fairness would dictate that the Planning Department solicit, and consider the views of those intended to be protected by the earlier City Council action. As noted, no effort was made to obtain these views. Recommendation We recognize that the applicant for the amendments to the Tagert Lot Split Plat is faced with a real definable problem in need of resolution. However, as we are directly effected by the solution arrived at, we believe that we should be made parties to the discussions seeking such a resolution. To have the solution presented to the Council as a 'fait accompli' is highly inappropriate. Therefore, we recommend and request that Council continue this matter for thirty days to allow for discussions between all parties effected in order that a consensus position be presented to the Council. Such a continuance places no onerous burden on either the applicants or the Planning Department. In fact, it should have been done before this matter was ever placed before the Council for consideration. We appreciate having the opportunity to present these views and recommendations. Sincerely, Sand OL. ead and John P. Foley cc: Mayor John Bennett Councilman August Reno Councilwoman Rachel Richards �buncilman Frank Peters Ms, Carol O'Dowd Ms. Amy Margerum 0 • SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C. ADMITTED TO COLORADO AND NEW FORK BARS Mr. Robert C. Camp Reese Henry and Company 400 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ATTORNEY AT LAW PARK CENTRAL BUILDING 215 SOUTH MONARCH, SUITE 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 July 9, 1991 Re: Tagert Lot Split Amendment Dear Bob: TELEPHONE 13031 925-4041 TELECOPIER (303) 925-4043 First of all I would like to thank you and the other members of your group for the courtesy and consideration you have extended to me and my clients in trying to find a mutually acceptable solution to the pending issues in the hope that when this is, finally presented to City Council all disputes could be resolved. As you know, my clients have taken a conciliatory approach from the beginning and have been anxious to find a way to allay whatever concerns you and the other neighbors might have. We have reluctantly agreed to two continuations of the previously scheduled public hearings, although Mrs. Brennan had made plans to be in Aspen and was actually here for the meeting scheduled for July 8, 1991. After meeting at the site, it became obvious that the best way to deal directly with the concerns you expressed was to hire a landscape architect. Accordingly, as I mentioned to you this morning, the Brennan's have engaged Design Workshop to prepare a plan that should, hopefully, be satisfactory to you and the neighbors. That is, we intend to do whatever landscaping is reasonably necessary to provide a buffer between the Brennan property and the Sneaky Lane lots so as to provide the maximum flexibility for the Brennan's use of their property while protecting you and the other Sneaky Lane residents from any intrusion on your privacy. As you know, the Brennan's would like to install a hot tub and possibly a small swimming pool on the property. Quite frankly, I cannot understand why there should be an objection to those types of features since they certainly could not be seen from any of the lots on Sneaky Lane and it seems inconceivable that any noise that would emanate from them could be heard from the lots below. Nevertheless, the proposed landscaping would be designed to mitigate, if not totally eliminate, the possibility of any adverse impacts on the lots below. It would therefore seem unreasonable sfs\brennan.rcc SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C. Mr. Robert C. Camp Reese Henry and Company July 9, 1991 Page 2 for you and the other neighbors to seek to preclude the Brennans from such a use of their property since it would not have an adverse impact on any of you. I would implore you to please reconsider the position outlined in paragraph 2 of your letter of July 7, 1991, particularly in light of the fact that the Brennans are undertaking the expense of preparing the landscape plan at this time. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, SPENCER F. S IFFER, P.C. Spencer Schiffer SFS:jw cc: Dr. and Mrs. George Brennan Michael J. Herron, Esq. Ms. Kim JohnsonLl-/� sfs\brennan.rcc SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C. ��1991 i; ATTORNEY AT LAW PARK CENTRAL BUILDING 215 SOUTH MONARCH, SUITE 202 a ADMITTED TO COLORADO TELEPHONE (303) 925-4041 AND NEW YORK BARS ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELECOPIER (303) 925-4043 ,,.-duly 9, 1991 Ms. Kim Johnson City of Aspen Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Kiln: Enclosed is a copy of a letter to Bob Camp. I did not think it was appropriate to distribute it to the Mayor and the members of Council although Bob did send his letter to all of them. Therefore, if you think it is appropriate, would you please have a copy of my letter distributed in the packet for the next Council meeting. Thank you. Very truly yours, SPENCER F. PCHIFFER, P.C. Spencer,;/F/ Schiffer SFS:jw cc: Dr. and Mrs. Georce Brennan sfs\brennan.kj 0 CA<ft L"., Sandra L. Read and John P. Foley 501 Sneaky Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 July 7, 1991 By Hand The Honorable John Bennett Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 re: Tagert Lot Split Plat Amendment Dear Mr. Mayor: On June 19, 1991, we wrote you a letter, 19, requesting a delay in considering the proposed Split Plat Amendments. In that letter we, in some our opposition to the proposed amendments. At the meeting of June 24, 1991, by agreement between all matter was continued until your scheduled meeting 8, 1991. misdated July Tagert Lot detail, stated City Council parties, the for Monday, July The purpose of this letter is again to request that the matter be continued for an additional two weeks in order that negotiations and discussions between the applicants and the residents of Sneaky Lane can be consummated. Attached are copies of correspondence sent by residents of Sneaky Lane to counsel for the applicants. These letters set forth the positions of the residents of Sneaky Lane regarding both the mitigation of adverse impacts resulting from the building envelope violations by the applicant for Lot 1 and the amending of the Lot Split Plat language related to both Lots 1 and 2. These positions are compromise positions designed to rectify the current situation involving the violations. Counsel for both the applicants has also been requested to seek a continuance of this matter. In the event that either of the applicants is unwilling to seek such a continuance, or you, the City Council decide to • • move forward regardless of our request for a continuance, then we would appreciate the opportunity to speak in opposition to the amendments to the Tagert Lot Split Plat as proposed by the applicants and the Planning Department in its Memorandum to you dated May 28, 1991. Sincerel�, Sandra Read and John P. Foley CC: with attachments Councilwoman Margot Pendleton Councilman Frank Peters Councilwoman Rachel Richards Councilman August Reno Ms. Carol O'Dowd Ms. Amy Margerum Spencer Schiffer, Esq. Michael J. Herron, Esq. Sandra L. Read and John P. Foley 501 Sneaky Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) (20-1551 -July 7, 1991 BY HAND Michael J. Herron, Esq. Garfield & Hecht P.C. 601 East Hyman Aspen, Colorado 81611 re: Tagert Lot Split Amendment Dear Mickey: By this letter, the undersigned and the other residents of Sneaky Lane who are on record as opposing the proposed amendment to the Tagert lot split, as set forth in the Planning Department's Memorandum of May 28, 1991, are conveying an offer, in outline form, to resolve the problems of your client regarding that portion of the Tagert property styled Lot 1. By separate communication to counsel for the owner of Lot 2 those residents have offered to resolve the problems unique to Lot 2. Background Subsequent to the Aspen City Counsel meeting of June 24, 1991, when this matter was continued until the meeting scheduled for tomorrow, July 8, 1991, those residents of Sneaky Lane who were on record as objecting to the proposed amendments were invited by your office to attend a site visit on Tuesday, July 2 at 10 a.m. All of the interested parties attended. After visiting the site those residents have again met and the offer contained in this letter is the result of those meetings. However, before moving to the specifics of the offer, it should be noted that certain of the information provided to the Sneaky Lane residents by the project's architect appears to be disingenuous at best. On several occasions during the site visit the architect was asked directly if there was any intention to put a hot tub in either of the excavated patios on the western portion of the property. His response was elusive. On at least one occasion he responded in the negative. On other occasions his response was that it did not matter as it was below grade. On Saturday, July 6, 1991, an Open House was held on the site and two of the interested Sneaky Lane residents attended. At that Open House they were provided with brochures describing the project and attendent amenities. This brochure, a copy of which is attached, specifically refers to an outdoor SPA, with a site drawing depicting the SPA's location in the larger of the below grade patios. It is the position of the Sneaky Lane residents that the sales brochure not only well describes the project, but it also clearly establishes the intent of the project developer. Moreover, those residents attending the Open House were told by the real estate representative that the SPA is "ready to go in", and that the "plumbing is in place". Therefore, any assertion that this whole matter was a "honest mistake" has at this point lost all meaning to the residents of Sneaky Lane. It appears that it was the intention of the developer from the time that the project was initiated to disregard the restrictive building envelopes delineated on the lot split plat. Proposal for Resolution: Upon the satisfaction of all of the conditions set forth below, the residents of Sneaky Lane are prepared to withdraw their objections to amendment of the Tagert lot plat, as modified below, and will withdraw any objections to the utilization of the patio areas, as modified below, as a location for an outdoor, below grade Spa. 1. The applicant will formally ask the Aspen City Counsel at its meeting scheduled for July 8, 1991, for an additional two week continuance of this matter. This two week period will allow for the documentation of the following provisions to the Proposal for Resolution. 2. The applicant will immediately undertake to mitigate the impacts of the patio development on the residents of Sneaky Lane as follows: a. The upper most excavated level of the below ground patios, or rock gradens, will be filled with fill dirt to a level with the crest of the bluff overlooking Sneaky Lane on the western side of the lot. (See Attachment 2) b. On top of the newly filled portion of the lot a berm will be constructed along the entire length of the bluff crest, which will at its lowest point be three feet (31) in height. (See Attachment 2) c. The newly constructed berm will be landscaped and on its upper portion be planted with a non -deciduous, evergreen, hedge, which will at no point be less than three feet (3 ') in height. This landscaping and the maintenance of the landscaping shall be required by specific plat amendment language.(See Attachment 2) d. The applicant will enter into immediate ageement with the residents of Sneaky Lane to compensate those residents for the damage and wear and tear to Sneaky Lane resulting from the developer's contractor's use of Sneaky Lane. In addition, those residents will be compensated in order to cleanup and restore unauthorized dumping sites utilized by the contractor on Sneaky Lane. e. The applicant will immediately, with the residents of Sneaky Lane, meet with representatives of the Aspen Planning Department to develop appropriate plat amendment language which insures that any future development on Lot 1, whether above, at, or below grade, outside of the existing building envelope is prohibited. f. Representatives of the applicant will immediately enter into an agreement with the contiguous land owner to the West, Mr. Thomas Starodoj, to resolve any matters related to Deed Resterictions affecting either party. g. No Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for the structure on Lot 1 until all of the above items are resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. As noted in paragraph 1, above, the resolution of this matter is, in part, dependent upon your clients seeking an additional two week continuance of this matter from the Aspen City Counsel. Should your client choose not to seek such a continuance, the residents of Sneaky Lane will have no option but to seek immediate and full compliance with the existing building envelopes and the attendant correction of any and all current violations of those enevelopes. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at 920-1551, or Thomas Starodoj at 925-6920. We look forward to your client's response. Sincerely, fc-I- P+el Joh Foley and Sandra L. Read Sneaky Lane Residents CC: with attachments Mayor John Bennett Councilman August Reno Councilwoman Margot PendLeton Councilwoman Rachel Richards Councilman Frank Peters Ms. Carol O'Dowd Ms. Amy Margerum Spencer Schiffer, Esq. Robert C. Camp Thomas Starodoj Ms. Linda Harlem • • By Hand Spencer Schiffer, Esq. Park Central Building 215 South Monarch Street Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Schiffer: Robert C. Camp 505 Sneaky Lane Aspen, Colorado 81611 -'July 7, 1991 re: Tagert Lot Split Amendment This letter is intended to convey to you, and your clients, Doctor and Mrs. George Brennan, the position of the undersigned and of the other residents of Sneaky.Lane who are on record as opposing the amendment of the Tagert Lot split as it affects the Brennans, the owners of Lot 2. The Sneaky Lane residents are prepared to withdraw their objections to the lot split plat amendment, as those affect Lot 2, under the following conditions: 1. Your client agrees to seek an additional two week continuance of this matter from the Aspen City Council. This will allow for meetings to formalize the appropriate amendment language. 2. Your client agrees to plat amendment language which will preclude any further expansions outside of the building envelope, i.e., hot tubs, swimming pools etc. Specifically, the plat amendment language will allow window wells and sidewalks which are in strict accordance with the plans shown to the residents of Sneaky Lane during the site visit meeting held on July 2, 1991. The amendment language will not allow for further expansions beyond the existing building envelope. 3. Your clients will agree to plat amendment language which will require the planting and maintaining of non -deciduous, evergreen, trees along the western crest of the bluff on your client's property overlooking Sneaky Lane. In substance these conditions closely track what was discussed at the site meeting held on Tuesday July 2. We hope that these conditions meet with your clients' approval, and, we look forward to resolving this matter as soon as possible. Please note that we have bifurcated the issue in order that we can resolve you and your client's concerns separately from the issues attendant to Lot 1 on the Tagert property. I do wish to emphasize that in order to resolve this matter we will need that additional continuance. Without such a continuance, as the matter before the council links Lot 1 with Lot 2, we would be forced to strenously object at tomorrows council meeting to any proposed amendment to the current Tagert Lot split plat. If you have any questions I can be reached at 925-3771. Sincerely, Robert C. Camp cc: Mayor John Bennett Councilman Frank Peters Councilwoman Margot Pendleton Councilwoman Rachel Richards Councilman August Reno Ms. Carol O'Dowd Ms. Amy Margerum Michael J. Herron, Esq. Thomas Starodoj John Foley and Sandra Read Linda Harlem MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager THROUGH: Amy Margerum, Planning Directo FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: July 3, 1991 RE: Tagert Lot Split Plat Amendment - Continued Public Hearing SUMMARY: At the June 24, 1991 City Council meeting, neighbors downhill of the subject lots requested that this item be tabled in order to continue discussions with the project representatives. The neighbors were concerned about noise and visual impacts to their properties. Mickey Herron, representing the owners of Lot 1, agreed to table the item and meet with the neighbors. Mr. Herron has reported that a meeting between the concerned parties has been scheduled to occur prior to the June 8 continuation of this item. He will present the results of those discussions to the Council at that time. For your convenience, a copy of the previously presented staff memo is attached. jtkvj/tagert.7.8 0 10 Vl tI. 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director if -I'/ �0 FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: June 24, 1991 RE: Tagert Lot Split Plat Amendment, Public Hearing for Second Reading of Ordinance 17, Series 1991 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the proposed plat amendments for the addition of an access easement and notes section with conditions. First reading was held on May 28, 1991. The Applicant has since requested additional language in the ordinance regarding the FAR non -conformity on Lot 1 resulting from this plat amendment. COUNCIL GOALS: This review supports goal #14 to develop consistent and fair government processes. LOCATION AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The Tagert Lot Split plat encompasses about 3/4 acre at the end of W. Smuggler on the north side of the street. Each of the two lots is about 16,000 s.f. The current request is to draw in an access easement for the benefit of Lot 2 within the panhandle of Lot 1, and to amend and expand the plat notes to revise certain limitations on landscaping and below -grade construction. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: First reading was held on May 28, 1991. No issues were raised at that time. On November 28, 1988 the City Council approved the lot split for this property. At that meeting, neighbors of the area below the subject lots expressed their concern about intrusions to their privacy if homes were built close to or down the slope. To limit this potential, the building envelopes were moved away from the top of the slope and note #4 was added to the plat stating that "any landscape or manmade features are to be constructed within the building envelopes." The proposed plat which Council reviewed and approved in 1988 showed that the whole.panhandle of Lot 1 was to be an access easement for Lot 2 (Attachment "A"). However, when the plat was filed this easement had been removed and was not recorded. BACKGROUND: An amendment to the 1988 plat is necessary for two reasons. First, it was discovered during a zoning inspection of the residence on Lot 1 that window wells approved in the plans for building permit were enlarged during construction to exceed the building envelope. This is in violation of note #4 on the existing plat. Zoning Officer Bill Drueding will not issue a Certificate of Occupancy without resolution of this encroachment situation. The second problem involves the fact that no platted access easement exists for the benefit of Lot 2, as referenced in the Engineering referral comment #1. Lot 2 has frontage on West Smuggler, but that section of the road contains a downhill curve. The Engineering Department is strongly against another curb cut in this downhill curve area. This is the reasoning behind the original plat approval of joint access through the panhandle of Lot 1. Staff considers this a critical issue and feels that any replatting must replace this joint access. REFERRAL COMMENTS: City Engineer Chuck Roth forwarded his concerns highlighted below. Complete memo is Attachment "B". 1. Lot 2 Access - This has been the engineering department's primary concern with this land use application. The site is located on a curve. The original application depicted a single access to the two properties which was acceptable to engineering. When the plat was approved and filed, it was done erroneously because the approved access easement was missing. 2. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way, we would like the following condition of approval: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way and shall obtain permits for any work or development within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). Citizen Comments: Since first reading, the Planning Office has received a letter from and had conversation with Tom Starodoj. As a property owner below the subject lots, he objects to the proposed amendment except for the access easement. Please see Attachment "F" for Mr. Starodoj's specific comments. STAFF DISCUSSION: As mentioned above, the neighbors downhill are concerned that development on these two lots will have significant impact on them. Please refer to proposed plat drawing and notes, Attachments "C" and "D". The proposed language change for note #4 and new notes #5 and 6 will keep structures from looming over the hillside and at the same time allow for reasonable use of the subject lots. Proposed.note #7 establishes the use of the easement for use by Lot 2. Staff has spoken with the architects for both properties. Both projects need the design flexibility afforded by these note changes in order to provide window well treatment for WJ the lower levels of the homes. Staff recommends approval of these new plat notes. It should be noted that the below -grade improvements on Lot One which are located outside of the building envelope do not impede sight lines from lots located on Sneaky Lane. These improvements are not visible to the residents of Sneaky Lane. Lot 2 is vacant lot. The Applicant also proposes a design for an access easement which affects both lots. The original representation of the easement in the 1988 Lot Split review showed the entire panhandle as the easement without any restrictions as to its use. The current proposal shows a much reduced easement, which both owners feel meets the access needs to the proposed garage on Lot 2. Staff has considered the proposed easement in conjunction with the site plan for Lot 2 currently in the design phase (Attachment "E"). The 18' entry to the garage area of Lot 2 needs more width to accommodate the turning radii as per discussion with the architect for Lot 2. Staff recommends approval of the access easement with the condition that the easement accommodate the driveway curve radii. Both lot owners affected by these amendments consent to this application. Upon approval of the changes, both projects may proceed with their construction efforts. Please Note: Since first reading, the applicant has requested a language addition to Ordinance 17 regarding non -conforming FAR on Lot 1. This is necessary because the access easement being placed on Lot 1 reduces lot area for purposes of calculating FAR. The structure on Lot 1 was designed and constructed based on the original lot area including the land covered by the easement. Therefore the house's FAR will be non -conforming when the easement is filed. Upon consultation with the City Attorney, staff has added new "whereas" statement number seven to Ordinance 17 stating that the City will take no future enforcement action on this non- conformity. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the access easement and changes to plat note #4, and the addition of notes 5, 6 and 7. (as shown on Attachments "C" and "D") with the following conditions: 1. The access easement width shall be expanded to accommodate the turning radii shown on Attachment "E". 2. Both lot owners shall sign the plat amendment mylars prior to filing with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 3. The amended plat must be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval by City Council. Failure to do so will render the approval invalid. • • 4. The applicant shall consult with the City Engineer for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way and shall obtain permits for any work or development within public rights - of -way from City Streets Department. 5. Any pending certificates of occupancy will be held by the Zoning Official until the amended plat and notes are duly recorded. ALTERNATIVES: The Council could amend the proposed plat notes to require the applicant to fill in the below grade improvements that are outside of the building envelope. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have second reading of Ordinance 17 Series 1991 for the approval of the Tagert Lot Split Plat - First Amendment. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: "A"- Original Plat Approved at the 11/28/88 Council Meeting "B"- Engineering Department Referral Memo "C"- Proposed Easement "D"- Proposed Plat Note Changes and Additions "E"- Lot 2 Site Plan Including Driveway Radii "F"- 6/17/91 Letter from Tom Starodoj Ordinance 17, Series 1991 for Consideration jtkvj/tagert.ccmemo 4 • *Attachment "B MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer 117-P Date: -May 6, 1991 Re: Taggert Lot Split Plat Amendment Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: . 1. Lot 2 Access - This has been the engineering department's primary concern with this land use application. The site is located on a curve. The original application depicted a'single access to the two properties which was acceptable to engineering. When the plat was approved and filed, it was done erroneously because the approved access easement was missing. a. Note 7A is unnecessary. The limits of the easement may simply be indicated by'dashed lines and arrows or a large "X" on the easement portion. b. I do not know of any existing city plat that conveys language similar to notes 7B, 7C and 7D however I also do not know of any similar situation .of a shared access . Most shared access easements are associated with condominiums which are able to establish binding covenants among owners. 2. In proposed note number 5, the wrong spelling of "sight" is used. 3. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way, we would like the following condition of approval: The applicant shall consult city engineering (929-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way and shall obtain permits for any work or development within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). cr/M91.118 Attachment "D" Proposed Notes for the First Amendment to the Tagert Lot Split Plat 14 (amended) "Any above -grade man-made features must be constructed within the building envelopes." 15 (new) "Below -grade and on -grade man-made features may be constructed and placed outside of the building envelopes provided they do not in any way impede sight lines from any lots located on Sneaky Lane." #6 (new) "The planting of trees, bushes and other vegetative matter will be permitted outside of the building envelopes." 17 (new) "An easement is granted over the driveway which is part of Lot 1 for the benefit of Lot 2 . " L. _ L Attachment "C" " i June 17, 1991 Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Attachment_ T'_'_, f JUN 17199 ` Re:TAGERT LOT SPLIT PLOT AMENDMENT Dear )'7-1��jy On 11-28-88, the Aspen City Council (A.C.C.) granted approval to Irene Tagert to subdivide her lot located at 930 West Smuggler Street into Lots 1 and 2, Tagert Lot Split. This was done subject to the Building Envelopes (B.E.) in order to preclude any encrochments onto the bluffs of the lots as this would have negatively impacted some of the Sneaky Lane Homeowners (S.L.H.). As part of the approval, the A.C.0 stipulated that all man made features will be limited to within the approved B.E. with the exception of access driveways. Presently the structure on Lot 1 is in violation of it's B.E. as follows: 1. There is one below grade Patio, erroneously referred to as a Rock Garden, with 2 access doors to the house. This Patio has a cement floor area of approximately 80-100 square feet.and is on the bluff side. 2. There is another below grade Patio, also erroneously referred to as a Rock Garden, with 1 door accessing the house also on the bluff side. This Patio has a cement floor area of approximately 50-60 square feet. 3. There is a second story balcony of considerable size also on the bluff side. None of these violations were indicated on the submitted and subsequently approved building plan. In order to try and preclude any violations of the B.Z., I personally had done the following: 1. I advised one of the owners, Dick Butera, of our concerns and copied in W. Drueding of the Planning Department. See letter attached. 2. I contacted the architectural firm of Steve Conger and spoke to one of the associate architects. He acknowledged their awareness of the B.E. and our sensitivity to them. 3. I spoke to W. Drueding about our concerns relating to the B.E.. 4. I spoke to Andrew Hecht, partner of Garfield and Hecht, attorneys who still represent the owner of Lot 1, about our concerns relating to the B. E.. I was assured that there would be no problem. This letter is my request that the City of Aspen take appropriate and immediate action to cure these violations. • qAttac'hnient':"E" SITE PLAN'. gfAt.C: L! :1'r July 27, 1989 Mr. Richard Butera c/o Aspen Club Realty 520 E. Durant, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Dick: Congratulations on your purchase of the Tagert subdivision lots. They are choice. Recently, the Sneaky Lane Homeowners hired Chuck Brandt and Sunny Vann for the purpose of becoming involved in this subdivision application as the potential impact to them was of great concern. The SLH were actually in favor of the subdivision, however, they did want to have input into the location of the building footprints as they wished that they be located as far back from the lip of the bluff 'as possible. I would also point out for your benefit, that there was a boundry encroachment problem along the East line of this property. The purpose of writing this letter is to make you aware of the sensitivity of the SLH to the location of the building footprints. Once you are ready to pour the foundation, it might be worth both our time and effort to review the exact location to preclude any problems. Enclosed is a copy of the recorded plat showing actual square footage of the lots which maybe helpful to you. If I can be of any futher assistance on this matter, please call. Sincerely, Thomas S. Starodoj cc: W. Drueding Planning Department enclosure Relative to the proposed amendment to the Tagert Lot Split, I am opposed to any ammendments other than item #7 concerning the easement for a driveway which has already been built. I also request that the matter be postponed until the next C.C. meeting for the following reasons. Kim Johnson was unavailable from the time I received the written notice of the 6-24-91 hearing until 6-13-91. Noone else in the Planning Department could give me any information about this application. I have had plans and plane reservations to go East in order to help my elderly father with a personal matter. I shall be leaving Aspen 6-18-91 and returning 6-27-91 and will therefore be out of town 6-24-91 the scheduled date of the hearing. As I am the party most directly impacted by this situation, would greately appreciate you deferring a decision on this amendment until the next City Council Meeting. Sincerely, 2omas S. Starodoj Enclosure letter to Dick Bute-ra P. 0. Box 2298 Aspen, Colorado 81612 925-6920 .7 • Mayor City Council Planning Department City of Aspen Ladies and Gentlemen: 505 Sneaky Lane Aspen, Colorado June 19, 1991 I am writing to you on behalf of Linda Harlem, Cynthia Curlee and myself regarding the proposed Tagert Lot Split Amendment being considered, on second reading, June 24, 1991. We are property owners of 505 Sneaky Lane which is adjacent to the Tagert Lot Split plat. We strongly oppose adoption of the ordinance as it is currently written. Mr. Thomas Starodoj has written you regarding this matter and we concur completely with his thoughts and his request that this matter be continued to a subsequent meeting at which he can be present. We were somewhat disturbed that city planning staff would make a recommendation on this proposal without first obtaining input from the neighbors, especially given the history behind the lot split and creation of the Building Envelopes (B.E.) for their benefit. Nevertheless, we do understand that we now have the opportunity to provide input and that, of course, is the purpose of this letter. Before going further, let us go on record as favoring proposed new Note 7 regarding the driveway/access easement; our concerns are with proposed Notes 4 and 5. We understand that Lot 1 is in violation of the B.E. restrictions and that proposed Notes 4, 5 and 6 are intended to bring the building into compliance. We do not understand why the notes go way beyond what would be necessary to bring the Lot 1 building into compliance. The new notes would allow on or below grade improvements such as patios or decks complete with swimming pool, jacuzzi and/or hot tubs. Prohibiting such improvements was one of the main purposes of the B.E. to begin with. Everyone involved understood that recurrent noise from a hot tub area on the deck of the residence to the north east of the Starodoj residence was a problem and the B.E. was designed to eliminate the possibility that that would happen on the Tagert property. Mayor City Council Planning Department June 19, 1991 Page 2 The violations on Lot 1 can be addressed by requiring their removal or allowing them as built, with no further allowances. To allow their expansion, and indeed repetition on Lot 2, in direct contravention to the protection initially given the neighbors seems absurd. Simply to allow the encroachments as built without giving the neighbors something in return would also be unfair. Some further thoughts and observations before we summarize: - the council goal of consistent and fair government process is not well served when staff makes recommendations without all the facts including input from all affected parties. - There is some confusion regarding the application of the restrictions to tree plantings - we thought it only applied to "manmade" features. Nevertheless, if proposed Note 6 is needed to clarify the matter, that would be fine. Further, we believe a requirement to plant and maintain evergreen trees on the ridge line to break up the massive appearance of the buildings would be appropriate. - We are pleased that staff agrees that the original wording is very restrictive - that is what was intended. To change wording that was intended to be restrictive, merely because it is restrictive, is nonsense. Keeping structures from "looming over the hillside" was not the only intention of the original restrictions - as noted earlier. Allowing "reasonable use" is a totally subjective matter. The allowable use was reasonable at the time the lot split was performed, and subsequent owners presumably thought the allowable use was reasonable when they acquired the lots. Why has the permitted use suddenly become unreasonable and require change? Because there was a violation? - Both projects have all the design flexibility they need within the existing envelopes. Window well treatment for the lower levels can be accomplished within the B.E. as demonstrated by the original approved plans for Lot 1. - The second "whereas" of the ordinance relates to allowing window well treatment. The existing encroachments are patios with French doors and proposed Note 5 goes way beyond that. - The fifth "whereas" seems to be violated since the proposed Notes 4 and 5 are in no way consistent with the approved plat. Mayor City Council Planning Department June 19, 1991 Page 3 - There is no vague language regarding below or on grade manmade features. - The adjacent landowners with whom we have discussed the matter feel they would be adversely affected if the ordinance were adopted as written. Moreover, the amendments would indeed detract from the protection previously granted. In summary, we recommend that council reject the ordinance as written, allowing planning staff, the neighbors, and the property owners the opportunity to reach an agreement. Requiring Lot 1 to correct the encroachments may be viewed by council as onerous. If the encroachments are to be allowed, they must not be allowed to be enhanced in any way (such as hot tubs), and some consideration must be provided to the Sneaky Lane Homeowners, i.e. for the benefit of properties whose protection was intended in the first place. Further, allowance of the encroachments should in no way set a precedent to allow similar features on Lot 2 which is not under construction yet. Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, Robert C. Camp /mfl I • e 17, 1q9 1 Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 hmnt_" ." • — __ AttaceFti col JUN 1 710 I' Re:TAGERT LOT SPLIT PLOT AMENDMENT Dear J v On 11-28-88, the Aspen City Council (A.C.C.) granted approval to Irene Tagert to subdivide her lot located at 930 West Smuggler Street into Lots 1 and 2, Tagert Lot Split. This was done subject to the Building Envelopes (B.E.) in order to preclude any encrochments onto the bluffs of the lots as this would have negatively impacted some of the Sneaky Lane Homeowners (S.L.H.). As part of the approval, the A.C.0 stipulated that all man made features will be limited to within the approved B.E. with the exception of access driveways. Presently the structure on Lot 1 is in violation of it's B.E. as follows: 1. There is one below grade Patio, erroneously referred to as a Rock Garden, with 2 access doors to the house. This Patio has a cement floor area of approximately 80-100 square feet.and is on the bluff side. 2. There is another below grade Patio, also erroneously referred to as a Rock Garden, with 1 door accessing the house also on the bluff side. This Patio has a cement floor area of approximately 50-60 square feet. 3. There is a second story balcony of considerable size also on the bluff side. None of these violations were indicated on the submitted and subsequently approved building plan. In order to try and preclude any violations of the B.E., I personally had done the following: 1. I advised one of the owners, Dick Butera, of our concerns and copied in W. Drueding of the Planning Department. See letter attached. 2. I contacted the architectural firm of Steve Conger and spoke to one of the associate architects. He acknowledged their awareness of the B.E. and our sensitivity to them. 3. I spoke to W. Drueding about our concerns relating to the B.E.. 4. I spoke to Andrew Hecht, partner of Garfield and Hecht, attorneys who still represent the owner of Lot 1, about our concerns relating to the B. E.. I was assured that there would be no problem. This letter is my request that the City of Aspen take appropriate and immediate action to cure these violations. 01 • Relative to the proposed amendment to the Tagert Lot Split, I am opposed to any ammendments other than item #7 concerning the easement for a driveway which has already been built. I also request that the matter be postponed until the next C.C. meeting for the following reasons. Kim Johnson was unavailable from the time I received the written notice of the 6-24-91 hearing until 6-13-91. Noone else in the Planning Department could give me any information about this application. I have had plans and plane reservations to go East in order to help my elderly father with a personal matter. I shall be leaving Aspen 6-18-91 and returning 6-27-91 and will therefore be out of town 6-24-91 the scheduled date of the hearing. As I am the party most directly impacted by this situation, I would greately appreciate you deferring a decision on this amendment until the next City Council Meeting. Sincerely, homas �S'Starodoj Enclosure letter to Dick Butera P. 0. Box 2298 Aspen, Colorado 81612 925-6920 Y TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner DATE: May 28, 1991 RE: Tagert Lot Split Plat Amendment, First Reading of Ordinance , Series 1991 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the proposed plat amendments for the addition of an access easement and notes section with conditions. COUNCIL GOALS: This review supports goal 114 to develop consistent and fair government processes. IACATION AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The Tagert Lot Split plat encompasses about 3/4 acre at the end of W. Smuggler on the north side of the street. Each of the two lots is about 16,000 s.f. The current request is to draw in an access easement for the benefit of Lot 2 within the panhandle of Lot 1, and to amend and expand the plat notes to revise certain limitations on landscaping and below -grade construction. rxisvIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On November 28, 1988 the City Council approved the lot split for this property. At that meeting, neighbors of the area below the subject lots expressed their concern about intrusions to their privacy if homes were built close to or down the slope. To limit this potential, the building envelopes were moved away from the top of the slope and note #4 was added to the plat stating that "any landscape or manmade features are to be constructed within the building envelopes." The proposed plat which Council reviewed and approved in 1988 showed that the whole panhandle of Lot 1 was to be an access easement for Lot 2 (Attachment "A"). However, when the plat was filed this easement had been removed and was not recorded. BACKGROUND: An amendment to the 1988 plat is necessary for two reasons. First, it was discovered during a zoning inspection of the residence on Lot 1 that window wells approved in the plans for building permit were enlarged during construction to exceed the building envelope. This is in violation of note 14 on the existing plat. Zoning Officer Bill Drueding will not., issue a Certificate of Occupancy without resolution of this encroachment 0 A G E N D A May 28, 1991 5:00 COUNCIL MEETING I. Call to order II. Roll call III. Scheduled Public Appearances IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions V. special Orders of the day a) Mayor's comments b) Councilmembers' comments c) City Manager's comments VI. Consent Calendar a) Holiday House Encroachment (tabled until June loth) b) Hotel Jerome Extension Recordation Deadline c) Special Event - Air Show Request d) Request for Funds, Aspen Child Care Center e) Request for Funds, Early Learning Center f) Request for Funds, City Attorney VII. Liquor License Authority Business VIII. Public Hearings a) Ord. 13, 1991 - Code Amendment Land Use Code b) Ord. 14, 1991 - Aspen Meadows Final SPA IX. Action Items a) Ord.# 18, 1991 - Institutional Controls Smuggler b) Ord.# 17, 1991 - Tagert Lot Split amendment c) Schedule Board interviews THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE TABLED UNTIL JUNE LOTH c) Ord.# 20, 1991 - Messiah Luthern Church GMQS Exemption and Vested Rights (tabled) d) Ord.# 21, 1991 - Christiana Lodge GMQS Exemption (tabled) e) Ord.# 22, 1991 - Square Footage Code Amendment (tabled) f) Ord.# 23, 1991 - Pitkin County Bank Vested Rights (tabled) g) Ord. 6, 1991 - Holden/Marolt Museum Final PUD, Rezoning(tabled) h) Ord. 7, 1991 - Whitcomb Duplex Condominiumization (tabled until June loth) i) Ord. 8, 1991 - 1000 East Hopkins Subdivision & PUD (Tabled) j) Ord. 10, 1991 - lo01 Ute Subdivision Final PUD (Tabled) k) Ord. 12, 1991 - Parking Permits (tabled until June loth) 1) Ord. 16, 1991 - Revision Bicycle Auction (tabled until June loth) X. Action Items a) Joint Resolution - Highway 82 Design Guidelines (tabled) b) Joint Resolution Snowmass Aspen Transit Plan (Tabled) d) Ordinance #19 1991 - RFTA IGA approvals (Tabled) XI. Information Items a) General Fund Cash Balance b) Housing Authority Staff Report on City Projects :1 easement without any restrictions as to its use. The current proposal shows a much reduced easement, which both owners feel meets the access needs to the proposed garage on Lot 2. Staff has considered the proposed easement in conjunction with the site plan for Lot 2 currently in the design phase (Attachment "E"). The 18' entry to the garage area of Lot 2 needs more width to accommodate the turning radii as per discussion with the architect for Lot 2. Staff recommends approval of the access easement with the condition that the easement accommodate the driveway curve radii. Both lot owners affected by these amendments consent to this application. Upon approval of the changes, both projects may proceed with their construction efforts. RECOMUMATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the access easement and changes to plat note 14, and the addition of notes 5, 6 and 7. (as shown on Attachments "C" and "D") with the following condition: 1. The access easement width shall be expanded to accommodate the turning radii shown on Attachment "E". 2. Both lot owners shall sign the plat amendment mylars prior to filing with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 3. The amended plat must be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval by City Council. Failure to do so will render the approval invalid. 4. The applicant shall consult with the City Engineer for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way and shall- obtain permits for any work or development within public rights -of -way from City Streets Department. 5. Any pending certificates of occupancy will be held by the Zoning Official until the amended plat and notes are duly recorded. The Council could amend the proposed easement and plat notes. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have first reading of Ordinance Series 1991 for the approval of the Tagert Lot Split Plat - First Amendment. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 3 • • situation. The second problem involves the fact that no platted access easement exists for the benefit of Lot 2, as referenced in the Engineering referral comment #1. Lot 2 has frontage on West Smuggler, but that section of the road contains a downhill curve. The Engineering Department is strongly against another curb cut in this downhill curve area. This is the reasoning behind the original plat approval of joint access through the panhandle of Lot 1. Staff considers this a critical issue and feels that any replatting must replace this joint access. REFERRAL COMMENTS: City Engineer Chuck Roth forwarded his concerns highlighted below. Complete memo is Attachment "B". 1. Lot 2 Access - This has been the engineering department's primary concern with this land use application. The site is located on a curve. The original application depicted a single access to the two properties which was acceptable to engineering. When the plat was approved and filed, it was done erroneously because the approved access easement was missing. 2. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way, we would like the following condition of approval: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way and shall obtain permits for any work or development within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). STAFF DISCUSSION: As mentioned above, the neighbors downhill are concerned that development on these two lots will have significant impact on them. However; staff agrees with the Applicant that the wording of the original plat note 14 is very restrictive regarding the two subject lots. Please refer to proposed plat drawing and notes, Attachments "C" and "D". The proposed language change for note 14 and new notes #5 and 6 will keep structures from looming over the hillside and at the same time allow for reasonable use of the subject lots. Proposed note 17 establishes the use of the easement for use by Lot 2. Staff has spoken with the architects for both properties. Both projects need the design flexibility afforded by these note changes in order to provide window well treatment for the lower levels of the homes. Staff recommends approval of these new plat notes. The Applicant also proposes a design for an access easement which affects both lots. The original representation of the easement in the 1988 Lot Split review showed the entire panhandle as the 2 • L� Attachments: "A"- Original Plat Approved at the 11/28/88 Council Meeting "B"- Engineering Department Referral Memo "C"- Proposed Easement "D"- Proposed Plat Note Changes "E"- Lot 2 Site Plan Including jtkvj/tagert.ccmemo and Additions Driveway Radii 4 SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW PARK CENTRAL BUILDING ADMITTED TO COLORADO 215 SOUTH MONARCH, SUITE 202 AND NEW YORK BARS ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 t May 21, '199'I Ms. Kim Johnson City of Aspen Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Tagert Lot Split Dear Kim: TELEPHONE (303) 925-4041 TELECOPIER (303) 925-4043 Hand delivered In accordance with your request I am hereby confirming that: 1. I represent Dr. George Brennan, the owner of Lot 2, Tagert Lot Split, and I am authorized to act on his behalf and; 2. Dr. Brennan consents to the application submitted by the owners of Lot 1 to amend the plat language as follows: a. Any all above -grade man-made features must be constructed within the building envelopes. b. Below -grade and on -grade man-made features may be constructed and placed outside of the building envelopes provided they do not in any way impede sight lines from any lots located on Sneaky Lane. C. The planting of trees, bushes, and other „ stie, - _ ..�r veyetdLive matter will be permitted outside of the building envelopes. d. An easement is granted over the driveway which is part of Lot 1 for the benefit of Lot 2. You will note that the language in paragraphs 5 and 7 are somewhat different from that which was originally proposed, but schiffer\brennan.b SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C. this new language is what has been agreed to between Mickey Herron and myself on behalf of our respective clients. Very truly :ours, SPENCIEP, F iSCHIFFER, P.C. SpencerrF. I Schiffer SF5 jw cc: Michael J. Herron, Esq. Dr. George Brennan :;rhiffer\brennan.b • • Attachment 'Ell r Jk 4r oee 44f k7l SITE PLAN- • Attachment "D" Proposed Notes for the First Amendment to the Tagert Lot Split Plat #4 (amended) "Any above -grade man-made features must be constructed within the building envelopes." 15 (new) "Below -grade and on -grade man-made features may be constructed and placed outside of the building envelopes provided they do not in any way impede sight lines from any lots located on Sneaky Lane." 16 (new) "The planting of trees, bushes and other vegetative matter will be permitted outside of the building envelopes." 17 (new) "An easement is granted over the driveway which is part of Lot 1 for the benefit of Lot 2 . " • Wtachment "B"- MEMORANDUM To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, City Engineer �� Date: -May 6, 1991 Re: Taggert Lot Split Plat Amendment Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the engineering department has the following comments: 1. Lot 2 Access - This has been the engineering department's primary concern with this land use application. The site is located on a curve. The original application depicted a single access to the two properties which was acceptable to engineering. When the plat was approved and filed, it was done erroneously because the approved access easement was missing. a. Note 7A is unnecessary. The limits of the easement may simply be indicated by'dashed lines and arrows or a large "X" on the easement portion. b. I do not know of any existing city plat that conveys language similar to notes 78, 7C and 7D however I also do not know of any similar situation of a shared access . Most shared access easements are associated with condominiums which are able to establish binding covenants among owners. 2. In proposed note number 5, the wrong spelling of "sight" is used. 3. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way, we would like the following condition of approval: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way and shall obtain permits for any work or development within public rights -of -way from city streets department (920-5130). cr/M91.118 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council having considered the Engineering Department and Planning office Is recommendations, does wish to approve the First Amendment to the Tagert Lot Split Plat with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT.ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: section 1: That it does hereby grant approval for the First Amendment to the Tagert Lot Split Plat with conditions. Section 2: The conditions of this approval are: 1. The access easement width shall be expanded to accommodate the turning radii of the driveway for Lot 2. 2. Both lot owners shall sign the plat amendment mylars prior to filing with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 3. The amended plat must be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval by City Council. Failure to do so will render the approval invalid. 4. The applicant shall consult with the City Engineer for design considerations of development within public rights -of -way and shall obtain permits. for any work or development within public rights -of -way from City Streets Department. 5. Any pending certificates -of occupancy will be held by the Zoning Official until the amended plat and notes are duly recorded. Section 3: That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 4: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on ordinance Series 1991 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE TAGERT LOT SPLIT PLAT WHICH ADDS AN ACCESS EASEMENT, REVISES PLAT NOTE NO.4 AND ADDS NOTES 5,6 AND 7. WHEREAS, the Tagert Lot Split Plat which was approved in 1988 required that any landscaping or manmade features were to be constructed within the building envelopes as defined on the plat; and WHEREAS, the owners of Lots 1 and 2 of the Tagert Lot Split Plat subdivision wished to amend the plat notes to allow certain window well construction and landscaping outside of the building envelopes show on the 1988 plat; and WAS, the City Engineer and Planning Office determined that an access easement for the benefit of Lot 2 was represented to and approved by the City - Council during the 1988 lot split consideration but was not drawn on the plat which was recorded by the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder; and WHEREAS, the owners of both lots of the Tagert Lot Split Plat consented to submission of an application to amend and expand the plat notes of said plat and to establish an access easement across Lot 1 for the benefit of Lot 2; and WHEREAS, Section 24-7-1006 B. of the Municipal Code states that City Council may approve a plat amendment provided the change is consistent with the approved plat; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer and Planning Office reviewed the proposed plat amendments and recommended approval with conditions; and the day of , 1991 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. DURODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 1991. William L. Stirling, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FrtALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 1991. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk. jtkvj/tagert.ord 3 William L. Stirling, Mayor • 4 (f • CITY 30 Apkii 30, 1991 Michael J. Herron, Esq. Garfield & Hecht 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 Spencer F. Schiffer, Esq. 215 South Monarch Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Taggert Lot Split Plat Amendment. Gentlemen: PEN Enclosed for your review and information are photocopies of plats relevant to the above -noted property. This first plat shows the property configuration for Lot 1 as presented to and approved by City Council. Please note the depiction of an "access easement for the benefit of Lots 1 & 211. The second plat is that proposed by Mickey's client as an amendment to Lot 1 so as to reflect certain "as -built" conditions and to restore the easement that was somehow omitted from the plat that was actually recorded. In that the proposed amended plat for Lot 1 does not exactly repli- cate the easement from the originally approved plat, the City wants to satisfy itself that the new plat is satisfactory to all involved before approving and signing -off on same. This is particularly so in that the proposed amended plat for Lot 1 effectuates an amendment to the plat for Lot 2 by depicting a specific driveway entrance location and width. As I have indicated to both of you in the past, it is not the City's desire or intention to mediate any dispute your clients may be having concerning the easement. Rather, the City's goal is limited to restoring the easement as originally contained on the plat. It is for the parties to decide the precise utiliza- tion of the easement. If they are unable to do so, the City is not in a position to impose a determination upon them. On the other hand, failure by the parties to resolve their disagreements will cause the City to (1) reject the proposed plat amendment for recycled paper a is Letter to Michael J. April 30, 1991 Page 2 Herron and Spencer F. Schiffer Lot 1 (in that it amends the plat for Lot 2 absent the property owner's consent), and (2) refuse to issue development permits of Lot 2 (because they do not have approved access). Thank you. Very truly yours, Edward M. Caswall City Attorney EMC/mc Enc. cc: Planning Director Kim .a MESSAGE DISPLAY TO Jed Caswall CC Amy Margerum BC Kim Johnson From: Kim Johnson Postmark: Apr 09,91 12:25 PM Subject: Reply to: Tagert Lot Split Plat Amendment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reply text: From Kim Johnson: I told David Leavitt yesterday morning that I had submitted that info to you and would call him with an update. As I've been very tied up with Meadows meetings, I haven't called him back with the result of our discussion. In no way did I refuse to accept an application, other than wanting to clarify this with you first. Preceding message: From Jed Caswall: M. Herron called this morning complaining that Kim was not allowing his clients to file their plat amendment request. I advised him that there was a question re a code interpretation about whether his clients could file absent the other property owners, but that we had worked it out and that his clients could process their application so long as it included the inclusion of the easement on the plat as originally represented. Please let me know if you should have any questions on this. Thanks. 0 RONALD GARFIELD* ANDREW V. HECHT** ROBERT E. KENDIG MICHAEL J. HERRON*** JANE ELLEN HAMILTON CATHERINE H. McMAHON**** ATTORNEYS AT LAW VICTORIAN SQUARE BUILDING 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 *also admitted to New York Bar **also admitted to District of Columbia Bar f ***also admitted to 1 5 , 1991 Florida Bar ****also admitted to Illinois Bar HAND DELIVERED Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 ATTN: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: Lot 1 - Taggert Lot Split Plat Amendment Dear Kim: 925-1936 925-3008 As you are aware, the undersigned represents J.G. & D.B. Investments, Inc., the owner of the above -captioned property who is currently applying for an amendment to the existing plat as it affects their Lot. One of the reasons they are seeking this plat amendment is by virtue of their construction of a below grade rock garden on the western portion of the property which was constructed outside of the building envelope. It has always been our understanding that below grade and landscape features are allowed to be outside of building envelopes. It was only after the house was constructed that the technical violation of the language of the plat was brought to our attention. The specific language of the plat which prevents my client's below grade rock garden also bring into violation our rough grading on the site, the creation of swales for normal drainage, the installation of a paved driveway, and the planting of trees, bushes, shrubs, and grass on the site outside of the building envelope. We are also seeking this plat amendment to satisfy the City of Aspen's request, made at the time of the lot split, that Lot 1 bestow an easement to Lot 2 in order to avoid another curb cut at a sharp corner on Smuggler Street. The mistaken omission of this easement from the plat, the vague language on the plat as it relates to below and on grade work, and what appears to be a prohibition against trees and shrubs are all examples of the incomplete and misleading nature of the plat. It is our desire to rectify all these omissions and clarify the language of the plat. • • GAMELD & HECHT, P.C, Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office April 5, 1991 Page Two I would submit that the abutting landowners will not be adversely effected and that there will be no detrimental effect to them by virtue of having the plat amended to allow the landscape features in question to be approved as the rock garden is below the site line of any neighbor,and the planting of trees and vegetation can only enhance the beauty of the neighborhood. The amendments to the plat requested by this application will not in any way detract from the protection previously granted to the neighbors when the original lot split was granted. I, in addition, as an attorney authorized to practice law in the State of Colorado, certify that based upon a title insurance policy issued by Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. bearing Order No. 00016844, dated August 29, 1989 and an oral search made by Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. on April 2, 1991, certify the title is vested in J.G. & D.B. Investment, Inc., a Colorado corporation formerly known as Aspen Club Lodge, Inc., a Colorado corporation. If I can be of any further service in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact me. I thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Michael J. MJH/cc jgdbap35.1tr Herron tiunr��l� „J Cnnlrrt�l STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. 602 E. HYMAN • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925.3577 David Levitt RE: Order No. 18231 207 S. Original St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Levitt, Enclosed is a list of owners of real property within 300 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Tagert u.. Although we believe the facts stated 'herein to be true, this is neither an opinion of title nor a guarantee of title and it is understood and agreed that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. neither shall assume nor be charged for any financial liability in connection herewith. Sincerely, 4/71a5') ' f— 67:1/7 Peter P. Delany Vice President PD/ps enc Q,R s Vow j e m (:)e e �-, f (t - � Cl-I -5p)-i j IJ S-iG - '-1 Z0 L.,,- t 2- ) 2-2 Oo 1 i t S . -fie, s O 5 := _ - z N,rtlr� 1-7, Sc, I l e, S �-- _.� Ponnel( C�j hd4 W +_ F-YJMClr%- cl o s �M � � .Yk•s � . 'I--1.30 5 �►��n� . i -- r Sohn Sc/htj_h+aclh�✓� r� & M�iYign L Sc.hu hM��h�� Fb� Z,5 z� J-Oe-1. N elllj m clr) l �o �D,V10 mom+ 0CDJ-- f-L- 1 � 9, M'te-e, K r-, b s ovrq-- �A, lls, Ica . CA q 130) j Li S K-4. titiltlgmnll. �oY-Jcln AsP,:zn1 Co $ o vc)C�� As p e",2- -��►vih f1 C,/q-�rcCIC" �-• a 4;-,rS ch 1 I L1 Z3aA SI r� 711 n<41 Lune, Lo+- S, Q4r4-e-e Ll 0 —? Y - - - A �. 5 5 __ - -- _ .- - - - - r r x'. AS p �-� - _ .C,<)_--- v ivoc, -J-q r)a. flcir e� p t Co CytJ4 C, A .Guy I 9. s4)-e, Cy, eck S�� . Sgr_tih n Gu �I , 44--4-2S . i� S F P(Ae(sor-% PO 60o,, 971 As()eh C, 8 ICP 14 1 1 v I �l VP7�� o n t ed Tom'tvq",Cj & -SV SG'1 ( qyl dal l F(q4p-�,,Snv� 2 q -7a arc i+ SJ- C-ornc-o�!:� , CA. gy59c - •, .. .. _ _. � � �~ � - :mil. .. � � ,j '� n an 273 S 122 -00- 601 - s o1 oat 0IO -Z-7'I 2 3 no 1- - �f)d 3 b21 (0Z1 2. Sc>1)e� %eC� - � Z 1dSePk 4- A Y))) Q-, I ) 0—Sc H . cco�S;,�1 c� C 31 v/e- s -� ov-e-1 , �-� l 9 m o fl e k% h4-s , �>q v- 7A h 4O n l o -'�C -7 8 a c) b6ocfs d &+s,/ S4cjrcj - 0 `) �� n e � k, � � h FEB 13 '91 14:22 WF'IGHT & ADGER P.zi3 l'3PFtiGFR F. SC'HIFFE:R, P.C. ATTORNEV AT LAW tERWE PkOFESSKJNAL WILDING �01 NORTH WL! StREET SUITE 1% ASPEN. CO, CAAOo 61611 TELEPHONE AOMMEO TO COLJPAUO (3Q3) 925-6300 AND NE'A YORK BAAS TELECOPiER (303) 9251161 By Facsimile: 9205197 Ms. Kim Johnson City of Aspen Planning Office, M S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 8161.1 Re: Lot 2, Tagerr- Lot Split Dear Kim: The following is sotae proposed languapE rhac I drafted following our last telephone conversation t,�) replace item numbs -4 under the Owner's Certificate on cha plan, I urrerstand thae you wanted to review this virh Cindy Houben and Bill Drueding and tYen wE can get together for a pr:::--Lipplication conference. I look forward to h,:aring from you as socr1 as possible since the Brennarts afe e-?�t:remely a:::tlous to rave the plan check fok their p_opose3 house proceed as expeditiously ss possible. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly, ours, SPENCER F: SCHIFFER, P.C. By: Spent�jj Schi Her SFS: jw Enclosure cc: Dr. George Brennan Mr. Terri- Wetz�:teon i FEB 1 '91 1 " ' 22 4JPIGH1' & HD;_ER- .1 -. ..: F. jib • • 180POSFJ REVI__,SIQNS TO Y-.ANGUAGE PLAT 4. Any and all agave•trade man-rrade features must he corisrructed within the building envelopes. S Below -grade ar.ct cr-grade man -mode: feature may be constructed and placed outside of the biLld-:ng enva open provided they do not in any way impede site lines across tl-e lotS trorr. public streers or frc:x the first door of adjacent residences in axisteriee on r-Y-e date of this Plat, schiffar\brannan.prp "461q 27, 1989 Mr. Richard Butera c/o Aspen Club Realty 520 E. Durant, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Dick: Congratulations on your purchase of the Tagert subdivision lots. They are choice. Recently, the Sneaky Lane Homeowners hired Chuck Brandt and Sunny Vann for the purpose of becoming involved in this subdivision application as the potential impact to them was of great concern. The SLH were actually in favor of the subdivision, however, they did want to have input into the location of the building footprints as they wished that they be located as far back from the lip of the bluff as possible. I would also point out for your benefit, that there was a boundry encroachment problem along the East line of this property. The purpose of writing this letter is to make you aware of the sensitivity of the SLH to the location of the building footprints. Once you are ready to pour the foundation, it might be worth both our time and effort to review the exact location to preclude any problems. Enclosed is a copy of the recorded plat showing actual square footage of the lots which maybe helpful to you. If I can be of any futher assistance on this matter, please call. Sincerely, Thomas S. Starodoj cc: W. Drueding Planning Department enclosure as �Niwwiz�s�w TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office THRU: Robert Anderson, City Manager 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 41x4' 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. 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 Starodojs. Mrs. Tagert Is 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. 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 two 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: "B. 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 0 W" 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, or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of an exemption under the provisions of this article or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to Sec. 8-104 (C) (1) (a) ; and 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 if this application is approved the second parcel is exempt 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 concerned that the adjoining neighber ood 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 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 P h � I{ x7879 1 �9' S. '07'E, 0 57' 1 / I � I LOT 16,363 SF ; 1 P A O, P 8 .E O_ _ t o BU NO E VELO E r I +, X a 1 7880.8 r ..... ...... - 94. N N m nu nnumun nnn nm nnnuuuw ` N N 1 O co : o;.... ................ a s c I L O T 2 ; _ z5' 16,363 SF 10' 1 I( P R O P 8 E 0 r B U I L O I N O = ENVELOPE m ; /..... .»....... 93...r...4.... I v� 1 N 1 1 H.75.07'W. 213.86' \ t 8 m N • 9 B n 8 = O S L T/ 1 DIN E. VEL ES 930 W.•MU OL■A 0 20 40 60 i, / ORIGINAL PROPOSAL' Q PLANNING OFFICE Cb PROPOSAL STARODOJ PROPOSAL' co n ■ ��ri�ir ..r....Ks.�-3 66 S ,,ZONING REVIEW CATAGORY H.P.C. STREAM MARGIN SPECIAL USE 46 PERMIT NO. 1� ' CONTRACTOR P.U.D. —"Itut. SUB DIVISION T� �//. LOT _� BLOCK VIEW PLANE BOARD OR ADJUSTMENTS " qf- T/01 / -A GC- CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW 8040 GROWTH MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEE HOUSING N0. OF UNITS EXEMPT GMP DEED RESTRICTIONS FILED Wir06 4� FLOOR AREA Ij S� LOT SIZE 14431 q APART MENTS STUDIO 1 BR 2 BR ALLOWABLE F. (.R. �� C! % / / 3 BR EXISTI A.R.F, / ! EXEMPT G - �- ---, ARAGE S j -- \ L-== EXISTING PARKING ADDITIONAL PARKING REQUIRED S9 LANDSCAPE PLAN REQUIRED SETBACK EIGHT SIDE S� CORNER LOT .40/0 y REAR � Q SINGLE FAMILY ' DUPLEX EXEMPT DECKS ACCESSORY BLDG. APPRAISAL REQUESTED SIZE _ _PARK DEDICATION PLAT PLAN BY REGISTERED SURVEYER P I F METRO WATER DEPT. � Everything needs to be filed by legal description, kk Sub-Divisi Lot & Bl.q� 3 a Z -- �•aa 3 1� ■ 3 �2 u 9 J• L 1 1� i 1 �• 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 303/920.5440 Asp BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION EN*pITKIN ;4er Appf/cant to complete numbered S 3URISDICTION OF AL BUILDING pEpAgT General MENT Construction JOB ADDRESS Paces only. i Permit LEGAL LOTNpNo.. I`"ZL�� 71 Low DESC. 1.L, 2 / r t •%� BLOCK TRACTOR SUBDIVISION OWNER 3• J c /J S 4c1�P--7- I-O7— gnu / 7-C SEE ATTACHED SHEET) 7� � /�/ �� T MAIL ADDRESS CONTRACTO 0—(�) 7 ! !"+'�FiiJ r j l ` -7 C I ZIP / 4• �� MAIL ADDRESS / �`� E' ��?' T/v r PHONE 1 Orb!% J_ ARCHITECT OR DESKi R PHONE /� 5• •��%�E/� /� MAIL AD RESS LICENSE NO. dal.. - ' '! /v G lJ 4//'� ENGINEER 4�_ D �• d / HONE 6•147GdOLI i MAIL ADDRESS LICENSE NO. CLASS OF WORK: ~ L I — O .C'r' S� .• /1 PHONE 7. ONEW ❑gpDITION /N,O,�;�N,� 1_/dG- I 2 LICENSE NO ❑ ALTERATION S Y - y z tv USE of ❑REPAIR � v / Z7 � 7 % CC.) lc BUILDING ❑ MOVE ❑WRECK J/1 8. %��7 ! 1_ � `V ICTAL FEE ON OF VALUATION PLAN CHECK FEE _ WORK / (/ PERMIT FEE 9. $ G.vo' �� i> � 9 3% USE TAX DEP TYPe of Construction �� / ,S� 10. Occupancy Group Remarks \/ , r Lot Area Sole o1 uaFS ` (total Square re t,) t.) No. 01 Stories Loa N(OO. OFBEDROOMS V EXISTING Use Zone G ADDED / Fire Sprinklers R j — 1 ) Yes � Required No. m \ IVVV ° Dwelling Units OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES. Covered 2 Uncovered SPECIAL APPROVALS REQUIRED ZONING /I'' AUTHORIZED BY DATE H.PC. PARK DEDICATION � 3 APPLICATION ACCEPTED sue' I?EAL7H DEPARTMENT BY '� APPLICATION CEPTED �� AP OVED FIREPLACE DATE d By FIRE MARSHAL DATE, SPRINKLER SEPARATE PER ARE WATER TAP HEATING, VENTILATING OR SQUIRED FOR EL AIR CONDITIONING•CTRICAL, PLUMBING OTHER THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS E NOT COMMENCED WITHIN RK DAYS AUTHO IZE OR WORK IS SUSPENDED WITHIN 120ABANDONEDDAY FORA PERIOD NO USE TAX REPORTS WIDEPOSLL B TIME OF ISSUANCE. MONTHLY T OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. OR IF CON- TERLY REPORTS WILL BE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND URER, AS REQUIRED. MADE TO THE PITKIN COUNTY THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT ALL PROVISIONS OF QUNTY TREA- ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS ❑ 3°� OF 25% OF BUILDING PERMIT V BE MADE WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE RANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PORTING TIME OF p VALUATION USE RK WILL BE COMPLIED SW WITH PERMIT ISSUANCE. FINAL REPORT TAX DEPOSIT PRESUME 70 GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISTION.IONS pF TO PITKING CO ANY OTHER STATE OR L COUNTY TREASURER (GENERAL CONTRACTORS RE- FORMANC OCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PER- ° NG FOR THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS). F CONSTgU AL L ❑ 3 /° OF 25% OF BUILDING *u- _ g PAID AT PERMIT PERMIT VALUATION USE TAX A�rr0lv�0 AGENT Z �'zi L O PITKIN ISSUANCE. FINAL DEPOSIT COUNTY TREASURER USE TAX RETURN IS MADE TO fO"'EI UPON COMP ERIIFOwr,�pau..., EXEMPT: ❑RESALE LETION OF WORK. # ❑ EXEMPT ORGANIZATION / a Ei THIS FORM IS A PERMIT [ _7 C WORK STARTED WITHOUT ONLY WHEN VALIDATED. �prt� � PERMIT WILL BE DOUBLE FEE _ (/�Pe/f�`7 7V�alidati �% , P / 3% Use Tax De _ ( ^i �� _�. Posit Valiriar;,... y .O West End Location Overlooking Castle Creek Valley With views of Aspen Mountain, Aspen Highlands and Buttermilk $2,7�0,000 ','or more informationcall: Rich 'Nagar (303) 920-2000 (303) 920-3021 • SMUGGLER BLUFFS Special Features 6233 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE: SPACIOUS SUNDECKS 5 BEDROOMS. 9 BATH ROOMS. RADIANT HEATING AIRCONDITIONING EXTENSIVE STONE EXTERIOR. OUTDOOR'HOT`TUB-" BOULDER GARDEN. 20' VAULTED CEILING WITH SKYLIGHT. ENTIRE HOUSE IS PRE -WIRED FOR STEREO, CABLE AND SECURITY SYSTEM DRAMATIC USE OF MONTANA LOGS THROUGHOUT 2 RIVER ROCK FIREPLACES. 3 LEVEL DUMBWAITER. 9' TO 30' CEILINGS THROUGHOUT. LOT SIZE: 16,000 ROOM BY ROOM REVIEW ENTRY: e 30' CEILING WITH SKYLIGHT. t HEATED GARAGE APRON We HEATED WALKWAY. r LARGE COVERED PORCH. r COLORADO BUFF FLAGSTONE FLOOR. r HEART OF PINE STAIRS. W CUSTOM ENTRY DOORS WITH INLAID LEADED GLASS LIVING AND DINING AREA: r AIR CONDITIONING. r VIEWS OF SURROUNDING MOUNTAIN PEAKS. r SPACIOUS OPEN FLOOR PLAN. We PRIVATE TERRACE r FLOOR TO CEILING RIVER .ROCK FIREPLACE. t CUSTOM HEART OF PINE FLOORS. r WET BAR. r SEPARATE DINING AREA WITH PRIVATE DECK. KITCHEN & BREAKFAST AREAS: r GREAT VIEWS OF ASPEN MOUNTAIN. r COMMERCIAL QUALITY KITCHEN. r WOODMODE CABINETS. r GENERAL ELECTRIC MONOGRAM SERIES GAS TOP BURNER. r GENERAL ELECTRIC STOVE. r SUBZERO REFRIGERATOR Jr' GRANITE COUNTERTOPS. r HEART OF PINE FLOORS. r AIR CONDITIONING. r DUMBWAITER. MASTER BEDROOM: r HIS & HERS BATHROOMS WITH BIDET. r MARBLE COUNTERTOPS, FLOORS, SHOWER AND BATHTUB. 'W DORNBRACHT PLUMBING FIXTURES & HARDWARE r STEAM SHOWER. r WHIRLPOOL TUB BY KOHLER. ii DECK WITH VIEWS OF SURROUNDING VALLEY. r AIR CONDITIONING. r BERBER CARPETING. r WIRED FOR SEPARATE SOUND SYSTEM. 'W WALK IN CLOSET GUEST SUITE # 1: t LARGE BEDROOM AREA. e WALK-IN CLOSET. FULL MARBLE BATH & VANITY STEAM SHOWER. WHIRLPOOL TUB BY KOHLER t AIR CONDITIONING e BERBER CARPETING t DORNBRACHT PLUMBING FIXTURES & HARDWARE GUEST SUITE #2: I LARGE BEDROOM AREA. 'j WALK-IN CLOSET. t iMARBLE BATH & VANITY t BERBER CARPETING t DORNBRACHT PLUMBING FIXTURES & HARDWARE. t' WHIRLPOOL TUB BY KOHLER GUEST SUITE #3: t PRIVATE. WALKOUTrPATICI. T LARGE BEDROOM AREA. t WALK-IN CLOSET. `i SLAB MARBLE VANITY. `i LINEN CLOSET. e BERBER CARPETING. t DORNBRACHT PLUMBING FIXTURES GUEST SUITE #4 t LARGE BEDROOM AREA t PRIVATE WALKOUT PATIO it SLAB MARBLE VANITY BERBER CARPETING `i DORNBRACHT PLUMBING FIXTURES & HARDWARE. DEN: `i RIVER ROCK FIREPLACE 'W BUILT IN BOOKSHELVES `W BERBER CARPETING MEDIA ROOM: 9' HIGH CEILINGS. PRE -WIRED FOR STEREO SYSTEM. -wWALKOUT. PATIO WITH HOT TUB , `i BERBER CARPETING GYM: ^�t MIRRORED WALL BERBER CARPETING LAUNDRY: ie 180 SQ FT DUMBWAITER t EXTENSIVE STORAGE & HANGING WHIRLPOOL GAS WASHER & DRYER GARAGE AND MUDROOM: 'i DUMBWAITER t LARGE 2 CAR ri RADIANT HEATING 'i LARGE MUDROOM WITH EXTENSIVE SKI & CLOTHING STORAGE e FLAGSTONE FLOOR SPECIFICATIONS: HOT HEATER - 2 - 80 GALLON RADIANT HEAT BY ENTRANT TUBING GAS FIRED WINDOWS BY PELLA ALL INFORMATION HEREIN IS DEEMED RELIABLE, BUT IS NOT GU ARANTEED- ALL QUALMCATIONS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WTI ROUT NOTICE. A A I I I I i I 3 C cCS L 0 _0 LL r a� J L Cll Q. Q. D 1 1 1 • • CO LL LL m w J C) Cn LL LL J n LlJ J • 0 U • M Alpine Surveys, Inc. Post Olike Boa 1770 Aspen. Colorado 81612 303 92S 260e E..ac tt .o 6 . ,.IV.., i i 0 r w —410 C -�r StwreYed Z) �" '� W nerna•, Nallad l 9 e1 9 rC rZ< 1-s-ro4 c, elh,CTt} FAM • 1`jor(-�l�t(QGIS , GYG,34E," �e-c>4F, X{i►,,i �V�t 14 tt 3 - i o 13,e 4�mr--� : Sce �� ► ,�+1 z c (e7-r,,-o- 71-7 lq l M Tg 5.C,::F P,�zr� . z UJI 1 -pput w \�l I LL, : 'SEE -PA2A • 2 6A— &F t Errt"L E,, -7I-7 Ic i ��yD �ftTro�c_ �- -� J�ur'yT.�lE N1oNUMENr X X i 04" LZE -Ir F ` 1 TAGERT LOT SPLIT ur�r l •ION E)(tEK4PTlDf'4 F'LA7 L��-- DESC K I PT I Off : A TK-ACT OF L.ANtD �TUAT�ED ItJ LOT 3, SECTION 12, TOWN5HIP 10 5'XJTH, F NC �S WEST OF Tr-IE &TH OF ASPEN, P(l KIN C(XJNT-fI, GOLOFAIX�)MODE FULL-1 '�E�K!13ED .�5 f'DLLOS�2: r-ZE-&(NN(NG AT A i-01QT 04J LINE Co-7 OF THE TDYVNSITI_ WHrf NCE GOKNEJ17 UVMPJEIC G OF 4�,Ajr-- ASPEN TC'vVNS(Tr_ r3EAK5 fJ070 9 FT , THENCE ALCtNC SAID 1-INE -7, �2 C7' °>2' 24" vV 200 04 F T THEN _E N 75' 07'00"W bo FT, i-HENCE ! �70 222-81 FT, THEtNC�F- '�7, 75'07'CO" F_ r0324 rT TO -Tl-U POINT OF I.5EC:,(NWN6, CONTA NjiN_ OWNEK'5 CEIZTIFIGATE �N'�ti ALL MEN 53 f THESE: Pt; ESEtiflz� THAT IKEtJE t� Tt� KT "!5EINC, THE OWNEFC OF 7PE: Af5Ovr Df='�GRI?E>J TRACT OF LANT-) W(TNIf\( T1-4F- C-IT11 OF ASPEN, GOLO(e/�r�, F4AVE FYI THESE PRESG(VT�j �d,lO CUT, PLATTErD ANf) '5UPOf)IWD!E7 THE SAME INTO LCrT I ANT) 2 AS '>FiOWN ��.1 TlilS PLAT UNr7EFZ THE NAMF_ ANr `_�T�ILE OF -FA-1�R-T LC7 - SPLIT �✓` .1M'ER 5'�R HER`'ELF-�E� r _ -U � a�l�-N :. A.�Ef=`� /(S . _:_ ��:. ti. c --� l=1.,T Tom' '•i-rE;'_. —IT Qz E 7 STATE Or- C1JL OfZ/�'� �. �/Lfi✓�/ ti ,2� G �'r C C Ut�rT�t O( Y' TK I1�J i 5 �RE1 1E R T� �EfZT rA.TE. �fE F^KEC�c�INC N�2TF�L)P/IENT WAh ACKNOWLEDGED 13EF0nF_ ME.-P--411'l;k"l a� C5,1 ;KrNE FZ T/1GEIZT 1NITNE� M`f 1-lANrl ) AN17 OFfrICIA�__ SEAL . ^f CCtuM[SSIONXPItCES L NOTA,,i FUr---i-Ic, .°.I�Frze:-f, 15-UKVEYOKZ`-;7 CEKT(FICATE1 `.FL F t~"^-FI1 L LAN0 -2UKVELIDK DO HEr-E_P�l C.F-KTIE-( THAT S HAVE PICErA,EO UFJDIVISIC?N E XEMFTI()N PLAT OF THE Ti4GEIZT LOT SQL1 THAT -I HE 1 OCd.TIcON T- tj �T`' E-'Nr��1 eOAfx2 .4N17 CY1�4EK FEATURES dtzF /CGUIV\TEL�t AND COfCRECTL't SHOWN A', THE `*ME AKE f�A�2ED GN ,-= f� .EREC'N, ,lI f='I�Ln SUrZVE�tS AN(� Tl-IAT ,i-lE PLATTE,.� ,SITE .Mli7-- RD/'EX ^N TI'lF �CXJNI^ f FEKk t ICE ;'2 I IEREf l MADE TO 9TEWART TITLL 7F A,5FF TITLE POLIC'f (OKOEK N' 15590 G 2 ) FOIC E.ASE,NIEN� OF KEcc)RD /ti4oNE . N WI'NESS THE.rzEOF ' .A�J SEZ P'�4 (1/y lf� ,M1f� 0FP1 C IA_ SEAL TH15 DA111 DF Al-rWE SUfZVE`15 I> IC, f'ii : C7/�NIEL F. M`KENZ11✓, L.S. 201�i1 GIT'1 ENC-INEEFZ'7 ATPRO\/-,L : E.XEMPTIUN PLAT OF THE TAC Ef�T l-OT SPLIT ,tiA� .Af'PROVEfJ rt,'l TEE C17-11 =f . * EEF� OF THE Gl i� OF �SPE N 71 I�Z3�U�`l OF 1984 IT� E N�INEE I� C I T-I COUNC-IL AP PlCOVAI _ OF -THE TA,, -EFT 1-c7T t'FLLIT W<A-�) It1 7H2 OF TV4E OF M'11 MA-1OfZ AT TEST C—i" CL E Kf Np'f GLEKK ANP RECOK(�E1Z'g ACCEPT S : TLaf`7 {l�!'I 1510E 1 EXEMPifON FLAT ::)F - HIE: TAC F_K,- LOT SPLIT (S ACCEP'TEfD FOfi FILII-� IN THE `?Ff'ICE F THE GLEtZK-\t-ir_ RECOfZi OF PITK(N COUNT-1, COLOfeAf-jD. iNIS ' e.'l OF I'169 .WO WA`) OUL61 FILED 1N PLAT FJOCt- -21_ 4r FA&E 3 D C-L leK �+Nb fzEc EfZ ae ca�me^+cetl +ntne'•.s'+e^vewx - -. :s;.., nr ,. .: ai..,., sn„�.� Alpine Surveys, Inc. Post Office Box 1730 Aspen, Colorado 81612 303 925 2688 Surveyed 2 3 8" `, N Drafted 1 5 �9 T) K. Revisions ; 4 g11 Title TA6ErZT LOT SPLIT Job No 59 - 205 Client TAC-EKfi